Robert writes: << Or, can we evolve consciously as a society to find a more inclusive solution?>>
To make this happen, norms have to change, and that means everyone evolves. But, initially there can be a smaller number of people, `elites’ if want to call them that, that design and construct systems that are fairer than the ones that preceded them while also navigating in the less-fair game of political hardball. As you say, it isn’t necessarily federal government, it could be company policies like for extended parental leave or support for professional training. Or city legislators that create sanctuary cities. Sociologists, economists, and policymakers have the room and capacity to step back and think about how the society is functioning and suggest (relatively technical) ways to make it work better. It just seems childish and misguided how so many people have come to resent those who professionally study and plan for the practical problems of the many. Do they also resent doctors for daring to prescribe them antibiotics or mechanical engineers for daring to design their car? We’ve had modest Kumbayah moments – like Obama’s election, but I claim the limiting factor is not feelings of brotherhood or solidarity, or the engagement of citizens, it is the skill and persistence to navigate very nasty political opposition. I would like to see a leader that embraces multiculturalism and shows people how, economically and culturally, it is more than the sum of its parts and how it is not a zero sum game. Obama was pretty good at that rhetoric. Hillary Clinton had the right slogans, but did not convince enough people -- she is more an analyst than an effective campaign personality. We live in a celebrity culture that too-often rewards people that look convincing, have average to good cognitive empathic abilities, and (crucially) don’t mind being put in situations where they have to lie repeatedly. Clearly, if a candidate doesn’t demonstrate emotional empathy for the most indefensible behaviors, then they are a diabolical (neoliberal) snobs. I guess the lesson-learned in Hillary’s case is don’t judge in silence -- if you’re going to make an enemy out of part of the electorate, go all in. I immediately took to your `talent vs. luck’ contrast as Steve did – as a free-will question. I think in our gun and crime-obsessed culture there is not much chance that people will consider that they are just along for the ride. There has to be a bad guy to be taken out, a character weakness that could have been avoided, or some act of will that will fix things. It can’t just be that we are powerless and that our culture has a chronic disease. (Even though social workers, shrinks, and any number of experts see it every day.) Marcus
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
