Where do students look for articles these days?

[Thrive92]

14 minutes ago, Hegdis said:

You might not realize how weird it is to claim coffee makes you post things, but it's weird. Pretty sure 95% of us consume coffee regularly and I have never, ever seen anyone blame coffee for a post or a perspective.

Never did i mention that coffee makes me post things. I just drink a few cups too many in the mornings is all.

10 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

I sometimes post under the influence of my own stupidity and poor impulse control.

We are aware, friend. Take it easy

[Diplock]

2 hours ago, epeeist said:

I imagine they might start with a Google search and find that the LSO has an "articling registry" listing positions that those with articling positions available may post to... 😀

https://lso.ca/Becoming-Licensed/Lawyer-Licensing-Process/Articling-Candidates/Finding-a-Placement#articling-registry-6

 

This is a WAY crappier resource and service than you might imagine. Just like almost every kind of execution by the Law Society of Ontario. As has been repeatedly pointed out by many students, devastated over the apparent loss of LS.ca, this board and it's predecessor are a better resource to students than anything the Law Society manages to produce. It shouldn't be surprising they similarly suck when it comes to employment-related services.

[123]

On 10/3/2021 at 10:26 AM, Diplock said:

Assume for the sake of argument we're talking about an employer and/or an entire field that wouldn't usually recruit during OCIs or during OCI timelines. Where do students go looking for articling postings these days that aren't part of the formal recruit, in Ontario? I'm asking for a friend.

I kind of assume this already happened, since this is for a friend. But some of the lawyers I know just ask colleagues who recently hired if they have any recommendations from their runners-up, before they post somewhere publicly. I have a friend who found their summer student that way. Which might save them the trouble of reviewing hundreds of applications. I also see a lot of “we’re hiring! Please distribute to your networks” on listservs. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by realpseudonym

[Yogurt Baron]

1 hour ago, Hegdis said:

Oh, dude. No. Don't frame people's responses to you as them being "triggered". It's gross.

Thank you for this. Crypto, for one thing, upsetting people does not equal triggering them; for another you don't upset anyone, you just mildly baffle a lot of us a lot of the time.

[Diplock]

Although I'm generally not a fan of @TheCryptozoologist's posts or tone, I would give him a pass on this use of "triggered." Why? Because the word was deformed and degraded long ago by folks on the extreme edge of sensitivity, and if it's being used in reply without appropriate seriousness, I really don't think you can fault anyone at this point.

[Hegdis]

Yeah you can. It’s dismissive in a general, sneering way. It tells everyone that you regard any adverse reaction to anything you say as some kind of hypersensitive weakness on their part. It means you have zero intentions of engaging with them at all, and probably haven’t really listened up to that point. It makes you seem like an asshole, in short. 
 

Using that word is a type of self-insult. I highly recommend people drop it from their lexicon if they want to have actual good faith discussions - here or anywhere. 

[epeeist]

1 hour ago, Yogurt Baron said:

Thank you for this. Crypto, for one thing, upsetting people does not equal triggering them; for another you don't upset anyone, you just mildly baffle a lot of us a lot of the time.

Does Crypto have much of a reputation? I sometimes find some posters specifically assuming my position is the opposite of what it is, or at least very different, and due to their rudeness I don't bother trying to explain. That is, to some extent some people react to my posts almost automatically, regardless of content. They'd probably be happier if they could bring themselves to ignore me. Ironically, with briefer posts some seem more likely to accusatorily misinterpret my position, assuming mala fides, so I default to lengthier posts.

 

41 minutes ago, Diplock said:

Although I'm generally not a fan of @TheCryptozoologist's posts or tone, I would give him a pass on this use of "triggered." Why? Because the word was deformed and degraded long ago by folks on the extreme edge of sensitivity, and if it's being used in reply without appropriate seriousness, I really don't think you can fault anyone at this point.

You may find this article by Prof. Jeanie Suk Gerson in the New Yorker interesting:

"...Because trigger warnings involve assumptions about emotional reactions, particularly with respect to P.T.S.D., psychology researchers have begun to study whether trigger warnings are in fact beneficial. The results of around a dozen psychological studies, published between 2018 and 2021, are remarkably consistent, and they differ from conventional wisdom: they find that trigger warnings do not seem to lessen negative reactions to disturbing material in students, trauma survivors, or those diagnosed with P.T.S.D. Indeed, some studies suggest that the opposite may be true. The first one, conducted at Harvard by Benjamin Bellet, a Ph.D. candidate, Payton Jones, who completed his Ph.D. in 2021, and Richard McNally, a psychology professor and the author of “Remembering Trauma,” found that, among people who said they believe that words can cause harm, those who received trigger warnings reported greater anxiety in response to disturbing literary passages than those who did not. (The study found that, among those who do not strongly believe words can cause harm, trigger warnings did not significantly increase anxiety.) Most of the flurry of studies that followed found that trigger warnings had no meaningful effect, but two of them found that individuals who received trigger warnings experienced more distress than those who did not. Yet another study suggested that trigger warnings may prolong the distress of negative memories. A large study by Jones, Bellet, and McNally found that trigger warnings reinforced the belief on the part of trauma survivors that trauma was central (rather than incidental or peripheral) to their identity. The reason that effect may be concerning is that trauma researchers have previously established that a belief that trauma is central to one’s identity predicts more severe P.T.S.D.; Bellet called this “one of the most well documented relationships in traumatology.” The perverse consequence of trigger warnings, then, may be to harm the people they are intended to protect...." [emphasis added]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-if-trigger-warnings-dont-work

I can't speak to the psychology, but even if there is no psychological benefit but even a potential harm to some, as a matter of politeness, content warnings in some situations seem appropriate much as spoiler warnings are appropriate. In law school I recall one course in which slavery was discussed with firsthand accounts in some of the readings, and there was a content warning. The warning made sense to me, I still read the material, it was relevant to the course and I didn't avoid it, I just chose when I wanted to read it.

[TheCryptozoologist]

12 hours ago, epeeist said:

Does Crypto have much of a reputation? I sometimes find some posters specifically assuming my position is the opposite of what it is, or at least very different, and due to their rudeness I don't bother trying to explain. That is, to some extent some people react to my posts almost automatically, regardless of content. They'd probably be happier if they could bring themselves to ignore me. Ironically, with briefer posts some seem more likely to accusatorily misinterpret my position, assuming mala fides, so I default to lengthier posts.

Yes. My posts elicit strong, complex reactions that leaves people in a state of bewilderment. I simultaneously outrage and inform. 

For instance this whole thread is completely derailed, it was an innocent law student asking an innocent question and now its just talking about psychology. 

By the way now that it was brought up, a friend of mine was Jordan Peterson's grad student and I sat in at his lectures before he became an altright figure. Alot of people did. He was unsurprisingly a cult figure among the left wing hipster psychology undergrads since he went on about mythology and art and Carl Jung and self-help tips that made people feel smart. I don't agree with him on much and thought the worship towards him was weird since he simultaneously takes strong positions while not taking positions at all e.g. you hear him talk about capitalism out of nowhere and go incredibly simplistic about it, and you hear him say insane things like stopping premarital sex then saying things you'd expect progressive leftists to say 

Anyways what I'll say is before the fame it was clear from his books that he had a lifelong emotional instability that he fills with ideas and intellect. Its undeniable he is incredibly well-read but shifts into very simplistic ideas from time to time because to embrace them would create discomfort and instability in his worldview. And his worldview is rarely stable just like himself so he says lots of things that run counter to the alt-right narrative. (read his first book, it goes from pseudo-mythology to talking about his beautiful cousin to nightmares he had as a kid to a psychology experiment within a page. I think he's just had a lifelong depression or fear or something he fills with zealous activity).

Why its relevant here is that alot of smart people are incredibly sensitive to things and react badly if it might alter their perception of the world or if it doesn't fit into categories or concepts which they use to make sense if their reality. Its a mental discomfort they fill with complex ideas and facts to reinforce their previous beliefs. If that doesn't work they shut down and castigate the other side as being unworthy of being reasoned with. Any counterfact has to be fought rigoursly which is why my examples and use of words.like triggering elicits a strong response here. I think many lawyers are this way to be honest, and they are very similar to Jordan Peterson in how he thinks. Intentions aren't bad but disagreements and discussions fundamentally is at an emotional level but in a very cerebral way.isd, I rarely ever get that vibe from smart people

 

The solution is always to chill  im. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[BlockedQuebecois]

14 minutes ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

For instance this whole thread is completely derailed, it was an innocent law student asking an innocent question and now its just talking about psychology. 

Of all the things anyone has ever posted on this forum or the last, calling @Diplock an "innocent law student" has got to be the funniest. 

[PalomaBlanca]

23 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

@Darth Vader

There's a reason why extroverts like myself are good at fooling people into believing we are smarter than we appear, its ingrained habits of managing perception and playing off superficiality. Introverts are found to have a deeper understanding of social dynamics but it rarely shines while extroverts seize on the few things that dazzle people.

 

4 hours ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Yes. My posts elicit strong, complex reactions that leaves people in a state of bewilderment. I simultaneously outrage and inform. 

 

The solution is always to chill  im. 

Not really. Your comments are a textbook display of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[artsydork]

So um, all trigger warnings do is warn people of a sensitive topic so that a person can make an informed choice whether to be present/participate. Eep, they're meant to the be equivalent of what you call a content warning. I'm curious as to the methodology and definitions used on TW from those studies.

All I know (yes, yes, anecdotal), walking into my civil liberties class with anti queer hate speech on display (no TW, and was a leftover slide from a previous class, so not even relevant for the day) was very difficult for me as it was literally the day after I spent a couple of hours in the hospital visiting a friend who was gay bashed. To be frank, I would have skipped that session, or come in at the break, to avoid that had I known. 

To OP- the general consensus is twitter. Use twitter and network with people. That's basically how Sankoff launched the 100 Intern Project and how my firm got some very capable summer interns in the past. 

 

 

[TheCryptozoologist]

1 hour ago, PalomaBlanca said:

 

Not really. Your comments are a textbook display of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Law school does such a thing. But its in this case the opposite, recognizing your own incompetence runs counter to Dunning-Kruger. Knowing one's incompetence and working with it is a different story. 😂

5 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Of all the things anyone has ever posted on this forum or the last, calling @Diplock an "innocent law student" has got to be the funniest.

Lol nevermind. Didn't even realize it.

[CleanHands]

19 hours ago, epeeist said:

Does Crypto have much of a reputation?

He's widely considered to be a buffoon. His response to your post is a great representative example of why this is.

[TheCryptozoologist]

2 hours ago, CleanHands said:

He's widely considered to be a buffoon. His response to your post is a great representative example of why this is.

Lol I just don't care about what others are going to think about me on an board with pseudonyms and I am willing to use self-depreciative gestures for literary effect. We had this conversation before about identifiabiliy but an online user I view as a construct seperate from myself but with strands of truth. I don't break the rules and I don't post to troll or harm people but will play this construct for argumentive effect.

Method acting is a helluva drug and I am willing to characterize the construct for dramatic effect without believing it, like our point on controlling perception and Dunninger-Kruger. I don't actually believe I am better at showing people why I am smarter than why I appear but I am pointing at a truth where the perception of intelligence is deceptively shaped by physical appearance and extraversion and why intelligent extroverts are inherently more deceptive people. Its the opposite of a Susan Cain talking point but I consciously do it to force people to think about these things. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[TheCryptozoologist]

33 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

I get that you don't like him/her/them, I really do -- but maybe you would like to tone down with these "criticisms"?

They are getting closer to cyber bullying than anything

Now that you mentioned it, I do feel bullied. People won't get it immediately but alot of disagreements aren't even on an intellectual basis and at its core people reacting to me are operating on an ambiguity aversion at a deeper and emotional level and projecting it. A fear of the unknown or contrary usually elicits hostility and people default to projecting what they are familiar with onto the world.

My points on things like human nature, cynicism, deceptiveness and things that run contrary to the ordinary boundaries of conversation is unsettling for many because their thinking is forced into unfamiliar territory. Instead of remaining mentally uncomfortable they try to make sense of it through preconceptions and will label me a troll or right wing or SJW and other terms that dominate the discourse of internet arguments. One of the few things I agree with Jordan Peterson on, is that ideas and ideology are often more than that, they are also a safety blanket for people to retreat to so they have a way of filtering their world.

Alot of my points I brought up is both contrarian and contradictory but I've learned to be comfortable with conversations of every kind. The trick is to separate feelings and remain in a perceptive and open state rather than immediately being judgemental and critical. 

Anyways now time to do the following:

Edited October 6, 2021 by TheCryptozoologist

[Thrive92]

1 minute ago, TheCryptozoologist said:

Now that you mentioned it, I do feel bullied. People won't get it immediately but alot of disagreements aren't even on an intellectual basis and at its core people reacting to me are operating on an ambiguity aversion at a deeper and emotional level and projecting it. A fear of the unknown or contrary usually elicits hostility and people default to projecting what they are familiar with onto the world. My points on things like human nature, cynicism, deceptiveness and things that run contrary to the ordinary boundaries of conversation is unsettling for many because their thinking is forced into unfamiliar territory.  Instead they try to make sense of it through preconceptions and will label me a troll or right wing or SJW and other terms that dominate the discourse of internet arguments.

Alot of my points I brought up is both contrarian and contradictory but I've learned to be comfortable with conversations of every kind. The trick is to separate feelings and remain in a perceptive and open state rather than immediately being judgemental and critical.

Anyways now time to do the following:

nah what you post on this forum is kind of dumb -- its not contrarian or contradictory by any means. Your viewpoints and your contributions are not "unknown" nor are they intellectually stimulating.

I just don't like bullying is all. Don't take this as if I'm defending you for your posts. That's not the case at all.

[TheCryptozoologist]

3 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

nah what you post on this forum is kind of dumb -- its not contrarian or contradictory by any means. Your viewpoints and your contributions are not "unknown" nor are they intellectually stimulating.

I just don't like bullying is all. Don't take this as if I'm defending you for your posts. That's not the case at all.

To be serious I don't see it as bullying since it requires some kind of mental or emotional effect. In some cultures and places (UK for example, or among alot of male social groups here) whats seen as bullying is just called 'banter' and its only when it crosses some taboo lines does it become bullying.

I was literally just joking but thanks for being such a valiant savior standing up for dumb dumbs like myself.

[CleanHands]

47 minutes ago, Thrive92 said:

bullying

 

[epeeist]

5 hours ago, artsydork said:

So um, all trigger warnings do is warn people of a sensitive topic so that a person can make an informed choice whether to be present/participate. Eep, they're meant to the be equivalent of what you call a content warning. I'm curious as to the methodology and definitions used on TW from those studies.

All I know (yes, yes, anecdotal), walking into my civil liberties class with anti queer hate speech on display (no TW, and was a leftover slide from a previous class, so not even relevant for the day) was very difficult for me as it was literally the day after I spent a couple of hours in the hospital visiting a friend who was gay bashed. To be frank, I would have skipped that session, or come in at the break, to avoid that had I known. 

To OP- the general consensus is twitter. Use twitter and network with people. That's basically how Sankoff launched the 100 Intern Project and how my firm got some very capable summer interns in the past. 

 

 

I think - this is going beyond what that article said and my imperfect recollection of other things, that it makes a huge difference if the warning is a warning of potentially disturbing content that people have to read/watch/listen to, for work or education purposes (versus something optional, or entertainment); being warned ahead of time, if they're going to consume the content anyway, may either be useless or increase the mental harm. I think this is what was focused on, if people are going to be exposed to the disturbing material anyway - if it's not avoidable because e.g. the course is about analyzing hate speech and responses to it - a warning is useless or worse, harmful. Your example was different, of something that, if you'd known, could have been avoided (or in a sense rescheduled, skipping class and at a later date reviewing with a student who attended?). It's not like every class focused on hate speech.

And again, I'm not a psychologist nor have I read all these studies.

Now, even if it's necessary disturbing content (e.g. many think sexual assault law is necessary to adequately teach criminal law, but some are afraid to teach it given student complaints), and even if warnings are proven to be harmful, if adults want warnings maybe they should get them even if they're proven to be harmful. And, this I think relates to your own example and my own preferences, even if it's necessary for me to engage with disturbing content, if I have some agency over when I do so (more applicable to work or readings than a class) I prefer that even if an expert tells me I shouldn't. But then I'm arguing that warnings should be given because people want them, not distorting the facts to support what I want (that's not aimed at you specifically, more the general tendency to distort facts to support one's views on both the left and right).

Hmm, for choice, have an on-line warning schedule that people can choose to look at or not, or an automated text or email list they can subscribe to? Let people follow, or not follow, expert advice on whether or not to get warnings. Bearing in mind also that it's not necessarily reasonable to expect an instructor to be able to anticipate all potentially disturbing material, especially if questions get asked during class.

[Rashabon]

A lot of folks that habitually huff their own farts posting dumb shit in this thread.