4 ms·

The currently new core of cultural values will solidify and there will be some new level of general practice to act on those values. IOW values will fall in lin

The currently new core of cultural values will solidify and there will be some new level of general practice to act on those values. IOW values will fall in line in a general way as they usually do, once the battle lines fade. Diehards will be way more awkward and will fade as attention moves away from them. These were never quality positions in the first place though. You'll probably see new silent generation(s) come about, and conspiracies in government will return to their archetypally stable form, as tacit agreements to preserve a given form of stability. (The recent wacky-conspiracy-theory trend provided wonderful cover for the boring way conspiracies actually form and operate, being mostly without much conscious control and generally in favor of more-of-desired-brand-of-stability rather than chaos) It will take unity to accomplish what's ahead, just as it took diversity to accomplish the most recent changes in culture and fight the accompanying battles. It will take persistent unity to take on government corruption. Waste there will become a bigger issue than we know now. And not along old party lines. The old ways of making noise will no longer work as well, but the new ways will work in favor of smart people and loud people getting together. This will all develop in waves, it's not a one-and-done but rather a trending vein or wave process. The biggest challenges will be centered around questions of who we want to be as humans, and whether we really believe in the desired-unknown as a body, or if we still think we are suckers for believing in developmental progress. If the latter we will get more of the undesired-unknown (recent chaos) in disguise as the desired-known (icons of the past). Anecdotally one will still be able to see whatever one needs to see in government to reflect preferred perspectives, mask one's own blindspots, etc. But more objectively speaking there should be clear, solid trends like these that can probably be charted or tracked in a reliable way. (This is subjective-probabilistic speculation based on my professional background with individual and group archetypes & personality development. There's always a chance I'm 150% wrong)

jrumbut 4y ago
The last silent generation (those a bit too young to fight in WW2 but born before the baby boom) was created by the distribution of massive new rewards. A lot of people were born poor but quickly became middle class. The system worked for them early and often, so they learned not to question it. That seems unlikely in the near future, to me anyway. Perhaps the mechanism for a new one would be avoiding repeats of the various disasters of the last five years. Except to me it seems like whoever delivers that will want to get paid for it, so that seems to point in the opposite direction from an anti-corruption campaign.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  The term "silent generation" was already in wide use when the oldest members of the silent generation were 23 (and the youngest were 6). It wasn't coined because the system working so well for them.
themitigating 4y ago
"Anecdotally one will still be able to see whatever one needs to see in government to reflect preferred perspectives" What? I read your post several times until I realized you're saying nothing with a huge amount of fluff
- themodelplumber 4y ago
  > What? This means you'll tend to look for reflections of your _personal_ gifts / lack of them, within government. "Gifts" is synonymous with your preferred perspectives on things. E.g. if you are attuned to watching for moral quality, you'll naturally develop gifts in that area and look for matching gifts/blindspots in that area on the part of your government. Or if you are yourself a deep thinker, you'll bias yourself toward pointing out fluff--this phenomenon is generally independent of, and out of proportion to, others' perspectives, like even if they say "hey let's ask for clarity before throwing out critique" or whatever, you may tend to go "nah I just got a feeling" and make a judgment call because this feels right to you. So to develop a circumspect (higher quality) POV on government & processees, you'll want to cover that blind spot by looking at objective measurements, for example. That could look like asking "how could I measure that," rather than rewarding subjective bias. Then with subjective bias, working in parallel to the objective improvements, you also want to integrate subjective means for raising the quality level. Please see profile--I lean toward not giving specifics / examples for this stuff anymore because it's a waste of my time & experience. I stare at relevant 3rd party data/charts which connect back to archetype (housing charts, broader national/intl economy, and so on) and make charts all day, and broader 1Y+ charts speak for themselves in a lot of cases (long-term cyclical reversion to mean for example). Accordingly, broader comments are intentionally broad and such comments will naturally seem fluffier.

jrumbut 4y ago

The last silent generation (those a bit too young to fight in WW2 but born before the baby boom) was created by the distribution of massive new rewards. A lot of people were born poor but quickly became middle class. The system worked for them early and often, so they learned not to question it. That seems unlikely in the near future, to me anyway. Perhaps the mechanism for a new one would be avoiding repeats of the various disasters of the last five years. Except to me it seems like whoever delivers that will want to get paid for it, so that seems to point in the opposite direction from an anti-corruption campaign.

HWR_14 4y ago
The term "silent generation" was already in wide use when the oldest members of the silent generation were 23 (and the youngest were 6). It wasn't coined because the system working so well for them.

themitigating 4y ago

"Anecdotally one will still be able to see whatever one needs to see in government to reflect preferred perspectives" What? I read your post several times until I realized you're saying nothing with a huge amount of fluff

themodelplumber 4y ago
> What? This means you'll tend to look for reflections of your _personal_ gifts / lack of them, within government. "Gifts" is synonymous with your preferred perspectives on things. E.g. if you are attuned to watching for moral quality, you'll naturally develop gifts in that area and look for matching gifts/blindspots in that area on the part of your government. Or if you are yourself a deep thinker, you'll bias yourself toward pointing out fluff--this phenomenon is generally independent of, and out of proportion to, others' perspectives, like even if they say "hey let's ask for clarity before throwing out critique" or whatever, you may tend to go "nah I just got a feeling" and make a judgment call because this feels right to you. So to develop a circumspect (higher quality) POV on government & processees, you'll want to cover that blind spot by looking at objective measurements, for example. That could look like asking "how could I measure that," rather than rewarding subjective bias. Then with subjective bias, working in parallel to the objective improvements, you also want to integrate subjective means for raising the quality level. Please see profile--I lean toward not giving specifics / examples for this stuff anymore because it's a waste of my time & experience. I stare at relevant 3rd party data/charts which connect back to archetype (housing charts, broader national/intl economy, and so on) and make charts all day, and broader 1Y+ charts speak for themselves in a lot of cases (long-term cyclical reversion to mean for example). Accordingly, broader comments are intentionally broad and such comments will naturally seem fluffier.