Please note: I wrote this piece about two and a half years ago at another venue. It is a piece dealing with what is my main interest intellectually these days, which is to try to make sense of the puzzling times we live in. My belief is that our problems stem from counter factual myths that we live by and so blind many of us to the reality of our environment. Though it was written in the past, I think it valid for our present reality, given the incredibly awful people running for the Republican Presidential nomination and how two of the people I mentioned back then, DonaldTrump and Paul Ryan, are now playing even more powerful roles in our national political scene, while Mitt Romney lost the Presidency.
In recent years many studies have come out that have made the case that a high proportion of CEO’s of major companies are sociopaths. At the end of this blog I’ll provide a number of links that discuss this, some from major conservative business magazines. We do know that from 1% to 3% of humans are sociopaths sharing all of these 10 characteristics:
“#1) Sociopaths are charming. #2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. #3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. #4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. #5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and “win” at all costs. #6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent #7) Sociopaths are incapable of love #8) Sociopaths speak poetically. #9) Sociopaths never apologize. #10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth.” http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html
Now the problem with the definition of Sociopaths is that there can be a good deal of subjectivity in making the diagnosis, absent a clinician 
interviewing the subject. After all many people are charming, spontaneous, invent lies, try to dominate others and speak “poetically” and that doesn’t make them sociopaths. The subjectivity comes in trying to determine whether a given person is incapable of feeling guilt, shame, remorse and is delusional. A trained clinician may be able to do this via an intensive interview, but the nature of this disorder is such that even a trained clinician can be fooled by a sociopath. Rather
than argue back and forth about the negative effects of CEO sociopaths on this society, as the root of so much dysfunction, my readings suggest another theory that would provide a simpler explanation of why it seems that so many in this country have so little compassion and empathy for the less fortunate among us. We need not deem them sociopaths, but people who are simply removed from the misery that they inflict. The apocryphal story of Marie Antoinette saying “let them eat cake” may well characterize those who control most of this country’s wealth. It may be why some are sincere philanthropists, yet show disdain and lack a sense of responsibility for the suffering that they cause.
“Scrooge has come early this year. We’re kicking our Tiny Tim’s. This holiday season, kids in America’s poorest families are going to have less to eat. November 1 brought $5 billion in new cuts to the nation’s food stamp program, now officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Poor families will lose on average 7 percent of their food aid, calculates the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. A mother with two kids will lose $319 over the rest of the current federal fiscal year. The cuts could cost some families a week’s worth of meals a month, says the chief at America’s largest food bank. More cuts are looming. A U.S. House of Representatives majority is demanding an additional $39 billion in “savings” over the next decade. Ohio and a host of other states, in the meantime, are moving to limit food stamp eligibility.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Are-Heartless-People-Simpl-by-Sam-Pizzigati-Greed_Teaparty-Teapartiers-131104-969.html
The author Sam Pizzigati, writing at http://www.opednews.com , goes on to enumerate some of the actions being taken that will hurt a part of the American people that are least able to defend themselves against the depredations of poverty and hunger. This country which is so fond of creating metaphoric wars against objects of perceived fear like “Drugs” and “Terror”, has also had metaphorical “Wars” declared against “Poverty” and “Hunger”. The latter died due to the entanglement in Viet Nam monopolizing government funds. The paradigm this era’s “War on Something” may actually have been transformed in a “War for Something,” because what it seems we now have is a “War for Poverty” and a “War For Hunger”. Some examples:
“Today’s brazen heartlessness toward America’s most vulnerable actually goes far deeper than food stamp cuts, as a new Economic Policy Institute report released last week documents in rather chilling detail.
Four states, the report notes, have “lifted restrictions on child labor.” In Wisconsin, state law used to limit 16- and 17-year-olds to no more than five hours of work a day on school days. The new law erases these limits.
Other states are cutting back on protections for low-wage workers of all ages. Earlier this year, the new EPI survey relates, Mississippi adopted a law that bans cities and counties in the state “from adopting any minimum wage, living wage, or paid or unpaid sick leave rights for local workers.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Heartless-People-Simpl-by-Sam-Pizzigati-Greed_Teaparty-Teapartiers-131104-969.html
These positions are those representing a particular conservative mindset, that would argue that ending “child labor restrictions” are actually a good thing, because they allow children in poverty to rise above their situation through work. The history of child labor in this country would give lie to this. The impetus for passing these laws that defenestrate “child labor restrictions”, comes from companies paying the minimum wage, or less, to people who are looking for any kind of job. The young are seen as a source of pliable,cheap labor that can be easier controlled and made more fearful. Unless one is quite extraordinary, being stuck at the minimum wage, or less, ensures rather than provides an escape from poverty.
We of course have those “lift themselves up from their bootstraps” types like former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, who used himself as an example of this because he worked in a McDonald’s after his father’s death. He didn’t elaborate though that he came from the wealthiest family in his home town and that his father’s estate provided more than ample sustenance. Considering that after graduating from College, Ryan was secured a job in the office of Wisconsin’s U.S. Senator and from then on has always worked either in government, or for Conservative lobbying organizations. This congressman, now Speaker of the House, has done very little “bootstrap pulling and much string pulling to get work. Very few people “lift themselves up by their bootstraps” and those few exceptions do prove that rule.
The “War Upon Poverty”, as I like to call it, doesn’t only affect children and teenagers. Its cost cutting howitzers are also trained upon this nation’s elderly:
“The sick and elderly aren’t faring all that well either. In Arizona, the governor proposed a health-insurance cutoff that would have tripped some patients up right in the middle of their chemotherapy. Texas is considering Medicaid cuts that could end up closing 850 of the state’s 1,000 nursing homes.”
It seems we have reached a point in America where the notion of a community of citizens, bound by common destinies has been replaced by an “everyone for themselves” attitude, that is inexplicably endorsed heartily by all too many supposedly “devout Christians.” They have made the notion of “Christian Charity” a relic of the past. As with Mr. Ryan, our new Deities have become Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko. For someone of my age, whose parents became adults during the “Great Depression”, this is not the America I grew up in, or at least not the image of America that was fostered during that “Depression” and during and after World War II. The 2014 elections seem to have accelerated the process of our nation becoming one that extols selfishness and rewards greed.
“America’s current surge of mean-spiritedness, observes Gordon Lafer, the University of Oregon author of the EPI study, essentially erupted right after the 2010 elections. In 11 states, those elections gave right-wingers “new monopoly control” over the governor’s mansion and both legislative houses.
Lafer links this right-wing electoral triumph directly to growing inequality. A widening income gap, he explains, “has produced a critical mass of extremely wealthy businesspeople, many of whom are politically conservative,” and various recent court cases have given these wealthy a green light to spend virtually unlimited sums on their favored political candidates.
This spending has, in turn, raised campaign costs for all political hopefuls — and left pols even more dependent on deep-pocket campaign contributions.
But America’s new heartlessness reflects much more than this turbocharged political power of America’s rich. An insensitivity toward the problems poor people face, researchers have shown, reflects a deeper psychological shift that extreme inequality makes all but inevitable.
The wider a society’s economic divide, as Demos think tank analyst Sean McElwee noted last week, the less empathy on the part of the rich and the powerful toward the poor and the weak. In a starkly unequal society, people of more than ample means “rarely brush shoulders” with people of little advantage. These rich don’t see the poor. They stereotype them — as lazy and unworthy.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Heartless-People-Simpl-by-Sam-Pizzigati-Greed_Teaparty-Teapartiers-131104-969.html
It is a closed circle that is driving and justifying the ever widening economic divide in this country. The wealthy elite never see the poor and the disadvantaged in this country. They are separated from them by their wealth and because of that, only are able to view them through the lens of self serving abstractions. They are catered to by armies of servants, who of necessity treat them obsequiously for fear of their jobs. When one lives a life of pampered privilege it becomes difficult to understand why, or how, people live otherwise. One who is “to the manor born” naturally grows up with a sense of entitlement and many of our American religious leaders cater to that, assuring them that God has bestowed blessings upon them because they are worthy. Conversely, of course, those who live in poverty and deprivation must deserve their fate and their state must also be ordained by God.
Forgetting for a moment the politics involved, didn’t we see that in Mitt Romney’s run for President. From what I’ve seen of the man, I don’t believe that Mitt is a sociopath. I believe he genuinely loves his wife and family. I believe he has feelings for his religion and empathy for his friends. I believe that even in some abstract way he cares for the plight of those less fortunate. Mitt though, can serve as the poster boy for those elite who are driving this new American attitude and by his own uttering’s he reveals how his attitudes arose. Romney was born into the “royalty” of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) and thus from his first realization of life was a privileged person. His father George, a successful Automobile Executive was a very rich and very doting father. Mitt and his wife to make themselves seem more like average American’s discussed with no irony their “struggles” when he was in school and had to “only” live off of his stock portfolio. Rich people hate to live off of their principal. His father paid for his education. After school his father gave him $10 million to buy into Bain Capital and from there his fortune grew and grew, convincing him that through hard work “anyone” can make it in America. Can we really blame Mr. Romney for his disdain for the 47% of Americans who are not “producers” like himself? Isn’t it obvious that when Romney gave advice to young “men” starting out as entrepreneurs, to “borrow” $20,000 from their fathers and start their business, that he sincerely believed this a viable option for most Americans? If we extrapolate Romney’s attitudes to a whole class of the American elite, like the Koch Brothers, we can see that one doesn’t have to be a sociopath to respond as a sociopath towards those less fortunate.
Now to be fair, I know and have known people, who started in life with very little and have built wonderful careers and became wealthy via their own efforts. Having become successful on their own, they have little sympathy for others who are not able to rise above their own poverty. I may not agree with their social views, but they are good people and their success was hard won, so they’re my friends nonetheless. Conversely, I also know and have known people who have inherited businesses from their parents and were quite successful in managing and expanding it. Many of those friends are quite concerned about the conditions of those less fortunate and act upon their sympathies. The reality is though that among my friendships and acquaintances there is no one that even rises to the level of wealth had by Romney, the Koch’s, the Walton’s, the Mellon’s, or the Scaife’s. People such as these, live in a totally different and inaccessible world to me and to most of the people I’ve known in my life. These people representing a small percentage of American wealth and privilege, have been the driving forces behind today’s “War Upon Poverty”.
“Defenders of inequality typically do their musings at a high, fact-free level of abstraction. CNN columnist John Sutter last week brought America down to inequality’s ground level, with a remarkably moving and insightful look at the most unequal county in the United States, East Carroll Parish in Louisiana.
In East Carroll, the rich live north of Lake Providence, the poor south. The two groups seldom interact. East Carroll’s most affluent 5 percent average $611,000 a year, 90 times the $6,800 incomes the poorest fifth of the parish average. Such wide income gaps, Sutter shows, invite “gaps in empathy.”
“Looking across Lake Providence from the north,” as he puts it, “can warp a person’s vision.”
One example of this warped vision: East Carroll’s rich see food stamps as an “entitlement” that rots poor people’s incentive to work. Yet these same affluent annually pocket enormously generous farm subsidies. In 2010, East Carroll’s most highly subsidized farmer grabbed $655,000 from one federal subsidy alone. The average food stamp payout in the parish: $1,492 per person per year.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Heartless-People-Simpl-by-Sam-Pizzigati-Greed_Teaparty-Teapartiers-131104-969.html
East Carroll Parish in Louisiana is a microcosm of the conditions throughout our country. We see those that consider themselves the “producers” in this country missing totally the point of how they have had their own form of entitlement, in this instance farm subsidies. As most students of politics know, Farm Subsidies have become almost impossible to eliminate. even though the bulk of the subsidies go to our huge Agri-Business industry. Providing a complement to Mr. Pizzigati’s article was another one that I read this week at http://www.opednews.com by Paul Bucheit which was titled: “How the Supperich Are Abandoning America”
“As they accumulate more and more wealth, the very rich have less need for society. At the same time, they’ve convinced themselves that they made it on their own, and that contributing to societal needs is unfair to them. There is ample evidence that this small group of takers is giving up on the country that made it possible for them to build huge fortunes.
They’ve Taken $25 Trillion of New Wealth While Paying Less Taxes
The 2013 Global Wealth Databook shows that U.S. wealth has increased from $47 trillion in 2008 to $72 trillion in mid-2013. But according to U.S. Government Revenue figures, federal income taxes have gone DOWN from 2008 to 2012. Even worse, corporations cut their tax rate in half.
American society has gained nothing from its massive wealth expansion. There’s no wealth tax, no financial transaction tax, no way to ensure that infrastructure and public education are supported. Just how much have the super-rich taken over the past five years? Each of the elite 5% — the richest 12 million Americans — gained, on average, nearly a million dollars in financial wealth between 2008 and 2013.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Super-Rich-Are-Aba-by-Paul-Buchheit-Billionaires_Capitalism_Greed_Wealthy-131104-612.html
There is literally so much supporting material for the fact that the economic fortunes of the wealthiest American’s have grown exponentially since the beginning of our new century, that all one has to do is Google it. At the same time that there has been this unprecedented growth in wealth, those who most benefited from it have paid less and less taxes, while deriving benefits from government programs such as the “oil subsidy”. In the 50’s and 60’s when only the affluent could really afford to fly, the term “Jet Setter” developed for those who were wealthy enough to travel to Europe, or Bali, on a whim. There developed a culture of those people who lived their lives bathed in sybaritic luxury and could nonchalantly suggest to their friends to meet them in Paris for the weekend. As the separation of Americans on the basis of wealth has grown, the “Jet Set” has become what is really the “Expatriate Set,” who have homes all over the world and indeed consider themselves to be “Citizen’s of the World,” rather than just plain Americans. Is it any wonder then, that when they deign to even think of those less fortunate than themselves, those thoughts are laden with disdain against those “unwashed masses.”
“For the First Time in History, They Believe They Don’t Need the Rest of Us: The rich have always needed the middle class to work in their factories and buy their products. With globalization this is no longer true. Their factories can be in China, producing goods for people in India or Europe or anywhere else in the world.
They don’t need our infrastructure for their yachts and helicopters and submarines. They pay for private schools for their kids, private security for their homes. They have private emergency rooms to avoid the health care hassle. All they need is an assortment of servants, who might be guest workers coming to America on H2B visas, willing to work for less than a middle-class American can afford.
The sentiment is spreading from the super-rich to the merely rich. In 2005 Sandy Springs, a wealthy suburb of Atlanta, stopped paying for most public services, deciding instead to avoid subsidizing poorer residents of Fulton County by hiring a “city outsourcer” called CH2M to manage everything except the police and fire departments. That includes paving the roads, running the courts, issuing tickets, handling waste, and various other public services. Several other towns followed suit.
Results have been mixed, with some of CH2M’s clients backing out or renegotiating. But privatization keeps coming at us. Selective decisions about public services threaten to worsen already destitute conditions for many communities. Detroit, of course, is at the forefront. According to an Urban Land Institute report, “more municipalities may follow Detroit’s example and abandon services in certain districts.”
As this year moves on coming closer to the Presidential election year, we again see a battle shaping up in Congress, the “Tea Party” controlled Congress, over cutting both Social Security and Medicare. The conservative propaganda machine, abetted by a corporate media has turned these programs into “Entitlements”, when they are really insurance funds. Not one of those in Congress trying to choke off these programs will ever have to rely upon them in their old age, nor will the corporate sponsors, of which most of our Congress people have become “wholly-owned subsidiaries.”
“They Soaked the Middle Class, and Now Demand Cuts in the Middle-Class Retirement Fund. The richest Americans take the greatest share of over $2 trillion in Tax Expenditures, Tax Underpayments, Tax Haven holdings, and unpaid Corporate Taxes. The Social Security budget is less than half of that. Yet much of Congress and many other wealthy Americans think it should be cut. These are the same people who deprive the American public of $300 billion a year by not paying their full share of the payroll tax.”
However, those clamoring for these cuts among the elite, believe the Elite are justified in paying less taxes, because they “made it on their own” and this reflects a false, self-serving view of the historical realities:
“They Continue to Insist that They “Made It on Their Own”. They didn’t. Their fortunes derived in varying degrees – usually big degrees – from public funding, which provided almost half of basic research funds into the 1980s, and even today supports about 60 percent of the research performed at universities.
Businesses rely on roads and seaports and airports to ship their products, the FAA and TSA and Coast Guard and Department of Transportation to safeguard them, a nationwide energy grid to power their factories, communications towers and satellites to conduct online business, the Department of Commerce to promote and safeguard global markets, the U.S. Navy to monitor shipping lanes, and FEMA to clean up after them.
Apple, the tax haven specialist, still does most of its product and research development in the United States, with US-educated engineers and computer scientists. Google’s business is based on the Internet, which started as ARPANET, the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency computer network from the 1960s. The National Science Foundation funded the Digital Library Initiative research at Stanford University that was adopted as the Google model. Microsoft was started by our richest American, Bill Gates, whose success derived at least in part by taking the work of competitors and adapting it as his own. Same with Steve Jobs, who admitted: “We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”
Companies like Pfizer and Merck have relied on basic research performed at the National Institute of Health. A Congressional Budget Office study reminds us that The primary rationale for the government to play a role in basic research is that private companies perform too little such research themselves (relative to what is best for society).”
What we see now is a world where businesses and the wealthy that own them, consider themselves multi-national, which means they are untied to any government and owe no government their allegiance. What goes unmentioned though, as expanded upon above, is that the source of wealth for many of our “elite” and the corporations they control, is in our case the American government which they’ve captured. The same America that had to bail out the banks and Wall Street from the results of their own excesses and the same country that goes to war to protect their private oil interests.
As a Final Insult, Many of Them Desert the Country that Made Them Rich: Many of the beneficiaries of American research and technology have abandoned their country because of taxes. Like multinational companies that rationalize the move by claiming to be citizens of the world, almost 2,000 Americans, and perhaps up to 8,000, have left their responsibilities behind for more favorable tax climates.
The most egregious example is Eduardo Saverin, who found safe refuge in the U.S. after his family was threatened in Brazil, landed Mark Zuckerberg as a roommate at Harvard, benefited from American technology to make billions from his 4% share in Facebook, and then skipped out on his tax bill. http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/How-the-Super-Rich-Are-Aba-by-Paul-Buchheit-Billionaires_Capitalism_Greed_Wealthy-131104-612.html My thanks for this article go to commondreams.org.
Many of the Elite of this country, whether inherited, or self-made believe that the rest of us exist merely as appendages for their comfort. They view the great mass of us with disdain. Their world-view is self-serving and self soothing and from my perspective they are entitled to believe anything they choose to believe. What they are not entitled to in my opinion is to play at being “Robin Hood” in reverse. They have taken and taken from the American people, they control our government and this needs to stop. I’m neither a socialist, a communist, nor a fascist. I don’t believe in an enforced equality of wealth in society.
What I do believe in is a society that treats everyone equally before the law. I believe in a society that is empathic towards all of its members. I believe in a society that cares for, nurtures and protects all of us. Perhaps I am a Utopian at heart in my beliefs. Whatever I am though, my anger rages at the way this country is being stolen from its citizens by powerful people who take but never give. You all can have plenty of money and still take care of your responsibilities to society as a whole. That is why I suspect something more is afoot. Our corporatist elite has the money and has the control, what they seem to really want it to have the total subservience of all they think are beneath them. This is not necessarily a sociopathic disorder, but the difference between these points of view and sociopathy is so minimal as to be ignored.
Articles on CEO’s being sociopaths:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/
http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/98184-some-ceos-sociopaths.html
http://www.sott.net/article/261942-One-terrorist-a-million-psychopaths-eight-million-sociopaths
http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2011-07-20/etc_stack31__01__popup.jpg
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/as-many-as-12-million-americans-are-sociopaths.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/profiling-ceos-and-their_b_245373.html
ElephantTail 
November 24, 2015 at 1:28 pm
I fear Socialism has been forever tarnished by propaganda and the sociopaths themselves. Socialism does not ensure equality of wealth in a society, many socialist societies have mega millionaires worth thousands of times their fellow citizens. Properly perceived, socialism has a very limited but important scope: It prevents poverty from being so severe that it damages humans.
How does poverty damage humans? By bad nutrition, lack of shelter, lack of safety, lack of education during brain development, lack of health care, even lack of transport or lack of communications.
The point of socialism is not to equalize wealth, comfort, the sizes of estates or homes or the quality of food or entertainment. The point of socialism is to provide minimums that prevent society from wasting human potential that might be lost to poverty.
It is a metaphorical form of inter-generational farming of talent. People have to escape their ideas of individualism and realize that the more natural talent we can collectively preserve and deliver with the next generation, the more productive, creative, inventive and successful they can be, and wherever the individual successes and riches may land, they can create both jobs and something of value to the populace as a whole. It may be five in a hundred kids dealt strong hands of natural talent, but that is fine, they create jobs for the eighty that got middling hands, and provide basic life support for the fifteen that got dealt very weak hands. Because their bad luck should not condemn them to a life of miserable desperation, on that path lies crime, hatred, drug addictions, exploitations and violence in retaliation for their unjust fate. All of which reduces the human potential on tap for the future.
People have to realize that no matter how hard they worked for their wealth, or how creative they were, in the end there is a critical component of luck: The luck of being born with an ability to work hard, be smart, and be creative in the first place. The luck of not being born with a mental or physical disability, the luck of not being born to abusive parents, the luck of not being damaged as a child by accident, poison, malnutrition, neglect, or human predators. The luck of evading thousands of misfortunes that were never subject to their choice or control.
The rich are creating a talent-impoverished future. Socialism will eventually prevail because it is an objectively better system when considered on the span of generations, and in the end providing these minimums is the instinct of most people, and the majority can and eventually will have its way over even the rich. Eventually even the billionaire despot Ghaddafi faced a commoner with a gun that was undeterred by his wealth or power.
I am born late enough to see that will be true, but born too early in the game to see it through. After much turmoil for many generations, I believe the fate of mankind is Socialism or extinction, I do not believe there is a sustainable middle ground.
LikeLike
November 24, 2015 at 2:24 pm
“After much turmoil for many generations, I believe the fate of mankind is Socialism or extinction, I do not believe there is a sustainable middle ground.”
MM,
I agree and though I understand why you need to use the term “socialism” in order to make yourself clear in today’s context, my preference is to see it as merely rational human behavior. In the face of the violence, misery and social turmoil that is created by societies that are indifferent to gross inequality, the only viable alternative is a social setup that recognizes the value of each member and supports their success.
LikeLike
November 24, 2015 at 3:09 pm
Mike: Well, I definitely seek an alternative terminology, “socialism” has been poisoned by years of propaganda by the rich that once controlled the media (and still have strong sway in it).
But a new terminology could survive, because the power of common people in the media has been restored and it is possible for a near-zero cost “handbill” to go viral again, as it did a few centuries ago in much smaller populations with the invention of the printing press.
Information dissemination is quick enough, with enough varied channels, that the grip of the wealthy over the mass media is much diminished and close to irrelevant: A tweet, a facebook post, a blog post, a photo or video on youtube can go viral and drive the national conversation and cause real change.
I do not lament the decline and fall of the network news, the newspapers, or the magazines that once dictated the focus of our attentions. I am happy to see the decline and fall of centers of power, and happy to see cynicism amongst news consumers on the rise, with its concomitant rejection of trust in authority. The more of that, the better off we are.
Anybody with ideas on what to call “socialism” as I described it, willing to donate their formulation to the cause, feel free to chime in.
LikeLike
November 24, 2015 at 7:07 pm
I’m not sure we have enough time to evolve to the point that something like socialism will become universally accepted.
Our population is exploding and we are using up our resources. The advent of the industrial age put us on this path and climate change (Anthropocene) is a symptom that points to the advance of the disease that will eventually drive us to extinction.
Gentlemen, we may very well be living in the “good ol’ days”.
The frustrating fact is that we have the scientific knowledge to save the planet but we do not have the political will … the socialism, if you will … to implement that knowledge.
I read an interesting article the other day, I think it was the NYtimes, about a study out of Harvard indicating the changes brought about in our DNA that started about 8500 years ago with the advent of agricultural living into the hunter/gatherer society.
Although I know I’m jumping forward here (this week I don’t have a lot of time to spend writing) but hope you will intuit my point without the verbiage that builds a premise, but I truly don’t believe we have the kind of time that’s needed for evolution to work on our DNA and thus bring about the changes needed in our thought process to implement something like worldwide socialism.
That being said, I must now rush off to do my part in contributing to that celebration of consumption we call Thanksgiving.
Yes, I see the irony.
LikeLike
November 25, 2015 at 2:40 pm
Rodham is a sociopath, married to a sociopath.
LikeLike
November 25, 2015 at 2:49 pm
Blouise: I’m not sure we have enough time to evolve to the point that something like socialism will become universally accepted.
To be accurate, we only need a persistent majority consensus (PMC) (generation after generation) to accept that, and evolution has already done its part. Evolution had nothing to do with our PMC that we should all wear clothing in public. I love clothing but everything about it is anti-evolutionary; it costs us time every single day, plus regular washing and purchasing, it costs us a lot of money, and is frequently serving little purpose. Certainly fashion serves no purpose but entertainment (and ego), but the vast majority of us will collectively spend trillions on that entertainment.
The acts that comprise Socialism are already accepted by nearly everybody on the planet, because support and belief in those acts are already inherent in the emotional makeup of (even being careful not to overstate) 90% of humans. For example, it is a PMC, driven by evolution, that one does not let a fellow human come to harm if they can prevent it without endangering themselves. Again, I am being careful not to overstate. In reality most of that 90% would take some risk to prevent harm to another, some would risk their lives. But a persistent majority of us believe that letting a person die if it can be prevented without endangering yourself would be an immoral act of an evil person. At least if we have not been culturally brainwashed to regard other people as non-human by religion, racism, Objectivism or tribalism.
The argument for that comes from numerous experiments with pre-speech infants under a year old, after watching a five second puppet show using stuffed animals, the infants show a strong preference (in fact a PMC) in choosing to hold the puppets that were being nice and helpful to other puppets, versus holding the puppets that were being mean to other puppets by pushing them, hitting them or forcefully taking something from them.
The result wasn’t anything about the look of the puppets: Reverse the roles and infants still choose the “nice and helpful” puppet. The choice also crosses gender of the infant, ethnicity, and religion of the parents. That points strongly to an evolved preference toward nice and helpful people. It also shows surprising amount of sophistication in the infants understanding of action; they can tell the difference between a mean push and a nice embrace, even if they have never personally pushed anybody. They can tell the difference between a puppet offering a toy, and having its toy taken by force.
What socialism entails is just a reasoned and systematic approach to implementation of our natural instincts, for a persistent majority of us anyway, to cooperate and share some of our good fortune with all, and to help those suffering misfortune (to a degree determined in part by the causations of said suffering).
That is why we need new terminology, the word has been poisoned by propaganda. Ask people if they believe in each of the individual principles of socialism, the answer is a majority YES. Those same people don’t realize that is what socialism means, and so disavow “socialism” while believing in everything it stands for.
Between 73% and 83% of Americans supported the public option when that was a discussion just before Obama first took office. That was a socialist plan all along, and at one point even a slight majority of self-declared Republicans were in favor of it, back when it was still a reasoned argument and before it became demonized as “Obama’s” plan. Look at how many are happy with Medicare and Social Security just as it is.
By a persistent majority Americans are already socialists, Blouise. That is human nature already evolved; it is only by instinctive cooperation and instinctive collective action that we brought down giant game animals and shared in the bounty; it is only by that same cooperation and collective action that we conquered the planet.
We just have to figure out how to give that persistent majority the power to implement what it knows is right, without being thwarted or exploited by the persistent minority of sociopaths, megalomaniacs, frauds and thieves and violent criminals.
The goal is just cultural and logistical, and we aren’t there yet.
LikeLike
November 25, 2015 at 6:47 pm
MM,
Excellent points. The puppet study did it for me. This is doable. In fact, it might be the best way to move towards saving the planet.
LikeLike
November 27, 2015 at 1:06 pm
After re-reading what I wrote, my mind got ahead of my fingers a bit. if the clothing bit at the front is confusing, the piont there is that by culture without any evolutionary component, about 95% of all adult humans accept and embrace a practice (keeping themselves in clean clothing in good repair) that puts a large tax on their personal time and money without complaining that it is not really necessary most of the time. And it is not really necessary most of the time; not even for ego: Go to any beach or waterpark and you can find a majority of people that have put ego aside in order to splash around amongst hundreds of complete strangers in what covers no more than their underwear. The fat, old and scarred stand in line without shame amongst the fit young teens.
The ability to turn off the urge to be fully clothed tells us that urge is not instinctive or human nature. It is strong but the embrace of clothing (and to a lesser extent cosmetics) is 100% cultural. It can tax us hours every day and significant amounts of money just to fit in and be accepted as a normal member of society.
So the point was that clothing, more than most things, demonstrates that culture can be an extremely strong motivator without any evolutionary component involved, other than (ironically) our innate socialism! Because the “clothing mandate” is itself a manifestation of our innate willingness (on a scale from grudging to enthusiastic) to sacrifice our personal time and money to belong to the group. Not just our group of friends and colleagues, but the whole of society that is 99.999% strangers. And when society says it is culturally appropriate, we will strip down to our underwear (also on a scale from grudging to enthusiastic) and frolic in the water.
The puppet studies are important for showing innateness of empathy and attachment to the plight of others. But once we realize those emotions are innate, the ubiquity of clothing (and lack thereof in a few public venues) illustrates how deeply social we all are and how deeply we want to fit in.
LikeLike
November 27, 2015 at 11:35 pm
Spartan or an Athenian … or both? By that question I am referring to the encouraging or discouraging of that innate empathy to which you refer. It would seem that an overall child rearing discussion and agreement is necessary to the successful experiment in socialism.
LikeLike
November 28, 2015 at 1:49 am
Well, child rearing might have something to do with it, but children do routinely end up with rebellious brains shortly after they hit puberty, and within a decade or two become their own person. What do you suppose (seriously) is responsible for the overhaul, progressing for the last 70 years, of the American child? The modern college student (to which I am exposed very frequently) is less homophobic, less racist, less mainstream religious, less drug averse, less sexually repressed, less misogynistic, and more tolerant in general, to an extent (for many) that would give their great grandparents apoplexy.
Something is driving that homogenization process, and the process continues. There is a pressure forcing it. Personally I think it is the information age, pure and simple. Although it is early days yet and the explosion of information is only in its infancy, imagine what happens as it progresses and virtually every question a child can possibly ask can be asked in plain english and answered for them instantly, to an extent that satisfies them? What political system does perfect information for all produce?
It will rest on our other innate sense, also exhibited in infancy: that life should be a fair pursuit for all, life should not be a free for all. And that is going to produce a level starting line for everybody, and that can only be accomplished by some form of socialism.
LikeLike
November 28, 2015 at 6:28 am
MM,
I have 5 grandchildren in their early to middle 20’s and would certainly agree with your observations regarding college age students.
I have another grandchild, age 7. The other day I was enjoying a game of Uno with her and a few of her friends. One boy, age 4, gave me some unsolicited information.
“Some boys grow up and marry other boys,” he said.
“Well, yes,” I said, “and some girls grow up and marry other girls.”
“That’s okay too,” he responded.
End of discussion.
LikeLike
November 28, 2015 at 7:28 am
MM,
(I have been, seriously, thinking about a word other than socialism to use. So far, nothing.)
LikeLike
November 28, 2015 at 1:25 pm
Blouise: Once you start thinking about it, it becomes surprising how many good words and phrases have been hijacked for propaganda purposes and infected with negative connotations.
LikeLike
November 29, 2015 at 4:41 pm
Blouise,
How about “fairness”, as opposed to socialism. The question is not the nuts and bolts of the nation, or the economic system, but how fairly those within it are treated. Of course then we run into the sticky little detail of “What is fair?” 🙂
LikeLike
November 29, 2015 at 7:21 pm
Fairness, parity, justice are all names of the same inherent concept; in fact one I’d argue is at the root of all rationality, and not even limited to humans. White lab mice seem to exhibit a strong preference for fairness and sharing amongst themselves (also altruism).
There is a sticky detail of what constitutes fairness, it is littered with difficult problems because the universe produces constant boons and burdens with abandon, not just cultural but genetic. It just is not even close to true that every person has some talent or can excel at something. On the other hand, some people excel at a wide variety of pursuits.
To me, many (and maybe most) of the problems in what constitutes “fair” are the result of boons that are not deserved or earned in any way, not the result of choice or work. For example, being born a prodigy, or wealthy, tall, beautiful, intelligent, a powerful singer or suited to extreme athleticism.
IMO we cannot deny people the benefits of their random boons just because they did not work to receive them.
I propose to split unfairness through the middle, into top unfair and bottom unfair. The top unfair is unlimited and what I describe above; the undeserved benefits of “natural” talent. The bottom unfair is the undeserved hardships of “natural” disability. Those I think are limited, in the sense that honed natural business instincts might let Warren Buffett earn tens of billions more than the median wage, but no amount of bad luck can cause anyone to earn tens of billions less than the median wage: It isn’t that high. And ‘wage’ here is just a proxy for all of life’s circumstances; there is no limit to how much more a person with talent and resources can receive above the median, but there is a limit to how much less one can receive.
It is the bottom unfairness of nature (including bad luck) that I think a society must address by taxing the top unfairness, both are by definition undeserved. That will not raise the median if we do not recognize our support for the sub-median as any kind of “earned” benefits, just social benefits.
And although it sound like I am talking about income or wages, I am only doing so in the case of taxing earnings above the median; in order to provide the necessities of life for all: Public education, health care, food and water, safety, shelter, clothing and transportation, roads and other infrastructure. I think those should be provided free to all no matter what they earn, unless they choose to buy their own. (I also think the median wage should be the one and only deductible; so income taxes are computed only on any (and all) earnings in excess of the median wage.)
IMO the focus cannot be on making life fair because that is an endless rabbit hole. A focus that can work is on minimizing the despair, desperation and hardship that is ultimately the result of misfortune, genetic or otherwise. To me, that is a big but finite objective. It may still seem unfair that some get to live like rock stars or jet to Paris on a whim, but at least nobody would want for a safe bed or a hot shower.
LikeLike
November 29, 2015 at 7:53 pm
Rule #1:life is unfair.
Rule #2: There are winners and losers.
Rule#3: Some winners and losers don’t deserve their circumstances.
Rule# 4: For whiners regarding rules 2&3, see rule 1.
LikeLike
November 29, 2015 at 8:50 pm
Franky: Those are the bullshit rules of a sociopath.
Just because life is unfair does not mean people must tolerate it. Pneumonia is also a natural occurrence, that does not mean somebody that contracts it should just say oh well, that’s life, and I guess mine is over as soon as this pneumonia drowns me.
Fuck that, people not only have the power to reverse the unfairness of life, they have an inherent responsibility to share some of their undeserved winnings to alleviate the pain of the undeserved losses of others.
LikeLike
November 29, 2015 at 10:02 pm
“Life is unfair” was speaking to the socialism meme, not the equally tired and obsessive, sociopath tirade. Good luck making life fair, let me know when you got that problem solved. The pneumonia analogy was a stupid one. I’m not calling you stupid, just your analogy.
LikeLike
November 29, 2015 at 10:05 pm
Regarding your luck concept. I was taught the harder you work the luckier you get. Wise words.
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 1:01 am
Having the opportunity to interact with many different people this week thanks to the holiday, I decided to run my own experiment using the word “fair”. The questions were simple: “How do we make government fair?” or ” How do we make government work?” Or “How do we make government better?” I asked all the people the same three questions at different times. Wednesday was “fair”, Thursday was “work”, and Friday was “better”
I put no qualifiers on the question and simply listened to the answers only asking for clarification if I didn’t understand an element within the answer.
I got the most thoughtful and all inclusive answers from each of the 20 people on Wednesday, using the word “fair”. The word “work” got political answers. The word “better” got self-interest answers.
If we are going to find a phrase replacement for socialism, may I suggest the word “fair” be incorporated somewhere in the phrase.
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 1:11 am
How about “fairness”, as opposed to socialism. – Mike. (written on 11/29)
Test began on 11/25
Obviously the phrase “great minds …” applies. 😉
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 4:34 am
“Regarding your luck concept. I was taught the harder you work the luckier you get. Wise words.
Franky,
Considering the real world, that philosophy is obviously bullshit in most cases, though for you it might have worked out. What’s strange is that you write: “Good luck making life fair, let me know when you got that problem solved,” in a manner that conveys it is a Utopian concept and yet your quote above is the ultimate in Utopian concepts. Or you think Donald Trump got rich by “working hard.” Your formulations is a meme in the extreme.
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 4:35 am
Blouise,
Amazing and as you know we didn’t consult, but came to it independently. 🙂
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 5:21 am
Mike,
MM threw down a challenge and I decided, since my own brain refused to come up with an alternative, to pick the brains of others without putting them on the spot. “Fair” seemed like a possibility but I needed to test others’ reactions to the word.
Gave me something to do while mixing bloody marys and mimosas.
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 5:06 pm
franky: I was taught the harder you work the luckier you get. Wise words.
False words, actually. I worked my way through the second half of high school, working 30-40 hours a week as (variously) a dishwasher, illegal bar back, janitor and farm hand, all shoulder to shoulder with men and women twenty to fifty years older than me that had worked hard their entire life and would continue to live a life and retirement of sub-middle class until they died. I have personally been successful, but all success boils down to luck, not work: I was born a learning machine, not by choice, not by hard work, but by the luck of the draw in the genetic lottery, nothing else. Anybody that can get success out of hard work is similarly lucky; it isn’t the hard work that drives success, it is the luck of being born with a worthwhile nascent talent, followed by the luck of discovering it. That is what causes people to work to develop it. Working hard developing a talent nobody cares about does not produce success. Working hard for forty years to become skilled at cleaning a hundred toilets in a night does not increase the chances of something Lucky happening.
Luck is random. I have been privy to know the regular work life of people ranging from the 70 year old janitor to a 40 year old CEO worth a hundred million. The higher they are, the less “hard work” they do; because the further up the pyramid one resides, the less their income and position depend upon their own work. The CEO can take a month off to sail in a competition and still make another million. The janitor misses a day and eats meatless spaghetti for a week so he can still pay his bills.
You were taught wrong, labor has very little to do with success, success is largely due to the exploitation of born talents, mental or physical, which are genetic luck, and besides that due to the luck of born circumstances (like wealthy parents) or being in the right place at the right time, like being assigned as the college roommate of Mark Zuckerberg, or the childhood friend of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or an early business partner of Warren Buffett, or just being born with creativity at a time when your early adulthood lets you exploit a rich new technology with a fairly simple original idea, like Henry Ford, Alexander Bell, Gates or Jobs or Hewlett & Packard or the founders of Intel, or dozens of modern Internet billionaires. It’s luck. When something is new, even simple ideas can be new and valuable; once it is developed, all the low hanging fruit has been long picked.
Likewise, lifelong poverty is also almost entirely a dearth of luck. The janitors and dishwashers that were over fifty were mentally capable of little else. Sort humanity by their valuable talents, and ten percent will have been given the least in the combined lottery of genetics and born circumstances, not through any choice of their own, not due to lack of work — very bad luck for some is a statistical certainty.
Your claims are ignorant. As I said, the point of socialism is not to make life fair, it is to alleviate the miserable consequences of life being unfair. The point is not to make anybody rich, it is to prevent people from suffering from poverty that results through no fault or choice of their own. The point is not to eliminate the benefits of being luckily born exceptional or wealthy, the point is to use some of those benefits, which were not earned in any sense of the word, to alleviate hardship that was not earned in any sense of the word. We do not have to accept those consequences any more than we have to hope our immune system will heal a broken bone without help. We are humans, not trees, we can discern when hardship or benefits are undeserved and do something with the latter to address the former.
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Franky: Sociopathy is not a tirade, but a fact of life. My repeatedly pointing it out is more a function of people ignoring that fact of life, or embracing sociopathy themselves. Your “rules” of “life is unfair, stop whining about itt” is sociopathic in nature, stating it means you don’t really care enough to do anything about it or the consequences of it; that people should just shut up and accept their undeserved and unfair misery and you don’t give a shit about them, as evidenced by your annoyance at their “whining.”
That is sociopathy. I will point it out as often as it occurs.
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Blouise: Okay, “fair” or “fairness” is a prospect, into which we can drill.
Understanding that what we seek is not exactly all people are perfectly equal and inherited wealth or the genetic lottery will still give some persons very strong advantages in life, exactly what is it we intend to make “fair”? Is it only a fair start, or fair beginning? It clearly isn’t going to be a fair playing field or a fair game … Is it a fair chance? A fair share? A fair opportunity?
From your correspondents, what impression did you get concerning what they were trying to make “fair”?
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 7:32 pm
That was the beauty of my little experiment. I put no connotation on the word “fair” letting the respondents set the definition through their answers. (Of course interpretation is all mine,)
Only one person asked me what I meant by fair and he did so with a joke, “I don’t know if it’s possible to make government beautiful.” Everyone else just went right into their answer … mostly education and healthcare opportunities. Some talked of equal wages for equal work assignments. Others mentioned access to voting precincts. I listened without comment then continued to listen as they started to talk amongst themselves. That was when some in-depth conversations about taxing took place.
So probably “opportunity” or fighting chance or even freedom of choice. I heard the word freedom often on that first day when fair was the descriptive word. Interestingly, not so much on the second and third day when “work” and “better” were used.
Perhaps people associate the words fair and freedom? If so, that could be helpful when formulating a different definition of socialism for public consumption.
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 10:21 pm
Interesting. I think a big impact of socialism turns out to be freedom. I was reading (well over a decade ago) interviews with Norwegian business owners that went into some depth, and one of the recurring themes was that, unlike the American business owners (with whom they were familiar primarily through media, like INC. magazine) they needed to be much more flexible and understanding with workers because workers could quit a job with very little financial penalty; and there was even the risk of others quitting in solidarity with a mistreated employee, due to their social safety net (which applies even if a job is quit without notice). One employer told the interviewer the advice in INC. was sometimes comical and would backfire completely in Norway.
In other words, socialism can give employees the freedom to quit, to choose their employer, to wait for a job they want, and thus indirectly make the employers less demanding, sociopathic, and greedy.
Compared to the current situation I can imagine other freedoms as well; good, at cost public transportation alone would give mobility to work in a larger area, likely giving lower wage employees more options and causing higher wages to be offered. (I know from family experience that job opportunities can be severely limited when relying on public transportation.) The same rationale applies to getting to a voting place; one year my voting place would have required two hours of walking each way (six miles away); and although I can do that, my wife could not (and I probably would not have bothered). I imagine some people don’t vote just because they can’t get to the polls.
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 11:51 pm
Yes. I think there are basics that a government should provide/guarantee … a social or societal infrastructure, if you will.
That doesn’t mean every member of the society will use or take advantage of said infrastructure but it must be in place, working and maintained.
It is that infrastructure that provides both the freedom and the fairness. (a well constructed and maintained highway carries vehicles from buses to Mini Coopers to Porsches, if you get my drift … hell, even a bike lane) The form of government we are talking about would look upon societal infrastructure in the same context. A good basic educational and health system doesn’t preclude the private school for the perennially dumb offspring of the wealthy nor the plastic surgeon whose soul purpose in life is to make wrinkly old rich buggers look like plastic people.
LikeLike
November 30, 2015 at 11:56 pm
The use of “soul” above was intentional.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 12:05 am
BTW … A good plastic surgeon can remove wrinkles but a sound societal infrastructure also fixes a “non-wealthy” child’s cleft palate
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 5:05 am
One of the things that both amazes and depresses me about America is that compared to a great many supposedly “lesser” countries in this world, our infrastructure is ugly, falling apart and outmoded. For a people who exhibit such a puffed up opinion of ourselves, we really are far behind the curve.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 12:45 pm
Mike: such a puffed up opinion of ourselves
The information age may start changing that, even within our lifetimes. There is an interesting phenomenon in intelligence research, in which the less people know about something the more they overestimate how good they are at it. That old joke about everybody being above average is manifest. Like: “I just learned the rules of chess, but my game is probably like somebody that’s been playing two years.” … “I just learned to drive, but I’m already better at it than most drivers on the road.” — “I played my first real round of poker against friends and won $20, I’m a natural, I’m getting excited about my new career in professional poker playing.”
The over-estimate is easily corrected by more experience: More quickly if the consequences of being wrong are frequent, and much less quickly if the consequences of being wrong are rare (for example, a super-majority of drivers wildly over-estimate how they will do in a driving test, especially their ability to focus on driving while distracted by phones, kids, music, etc).
Most Americans are exposed to one infrastructure and do not know any other, and they over-estimate the value of it and how good “we” are at infrastructure. It is the collective version of the same egoism.
That would be corrected by experience, but the vast majority of people cannot afford that experience. It is possible (even likely) that technology will evolve to allow immersive experiences in realistic simulations (or the real thing). Or in decades to come that people will expand their circle of friends to the globe; when voice recognition translation software becomes as ubiquitous, free and real-time as spell check, language barriers will be hidden so well they vanish, and “foreign” friendships and collaborations will begin in immersive, realistic virtual online environments and become strong there. Although I think, absent some genius breakthrough, we are a century away from virtual smell or taste, 3D sight and sound are very well simulated and touch is only about 30 years behind that. In coming years, tech will be able to read our actual faces and voices in real time and mimic all the subtlety of our expressions and eye movement in the face and voice of our avatar, even speaking in another language. No more LOL.
Although that has many homogenization implications, one of them is gathering data points from such friends that experience different manifestations of what infrastructure is and what it should do for people, what it should look like, what it actually costs — and that will inform our American sensibilities of how badly we are being screwed by corporate greed. With one example whitewashed daily by propaganda, we think we are above average. In another two or three decades, at the current pace of innovation, I think technology is the midwife of a much more homogenized global community for everyone, accompanied by much more homogenized expectations of what “good” infrastructure can and should deliver to citizens.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 1:14 pm
Blouise: Precisely. I have an idea: how about the “greater good” society?
The point is not that everybody gets a Porsche, but the greater good is served when no potential is wasted.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 2:43 pm
An interesting (and long, 82min, but you can pause it or skip around) video conversation on stage between Robert Wright (kind of a Deist) and Steven Pinker (Atheist); if anybody is fans of either. (I am a fan of both!) Discussing morality, violence, etc.
Here.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 3:51 pm
MM,
Undoubtedly, at some future point through our connection to the reality outside our US bubble via technology, most Americans will come to realize that we have been neglected by te oligarchs that lead us. Perhaps at that point there will be a greater understanding of how we all are being fleeced. What I find confusing though, is that in these other countries, from the old standards of Europe to even such oligarchies as the United Arab Emirates, or Singapore, the powers that be understand the importance of infrastructure. In America, our politicians for the most part ignore the issue. Arguably, New York City is the most important City in our Country, yet its infrastructure is deplorable. Its subway third rate and its bridges and tunnels ugly to behold. This is true throughout this country and no one on the Right or the Left ever gives the question more than short shrift.
You caught my drift in your comment since we agree that most of us, politicians included, have been conned by the illusion of American being an exceptional country in all respects, when except for our military power and some other instances, we are an industrialized backwater, sold out by the very massive corporations who have turned their sights multi-national.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 3:52 pm
MM,
BTW, I’ve bookmarked “meaningoflife.tv”, because it looks like an interesting place to explore.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Mike: meaning of Life TV is an ongoing project by Robert Wright, an author I first read when I bought the book Non-Zero many years ago, when it was a new book on the shelf. One of my early indulgences of a high salary, back before Amazon when big bookstores were thriving, was to walk through a bookstore with a basket and just tip non-fiction books into it until it became uncomfortable to carry, then go buy those dozen or more books. Repeat after reading. I’ve told my wife I won’t be done until every wall of our home is tiled in bookshelves, then we’ll never have to paint again.
Anyway, Non-Zero turned out to be one of the very memorable ones, a 1 in 100 book, at least in my estimation. Robert Wright is currently strongly into Buddhism, and is not an atheist per se, far more of a teleologist than I can be. I am on Pinker’s side of this conversation 90% of the time (although I disagree with Pinker in the comments, if you look for MM there).
MOL is a worthwhile pastime, it posts many “diavlogs” (video of two people having a conversation, each filming themselves, presented as a split screen, each can see the other: Wright’s idea from over ten years ago. Once you see one of them you get it.)
Anyway, happy viewing!
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 6:06 pm
The point is not that everybody gets a Porsche, but the greater good is served when no potential is wasted. – MM
And the greater good is not called charity for it is the normal base.
I have a thing about charity, what one of the Bush presidents called “a thousand points of lights”. What utter bullshit. If a society has to depend on charity to take care of its citizens then its government is a failure.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 6:10 pm
… then we’ll never have to paint again. – MM
LOL!
One of the downsides of owning a kindle, no more bookshelves. One of the upsides, no more dusting.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 8:57 pm
Blouise: Agreed, charity is not systematic and therefore almost certainly results in discrimination and the exercise of bigotry and racism, and it is also far too easy to think you have contributed a lot when in fact you have contributed nearly nothing. Our modern charities, furthermore, are most typically scams paying the founders exorbitant salaries and perks; often $250K per year, often millions per year. Just check their mandatory filings that include salaries of officers. Travel and lodging expenses and office expenses are harder to find, but when I have found them I have seen officers basically on extensive worldwide vacations. Relieving hunger and misery can be pretty lucrative. Charities can also be corruptly employed to funnel bribes.
When it comes to charity, it is my preference to always give to local or regional charities with limited reach. And even then, I will check their filings, if the officers earn more than $125K I won’t contribute. That is more than a typical college professor earns, more than a typical CEO business owner earns (to cite two examples of “smart enough” and “equivalent experience”), and IMO a scam incompatible with a public service mentality. No telling what other perks and abuse of donations would be found writhing in those heads.
LikeLike
July 22, 2018 at 7:54 pm
This is out of date. Mental health professionals use the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder for both sociopaths and psychopaths. Criminology uses the two terms more than mental health professionals and there are differences between the two. This article describes psychopathy, because it is they who do not have a conscience at all and cannot feel empathy. Sociopaths have weak consciences and do feel empathy, although. both are over-ridden by the impulsive need to manipulate others to achieve their own goals.
LikeLike