It’s incredible that this boy who we know through your memoir, is now having two hour conversations with Jordan Peterson. That should give us hope about America.
"Jordan says something that increases my confidence that stories and narratives played an important role in my life trajectory."
I've long observed how people seem to conform themselves to their preferred narrative arcs. This is particularly obvious among certain types of young women.
I'm not especially well-versed in Jungian archetypes but I think he meant that there are many different forms pathology can take, but the archetypal (most potent/pure/distilled) form paternal pathology takes is sheer absence.
"My discovery that I’m half Hispanic on my father’s side. “I went to bed white adjacent and woke up an underrepresented minority.”"
Every new group that gets to America is initially underrepresented, it just takes time for people to get around to the idea, yeah your an American too. There's history for the Irish, Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, especially in California, and so forth and so on. Just takes time for people to accept and spread the love instead of the hate.
"People who report the highest levels of earnings, education, and occupational prestige are also the most likely to agree with statements such as “It would please me to be in a position of power over others”
Isn't this everything related to our current political divide?
Other than Rob's book, I am rereading Thomas Sowell's (he is a black intellectual racially dismissed by the Regime and their left support for speaking outside of their narrow racial narrative) book "A Conflict of Visions". This and other great reads like Virginia Postrel's: "The Future and its Enemies", Jonathan Haidt's: "The Righteous Mind" and Charles Murray's: "Coming Apart"... and also "The Master and His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist and the more recent great read "The End of the World is Just Beginning" by Peter Zeihan. I also read plenty of books written from the other worldview side, although this list above is only considered politically-right because it fails to provide that high school validation of the intellectual perfections of the the ego-needy Regime and The Elect that supports it.
My take away from all of this is that we are two different species that see the world differently primarily because our of own biological physiological design, but cemented by our refusal to change and give up anything we believe we are entitled to... and that refusal today has been super-glued by tech and media that keeps feeding us only the news that makes us feel righteous.
But it is that part of society that craves to be in control and power that is always the more dangerous if they congregate enough in power and then go to work subjugating everyone. The democratic system has a fatal flaw in that the type of people that don't have this obsession for power and control are often the most pragmatic and grounded, but they don't run for office... they don't obsess about corner office. They are happy living a good life with work, family, friends and maybe God. They are often our better part of humanity. But they end up subjugated by those power freaks that generally have a screw loose.
How to repair this flaw is the challenge of modernity. How to prevent the power hungry from gaining power just because they are power hungry, and replace it with leadership of the calm and pragmatic true public servants.
I don't know how we can conclude that democratic society is more fair when those that crave power and control acquire power and control. It seems the opposite is true.
The best next step would be 8 year limits on Federal govt bureaucrats, including FBI, so as to get a lot more ex-govt workers, knowing how their own part of govt was failing in its mission.
It’s not politicians, but technocrats who are the more insidious, power hungry danger.
I work directly with federal agencies. There is the functional and the political organization. The problem is generally always the latter. The functionaries are generally good people trapped in between the political organization and the public they serve.
My claim is that the 8 yr limit hugely reduces the power of the politics, the org folk, while only slightly reducing the effectiveness of the functional folk, the mission followers, as they train about 15% new, non-burnt out folk.
The Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that every org has a mission, and folk dedicated to the mission, with folk dedicated to the org. Over time, the ones dedicated to the org take over.
There are studies that prove this 8 year point. I see it as a cycle where a new role is exciting and creativity and ambition flow... and then eventually mastery is achieved and from there the person slips to a defensive position to exploit their mastery... basically blocking the new creativity and ambition.
There is a problem though in that these organizations grow so complex in rules and process, that the mastery is sometimes needed.
But constant mission focus can help. I run a non-profit that works directly with two federal agencies. I am constantly reminding the rules people in these agencies that the spirit and intent of the mission of the program should come before their damn rules. They really do seem to lose track of why these programs exist and gravitate to making life miserable for everyone trying to make good stuff happen. I rely on some that have been in their seats for over 20 years, but there are others that have long passed their stale date.
"Although many people claim that their sexuality is fundamental to who they are, very few people will say that their actual sexual past is fundamental to who they are"
Can Rob or someone clarify how "sexuality is fundamental to who they are," but not their "actual sexual past?" Is this an attempt to disregard the effects of the NEGATIVE aspects of one's sexual past?
For me personally there were "negative" and positive experiences in my sexual past. They're all of apiece. I don't dwell on the "negative," but I don't disregard them either. I don't know Rob Henderson's sexual past, but if growing up in foster homes is fundamental to "who he is," why wouldn't his sexual past--both positive and negative--be fundamental to who he is?
It's based on two sources--one is personal experience and the other is from a working paper (I don't think the link is available yet but will share when it goes up). To the extent I see college-educated people boast about being "poor," it's largely genteel poverty. No money for vacations, but plenty of cultural capital (good table manners, awareness of newsworthy topics and current events, knowledge of different dress codes for special events).
In my anecdotal experience, elite grads who carry on about being poor generally weren’t all that poor. Often, they seem to have been “respectable poor”, economically lower income, but more like upper middle class in terms of education and outlook (we see this when parents have low-paying jobs that nonetheless required college degrees, like social workers or librarian). I think the ones who truly grow up poor, like Rob did, tend to hide it because it’s not “respectable poor”; instead its seen as white trash or ghetto culture vs. the respectable poor “we think like elites, we just don’t have as much money as they do.”
In Victorian times, they would have been called the “genteel poor” - they’d know what fork to use and had middle-class or upper middle-class manners and education, but they just didn’t actually have money due to a business failure or some sort of reversal of fortune - vs an actual poor farmer, factory worker, coal miner or whatever.
It’s incredible that this boy who we know through your memoir, is now having two hour conversations with Jordan Peterson. That should give us hope about America.
"Jordan says something that increases my confidence that stories and narratives played an important role in my life trajectory."
I've long observed how people seem to conform themselves to their preferred narrative arcs. This is particularly obvious among certain types of young women.
If an abusive or tyrannical father is not best described as pathological, then what word would be used to describe the situation?
I'm not especially well-versed in Jungian archetypes but I think he meant that there are many different forms pathology can take, but the archetypal (most potent/pure/distilled) form paternal pathology takes is sheer absence.
"My discovery that I’m half Hispanic on my father’s side. “I went to bed white adjacent and woke up an underrepresented minority.”"
Every new group that gets to America is initially underrepresented, it just takes time for people to get around to the idea, yeah your an American too. There's history for the Irish, Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, especially in California, and so forth and so on. Just takes time for people to accept and spread the love instead of the hate.
"People who report the highest levels of earnings, education, and occupational prestige are also the most likely to agree with statements such as “It would please me to be in a position of power over others”
Isn't this everything related to our current political divide?
Other than Rob's book, I am rereading Thomas Sowell's (he is a black intellectual racially dismissed by the Regime and their left support for speaking outside of their narrow racial narrative) book "A Conflict of Visions". This and other great reads like Virginia Postrel's: "The Future and its Enemies", Jonathan Haidt's: "The Righteous Mind" and Charles Murray's: "Coming Apart"... and also "The Master and His Emissary" by Iain McGilchrist and the more recent great read "The End of the World is Just Beginning" by Peter Zeihan. I also read plenty of books written from the other worldview side, although this list above is only considered politically-right because it fails to provide that high school validation of the intellectual perfections of the the ego-needy Regime and The Elect that supports it.
My take away from all of this is that we are two different species that see the world differently primarily because our of own biological physiological design, but cemented by our refusal to change and give up anything we believe we are entitled to... and that refusal today has been super-glued by tech and media that keeps feeding us only the news that makes us feel righteous.
But it is that part of society that craves to be in control and power that is always the more dangerous if they congregate enough in power and then go to work subjugating everyone. The democratic system has a fatal flaw in that the type of people that don't have this obsession for power and control are often the most pragmatic and grounded, but they don't run for office... they don't obsess about corner office. They are happy living a good life with work, family, friends and maybe God. They are often our better part of humanity. But they end up subjugated by those power freaks that generally have a screw loose.
How to repair this flaw is the challenge of modernity. How to prevent the power hungry from gaining power just because they are power hungry, and replace it with leadership of the calm and pragmatic true public servants.
I don't know how we can conclude that democratic society is more fair when those that crave power and control acquire power and control. It seems the opposite is true.
The best next step would be 8 year limits on Federal govt bureaucrats, including FBI, so as to get a lot more ex-govt workers, knowing how their own part of govt was failing in its mission.
It’s not politicians, but technocrats who are the more insidious, power hungry danger.
I work directly with federal agencies. There is the functional and the political organization. The problem is generally always the latter. The functionaries are generally good people trapped in between the political organization and the public they serve.
My claim is that the 8 yr limit hugely reduces the power of the politics, the org folk, while only slightly reducing the effectiveness of the functional folk, the mission followers, as they train about 15% new, non-burnt out folk.
The Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that every org has a mission, and folk dedicated to the mission, with folk dedicated to the org. Over time, the ones dedicated to the org take over.
I’ve seen no better suggestions-do you have one?
There are studies that prove this 8 year point. I see it as a cycle where a new role is exciting and creativity and ambition flow... and then eventually mastery is achieved and from there the person slips to a defensive position to exploit their mastery... basically blocking the new creativity and ambition.
There is a problem though in that these organizations grow so complex in rules and process, that the mastery is sometimes needed.
But constant mission focus can help. I run a non-profit that works directly with two federal agencies. I am constantly reminding the rules people in these agencies that the spirit and intent of the mission of the program should come before their damn rules. They really do seem to lose track of why these programs exist and gravitate to making life miserable for everyone trying to make good stuff happen. I rely on some that have been in their seats for over 20 years, but there are others that have long passed their stale date.
"Although many people claim that their sexuality is fundamental to who they are, very few people will say that their actual sexual past is fundamental to who they are"
Can Rob or someone clarify how "sexuality is fundamental to who they are," but not their "actual sexual past?" Is this an attempt to disregard the effects of the NEGATIVE aspects of one's sexual past?
For me personally there were "negative" and positive experiences in my sexual past. They're all of apiece. I don't dwell on the "negative," but I don't disregard them either. I don't know Rob Henderson's sexual past, but if growing up in foster homes is fundamental to "who he is," why wouldn't his sexual past--both positive and negative--be fundamental to who he is?
It's based on two sources--one is personal experience and the other is from a working paper (I don't think the link is available yet but will share when it goes up). To the extent I see college-educated people boast about being "poor," it's largely genteel poverty. No money for vacations, but plenty of cultural capital (good table manners, awareness of newsworthy topics and current events, knowledge of different dress codes for special events).
In my anecdotal experience, elite grads who carry on about being poor generally weren’t all that poor. Often, they seem to have been “respectable poor”, economically lower income, but more like upper middle class in terms of education and outlook (we see this when parents have low-paying jobs that nonetheless required college degrees, like social workers or librarian). I think the ones who truly grow up poor, like Rob did, tend to hide it because it’s not “respectable poor”; instead its seen as white trash or ghetto culture vs. the respectable poor “we think like elites, we just don’t have as much money as they do.”
In Victorian times, they would have been called the “genteel poor” - they’d know what fork to use and had middle-class or upper middle-class manners and education, but they just didn’t actually have money due to a business failure or some sort of reversal of fortune - vs an actual poor farmer, factory worker, coal miner or whatever.