6 ms·

Oh, yes, I totally agree! There's a very steep cost to this model of "Swedish-style individualism", and it's exactly the one you describe. Swedes have much weak

by OskarS 10y ago

Oh, yes, I totally agree! There's a very steep cost to this model of "Swedish-style individualism", and it's exactly the one you describe. Swedes have much weaker bonds to their extended family, their community, their religious institutions (etc.) and it's clearly not a good thing. Humans are social animals. I'm not necessarily arguing that Sweden is a model society and all other countries should adopt our ways. What I'm arguing against is the idea (fairly common, at least in the US) that higher taxes and a more generous welfare state is always antithetical to individualism and the entrepreneurial spirit. It can be, certainly, but it is not necessarily so.

PastaMonster 10y ago
Read somewhere that the chance of having higher intelligence is reflected in how self-sufficient you are. People with higher intelligence tend to manage just fine with a small social group with weak connections. The more social you are the more likely that you have lower intelligence. Sort of suggests that following the collective, being an ant in a colony may have negative effects on intelligence over a few generations. Natures law: "What you don't use you lose." You don't need higher intelligence because so many are chipping in to compensate. Then again, balance is a fickle thing.
- geon 10y ago
  That would have no effect over just a few generations.
  - PastaMonster 10y ago
    It's figure of speech.
- iainmerrick 10y ago
  That sounds unlikely to me, or at least something hard to measure that could easily be spun in different ways depending on your favored interpretation. Do you remember where you read it? A couple of immediate objections come to mind. First, "intelligence" is difficult to define or measure. Things like standardized IQ tests tend to come with an implicit agenda. Second, thinking instead about "innovation", history surely shows that most innovation happens when humans group together (in farming communities, cities etc). It's true though that in recent history, cities are more associated with social atomization. Overall it seems like a very fuzzy and complicated issue.
- quizzas 10y ago
  I'd rather see the connection between happiness and self-sufficiency, because ultimately, isn't happiness what we all want? Whether through intelligence, social connections or religion, achieving that elusive sense of peace and happiness is what drives people's ambitions.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Except its because the collective has given smart people these entitlements. "Hey this guys pretty smart, lets give him tenure." Did you personally pay the taxes to run that university? Did you make those policies? How much of an island do you think 'smart' people really are? Or "Hey this guy is pretty good at business, lets give him low taxes to reward him and keep him happy." I think its difficult for successful people to see how much they're lifted up by everyday people in society doing their best to incentivize meritocracy and creating an even playing field where the smart people can succeed. Lets remember, the idea of the meritorious succeeding is rare in society. Up until recently you had to be a non-woman, non-slave, and at the very least come from a wealthy or political family. Or perhaps sidestep this by having powerful political patrons but then still be under the gun of, say, the inquisition. Also when we look at many of the enlightenment thinkers and supporters, we see a slew of milquetoast intellects and ordinary people fighting against the old order of theocracies, monarchs, and dictators. Why did the smart need them to build the society they needed to succeed in? Newton wasn't writing about the freedom of man, instead he was obsessed over his place in the kingdom of heaven and went a bit mad about non-violent coin counterfeiters, advocating for their death, and often delivering it using the power of his position in the mint. I think there's an Ayn Rand sized fallacy hole that you're falling into here.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >Lets remember, the idea of the meritorious succeeding is rare in society. Up until recently you had to be a non-woman, non-slave, and at the very least come from a wealthy or political family. Or perhaps sidestep this by having powerful political patrons but then still be under the gun of, say, the inquisition. In most historical human societies, the way to "succeed" was to threaten to kill other people unless they gave you what you wanted.
specialist 10y ago
Is there a way to measure the strength of those bonds? We in America are very individualistic (eg "I got mine, screw you!" because Freedom Markets™). Our elder care is terrible. Our nursing homes are bleak. (A buddy worked as the CFO for a nursing home corporation. Told me the biggest thing he learned: Don't end up in a nursing home.)
- ergothus 10y ago
  Little tip: "nursing homes" and "assisted living facilities" are different things. For one, nursing homes are regulated at the federal level, while assisted living is at the state level. I don't know enough to recommend for or against either, but it was complete news to me when I learned they were different, so anyone looking into them might benefit from that knowledge too.
fsloth 10y ago
"Swedes have much weaker bonds ... to their religious institutions" Most nordic people would call this progress.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Except Sweden is in the top 5 in anti-depressant use. I think the problem here is that we can dismiss religion wholesome, perhaps even all spirituality, but there's nothing to cushion the fall. Perhaps its a little arrogant to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think its clear that reality is far from explained and selling people on the idea of a nihilistic existence that is meaningless may not be good for humanity, nor actually be accurate. Are we certain science has solved all major mysteries and our cosmology is pretty much close to perfect? How do we know we're not Newton, unable to see Einstein coming, for example? Maybe we can't ever know. I'm not exactly sure where religion or spirituality fits in with the modern lifestyle, but I suspect it has a place still. As much as I like visiting nordic regions, the lack of smiles and cold attitudes really reflects something I consider wrong and off-putting especially as the son of European immigrants from a 'family' centered society and a liberal US citizen who certainly sees value in the collective, even if the electorate does not. I don't think evolution made us to be asocial, anti-family, anti-spiritual, anti-collective, etc and expect us to be satisfied with the end result (everyone in therapy and on pills for mood issues and complaining about lonliness and lack of meaning constantly). From a personal perspective, adding a touch of meditation and some lightweight Buddhism and Eastern thought has really upped the quality of my life. Perhaps I'm engaging in an evangelical folly here but the facts do remain that the more atheistic a society the more you see depression and suicide appear, once we correct for depression caused by economic issues or warfare or political instability. Maybe this is an issue that'll solve itself somehow, but I do wonder if we ran too hard towards atheism/materialism, when we should have jogged more towards more liberal and 'lighter' religion, personal spiritual practice, or just plain-jane agnosticism.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I think its clear that reality is far from explained and selling people on the idea of a nihilistic existence that is meaningless may not be good for humanity, nor actually be accurate. That's certainly not an accurate description of secular viewpoints.

by OskarS 10y ago

PastaMonster 10y ago

Read somewhere that the chance of having higher intelligence is reflected in how self-sufficient you are. People with higher intelligence tend to manage just fine with a small social group with weak connections. The more social you are the more likely that you have lower intelligence. Sort of suggests that following the collective, being an ant in a colony may have negative effects on intelligence over a few generations. Natures law: "What you don't use you lose." You don't need higher intelligence because so many are chipping in to compensate. Then again, balance is a fickle thing.

geon 10y ago
That would have no effect over just a few generations.
- PastaMonster 10y ago
  It's figure of speech.
iainmerrick 10y ago
That sounds unlikely to me, or at least something hard to measure that could easily be spun in different ways depending on your favored interpretation. Do you remember where you read it? A couple of immediate objections come to mind. First, "intelligence" is difficult to define or measure. Things like standardized IQ tests tend to come with an implicit agenda. Second, thinking instead about "innovation", history surely shows that most innovation happens when humans group together (in farming communities, cities etc). It's true though that in recent history, cities are more associated with social atomization. Overall it seems like a very fuzzy and complicated issue.
quizzas 10y ago
I'd rather see the connection between happiness and self-sufficiency, because ultimately, isn't happiness what we all want? Whether through intelligence, social connections or religion, achieving that elusive sense of peace and happiness is what drives people's ambitions.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Except its because the collective has given smart people these entitlements. "Hey this guys pretty smart, lets give him tenure." Did you personally pay the taxes to run that university? Did you make those policies? How much of an island do you think 'smart' people really are? Or "Hey this guy is pretty good at business, lets give him low taxes to reward him and keep him happy." I think its difficult for successful people to see how much they're lifted up by everyday people in society doing their best to incentivize meritocracy and creating an even playing field where the smart people can succeed. Lets remember, the idea of the meritorious succeeding is rare in society. Up until recently you had to be a non-woman, non-slave, and at the very least come from a wealthy or political family. Or perhaps sidestep this by having powerful political patrons but then still be under the gun of, say, the inquisition. Also when we look at many of the enlightenment thinkers and supporters, we see a slew of milquetoast intellects and ordinary people fighting against the old order of theocracies, monarchs, and dictators. Why did the smart need them to build the society they needed to succeed in? Newton wasn't writing about the freedom of man, instead he was obsessed over his place in the kingdom of heaven and went a bit mad about non-violent coin counterfeiters, advocating for their death, and often delivering it using the power of his position in the mint. I think there's an Ayn Rand sized fallacy hole that you're falling into here.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Lets remember, the idea of the meritorious succeeding is rare in society. Up until recently you had to be a non-woman, non-slave, and at the very least come from a wealthy or political family. Or perhaps sidestep this by having powerful political patrons but then still be under the gun of, say, the inquisition. In most historical human societies, the way to "succeed" was to threaten to kill other people unless they gave you what you wanted.

specialist 10y ago

Is there a way to measure the strength of those bonds? We in America are very individualistic (eg "I got mine, screw you!" because Freedom Markets™). Our elder care is terrible. Our nursing homes are bleak. (A buddy worked as the CFO for a nursing home corporation. Told me the biggest thing he learned: Don't end up in a nursing home.)

ergothus 10y ago
Little tip: "nursing homes" and "assisted living facilities" are different things. For one, nursing homes are regulated at the federal level, while assisted living is at the state level. I don't know enough to recommend for or against either, but it was complete news to me when I learned they were different, so anyone looking into them might benefit from that knowledge too.

fsloth 10y ago

"Swedes have much weaker bonds ... to their religious institutions" Most nordic people would call this progress.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Except Sweden is in the top 5 in anti-depressant use. I think the problem here is that we can dismiss religion wholesome, perhaps even all spirituality, but there's nothing to cushion the fall. Perhaps its a little arrogant to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think its clear that reality is far from explained and selling people on the idea of a nihilistic existence that is meaningless may not be good for humanity, nor actually be accurate. Are we certain science has solved all major mysteries and our cosmology is pretty much close to perfect? How do we know we're not Newton, unable to see Einstein coming, for example? Maybe we can't ever know. I'm not exactly sure where religion or spirituality fits in with the modern lifestyle, but I suspect it has a place still. As much as I like visiting nordic regions, the lack of smiles and cold attitudes really reflects something I consider wrong and off-putting especially as the son of European immigrants from a 'family' centered society and a liberal US citizen who certainly sees value in the collective, even if the electorate does not. I don't think evolution made us to be asocial, anti-family, anti-spiritual, anti-collective, etc and expect us to be satisfied with the end result (everyone in therapy and on pills for mood issues and complaining about lonliness and lack of meaning constantly). From a personal perspective, adding a touch of meditation and some lightweight Buddhism and Eastern thought has really upped the quality of my life. Perhaps I'm engaging in an evangelical folly here but the facts do remain that the more atheistic a society the more you see depression and suicide appear, once we correct for depression caused by economic issues or warfare or political instability. Maybe this is an issue that'll solve itself somehow, but I do wonder if we ran too hard towards atheism/materialism, when we should have jogged more towards more liberal and 'lighter' religion, personal spiritual practice, or just plain-jane agnosticism.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I think its clear that reality is far from explained and selling people on the idea of a nihilistic existence that is meaningless may not be good for humanity, nor actually be accurate. That's certainly not an accurate description of secular viewpoints.