Presidential Election

[JLak]

I'm a millennial/gen-x gapper and what amazes me most about gen-x and my generation is a tendency to agree and follow the zeitgeist. We are fundamentally consensus-builders and collectivists. The Obama movement is in stark contrast to the attitude of, let's say, John McCain and Ted Kennedy, who believe in conflict and personal virtues. Therefore, I disagree with the notion that deeper forms of Marxist ideology cannot take root in the USA.

[umoguy]

Don't make me take back my "sane discussion" comment haha. John, jgreenhall, was just joking when he said boomer bullshit. One thing I've found while chatting online is that subtle tones do not translate well into an online format and more often than not cause offense where none was intended.

Back to the topic at hand, In terms of disaster mitigation perhaps the only thing one can do is hole up and get ready for the worst. But on the flip side, I've seen a many a prophetic anylitical thinker who has been proven right, get carried away, and extrapolate his ideas to the most extreme end point he/she can imagine.

It is human nature to overreach, that is what has us in our current situation. Just make sure that you are self aware enough to recognize that quality in yourself. Pretty much every doomsday scenario ever predicted has been wrong, and every single, without exception, end of the world prediction has been incorrect, and that is out of 10's of thousands. Remember that things are never as bad, or as good as they seem. Your predictions of things getting worse have been right and will continue to be right, but your predictions of cataclysmic civilization ending events will be wrong, because they always are. Cross WWIII out of your otherwise sound and solid theories and I'll become a true believer.

[umoguy]

Every disaster can be avoided in retrospect, if there's a
time machine available. The bombing of Pearl Harbor could have been
avoided if .. if .. if.

I like this, everyone is an expert in retrospect, no where more than on CNBC. No one saw this coming, and now they can't shut up about how wrong everyone was, all the while they were cheerleading the market to false hights.

[The Grey Badger]

One of the key tasks for the turning of Xers is to move them from private (and private sector) activities into service.

I strongly disagree with your implication that "private" and "service" are mutually exclusive.

Can you provide more info on why you strongly disagree? I'm simply trying to make the point that there are two kinds of behaviour that are characteristic of Xers - those that are focused on their personal survival, advantage, success (here I use the term "private" but any other similar term would do) and those that are turned to a more group goal. The distinction isn't the material consequences (private actions might result in collective goods) but in the spirit of the motivation. You don't disagree (strongly or otherwise) that there are selfish and unselfish motives? Or short term and long term? Or self and other?

To expand on that: my Xer daughter has been deeply involved in mutual self-help networks from the day she got married and possibly before. Is this private? I'd say so. Is it selfish? She certainly gets a lot of benefit out of it, and so do the others in her networks. (I'm in one myself. Freecycle. I get a lot of benefit out of it.) Is it service? It most certainly isn't getting out there in a uniform and doing things for the officially organized larger community aka the Official Governments on various levels.

But I believe such networks are seriously important but individually and socially.

[Witchiepoo]

You don't disagree (strongly or otherwise) that there are selfish and unselfish motives?

Now this is a completely different question than "private" vs "public." I'm a strong believer in the ability of private, personal action to affect the public good, or bad, as the case may be.

Motives? Ah, an even more complex question. If my "motive" is to further my own desire to see others live better lives, is that selfish or unselfish? The bottom line is that we all act in ways that further our own interest, even if "our own interest" means seeing the world become a better place.

We are fundamentally consensus-builders and collectivists.

Um, I don't think that this is true of Gen X at all. I'd say it's more like we are willing to work with others who share a common goal, even if we have some differences with them. But when push comes to shove, we will stick to our guns instead of following a crowd on something that we don't agree with. My Xer Obama-worshipping friend is already predicting that he will do things which piss her off.

[jgreenhall]

To expand on that: my Xer daughter has been deeply involved in mutual self-help networks from the day she got married and possibly before. Is this private? I'd say so. Is it selfish? She certainly gets a lot of benefit out of it, and so do the others in her networks. (I'm in one myself. Freecycle. I get a lot of benefit out of it.) Is it service? It most certainly isn't getting out there in a uniform and doing things for the officially organized larger community aka the Official Governments on various levels.

But I believe such networks are seriously important but individually and socially.

Then we don't disagree. In fact, I think that a large part of the right answer to what a post-Crisis environement looks like are these sorts of heterogeneous networks. "Service" certainly shouldn't mean "Fascist" or any other activity on behalf of an "officially organized" anything. It does mean doing things with a thought to the benefits of others besides yourself (and other small groups close to yourself). Contrast Freecycle to Enron and we are on the same page.

That said, unless we can imagine and develop an effective replacement for some form of organized government, it would certainly be to our mutual benefit for more of the "best and brightest" to be paying important roles in that set of functions - rather than, for example, "Brownie".

J

[Witchiepoo]

That said, unless we can imagine and develop an effective replacement for some form of organized government, it would certainly be to our mutual benefit for more of the "best and brightest" to be paying important roles in that set of functions - rather than, for example, "Brownie".

Ah, but you seem to have forgotten your own question about "motives," or perhaps you didn't fully realize the implications. If a politician's motives are to serve the public, then being the best and the brightest is beneficial to all of us. On the other hand, if they are sociopaths, it's better for all of us if they are dumb and incompetent. Since most people in positions of power are at least somewhat narcissistic and/or egomaniacal ... well ... you fill in the rest.

[jgreenhall]

Don't make me take back my "sane discussion" comment haha. John, jgreenhall, was just joking when he said boomer bullshit. One thing I've found while chatting online is that subtle tones do not translate well into an online format and more often than not cause offense where none was intended.

Natch, i specifically loaded that particular line because it is a form of code. A GenX-er "tuned" to sarcasm couldn't fail to hear it that way. A Millenial, enured to sarcasm would see it, but probably not like it (prefering a more authentic and material discussion). A Boomer would just get mad at it. No offense intended, John, really just trying to make the same point that umoguy made himself - per the hypotheses of GD, we all carry our generational biases and your Prophet background certainly comes out loud and clear.

A quickie on the impossibility of planning for a crisis. Here I disagree and agree at the same time. Certainly you can't plan for any of the specifics of a crisis. That is the definition of the event. But you can plan for *crisis* and we actually know a lot about the strategic approaches that are more or less effective. Those that are nimble, flexible, able to recognize opportunity quickly and move on it quickly, not weighted down by structures that are rapidly becoming obsolete, broadly talented, able to stay calm, etc. will do much better than others. The classic example is in an actual melee on a battlefield where chaos reigns. It appears that one of the most singular factors in the successful navigation of a crisis is what Turchin calls asabiya, the capacity for a social group for concerted social action. Think about a group of people who, during a sudden raging fire, are able to keep their heads, pull together and quickly form a plan to address it and are able to focus and pull together (in spite of the danger and harm); compared to a group of people who are faced by the same problem and run for the hills (or sit sobbing by the side of the road).

In general, you never know when or where a crisis is going to hit - but in this case we are precisely positing that it is coming and broadly when. Our approach will make quite a bit of difference on the consequences.

[jgreenhall]

That said, unless we can imagine and develop an effective replacement for some form of organized government, it would certainly be to our mutual benefit for more of the "best and brightest" to be paying important roles in that set of functions - rather than, for example, "Brownie".

Ah, but you seem to have forgotten your own question about "motives," or perhaps you didn't fully realize the implications. If a politician's motives are to serve the public, then being the best and the brightest is beneficial to all of us. On the other hand, if they are sociopaths, it's better for all of us if they are dumb and incompetent. Since most people in positions of power are at least somewhat narcissistic and/or egomaniacal ... well ... you fill in the rest.

To the contrary, in fact, my entire thrust was about motives. That GenXers need to move from selfish (or at least primarily self-interested) motives to motives that include some notion of a larger universe having value.

Question for generational dynamics - are "most people of power at least somewhat narcissistic and/or egomaniacal" or only those in the past X years? I was born well after their time, but Truman and Eisenhower never really struck me as having those characteristics.

[Matt1989]

To the contrary, in fact, my entire thrust was about motives. That GenXers need to move from selfish (or at least primarily self-interested) motives to motives that include some notion of a larger universe having value.

Not going to happen. The best we can do is to integrate that self-interest with the good of the community.