I have an acquaintance, a very nice woman with a decent job in a field that requires a certain minimum of documented education, as well as the accumulation of continuing education credits in order to keep her occupational license. Her job is very stressful/very important and she firmly believes the Earth is flat.
She believes that this information is withheld from us by the same folks that stand behind the curtain manipulating us all for their own nefarious purposes. I tend to disagree. However, I think no less of her for what she believes.
There's no religion, that I'm aware of, organized or otherwise, that has a lock on the truth. Then again, I question the certitude of my atheist acquaintances, but I don't peer down my nose at either group. I do confess to a certain ironic satisfaction in noting how dogmatic atheists can be as well as the willingness of my religious friends to ignore or rationalize a given tenet of their particular creed.
Me? I'm agnostic because I firmly believe an open mind is the only way to roll. If God, or more likely, one of its messengers (I've got to assume I'm not on its to-do list) should suddenly appear to me as I sit here cranking out my feeble scribbles, I'd want to make the most of such an honor. Rather than freak out and assume I'd lost my mind, I would hope to remain clearheaded enough to start asking questions. I'd try to evaluate the answers with an open mind, even if they contradicted my basic beliefs. I mean, what if the Earth is flat wouldn't you want to know?
"Wow, she's right? It is flat? Listen, if you can spare a few minutes, could I trouble you for the who/what/when/where/why of that fascinating bit of news? Also, I've always wondered..."
[It? You refer to God as it ?!? asks Dana. Marie-Louise is making the sign of the cross over and over again and praying softly in French.]
I'm just trying to make a point, because God, by definition, is undefinable. To call whomever/whatever it is he, she, or even for that matter, it, serves to prove that words are only convenient symbols for reality, not reality itself. Pick your pronoun, it ain't God, it's a language convention. It's like saying, it's raining. Just who or what is it that's raining?
When I look up on a clear night I'm often reminded of lying on my back in my yard as a child and trying to wrap my brain around the concept of infinity. I don't remember which of my grade school teachers first presented the concept, or even in what context, but it "blew my mind" and it remains blown to this day.
[Which explains a lot! exclaims Dana, unsympathetically. Marie-Louise is giggling but scratching my back, sympathetically.]
Blushing slightly, I continue.
Unless you reject the current (more or less consistent) scientific consensus, the one that has helped to give us the modern world (including the computer I'm composing this on) as does the friend of mine mentioned above (which is fine, as long as she doesn't form a cult and declare jihad on me) -- consider the following.
For all intents and purposes, from our perspective, the universe goes on forever. Even if we could somehow travel at the speed of light we could never reach the end of it because it's unimaginably large, expanding, and picking up speed as it does so. Also, bleeding edge science suggests there may be an infinity of universes. And in case you missed the news, the known universe consists mostly of dark matter and dark energy, and we don't know what they are.
Let's reverse perspectives and contemplate the fact that if we could perceive reality at the atomic and subatomic level, all we would find are infinitesimally small bits of matter with vast amounts of space between them.
If there's an unimaginable being of some sort that created all this out of nothing, pronouns such as he, she, or it seem not only inadequate but almost offensive, even disrespectful. But if your belief system provides a way for you to deal with this, good on ya. If you promise not to declare jihad on me, I'll return the favor.
If you're a hard-nosed atheist that believes believers are bonkers and agnostics are psychotics, I sorta/kinda envy your certitude. I'll refrain from pointing out that the believers that you mock are often as certain as you are, which would seem to indicate you have a lot in common, because that would be rude.
If you're a hard-nosed _______ that tends to peer down your nose at any and all notions offered up by any of the other kids on the playground that aren't or can't be proven by the application of the scientific method (with the possible exception of the unscientific ones that I have no doubt you embrace), be careful.
Everyone knows that something can't be in two places at once, except that it can. Quantum mechanics (the branch of science that makes your cell phone possible) has posited this for decades. In 2012 the Nobel prize for physics was awarded to Serge Haroche and David J. Winland for finding a way to prove that atoms and electrons can indeed be in two places at once.
Personally, I know for a fact that Beethoven and Duke Ellington, neither a saint, found a way to reproduce the voice of God in a dumb-downed way, so that even we mere humans could hear it.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is a far as I can tell." -Richard Feynman (Nobel prize in Physics, 1965)
"Look up from your life!" -James Taylor
Have an OK day
.©Mark Mehlmauer 2016
If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down.
Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
Saturday, July 2, 2016
The Great Enrichment
Last week, the subject of my column was the book, "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. Actually, I guess that Bill Moyer's interview of Jonathan Haidt was my primary focus, but let us not quibble gentlereaders.
I also named and defined a modern malady I call Dizzinformation Anxiety Syndrome. This is the fear that you might miss/have missed/are missing important information. The fact that The Righteous Mind, and the interview, have been loose in the world for a few years without me knowing about them triggered an episode of DAS in yours truly due to the fact the subject of the book is one of my obsessions. That is, the devolution of many of the people who have to share this country, into hardened, uncompromising, semi-religious factions that demonize each other's viewpoints and lifestyles. I wonder if this phenomenon reminds anyone besides me of Sunni v. Shia Muslims?
It occurs to me that I'm aware of some information that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves, in my semi-humble opinion. As a public service, I've decided to dedicate a column to it for I think that it should be getting much more attention that it is -- you're welcome.
First, a caveat. I may be wrong, about this or anything really, a phenomenon that occurs with disturbing regularity. I mention this not because of modesty, false or otherwise; I'm semi-humble, not humble. But I believe that an attitude of healthy skepticism is more important than ever since we must be ever vigilant if we wish to avoid being dizzinformationated by the daily deluge of data delivered during this, the Dizzinformation age.
See Twain, Mark: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
[Were I truly humble I'd be a Zen monk and keep my thoughts/opinions/observations and the like to myself instead of putting them out there in front of a potential audience of some 7,404,976,783 people. Though my current readership is slightly smaller than that, I'm cautiously optimistic.]
So, there's this woman, her name is Deirdre McCloskey, who describes herself on her website as, "...a literary, quantitative, postmodern, free-market, progressive Episcopalian, Midwestern woman from Boston who was once a man. Not 'conservative'! I'm a Christian libertarian. "
[For the record, I'm a semi-literary, quantitative, postmodern, free-market, agnostic, Midwestern man from Pittsburgh who remains a man. Not conservative! I'm a bleeding heart libertarian. As you see, there's some overlap. Unfortunately (for me), I'm a dilettante, she's a genius.]
As far as academia is concerned she's Dr. Deirdre McCloskey, the Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English and Communications at the University of Illinois at Chicago. None of the words in the preceding sentence are adjectives, they are bestowed upon her by her university. That's her official title, and it also serves as an accurate job description.
Incidentally, Deirdre used to be Daniel. She made the trans-formation back in 1995. Daniel/Diedre was a transexual long before being transexual was cool and/or politically correct. If the details are of interest to you, she wrote a book about it called, "Crossing, a Memoir."
Ms. McCloskey has spent the last ten years of her life writing a series of three books, her masterwork, the culmination of a lifetime of study that will make her (if there's any justice in the world) immortal in her field. She has a lot of fields (see above), but calls herself an economic historian.
There's unlikely to be a movie based on any of the three books in question. And in fact, I don't recommend them for the average Joe or Joan Bagadonuts. They are semi-scholarly tomes, written primarily for other scholars and nerdsihly inclined dilettantes (not unlike myself) that posit/explain/defend her take on economic history. I'm definitely not a scholar. However, there's much here for a dilettante (like myself) with an interest in not only economic history but history in general. She has a depth of knowledge that enables her to effortlessly synthesize economic history and myriad other subjects and construct a big picture view of how the real world actually works. She's a dilettante's delight, and has a great sense of humor. The books are:
The Bourgeois Virtues, Bourgeois Dignity and Bourgeois Equality.
Now, while accurately distilling the essence of three fat volumes into one column is a disservice to the author, the message is so important I'm going to attempt it anyway. If you wish to find out if I know what I'm talking about you can read the books, or, surf the plethora of articles and video content available on the web.
The Great Enrichment began around 1800. Suddenly, after thousands of years of 99.9% of the world subsisting on the modern equivalent of about three bucks a day, the global economy went nuts. From 1800 till now the real income of the citizens of the planet Earth increased by anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000%. In the US, for example, we've gone from $3/day to $135/day.
Professor McCloskey's three books explain the who/what/when/where/why of this phenomenon. Continuing my vast over-simplification: It happened because beginning in Holland, around 1600, the values of a liberated bourgeoisie (the middle class, but thanks to Marx and company a word that's now often as not used with contempt) were applied to markets.
In the words of the professor, "The answer, in a word, is 'liberty.' Liberated people, it turns out, are ingenious. Slaves, serfs, subordinated women, people frozen in a hierarchy of lords or bureaucrats are not. By certain accidents of European politics, having nothing to do with deep European virtue, more and more Europeans [and eventually Americans] were liberated. You might call it life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
"To use another big concept, what came -- slowly, imperfectly -- was equality. It was not an equality of outcome..." it was "...equality before the law and equality of social dignity."
"And that is the other surprising notion explaining our riches: 'liberalism,' in its original meaning of, 'worthy of a free person.' Liberalism was a new idea."
For the record: slavery, imperialism, and/or the exploitation of any group by any other group didn't make us rich. Ms. McCloskey systematically and empirically destroys such arguments. DAT that I am, permit me to persist in oversimplification and ask -- as does Dr. McCloskey does, if the infidelic behavior mentioned above made a given culture rich, why, since that was the way of the world for millennia, why was our take home pay stagnant for several thousand years and then jump by 5,000% over the last two hundred?
I must stop now since I've exceeded my word budget. So, I'm going to violate company policy again this week and leave you with two links and let the co-founder of humanomics speak for herself. The first is a 10 minute, well-done quickie that covers all the basics.
The essentials
The second is a lecture given in India. It goes into more detail but is entertaining, easy to understand, and is about 40 minutes long.
A little more detail
Have an OK day.
©Mark Mehlmauer 2016
If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down.
Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.
I also named and defined a modern malady I call Dizzinformation Anxiety Syndrome. This is the fear that you might miss/have missed/are missing important information. The fact that The Righteous Mind, and the interview, have been loose in the world for a few years without me knowing about them triggered an episode of DAS in yours truly due to the fact the subject of the book is one of my obsessions. That is, the devolution of many of the people who have to share this country, into hardened, uncompromising, semi-religious factions that demonize each other's viewpoints and lifestyles. I wonder if this phenomenon reminds anyone besides me of Sunni v. Shia Muslims?
It occurs to me that I'm aware of some information that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves, in my semi-humble opinion. As a public service, I've decided to dedicate a column to it for I think that it should be getting much more attention that it is -- you're welcome.
First, a caveat. I may be wrong, about this or anything really, a phenomenon that occurs with disturbing regularity. I mention this not because of modesty, false or otherwise; I'm semi-humble, not humble. But I believe that an attitude of healthy skepticism is more important than ever since we must be ever vigilant if we wish to avoid being dizzinformationated by the daily deluge of data delivered during this, the Dizzinformation age.
See Twain, Mark: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
[Were I truly humble I'd be a Zen monk and keep my thoughts/opinions/observations and the like to myself instead of putting them out there in front of a potential audience of some 7,404,976,783 people. Though my current readership is slightly smaller than that, I'm cautiously optimistic.]
So, there's this woman, her name is Deirdre McCloskey, who describes herself on her website as, "...a literary, quantitative, postmodern, free-market, progressive Episcopalian, Midwestern woman from Boston who was once a man. Not 'conservative'! I'm a Christian libertarian. "
[For the record, I'm a semi-literary, quantitative, postmodern, free-market, agnostic, Midwestern man from Pittsburgh who remains a man. Not conservative! I'm a bleeding heart libertarian. As you see, there's some overlap. Unfortunately (for me), I'm a dilettante, she's a genius.]
As far as academia is concerned she's Dr. Deirdre McCloskey, the Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English and Communications at the University of Illinois at Chicago. None of the words in the preceding sentence are adjectives, they are bestowed upon her by her university. That's her official title, and it also serves as an accurate job description.
Incidentally, Deirdre used to be Daniel. She made the trans-formation back in 1995. Daniel/Diedre was a transexual long before being transexual was cool and/or politically correct. If the details are of interest to you, she wrote a book about it called, "Crossing, a Memoir."
Ms. McCloskey has spent the last ten years of her life writing a series of three books, her masterwork, the culmination of a lifetime of study that will make her (if there's any justice in the world) immortal in her field. She has a lot of fields (see above), but calls herself an economic historian.
There's unlikely to be a movie based on any of the three books in question. And in fact, I don't recommend them for the average Joe or Joan Bagadonuts. They are semi-scholarly tomes, written primarily for other scholars and nerdsihly inclined dilettantes (not unlike myself) that posit/explain/defend her take on economic history. I'm definitely not a scholar. However, there's much here for a dilettante (like myself) with an interest in not only economic history but history in general. She has a depth of knowledge that enables her to effortlessly synthesize economic history and myriad other subjects and construct a big picture view of how the real world actually works. She's a dilettante's delight, and has a great sense of humor. The books are:
The Bourgeois Virtues, Bourgeois Dignity and Bourgeois Equality.
She began her academic career studying economics because she wanted to know what economic/political system was the best for poor people. She became a Marxist but gradually morphed into a wild-eyed free marketeer, just like me! Other than the fact that I've never actually identified myself as a Marxist, haven't had a distinguished career, haven't published numerous books and articles and traveled all over the world teaching/speechifying/attending conferences with other brainiacs -- we have a lot in common.
Now, while accurately distilling the essence of three fat volumes into one column is a disservice to the author, the message is so important I'm going to attempt it anyway. If you wish to find out if I know what I'm talking about you can read the books, or, surf the plethora of articles and video content available on the web.
The Great Enrichment began around 1800. Suddenly, after thousands of years of 99.9% of the world subsisting on the modern equivalent of about three bucks a day, the global economy went nuts. From 1800 till now the real income of the citizens of the planet Earth increased by anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000%. In the US, for example, we've gone from $3/day to $135/day.
Professor McCloskey's three books explain the who/what/when/where/why of this phenomenon. Continuing my vast over-simplification: It happened because beginning in Holland, around 1600, the values of a liberated bourgeoisie (the middle class, but thanks to Marx and company a word that's now often as not used with contempt) were applied to markets.
In the words of the professor, "The answer, in a word, is 'liberty.' Liberated people, it turns out, are ingenious. Slaves, serfs, subordinated women, people frozen in a hierarchy of lords or bureaucrats are not. By certain accidents of European politics, having nothing to do with deep European virtue, more and more Europeans [and eventually Americans] were liberated. You might call it life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
"To use another big concept, what came -- slowly, imperfectly -- was equality. It was not an equality of outcome..." it was "...equality before the law and equality of social dignity."
"And that is the other surprising notion explaining our riches: 'liberalism,' in its original meaning of, 'worthy of a free person.' Liberalism was a new idea."
For the record: slavery, imperialism, and/or the exploitation of any group by any other group didn't make us rich. Ms. McCloskey systematically and empirically destroys such arguments. DAT that I am, permit me to persist in oversimplification and ask -- as does Dr. McCloskey does, if the infidelic behavior mentioned above made a given culture rich, why, since that was the way of the world for millennia, why was our take home pay stagnant for several thousand years and then jump by 5,000% over the last two hundred?
I must stop now since I've exceeded my word budget. So, I'm going to violate company policy again this week and leave you with two links and let the co-founder of humanomics speak for herself. The first is a 10 minute, well-done quickie that covers all the basics.
The essentials
The second is a lecture given in India. It goes into more detail but is entertaining, easy to understand, and is about 40 minutes long.
A little more detail
Have an OK day.
©Mark Mehlmauer 2016
If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down.
Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Demonization (Is there an exorcist in the House? The Senate?)
This is the first time I've included a link in a column. I'm violating policy because this is a very important link. The logic behind why I don't put limit the quantity of links in my columns can be found by clicking on the Read This First Please tab Just Who Is This Guy tab on my website, TheFlyoverlandCrank.com. (Many of my gentlereaders access my columns without visiting my website.)
The subject and title of a recent column was the Dizzinformation Age. I defined Dizzinformation syndrome (DS) as dizzy from too much information -- correct, incorrect, or, worst of all, contradictory. I failed to mention Dizzinformation Anxiety Syndrome (DAS), a closely related malady that often manifests concurrently with DS. DAS is the fear that you might miss/have missed/are missing a highly important bit of information.
Highly important is a relative phrase. For example, it could refer to the fact that you forgot to acknowledge your obnoxious aunt Eunice's birthday. This is important because she's sitting on a significant pile of dough. Although she's unlikely to bequeath a significant amount of the aforementioned significant pile to you (it's complicated), you figure that odds are you're going to get something if she ever finally dies.
Alternatively, any information of quality about how H. sapiens actually function in the real world on a day to day basis, as opposed to how you wish they did/hope they do may be highly important to you also, for any number of valid reasons.
While the former would seem, generally speaking, less important than the latter, both are important, both can trigger DAS.
I recently discovered a book, that I haven't read yet (more on that in a sec') titled, "The Righteous Mind," by Jonathan Haidt that was published in 2013. The subtitle, "Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," embodies a passionate interest of mine and is easily conflatable with the desire to know how folks actually function in the real world mentioned above.
I've purchased the book and haven't read it yet because I'm mildly obsessed with the video that clicking on the link above will connect you to. Bill Moyers, well known progressive, interviews the author, a moral psychologist who claims his work has moved him from a moderate liberal stance to that of a moderate conservative. It's an excellent interview and while I'm sure there's additional insight in the book, the interview reveals the important stuff.
I'm obsessed with the video for two reasons -- the tone and the substance.
As to tone, the interview consists of 47 minutes and 9 seconds of two intelligent gentlepersons exploring a subject of interest tous all most people. All the while they both listen carefully to what the other guy is saying, or asking (it is an interview after all); at no point does the conversation devolve into shouting or talking over or interrupting or displays of self-righteous fury. Not very infotaining. Well, at least by the standards of the average cable news show.
As to substance, the fact that I, your DAT (dilettante about town) was unaware of the book or the interview triggered a dizzinformation anxiety attack. A well-spoken Ph.D., whose field is moral psychology (a subject I find endlessly fascinating), wrote a book and gave a great interview about a subject I'm obsessed with (see subtitle), and has compiled an impressive array of studies that seem to confirm most of my thoughts and opinions on the subject in question.
And I, a semi-humble DAT, with 39 certified college credits, missed it.
Of course, so did a lot of other people. The sales of the book in question were/are a tiny fraction of any given book of the Harry Potter series. I went poking around the web to try and make myself feel better and became deeply depressed when I discovered that it was once on the N.Y. Times bestseller list. However, I then discovered that discovering how many copies of given book have actually been sold is impossible; the veracity of the Times list is a matter of some controversy. I'm feeling much better now.
As I said, I haven't read it yet, but the interview absolutely drips with insight into our current mess and when I'm king...
[Marie-Louise rolls her eyes, my imaginary gentlereader scoffs. Dana. What's that? Dana, I'm tired of being called imaginary gentlereader, my name is Dana, OK? Yeah, sure, whatever you say, what prompted... Just move on, OK? Um, yeah, sure.]
Anyway, I can't recommend watching this interview enough. Ironically, Mr. Haidt did a TED talk that I vaguely remember watching, and enjoying, but it was quite awhile ago and doesn't delve into the subject with quite the same amount of insight or present nearly as many subtle details.
You really should watch the interview. Here's a summary of Mr. Haidt's thesis if you don't want to, or to help you decide if you wish to spend some of your valuable time. Honestly, however, I'm doing it mostly for me. Writing helps/forces me to clarify concisely and I want to burn his ideas into my head as I think they are that important.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republicrat, one of the first important ones, and he freed the slaves. Many folks in the South took umbrage at this and the South became a Depublican stronghold. Yes, those of you who are historically challenged, the Republicans (traditional but now inaccurate name) freed the slaves; the Democrats (traditional but equally inaccurate name) gave us Jim Crow and the KKK.
Ain't that ironical.
[For the record, I use the names I do because although the parties have lost the ability to compromise over the years in order to do what's best for the republic, they both agree, strongly, on the same principle, that obtaining and keeping power is job one. Beats having to get a real job.]
And then in the early sixties, Lyndon Johnson put together a bipartisan effort and destroyed the obscenity that was/is Jim Crow. A certain element in the South once again took umbrage and turned Republicrat, feeling abandoned and looking for revenge. Then the Baby Boomers began taking over from the Greatest Generation and began redefining the Depublican party. This was the beginning of (what I call) the Great Fragmentation. As Mr. Haidt puts it, both parties began moving towards logically extreme positions. Liberal Republicrats and conservative Depublicans began to disappear.
Mr. Haidt points out that it's perfectly normal, and advantageous for survival, for H. sapiens to belong to a tribe of some sort. Cooperation/competition being opposite sides of the same coin, this can be a good thing if a balance is maintained. We can cooperate by competing in everything from sports to business to politics, to pursue excellence but stay friends -- if we share common goals, share the same country, and avoid a culture that is defined by Us v. Them.
This was relatively easy for the Greatest Generation. They had to compete/cooperate to survive the Great Depression and then World War Two. The threat of economic collapse/starvation followed by the threat of death/enslavement by another culture served to unite a nation of rugged individualists. A general consensus as to what constituted a moral lifestyle -- though we must acknowledge there was, as there always is, much hypocrisy -- also helped.
Very long story short: The rise of the most pampered/indulged/prosperous generation in American history -- at least till the rise of the Millennials, and now the Snowflakes -- was upon us. The moral and cultural consensus was replaced, in an amazingly short time, by if it feels good do it we'll sort out the consequences later ethos.
Compromise was replaced by Us v. Them. Consensus, even geographical consensus, is vanishing. We've separated into, as Mr. Haidt says, lifestyle enclaves -- physical/emotional/political/moral -- from where we can comfortably throw rocks at the other tribes.
Manichaeism is back on the charts kids, with a bullet. Hey, buddy, you're not just wrong, you're evil, and you can't compromise with the devil. Please watch the interview, eye-opening stuff, I promise.
Have an OK day.
[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.
If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]
©2017 Mark Mehlmauer (The Flyoverland Crank)
While the former would seem, generally speaking, less important than the latter, both are important, both can trigger DAS.
I recently discovered a book, that I haven't read yet (more on that in a sec') titled, "The Righteous Mind," by Jonathan Haidt that was published in 2013. The subtitle, "Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," embodies a passionate interest of mine and is easily conflatable with the desire to know how folks actually function in the real world mentioned above.
I've purchased the book and haven't read it yet because I'm mildly obsessed with the video that clicking on the link above will connect you to. Bill Moyers, well known progressive, interviews the author, a moral psychologist who claims his work has moved him from a moderate liberal stance to that of a moderate conservative. It's an excellent interview and while I'm sure there's additional insight in the book, the interview reveals the important stuff.
I'm obsessed with the video for two reasons -- the tone and the substance.
As to tone, the interview consists of 47 minutes and 9 seconds of two intelligent gentlepersons exploring a subject of interest to
As to substance, the fact that I, your DAT (dilettante about town) was unaware of the book or the interview triggered a dizzinformation anxiety attack. A well-spoken Ph.D., whose field is moral psychology (a subject I find endlessly fascinating), wrote a book and gave a great interview about a subject I'm obsessed with (see subtitle), and has compiled an impressive array of studies that seem to confirm most of my thoughts and opinions on the subject in question.
And I, a semi-humble DAT, with 39 certified college credits, missed it.
Of course, so did a lot of other people. The sales of the book in question were/are a tiny fraction of any given book of the Harry Potter series. I went poking around the web to try and make myself feel better and became deeply depressed when I discovered that it was once on the N.Y. Times bestseller list. However, I then discovered that discovering how many copies of given book have actually been sold is impossible; the veracity of the Times list is a matter of some controversy. I'm feeling much better now.
As I said, I haven't read it yet, but the interview absolutely drips with insight into our current mess and when I'm king...
[Marie-Louise rolls her eyes, my imaginary gentlereader scoffs. Dana. What's that? Dana, I'm tired of being called imaginary gentlereader, my name is Dana, OK? Yeah, sure, whatever you say, what prompted... Just move on, OK? Um, yeah, sure.]
Anyway, I can't recommend watching this interview enough. Ironically, Mr. Haidt did a TED talk that I vaguely remember watching, and enjoying, but it was quite awhile ago and doesn't delve into the subject with quite the same amount of insight or present nearly as many subtle details.
You really should watch the interview. Here's a summary of Mr. Haidt's thesis if you don't want to, or to help you decide if you wish to spend some of your valuable time. Honestly, however, I'm doing it mostly for me. Writing helps/forces me to clarify concisely and I want to burn his ideas into my head as I think they are that important.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republicrat, one of the first important ones, and he freed the slaves. Many folks in the South took umbrage at this and the South became a Depublican stronghold. Yes, those of you who are historically challenged, the Republicans (traditional but now inaccurate name) freed the slaves; the Democrats (traditional but equally inaccurate name) gave us Jim Crow and the KKK.
Ain't that ironical.
[For the record, I use the names I do because although the parties have lost the ability to compromise over the years in order to do what's best for the republic, they both agree, strongly, on the same principle, that obtaining and keeping power is job one. Beats having to get a real job.]
And then in the early sixties, Lyndon Johnson put together a bipartisan effort and destroyed the obscenity that was/is Jim Crow. A certain element in the South once again took umbrage and turned Republicrat, feeling abandoned and looking for revenge. Then the Baby Boomers began taking over from the Greatest Generation and began redefining the Depublican party. This was the beginning of (what I call) the Great Fragmentation. As Mr. Haidt puts it, both parties began moving towards logically extreme positions. Liberal Republicrats and conservative Depublicans began to disappear.
Mr. Haidt points out that it's perfectly normal, and advantageous for survival, for H. sapiens to belong to a tribe of some sort. Cooperation/competition being opposite sides of the same coin, this can be a good thing if a balance is maintained. We can cooperate by competing in everything from sports to business to politics, to pursue excellence but stay friends -- if we share common goals, share the same country, and avoid a culture that is defined by Us v. Them.
This was relatively easy for the Greatest Generation. They had to compete/cooperate to survive the Great Depression and then World War Two. The threat of economic collapse/starvation followed by the threat of death/enslavement by another culture served to unite a nation of rugged individualists. A general consensus as to what constituted a moral lifestyle -- though we must acknowledge there was, as there always is, much hypocrisy -- also helped.
Very long story short: The rise of the most pampered/indulged/prosperous generation in American history -- at least till the rise of the Millennials, and now the Snowflakes -- was upon us. The moral and cultural consensus was replaced, in an amazingly short time, by if it feels good do it we'll sort out the consequences later ethos.
Compromise was replaced by Us v. Them. Consensus, even geographical consensus, is vanishing. We've separated into, as Mr. Haidt says, lifestyle enclaves -- physical/emotional/political/moral -- from where we can comfortably throw rocks at the other tribes.
Manichaeism is back on the charts kids, with a bullet. Hey, buddy, you're not just wrong, you're evil, and you can't compromise with the devil. Please watch the interview, eye-opening stuff, I promise.
Have an OK day.
[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.
If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]
©2017 Mark Mehlmauer (The Flyoverland Crank)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)