Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Time focus as a Personality Trait discriminant
I have this theory that one major "personality" factor is the amount of focus on past, present and future. I myself am very future focused - perhaps to an extreme degree. People that are past focused often seem dysfunctional to me. I had a guy who worked for me that was a Civil War re-enactor. He was barely functional in the present. He was obsessed with the details of things that happened more than 100 years ago. His personal life was a wreck and he was not a great employee. It seems to me that past focus is often manifested as grudge-holding and dissatisfaction.
Conservatives seem generally past-focused. Liberals seem generally future-focused. Perhaps this is too simplistic. I would like to see someone study this.
I have this theory that one major "personality" factor is the amount of focus on past, present and future. I myself am very future focused - perhaps to an extreme degree. People that are past focused often seem dysfunctional to me. I had a guy who worked for me that was a Civil War re-enactor. He was barely functional in the present. He was obsessed with the details of things that happened more than 100 years ago. His personal life was a wreck and he was not a great employee. It seems to me that past focus is often manifested as grudge-holding and dissatisfaction.
Conservatives seem generally past-focused. Liberals seem generally future-focused. Perhaps this is too simplistic. I would like to see someone study this.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
The Corner has a discussion going on about liberals. They think engineers must be liberals. They also think it's bad that liberals don't dwell on their "heritage". I sent this letter to Jonah Goldberg.
I've worked with engineers and scientists for 30 years - the last 15 in a management role. Engineers are often conservative. They solve standard problems with standard techniques. They learn rules that are time tested and apply them. Scientists are often liberal. They are trying to push the edge of knowledge, make a difference. I am a scientist by nature. I live for those special moments of cognitive discontinuity - where a new insight allows me to see the world in a new and more meaningful way. Without people that do this, we would still be in caves shivering in the dark.
As we gain knowledge that changes our inherent capabilities: modern medicine that extends lifespans and greatly reduces infant mortality, the atom bomb, manufacturing, information technology - we cannot continue to have social institutions that are designed for earlier capabilities. That is why I am a social liberal. We must change in response to a changed world. We are adaptable creatures by nature.
I am also a woman and would make any sacrifice necessary to ensure that the clock is not turned back for women when my granddaughter and great granddaughter reach adulthood. If I was born 20 years earlier, my life would be a pale shadow of what it has been. I am a happy wife or a fair and loving husband, the mother or 3 bright, caring, successful children. But in addition, I am a successful scientist and manager. I get great pleasure from both roles.
The critique has been made on the Corner that liberals don't care about their heritage. But you miss the point. Liberals live in the future, not the past. I look to the future. I care deeply about the future. Change has no real heritage. Past change is not a harbinger of future change necessarily. Hopefully, responsible liberals learn from failed changes. I think they have. That is why the do not espouse or defend failed liberal concepts of the past. Change agents must move on. Mistakes are something to learn from - they are someone elses mistakes.
I've worked with engineers and scientists for 30 years - the last 15 in a management role. Engineers are often conservative. They solve standard problems with standard techniques. They learn rules that are time tested and apply them. Scientists are often liberal. They are trying to push the edge of knowledge, make a difference. I am a scientist by nature. I live for those special moments of cognitive discontinuity - where a new insight allows me to see the world in a new and more meaningful way. Without people that do this, we would still be in caves shivering in the dark.
As we gain knowledge that changes our inherent capabilities: modern medicine that extends lifespans and greatly reduces infant mortality, the atom bomb, manufacturing, information technology - we cannot continue to have social institutions that are designed for earlier capabilities. That is why I am a social liberal. We must change in response to a changed world. We are adaptable creatures by nature.
I am also a woman and would make any sacrifice necessary to ensure that the clock is not turned back for women when my granddaughter and great granddaughter reach adulthood. If I was born 20 years earlier, my life would be a pale shadow of what it has been. I am a happy wife or a fair and loving husband, the mother or 3 bright, caring, successful children. But in addition, I am a successful scientist and manager. I get great pleasure from both roles.
The critique has been made on the Corner that liberals don't care about their heritage. But you miss the point. Liberals live in the future, not the past. I look to the future. I care deeply about the future. Change has no real heritage. Past change is not a harbinger of future change necessarily. Hopefully, responsible liberals learn from failed changes. I think they have. That is why the do not espouse or defend failed liberal concepts of the past. Change agents must move on. Mistakes are something to learn from - they are someone elses mistakes.
I continue to think about the importance of the reverse dominance hierarchy. I think that Democracy inherently is based on a reverse dominance hierarchy - it is the political embodiment of it. I, for one, am immensely grateful to our founding fathers for taking the risk in setting up a government based on such a radical model. Each time the democracy has been expanded, by including new group - the landless, the blacks, and finally women - it only becomes more true and strong.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Protectionism and Outsourcing
This article by Ernest Hollings in the Washington Post makes a strong case against free trade. One of the key points is that trade between unequals is not really free. Tariffs are necessary to protect our standard of living. He also makes an interesting historical case for tariffs, showing how they were used to build America's initial manufacturing capability under the guidance of our founding fathers.
He gives the example of a 47-year old factory worker, who's job is sent overseas: "The Washington mantra of "retrain, retrain" comes up short. For example, Oneita Industries closed its T-shirt plant in Andrews, S.C., back in 1999. The plant had 487 employees averaging 47 years of age. Let's assume they were "retrained" and became 487 skilled computer operators. Who is going to hire a 47-year-old operator over a 21-year-old operator? No one is going to take on the retirement and health costs of the 47-year-old. Moreover, that computer job probably just left for Bangalore, India."
Realistically, that factory worker could probably be retrained as an auto repair technician or construction worker. However, he would need some help to relocate, get training and feed his family in the transition. It would seem fair to me that the company moving jobs overseas pay for this.
I expect to see both protective tariffs and legislation that makes corporations pay for retraining over the next several years. It's really inevitable. We can't keep going the way we are or we will be a third world country.
This article by Ernest Hollings in the Washington Post makes a strong case against free trade. One of the key points is that trade between unequals is not really free. Tariffs are necessary to protect our standard of living. He also makes an interesting historical case for tariffs, showing how they were used to build America's initial manufacturing capability under the guidance of our founding fathers.
He gives the example of a 47-year old factory worker, who's job is sent overseas: "The Washington mantra of "retrain, retrain" comes up short. For example, Oneita Industries closed its T-shirt plant in Andrews, S.C., back in 1999. The plant had 487 employees averaging 47 years of age. Let's assume they were "retrained" and became 487 skilled computer operators. Who is going to hire a 47-year-old operator over a 21-year-old operator? No one is going to take on the retirement and health costs of the 47-year-old. Moreover, that computer job probably just left for Bangalore, India."
Realistically, that factory worker could probably be retrained as an auto repair technician or construction worker. However, he would need some help to relocate, get training and feed his family in the transition. It would seem fair to me that the company moving jobs overseas pay for this.
I expect to see both protective tariffs and legislation that makes corporations pay for retraining over the next several years. It's really inevitable. We can't keep going the way we are or we will be a third world country.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
One way to view the current divisions in American - and perhaps the world - is to see this as a struggle between those who want to maintain "reverse dominance hierarchies" and those who want to reestablish a more typical "alpha male" dominance hierarchy. A reverse dominance hierarchy is a concept espoused by Christopher Boehm in his book Hierarchy in the Forest . In egalitarian societies, which America's democracy strives to be as an ideal, the majority bands together to make sure no individuals achieve real dominance.
This is the basis of "political correctness" and the resentment of it by aggressive men. It's the heart of the conflict between pro-Iraq War advocates and those that oppose the War. Most war opponents are not comfortable with the U.S. becoming a dominant force in the World and want to establish a global reverse dominance hierarchy.
Understanding it in this way makes me even more resolute in opposing the War and supporting an international approach to dealing with terrorism. We do not want to become the bigger bully. This will only set us up as a target until someone else takes us out. If we join with peace-loving peoples all over the world to fight against all bullies, we can create a more peaceful world.
This is the basis of "political correctness" and the resentment of it by aggressive men. It's the heart of the conflict between pro-Iraq War advocates and those that oppose the War. Most war opponents are not comfortable with the U.S. becoming a dominant force in the World and want to establish a global reverse dominance hierarchy.
Understanding it in this way makes me even more resolute in opposing the War and supporting an international approach to dealing with terrorism. We do not want to become the bigger bully. This will only set us up as a target until someone else takes us out. If we join with peace-loving peoples all over the world to fight against all bullies, we can create a more peaceful world.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]