ERE: Should or can?

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
secretwealth
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am

Post by secretwealth »

"You guys should come out slumming with me in the rurals, I can show you a galaxy of do nothing welfare magicians... Outside of the large wages of the urban centers, life is much harder in the lower middle class brackets than simply giving up and kissing the ring. A LOT of hardworking, competent people barely scrape by, paying for themselves AND high taxes. Meanwhile, many of their neighbors have more disposable money and do not work. At all."
Okay, three posts because I'm too lazy to go back and edit. I totally agree with this, and would add that if you come up to my ghetto in NYC, you'll see very much the same thing--a lot of hardworking, competent people who barely scrape by next door to neighbors with brand new designer brand tennis shoes living in government subsidized or supplied housing. It's not clear cut at all.
Of course there are lazy bums, but alongside them are people down on their luck. It's complicated.


jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 12979
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Post by jacob »

Now list how these various groups of welfare magicians, hard-working rural/barely scraping by, college city upper/middle class, rich bankers, etc. tend to vote in terms or red and blue (only applies to the US).
Now keep in mind that party politics sets the intellectual axes for most of these discussions without us even realizing it.
Enlightenment should follow soon after.
Divide and conquer, indeed.
That's not all... this can even be backtested using political strategies and projected into the future using demographics. It's all quite scientific.


pooablo
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:32 am

Post by pooablo »

To add to Jacob's comment, I'd be curious to see if there is a correlation between politics and personality types.
Here is a random guess.
NT -- Libertarian

NF -- Socialists

SJ -- Conservatives

SP -- Anarchists???
I found an interesting article about this!
http://www.politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56/
STJ -- Traditional

NFP -- Progressive


JohnnyH
Posts: 2007
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rockies

Post by JohnnyH »

@pooablo: Excellent deduction. Wow, look at INFJ vs INTJ!
Also, that chart is 11 years old, an update would probably be very independent dominant across the board:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/pol ... 52171688/1
Would be great to see libertarian on an update! ;)


tylerrr
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:32 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by tylerrr »

@secretwealth,
" but it isn't just a matter of rule of law--political instability (largely caused by the U.S.), generational poverty, the lack of an Age of Enlightenment like the Europeans had, mass genocide from generations of imperialism...these are all problems that rich western countries haven't had to deal with. Hence the wealth in NYC and the poverty in Guatemala."
Yes, and I don't think I should have to deal with it either. I choose to be grateful and live in my U.S.A rather than a poverty stricken country like Guatemala.
If you subject yourself to poverty and make that choice, I don't think you're any more virtuous than I...Hence me having little compassion for the do-nothing-bums I pass every day on the street.


secretwealth
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am

Post by secretwealth »

Are you saying that the impoverished of Guatemala are impoverished by choice?


GandK
Posts: 1995
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Post by GandK »

Would be great to see libertarian on an update! ;)
This major Libertarian is also majorly an INFJ. :-)


tylerrr
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:32 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by tylerrr »

@Secretwealth,
No, I think you may self-impose poverty and then complain about it. That's the feeling I'm getting. I could be wrong.


Felix
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:30 pm

Post by Felix »

This is fascinating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaFM9CvW ... r_embedded#!
Strict father vs. nurturing mother. Heh. Reminds me of Wilhelm Reich as well as the Alphabet vs. the Godess book.
These modes of thinking then seem to shift based on economic circumstances and cause more conservatism in bad times and more progressive thinking in good time. Maybe imposing austerity or increasing government spending is simply a way by each side of gaining more votes by changing the economic climate. :-D


secretwealth
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am

Post by secretwealth »

Lakoff is a brilliant linguist.
Metaphorical projections onto our political lives--you get to choose the strict father or nurturing mother. I suppose our contexts and genetic makeup largely determine which we choose--and also makes compromise impossible. Constant tug back and forth between yin and yang in an eternal polarized debate. Kinda makes me hope I don't live forever...


jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 12979
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Post by jacob »

I think transactional analysis (child, parent, adult) is a good way to look at it.
The middle class, which are looking for stability, is primarily looking for a parental figure (mom&dad, then teachers, then supervisors and bosses) to tell them what to do.
Therefore the upper class pays politicians to provide that in the guise of a democracy. The "children" (transactional analysis again, not actual children) are given choices [between mom and dad but never about moving out and becoming and independent adult], but they don't get to make their own.
Realizing that most people prefer to have someone in authority telling them what to think or do is why I no longer proselytize about libertarianism (adults only!) or engage in political discussions for other purposes than to end them.


J_
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Netherlands/Austria

Post by J_ »

I wonder if you ever sleep. The tool you gave with "transactional analysis" is indeed very helpful to understand what you are saying in this post.
Not related with the topic: For me "transactional analysis" is complete new, I have read it now several times (in wikipedia) . I find that this tool can help me a lot to improve my communication, so thanks!


RealPerson
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:33 pm

Post by RealPerson »

"The "children" (transactional analysis again, not actual children) are given choices [between mom and dad but never about moving out and becoming and independent adult], but they don't get to make their own."
Such a true statement. It is remarkable to see such heated debates between 2 sides that are actually very similar. I hear democrats complain about the unions (huh?) and republicans talk about their dislike of the religious conservatives (huh?). Most of these "differences" are artificially created to stir the base. Children indeed. Divide and conquer, so neither party has to answer for the misuse and abuse of taxpayer money. They are both guilty of it. It is why you never see a true shrinking of the size of government, regardless of who is in power. Plus, apparently most people really do want someone to take care of them.


BPA
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:02 pm

Post by BPA »

"I will never understand how so many people on an ERE forum, based on self sufficiency, can still proclaim they believe in high tax rates and supporting the DO-NOTHING BUMS of society."
I support high tax rates and I believe in ERE. People who need the social safety net need it because they are not able to participate in society the way that I do. People suffering from a variety of illnesses, single mothers who didn't want to become single mothers but are single mothers, and hey, I like libraries and parks and a strong publicly funded school system. These are important to me. I don't mind sharing my wealth for those who need it.
According to the statement made above, that makes me either stupid, a bad person, or both.


Felix
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:30 pm

Post by Felix »

Self-sufficiency can itself be an ideology, it seems. But there is only a short period in our lives when some of us can take care of ourselves alone - whether that's desirable or even efficient is another thing. We are dependent when we are young and we will all be dependent again for a long time when we are old and sick. You don't become more or less worthy of life depending on where you are on that scale. Also, regarding emotional maturity levels, independence is more mature than dependence, but interdependence is more mature than independence.


Felix
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:30 pm

Post by Felix »




Felix
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:30 pm

Post by Felix »




secretwealth
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am

Post by secretwealth »

"Also, regarding emotional maturity levels, independence is more mature than dependence, but interdependence is more mature than independence."
I'm going to quote you on this in every debate I have with a libertarian for the rest of my life. Stupendous post, Felix.


jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 12979
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Post by jacob »

That's an interesting point about interdependence. Such constellations are very hard to build and maintain though. If you add a dependent or an independent member to an interdependent group, you'll have
1) I need you and you need me, and he needs us but we don't need him.

or

2) I need you and you need me, but he doesn't need us.
It's easy to illustrate with high-school teamwork. There are people who can't do anything useful and all groups would be better off without them. Then there are people who are better off by working together in groups. And then there are individuals who will be held back if they have to deal with groups.
What makes the interdependence problem hard to solve is that people differ by orders of magnitude (literally) in responsibility and ability.
Oh yeah, and in terms of ERE, interdependence is a lot easier if it's based on wants than needs. For example, you can develop a good freecycle/community reputation by giving good things away. Then if you want something, you can more easily get it. However, if the want is a need, it becomes much harder and the system becomes brittle.
In short, the requirement for interdependence, is that EVERY member is CAPABLE of producing value that's DESIRABLE to others. I see plenty of humanity failing on one or more of these dimensions.


secretwealth
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am

Post by secretwealth »

Jacob, that's true--but needs and wants change. A valuable skill at one moment in history is worthless in another moment. Take Latin, for instance; knowing Latin was once an incredibly valuable and desirable skill. Now it's worthless.
In previous epochs, these changing needs and wants happened gradually or were due to rare technological innovations--so the once-useful-now-useless were either dead when those needs/wants changed. In times of watershed moments, you get the Luddites.
Nowadays, change happens so fast and societal needs/wants change so quickly that it's impossible to adapt. I knew a professor who got his Ph.D. in international politics in 1989 and his thesis on Soviet politics was widely praised because of his deep knowledge of Russian. After the wall fell, he was worthless, and so proceeded to get another Ph.D., this time learning Chinese.
In computer science, doesn't the programming language du jour change every couple years? In finance, don't the technical models change every few months because inefficiencies disappear?
My point is that we live in an era of continual change where developing skills that are of value to society is no longer a lifelong strategy, and just suddenly learning a whole new language every 5-10 years isn't exactly practical.
I think an interdependent society helping people as their skills and unique talents go in and out of sync with society's constantly changing needs. As much as those on the right may despise a strong welfare state, I think such a system could be tremendously powerful--how many of us know of an upper manager who hates his job and is terrible at it--so much so that he keeps the company behind--but whose seniority keeps him gainfully employed? A society with more generous welfare and a more flexible attitude to work (i.e., a culture where getting laid off isn't stigmatized and working 40 years in a single career regardless of your diminishing returns is) would arguably benefit us. It would allow a more efficient reallocation of labor just as HFT and computerized trading has allowed a more efficient reallocation of capital.


Post Reply