18 replies to this topic

[Utnapishtim]

I felt like examining the power of bad ideas... The list below reflects views held either explicitly or implictly by very substantial portions of the population I consider to be fundamanetally incorrect. What makes them difficult to counter is that they are usually considered to be so self-evident as to be unworthy of comment byt the individuals who hold them. Anyone feel like adding to my list?



1) Decreasing the gap between rich and poor is a good worth pursuing for its own sake.

2)The government is a good vehicle for ensuring a fairer world.

3) Sexual behavior, particularly women's, is an excellent indicator of an individuals moral worth

4) Suffering and poverty are inherently ennobling.

5) Extreme poverty is morally superior to extreme wealth.

6) Changing your mind is a sign of weakness and an indication of a weak or indecisive character.

7) Truly great leaders make decisions from their heart. They rely on their gut. analysis is for dorks.

8) Government has a duty to protect domestic jobs from foreign competition

9) All means of reaching conclusions are equally valid. Its all a matter of perspective.

10) There is no such thing as better or worse cultures they are simply different. We must suspend all judgement in these matters.

11) To assert the superiority of one culture/socioeconomic model over another in clearly a sign of entrenched bigotry/racism

12) The best road toward moral excellence is a set of clear rules, rigidly followed.

13) Religion is neccessary for the living of a moral life.

14) All religions contain great truth. To criticise the religions of others is a sign of arrogance/ignorance.

15) Some people have a duty to readdress the wrongs committed by their ancestors on the ancestors of other.

16) The physically strong and imposing are also morally ethically and intellectually more substantial.said a

[thefirstimmortal]

the power of bad ideas... The list below reflects views held either explicitly or implictly by very substantial portions of the population....Anyone feel like adding to my list?

Everyone must die

Everyone must pay income taxes

[bacopa]

17) If you think too much or like to "free think" you're labeled as weird and people hate you...hate is an emotion that seems to be used too often and for no good reason

18) There's a hypocrisy involving the idea of being "a winner" what that means and often the people who truly want to win are labeled as Losers.

19) The religous are the biggest hypocrites of all bitching out people who simply want to be free and relgion is more like a club of mindless cultists than anything else

20) Capitalism makes us want more and if anything, feel immortal, but when it comes to wanting more life or "immortal life" no system seems to help

21) I'ts ok to think freely in some circumstances in other situations people will think you're trying to be manipulative.

22) It's ok to be mean if you play by "the rules" and it's ok to be mean when you don't. kindness and real altrusim is not taken really seriously.

[bacopa]

why is decreasing the gap between rich and poor a bad thing especially when you disagree about suffering being bad?

[Lazarus Long]

Actually for the sake of argument I suggest you be willing to uphold your position Jerome. Have you studied socio-economics? Have you ever heard of a Lorenz curve?

Konrad Lorenz was a brilliant mathematician, scientist, and social thinker that created a graph predicated on exactly the criteria you hold in #1 and then he set out to evaluate the stability of societies throughout history precisely on the basis of how well they maintained a stable productive social structure and what was the disparity and distribution of wealth in the respective society.

An interesting thing is that he got a pretty substantial result from his studies that has been upheld by most of a century of ongoing work both meant to support and refute his findings.

It appears that the farther skewed the proportion of wealth in a society the less stable it becomes and the more likely to collapse. In his analysis of literally hundreds of different cultures around the world and over thousands of years the same results were noted. Basically a Lorenz curve is a simple measure, what is profound is that it does seem to be upheld by serious study in spite of numerous popular misconceptions about it.

As for number 2 let me first be very clear I have no faith in government, but it can be a good vehicle for improving society and the lot of the world. That it can be doesn't mean that it will be used as such however and until we have a better method it is one of the best that has come forward. It sure as hell beats the hell out of just beating the hell out of each other. [":)]

And judging people by their sexual proclivity I have always found is a valid measure of whether or not to mate with them, not whether or not they could type, or lead, make a good friend, or do business honestly. It is not a moral question to begin with.

As for the nobility of suffering and poverty it is not in itself ennobling but it does provide a filter that removes the distraction of the trappings of wealth that obscures the view of integrity at times.

Most poor people are no different than most wealthy people they are all wretches. But wealth makes it easier to obscure the problems and hide behind a delusion of happiness predicated on objects not substance. Just as having wealth is no guarantee of happiness or integrity neither is poverty but not having wealth can at times make it easier to tell the good from the bad.

I am going to stop for now at number 6 because what ever I say at this time I intend to change my mind about it later and readdress the issue. )

Actually there is a quality of mercy at work here that treats the fundamental issue of forgiveness as weakness and this is the core of the issue. To truly forgive is not weakness, it is true strength but it is also a sign that one may be a glutton for punishment and too easily manipulated and perhaps asking to be abused.

Changing one's mind is an example of forgiveness when it isn't about being indecisive. In fact the problem also stems from people trying to cast all issues into simplistic models of good/bad, black/white, and to be willing to contemplate both (or more) sides of any issue that makes those of us that do this the problem for those that seek to rule every situation and force us into the boat or out based on limiting choice.

[tbeal]

is it just me or is this list of 'bad ideas' far too right wing

[JonesGuy]

funny that

[Mind]

Lazarus, it is axiomatic that a society with true wealth equality is stable because such a society needs to be ruled with an iron fist (literally behind an iron curtain). I don't think a person needs to be a brilliant mathematician like Lorenz to figure that out. There can be no freedom in a wealth-equal society. True wealth equality is unnatural in human society.

It boils down to freedom vs. stability. Unfortunately, a lot of people would rather choose stability. A mix of the two is what we find around the world today. What is the right mix? What would Lorenz say? 50/50? For me personally I prefer a 90/10 split (90% freedom of course).

[Mind]

tbeal: is it just me or is this list of 'bad ideas' far too right wing

Please clarify your statement tbeal.

Are you saying that the ideas themselves are "right wing"?

or

The fact that Utna claims they are "bad" ideas, make it a "right wing" stance?

[tbeal]

the obvoius problem with is that it's not just 'freedom' as you put it - it would be good if we were all equal enough to choose wheather to woork or not but some people are at a severe disadvangtage and should not be left in poverty - a small difference is good because it allows all the people to lead a decent life at the same time as rewarding peope who suceeed so 1 is good obvouisly communism etc is bad because as you mentioned above as it rules out freedom and a work ethic but a small gap is good

[Utnapishtim]

Lazarus I would wager that virtually every one of the historical societies Lorenz referred to with a big gap in income between rich and poor also had mass poverty. (Poverty defined in absolute rather than relative terms) If you look at the first world countries over the last 15 years or so, the wealth gap has increased even while fewer people were living in absolute poverty. Poverty IS a social problem and a destabilising force. The problem is NOT rich people.

In the United states since the 1980s income inequality has grown while violent crime has declined.

I do agree that stability may be best served by a fairly even distribution of incomes but like mind I am not at all convinced that such stability is the holy grail of social organisation anyway.

tbeal: How much wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor would you like to see? Why would a person person who is good at producing wealth choose to live in your society? How would this society retain its most productive memebers when they can relaocate to countries who offer them more incentive to produce?

[Lazarus Long]

You would lose the wager Utna, though many of the cultures practiced slavery of various kinds. The Lorenz distribution shows that social stability has far less to do with "total wealth" than an even or "equitable" distribution, but by even distribution it doesn't mean everyone has the same level of wealth. There never has been such a society in all of history except at the most primitive levels.

No, you and Mind should look up his work, the proportion of wealth is the issue, and the most stable societies are those with the largest "middle classes" and the history of the fall of every society is preceded by an extreme consolidation of wealth in too few hands to sustain the total group and the structures collapse or are overrun as the populace lacks incentive to defend them.

The few number of extreme wealthy associated with large impoverished classes is highly unstable also but usually has a very short period of existence. Societies like Rome or ancient Egypt all had extremely wealthy classes but they were more evenly distributed throughout the whole society and the proportion of poor was actually far less than the functional middle class.

They are interesting studies and I will search later for links as the last time I read his worked was 30 years ago in college. He did a number of very important studies that are still very relevant, Lorenz Transformations were one contribution and he also proved the behavioral link to neural imprinting in geese that is an important contribution to cognitive psychology.

As for the stats on violent crime that is under serious review and just today I heard an interesting counter stat, yes overall violent crime had been decreasing (though it is apparantly going steady state now) but not murder, that has in fact been steadily increasing by 1 to 2% per year since the mid 90's and at a rate of 6% per year in some inner cities.

[darktr00per]

Government has a duty to protect domestic jobs from foreign competition---why is that a bad idea???? it was created for and by the people, right? if most of our jobs are taken by immigrants it would hurt our overall economy and employments. our companies that go over seas for cheap labour.-we might buy the cheap product made over seas but how would we get the money for these products if all the companies are moving out of the countrywhile we lose jobs at the factories(or whatever product producing establishment)

9) All means of reaching conclusions are equally valid. Its all a matter of perspective.
if you cannot change their perseption then how can you tell them they are wrong? if you think they are wrong and you are right - that is your perspective. thats why we have comprimise

-

[Mind]

The problem is not that rich people exist. The problem is that rich people are corrupted by power and they use that power to prevent others from fulfilling their potential.

When the wealthy use their power to oppress people and stifle opportunity, instability arises.

To me, a large middle class implies a natural "bell curve" of wealth distribution. I believe this is what most societies would look like with more freedom and less manipulation from politicians and business oligarchs.

[chubtoad]

looks about right.

[tbeal]

darktrooper if every goverment thought like that their would be global deprerssion - besides why do you have more right to jobs just because you are born in a certain country?

[John Doe]

is it just me or is this list of 'bad ideas' far too right wing

The list seems more libertarian (I am libertarian) than right wing.

1) Decreasing the gap between rich and poor is a good worth pursuing for its own sake.

2)The government is a good vehicle for ensuring a fairer world.

3) Sexual behavior, particularly women's, is an excellent indicator of an individuals moral worth

4) Suffering and poverty are inherently ennobling.

5) Extreme poverty is morally superior to extreme wealth.

6) Changing your mind is a sign of weakness and an indication of a weak or indecisive character.

7) Truly great leaders make decisions from their heart. They rely on their gut. analysis is for dorks.

8) Government has a duty to protect domestic jobs from foreign competition

9) All means of reaching conclusions are equally valid. Its all a matter of perspective.

10) There is no such thing as better or worse cultures they are simply different. We must suspend all judgement in these matters.

11) To assert the superiority of one culture/socioeconomic model over another in clearly a sign of entrenched bigotry/racism

12) The best road toward moral excellence is a set of clear rules, rigidly followed.

13) Religion is neccessary for the living of a moral life.

14) All religions contain great truth. To criticise the religions of others is a sign of arrogance/ignorance.

15) Some people have a duty to readdress the wrongs committed by their ancestors on the ancestors of other.

16) The physically strong and imposing are also morally ethically and intellectually more substantial.

I would say (please correct me I am mistaken, all of these numbers and negations confuse me) that the negations of 6 and 7 are not right wing and the negations of 3, 12, 13, 14, and 16 are positively left wing.

[Lazarus Long]

Just to be clearly obscure, I have only addressed the validity of number one. My comments with respect to 2,3,4,5,6, were aside from being "tongue in cheek" more analytical than negating.

In the case of number one my point is there are very serious and valuable reasons to suspect that decreasing the "gap" between rich and poor does contribute to social stability and higher productivity and longer existence and there happens to be a relatively large body of socio-economic historical analysis to back that up. I frankly don't care what people like or dislike about that being said, people on both the right and the left of these issues need to stop being lead by their beliefs and remove their craniums from their rectums.

Number three and its negation are neither left or right. It is about a social behavioral shift in western society involving puritanism. These are not the same thing and trying to impose a left/right perspective on all issues is a false dualism and not constructive to valid social analysis. The world is not all about left/right politics anymore than American politics is really all about Republican and Democrats. The point is that these interests rule by getting the passive majority to accept these false dichotomies.

I intend to return still to the second half of the document but number 13 is clearly about secular/non-secular social division not about left/right and too many people confuse the two that is why you perhaps see the negation in these terms John Doe. Both the extreme left and extreme right wing are atheist secularists that place the state above religious interests. Ironically it is the middle ground of "believers" and the institutions they support like "monarchies" and "Fundamentalists" that defend the idea of a religious state. For example Israel is not the product of extremism, Zionism is.

Theocratic states can be either right or left wing from a socioeconomic perspective when viewed historically. The division between Theocracy and Secularism is not inherently left/right as is commonly understood, Secularism is not defined by Democracy either as for example again the fascists of Nazi Germany were extreme atheists, claimed to be socialists but practiced Monopolistic Capitalism and persecuted religious groups (not just Jews) as fervently as Stalin.

But Hitler and Mussolini lived in Catholic countries, that is correct a significant part of the German working class were Catholic and it was necessary to "negotiate" with the Pope. Anyway that Pope was not too unsympathetic to their cause.

The reason you may find the confusion then John is because the propositions and their negatives are not often predicated on aspects of left/right bias but on secular/nonsecular determination and how these overlap any given social group for determination of the internal political make up.

In my treatment of number three for example I am basically in agreement with Utna, in the case of number two however I am taking the Churchill position. I am pointing out that there is a profound distinction between what is said and what is done. That government could be a good vehicle for social growth and advancement is supported by both a historical and logical analysis. That is not such a simple question however and the analysis shows the failings of government as often as not are also without question. Governments are only as good as the people governed, they are never better, and usually they are far worse.

Numbers 4&5 are interesting because these are the two were the secular/nonsecular debate has a pretty coherent doppleganger in the left/right debate. It is not a simplistic overlap but it is closer to 'one to one.' I was shedding some light on the pragmatics of the position and showing how the ideas could become popular, that is aside from the obvious idea of misery loving company.

Number 6 however is not about politics, religion, or even economics, it is about evolutionary psychology and one of the most interesting statements on the whole list. Regardless of agreement or disagreement, how one determines an answer says a lot more about their individual cognitive psychology than their culture and it is certainly a lot more about memetics than about socioeconomics.

The paradigm shift in number six is to a dichotomy of parochialism versus progressivism, not about economics except as how you might personally define your economic views and the opinion expressed is derivative of what was popularized as Social Darwinism in the last century. Number 6 is interesting because it highlights the psychology of transformation.

While I haven't addressed number seven yet I would say it too has this quality. We are dealing with an idea of idealized charismatics for what defines the relationship of a people to their leaders and this is about the evolutionary psychology of memetics, not about politics, economics, or even religion per se, but all of these groups will take a stand on this issue one way or another as it serves their specific interests. Leadership is not predicated on entirely rational qualia, too bad but that is a fact. That is not said to agree with number 7 but to lament the aspect of truth contained therein.

If leadership were only about being the best person for the job then a lot less of the politicians would be lawyers and they would be more qualified for the positions they hold. They are in fact adapted and qualified for the Social Darwinist struggle they must pass in order to achieve power and this adaptation is not addressed by #7. Number 7 is about how those who follow are supposed to be programed to function as followers and rely on faith in leadership for the leader/follower relationship to function, that faith must be seen to be reflected or trust is diminished.

As there have been few truly great leaders it is interesting to analyze them for the purpose of validating one way or another the claim of #7. It seems to me that few of those who lead made such a claim except to promote that those who would question their decision were unable to assail this rampart, in other words this claim is a loyalty test and if you didn't have faith in your leaders faith then you failed the test and were removed from the pecking order.

The idea evolves from this quality of "loyalty and faith" that acts as the cohesive social memetic glue, which has evolved out of the pack and into human society and creates that functional "trust" that bonds a people. Charisma as it reflects desirability for actors and politicians is derived of the evolutionary "biology" of the psychology of this idea and it is this quality that is not perceived in totally rational terms for the majority so it defaults to being an article of faith.

[imminstmorals]

The idea evolves from this quality of "loyalty and faith" that acts as the cohesive social memetic glue, which has evolved out of the pack and into human society and creates that functional "trust" that bonds a people.  Charisma as it reflects desirability for actors and politicians is derived of the evolutionary "biology" of the psychology of this idea and it is this quality that is not perceived in totally rational terms for the majority so it defaults to being an article of faith.

I thought we had enough of american marketing ?
[huh]