Certain

[oats]

Originally Posted by Darth Yoda

Great little quip. But answer this, what is considered "special to bring change." What type of change? And, do you believe there are those type of people, special+talented+determined+work ethic, that don't achieve said 'greatness'?

"What is considered special to bring change?" is a question that is far too vast and broad to be able to answer succinctly. What comes to mind is the "Here's to the crazy ones" speech from Steve Jobs. In other words, those who believe that they will bring change, are the ones who are going to do it.

As for the type of change, this is an ongoing pulpit of mine, having worked in politics for a number of years, and now working as a state employee (public school teacher), gov't related work is fraught with cyclical procedure and ineffective policy (rooted in obsolete rationale). Shit hasn't changed procedurally in decades, but the world is COMPLETELY different now, mostly as a result of the internet and its effect on globalization. Too much bureaucracy, not enough humanity. The recent shutdown was a prime example of this; people who put their professional agendas above the real-world effects of the actions they take. To be specific in a couple matters, I think the political duopoly needs to change, Citizens United ruling needs to be overturned, and actual experts should have an increased role in policy making (IE climatologists should be in charge - to an extent - of legislating clean emission laws, not politicians). This answer could go on for pages, so I'll stop here.

As for your final question, the answer is a "yes with a but." Meaning, there are a number of factors that go into attaining that level of success, including socioeconomic upbringing. There are no shortage of people who are extremely talented that struggle to make headway because they are mired in the challenges of poverty and social instability. That being said, there are also plenty of examples of people rising above extreme obstacles to achieve their goals. Again, the main variable is that "determination." How many obstacles does it take to make you quit? If that answer is N/A, and you have substance to contribute to a given field, then I believe you can certainly achieve your goals and make changes.

[Darth Yoda]

Originally Posted by oats

"What is considered special to bring change?" is a question that is far too vast and broad to be able to answer succinctly. What comes to mind is the "Here's to the crazy ones" speech from Steve Jobs. In other words, those who believe that they will bring change, are the ones who are going to do it.

As for the type of change, this is an ongoing pulpit of mine, having worked in politics for a number of years, and now working as a state employee (public school teacher), gov't related work is fraught with cyclical procedure and ineffective policy (rooted in obsolete rationale). Shit hasn't changed procedurally in decades, but the world is COMPLETELY different now, mostly as a result of the internet and its effect on globalization. Too much bureaucracy, not enough humanity. The recent shutdown was a prime example of this; people who put their professional agendas above the real-world effects of the actions they take. To be specific in a couple matters, I think the political duopoly needs to change, Citizens United ruling needs to be overturned, and actual experts should have an increased role in policy making (IE climatologists should be in charge - to an extent - of legislating clean emission laws, not politicians). This answer could go on for pages, so I'll stop here.

As for your final question, the answer is a "yes with a but." Meaning, there are a number of factors that go into attaining that level of success, including socioeconomic upbringing. There are no shortage of people who are extremely talented that struggle to make headway because they are mired in the challenges of poverty and social instability. That being said, there are also plenty of examples of people rising above extreme obstacles to achieve their goals. Again, the main variable is that "determination." How many obstacles does it take to make you quit? If that answer is N/A, and you have substance to contribute to a given field, then I believe you can certainly achieve your goals and make changes.

Answered good enough. Now, just one more thing to ask you, sorry to make this an interrogation -I'm just genuinely curious. You made it evident in your last statement, but I wanted to make sure. Is someone who abides by a certain respectable morale and goes to work, helps out, blah blah, does this mean they contributed? To you atleast. Also, if someone creates light bulbs and creates a light bulb that is economical, and cost efficient, would this fall under that certain group of 'great, determined, world changing people'?

[oats]

Originally Posted by Darth Yoda

Answered good enough. Now, just one more thing to ask you, sorry to make this an interrogation -I'm just genuinely curious. You made it evident in your last statement, but I wanted to make sure. Is someone who abides by a certain respectable morale and goes to work, helps out, blah blah, does this mean they contributed? To you atleast. Also, if someone creates light bulbs and creates a light bulb that is economical, and cost efficient, would this fall under that certain group of 'great, determined, world changing people'?

Definitely not. I was going to address this in my previous post because it's an expected response to my little diatribes, but I felt my post was already getting too long.

But no. Even though I'm referencing/alluding to massive, sweeping changes, I don't believe that is the path for the majority of people. It is just as important for people to be cogs in the wheel - they are the ones who allow great changes to happen. Someone can build a car that runs off of farts and gets 100MPG with no emissions etc etc, but you need people to produce those cars, service them, sell them, and so on.

That being said, I truly believe we're at a unique junction in history, where the world is changing so much faster than we are able to keep up with, as individuals and societies. As a result, I think we need people to question why they are working the way they are. I'll give you another example.

When I was working for a state representative in 2010-2011, I dealt with/wrote a lot of legal documents. I'm a good writer - I have a degree in it, and wrote people's papers in college for them for extra money. But I was apparently the worst legal writer ever (at first). Why? Because I wrote things with the intention of simplifying and clarifying, to trim the fat so people could actually understand what the fuck the document said. This, however, is not how things are supposed to be written. I needed to use weird syntax, specific phrases, and all sorts of templates that muddied the actual content. When questioned about why this was necessary, I was only told that it's "how it's supposed to be." I dug deep enough to figure out that the precedent was set almost a hundred years ago, and the language reflected it. Thing is, legally speaking, precedent is policy. Ask any lawyer, they'll tell you the same. Regardless of how pertinent that case that set the precedent is today. In my eyes, I think legal writing is a mechanism to perpetuate the need for lawyers; no one else can decipher that shit, so they need lawyers to do so (since lawyers wrote it). Look at how Smith v. Maryland (1978) made the NSA metadata monitoring and collection legal.