MCW Kids Who Study Philosophy And Ponder Agnosticism/Atheism/Etc.

At first I thought it was because simply that they were not good at math and science-- they were
--- but then - epiphany-- they also thought they were too good to study vocational___.

--((the mcw kids who study philosophy and ponder agnosticism/atheism/ etc. summ2002 was that when it wuz??
*they think that because these are rednecks,,, --what do they know of philosophy?  They think working class white people are all a bunch of lower-class inbred hicks that do not posses thinking skills that can aspire to a higher plane of existence.

--"working class whites only work with their hands, they do not think,, they do not appreciate philosophy, everything is black and white with them, they do not understand shades of gray, they do not understand [[[the concept of nuance," or what I am trying to say is, mcw's think rednecks are simple-minded and do not appreciate complex reasoning,,

They think rednecks are not able to see that decisions are not cut and dry into good and bad factions.  the mcw's seem to think that all that is ""Good" is not necessarily good and all that is "bad"" is not necessarily bad.

--e.g., (this is all thei mcw's interpretation; this is not necessarily the gospel truth)), the rednecks don't understand why someone might turn away from family and tradition;; they think rednecks don’t understand why tradition is bad; they think rednecks don't understand why family can be sometimes harmful,
--the mcw's think that allegiance to one's homeland and family are bad things.

**they think that rednecks are simpleminded because they tend to be Christians and they tend to believe in GGod.

-- The mcw think themselves as sooo much better and smarter because they question religion.  Simply bc the mcw's stopped going to church, and think they are not letting themselves be ruled by any organized religion.  ...Therefore they are not brainwashed, they are true freedom of thought, they are not oppressed by an abusive oppressive religious decree that domineers and controls people.


orr,,, I do remb that I wrote that rednecks believe in god and like to be happy.  and like mainstream people like happy hollywood endf9gns movies..

Therefore the arthouse indie crowd ironical-jaded-irony-addicted soul-sucking jerks (hehe, that's from "Sabrina the Teenage Witch") think that because they like reveling in pain, they must be more real by default.  feh.  "the matrix" has already covered this.  they said, "the first few matrices were perfect.  but people kept trying to wake up.  humans define their reality through misery and struggle."  just because it sucks doesnt mean it's real, either.

Glamour Mag Jobs

All these females are complaining that their boyfriend sex person is not supportive of her career.

I remember reading in "Glamour" magazine the following life advice.

--[[incl here line of ""exoplainssing, in great detail, exactly what you do for a living.]]]  This was one of their many synthetic polymer interchangeable articles on "how to be a strong capable woman in charge of your own life."

But wait a minute.  Something doesn’t sound quite right about this.  What kind of job description is so impossibly vague, so nondescript, so mundane, that it requires a person to [[[___ expound at length about its merits, wading through a quagmire of [ arcane , secret,,, privileged,, not well known, not popular__]]] simply to describe the primary job responsibilities?

Think about all the normal, actual, genuine jobs that exist in this world.  Math, Social Studies, Science, or English Teacher.  Doctor.  Nurse.  Homemaker.  Police officer.  Dentist.  College professor.  Engineer.  Computer programmer.  Pharmacist.  Plumber.  Construction worker.  School principal.  Bus driver.  Chemical engineer.  Mailman.  Secretary.  Surgeon.  Car mechanic.  The person who runs your blood tests (FYI, they are called Medical Technologists, but most people don’t know that).  Farmer.  Vet.  Military personnel.

You can very easily, very readily in your mind right now, exactly what those jobs are.  You probably have a pretty good idea of the nature of the work that those jobs encompass.  The reason is that those jobs actually have substance to them, which is a tried and true testament to their necessity.  Those jobs are long-established in civilized society.  Sure, people aren't geniuses, but they do have a working recollection of what those jobs entail.

So what exactly is soooo complex and higher-order-of-thinking about those female "Glamour" mag readers' jobs that it would warrant a lengthy explanation from the aforementioned boyfriend?

But hang on a minute.  That sounds incredibly equivocating.  What exactly are these oh-so-important careers that these girls have, which they are complaining their boyfriends don't support them enough about?

I've been thinking about this for a while.  The only instance in which the above-mentioned "Glamour"'s cute, inspirational advice would work is if the job description of the female in question is so vague and nonspecific that it is essentially supercilious rubbish.

I suppose Industrial Engineer is a career that is not easily described by most people, including a potential "Glamour" mag girl's boyf.  I know a (married) Bengali lady who is working on her PhD in Industrial Engineering.  Like most people, I am not quite sure what that is.  Yet at the same time, it is most definitely a career path that is substantial.  So there is the chance that one of the girls that need to heed the "glamour mag" relationship advice is an industrial engineer.

Guffaw.  Yeah, right.  Yeah, I’m really sure that a so-complex-it-requires-the-boyfriend-to-pay-attention-and-listen-when-she-describes-her-job-duties career path swiftly skated over, flew over 99.999% of people’s heads in this society -- and landed in the pages of glamour magazine.  (Recall statistics about the woeful lack of enthusiasm middle-class white students have towards math and science.)

Well, I suppose it's <possible> that one of these girls whose boyfriend doesn’t know how to describe her job is an industrial engineer.  It is also statistically <possible> for a conglomerate of organich and inorganich molecules to converge in midair, in this universe, defying all entropy, and to coordinate themselves into a human specimen.  (That’s from a joke about a desperate begging nerd that describes the probability of molecules in air combining together to form a pretty little human specimen that might actually not reject him when he asks her out on a date.  As compared to the statistical probability of him being successful in getting a real live, breathing girl to accept his request when he asks her out on a date.)

Similarly, sometimes you hear about these celebrities that went to Harvard n Yale, like that “3rd rock from the sun” guy.  I guess we are all supposed to fawn over them in awe and gaze in wonderment at their vast awe, vast deep something or other that they are smart as well as sexy.  I too was at first incredibly intimidated by this.  I was downtrodden and crestfallen that I had not also been accepted into an Ivy League school.

But hang on a second.  Okay, so they went to an acclaimed internationally renowned university.  But this alone does not prove anything.  Let us pose a more important question than what name brand their education went by ((alias, no__)).  What was his/her major?  What was Claire Danes’ Yale major?  What was Natalie Portman’s Harvard major?  Something like psychology.  Or (roll eyes) drama.  Acting.

Oh, give me a break.  Look, it does not matter one whit what name brand college you can spit out.  What truly matters is the major that a student pursues.  Any given critical science major at a state university is infinitely more difficult to complete than any liberal arts mahjor at Harvard.  This is simply a statement of fact.  This is always going to be the case.  There is no point becoming offended by this [[proposal, assertion, declaration.]]]  This is simply a fact.  The mathematics and science majors are much more demanding of intellectual [[cognitive]]] capability.

More Dating And Relationship Nonsense- A Realization That Will Help You Avoid It

I just realized something.  Those letters are all from the same type of females.  The letters from the ones in earlier stages of their lives (oh hell, let's just be honest, these are from when they were a bit younger) all say crap like, "ohh I'm not ready to make a commitment, I still need to establish my own identity."

And the next cohort is from when they have aged a bit.  They are probably those desperate, slutty 35-year-olds that now randomly decided they want to "settle down."  They say crap like, "no guy is going to tie me down with marriage," "I'm a strong independent woman in charge of my own life."  Maybe that was their battle cry when they were younger, or it could still be their battle call.  But if they truly didn't want some guy to "tie them down," then why are they so eager to gain a guy's approval by slipping into bed with him on the third date?

They whored around when they were younger, were really promiscuous and drunk/partying/etc. in college, and had to take regular penicillin shots or other antibiotics against venereal diseases on a routine basis.  And then all of a sudden later in life when she arbitrarily does want to make a commitment, she expects some guy to come and leap to her whimsy.  She expects to be able to quickly find a guy that is ready to cater to her.  She expects to easily, effortlessly find a guy that is available for commitment right away just because she suddenly decided that she wants it right away.

Science versus Liberal Arts In Terms of Difficulty

I think there is a bit of cognitive dissonance hiding out in the barracks here.  This took me a while to figure out.  Hence the issue of cognitive dissonance.

A lot of middle-class white kids still seem to think that abstract subjects such as communications and philosophy demand *more* rigorous brain power than the concrete discourses of science and mathematics.

[[[[dutiful, honor, loyalty,, being true to ::as in not swaying being weak:: steadfast heartiness]]]] [[[[attention, servitude__]]] steadfastness

It appears that this is their only takeaway upon having a cursory grazing with any one of the mathematics, science, technology, or engineering fields.  They think that because this deals in facts, absolutes, and practical matter, that this is not a worthy challenge to grasp.

In the field of physics, there is such a thing as a right or wrong answer.  It either is or it isn't.  That is because it is a concrete, solid discipline.

Whereas regarding the liberal arts are more wishy-washy, flowy, fluid, elusive__[[[how describing Egyptian gods]]]]
Thereby middle-class white kids interpret the liberal arts, by dint of this difficulty to pin down, as being automatically more demanding of intellectual vigor.  [[[intelligence, thinking, etc]]]  Back in the '90s, I had also read about some supermodel person that was studying psychology.  She picked that major specifically because she had heard it was tremendously difficult.

And they think that the concrete sciences, because those deal in facts, somehow require less cerebellar devotion.  "How intellectually stimulating could it possibly be?"  How much further of a higher order, how many [[orders]]] of magnitude of evolutional development could it possibly take up?"

"Oh well it is__
[[[dedication, intellectual demand, devotion, focus]]]
"So how [[[lofty]]] could it possibly be??

Even I once fell for this, but only briefly and shallowly, thank goodness.

For a brief moment, I pondered this.  I doubted my own choice of major in Biochemistry.  (For the record, I was originally Microbiology but later switched to Biochemistry.)  I seriously considered that notion for a few moments-- that a liberal arts major might truly be harder to complete than a major in math or science.  Could it be?  Is Psychology perhaps more difficult than Biochemistry?

I even tried to justify this somehow.  Due to my scientific nature, I always try to find a reasonable explanation for everything.  I tried to make sense of this notion that was put forth.

I came up with something that sort of fit the bill.  I thought, hmm, perhaps... maybe because, because psychology is a lot of interpretation of situations.  There is no definite right or wrong answer, which is what we hear in popular culture all the time.  Therefore perhaps a scholar of this field would have to try extra hard to defend their stance on a topic.

Perhaps the following is applicable.  I came up with a quote that sounded like wisdom worthy of any plaque that one might hang on a wall.  "The level of difficulty of a subject is determined by the following:  what percentage of it *can* be taught inside the classroom, as opposed to what percentage of it *cannot* be taught inside the classroom."

Sounds pretty inspirational and lofty, doesn't it?  I certainly thought so.  The percentage aspect applies accurately to the instances of math/science fields versus psychology/philosophy/etc.

But hang on second.