4 ms·

"Why did you bring guilt into question? Each individual may have perfectly rational reasons for their behaviour. It can still be interesting to study side effe

by zo1 12y ago

"Why did you bring guilt into question? Each individual may have perfectly rational reasons for their behaviour. It can still be interesting to study side effects of their group behaviour." If only they kept it to just "study[ing] side effects of [..] group behaviour". However, all these meta and orbit-view studies' conclusions are used as justification for all sorts of orbital-level intervention that has real-world consequences on individual's behavior and possibly well-being. The gist, the implications of the article, and any possible government-level consequences need to be preoccupied over! This isn't just some nifty little article we're reading on the internet. This is your entire environment being slowly manipulated by agendas and "reasoned" responses to correct supposed "problems" such as statistical inequality. Be informed.

xorcist 12y ago
So you do not wish to understand the issues involved because they might lead to "government-level consequences", including "orbital-level intervention". Yeah, good to know that college degree of yours wasn't wasted. I would have loved to stick around to here more about the statistical inequality as opposed to other kinds of inequality but I have to go. Best of luck to you.
- autokad 12y ago
  no, but unless you push back the moment they start preaching the right and wrongness, then they will use it to implement government policy to push their ideals, probably at 'your' expense. you may not be able to see what the article is doing, but many of us know too well. I have literally heard urban planners cry foul to plans to fund schools with extra money with the idea that you would get a greater return back in taxes as the neighborhood improved because it would 'push out lower income people' and 'ruin otherwise beautifully economically mixed'.
kghose 12y ago
Yes, this!
_delirium 12y ago
But if there is a systemic-level issue, systemic-level intervention is precisely the right response. Individualist attempts to address systemic issues are mostly romanticism.
- waps 12y ago
  I would say that pretty much all of 4500 years of western history directly disagree with this statement. There were dozens of non-individualist societies when we started, there is arguably a single (relatively new) one left, one that is at least partially individualist, and a single new one. There is the western civilization (sometimes referred to as western individualism, especially by non-western scholars), islam, a relative newcomer that is certainly more individualist than most the competition it massacred out of existence (like e.g. the Roman Society it is mostly modelled on), and communism (which is arguably dead today, as China can hardly be called an example of a communist society. Who is left ? North Korea ?). Any solution that requires individuals reacting against their own self-interest on a large scale is a complete non-starter, for such a thing would not be Nash Balance. Non-Nash-balanced things can only survive until the first unexpected event, and require ever increasing infusions of energy to save their existence. Even that is only true if you can make it a global intervention. If not, it will simply get out-competed and replaced outright.
  - zo1 12y ago
    Would you recommend any literature/links on the subject you speak of? I'm curious...
  - _delirium 12y ago
    I don't agree that Western individualism is incompatible with addressing systemic problems on a systemic level. Joining the two ideas is more or less the "Nordic model" that we use here (Denmark): Western culture, mixed public/private economy, a high degree of state planning, and a universalist social welfare system. To some extent the German model is similar. There is individualism as well, but not to address systemic problems. No one expects individual action on its own to build the rail system, address economic inequality, safeguard the environment, ensure sensible urban planning, or maintain a national defense. Individual activity is part of all of those, but individual activity within the framework of rationally designed policies. Western society is certainly individualist in some senses, especially culturally, and on a micro-level economically as well. I'm not arguing for a fully collectivist society, just to solve systemic problems using systemic approaches. Which we are perfectly capable of doing even in Western culture, using tools like a democratic government.

by zo1 12y ago

xorcist 12y ago

So you do not wish to understand the issues involved because they might lead to "government-level consequences", including "orbital-level intervention". Yeah, good to know that college degree of yours wasn't wasted. I would have loved to stick around to here more about the statistical inequality as opposed to other kinds of inequality but I have to go. Best of luck to you.

autokad 12y ago
no, but unless you push back the moment they start preaching the right and wrongness, then they will use it to implement government policy to push their ideals, probably at 'your' expense. you may not be able to see what the article is doing, but many of us know too well. I have literally heard urban planners cry foul to plans to fund schools with extra money with the idea that you would get a greater return back in taxes as the neighborhood improved because it would 'push out lower income people' and 'ruin otherwise beautifully economically mixed'.

kghose 12y ago

Yes, this!

_delirium 12y ago

But if there is a systemic-level issue, systemic-level intervention is precisely the right response. Individualist attempts to address systemic issues are mostly romanticism.

waps 12y ago
I would say that pretty much all of 4500 years of western history directly disagree with this statement. There were dozens of non-individualist societies when we started, there is arguably a single (relatively new) one left, one that is at least partially individualist, and a single new one. There is the western civilization (sometimes referred to as western individualism, especially by non-western scholars), islam, a relative newcomer that is certainly more individualist than most the competition it massacred out of existence (like e.g. the Roman Society it is mostly modelled on), and communism (which is arguably dead today, as China can hardly be called an example of a communist society. Who is left ? North Korea ?). Any solution that requires individuals reacting against their own self-interest on a large scale is a complete non-starter, for such a thing would not be Nash Balance. Non-Nash-balanced things can only survive until the first unexpected event, and require ever increasing infusions of energy to save their existence. Even that is only true if you can make it a global intervention. If not, it will simply get out-competed and replaced outright.
- zo1 12y ago
  Would you recommend any literature/links on the subject you speak of? I'm curious...
- _delirium 12y ago
  I don't agree that Western individualism is incompatible with addressing systemic problems on a systemic level. Joining the two ideas is more or less the "Nordic model" that we use here (Denmark): Western culture, mixed public/private economy, a high degree of state planning, and a universalist social welfare system. To some extent the German model is similar. There is individualism as well, but not to address systemic problems. No one expects individual action on its own to build the rail system, address economic inequality, safeguard the environment, ensure sensible urban planning, or maintain a national defense. Individual activity is part of all of those, but individual activity within the framework of rationally designed policies. Western society is certainly individualist in some senses, especially culturally, and on a micro-level economically as well. I'm not arguing for a fully collectivist society, just to solve systemic problems using systemic approaches. Which we are perfectly capable of doing even in Western culture, using tools like a democratic government.