MKI,
If I’m not mistaken, your post is about trying to synthesize a prediction or other actionable information through listening to others in order to forward your own or a groups agenda. Am I correct?
I (and others, I think?) are intending to build relationship through mutual understanding so that we might avert the negative outcomes that stem from cold or hot warfare between groups that don’t understand each other and therefore come to “hate” each other. Another goal would be to build flourishing community or as Chris has said, a world worth inheriting. What do you think of those goals?
As I read a lot of comments on this thread, two things strike me.
- That so many people still think it will matter whether Red or Blue team wins elections.
- That I took a vacation from this type of stuff for a good reason, and I should extend said vacation.
Good day, all. Keep thinking Trump or Biden will save you.
QB,SP-
So how do these techniques work with sociopathy?
And those who come on a mission of planned conversion/disruption?
Hold that thought.
I think it is entirely likely that a fairly large number of us could get together and forge a consensus on a large number of issues that we all share, independently of our Pro-Trump or Anti-Trump or Dont-Care-About-Trump positions.
I also think that’s the larger issue too. There are forces at play that do not want us to come together, and are actively seeking to divide us so we don’t come together.
If you want to continue the harvesting operation, then you do not want your victims (both “left” and “right”) to agree that the harvesting is something unfortunate. Far better they fight over the few things that divide them.
So you send in the sociopaths and the paid missionaries to divide everyone.
I think your “second Tier” stuff works fine on the 98%. I think it won’t work at all on those 2%.
What do you think about this thesis? If true, it would seem that we have to deal with the 2% differently? Or - not?
Bottom line: not everyone comes from a genuine place. Most do, but a critical 2% do not. (The number 2% is pulled from my you-know-where)
And my last point - I am an engineer by training and practice. One of my flaws is that I jump right into solving problems. This comes up most often in conversations with my high empathy sister. When she has some issue, I’ll listen to her for a few minutes, and I’ll figure out what the “bug” is, and a fix will come to mind. Bug-fixing is what I do, so…
Sadly, this doesn’t work for her. She first needs to be listened to. Not for a few minutes either! So after - several - decades at this - I can now take a deep breath, save my fix for later, and do the listening part first. For her the healing is about getting it all out; a premature bugfix presentation won’t be received nearly as well.
But its hard! Cuz I have the fix! :). I digress.
So back to sociopathy. Sociopaths seem to require different rules. I get the strong sense that they’d view Tier 2 thinking as a pathway to take advantage of you, your energy, and the situation.
I think it totally works for the 98% though. FWIW.
...your post is about trying to synthesize a prediction/actionable information through listening to others in order to forward your own agenda. Am I correct?I think my motive is a bit different; Note I was replying to Sand Puppy's concern how conflict often follows folk who "assert the absolute rightness of their viewpoint, and beg others to "wake up". I agreed and offered a solution by having appropriate relationships via seeking areas of agreement whilst letting areas of disagreement alone once they are found lacking a basis in reality. I agree this is not the only possible solution, I merely think the the best in a world of various intelligence and values.
I (and others, I think?) are intending to build relationship through mutual understanding so that we might avert the negative outcomes that stem from cold or hot warfare between groups that don't understand each other and therefore come to "hate" each other.I think this a fine sentiment. My solution is at tad different; I simply don't engage in warfare at all, nor hate anyone. I honestly seek to understand the other person's position and learn from it. If I do, that's great! If after careful consideration I find the person to be wrong and not open to reality I merely offer polite feedback and exit. There are plenty of smart & non-hostile people who are trying to learn to converse with all over the web. I feel zero need to push my views on another or create a community with anybody. Note I have no hard feelings at all for those who feel otherwise, and I wish them luck.
Another goal would be to build flourishing community or as Chris has said, a world worth inheriting. What do you think of those goals?Building a community on the web is not my personal goal (I prefer real life for that), but I certainly do not begrudge anyone doing so. To each his own. Regarding the goal of "a world worth inheriting", who could disagree with that? It sounds great, but actually agreeing on what that world looks like? Tall order, methinks.
Regarding the goal of "a world worth inheriting", who could disagree with that? It sounds great, but actually agreeing on what that world looks like? Tall order, methinks.Not really, not if we apply the principles from above. Is there anything we can all agree on? How about we'd prefer to live on a planet that has a functioning ecosystem that supports us, rather than is trying to kill us because it has become too erratic or hot or vital ecosystems have collapsed and now, say, the rain forests are savannas instead? Or wishing to live in a safe place where violence is not part of daily life? I think we could all agree on that. How about we eat good, nutritious food, that tastes great? Having amazing experiences in life that are satisfying and nourishing? While we will each have our own view of that, none of us can pursue those unless the basic conditions at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of need are securely in place. I truly believe there are a lot of 'first principle' things that everybody can agree on. Why not start there?
I truly believe there are a lot of 'first principle' things that everybody can agree on. Why not start there?I agree, but only by avoiding the specifics/details regarding our 'first principles' we can all (seemingly) agree. But cracks appear when we actually do anything (say drill an oil well or start a family or cook a meal). Then, our 'first principle' concept is shown to be wildly insufficient. Even in your examples above of seemingly obvious agreements consider the wide opinions on what part mankind has in a 'functioning ecosystem' (mining? energy? human activity?) or even what is 'nutritious food' (heh, even my wife and I, who share more 'first principles' than we do with anyone else, can't quite agree on that one!). I'm not nitpicking here. I'm merely re-articulating my original statement you disagree with: regarding the goal of "a world worth inheriting", who could disagree with that? It sounds great, but actually agreeing on what that world looks like? Tall order, methinks.
Building a community on the web is not my personal goal.Not my main goal either. I was referring to a real on the ground project face to face and with land and buildings. And regarding your responses to the first two quotes from my post. Thank you for that. We are much more in alignment with our goals than I thought.
But cracks appear when we actually do anything.That is especially true given that most of us we have lived our entire lives in a world of fossil fuel driven material abundance where we can have most anything we want and are not dependent on community for immediate survival needs (or at least it appears that way). We've gotten used to having our way, for example, our specific food preferences selected from a vast array of available foods, many prepared and packaged conveniently. Creating functioning community where everyone is interdependent but not of like mind on many issues will take real work, given where we're all coming from. But, from my perspective, what else is there to do? We've seen the price of living the way we have been living to the biosphere, to our psyches, to our physical health, in a tangled web of dysfunction, disconnection and trauma. AND the abundance is likely going away if not in the next few years or decades, in the lifetimes of our children. What more important work is there than learning to live once again as humans have lived from deep time until very recently (or now in some places), especially when human thriving or perhaps even survival depends on it?
Regarding the goal of "a world worth inheriting", who could disagree with that? It sounds great, but actually agreeing on what that world looks like? Tall order, methinks.I took MKI's point as something different from how Chris took it. Yes, most would agree with the goals Chris stated as examples. But I think the point was how would a world that had achieved those goals (leaving aside, for now, the route to get there) operate? This is a question I've struggled with for years. Long before civilisation, out species existed as part of climax or oscillating ecosystems, low enough in numbers to move around if/when our local ecosystem deteriorated too much. But, today, most people seem to want a technological society with lots of possessions and the opportunity to improve our standards of living. They want to live in places that would be inhospitable without modern technology and buildings. They want to accumulate possessions, to varying degrees. And so on. How would a sustainable future (any unsustainable future is a dead end) compare with how we live today, even in fairly poor societies? Sustainability means not consuming any resource beyond its renewal rate and not damaging the biosphere in that consumption. I just can't envision how such a future differs from the distant past but would love to have alternative suggestions.
Agreed Sofistek, Once you drill down past a superficial comprehension of first principles it gets really hard to work through with other people. One of my first principles is I feel people have a right to revolt if they are being mistreated by the police, due to their ethnicity. Most people will at least say they agree with that, but they don’t follow through by listening to what the problems actually are. They are very quick to blow the very real problems of blacks, for instance, off. Or to ignore the fact that their lack of concern or out and out bigotry is being successfully manipulated by social media.
How do you get past this very real problem involving what should be a first principle?
AP-
One of my first principles is I feel people have a right to revolt if they are being mistreated by the police, due to their ethnicityThe race thing is the go-to selection for the elites who use this, among many other typical politics-of-division, to divide the working class into groups so that they fight one another. Same thing with issues such as "abortion", "prayer in schools", "transgender bathrooms", and so on. So instead of playing their game, how about we focus on universal healthcare, cheap drugs from Canada, reducing immigration to improve working people's wages, basic ID requirements for employment, bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria, no more regime change wars of choice in the middle east, eliminating the surveillance state, and getting money out of politics. Maybe term limits too. None of these things will divide the working class. Most people agree on these items. They will lift the standard of living for everyone. And it will reduce the gap between rich and poor. If you fall into the trap of the elites, you'll focus on the politics of division. You will be - what do they call it - a useful idiot? I forget the term. I'm not much of a revolutionary. My suggestion: don't focus on the divisive issues. The media's job is to stoke the division. Red media is told to say: "it's not happening", and blue media is told to say: "crime of the century", the working class dutifully fights each other, while the elites are laughing from the sidelines at our stupidity at falling for it one more time. Just my perspective.
Replace the hammer and sickle with the AMAZON corporate logo, with Jeff Bezos as the guy with the big full plate, and you’ll have it nailed.
Every time the local neighborhood shops get looted, burned, or destroyed, somewhere Jeff Bezos is laughing.
Cuomo and DeBlasio, with all their “COVID” business restrictions, have destroyed - what - 33% of local business in New York City?
For sure they have board seats waiting for them at Amazon HQ.
Here is a video I made more than 10 years ago for Dr. M’s message. It was a total fail back then and it gave old people seizures, lol. Nothing has changed in 10 years.
https://youtu.be/YThN6iqr4SM
I can’t believe that YouTube didn’t erase it.
davefairtex said:
There are forces at play that do not want us to come together, and are actively seeking to divide us so we don't come together. If you want to continue the harvesting operation, then you do not want your victims (both "left" and "right") to agree that the harvesting is something unfortunate. Far better they fight over the few things that divide them. So you send in the sociopaths and the paid missionaries to divide everyone.I agree. I think this cartoon sums it up pretty well in one picture:
This is only somewhat related but I think about it a lot:
I heard the term “best practices” in a corporate setting (ie, “We use best practices”) and I dismissed it as meaningless business jargon:
“Oh really, you do things ‘best’ at this company? Why didn’t anyone else think of that?”
Then I read Charles Hugh Smith’s book Why The Status Quo Failed and he was getting into the problems that globalization causes for workers in terms of driving wages down. He offered that one solution was to use that same global system (mostly the internet) to bring “best practices” to everything you do.
Of course! If your wages are always deflating in real terms because of that arbitrage you need to be able to do more with less and if you are willing to swallow your pride and put in a bit of effort you really can find ways to raise chickens (or whatever) about 10x more effectively than you can if left to your own devices.
For me this was just the most recent example of not listening to something and then realizing later that there is something behind it even if the first guy who told you about it might have really been clueless.
Anyway, in both this and sand_puppy’s earlier example, there is that “shut up and listen” aspect that most of us fail at most of the time.
Dave,
I appreciate your point of view and agree for the most part. I would like to see white people take very real problems in the criminal justice system and policing much more seriously though–even just to learn more about what is happening there. Much of it breaks down along class lines, but where visible minorities are involved it breaks down by appearance too. Once they are caught up in the criminal justice system it is darned near impossible to get out. They are living the nightmare that white people fear might happen to them, as a group, under “globalism” etc…
New research (no link to the data, unfortunately) shows the virus can remain viable for up to 28 days on some surfaces.
Czechia (the Czech Republic) is doing very badly now with a big surge in cases. The article says 7% don’t wear masks at all but nothing is said about how strictly the other 93% stick to the rules.
I am thankful for all I have learned here at PP in the last ten or so years, and for all the commentators, even those who rub me the wrong way at times, who helped me to learn to think differently and re-shape my perspectives accordingly. Changing our perspectives is never easy, but I have changed some of mine as a result of the many in depth conversations that have take place here over the years. For than I am grateful, and a better person too - thank you!
AP-
I appreciate your point of view and agree for the most part. I would like to see white people take very real problems in the criminal justice system and policing much more seriously though--even just to learn more about what is happening there. Much of it breaks down along class lines, but where visible minorities are involved it breaks down by appearance too. Once they are caught up in the criminal justice system it is darned near impossible to get out. They are living the nightmare that white people fear might happen to them, as a group, under "globalism" etc..Perfect! The same impassioned plea can be made for believers in "life" too. They really, really don't like abortion. "While I appreciate your point of view and agree with the most part, I would like to see everyone affirm that the life of the unborn be taken seriously..." with the rest of the paragraph talking about how wrong it is to kill babies. Each and every time you place your focus on division, even while starting out "appreciating" my point of view of "collective struggle", it is a win for the elites. "Yes. I agree all these issues are divisive and counterproductive. Now lets spend the rest of the time talking some more about how YOU need to agree that I'm right about MY elite-sponsored divisive issue!" Who wins? Duh. The elites. Once more. This conversation really is a fascinating case study. Even though you agree for the most part, and you're a smart person, and you really can see it all, you just can't stop focusing on the division. Apparently, this is a common malady. We are all right, we all believe in our divisive causes, even though we know at some level that our collective focus on the group of divisive causes will doom us all to servitude in the plantations of the bosses. We just can't help ourselves. We just want to win because our specific cause is so right. And that's why things are the way they are. We will only win when we release our own cause for the cause of the greater group. We have power in numbers - but we only get that if we unify left and right. Thanks for participating in the study. :)