Intelligence and the capability to lead; fooled and the foolers. Split from Tyranny of the Majority

[tar]

Inow,

 

In the failed front two, you state that "we see the exact opposite", and while I can think of a few examples of airhead children, not possessing the skills and abilities of their parents (my plumber's son for instance,) I can think of many many more examples, of managers, leaders, store owners, craftsmen, scientists, movie producers, business leaders, thought leaders, military commanders, and politicians, who actually have the credentials and abilities and the ethics to be capable and trustworthy leaders. And where we see brilliance in disenfrancised individuals, we might get gang leaders, or revolutionary figures and such, but they are still the "leaders" of society from the cliche, to the classroom, to the quarterback on the field, to the college sorority leader, to the school board chairman, to the mayor and the representatives to local, state and federal government.

The people that the president picks to be on his cabinet, are in the "at least a standard deviation to the right", in any number of capability and trust indicators. They were the quarterback on the highschool team, and the president of the debating club.

 

Think of your own place of business. The leaders make decisions behind closed doors in meetings with stakeholders and in accordance with the laws of the land in with the goals of advancing themselves, their "followers" and society. My guess is that you either are on the inside or the outside of the closed door. And if you are on the inside, you are capable and trustworthy, in fact you are the most capable and trustworth individual available. Board directors are usually picked based on their capability and trustworthiness and on their proven capabilities to lead and be revered by their peers.

 

Regards, TAR

Inow,

 

In failed front one, you say the elite individual has simply won the lottery of birth, and by that you are saying perhaps that somebody could have been born in a farming village in North Korea, or with a silver spoon in their mouth in London. This idea smells of reincarnation ideas, with a soul floating around and landing in this or that situation, based on the quality of their previous life, or in your idea, based on a "luck of the draw" princple. I am not convinced that one "could have been" somebody other than the person that they are. And at birth an individual possesses the genes of their parents, and the geographical location of their mother, and the house and town and state and nation of their mother. And the economic condition of their mother, which has a lot to do with the endeavors of the individuals in their family, tribe, association of tribes, and what they built in terms of economic engines and laws and scientific advances, prior the indivdual's birth. An idividual born in a backwater in the Amazon jungle, is not likely to be the head of the debating club at Princeton, unless they move to NJ. Regardless of where they fall on the bell curve, in terms of capability and trustworthiness indicators.

 

Regards, TAR

[tar]

Inow,

 

In failed front number three, you hypothesise that:

 

"Three - People tend to act in their own self-interest and will generally prioritize their own well-being and continued access to power and resources over the greater good of the many. There are clearly some noteworthy exemptions to this trend, but the trend is indeed what most societies seem to face."

 

And I would disagree with this hypothesis based on the fact that capable and trustworthy people have led, are leading and will lead our societies. And the fact that we even have working societies proves that the most capable and trustworthy amoung us, actually are. And they have not endeavored to accumulate wealth and power for their own advantage alone, but have worked toward impoving the situation for others, as well.

 

I am thinking of a fellow I know up in CT who owns and runs a manufacturing facility up there. His father built the place. His father's sons worked there and supported it in various fashions over the years. It employs 30-50 people and each and every one is "supported" by this fellow's efforts.

 

This fellow and his family could be the elite you are talking about. They have hired help, they have a house on Cape Cod. The mother, (father has passed) even at 88, cooks and plans for functions at the Catholic church. They are good people. Excellent people. Another son has a business that he has established factories in other countries and established help for unwed mothers over there.

 

Indications to me, that having the ability to overpower and subjugate people does not mean that such is the nescessary outcome, and for society to be in the state that it is in, in most locales on the planet, capable and trustworthy folk must have been, for a long time, operating with much more than their own self interests, in mind.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

I suppose you are referring to George W. Bush, who did not seem to have the intelligence of a Bill Clinton. Personally, IQ wise, I put myself in G.W.s intelligence range, and would rather have a leader I can figure out, than one like Clinton, who, being of higher intelligence than I am, could "fool" me. The both of them, obviously had to have some leadership abilities or they would not have been elected president. And obviously neither could have made it to the post without the "backing" of rich and powerful folk, lawyers and business owners and state politicians and Hollywood producers, and the like.

 

If you are suggesting that there is a group of people that are "better" than George Bush in the capability and trustworthiness department, I would still gamble that these people are amoung the 10% or so, that lead this society. From the right or from the left, from the Military Industrial Complex, to Hollywood and the Church and the University's Philosophy dept, or the Business leaders, or Wall Street. And to the thread point, there are "reasons" why these 10% should be given a little authority over the 90%. Primarily because they are our leaders, and they are the best we have. Otherwise, we could have a tyranny of the masses, and that might not be desireable.

 

Regards, TAR

[Moontanman]

I don't understand Tar's argument at all, it's like he is describing an alien planet, I see the most going to the most dishonest and lying and cheating takes precedence over integrity, if I had to bet, not vote, on who was going to win an election and who was going to benefit in that government i would say follow the money and I would bet that path rarely follows anything but the self interest of the people getting the money....

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Well you are right, I am a wishful thinker. I went to a private school for boys (at the time) called Pingry. They had an honor code. I thought that was the proper way to live, and I always held working for the benefit of the team, rather than personal advantage, with honesty and integrity high on the priorities list. I was amazed as I hit the "real world" at how many people lied and cheated and took advantage of other people. Quite against my upbringing. But still I give people the benefit of the doubt, at first, and let them prove me wrong, if they are A$%h0132.

 

But in defense of my theory, Pingry groomed Ivy league type individuals, the kind of individuals we are talking about that would be the lawyers and doctors and business leaders of our society. (I personally left after 9th grade and went to Public School, where there was plenty of majority around, and plenty of non-Pingry behavior. Big football player used to copy my homework for geometry after Gym. Unheard of behavior at Pingry. He would look toward my test paper in class and I would cover it up. Cheating was punished at Pingry. Even seeing someone cheat and not reporting it was punished just as severly.

 

Regards, TAR

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

Well you are right, I am a wishful thinker. I went to a private school for boys (at the time) called Pingry. They had an honor code. I thought that was the proper way to live, and I always held working for the benefit of the team, rather than personal advantage, with honesty and integrity high on the priorities list. I was amazed as I hit the "real world" at how many people lied and cheated and took advantage of other people. Quite against my upbringing. But still I give people the benefit of the doubt, at first, and let them prove me wrong, if they are A$%h0132.

 

But in defense of my theory, Pingry groomed Ivy league type individuals, the kind of individuals we are talking about that would be the lawyers and doctors and business leaders of our society. (I personally left after 9th grade and went to Public School, where there was plenty of majority around, and plenty of non-Pingry behavior. Big football player used to copy my homework for geometry after Gym. Unheard of behavior at Pingry. He would look toward my test paper in class and I would cover it up. Cheating was punished at Pingry. Even seeing someone cheat and not reporting it was punished just as severly.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

I would much rather live in your world than mine, possibly we are both looking though distorted lenses...

[overtone]

And I would disagree with this hypothesis based on the fact that capable and trustworthy people have led, are leading and will lead our societies. And the fact that we even have working societies proves that the most capable and trustworthy amoung us, actually are. And they have not endeavored to accumulate wealth and power for their own advantage alone, but have worked toward impoving the situation for others, as well.

This country was governed for eight consecutive years, 2001 - 2009, by an entire executive administration of people manifestly incapable, ethically bankrupt, furthering a corrupt agenda, or all three.

 

Of the past 35 years of US administration, the Presidency, Vice Presidency, and major Cabinet chairs have been in the hands of people either untrustworthy or incapable or both for at least 20. If you don't trust Clinton (I don't), 28.

 

Currently, the most important single political figures influencing our choices for future leadership are Sherman Adelson, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, and the two Koch brothers. They are not politically trustworthy, in the slightest. Neither is any member of the current leadership of the Republican Party they had such a strong role in creating, whether capable or incapable - and surprisingly few seem capable in certain arenas of judgment. People studying this phenomenon speculate that in certain respects incapability itself, not merely malleable ethical standards, is among the criteria for Republican candidates seeking the support of the power brokers and media owners whose support has become essential.

 

The major financial players influencing the US economy via their Wall Street leadership or roles in governance of banking etc have been for years people such as Lloyd Blankfein, Hank Paulson, Alan Greenspan, Kenneth Lay, Bernard Madoff, Angelo Mozilo, Dick Fuld, whomever the CEO of JPMorgan Chase is at the moment, and the like. "Capable" all, in a sense, but capable of anything, is the problem. "Trustworthy", in a sense, but so is the guy running your local protection racket.

 

 

 

Personally, IQ wise, I put myself in G.W.s intelligence range, and would rather have a leader I can figure out, than one like Clinton, who, being of higher intelligence than I am, could "fool" me.

That, multiplied by ten million, is my explanation for how people as unfit for the job as W or Palin or Reagan or Quayle could end up being legitimate candidates for the Presidency.

 

The problem is that if you are vulnerable to being fooled by smart people, putting someone like yourself in the White House means you have put someone in the White House who can be fooled by smart people. And smart people are going to be putting a lot of effort into fooling the guy in the White House.

Edited February 19, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

But Overtone, you are proving my point.

 

Bush and I are about a standard deviation out to the right. Clinton and you are two or three SD out. You are saying that if 90 percent of the people vote for somebody only one standard deviation out, they are opening themselves up to be fooled and manipulated by someone in the top 10 percent. This, you are saying, as if it is the smart people like you, who should run the place. Which was my point. The capable and trustworthy should have, and do have, a little more say in running the place, than the average Joe.

 

And I think your argument becomes even more silly when you lump Alan Greenspan and Bernie Madoff in the same breath.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited February 21, 2015 by tar

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Clinton was more of a chess player.

Bush was more of a checkers player.

 

You can still win and loose at checkers.

 

I learned to play chess in high school. My mom taught me. I beat her, the second game we played, and never lost to her again. Joined the chess club at Pingry, which most of the upper classmen were in. Rose from 120th to 12th in the standings in a semester. Beat most people I played except for this brilliant college professor and my Uncle Ed. Then, at a bar that offered chess sets to patrons, I played someone with Master points. I couldn't find a way to beat him. We were on two different levels. I played a pretty good tactical game, he played a strategic game, and had the tactics covered.

 

In this discussion, both you and I are saying that the strategy should be left to the masters, and not be attempted by the majority.

 

In America, we have taken this mindset too far in my opinion. Specific example is the core cirriculum mandates out of Washington. A bunch of geniuses in Washington decide hot only what should be taught, but how concepts should be taught and in what order they should be taught. This takes the judgement and control completely out of the hands of the majority, where it belongs, and makes as the tyrant, Overtone.

 

Regards, TAR

I came up with a theory when I was 18, that goes like this.

 

You can fool people of lesser intelligence than you, most of the time, if you want.

People around your own intelligence you can fool sometimes and sometimes not.

People much smarter than you can fool you anytime they want.

 

Every person, except for the most intelligent person in the world has people that are less intelligent, at the same level, and more intelligent then they are.

 

Professional sports are divided into those sports that you think are fake and those that you think are real competition. I put the scale something like this. Roller Derby, Wrestling, Boxing, Horse Racing, Football, Baseball. The theory is, that you can judge your intelligence by which professional sports you think are real competition.

 

In reference to my theory posed here, that the 10 percent lead the 90 percent, it is likely that it is true, but concurrent with the truthfulness of the claim is the realization that the responsibility of the 10 percent is thusly greater as well, and the fact that we have, on all corners of the Earth societies that work, indicates that most of the 10 percent have acted with responsibility and kept the place running for everybody.

 

Regards, TAR

I had some proof of my theory about the sports around 3 years ago. I heard on the radio the recap and score of a play-off hockey game played the night before. I recounted it to a big hockey fan, a very smart fellow who told me the team did not play the night before, but had the game that night. The next morning we talked about how it was that the game actually went exactly as I had heard before it was played.

Someone at the radio station probably got fired for reading the copy a day early.

So, Overtone, how is it that you know what Bush and I are thinking and why we do the things we do, unless you are amoung the elite of the elite, the 10 percent of the 10 percent, who lead the leaders.

But if you are such, you would already be in a position of trusted authority, and I should be addressing you as Madam Secretary. Have you ever held a position of great responsibility and authority?

 

Regards, TAR

Ever been a capable and trusted leader?

Edited February 21, 2015 by tar

[Essay]

I came up with a theory when I was 18, that goes like this.

 

You can fool people of lesser intelligence than you, most of the time, if you want.

People around your own intelligence you can fool sometimes and sometimes not.

People much smarter than you can fool you anytime they want.

....

Regards, TAR

Ever been a capable and trusted leader?

Apparently great minds do think alike; you're in good company!

 

P.T. Barnum (or Abraham Lincoln) supposedly said,

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

===

 

But the real problem, istm is that, as James Thurber did say, “You can fool too many of the people too much of the time."

 

~

[tar]

Or you can simply go by the rule "Don't fool the people that trust you."

Essay,

 

Someone once also said about his accomplishments that he was standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

This indicates to me that smart people, on the whole, realize there are others that have set the table. And that it is perfectly alright to have people smarter than you around. The trust factor is the key here. Not to be ruled by the majority per se, but to be ruled by people who have the majority's interests at heart.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

You can fool people of lesser intelligence than you, most of the time, if you want.

People around your own intelligence you can fool sometimes and sometimes not.

People much smarter than you can fool you anytime they want.

 

If you can only fool people who aren't as smart as you most of the time, then people who are smarter than you can't fool you whenever they want. They can only fool you most of the time.

[Ten oz]

Knowledge of a specific thing vs overall intelligence; an auto mechanic doesn't have to be smarter than a medical Doctor to fool that Doctor into repairs that he/she doesn't need on his/her car.

[iNow]

So, following that point... Should we prioritize people who are intelligent at governing and maximizing social wellbeing, or should we prioritize people who are intelligent at getting elected and winning political races? What other potential intelligences should we prioritize?

[overtone]

You are saying that if 90 percent of the people vote for somebody only one standard deviation out, they are opening themselves up to be fooled and manipulated by someone in the top 10 percent.

You, not me, are the guy who is claiming smart people can always fool dumb people. So you trust people more if they aren't smarter than you are. So you vote for Reagan, and W, and your country gets trashed. Smooth move.

 

 

 

 

This, you are saying, as if it is the smart people like you, who should run the place.

No. I think there's a big difference between "smart people" and "people like me", and a big difference between "smart people" and "people capable of running the country", and so forth.

 

You have to be smart to be a good plumber, or a good math teacher, or a good Congressman - but that's just one necessary qualification. I don't hire smart people at random to plumb my house.

 

 

 

Which was my point. The capable and trustworthy should have, and do have, a little more say in running the place, than the average Joe.

I agree they should. I illustrated with examples the fact that they haven't, of late, in the US. But as you seem interested in correcting that unfortunate situation, let's check out your actual willingness to begin doing so:

 

you are never again going to vote for a Republican Party candidate for serious office. T or F?

 

Because the entire Party has thoroughly demonstrated incapability and betrayal as its agenda and ideology, so that no one voluntarily associated with it can be both capable and trustworthy.

 

 

 

 

And I think your argument becomes even more silly when you lump Alan Greenspan and Bernie Madoff in the same breath.

? The connections and parallels are kind of obvious, aren't they? Granted Madoff had demonstrated capabilities and accomplishments beyond Greenspan's (such as founding NASDAQ), but Greenspan was nevertheless as respected as Madoff in the Wall Street financial circles they shared for decades of their careers, the religious circles they shared, and the political associations they had in common. They were both Chairmen of financial oversight and regulatory agencies of national scope and influence, and they had similar regulatory philosophies of laissez faire, at the same time. Greenspan was a director at JP Morgan when Madoff was stashing his Ponzi money there in inexplicably huge cash piles (to Morgan's large profit). Madoff was running the biggest hedge fund in the world at the time Greenspan was promoting and deregulating hedge funds as a matter of policy.

 

And they both undertook careers that seem at first glance to align poorly with their expressed or ostensible philosophies of life - Madoff the community and family values oriented religious adherent, supporter of Israel and charitable foundations, Democrat when political, the freebooting pirate and conman; Greenspan the Ayn Rand acolyte and hardcore childless libertarian, Republican when political, establishing himself in decades of government service as a regulatory bureaucrat and trading on his political influence in private business afterwards.

Edited February 26, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

The tyranny of the majority is thusly something we both would rather not have hold sway.

 

But I only came upon the 10% theory a year or so ago, and the nuanced conflicts that arise from it, are important to talk about. You want me to throw out all the red states from consideration. You want me to throw out all the bankers from consideration. You want me to throw out WASPs from consideration. You want me to throw out Religious people from consideration.

 

Problem is, the country would not run without those folk, and the country would not have the ideals that it has, without those folk and the country would not be a strong nation, unless it was united.

 

The issue I noticed a year ago, was that the 10% have both the ability to lead, and the ability to fool.

 

In the Madoff, Greenspan comparison my feeling is that Madoff cheated, whereas Greenspan's advice was trusted and sought after by congress. Two different characters, and the faults of Madoff should not impugn (thanks SwansonT) Greenspan's character, nor cast suspicion upon NASDAQ and the whole operation of our banking system, because without our banking system, we would not have a banking system. After Madoff's ponzie scheme, I was thinking that the whole insurance industry is actually a Ponzie scheme, with the benefits being paid with the premiums of new subscribers. But without the insurance industry, we would not have insurance. Somewhere in the equation, you have to say "yeah, but", and go with what people have worked together, to put together, that works.

 

There are trade offs between giving someone power over you, and giving up your rights. I once said (in a letter to the editor published in Stars and Stripes) "You give up a few of your rights, for the benefit of other people, and 180 million people give up their rights for you." It is important, when considering the 10%, that the 10% operate with the 90% in mind.

 

Let's say you are in the 10%. You are therefore responsible, by virtue of your superior abilities, for those that trust you and need your capabilities.

 

Don't throw "people like me" in the trash.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

But I only came upon the 10% theory a year or so ago, and the nuanced conflicts that arise from it, are important to talk about. You want me to throw out all the red states from consideration. You want me to throw out all the bankers from consideration. You want me to throw out WASPs from consideration. You want me to throw out Religious people from consideration.

I want you and everyone like you to quit inventing stupid bullshit for other people to be thinking, because it agrees with your ignorant and bigoted presumptions about them. You ought to able to post at least half the time without a single assertion about what other people are supposedly thinking, in particular people you so obviously don't know much about.

 

 

 

 

In the Madoff, Greenspan comparison my feeling is that Madoff cheated, whereas Greenspan's advice was trusted and sought after by congress.

Greenspan almost certainly aided Madoff and profited by Madoff's schemes (their parallel careers have many crossing points, and Madoff's crimes fell under Greenspan's regulatory responsibilities for decades), meanwhile the advice he gave Congress was corrupt and politically aligned.

 

 

Two different characters, and the faults of Madoff should not impugn (thanks SwansonT) Greenspan's character, nor cast suspicion upon NASDAQ and the whole operation of our banking system, because without our banking system, we would not have a banking system.

Without a corrupt and unregulated financial system periodically ruining millions of Americans for the benefit of the weatlhy, we would not have a banking system at all? That's rather cynical.

 

 

 

After Madoff's ponzie scheme, I was thinking that the whole insurance industry is actually a Ponzie scheme

So you absolve the Fed and Wall Street of systemic corruption, but recognize something wrong with the insurance industry? It isn't. Insurance companies need careful regulation and firm limits to prevent them from cheating and stealing, but they are not intrinsically scams. If you knew everything about the finances of the honest ones, you would still buy insurance - they do not have to lie to exist.

Edited March 4, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

We obviously differ on who and why and where trustworthiness is found in, caused and located. But related to this thread, the question still is how much should we be guided by the 10% and how much should we be guided by the 90%.

 

It seems to me, that the middle class has lost some political and monetary power over the last 15 years. Still sought after as "customers" but no longer pulling the strings. More scrammbling to make ends meet, than being in control of the situation.

 

You for instance are setting up a false dichotomy, suggesting that people in power are corrupt and selfish and people should be guided by their own Socratic judgement, while at the same time suggesting that the way people like me judge the situation is stupid, ugly, inappropriate, and wrong.

 

If the masses are to rule, it would certainly be done by people in the 90%, not the 10%. The 90% should rule, or the 10% should rule with the wishes and desires and hopes of the 90% firmly set as the guide.

 

I have picked you as a poster child for the 2% of the 10% that would like the world to go according to their plan, except they don't have anybody to go along with them. That is, you need a banking industry, you need farmers, you need ideals, you need Christian values, or Muslim values, or Constitutional values, or some form of unifying principles, inorder to function as a society.

 

You need to be a member of a team, inorder to be on a team. Whether you are the chief or an indian depends only on your capability and trustworthiness.

 

You act as if you think you have the stuff to be the chief, except you don't like your tribe.

 

Regards, TAR

If a teammate, whether equal,leader or subordinate is doing something wrong-a person is going to want to see his teammate do it right.

England used to rule the world. Now America is her equal. China is her equal. The Middle East is feeling her own oats and squirming out from under British rule.

 

To the thread question the thought is, should we listen to the Queen, or find our own way?

I was born when the Queen of England took the throne. I feel I am on her team. Wanting for the world, the things she wants for the world. I have, do and will operate in a manner that seeks to have her team (my team) win. If there happens to be a substantial number of the 10% on her team, I would not call them elite snobs because of it. I would call them valuable and capable and trustworthy members of the team. House of Lordes or Commons, Senate or House, Republicans or Democrates, rich or poor...we should be on the same team.

Edited March 4, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

It seems to me, that the middle class has lost some political and monetary power over the last 15 years.

Thirty five years, to be sure: since Reagan launched the current rollback of the New Deal.

 

 

I have picked you as a poster child for the 2% of the 10% that would like the world to go according to their plan, except they don't have anybody to go along with them.

- - - - -

You act as if you think you have the stuff to be the chief, except you don't like your tribe

And I have recommended that you desist from such posting, noting its irrelevancy in the first place, and reminding you that since you don't know anything about me you are almost certain to be wrong - over and over and over again.

 

You flail around trying to find purchase for a personal attack, and you shouldn't be trying to attack me personally in the first place. It's what they call in tennis an "unforced error". Why do you insist on making it?

 

 

 

 

You for instance are setting up a false dichotomy, suggesting that people in power are corrupt and selfish and people should be guided by their own Socratic judgement, while at the same time suggesting that the way people like me judge the situation is stupid, ugly, inappropriate, and wrong.

Once again, you are telling me what I am "suggesting", while confusing yourself with the country of America and the people in it.

 

You will not find any reference to Socrates, or any recommendations concerning how people in general should be "guided", or any general statements about "people in power", and so forth, in my posting here.

 

The reason you are wrong all the time is that you insist on basing your arguments in wingnut media supplied presumptions about other people you don't know, compounding an invalid form of argument in the first place with your personal ignorance and media-inculcated bigotry.

 

You and your kind are one faction of the American people, organized and abetted and given inordinate and amplified influence by a cabal of plutocrats employing the most sophisticated marketing apparatus ever seen on this planet. The politicians you and yours have imposed on my country, the "people in power" during the vandalism and foul incompetence of the Reagan Era (now coming to an end one way or another), are not the only politicians we could have had, or could have in the future. They have not been capable or trustworthy, and have never seemed capable or trustworthy to anyone paying honest attention to them. They are what is called in tennis an "unforced error".

 

 

 

 

You act as if you think you have the stuff to be the chief, except you don't like your tribe.

As you would know if you knew enough to post like that, my tribe does not have chiefs. And I like it very much. It's your tribe I don't like - and if you want to know why, beyond the obvious nature of your posting here, look at your chiefs. They are foul gits, and they are wrecking my country.

 

Edited March 4, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I am certainly not the person you are sure I am. Quit telling me I am stupid and ugly and the cause of all the hardships and foul stuff in the world, and perhaps I will not find the need to defend myself.

 

 

This thread is about the tyranny of the majority. You have not defined what population are on your team, defending your ideals and hopes for your country. Are they a large faction, that one could call a majority? Or are they a small faction, that one could call an elite group.

 

Or perhaps is this a fluid situation, like one poster's Hemmingway quote, where the noble thing is not to be superior to another person, but to be superior to your former self?

 

Regards, TAR

Where I am trying to call you out, is to make you see the responsibility, that the people that are more than a standard deviation out to the right, in any measure of human capability, be it power or wealth or intelligence or physical strength, or weaponry, or writing ability or artistic expression, have, in guiding and helping everybody else.

 

If you are strong and you strongarm people weaker than you, you are wrong.

 

Does not matter whether you are male or female, black or white, Christian or Atheist, factory worker or scientist.

 

 

Regards, TAR

And only a person stronger than you can stop you, if you do not stop yourself.

[overtone]

I am certainly not the person you are sure I am.

You have to quit posting like that. The only information you are transmitting is your own ignorance and bigotry, and we've had enough of that for one thread.

 

 

Where I am trying to call you out, is to make you see the responsibility, that the people that are more than a standard deviation out to the right, in any measure of human capability, be it power or wealth or intelligence or physical strength, or weaponry, or writing ability or artistic expression, have, in guiding and helping everybody else.

You can't call me out, and if you could it would be completely irrelevant to the thread. Stop trying. Attend to the posting in front of you.

 

Meanwhile: Helping "everybody else", as you call your tribe, do what? Destroy my country and ruin the people I care about?

 

 

 

 

Are they a large faction, that one could call a majority? Or are they a small faction, that one could call an elite group

There are no "factions" that one could call a majority, in the US these days. Meanwhile, being small does not make a faction an "elite". And so forth. Give it up - the entire ad hominem approach is a blind alley, a waste of everyone's time. Edited March 5, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

You are right, I should not be attacking you for wanting to see people do the right thing.

 

But neither should you attack me, as if I am a mass murder, because I have the same shoe size, race, gender, and political affilliation of a mass murderer you know.

 

But back to your recent point, that there is no faction large enough to be called a majority. This leaves a large area of "slop" that one must navigate inorder to be on a team of sufficient size and power to accomplish great things. Much like voting for a candidate in an election, one often must vote for the least disagreeable candidate. One is most likely NEVER going to find a perfect candidate that would fulfill all the standards that one holds themself to.

 

My thesis in this thread, is that the people that make good things happen are most likey the 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 type people that coach the little league, sell the most stuff at the store, head the girl scout troop, and pass the collection plate at church. In any area of human endeavor there are the leaders, the helpers and the followers and the detractors. The majority of us are following someone elses lead and have thrown in with a carefully selected collection of teams, that accomplish the things we would like to see accomplished. Our streets safe, our children educated, our neighborhoods groomed and clean, our streets paved, our garbage picked up, our neighbors gainfully employed, our store's shelves stocked, and our company and local economy functioning well, adding value, and providing us with a living wage. But most of us have a boss, and a mayor and a police force and a congresswoman in Washington. They, are our leaders. If we don't like their approach we go along, wait 4 years and vote somebody else in. If they break our laws and act as if they are not capable and trustworthy we force them out early.

 

So, perhaps power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the tyranny of the majority can take place, when the team enforces unworkable rules on its members. In this day and age we are in danger of letting the system make judgment calls for us. If you trust the algorithm to guide your decision, that is one thing. If you let the algorithm make the call, that is tyranny of the system. There has to be human judgement making the call, or we have lost control.

 

Regards, TAR

[overtone]

The majority of us are following someone elses lead and have thrown in with a carefully selected collection of teams, that accomplish the things we would like to see accomplished.

- - - -

If we don't like their approach we go along, wait 4 years and vote somebody else in. If they break our laws and act as if they are not capable and trustworthy we force them out early.

So the re-election of Reagan and W was in fact expression of approval of their approach, they and the rest of Republican Party leadership are in your opinion capable and trustworthy and law-abiding, and that faction of American political leadership is engaged in accomplishing things you would like to see accomplished.

 

Because if that were not so, your faction would have dismissed them from their positions of power. That's your claim.

 

And recognizing this, the reality based community - the people who can see the fundamental similarity of ISIS and the KKK, the people who watched in incredulous shock as their country handed a blank check and the keys to the US military to Cheney's patsy; the people who never for one second bought into the bullshit that launched the Iraq War, the Panama invasion, the Grenada invasion, the War on Drugs, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, Star Wars (the weapons system), the deregulation of the S&Ls and then the banks, Supply Side economics, and so forth and so on for decades now -

 

are blaming you and your faction for what is being done to our country in your name and with your support.

Edited March 6, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

OK. I will take responsibility for all those things. And I will admit that I saw the reason for all of them, as they occured.

 

I would think though, in reference to this thread, that it was not the majority that saw through all the things you see through. I still don't see what you see. I still think that I live in a country that responded as one to 9-11. I actually see the value of hard work and responsibility, and risk taking and living the American dream. I don't have your outlook.

 

So, in reference to this thread, who is the elite, me or you?

Who is the majority? Me or you?

 

Is it the people who run the military industrial complex that are the elite? Is it the people the run Hollywood that are the elite? Is it the people who run the universities that are the elite? Is it the scientists? The artists? Wall Street?

 

Who are the fools, and who are the foolers?

 

Regards, TAR

Madison Avenue?

The press?

TV moguls?

 

Who do you figure is trying to fool you, and is not succeeding in fooling you, but have succeeded in fooling the majority? And have succeeded in fooling me?

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I would guess, that by reality based, you mean people who are not hypnotised by a false imaginary thing. Perhaps you are talking about the 16 to 25 percent that do not believe in a god, or that are not adherent to a religion.

 

This is a science board, and most of us here do not believe in god, and see through the evangalists. They do not fool us. Some charismatic individual, holding a bible, talks thousands into sending in some money to be saved. This area, where I am not fooled, but others are, might put me in the reality based camp with you.

 

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims flock to Mecca to circle the stone in a hypnotic trance with the other hundred thousand, all repeating memorized lines from the Koran. I am not fooled by this, I know that the angel Gabriel is a figment of the imagination of a man in a dark cave, perhaps suffering from sensory deprivation. This might put me in the reality based camp with you.

 

I understand the power of suggestion and the human need to associate, and the effect that mirror neurons have on people's thoughts and desires, wants and needs, plans and actions. I see this when there is a commercial on TV and the next day I see someone on the street, wearing the thing. I am not overtly fooled by commercials, and know that a soap is not going to make you into Adonis or Cleopatra. Perhaps this puts me in the reality camp with you.

 

However, commercials work. People get fooled by scammers who tell them a relative has left them a million dollar in Nigeria. People tend to trust the trustworthy, and this trust carries over to the several who are not trustworthy. There was a commercial that joked about "it was on the internet, it must be true." Facilities such as Wiki, where peer review is solidly practiced have given people this idea. Open source software and copylefts have given a whole generation the feeling and actual true reality based idea, that there are hundreds of thousands of people just like them, who want to see the world work, want to share their abilities, and together put a system together that allows for education, and commerce, building and maintaining infrastructure in a secure and trusted environment. All these people, from the ethical hacker, to the corporate IT person are part of the reality based world we live in, but not all are Atheists.

 

As a quick example of the difficulty of finding your "reality based" constituency I would like to point out that you can not tell a person's religion or political leanings by looking at them, or by the job they do. Of the ten people that worked in the software testing room with me, there was a man raised by Jehova Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, and worshippers of Vishnu. I often talked politics with a very intelligent black man who has friends and relatives who are Muslim. I never asked him his political affiliation, nor his religion. He was a reality based individual, regardless of those things. Knowing the people in that room, I would say they all were very intelligent capable, trustworthy individuals. All "reality based". Does worshipping Vishnu throw a person out of your reality based club?

 

Why?

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

I worked for a Japanese Company in a building full of top 10 percent people. Men and women, young and old, from India, Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Russia, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Peru, Columbia, Turkey, Philipines, the U.S. and Japan. Which of them would you figure are trustworthy and capable and reality based, and which do you figure are not?

 

Regards, TAR

[Essay]

...just for an interesting perspective:

 

“You cannot change the situation in Ukraine without inviting—or even more than inviting, insisting—insisting that those who have the real power, the so-called oligarchs, accept responsibility and support this process of reform. You cannot do it without them. So you have to find a way how they can be on board. The way how this work is organized guarantees that there will be no influence whatsoever on the content of the work that we do; I can promise you. The day when one of those oligarchs will try to influence what I am doing would be my last day on this project.”

 

…from a 3/5/15 Deutsche Welle interview with Gunter Verheugen, former EU Vice President and Commissioner, on helping with the Ukraine situation.

 

I guess there is a fine line between "responsibility and support" and "no influence whatsoever," but I think I get his point; and I wish him good luck, and hope he can help "find a way" before his last day on the project.

 

~