1. National service would fix this. The ultimate equalizer and mixer is mil service, but doesn’t have to be.
Americans First: multiculturalism is great except when it is used to divide and conquer. We need to think critically about how to have one larger narrative that includes morals and ethics that all subcultures value/accept/internalize prioritize over smaller difference. Then we all have to self-police by example, shame or more direct methods. Immigrants are some of our greatest assets despite their demonization.
Narrative is what turns fiction into shared intersubjective truth that as we have seen can outcompete boring objective facts/reality/truth.
Unfortunately a large faction of very powerful people have bought into libertarianism which questions the value of slow messy government/democracy vs the speed of free markets in the development of new technologies/progress. These people see the rule of law as an obstacle not the very foundation of what provides these innovators the safety/resources to function. The move fast break things mentality has been misapplied to certain fields such as medicine and government with terrible consequences.
Cambridge Analytica type technology should not be used in domestic affairs (it creates hyper-polarization, enables disinformation, and ultimately helps adversaries for quick political wins) and should have strong export controls. There are a few particular companies that are particularly problematic because while useful are under the management of people who think Pinochet got it right.
They forget that Mussolini came before Hitler and initially praised Mussolini for saving Europe from the “evils” of communism and the mixing of people from different backgrounds watering down traditional cultures. They also take for granted that unwritten political/societal norms are not just silly “taboos” that can be transgressed without serious second and third order ramifications.
Cesar was enabled by Sulla’s and Pompei’s transgressions, but the optímate and in particular Cato failed to realize this. Also, snubbing new blood to keep old blood in power often ends very poorly, another thing Cato failed to realize. The Republic was great because of its constitution and norms, but times change and progress/change is inevitable people need to feel like their government works for them in any democratic form of government. Marius’s reforms only speed up the process of loyalty to state being transferred to loyalty to generals but the rumblings of people feeling unrepresented were already there. The issue of who was a Citizen and what that meant can not be understate.
Reactionary politicians are the killers of Democracies.
Our NSS can’t be to turn back the tides of progress/change.
Traditional values change through time - no culture is static.
Cato was a reactionary who LARPed being old blood Roman nobility by taking on an extreme version of what the Optimati represented, but his lineage was younger than Cesar’s.
A Pleabian turn practican to snuff out a restored practician with new ideas (Julius Cesar) through faux “no true Roman/Scotsmanism” is what did the Republic in. Cato’s narcissism was worse than Cesar’s, but everyone focuses on Cesar’s because he won.
When someone accepts something as self-evident truth - they set their priors to zero or one.
They are no longer discussing some objective observation now they are now debating epistemic if not all out ontological differences.
If you don’t call out people on this you get intersubjective truths being presented as objective truths.
This is how you get civil war. They aren’t engaging in conflict resolution or even a friendly game they are declaring war - zero/sum.
It is the GOPs white superiority which makes it a monochromic and homogeneous, the folks they accept that don’t fit the monochromic expectation do so by becoming extreme believers of the homogeneous culture. Example Clarence Thomas.
I don’t know if I agree. If you believe this then #1 is a fools errand.
Resilience is a perfect mix of malleability that doesn’t deform.
A un-coachable person while perhaps innately resilient will eventually fail and break spectacularly once they have exhausted their innate talents.
For the militaries obsession with the term resilience very few people know how to increase it and the academics certainly aren’t the ones to answer this question.
Resilience comes from successfully navigating adversity, but too many lack the safe home base that allows for risk for failure and the unconditional love/acceptance despite failure.
I grew up religious and it influenced my morals/ethics but I couldn’t tolerate the hypocrisy, inconsistencies and the abuse of power so I left.
Yet, I work in an organization where I face these problems daily, but love the organization.
So what gives, how did that happen? I know why I am being rhetorical to a degree.
Also how do the two seemingly disparate topics relate?
The modern era, especially in the West, we disregard the depth of our enculturation. Rarely, can things be viewed exclusively with data and scientific reasoning. This has been at the heart of all US/ NATO beatings over the past couple of decades and more. I would suggest that true understanding of identity is rooted in NIA/ Narrative Identity Analysis which is a combination of art and science, from multiple disciplines. Simply analysizing modern events with science and reasoning leads to disastrous outcomes.
Your final question is a good one and a far deeper understanding can be found in Narrative. It’s not the only tool but without it, the others are fairly inaccurate.
If we believe changing people’s beliefs is difficult and entrenched, what can we learn of those people who break free from their place of birth, ethnicity, parents/family, religion?
I think it is partially do to random but positive interactions with others and from the failings of those with in one’s own tribe to live up to the tribal narrative.
And we haven’t even gotten into why people choose to follow leaders they do.
Or the issue that comes from technology enabling the narcissism of small differences to take trivial disagreements that lead to narratives of epic proportion that leads to a Romeo and Juliet type factionalism.
1. National service would fix this. The ultimate equalizer and mixer is mil service, but doesn’t have to be.
Americans First: multiculturalism is great except when it is used to divide and conquer. We need to think critically about how to have one larger narrative that includes morals and ethics that all subcultures value/accept/internalize prioritize over smaller difference. Then we all have to self-police by example, shame or more direct methods. Immigrants are some of our greatest assets despite their demonization.
Narrative is what turns fiction into shared intersubjective truth that as we have seen can outcompete boring objective facts/reality/truth.
Unfortunately a large faction of very powerful people have bought into libertarianism which questions the value of slow messy government/democracy vs the speed of free markets in the development of new technologies/progress. These people see the rule of law as an obstacle not the very foundation of what provides these innovators the safety/resources to function. The move fast break things mentality has been misapplied to certain fields such as medicine and government with terrible consequences.
Cambridge Analytica type technology should not be used in domestic affairs (it creates hyper-polarization, enables disinformation, and ultimately helps adversaries for quick political wins) and should have strong export controls. There are a few particular companies that are particularly problematic because while useful are under the management of people who think Pinochet got it right.
They forget that Mussolini came before Hitler and initially praised Mussolini for saving Europe from the “evils” of communism and the mixing of people from different backgrounds watering down traditional cultures. They also take for granted that unwritten political/societal norms are not just silly “taboos” that can be transgressed without serious second and third order ramifications.
Cesar was enabled by Sulla’s and Pompei’s transgressions, but the optímate and in particular Cato failed to realize this. Also, snubbing new blood to keep old blood in power often ends very poorly, another thing Cato failed to realize. The Republic was great because of its constitution and norms, but times change and progress/change is inevitable people need to feel like their government works for them in any democratic form of government. Marius’s reforms only speed up the process of loyalty to state being transferred to loyalty to generals but the rumblings of people feeling unrepresented were already there. The issue of who was a Citizen and what that meant can not be understate.
Agreed all. I have long advocated that our NSS/ National Security Strategy is our national narrative
Reactionary politicians are the killers of Democracies.
Our NSS can’t be to turn back the tides of progress/change.
Traditional values change through time - no culture is static.
Cato was a reactionary who LARPed being old blood Roman nobility by taking on an extreme version of what the Optimati represented, but his lineage was younger than Cesar’s.
A Pleabian turn practican to snuff out a restored practician with new ideas (Julius Cesar) through faux “no true Roman/Scotsmanism” is what did the Republic in. Cato’s narcissism was worse than Cesar’s, but everyone focuses on Cesar’s because he won.
Our current NSS, available publicly, is a vision for progress and more importantly, via the values and founding principles, we prize as Americans.
Paul
Are you familiar with cromwells rule?
It is what inductivists use as a cudgel against empiricism.
Yes Rogelio. How is it that you see either applying here?
It is where stats meets human beliefs systems -
When someone accepts something as self-evident truth - they set their priors to zero or one.
They are no longer discussing some objective observation now they are now debating epistemic if not all out ontological differences.
If you don’t call out people on this you get intersubjective truths being presented as objective truths.
This is how you get civil war. They aren’t engaging in conflict resolution or even a friendly game they are declaring war - zero/sum.
It is the GOPs white superiority which makes it a monochromic and homogeneous, the folks they accept that don’t fit the monochromic expectation do so by becoming extreme believers of the homogeneous culture. Example Clarence Thomas.
Most humans have little control over their belief systems. This is formulated by their own internal narrative. Once set, very difficult to modify
I don’t know if I agree. If you believe this then #1 is a fools errand.
Resilience is a perfect mix of malleability that doesn’t deform.
A un-coachable person while perhaps innately resilient will eventually fail and break spectacularly once they have exhausted their innate talents.
For the militaries obsession with the term resilience very few people know how to increase it and the academics certainly aren’t the ones to answer this question.
Resilience comes from successfully navigating adversity, but too many lack the safe home base that allows for risk for failure and the unconditional love/acceptance despite failure.
I grew up religious and it influenced my morals/ethics but I couldn’t tolerate the hypocrisy, inconsistencies and the abuse of power so I left.
Yet, I work in an organization where I face these problems daily, but love the organization.
So what gives, how did that happen? I know why I am being rhetorical to a degree.
Also how do the two seemingly disparate topics relate?
The modern era, especially in the West, we disregard the depth of our enculturation. Rarely, can things be viewed exclusively with data and scientific reasoning. This has been at the heart of all US/ NATO beatings over the past couple of decades and more. I would suggest that true understanding of identity is rooted in NIA/ Narrative Identity Analysis which is a combination of art and science, from multiple disciplines. Simply analysizing modern events with science and reasoning leads to disastrous outcomes.
Your final question is a good one and a far deeper understanding can be found in Narrative. It’s not the only tool but without it, the others are fairly inaccurate.
Cheers
That is what the Birchers learned.
Small exclusive secret society’s that work as independent cells driven by a constant stream of narratives.
The Conscious of a Conservative was ghost written to drive a narrative.
Limit or excluded and/or deny inter-cell communication and then it starts to look organically grass roots.
MAGA3X was this playbook on steroids taking all the lessons learned from gamergate and pizzagate.
Sorry, your rhetorical dialogue through me off. Which two topics.
threw, not through
If we believe changing people’s beliefs is difficult and entrenched, what can we learn of those people who break free from their place of birth, ethnicity, parents/family, religion?
I think it is partially do to random but positive interactions with others and from the failings of those with in one’s own tribe to live up to the tribal narrative.
And we haven’t even gotten into why people choose to follow leaders they do.
Or the issue that comes from technology enabling the narcissism of small differences to take trivial disagreements that lead to narratives of epic proportion that leads to a Romeo and Juliet type factionalism.