1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:42 pm UTC

Of course it's not logically necessary that the terms of logic be defined the way they are; I meant that the consequence (vacuous truths) is a logical necessity of the terms of logic being defined the way they are.

And it would be more than just inconvenient to have universal quantification imply existential quantification; it would leave us with an awkwardly obvious-but-unnamed logical function, the de Morgan dual of existential quantification. We'd have positive existential claims; negative existential claims; positive, uh, not-exists-not-ential claims; negative that-weird-thing-again; and then positive universal claims and negative universal claims. It's so much cleaner to just deal with four obviously related functions: exists(x), not-exists(x), not-exists(not-x), and exists(not-x).


A funny thing just occurred to me. To an ontological nihilist, who believes that nothing at all exists, all universal claims, period, would seem true. "Everything is made of cheese!" said the madman. "Yep," replied the nihilist, "all of the zero things that exist are made of cheese."
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
squall_line
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby squall_line » Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:57 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Every job offers currency in exchange for the performance of services. So besides that common goal, why are you applying for this job in particular, instead of some other job? (In fact... she actually says "in particular" for that question in the SMBC, so there's no excuse for the applicant not getting it).


Except for volunteer jobs. Unless you consider "feeling good about helping fellow humans" as currency. And not all volunteer jobs are about helping fellow humans (like knocking door-to-door collecting signatures for a petition).

Pfhorrest wrote:Etc. Though really the 5 years one has always stumped me. I used to think it was because I was hopeless and depressed and had no idea if I would be alive five years later, but now I've got a pretty solid life path and... I hope I'll be making more money for comparable work, in accordance with my job's raise schedule? That's really all I've got, as far as career plans go. (I've got a whole bunch of plans I'm waiting on that money to do in other parts of my life).


Let's say you're interviewing for a "Level 1 Technician" position. For that job, most interviewers are looking for something along the lines of "5 years from now, I'm hoping to be a Level 2 or 3 technician". If you simply want to remain a Level 1 technician and just get cost-of-living raises over the next 5 years, that might be acceptable enough in some organizations, especially if there is no Level 2 tech, or Level 2 requires 10 years of time on the job to achieve. But in an organization that has a structure with a fairly recognizable path of advancement, "I want to make more money for comparable work in accordance with scheduled raises" will usually relegate an interviewee to the end of the line. And, yes, I understand that at times it can be difficult to see the light that far down the road. I don't pretend to claim that mental/social issues aren't discriminated against in a pernicious (or even blatant) way in employment and hiring decisions.

But even if Level 2 takes 10 years, and you know that, you can still answer something along the lines of "I hope to still be here enjoying my job, contributing to the team, and half-way to my Level 2 certification." It shows that you understand some of the requirements and limitations of the job and/or industry, and can speak to them honestly.

I also know that in 22 years of employment, there have been only 2 organizations at which I worked for longer than 5 years. In most cases, I steadily moved up every 18-24 months to a new position with more responsibility, or gained more certifications along the way. Other jobs, I've found tedious and/or not my cup of tea within about that same amount of time. My current job is pretty much an amalgam of all of the jobs I've had in the last 18 years, which is just about the ideal situation I could ever hope to find myself in.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:00 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:A funny thing just occurred to me. To an ontological nihilist, who believes that nothing at all exists, all universal claims, period, would seem true. "Everything is made of cheese!" said the madman. "Yep," replied the nihilist, "all of the zero things that exist are made of cheese."


A true ontological nihilist, as you describe them, has a major problem to address: how do they {insert verb} without existing? If their claim is that things can act without existing, then I'd argue that they need to be clearer about their meaning when they use the word "exist"...

FireandAir
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:16 pm UTC

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby FireandAir » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:05 pm UTC

There is always a part of me that wants to reply with:

Strength: "I'm routinely the smartest person in the room."

Weakness: "I'm routinely SURROUNDED BY IDIOTS."

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:08 pm UTC

I've almost never worked a job that had such a tiered organizational structure (and until this job, never had a scheduled raise structure either -- and I had to negotiate that raise structure for myself, it's not just the way the business works). I've almost always worked for small companies where I report directly to the/an owner; the one exception to that, I was only two levels down from the CEO (well, and then a new level got inserted between my boss and the CEO toward the end), and that's the only job since my first where there was any prospect of me working a different position in the future (because there was a possibility that a new level might be created below me, i.e. I might be made into the head of a new department).

At my first job, I was hired on with the promise of promotions to specified higher positions, with raises, upon meeting certain objective goals, which I promptly met, only to have the goalposts moved, and then the whole company went out of business.

At my current job I already report directly to the owner and already sort of have a whole department under me (a very small department in a very small company, but still), so I'm not really sure where I could expect to be in five years, besides making more money for a bigger company as the head of a larger department, i.e. exactly what I've got now, just scaled up with expected company growth.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby Wooloomooloo » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:42 pm UTC

"What would you say is your biggest weakness?"
I have ZERO TOLERANCE for idiotic questions. Also, absofuckiglutely none of your goddamn business. Cool? Cool.
"Biggest strength?"
Not taking a big-ass axe to people asking them (not right away, anyway).
"Where do you see yourself in five years?"
Do you see a bloody crystal ball in my hands, lady? DO YOU?!? HOW THE FUCK SHOULD I KNOW...?!?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby orthogon » Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:12 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Of course it's not logically necessary that the terms of logic be defined the way they are; I meant that the consequence (vacuous truths) is a logical necessity of the terms of logic being defined the way they are.

And it would be more than just inconvenient to have universal quantification imply existential quantification; it would leave us with an awkwardly obvious-but-unnamed logical function, the de Morgan dual of existential quantification. We'd have positive existential claims; negative existential claims; positive, uh, not-exists-not-ential claims; negative that-weird-thing-again; and then positive universal claims and negative universal claims. It's so much cleaner to just deal with four obviously related functions: exists(x), not-exists(x), not-exists(not-x), and exists(not-x).

We did vacuous truth a few weeks ago. My position remains that statements of this sort in English (and probably other languages) are not equivalent to superficially similar propositions in predicate calculus. English statements about something imply the existence of the thing by default; if you want your statement to allow for vacuous truth, you need to use a particular form of words, using phrases like "if any", "if applicable". Another way to approach this might be to say that the universal quantifier ∀ should properly be translated into English as "any" rather than "all", e.g. "any unicorns are made of cheese".

ETA: Also the interviewer's sitting position with her forearm on the seatback looks a bit uncomfortable: I just tried it and wouldn't want to keep it there for four frames.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

nigenet
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:27 am UTC
Location: Sunny Buxton, Derbyshire, UK (Where the water comes from)
Contact:

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby nigenet » Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:05 am UTC

"Where do you see yourself in 5 years?"
"Sorry, just to clarify, is that 5 years in the future or 5 years in the past?" *adjusts bow tie*

.....


"What is your greatest weakness?"
"Everything I say is a lie"
"Your mother ate my dog!"
"Not all of him..."

rmsgrey
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:27 pm UTC

"What is your greatest weakness?"
"An inability to take cliched interview questions seriously."

nigenet
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:27 am UTC
Location: Sunny Buxton, Derbyshire, UK (Where the water comes from)
Contact:

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby nigenet » Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:55 pm UTC

"What is your greatest strength?"
"I can change the matrix as I see fit"
"Your mother ate my dog!"
"Not all of him..."

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1545: "Strengths and Weaknesses"

Postby Kit. » Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:53 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:A funny thing just occurred to me. To an ontological nihilist, who believes that nothing at all exists, all universal claims, period, would seem true. "Everything is made of cheese!" said the madman. "Yep," replied the nihilist, "all of the zero things that exist are made of cheese."

That's if an ontological nihilist is unable to distinguish between "hypothetical existence" (as in "there exist two different imaginary numbers that are square roots of -1") and "the real thing" ("but the imaginary numbers are only, well, imaginary!").

rmsgrey wrote:A true ontological nihilist, as you describe them, has a major problem to address: how do they {insert verb} without existing?

"It's nihilising here."


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha and 54 guests