Power, Personality, Intelligence and the cloud.

[tar]

I don't know where to put this topic. Its personal, its political, its psychological and philosophical and social. It has to do with the real world and it has to do with our dreams. It has to do with the new world of work and the plethora of information we are bombarded with, and the shift from trusting human judgement, to trusting the systems that human judgment creates.

 

I am thinking it may be important to understand what is going on, so we can address it together, and understand where everybody stands.

 

It is current events, and perhaps we are addressing the issues as they arise, but perhaps we are letting some things go, that we really don't want to see get away.

 

I am old. Will be 60 this year. Baby boomer.

 

Now we have X and Y raising millenials. Don't see many people tipping their hats and opening doors for ladies anymore. Courtesty and friendships and agreements have a different nature. The real world is no longer limited to ones house, and jobsite, school, grocery store and the streets between. We are all connected. News can spread by cell and twitter in a matter of minutes. When Timmy got stuck in the well, Lassie ran for help and the family and neighbors came to the rescue. Now its a national event. 6 men get trapped in a mine and we are all there, wondering why the rescue can not be immediate, why people are so inept, or why this or that safety measure was not in place, etc. etc.

 

So thats is our situation, we know too much, to fast, without realizing the people on the scene are already capable and trustworthy, and can handle and will handle the situation as well as is humanly possible, and will employ whatever resources arrive on the scene.

 

So who or what is in power in today's world of work? The bosses, or the systems some third party has put in place? And although the extrovert has sold the system, the introvert has written the code. One group makes the promises, and another group makes it work, and tries to keep even the unrealistic promises. It used to be different.

 

Maybe not better, or worse, but different. And I am concerned that the real world and the world of ideas are changing places and intermingling at a pace too fast for all to keep up with, in a realistic fashion.

 

Here I am, in my basement, with my wife and daughter upstairs. Am I in my right mind trying to solve the problems of the world...and in some crazy way think I might actually be making any difference? What kind of silly power is this? That someone, somewhere, that I don't even know, is reading my words?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited October 27, 2013 by tar

[tar]

As John Dos Passos said in his U.S.A. trilogy. "The only defense we have against the ravages of the

20th century, is personal integrity."

 

In the 21st century, we still have no better defense than this.

[EdEarl]

The power of social networking is democratic. It allows individuals to express their opinions and observations, and to be read by other people. If your words are powerful, then they will nurture ideas that spread widely and affect other people who vote. In more extreme cases, when democracy is not an option, words can incite a revolution.

[tar]

Ed Earl,

 

So is there a personality orchestrating the Arab Spring? How can we assess from here, if we are not on the ground, there. When millions are displaced and death and destruction is rampant, what business is it of ours to choose the winners and the losers between country and king? What exactly is the nature of the change we wish to cause, by inciting people to action?

 

Is launching a cruise missile into a building in a foreign country, not an act of war against the people of that country? Should we not always consider the capability and trustworthiness of our targets, before we strike in a manner that strips them of capability and breaks trust between them and us?

 

I reread my OP and recognized an ommission in my sentence about school and workplace and market and the streets between, that use to be our pervue. Church.

 

Do we still go to church on the weekends and regain our sense of community, and responsibilities to each other, here on the internet? Maybe. Maybe not. Do we hold ourselves responsible for our personal transgressions against the world, as we used to? Maybe. Maybe not.

Regards, TAR2

Current broadcast religion in the U.S. is too inane to take seriously. Makes people like me and iNow and others sick to our stomachs, to understand that so many are taken in by such baseless irrationality. However, we still need to trust each other, and in my opinion be careful of launching any cruise missiles into our own heart.

[EdEarl]

So is there a personality orchestrating the Arab Spring? How can we assess from here, if we are not on the ground, there. When millions are displaced and death and destruction is rampant, what business is it of ours to choose the winners and the losers between country and king? What exactly is the nature of the change we wish to cause, by inciting people to action?

I have no personal knowledge about Arab Spring.

 

Is launching a cruise missile into a building in a foreign country, not an act of war against the people of that country? Should we not always consider the capability and trustworthiness of our targets, before we strike in a manner that strips them of capability and breaks trust between them and us?

I am a pacifist, who is willing to defend himself and neighbors. I believe the US has in recent years been overly willing to wage war, and I believe we should not be so bold.

 

Do we still go to church on the weekends and regain our sense of community, and responsibilities to each other, here on the internet? Maybe. Maybe not. Do we hold ourselves responsible for our personal transgressions against the world, as we used to? Maybe. Maybe not.

Perhaps social media has become a community hall which engenders community responsibility, perhaps not. In some ways it seems to serve that purpose. It also provides feedback to politicians, and does affect some political decisions. However, I think the math of analyzing social media is not developed enough to replace opinion polls.

 

Current broadcast religion in the U.S. is too inane to take seriously. Makes people like me and iNow and others sick to our stomachs, to understand that so many are taken in by such baseless irrationality. However, we still need to trust each other, and in my opinion be careful of launching any cruise missiles into our own heart.

I agree. Except I fear people whose passions trump reason, which seems to be the majority. However, I continue to hope for the best.

 

It seems as if future shock has created as perpetual panic in which we continually react to fight or flight passions, and do not have time to reason. I keep hoping that people will acclimatize so they are no longer in shock and reacting to fight or flight, and again take the time to reason. SFN is a place where reason flourishes, and perhaps other social media sites are too. I hope so.

Edited October 27, 2013 by EdEarl

[tar]

Ed Earl,

 

Thanks for the responses. I thought others might chime in, but perhaps the topic is fatally flawed. Its too serious to be taken lightly, and embodies too many incongruities, to be honestly considered, without having to laugh at ourselves on levels none of us wish to be laughed at about. In public anyway.

 

So perhaps we could let it go, as a question asked, that we will just have to trust each other, to answer for ourselves.

 

Thanks anyway Ed Earl.

 

Regards, TAR

Ed Earl,

 

Since it's a thread I opened, let me close it with a joke.

 

We find Sherlock and Watson laying in an English field in their sleeping bags in the early morning hours Sherlock awakens and wakens Watson.

 

Sherlock: "Watson, Watson, wake up."

Watson: "What it is Holmes?"

Sherlock: "Look up and tell me what you see."

Watson: "Stars Holmes, I see stars, and a beautiful English night."

Sherlock: "Yes, yes, Watson, but what does it tell you, what does it mean?"

Watson: "Well...it means we are but tiny and mortal souls in a vast and endless universe."

Sherlock: "No, no, you dolt. Somebody has stolen the tent."

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited October 27, 2013 by tar

[Tridimity]

the shift from trusting human judgement, to trusting the systems that human judgment creates

 

 

Arbitrary blind trust is the surest way to get oneself killed. As for trusting the systems that human judgment creates rather than trusting human judgment - I can see parallels with trust in scientific knowledge. It is wise to place trust in peer-reviewed knowledge resulting from the scientific 'method', because (as you may well agree) Science is the most reliable means of obtaining information about objective reality. The peer review process and subsequent attempts to replicate published data mean that any bias or error on the part of individual scientists is gradually sifted out of the collective body of scientific knowledge. It is foolish to place trust in the claims of any one individual scientist whose work has not been subjected to effective peer review nor to scrutiny by oneself. In this sense, I trust Science (in the sense of trusting the scientific approach, when followed correctly, to yield reliable and accurate information about reality); I do not necessarily trust individual scientists.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Tridimity

[EdEarl]

 

Arbitrary blind trust is the surest way to get oneself killed. As for trusting the systems that human judgment creates rather than trusting human judgment - I can see parallels with trust in scientific knowledge. It is wise to place trust in peer-reviewed knowledge resulting from the scientific 'method', because (as you may well agree) Science is the most reliable means of obtaining information about objective reality. The peer review process and subsequent attempts to replicate published data mean that any bias or error on the part of individual scientists is gradually sifted out of the collective body of scientific knowledge. It is foolish to place trust in the claims of any one individual scientist whose work has not been subjected to effective peer review nor to scrutiny by oneself. In this sense, I trust Science (in the sense of trusting the scientific approach, when followed correctly, to yield reliable and accurate information about reality); I do not necessarily trust individual scientists.

People usually trust their parents or whoever cares for them as children, and they learn to trust the people their parents or caregivers trust. This trust is often secure whether the parent deserves that trust or not. Children who are battered often continue to trust their parents, and some children of Nazi death camp commandants denied to themselves for their entire lives that their fathers did anything wrong. Thus, blind trust is common, and it does sometimes get people into trouble.

 

To overcome this kind of blind trust is not easy. One way is that a mentor gains the trust of a person, and teaches them to trust other people and things, a slow process It is rare for a religious person to make the jump to trusting peer reviewed scientific experiments. A more circuitous process is necessary, one that builds trust in the scientific process in a step by step process. Perhaps one should showing such a person how they already trust some scientific observations. For example, how can you teach a child that fire is hot and not to touch it. Light a candle an move a child's hand and yours near the flame until both of you can feel the heat without being burned. That is a scientific experiment. Explain enough simple experiments to gain the trust of a skeptic, then explain more complex experiments. I think the school systems fail to teach the scientific process because they do not start early enough and simple enough.

[kristalris]

I don't know where to put this topic. Its personal, its political, its psychological and philosophical and social. It has to do with the real world and it has to do with our dreams. It has to do with the new world of work and the plethora of information we are bombarded with, and the shift from trusting human judgement, to trusting the systems that human judgment creates.

 

I am thinking it may be important to understand what is going on, so we can address it together, and understand where everybody stands.

 

It is current events, and perhaps we are addressing the issues as they arise, but perhaps we are letting some things go, that we really don't want to see get away.

 

I am old. Will be 60 this year. Baby boomer.

 

Now we have X and Y raising millenials. Don't see many people tipping their hats and opening doors for ladies anymore. Courtesty and friendships and agreements have a different nature. The real world is no longer limited to ones house, and jobsite, school, grocery store and the streets between. We are all connected. News can spread by cell and twitter in a matter of minutes. When Timmy got stuck in the well, Lassie ran for help and the family and neighbors came to the rescue. Now its a national event. 6 men get trapped in a mine and we are all there, wondering why the rescue can not be immediate, why people are so inept, or why this or that safety measure was not in place, etc. etc.

 

So thats is our situation, we know too much, to fast, without realizing the people on the scene are already capable and trustworthy, and can handle and will handle the situation as well as is humanly possible, and will employ whatever resources arrive on the scene.

 

So who or what is in power in today's world of work? The bosses, or the systems some third party has put in place? And although the extrovert has sold the system, the introvert has written the code. One group makes the promises, and another group makes it work, and tries to keep even the unrealistic promises. It used to be different.

 

Maybe not better, or worse, but different. And I am concerned that the real world and the world of ideas are changing places and intermingling at a pace too fast for all to keep up with, in a realistic fashion.

 

Here I am, in my basement, with my wife and daughter upstairs. Am I in my right mind trying to solve the problems of the world...and in some crazy way think I might actually be making any difference? What kind of silly power is this? That someone, somewhere, that I don't even know, is reading my words?

 

Regards, TAR2

IMO it’s great the cloud and that people like you, and I’d like to include myself, who try to strive in our limited and often incorrect ways to better the world. The least it’ll do is make you feel better. Yet the more people strive for this, the better the world IMO will become.

 

Indeed power, personality, and intelligence are the IMO key issues. I’m convinced that the problems of the world can be solved in so far they are solvable by acting as far as possible above average wisely towards stated goals. This IMO can be organized by always striving to get the teams of humans in the right order especially concerning the difficult world issues: over population, climate or non-climate change, political systems, legal systems & science.

The problem is power.

 

If you look at as humans as all having an R&D, production and sales department in our heads, the talents are distributed in such a way that say 10% are mostly R&D minded, 80% are mostly production minded and 10% are mostly sales minded.

 

In this rule of thumb model don’t forget that everybody has all traits. In that sense it is relative. Like playing football at any level within every group always get the team in order.

 

If you were God / MN I guess this would also be the way to distribute the talents because having 80% R&D minded Einsteins isn’t going to be the best distribution.

 

R&D: risk taking, daring, breaking the rules, learning and correcting and accepting mistakes and not bothered with what other think, playing the fool, opinionated either extrovert or introvert types. Creative open-minded, yet extremely conscientious concerning a specific topic of interest. (Such as Mozart concerning his music as opposed to his lack of interest concerning money that made him go broke.) Only excellent learner when interested. Otherwise only via strong willpower. Dreamers more woolly communicators. They can think in Yin & Yang. Good far above average guessers concerning difficult issues. Like criticism.

 

Production: Risk avoiding, not accepting mistakes, hardworking, do as your told conform the rules, follow the authority don’t make yourself be seen as a fool, not opinionated. Excellent reproductive learner: high IQ. Directive forms of communication. They think in Yin or Yang whatever the authority says. Bad guessers on average always get the guess wrong concerning difficult issues. Can’t stand criticism.

 

Sales: highly emotionally intelligent EQ knows what the other is feeling and knows how to communicate. Good in creating social networks and making others feel good accepting the messages. Good in relationships, can act well in different communication styles. Give excellent and accepted criticism.

This 80% causes the problem that the production types in all walks of life especially in larger organizations are in charge. It thus inherently becomes over time more and more a rigid system that will inevitably fail unless you organize it properly having Yin and Yang restored between R&D and production. Sales must do this.

 

R&D should have the power to be fully informed and the power of advice beforehand and power of advice after an accident. Only if you organize it within a formal status of R&D can the 10% hope to get the message across in a timely fashion.

 

Of course only guessing when you know you don't know the answer yet have to take a timely dicision as nearly Always is the case in complicated issues.

Edited November 21, 2013 by ydoaPs
quote tag fix

[Tridimity]

People usually trust their parents or whoever cares for them as children, and they learn to trust the people their parents or caregivers trust. This trust is often secure whether the parent deserves that trust or not. Children who are battered often continue to trust their parents, and some children of Nazi death camp commandants denied to themselves for their entire lives that their fathers did anything wrong. Thus, blind trust is common, and it does sometimes get people into trouble.

 

To overcome this kind of blind trust is not easy. One way is that a mentor gains the trust of a person, and teaches them to trust other people and things, a slow process It is rare for a religious person to make the jump to trusting peer reviewed scientific experiments. A more circuitous process is necessary, one that builds trust in the scientific process in a step by step process. Perhaps one should showing such a person how they already trust some scientific observations. For example, how can you teach a child that fire is hot and not to touch it. Light a candle an move a child's hand and yours near the flame until both of you can feel the heat without being burned. That is a scientific experiment. Explain enough simple experiments to gain the trust of a skeptic, then explain more complex experiments. I think the school systems fail to teach the scientific process because they do not start early enough and simple enough.

 

 

Quite right. Evolution seems to have instilled children with a natural credulity - presumably the initial gullibility of children and their readiness to absorb information provided by authority figures will in most cases confer a survival advantage - children quickly learn from their parents and other caregivers what is safe and what not, what provides a survival advantage and what does not. For the sake of all children, but especially the minority who are stuck with parents not worthy of the title, if I were Education Secretary I would make it mandatory that a major part of nursery school/kindergarten and reception classes set children thinking about good and bad reasons for believing in anything - with perhaps a benign betrayal of their trust in an authority figure to prove to them the fallibility of blind trust in authority figures/tradition/faith - and recognition that even adults are aware of only an exceedingly small fraction of all that there is to know about the Universe. Of course the Philosophy lessons would continue throughout school but what is novel here is that the lessons really must begin at a very early age (3-4 years). Children should be given the chance to recognise the truth independently of instruction from the teacher; the teacher's role would be to facilitate their learning on this path and to ask the right kinds of questions about the nature of truth then to step back and allow the children to have their own discussions about the nature of truth.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tri,

 

Thanks.

 

Kristalris,

 

I did not completely follow your percentage breakdowns. Your 80% in the Production area included the characteristic of high IQ.

 

This counters the bell curve reality, that is part of my issue in figuring this thing out.

 

Let's say the top 10% of the population are a standard deviation or two or more, to the right of average. This would not leave room for 80 percent of the population to be of high IQ. Especially since we already have defined, by the bell curve, that 68% are of average intelligence, being within a deviation of the norm. That leaves 16% to fall below and 16% to be above.

 

I would imagine that these 16% would have representatives in all groups, of any personality types one could determine.

 

My theory would say that introversion and extraversion are important components in unraveling personality traits, with somewhat interesting connections to who's rules you are likely to follow, and who you are likely to trust and who you are likely to turn to as a judge to please. As it is generally agreed that personality is basically developed by the age of two or three, it would probably be a good guess, that these decisions can not be made for a person, or imposed upon a person, or in any substantial way be taught to a person (as Tri was indicating should be attempted.) It would probably be a good guess, instead, that people, in general, are not likely to agree on a "best case" personality. (Unless of course, it's their personality that gets the A).

 

Regards, TAR2

the knoty problem I have run into is in consideration of those 16% who are the most capable of leadership roles in areas which people in the 16% group would be the best able to "fullfill the role". Those the most capable have an extra burden of also having to be concurrently the most trustworthy. Or things can go badly. People NOT as capable might believe in, or trust this group, or rely on this group, too much and be open to manipulation and oppression, or trust them not enough and become paranoid, with conspiracy theories of manipulation and oppression.

 

Then there is the unfortunate reality, that people in the "most capable" group are actually in a powerful position, which though most of the time is not taken advantage of, is, by its very nature, an advantageous positiion to be in, and might "look" like an "unfair" advantage is being taken by people in those positions...just because they are capable of manipulation and oppression, should that be their intent. And the most unfortunate reality that occasionally very capable people, turn against the world, and serve themselves, and actually engage in manipulation and oppression, as if such is their right, bestowed upon them, by their capability to do such.

 

So I have not made much progress, untying this particular knot. It seems an "elite" group, has to occur, and their power is neither false, nor unfair, but this concurrently puts them in a minority that should not inflict their will upon the majority, if democracy and self determination are to be considered virtuous attributes of society and human existence.

[Tridimity]

As it is generally agreed that personality is basically developed by the age of two or three, it would probably be a good guess, that these decisions can not be made for a person, or imposed upon a person, or in any substantial way be taught to a person (as Tri was indicating should be attempted.)

 

 

I was not suggesting that personality traits could or ought to be taught - only critical thinking skills.

 

It seems an "elite" group, has to occur, and their power is neither false, nor unfair

 

 

Your entire thinking smacks of the patriarchal society. Most people may not have the mental capacity or talent to become Chancellor of the Exchequer or CEO of a company or brain surgeon but they know well enough how to live their own life and their feelings and views ought to be respected and considered on par with those of the more able. Anything else is frankly condescension.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tri,

 

So, another aspect of this comes into focus. A particular individual, does not exist, or become capable, or have any kind of thought, or obtain any kind of influence or power over the world, without the world's input and permission. It is becoming obvious to me, in general, that some great amount of one's individual "thinking" is done in concert with the world around them.

 

Take the empowerment of women, in a patriarchal society. Is this done by the internal power generation ability of the women in question alone, or is there general agreement that the society should empower women at the expense of the power of the patriarch?

 

In an Amozon society, the women might be considered the central live giving power, and the man only kept around for the 15 minutes a year, he might be required to inseminate a women. In such a matriarchal society, the empowerment of a man, would be at the expense of the matriarch.

 

So, in a democratic society, taken by the thought that each individual, regardless of their size or strength, phsyically or mentally, or resource or wealthwise, is equal to another in their right to self determination, some power has to change hands, with the agreement of the powerful. And each individual gives up some of their individual power for the benefit of everybody else, knowing that everybody else is giving up some of their power, for the individual.

 

Thus compassion and understanding, exhibited by the powerful, should not be taken as weakness. Nor should the power of the powerful be considered the property of the inherently weak, by birthright. Any family, or group, or society has already come to a workable balance between individual and world. The individual is quite overmatched when put up, alone, against the world. No matter what basis you might use, to make the comparison. It is only in concert with the world, that any individual can think clearly, and only in concert with the world, that any individual can act.

 

Regards, TAR

[kristalris]

.

 

Kristalris,

 

I did not completely follow your percentage breakdowns. Your 80% in the Production area included the characteristic of high IQ.

 

This counters the bell curve reality, that is part of my issue in figuring this thing out.

 

Let's say the top 10% of the population are a standard deviation or two or more, to the right of average. This would not leave room for 80 percent of the population to be of high IQ. Especially since we already have defined, by the bell curve, that 68% are of average intelligence, being within a deviation of the norm. That leaves 16% to fall below and 16% to be above.

 

I would imagine that these 16% would have representatives in all groups, of any personality types one could determine.

 

My theory would say that introversion and extraversion are important components in unraveling personality traits, with somewhat interesting connections to who's rules you are likely to follow, and who you are likely to trust and who you are likely to turn to as a judge to please. As it is generally agreed that personality is basically developed by the age of two or three, it would probably be a good guess, that these decisions can not be made for a person, or imposed upon a person, or in any substantial way be taught to a person (as Tri was indicating should be attempted.) It would probably be a good guess, instead, that people, in general, are not likely to agree on a "best case" personality. (Unless of course, it's their personality that gets the A).

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I should of put this more clearly: the 80% of the populace is production minded. On average the leaders thereof have relative high (but not extremely high) IQ’s. The division between groups is personality dependent.

 

In all three groups speed of thinking marks the division between the natural leaders in the respective groups.

More and more the regime of any older society or organization will go towards the norms set by this 80%. Science is no exception.

This will inevitably lead to more and more use of rigid systems such as DSM V (= product of current science mind you) leading more and more to unjustifiable winners and ditto losers. As we indeed observe in all western societies.

 

The only way to counteract this this mechanism is by having a R&D filled with the true open-minded researchers. Because the group of losers is great and for instance within the populace of 80% there also are many people who care about being fair, the insight once this is sufficiently made clear by an authority will get their support. Support especially in a secret ballot as is the case in most democracies. The staunch opponents shouldn’t form more than 25% of the total populace, (= the group that are the winners or believe that opposing poses the greatest possibility to become a winner.) If the cards are played right it should be possible to get a ditto group of 25% staunch proponents. The 50% will having an authoritive alternative will choose this because it will diminish unjustified winners and also losers. Everyone benefits.

 

There are of course all sorts of other mental issues important in forming teams. I’m talking about a rule of thumb as a very important point to get right. If you have a group of experts having thus the knowledge and the experience that in itself already shows that the traits to become an expert have already been met. Then the personality trait is the most important thing to take into account in choosing the ones deemed for R&D.

This should be started in the legal system. The problem with rigid systems isn’t so much the rigid system like DSM V as such but the non-researchers such manager production and sales types trying to interpret the test results and getting it horribly wrong. R&D should interpret the tests and provide advice. If you thus get an R&D filled with production minded types: the costs soar, R&D takes then ages and gets it wrong. Bad results subsequently being sold well of course.

 

In a legal system even with a jury system R&D should give a prior integral advice on say in a criminal case the investigation and after that the conviction of guilty or not. Furthermore R&D can give advice on how the rules should be interpreted. The judge in “production” can send say 1 to 5% of the advices back for renewed advice. And when it has gone wrong R&D investigates and gives a definitive advice. In this way the legal system will become wise instead of rigid. You force R&D and production to work together from a natural tension Yin and Yang of two types of personalities working together that normally don’t understand each other.

Organizations all across the board will have to make the same division.

Edited November 22, 2013 by ydoaPs
fixed quote tags

[tar]

Kristalris,

 

"Organizations all across the board will have to make the same division."

 

When I was out of work for 4mos I started and LLC in case I should come up with an "offering" to assist companies in solving their most intractable issues, using the talent and knowledge the company already had. What I soon realized, is that I had no credentials, no extraordinary knowledge, and no track history, with which to sell my insights about the value and power of human judgement.

 

I think your statement above might suffer from a similar lack of workability. It has occurred to me, in reading several threads in the speculation section, and certain posts in other threads I have read and joined in this philosophy section, that a certain measure can be taken of the value of someone's "idea", by noticing how much the world would have to change, for the idea to work. Your statement, suggests that your idea will be valid and true and workable and beneficial, only if EVERYBODY sees it your way. Question is, can you make these required changes, and are they actually required changes for the people involved, or are they required changes inorder for the world to conform to your order.

 

There is such a thing in current business strategy and measurement, as the Gartner Magic Quadrant. A four quadrant grid is drawn with the vertical axis being "ability to execute" and the horizontal axis being "completeness of vision". The companies that fall in the upper right quadrant are the leaders in the industry measured, an the company closest to the upper right is the best of the leader group.

 

Such a measurement, can be taken of worldviews, and although your personality theory might be sort of halfway along the x axis, the fact that so much would have to change for it to progress up the y axis, indicates to me, that it is not very workable.

If it does not fit the facts, already available, in terms of "ability to explain and understand real human situations" then your ability to execute the vision is not very high. I might place your theory to the bottom right of the bottom left quadrant.

 

Interestingly enough this measurement, I have also made of atheists (which I am one) like Dawkins (which I am not one) who figure the world would be better off if people did not believe in God, in the face of about a 20 percent chance of executing the plan. He would be near the right hand vertical about 20 or 25 percent up. over in that bottom right quadrant. (Since most of the world DOES believe in God).

 

Regards, TAR2

And such also is the fate of Tri's plan to teach everybody to be a critical thinker. Some, if not the most of the world, simply do not have her horsepower, in that area.

Today it has been 50 years since Kennedy's assasination. I remember being in my 5th grade class, wondering why our flag was being lowered to half staff. A knock came to the door, the teacher went out in the hall, came back very shocked and saddened, told us the news and sent us to the gathering buses that would take us home to mourn and try to understand, along with the rest of the country watching 24hr no commercial interruption coverage of the ongoing events.

 

On my drive into work I listened to a reporter recount a news broadcast he had made the next day where he had made the mistake of reading a Robert Frost (who was a personal friend of John Kennedy) poem, that Kennedy had sometimes closed speeches with the last stanza of. The reporter could not finish the reading, choked up and broke down and halted the broadcast. Tears were running down my cheeks.

 

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening

Whose woods these are I think I know.

His house is in the village, though;

He will not see me stopping here

To watch his woods fill up with snow.

 

My little horse must think it queer

To stop without a farmhouse near

Between the woods and frozen lake

The darkest evening of the year.

 

He gives his harness bells a shake

To ask if there is some mistake.

The only other sound's the sweep

Of easy wind and downy flake.

 

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep,

And miles to go before I sleep.

 

 

Robert Frost

Edited November 23, 2013 by tar

[Tridimity]

And such also is the fate of Tri's plan to teach everybody to be a critical thinker. Some, if not the most of the world, simply do not have her horsepower, in that area.

 

 

It probably would not take much to implement: a tweak of the curriculum and training of teachers in this area. It is a sad fact but teachers (like most professionals) will generally do whatever is required of them so long as their daily bread depends on it. Perhaps it would be necessary to overhaul the entire education system, but I think I am now going further to the bottom right of your business quadrant, TAR

That's me: the one with the bifurcated tongue on the bottom right

Edited November 23, 2013 by Tridimity

[kristalris]

Kristalris,

 

"Organizations all across the board will have to make the same division."

 

When I was out of work for 4mos I started and LLC in case I should come up with an "offering" to assist companies in solving their most intractable issues, using the talent and knowledge the company already had. What I soon realized, is that I had no credentials, no extraordinary knowledge, and no track history, with which to sell my insights about the value and power of human judgement.

 

I think your statement above might suffer from a similar lack of workability. It has occurred to me, in reading several threads in the speculation section, and certain posts in other threads I have read and joined in this philosophy section, that a certain measure can be taken of the value of someone's "idea", by noticing how much the world would have to change, for the idea to work. Your statement, suggests that your idea will be valid and true and workable and beneficial, only if EVERYBODY sees it your way. Question is, can you make these required changes, and are they actually required changes for the people involved, or are they required changes inorder for the world to conform to your order.

 

 

EQ

 

Thanks for your noteworthy critique. No, not everybody has to agree. It indeed over time has to grow. From the insight shared by few who dare contradict the current paradigm on leadership slowly taking on more and more with growing authority. The strength of the idea is in the fact that it isn’t leftwing, right wing or religious. Its weakness lies in the fear of opposing the current status quo, because that holds great risks because perceived as such by the ones in power exerting power over most justly scared for that people . At first it will be thus the pensioners and the students who will have to carry the idea across. The key is authority and providing a safe choice in a secret ballot of democracy. In the Dutch political system this is possible to break through the status quo with only say 60000 votes on one seat in parliament. Someone on the bottom of the list can (what we call a “ list pusher”) someone who doesn’t actually want to run or take the seat. As soon as that happens it means that over say the left wing parties will lose towards that seat and be forced to do the same.

 

The same over the right wing parties.

 

Now this can be a long or surprisingly short road. The latter due to the fact that the level of education is high and the speed of internet. Changes can come much quicker.

 

Q

 

There is such a thing in current business strategy and measurement, as the Gartner Magic Quadrant. A four quadrant grid is drawn with the vertical axis being "ability to execute" and the horizontal axis being "completeness of vision". The companies that fall in the upper right quadrant are the leaders in the industry measured, an the company closest to the upper right is the best of the leader group.

 

Such a measurement, can be taken of worldviews, and although your personality theory might be sort of halfway along the x axis, the fact that so much would have to change for it to progress up the y axis, indicates to me, that it is not very workable.

If it does not fit the facts, already available, in terms of "ability to explain and understand real human situations" then your ability to execute the vision is not very high. I might place your theory to the bottom right of the bottom left quadrant.

 

Interestingly enough this measurement, I have also made of atheists (which I am one) like Dawkins (which I am not one) who figure the world would be better off if people did not believe in God, in the face of about a 20 percent chance of executing the plan. He would be near the right hand vertical about 20 or 25 percent up. over in that bottom right quadrant. (Since most of the world DOES believe in God).

 

EQ

 

The problem with models is they describe a current perceived reality and indeed suffer from being a self-fulfilling prophesy. The idea I hold for the change in the legal system – especially the Dutch legal system – isn’t that big at all. It can be implemented extremely quickly, even without having to change the law, if the magistrates (which they probably won’t BTW) were to implement it. Albeit everybody is today worried in the Netherlands because the political spectrum has become extremely polarized as it is in the Sates. We Dutch made our fortune via political stability and working together. We (as is the States BTW) are quickly becoming more and more politically unstable. This tends to make people prepared to change perspective. If a good alternative is offered that is.

 

The reason other / all organizations will quickly change once the legal system has been changed is that if they don’t they will lose out. Every organization will quickly see this, because there then are no more loopholes in the law. The fear of the wise judge spotting that you misbehaved will force you to act wisely on the stated common goal instead of wisely on your own greedy goals. Dependent on the question whether one takes a left or right wing approach more or less greed will be allotted / allowed for in the system.

 

 

The model you show is like (nearly any model describing a unfathomly complex dynamic process) the IQ test model in a way correct yet in another way extremely incorrect. Because I’m more versed in IQ tests I’ll use that as an example: IQ tests indeed predict your chances of success in our current (mad / unfair / going to sink in the long run) society if you score above average yet not too high. (Concerning extreme IQ rates IQ tests are unreliable BTW) The nitwits however use the bloody IQ test all across the board thinking that it also shows who to put in R&D. And indeed after having done that the manager of R&D is seen to be successful because earning a lot of money and thus validating the IQ test. This will remain so because after this manager has made a further career outside the R&D of his first company, and this company has gone bankrupt thanks to our nitwit manager for not getting the new product in production that sells, this mishap will not be recorded in the validation of the IQ test. Our great manager is still making a career mucking it up elsewhere.

 

In the broader political sense it’s the same with the DSM V model. Let’s take a psychopath. I.e. someone without fear is mad according to DSM V. Why? The nitwits have taken themselves as a majority as the norm They have fear so if you haven’t you are dangerously mad in their expert communis opinion. They then do have the question why it is that psychopaths don’t murder much more because say 1% of the populace is a psychopath. It hasn’t dawned on these nitwits that God / MN wouldn’t have produced 1% dangerous madmen if it wasn’t necessary. Of course we need say 1% fearless people in order to survive as species. When do they become dangerous? Well when you for instance keep on attacking Muslims. That’s when this 1% of these Moslims will start flying in to world trade centers or organize it that others do so. So this war on terrorism isn’t such a good idea, fought in the way we are fighting it. The treatment is worse than the ailment. This BTW doesn’t mean that 911 wasn’t IMO a casus belli. It was. Yet it also should be a moment for R&D: what caused this in the deepest level? How do we effectively remedy this situation in the future? Easy: fill a think-tank of true R&D types and provide them with all available data and let them advise you. (Same remedy for any other complicated problem BTW)

 

Just to show that models implemented outside true R&D are dangerous. They wield the wrong power.

 

So it can be organized and implemented quickly if you start with the legal system, where in a democracy the voter yields the power.

What Tri says concerning training is true yet won’t hack it because you can’t train a truly production minded 80% to become truly R&D minded, even when using drugs. Which we BTW are doing in the opposite direction BTW. Creative minded kids are deemed mad and drugged in order to fit the sick system. Inherently more and more so.

Edited November 23, 2013 by kristalris

[Tridimity]

So this war on terrorism isn’t such a good idea, fought in the way we are fighting it. The treatment is worse than the ailment.

 

 

The concept of a ‘War on Terror’ arguably does not even make sense. Terror is a human reaction to a perceived threat; it makes no sense to declare war on this human reaction than it does to declare war on disgust or envy. In order to win a war on terror one would need to wipe out all perceived threats – which is impossible since people will react in this way to any number of stimuli. Of course, the sense in which ‘War on Terror’ is normally used is restricted to the war against militant organisations including Al Qaeda. However, I imagine that some thought went into the language used and ‘War on Terror’ was decided upon by a PR task force in order to sell the invasion to the masses – who would argue against a ‘War on Terror’? That would amount to an endorsement of terror. But words are words and actions are actions and oftentimes the two realities do not correlate.

 

What Tri says concerning training is true yet won’t hack it because you can’t train a truly production minded 80% to become truly R&D minded, even when using drugs. Which we BTW are doing in the opposite direction BTW. Creative minded kids are deemed mad and drugged in order to fit the sick system. Inherently more and more so.

 

 

If you intervene early enough (e.g. starting at age 3-4 years) it may be possible to truly educate (not indoctrinate) people. Let’s face it, any intervention is going to be better than the current system, with its endorsement of passive absorption of information from authority figures. I do think that the Western education systems need to be changed in a substantial way if we are to generate the kinds of minds required in order to fix 21^st century problems.

[kristalris]

 

 

If you intervene early enough (e.g. starting at age 3-4 years) it may be possible to truly educate (not indoctrinate) people. Let’s face it, any intervention is going to be better than the current system, with its endorsement of passive absorption of information from authority figures. I do think that the Western education systems need to be changed in a substantial way if we are to generate the kinds of minds required in order to fix 21^st century problems.

 

 

I'm quite impressed by the Finnish schooling system:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland

 

Yet even then you won't have only R&D minded people nore should you want that. I think God / MN did a good job in dividing the no doubt DNA. I believe in nature as much more at the heart of it all than most would want politically true. Anyway granted we don't know one way or the other exactly though there is mounting eveidence for nature being most probable on most if nit all personality traits. Trying to change this in those induviduals is IMO not only immoral but also unwanted and ineffective.

 

Let people simply be what they are best suited for. Everybody benefits.

 

[Tridimity]

Yet even then you won't have only R&D minded people nor should you want that... Trying to change [personality traits] in those individuals is IMO not only immoral but also unwanted and ineffective.

Let people simply be what they are best suited for. Everybody benefits.

 

 

The objective is not to generate people who are suited only to R&D but to develop in all people (even if they wind up in manufacturing or sales) the critical thinking skills that will allow them to live their life in a considered way and to avoid being exploited by others during the process. It has nothing to do with changing personality traits and everything to do with developing the ability to think independently. This is the only moral option; otherwise people wind up living unconsidered lives and being duped into subservience in a system that harms, directly or indirectly, themselves and their neighbours. This is one of the reasons why the intervention is wanted. It is just as easy to effectively teach critical thinking skills as it is to teach Mathematics or How To Ride A Bike - there is nothing alien about the concept of teaching these life skills.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Tridimity

[kristalris]

 

 

The objective is not to generate people who are suited only to R&D but to develop in all people (even if they wind up in manufacturing or sales) the critical thinking skills that will allow them to live their life in a considered way and to avoid being exploited by others during the process. It has nothing to do with changing personality traits and everything to do with developing the ability to think independently. This is the only moral option; otherwise people wind up living unconsidered lives and being duped into subservience in a system that harms, directly or indirectly, themselves and their neighbours. This is one of the reasons why the intervention is wanted. It is just as easy to effectively teach critical thinking skills as it is to teach Mathematics or How To Ride A Bike - there is nothing alien about the concept of teaching these life skills.

 

I agree we should try. But not to the degree of wanting to resort to either rigidly enforcing via drugs and what not the idea that this is possible, if - I'd say even: when - it shows that most people simply can't think independently for it scares them. They want to follow the authority.

 

Only a well balanced Just legal system within a parliamentary democratic society can in the long run, I'm convinced - protect the weak against the strong, the minority against the majority rule.

 

At the moment in the Netherlands as in the States it is unbalanced.

Edited November 23, 2013 by kristalris

[tar]

Kristalris,

 

Before 911 the world was on a path, IMO, toward reconciliation, and common understanding. Communication and the growth of internet conversations, was letting people get to know one another. Things were getting quite nice.

 

As I stood on the Western shore of the Hudson that day, looking at the immense pillar of smoke eminating from where once stood two amazing, populated buildings, that not only symbolized world trade, but was the "World Trade Center", I knew there was evil in the world. I did not know who would do such a thing, but I knew they were my enemy. Opponents of my way of life, opponents of peace and brotherhood.

 

Subsequent to the day, once we knew Bin Laden was the culprit, I made attempt to understand what possible thinking could create such evil stupidity, and read the Koran, twice, once for the jist and once for understanding, to see what misguided ideas, were at the core of such a major breech of human fellowship.

 

Turns out Mohammed usurped the Power of Allah/MN and associated belief in Mohammed, with belief in Allah. If you live a proper life, consistent with insights given to Mohammed from Allah, by the Angel Gabriel, in a cave in the desert, then you will have satin couches, rivers of honey and a couple score of virgins in the afterlife. If you disbelieve in the messenger, then Allah will judge you lacking and you will spend eternity with your flesh being burned by boiling liquids.

 

People, choosing pleasure over pain would rather that their immortal soul was comfortable.

 

However, given the circumstances that reality is much more evident than fantasy, it is much better IMO to make THIS as pleasurable and pain-free as humanly possible, as human-kind has be attempting to do, with the sharing of technology and law and art and culture for 1000s of years.

 

I do not think Allah/MN/the universe/Jesus/Moses/The Lord/Vishnu/The All would be at all disturbed if we sought happiness and peace and allowed others to do the same.

 

I do however think it quite contrary to life, to pilot planes full of people, into amazing works of man.

 

Thus a war on terror is subtantially a quest I am on, securely backing my Nation, and my Nation's allies in this endevor. In doing so, I am protecting my way of life, against those who would take it away.

 

I will not sacrifice or denounce the completeness of vision, and the ability to execute of the Constitution of the United States, and the prosperous, peaceful, liberty loving Nation it has spawned, for an unworkable dream of some guy in a cave.

 

Regards, TAR

Tri,

 

Although I will agree that critical thinking is superior to irrationality, and a good liberal arts education, giving one the ability to understand history and human nature, is superior to teaching people "what" to think, I think it of immense importance to consider that other people already want to be good, already know they are in and of an immense and wonderful universe, and already excersice human judgement, without being told.

 

In this, it is important to me to stay away from ideas one might have, that would only be true, if everybody else knew your secret.

 

The universe is not hiding from anybody. The world is already available to all. And we have already made some tremendous progress in being able to execute our plans.

 

Regards, TAR2

[kristalris]

TAR2

 

That must have been a horrendous experience for you. I was watching TV and saw the second plane strike real time. Indeed I felt that as an attack on us Dutch as well, so I wholeheartedly supported joining the attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. BTW the Taliban came about due to the enormous chaos caused by the Mujahedeen after the Sowjets had left. Part of this Mujahedeen under Dostum held out and became our ally (like Bin Laden BTW).

 

That said and I’ve stated earlier I don’t see why we don’t learn from history. I.e. the Romans. Go in hit hard and get out after having the tribes in Afghanistan become a NATO legion, whereby no tribesman serves in his own area yet is bonded in a band of brothers under NATO leadership and airpower. Providing them and their families a secured financial and medical future via a pension. When having fulfilled the service loyally. Following what the Loya Jirga wants as long as within International Law.

 

The US choose not to do this because it clearly hadn’t heeded the warning of president Eisenhower to watch out for the industrial military complex. A guided bomb provides more profit and a stronger US military than an Afghan soldier with a pension, the latter at a fraction of the cost and absolutely effective. Yet guided bombs create more terrorists than they kill, and the US / NATO military have lost more lives in the process than in 911. (Especially when you include the attack on Iraq that was not wise at all.) Like a magnet NATO soldiers draw in would be martyrs from all over the world to take potshots at the infidels. A xenophobe afghan legion wouldn’t have this.

 

Apart from that what you thought before 911 that we were on track to world brotherhood was I guess seen wrong with hindsight. Like in 1914 people thought the same. Yet with an enormous and growing world overpopulation we are in for a big bang if we don’t get things in balance asap.

 

911 IMO is at its deepest level a group of fearless Muslim leaders filling in the need of the Muslim have-nots, who take pride in their religion and history, for that is all they have. Most often providing some sort of social support for political and religious indoctrination. The same struggle BTW in Turkey and Egypt at the moment between the haves and have-nots under Muslims themselves. Only if we humans can get it organized in a globally Just way, will the danger of international terrorism be kept at bay to the maximum possible IMO. The route we in the west are following more and more is one of polarization. This needs immediate reorganization possible via having the right personalities and intelligence put in power of advice via use of the power of the cloud.

 

Q

 

 

In this, it is important to me to stay away from ideas one might have, that would only be true, if everybody else knew your secret.

 

EQ

 

? Here you lost me.

 

K

[Tridimity]

In this, it is important to me to stay away from ideas one might have, that would only be true, if everybody else knew your secret.

 

The universe is not hiding from anybody. The world is already available to all. And we have already made some tremendous progress in being able to execute our plans.

 

 

What do you mean?

 

Kristalris,

 

Why don't you use quotes? Is it because you prefer the aesthetics of writing 'Q' and 'EQ'?

 

Otherwise, to quote just write the quoted text, highlight and press the speech bubble icon above.

[tar]

Kristalris,

 

Afghanistan is a mess. It is not like here, and it is not like where you are. There are uneducated poor, there is the reality that the poppie crop is one major part of the economy, there are Mullahs, that seek to retain order by keeping there women powerless, and killing anyone that speaks against the order.

 

I do not think I know near enough about it, to understand it, or to come up with a workable solution, different than the Taliban on the spot, have come up with. It is not the way of life I would prefer. I am rather accostom to my way of life. Built my own bubble, with my wife, under the protection and in aggreement with law abiding American Citizens. It is not likely that Taliban members would consider my way of life correct. They already think I am Satan. Which I am not. But it seems unlikey that they will drop their history and religion and agree to do it somebody else's way

 

Middle East already has the Jews and the Muslims at odds. The Koran has already characterised the error of the Jews in making interest on loans, and the error of the Christians in worshipping Jesus, a simple messenger like Mohammed, as if he was Allah, who has no associates.

 

The Koran denounced idol worshippers, Christians and Jews by name, as having fallen from the way. Moslems historically have destroyed the religious icons of peoples they have vanquished. Their dream is for all the world to be for Allah.

 

1/3 of the population of the world is Muslim. That means not Christian, not Jewish, not Buddist or Hindu, not Communist or Humanist, but Muslim. I can not fix that. I can not come up with a proper plan for peace and prosperity better than the U.S. constitution, where each is allowed to worship their own God, and follow the laws of nature and man, together. Pursue happiness.

 

My story is different than that in India, or Afghanistan, or Japan, or even the Netherlands or Mexico.

 

My story is diffent than that in the West Virgina Hills, or the Louisanna biyou, or the Slums of Philadelphia or New York, or Chicago or LA.

 

People don't go by my rules. They don't behave as I would behave. They have their own story to live.

 

I am a little concerned with World Government, and being controlled by the advice of a think tank, which does not know what is happening on the ground. Does not know the effects of the edicts they pronounce.

 

It would appear to me that the haves would be the ones to dictate to the have nots. As it has always been. There is not a workable way, other than human aggreement on the rules, to have power at all.

 

Look at the mess the internet has made of Syria. Half the people want the security of the King and the previous order, and the other half want something else, not completely defined and tried.

 

We, as the West, can not inflict our way of life on others, though we have tried unsuccessfully to do so, by the British Carving up the middle East and creating the kingdoms.

 

Its a hard choice. Do we want to be a have, or a have not. I would rather stay a have. I am not sure whose side I should be on in Syria. Peace and order, or death and displacement?

 

Somebody is going to wind up winning. In each and every case. And there is alway going to be children that loose. I don't have a way to make the North Korean son a proper leader, by my standards, nor do I have a way to keep people in West Virginia from destroying their lives, with Meth.

 

Their lives are not mine to live. It would be difficult to come up with a proper plan, as to how someone else should live their life, from the security of a board room, or a think tank.

 

It is better to live your own life properly, and fix what you can, locally, than dream of a fix for the world.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Think Globally. Act Locally.

 

The other way around does not work.