It's a Whiffle World

[cjsmith]

American culture as a cargo cult. I'm saddened by how true it seems.

(I don't, however, believe that every person living in America believes all of these things, nor do I "blame the media".)

Hat tip to dafydd for the link.

Comments

[melanie.livejournal.com]

wow. that seems like an amalgam of the assumptions of most major personality disorders or religious extremists, doesn't it. (am i saying that religious extremism is a personality disorder? hmm. not sure.)

[eichin.livejournal.com]

My pop-phrasing of that from a few years back was "back off or I'll get your religion listed in DSM-IV where it belongs" :->

[melanie.livejournal.com]

hey, i like you. :)

[airporter.livejournal.com]

Bookmarked.

Now I have my excuses/justifications at the ready!

[shadopanther.livejournal.com]

Not addressing anything else in the content of the link -- but why "cargo"? Before I clicked on the link I thought it might be something about materialism and all the "cargo" we haul around -- but I didn't see that there.

I'm both confused by that & curious -- why cargo?

[ckd]

Wikipedia explanation of cargo cults.

[shadopanther.livejournal.com]

Aha. Thank you for the link with the explanation.

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

I don't believe it's something exclusive to Americans or American media, either, but it certainly rings more than a few bells. Interesting.

Humbug, I say

[palecur.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Several of these seem to be not only unobjectionable but true, though.

I.1 is basically Ockham's Razor, which is not without its use.
I.4 is not a terrible rule of thumb; it's the core idea of how markets work.

II.4 is idealistic, and certainly a popular political tenet, but not without its charm as something to aspire to.

III.1 defines the asymptotic limit towards which societies aspire -- removing any distinction between 'good for society' and 'good for the individual'. In an ideally run society, at least how I conceive it, what's good for the individual cannot help but be good for society.

The header and the explanation for III.3 are at irreconcilable odds.

III.4 and III.5 are the most on-target elements of the list, in my estimation.

IV is true. IV.1 and, to an arguable extent, IV.2 likewise. IV.3 and IV.4 are rehashes of III.3 and III.4.

Re: Humbug, I say

[hanov3r.livejournal.com]

*blink*

I.1 is basically Ockham's Razor

Well, no. There's a difference between "everything has a simple explanation" and "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

"Everything has a simple explanation" gives us an Aristotlean universe. Do you believe that the Earth is fixed in the sky, with the planets and stars spinning around us?

II.4 is ... not without its charm as something to aspire to.

You get to define your share? Human nature makes that completely unworkable. Watch "The Producers" some time.

III.1 defines the asymptotic limit towards which societies aspire -- removing any distinction between 'good for society' and 'good for the individual'.

There are any number of things that individuals perceive as 'good for them' that are bad for society as a whole (cf "you get to define your share" - most people would agree that getting more than they're willing to put in effort towards is good for them, but I think you'll agree that this will not work for society at large).

III.4 and III.5 are the most on-target elements of the list, in my estimation.

There are evil people and institutions, and surely one of them is more responsible than you are.

"No, Your Honor, I shouldn't have to go to jail for driving under the influence - the liquor industry made me drink."

"No, I shouldn't have to pay more for health insurance because I've been smoking two packs a day for 20 years - it's all the fault of the cigarette companies. I had *NO IDEA* it was bad for me."

An ugly image means a bad mirror.

No, sometimes, it's because you're ugly. WTF happened to 'personal responsibility'?

IV is true.

IV. Death is unnatural

There are several thousand generations of formerly living creatures going back several hundred million years or more that would like to have a word with you.

IV.1 and, to an arguable extent, IV.2 likewise.

So, bad things should *never* happen, because *everyone's* special?

This also makes it hard for anyone to ever get punished - and where do the evil people from III.4 come from?

Re: Humbug, I say

[palecur.livejournal.com]

Ah, I was responding strictly to the bolded statements, not the unbolded quasi-explanatory sentences. Complex explanations ought to be examined judiciously; elegance is a desirable aspect of novel scientific hypotheses, and simplicity is a hallmark of elegance.

most people would agree that getting more than they're willing to put in effort towards is good for them, but I think you'll agree that this will not work for society at large

I wonder why you'd make the assumption that I'd agree to any such thing. I also wonder how you define 'getting more than (someone) is willing to put effort towards'.

In re: III.4 and III.5, I have miscommunicated -- I meant the most on-target criticisms. We appear to be in agreement that the large-scale abdication of personal responsibility is an enormous contributor to the sorry state of public discourse.

In re: IV, the idea that death is natural is the single greatest obstacle facing anti-aging research today -- there's a surprising resistance to the idea that aging is a disease that can be treated and eradicated, just the same as with any other disease.

So, bad things should *never* happen, because *everyone's* special?

I'd hardly have thought 'pain is bad' to be a controversial sentiment.

This also makes it hard for anyone to ever get punished

In a hypothetical situation where no bad things are being willed, there's nobody to punish, no?

Re: Humbug, I say

[hanov3r.livejournal.com]

I also wonder how you define 'getting more than (someone) is willing to put effort towards'.

How about "it would be good for me to be able to not work, to lie in my hammock all day, every day, while (society|the government|everyone else) pays for my food, home, transportation, and entertainment"?

We appear to be in agreement that the large-scale abdication of personal responsibility is an enormous contributor to the sorry state of public discourse.

Ah. Yes, with that edit, I agree with you.

the idea that death is natural is the single greatest obstacle facing anti-aging research today -- there's a surprising resistance to the idea that aging is a disease that can be treated and eradicated, just the same as with any other disease.

Diseases are natural.

I'm sure that the symptoms of aging can be treated. Eventually, genetic treatments will slow the aging process, allowing people to live significantly (perhaps orders of magnitude) longer lives. But, entropy *always* wins. It *has* to. Parts break down and cannot be repaired.

I'd hardly have thought 'pain is bad' to be a controversial sentiment.

I'd like to introduce you to my ex-giflfriend, for whom pain of any form was nothing more than an immense turn-on.

Actually, though, that was meant as a response to You're special - Bad things shouldn't happen to you. It's a random universe - bad things happen to people of all types, good and bad.

In a hypothetical situation where no bad things are being willed, there's nobody to punish, no?

That's a direct contradiction of III.4, which appears to postulate that bad things *do* happen, they're just never your fault.

[firecat]

Ewwwwww. I don't like being hit with that much insight into how other people think.

(See, I'm a member.)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

*laughter* Well put!