[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Politicians don't control our culture, not to the extent which you seem to think.

Go back to my first post you seemed to agree with. Now trace those symptoms to a root cause. See if its politicians.

I didn't say that they control culture, but can we at least agree that culture is intertwined with all of this?

[The Final Dakar]

My mistake.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think so. I think we're putting the post under a microscope. Why shouldn't we? Isn't that exactly the whole point of posting?

Here is a serious answer for you: you apparently perceive that some nebulous concept of culture is under attack. Look outward not inward to pinpoint what it is that makes you perceive this. Then pursue that actual thing to find its cause. Don't keep imagining and extrapolating what you think the cause "ought" to be. That road leads to madness.

This is why the strawman is a fallacy. In this thread you are not addressing the actual opposition, you are addressing what you (earnestly) believe the opposition to be. There is no point in wasting any further time on that (yours or your readers') until you can demonstrate that it is really what someone believes and is acting on, and whether that person is a significant force or merely an aberration.

You seem to want to always find some sort of smoking gun objectively correct factor or set of factors to everything, but I think this game is madness.

I've used my *perceptions* of declining culture as ammo for my arguments, and have pointed at some basic high level sort of observation without drilling down into the specifics you seem to desire. The problem is, you have to start with perceptions, that is what a hypothesis is about: an educated guess. Only, something as complex as a declining culture is very hard to measure objectively because there are a million factors.

Therefore, perhaps we should stop the debate over specifics game particularly since we all seem to agree to some extent that culture is a part of this? It seems to me that we only disagree on characterization, language, presentation of argument, and prioritization of factors.

It is easy to blow my specifics out of the water, I could do that to my own posts, but why don't you offer some countering theories which explain the cultural role in all of this? Dakar did a good job of this, although his explanation, like mine, was arguably imperfect. Still, it furthered discussion because this is all exploratory. My original topic and post were a leap-off point with a thesis statement of my own. It's fine to debate my thesis, but it's not a good idea to throw out the entire baby with the bathwater particularly since it seems like many of you acknowledge that our culture has a significant role in all of this.

What is that role, in your opinion?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My mistake.

No problem. I take it you agree that culture is a part of our overall problems based on what you wrote about our collective sense of entitlement?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You seem to want to always find some sort of smoking gun objectively correct factor or set of factors to everything, but I think this game is madness.

That game is called "science." It's what I do, and I won't apologize for it, and I won't ask you to apologize for being all artsy-fartsy in your identity.

I've used my *perceptions* of declining culture as ammo for my arguments, and have pointed at some basic high level sort of observation without drilling down into the specifics you seem to desire.

Hold on a minute. I thought the point of this thread was you were asking for specifics. As in, you noticed a trend and you wanted answers about what caused it (specifically) and what we could do about that (specifically).

The problem is, you have to start with perceptions, that is what a hypothesis is about: an educated guess. Only, something as complex as a declining culture is very hard to measure objectively because there are a million factors. ... It's fine to debate my thesis, but it's not a good idea to throw out the entire baby with the bathwater particularly since it seems like many of you acknowledge that our culture has a significant role in all of this.

Where I come from, you start with a general hypothesis and you use it to move on to specifics, by asking questions that would address the hypothesis but which are also answerable. At that point, the hypothesis is left behind for whatever you find. What you find ("reality") is the important thing. You don't throw the baby away, you use it as a stepping stone to reach higher goals (like truth, or more specific and relevant and answerable questions). Once you have used the baby for this, it is used up and you move on to other, better babies. (can you tell I'm not a family man? )

If you don't intend to ever move forward away from the stage of merely "hypothesis," never test this hypothesis or try to adapt it to reality, then by all means avoid any specifics that might interfere with the hypothesis being treated as gospel.

Therefore, perhaps we should stop the debate over specifics game particularly since we all seem to agree to some extent that culture is a part of this? It seems to me that we only disagree on characterization, language, presentation of argument, and prioritization of factors.

It is easy to blow my specifics out of the water, I could do that to my own posts, but why don't you offer some countering theories which explain the cultural role in all of this? Dakar did a good job of this, although his explanation, like mine, was arguably imperfect. Still, it furthered discussion because this is all exploratory. My original topic and post were a leap-off point with a thesis statement of my own.

What is that role, in your opinion?

I've said it twice already (and ebuddy said it better than I) but I have no trouble saying it again (and again). It is all explained by the moral hazard. The bail-out. The safety-net. The short-term fix. When all your needs are provided for, you stop trying at life, and you just kinda sit back and smell the roses. And why not? Why take risks when you're already where you want to be? Why put the effort in if there is no chance of failure when you don't? The more we reach the "finish line" of everyone's needs being obviated, the less driving force there will be for people to collectively advance.

It's the same dynamic you see in evolution. "Progress" is slow when a species is well adapted to its niche. It's only during times of suffering and upheaval that you see a quickening of innovation. Then as the new problems get solved, adaptation slows again.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That game is called "science." It's what I do, and I won't apologize for it, and I won't ask you to apologize for being all artsy-fartsy in your identity.

Nor should you. I'm a software engineer, I get the need to be scientific and exact. I'm just saying that identifying a cultural breakdown is extremely difficult to do in a quasi-scientific way, at times there needs to be a balance between scientific proof and having frank high level discussions about what is being observed in a non purely scientific manner.

Hold on a minute. I thought the point of this thread was you were asking for specifics. As in, you noticed a trend and you wanted answers about what caused it (specifically) and what we could do about that (specifically).

I'm interested in that, in whether my observations are shared, and any other overall analysis.

Where I come from, you start with a general hypothesis and you use it to move on to specifics, by asking questions that would address the hypothesis but which are also answerable. At that point, the hypothesis is left behind for whatever you find. What you find ("reality") is the important thing. You don't throw the baby away, you use it as a stepping stone to reach higher goals (like truth, or more specific and relevant and answerable questions). Once you have used the baby for this, it is used up and you move on to other, better babies. (can you tell I'm not a family man? )

It's hard to find better babies when there is miscommunication. If you fully understand me but just see things differently, that is one thing, but so much of these sorts of threads entails just clarification and articulating points accurately so that they are understood as intended. How can we find better babies if we don't even agree on what that baby is, or if there is a baby or not, or if that baby has a mustache?

I've said it twice already (and ebuddy said it better than I) but I have no trouble saying it again (and again). It is all explained by the moral hazard. The bail-out. The safety-net. The short-term fix. When all your needs are provided for, you stop trying at life, and you just kinda sit back and smell the roses. And why not? Why take risks when you're already where you want to be? Why put the effort in if there is no chance of failure when you don't? The more we reach the "finish line" of everyone's needs being obviated, the less driving force there will be for people to collectively advance.

It's the same dynamic you see in evolution. "Progress" is slow when a species is well adapted to its niche. It's only during times of suffering and upheaval that you see a quickening of innovation. Then as the new problems get solved, adaptation slows again.

I see what you mean by necessity then, in this context that I wasn't understanding before (see what I mean by the miscommunication thing?)

Is the human race forever going to be stuck in these sorts of patterns then? Strive for a finish line, reach it, and chill out and relax while not looking for new races and new sorts of challenges?

Why is it that some people don't seem content to just sit still after accomplishing something, and what factors are at play to get people to accomplish something when it isn't absolutely necessary? I realize that the masses are lazy and are not going to do stuff unless necessary, but all it takes is a small and driven percentage of people to be the movers and shakers of this world that don't ever rest on their laurels. How do we grow that percentage?

My thinking is that we need to set the right environment to inspire and encourage. I'm not convinced that we as a country have done everything we can to do this.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Nor should you. I'm a software engineer, I get the need to be scientific and exact. I'm just saying that identifying a cultural breakdown is extremely difficult to do in a quasi-scientific way, at times there needs to be a balance between scientific proof and having frank high level discussions about what is being observed in a non purely scientific manner.

If it's really being "observed," then it is scientific and measurable, by definition. If you scorn specifics, then you're talking about what's being perceived not what's being observed. The difference is that perception is in our own minds, while observations are what is in the world around us.

I contend that any problem which is perceived but not observed (in an unbiased and repeatable way) is irrelevant. One, it is often not actually true; nothing can be done (to the outside world) to fix a problem that only exists in one's mind. Two, if it does exist then it is unfixable, or at least you would never know whether what you're doing is having an effect on it. Three, people can't communicate about it or agree on whether it is bad or what to do about it if it's only in each person's mind and can't be translated to objective, rational, empirical observations that can be exchanged between different people. This is my frank high-level discussion: because of these 3 high-level conceptual problems, debating policies is pointless when you're unwilling to base them on empirical evidence.

It's hard to find better babies when there is miscommunication. If you fully understand me but just see things differently, that is one thing, but so much of these sorts of threads entails just clarification and articulating points accurately so that they are understood as intended. How can we find better babies if we don't even agree on what that baby is, or if there is a baby or not, or if that baby has a mustache?

Specifics aid communication. I am extremely confused how you can be complaining about specificity and lack of communication at the same time. Let me give you an example (aka something specific ) to try to help communicate what I'm getting at. Suppose I say "the forum is really falling apart." Does that help me communicate better than saying "membership is down" or "members don't post" or "I never win flame wars anymore" or "there are more ads than in the good old days" or even "my browser can't play linked videos"?? See to me, any additional specificity aids immensely in communicating what it is I'm upset about (not to mention it suggests an avenue to remedy my problem).

I see what you mean by necessity then, in this context that I wasn't understanding before (see what I mean by the miscommunication thing?)

Is the human race forever going to be stuck in these sorts of patterns then? Strive for a finish line, reach it, and chill out and relax while not looking for new races and new sorts of challenges?

Why is that a bad thing? If inventing is fun, then people will do it of their own accord and the problem will solve itself. If it is a chore, then why should our goal be to do it at all? Shouldn't our ideal goal be a state in which we all do precisely whatever we want?
Maybe the next great invention will be the idea that chilling out and relaxing is ok after all. Progress doesn't have to take the path we expect it to

Why is it that some people don't seem content to just sit still after accomplishing something, and what factors are at play to get people to accomplish something when it isn't absolutely necessary? I realize that the masses are lazy and are not going to do stuff unless necessary, but all it takes is a small and driven percentage of people to be the movers and shakers of this world that don't ever rest on their laurels. How do we grow that percentage?

If "all it takes is a small and driven few people," then why should we have to "grow that percentage?"

My thinking is that we need to set the right environment to inspire and encourage. I'm not convinced that we as a country have done everything we can to do this.

Think of it this way... inspiration and genius are what got us to where we are today. They didn't happen because we made them happen, quite the opposite. They are the things that made us happen. What makes you so sure that we need to do anything in order to fuel it? What makes you think we even have the capability to? What if any change we make only serves to impede them?