What are your specialities?

[beechnut79]

(09-29-2019, 12:39 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-29-2019, 06:43 AM)Ldr Wrote:

(09-26-2019, 01:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the same hormone stirs both left and right, in your view, then it just proves that hormones explain very little about actual human behavior, besides being a source or tool of arousal into action or acting out, which comes out more often in 4Ts as I don't doubt.

Higher levels of oxytocin drive pro-social behavior. This is why the Hero generations are social (on average) as they adapt liberal values from the society in their childhood, which are produced by their predecessor generation. The Artist generations are also high oxytocin generations, but as they grow up, the world is more conservative, so they adapt (pun intended) to this environment because they have high oxytocin levels. This explains how oxytocin does not automatically define a generation on its own, but instead influences how an individual assesses others and the environment.

Anti-social generations, the Prophets and Nomads, are more independent due to lower levels of oxytocin, and this generates the basics of right-wing parties: self reliance, strength and even selfishness are valued when compared to the high oxytocin level generations.

Now here is a problem for the assumption that oxytocin spurred the social cohesion of the last 4T: the 'anti-social' generations were the elder (Missionary) and midlife (Lost) generations during the Depression and the Second World War. The GI generation did not dominate society, especially politically, let alone in commerce and public administration. The GI generation was slow to develop even cultural influence in cinema, music, and literature. As late as the mid-1930's the leading GI figures of culture were Walt Disney, Dmitri Shostakovich, and and Leni Riefenstahl (if you want to call Triumph of the Will "culture")  

Quote:Chapter 4.2 in the generational hormone theory explains why the Prophet generations are so right-wing and the Hero generations are so left-wing. It should be stated that political parties are formed and defined through voting behavior, which is based on emotions (that are based on hormone levels), and these emotions influence opinions, as chapter 3 shows. People think that their voting behavior is based on facts, but the reasoning that goes inside their minds is always defined by their emotions (that are based on hormone levels), from start to beginning. If you can think of even one voting preference/opinion that isn't influenced by emotions, do tell me, as I can explain why you're incorrect in that assumption. All voting behavior is based on emotions, and those emotions are largely defined by hormone levels.

Prophet generations may have the cultural innovators, but they also have the rapacious plutocrats and bureaucrats. To say that the world will be much more peasant when Boomer executives are off the scene. At the extreme, I recall seeing an observation on what (mostly) Transcendental planters saw their relation with their property in human form: that slave-owners were benefactors to slaves. Boomer executives have come to resemble the nomenklatura of 'socialist' states, people who profiteered off bureaucratic positions in the ostensibly 'classless societies'. It may take another economic meltdown approaching the severity of the 1929-1932 meltdown to gut the power of shareholders and executives to buy politicians, which makes the difference between FDR and Obama.

Plutocracy sucks, but it sucks even more when a political order and corporate bureaucracies foster narcissistic behavior of those who get economic power to grab as much of the prosperity of a society as is possible.  We may have to rediscover the benefits of a society in which small business becomes the norm again... and in which the only way in which to get rich is to be a capitalist. 

I believe in capitalism to the extent that the only people who should get rich are capitalists.

Do you feel that the time is nigh when There may be some intense emotions that are brought to the surface concerning the evils of extreme income inequality and the fact that the less fortunate among us have, by design, become much more invisible and not out in the open as much as they were once able to be? Are we in line for a point where feelings are laid bare and tears may be shed? If not the current or future President, is is not time for someone of considerable influence benefit by having an honest conversation with his or her constituency no matter how wide it may be? Do  you feel as though it may help clear the air and allow the nation and society to heal and move forward? May we also be reminded that change is not always easy, but it’s inevitable and allows us to grow; that is the beauty of the saecular transit.