Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Good, you are not incapable of understanding it just has to happen to you back before you do.
How progressive!
Relax, Everything is Going to be Okay!
- Thread starter dranrab
- Start date
How progressive!
Wildabeest
Well-known member
WildWill
Well-known member
This entire thread.
Archer86
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2022
- Messages
- 345
But you are incapable of realizing you are complaining about the exact thing you did.......
Typical far left or far right get angry about someone calling you out that butt hurt must burn
I first read this book in the summer of 2016. One of my more liberal friends recommended it to me as an explanation for some positions I couldn't understand in my head. He warned that it was written by a guy who though a self-proclaimed liberal, admitted that his field research in psychology, has a bias against conservative ideas. Upon reading it, I came to realize how some of my friend's positions were formed and defended.
Then came the election of 2016, when this book became even more relevant in my search to understand why people take a position and then go to great lengths to defend/rationalize that position, even if facts make is hard to believe such a smart person of such good character would cling to such a position. That period showed me the research findings of this book applied to both sides of the political spectrum.
The book has also shown that it applies to me and how some of my positions were formed. I now use some of the ideas in this book to test myself as to why I have taken a certain position (usually due to my intuition), and whether or not I'm rational/irrational in my defense of whatever position I staked my claim on. There are times when a good hike takes my mind away from the distractions and allows me uninterrupted space to think about my position, often resulting in changing of my own mind.
If you don't want to read the entire thing, here is the summary an accountant got from a book written by a social psychology researcher - Humans evolved to make immediate decisions based on our intuitions; it was a necessary adaptation for survival. Today, we still make our decisions almost immediately, based on our intuitions. Yet now we have a far more complex social structure of government, relationships, etc. which complicates how those immediate intuitions fit in the more complex social environment, forcing us to rationalize the intuition we had without first applying logic or reason.
Further summarized - 1) First, our intuition dictates our position on an issue, then 2) Second we apply our logic/reasoning/rationale to support the intuition we felt in #1.
Reading these Hunt Talk threads where people go on and on about positions related to government, politics, social topics, makes me think more about this book. I am currently re-reading it on Audible. Some parts of it I still struggle to see the application; after all, I'm an accountant, not a psych.
But, much of it explains to me a lot of the debates I see, including many of them here on Hunt Talk, where good people are divided so deeply that the ability to listen seems overcome by the desire to rationalize. There is a part of me that wonders if I should make a condition of participating on this forum to at least read the Cliffs Notes version.
If you are interested in some dense reading about how we arrive at our positions and the seemingly endless efforts we will go through to support the position we arrived at prior to applying logic/reason, this book might be interesting. It makes me think a lot about my own positions and the futility of debating with someone who is far down the path of rationalizing what his/her initial intuition was.
Link here - https://amzn.to/3DunnyH
Then came the election of 2016, when this book became even more relevant in my search to understand why people take a position and then go to great lengths to defend/rationalize that position, even if facts make is hard to believe such a smart person of such good character would cling to such a position. That period showed me the research findings of this book applied to both sides of the political spectrum.
The book has also shown that it applies to me and how some of my positions were formed. I now use some of the ideas in this book to test myself as to why I have taken a certain position (usually due to my intuition), and whether or not I'm rational/irrational in my defense of whatever position I staked my claim on. There are times when a good hike takes my mind away from the distractions and allows me uninterrupted space to think about my position, often resulting in changing of my own mind.
If you don't want to read the entire thing, here is the summary an accountant got from a book written by a social psychology researcher - Humans evolved to make immediate decisions based on our intuitions; it was a necessary adaptation for survival. Today, we still make our decisions almost immediately, based on our intuitions. Yet now we have a far more complex social structure of government, relationships, etc. which complicates how those immediate intuitions fit in the more complex social environment, forcing us to rationalize the intuition we had without first applying logic or reason.
Further summarized - 1) First, our intuition dictates our position on an issue, then 2) Second we apply our logic/reasoning/rationale to support the intuition we felt in #1.
Reading these Hunt Talk threads where people go on and on about positions related to government, politics, social topics, makes me think more about this book. I am currently re-reading it on Audible. Some parts of it I still struggle to see the application; after all, I'm an accountant, not a psych.
But, much of it explains to me a lot of the debates I see, including many of them here on Hunt Talk, where good people are divided so deeply that the ability to listen seems overcome by the desire to rationalize. There is a part of me that wonders if I should make a condition of participating on this forum to at least read the Cliffs Notes version.
If you are interested in some dense reading about how we arrive at our positions and the seemingly endless efforts we will go through to support the position we arrived at prior to applying logic/reason, this book might be interesting. It makes me think a lot about my own positions and the futility of debating with someone who is far down the path of rationalizing what his/her initial intuition was.
Link here - https://amzn.to/3DunnyH
I unlocked this thread, hoping we can have a sane discussion about public land agencies, funding, and that "everything is going to be okay."
If we can't, I guess I'll lock it again, maybe even delete it.
If we can't, I guess I'll lock it again, maybe even delete it.
texwest44
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 269
Two senate bills that might lift our spirits here a bit:
S.950 - A bill to ensure that the Forest Service is fully staffed, and for other purposes.
S.949 - A bill to ensure that the National Park Service is fully staffed, and for other purposes.
S.950 - A bill to ensure that the Forest Service is fully staffed, and for other purposes.
S.949 - A bill to ensure that the National Park Service is fully staffed, and for other purposes.
Assigned to Mike Lee's committee....
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Today was the deadline for agencies to get in their RIF plans according to the joint OPM/OMB memo guidance. Guess we'll find out how big the "scalpel" is now.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Seems like he is making the rounds in Washington. While I don't disagree with the comment I highlighted below, some of the other quotes in the article are BS. Mostly I'm hoping we all get to have a debate on how to how to maximize the value of those resources.
“We believe that the sum of our national assets is much larger than our national debt.”
www.yahoo.com
“We believe that the sum of our national assets is much larger than our national debt.”
US Interior Chief Pitches Resources on Federal Lands as Assets Worth Trillions
(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump’s Interior Secretary is making the case that the oil, gas and minerals in the vast federal lands and waters he is charged with overseeing should be viewed as part of “America’s balance sheet” worth trillions of dollars. Most Read from BloombergTrump DEI Purge Hits...
Foxtrot1
Well-known member
I was hoping we would hear some details on depts or #s if not specifics. Across the the board I'm hearing local management hasn't had any input or information on what's coming. Crazy the plan is being developed at the top and being pushed down. Guess we'll see
sclancy27
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2022
- Messages
- 711
Well, there not gonna let pee -ons like me who actually implement stuff in the field have any say.
My guess is the manager level positions, GS-12 and above, barely get touched and all the cuts come from the field staff. Time will tell if I'm right or not.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Not sure that's what we'll see. If you read some of the language in the EO's and SO's, regional offices will be targeted. Leases are being reviewed and cancelled for many office buildings, so those folks are likely to be rif'd. But if they follow the process (which is more likely now that the courts have stepped in) they will have to define groups by series and geographic region. Not so easy to do that with lower graded, widely dispersed offices. If I was a "support staff" in a headquarters or regional office, I would be very concerned right now. The RIF process may offer them positions in field offices that they may or may not want to move to. I could be completely wrong, but in my view, field staff in remote offices are in the best positions right now. The other question is this schedule "P/C" determination which will reach down to 13's and maybe lower. If that goes through, then those folks will become "at will" employees and can be easily fired. Going to be an interesting few weeks ahead.
The bills introduced to protect USFS and NPS employees are largely ceremonial at this point. dems don't have the votes to get anything through and the r's seem to be in lock step, as usual.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
The proximity of this sec. to the president in just about every photo op is "unique" in several ways. I can never remember a SOI standing or sitting so close to the president during pressers or speeches. The opinion in the article above is fairly old news at this point. I think we are about to find out just how valuable public lands are to the public, and why.Seems like he is making the rounds in Washington. While I don't disagree with the comment I highlighted below, some of the other quotes in the article are BS. Mostly I'm hoping we all get to have a debate on how to how to maximize the value of those resources.
“We believe that the sum of our national assets is much larger than our national debt.”
US Interior Chief Pitches Resources on Federal Lands as Assets Worth Trillions
(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump’s Interior Secretary is making the case that the oil, gas and minerals in the vast federal lands and waters he is charged with overseeing should be viewed as part of “America’s balance sheet” worth trillions of dollars. Most Read from BloombergTrump DEI Purge Hits...
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
This admin is giving the top agency leaders very little info and short deadlines, almost as if they want them to panic. Not sharing a long range plan with the employees of an agency so they can then decide if a deferred resignation, resignation, vera/vsip or RIF/severance is in their best interest might not be criminal, but it is very indecent and unfair. I've heard the vera/vsip windows will be very short, like the "fork" was. Undoubtedly in an effort to panic people into taking them because they have no way to know what's next. I know this kind of thing happens in the private sector, but it's a horribly unfair approach regardless of who does it. I think everyone understands the interest in downsizing and finding efficiencies where they are needed (and there are plenty that are needed), but not giving families a fair chance to make life-changing decisions is just horrible, callous behavior.
The ramifications of this will be felt for generations because we stand to lose so much young talent in public service. The only thing these jobs can offer above private sector pay and perks is security and a sense of service/duty. When young employees and those considering public service see all this, they are going to think twice. This is part of what I see as a plan to privatize as many public sector jobs as possible. As I've said before, dedicated public servants are a problem for certain people. You don't have to use your imagination to figure out who.
If you haven't heard of the FAIR Act Inventory, now might be a good time to be familiar with it. It's been around since 1998, but from where I sit, it looks like a pretty convenient tool for identifying which agency functions can be privatized. https://www.doi.gov/pam/fair-act-inventory
Keep in mind that there are proposals for GSA to take over contracting for many agencies. https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/acquisition-policy/fair-act-inventory
Last edited:
Similar threads
