Millennials when old

[David Horn]

(05-05-2020, 04:46 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Missionaries were prone to magical beliefs during the 2T, but then went more rational after WW1. At the same time they retained a sense of awe for the wonderful Universe. Dawkins called this experience Einsteinian religion.

There has always been a dichotomy within Western religion (especially Protestant variants, but others as well) between focus on faith and faith-based activities, and doing good deeds as a sign of one's faith.  The Transcendentals were clearly in the first category and Missionaries in the second.  Boomers who fit in that world were, like Eric, New Agers and clearly in the first group with the Transcendentals.  I suspect the next Prophets will be more grounded like the Missionaries.

[Warren Dew]

(05-05-2020, 04:46 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

Quote:My wife uses the definition "belief that policies will be effective because they are well intentioned", a form of magical thinking that Millenials seem to be at least as susceptible to as other generations.  Skepticism about that form of magical thinking may be more of an age thing rather than a cohort thing, though.

We need evidence-based politics. Maybe it will be invented during the 1T?

Evidence based politics are incompatible with democracy, absent some serious eugenics, er, transhumanism.  Democracy rewards politicians who are convincing, not politicians who are accurate.  Excessive optimism and good lying skills are both too effective for politicians.  For democracy to use evidence based politics, the average person would have to be smart enough to see through the lies and pessimistic enough to be skeptical of good news.  Neither is likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

Dictatorships and oligarchies could in principle be evidence based, but that would not result in policies that were good for the people as a whole; rather, it would only result in policies that were good for the ruling class.  North Korea might be a good example of what might result, and that's not most peoples' idea of where they would want to live.

[beechnut79]

(05-05-2020, 11:45 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 04:46 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

Quote:My wife uses the definition "belief that policies will be effective because they are well intentioned", a form of magical thinking that Millenials seem to be at least as susceptible to as other generations.  Skepticism about that form of magical thinking may be more of an age thing rather than a cohort thing, though.

We need evidence-based politics. Maybe it will be invented during the 1T?

Evidence based politics are incompatible with democracy, absent some serious eugenics, er, transhumanism.  Democracy rewards politicians who are convincing, not politicians who are accurate.  Excessive optimism and good lying skills are both too effective for politicians.  For democracy to use evidence based politics, the average person would have to be smart enough to see through the lies and pessimistic enough to be skeptical of good news.  Neither is likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

Dictatorships and oligarchies could in principle be evidence based, but that would not result in policies that were good for the people as a whole; rather, it would only result in policies that were good for the ruling class.  North Korea might be a good example of what might result, and that's not most peoples' idea of where they would want to live.

Wouldn’t it be nice if those running for office would use the slogan “sugarcoating doesn’t live here”?

[Blazkovitz]

(05-05-2020, 09:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 04:46 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Missionaries were prone to magical beliefs during the 2T, but then went more rational after WW1. At the same time they retained a sense of awe for the wonderful Universe. Dawkins called this experience Einsteinian religion.

There has always been a dichotomy within Western religion (especially Protestant variants, but others as well) between focus on faith and faith-based activities, and doing good deeds as a sign of one's faith.  The Transcendentals were clearly in the first category and Missionaries in the second.  Boomers who fit in that world were, like Eric, New Agers and clearly in the first group with the Transcendentals.  I suspect the next Prophets will be more grounded like the Missionaries.

That's why I love Missionaries We need a MASSIVE baby boom in the 2030s!

Warren Dew Wrote:Evidence based politics are incompatible with democracy, absent some serious eugenics, er, transhumanism.

We could approach them if the intellectual elite convinces the masses to their ideas. But to achieve this, the intellectual elite needs to heal. The neo-Missionaries should try to achieve that. If they don't, our species might have to wait many centuries for another renaissance.

[Warren Dew]

(05-09-2020, 06:27 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: We could approach them if the intellectual elite convinces the masses to their ideas. But to achieve this, the intellectual elite needs to heal. The neo-Missionaries should try to achieve that. If they don't, our species might have to wait many centuries for another renaissance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectual elites" here.  Currently, the technorati is terrible about paying attention to the evidence.  Or rather, specialists each pay attention to their own specialty, and assume it's the only one that's important.

That's how we got to this situation where the epidemiologists are recommending handling the pandemic by destroying the economy, and the economists are recommending to preserve the economy by letting old people die.

[David Horn]

(05-09-2020, 01:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-09-2020, 06:27 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: We could approach them if the intellectual elite convinces the masses to their ideas. But to achieve this, the intellectual elite needs to heal. The neo-Missionaries should try to achieve that. If they don't, our species might have to wait many centuries for another renaissance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectual elites" here.  Currently, the technorati is terrible about paying attention to the evidence.  Or rather, specialists each pay attention to their own specialty, and assume it's the only one that's important.

That's how we got to this situation where the epidemiologists are recommending handling the pandemic by destroying the economy, and the economists are recommending to preserve the economy by letting old people die.

There is some truth here, I admit.  The 20-20 tunnel vision is really terrible at the moment. A lot of this is due to the inordinate focus on STEM and a nearly total disregard for the liberal arts -- the one undertaking designed to look broadly.  I'll disagree about the epidemiologists, though.  I've heard many interviewed by a broad range of interviewers, and they tend to argue for focus on the health issues because the economy can't heal if the workforce and customers are disease vectors.  They also cite the big winners in the liberal democracies.  South Korea seems to get perhaps more attention than it's due, but Australia and New Zealand have both succeeded with governments that are virtual opposites. All focused on the disease.

[Warren Dew]

(05-09-2020, 03:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is some truth here, I admit.  The 20-20 tunnel vision is really terrible at the moment. A lot of this is due to the inordinate focus on STEM and a nearly total disregard for the liberal arts -- the one undertaking designed to look broadly.  I'll disagree about the epidemiologists, though.  I've heard many interviewed by a broad range of interviewers, and they tend to argue for focus on the health issues because the economy can't heal if the workforce and customers are disease vectors.  They also cite the big winners in the liberal democracies.  South Korea seems to get perhaps more attention than it's due, but Australia and New Zealand have both succeeded with governments that are virtual opposites. All focused on the disease.

Actually, that's a perfect illustration of the epidemiologists' ignorance of economics.  The truth is, the economy could do just fine with the workforce and customers being disease vectors.  There would be some absences due to sickness, but those are always there; there would be negligible deaths among most working age people.  There would be a few deaths among preretirees in their 50s and 60s - enough to be noticeable - but opening up senior employment slots for younger people would not necessarily be a bad thing from an economic standpoint.

There would be 1-2 million deaths in the US amongst retirees, yes.  From an economic standpoint, though, that would be a good thing, not a bad thing:  the economy would have to support fewer unproductive retirees, permitting more resources to be directed to workers.

The problem is that the epidemiologists assume that the first priority has to be minimization of disease deaths, so they don't even consider tradeoffs that might permit a few more deaths from the disease even if the benefits to the economy are great - or even if deaths other than because of the disease are enough to offset the extra deaths from disease.

The economists, of course, are the reverse:  they want to reopen the economy and if the epidemiologists can still keep the deaths low, that's great, but if 2 million old people die, that's the price of keeping the economy alive.  And because medical science is so focused on treatment rather than prevention, there aren't any experts pushing face masks, which could actually give both the epidemiologists and the economists 90% of what each want.

I do agree that part of the problem is the dearth of competent liberal arts students.  Returning to the 1950s when the intelligent people all went into liberal arts and there were few intelligent engineers might not be any better, though - and to get competent liberal artists, they need to be numerate as well as literate.  What we need is paths for the top students in both the liberal arts and in engineering, and perhaps a recognition that college alone won't suffice for poor students.  Colleges are good at educating intelligent people, but they're terrible at turning unintelligent people into intelligent people.

[Blazkovitz]

(05-09-2020, 01:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-09-2020, 06:27 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: We could approach them if the intellectual elite convinces the masses to their ideas. But to achieve this, the intellectual elite needs to heal. The neo-Missionaries should try to achieve that. If they don't, our species might have to wait many centuries for another renaissance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intellectual elites" here.  Currently, the technorati is terrible about paying attention to the evidence.  Or rather, specialists each pay attention to their own specialty, and assume it's the only one that's important.

That's how we got to this situation where the epidemiologists are recommending handling the pandemic by destroying the economy, and the economists are recommending to preserve the economy by letting old people die.

The technorati are one thing, technology is going well but the social sciences and humanities have a quite irritating leftist bias (the sort I call Inclusivism), and economists have a pro-market liberal bias which is also wrong. Both lack the communitarian ethos of the previous saeculum, when upholding Civilization was all-important.

[Warren Dew]

I'm using "technorati" in George Friedman's sense: basically people who got their jobs by virtue of having the right degree.

[David Horn]

(05-10-2020, 12:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-09-2020, 03:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is some truth here, I admit.  The 20-20 tunnel vision is really terrible at the moment. A lot of this is due to the inordinate focus on STEM and a nearly total disregard for the liberal arts -- the one undertaking designed to look broadly.  I'll disagree about the epidemiologists, though.  I've heard many interviewed by a broad range of interviewers, and they tend to argue for focus on the health issues because the economy can't heal if the workforce and customers are disease vectors.  They also cite the big winners in the liberal democracies.  South Korea seems to get perhaps more attention than it's due, but Australia and New Zealand have both succeeded with governments that are virtual opposites. All focused on the disease.

Actually, that's a perfect illustration of the epidemiologists' ignorance of economics.  The truth is, the economy could do just fine with the workforce and customers being disease vectors.  There would be some absences due to sickness, but those are always there; there would be negligible deaths among most working age people.  There would be a few deaths among preretirees in their 50s and 60s - enough to be noticeable - but opening up senior employment slots for younger people would not necessarily be a bad thing from an economic standpoint.

There would be 1-2 million deaths in the US amongst retirees, yes.  From an economic standpoint, though, that would be a good thing, not a bad thing: the economy would have to support fewer unproductive retirees, permitting more resources to be directed to workers.

The problem is that the epidemiologists assume that the first priority has to be minimization of disease deaths, so they don't even consider tradeoffs that might permit a few more deaths from the disease even if the benefits to the economy are great - or even if deaths other than because of the disease are enough to offset the extra deaths from disease.

The economists, of course, are the reverse:  they want to reopen the economy and if the epidemiologists can still keep the deaths low, that's great, but if 2 million old people die, that's the price of keeping the economy alive.  And because medical science is so focused on treatment rather than prevention, there aren't any experts pushing face masks, which could actually give both the epidemiologists and the economists 90% of what each want.

That's about the most insensitive screed I've read on this board.  Sorry, but we, the elderly, are not going to die for profits … period … full stop!  More to the point you seem to be making, neither are the workers and customers of the businesses you're encouraging to reopen.  They'll stay home, and spend on necessities.  That makes anything in the big-ticket arena (cars, home appliances, kitchen renovations, or travel) solidly on the back burner.  Meanwhile, those businesses foolish enough to reopen will be hemorrhaging money with little coming in. And don't expect a lot sympathy for bailouts under those conditions.  If you think that little of me, don't count on my support for anything.  And btw, consumer spending is 70% of the economy.  It doesn't take a lot of reticence to push the economy into a deep recession. 

Warren Dew Wrote:I do agree that part of the problem is the dearth of competent liberal arts students.  Returning to the 1950s when the intelligent people all went into liberal arts and there were few intelligent engineers might not be any better, though - and to get competent liberal artists, they need to be numerate as well as literate.  What we need is paths for the top students in both the liberal arts and in engineering, and perhaps a recognition that college alone won't suffice for poor students.  Colleges are good at educating intelligent people, but they're terrible at turning unintelligent people into intelligent people.

We need people who see the whole picture, a skill notably lacking among STEM types.  As one of that fraternity myself, I have been amazed at how little philosophy, history and social science knowledge exists in that crowd. Even language skills are stunted. It's impossible to discuss anything with folks who lack the basic knowledge needed to understand what is being discussed. I've been down that road on too many occasions.  We don't agree, but we do agree that we both have a reasonable command of material we're discussing.

When I was a child, my high-school educated parents had broad knowledge of the world, and so did their friends.  It was the norm.  Today, even the college educated lack that basic capacity.  No, we don't need to college-educate everyone, but we do need to provide basic understanding of civics, our place in history, and a useful command of the English language. We have in the past.  We can in future.

[nguyenivy]

(05-10-2020, 12:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-09-2020, 03:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: There is some truth here, I admit.  The 20-20 tunnel vision is really terrible at the moment. A lot of this is due to the inordinate focus on STEM and a nearly total disregard for the liberal arts -- the one undertaking designed to look broadly.  I'll disagree about the epidemiologists, though.  I've heard many interviewed by a broad range of interviewers, and they tend to argue for focus on the health issues because the economy can't heal if the workforce and customers are disease vectors.  They also cite the big winners in the liberal democracies.  South Korea seems to get perhaps more attention than it's due, but Australia and New Zealand have both succeeded with governments that are virtual opposites. All focused on the disease.

Actually, that's a perfect illustration of the epidemiologists' ignorance of economics.  The truth is, the economy could do just fine with the workforce and customers being disease vectors.  There would be some absences due to sickness, but those are always there; there would be negligible deaths among most working age people.  There would be a few deaths among preretirees in their 50s and 60s - enough to be noticeable - but opening up senior employment slots for younger people would not necessarily be a bad thing from an economic standpoint.

There would be 1-2 million deaths in the US amongst retirees, yes.  From an economic standpoint, though, that would be a good thing, not a bad thing:  the economy would have to support fewer unproductive retirees, permitting more resources to be directed to workers.

The problem is that the epidemiologists assume that the first priority has to be minimization of disease deaths, so they don't even consider tradeoffs that might permit a few more deaths from the disease even if the benefits to the economy are great - or even if deaths other than because of the disease are enough to offset the extra deaths from disease.

The economists, of course, are the reverse:  they want to reopen the economy and if the epidemiologists can still keep the deaths low, that's great, but if 2 million old people die, that's the price of keeping the economy alive.  And because medical science is so focused on treatment rather than prevention, there aren't any experts pushing face masks, which could actually give both the epidemiologists and the economists 90% of what each want.

I do agree that part of the problem is the dearth of competent liberal arts students.  Returning to the 1950s when the intelligent people all went into liberal arts and there were few intelligent engineers might not be any better, though - and to get competent liberal artists, they need to be numerate as well as literate.  What we need is paths for the top students in both the liberal arts and in engineering, and perhaps a recognition that college alone won't suffice for poor students.  Colleges are good at educating intelligent people, but they're terrible at turning unintelligent people into intelligent people.

You may have forgotten that this is a novel virus - one where we don't know what the long-term health effects may be on people who are designated as 'recovered'. Is it good to gamble on a possible 2mn elderly deaths but 200mn total infected who down the line over the next 5 to 20 years many have health problems and have to retire early? I agree that we need to emphasise prevention most because a vaccine and adequate treatment may be a while off, if it's even coming.

[AspieMillennial]

(05-04-2020, 07:07 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-02-2020, 11:36 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-02-2020, 09:07 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: -Rationalism, Millennials are definitely less prone to magical thinking than among Boomers, GIs or even Missionaries

What is your definition of "magical thinking"?  I'm curious if it matches my wife's definition.

Belief in supernatural beings, extrasensory perception, miracles. Belief that prayer and meditation can achieve anything beyond good feelings. Magical thinking is believing in anything you could use to win the Randi prize.

This is why religious Millennials are persecuted. The majority wants to force us not to believe in these things. The atheists are the oppressors and the religious the oppressed ones.

[Eric the Green]

(06-29-2021, 08:05 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 07:07 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-02-2020, 11:36 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-02-2020, 09:07 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: -Rationalism, Millennials are definitely less prone to magical thinking than among Boomers, GIs or even Missionaries

What is your definition of "magical thinking"?  I'm curious if it matches my wife's definition.

Belief in supernatural beings, extrasensory perception, miracles. Belief that prayer and meditation can achieve anything beyond good feelings. Magical thinking is believing in anything you could use to win the Randi prize.

This is why religious Millennials are persecuted. The majority wants to force us not to believe in these things. The atheists are the oppressors and the religious the oppressed ones.

"Magical thinking" is often good thinking, in the cases Blazkovitz mentions. But the kind of thinking that claims that speculation and mere innuendo are "facts", when they are not, is a problem that sometimes afflicts both old religious and new age people today. And science can be and often is used to successfully verify factual claims about "supernatural beings, extrasensory perception, miracles. Belief that prayer and meditation can achieve anything beyond good feelings," even if a scientistic philosophy (as espoused today on wikipedia for example) is not open to such claims being possible. The Amazing Randi is a fraud.

This looks like a pretty good discussion of "magical thinking."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-make-you/

[Eric the Green]

(05-05-2020, 09:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 04:46 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Missionaries were prone to magical beliefs during the 2T, but then went more rational after WW1. At the same time they retained a sense of awe for the wonderful Universe. Dawkins called this experience Einsteinian religion.

There has always been a dichotomy within Western religion (especially Protestant variants, but others as well) between focus on faith and faith-based activities, and doing good deeds as a sign of one's faith.  The Transcendentals were clearly in the first category and Missionaries in the second.  Boomers who fit in that world were, like Eric, New Agers and clearly in the first group with the Transcendentals.  I suspect the next Prophets will be more grounded like the Missionaries.

More grounded and intellectual than Boomers and Silents were at the height of the Consciousness Revolution Awakening and into the early 3T, but by degrees and shades only. There is great similarity among the three generations and awakening periods as well. New Thought and Theosophy, the foundation of today's new age movement, were launched in the awakening of 1886-1908 led by Missionaries. Some of the hypersensitivity and opium-taking going on in Europe then, expressed so well in the birth of modern art during that Awakening, rubbed off on Americans too, as well as interest in spiritualism and seances as illustrated by Houdini. By the same token, today's fundamentalism that burst forth more powerfully in the 1970s originated in that Missionary/Great Power Awakening period too. 

And on the other hand, the boom among inventors in the Missionary Generation's Awakening era, which launched the machine and tech world we know today, was matched by the tech innovation during the Consciousness Revolution that launched the Information Age, in-part spurred on by the interest among folks like Steve Jobs in the counter-culture and new age consciousness.

So, although there are differences because of the double rhythm, there's much more that's alike than different, from saeculum to saeculum among turnings and generations.

[Captain Genet]

(06-30-2021, 02:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 09:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 04:46 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: Missionaries were prone to magical beliefs during the 2T, but then went more rational after WW1. At the same time they retained a sense of awe for the wonderful Universe. Dawkins called this experience Einsteinian religion.

There has always been a dichotomy within Western religion (especially Protestant variants, but others as well) between focus on faith and faith-based activities, and doing good deeds as a sign of one's faith.  The Transcendentals were clearly in the first category and Missionaries in the second.  Boomers who fit in that world were, like Eric, New Agers and clearly in the first group with the Transcendentals.  I suspect the next Prophets will be more grounded like the Missionaries.

More grounded and intellectual than Boomers and Silents were at the height of the Consciousness Revolution Awakening and into the early 3T, but by degrees and shades only. There is great similarity among the three generations and awakening periods as well. New Thought and Theosophy, the foundation of today's new age movement, were launched in the awakening of 1886-1908 led by Missionaries. Some of the hypersensitivity and opium-taking going on in Europe then, expressed so well in the birth of modern art during that Awakening, rubbed off on Americans too, as well as interest in spiritualism and seances as illustrated by Houdini. By the same token, today's fundamentalism that burst forth more powerfully in the 1970s originated in that Missionary/Great Power Awakening period too. 

And on the other hand, the boom among inventors in the Missionary Generation's Awakening era, which launched the machine and tech world we know today, was matched by the tech innovation during the Consciousness Revolution that launched the Information Age, in-part spurred on by the interest among folks like Steve Jobs in the counter-culture and new age consciousness.

So, although there are differences because of the double rhythm, there's much more that's alike than different, from saeculum to saeculum among turnings and generations.

Modernism, rationalism and colonialism were more influential in the late 19th century than theosophy and opium. There were some Bohemian trends, which reached peak in the 1920s, but these were much less widespread than in the millennial saeculum. Then Christian fundamentalism in the Late Victorian 2T was more focused on cleaning up the culture, while in the 1970s it was more about personal relationship with Jesus.

Yes, I am aware California techies are quite Bohemian in their lifestyle and worldview. Some people even called the PC a psychedelic for the new century and looking at millennial culture I fully concur. That's why the "archeofuturist" trend makes no sense, anyone who wants to go back to a more wholesome culture must use less digital technology than the current norm.

[nguyenivy]

(04-21-2020, 10:35 AM)Isoko Wrote: Blazkovitz,

I think this 4T isn't just a cultural war but also the decline of a society and what is the best way forwards. It is interesting to note that the nationalist BRICs are doing better then the globalist West in this paradigm. So if the West does abandon globalism and retreats more into nationalism, it is going to be a cultural shock for the millennials in particular.

Within the American context, maybe we don't need to go full nationalism but something between nationalism & globalism. A North American Union of sorts, maybe? Some of the US' top trading partners are our neighbours Canada & Mexico and it helps having somewhat common languages and culture in use. So we might be able to make it work better than the EU. I would expect some type of regionalism like this or even full known nationalism to come into force on its own once impacts of climate change start to hit. People will want to help their own as priority first over other distant areas on the other side of the world. About the cultural shocks, I would imagine it will also be a shock for gen X too, who also grew up in a more globalised environment. Maybe the pandemic was the first sign that it's time to retreat from globalisation?