Skip Nav

I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup

Navigation menu

❶I personally think jailing people for drug use is kidnapping and depending on the conditions extended torture. There are some really good tools and practices in rationalism.

What It Means When You Dye Your Hair Purple

Philosophy & Mission
Select type of work

Kouzes and Posner elaborate:. We all have dreams and aspirations. We all think about the future; we all want tomorrow to be better than today. Leaders have to make sure that what they see is also something that others can see. When visions are shared they attract more people, sustain higher levels of motivation, and withstand more challenges than those that are singular.

For example, in developing the St. This vision was partly mine — I built the bones of it on my own — but it was shaped through conversations with people that knew the St.

The final vision that guided website development was:. It provides unfettered access to high-quality library materials and opportunities for website visitors who have never interacted with the library in any other way to expand their research capabilities through intuitive design, rich information literacy content, and ways to communicate with library staff.

Because each member of the organization contributed to this shared vision, it withstood early criticism and gained buy-in quickly.

Others saw themselves and their input in the website. Part of my role as an authentic leader in this situation was to listen actively to others and be honest and open about my own intentions for the site.

I was passionate about making an excellent site that would serve the St. As corny as it sounds, it was an effort both of the mind and the heart, and I believe that is why it has been a success. I believe it is a vision that I share with several of my colleagues, and that helps guide my actions. As my library embarks on a strategic planning process that began this month, I am ready to contribute my vision to the conversations that our entire staff will have about the direction our library will take.

If I do that with authenticity and heart and articulate a good vision, I will help steer this library into the future. You can be an authentic leader.

Here are some thoughts on becoming an authentic leader at your library, regardless of your position:. Many thanks to Dr. As always, thanks to all of my fellow Lead Pipe editors, but especially Emily Ford and Ellie Collier who provoked me with insightful comments and questions.

Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. The fall of the faculty: The rise of the all-administrative university and why it matters. Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors.

Leadership Quarterly, 21 5 , Leader visioning and adaptability: Bridging the gap between research and practice on developing the ability to manage change.

Human Resource Management, 43 4 , I am a current student in this program. The buzzword leader is a common ailment of staff everywhere.

It poisons the message of someone who is trying to be authentic and transparent, adding cynical fuel to the fire of jaded staff. Can I just say — thank you? Thank you for not just recognizing but calmly and smartly calling out a massive problem in our field. I have been saying for years that we have lots and lots of managers and many of them struggle with the day-to-day duties of that job but very few who can lead.

It does take a rare person who can both manage people and projects AND inspire and engage others, but we should be encouraging these people to come forward. I thought it was clean, intuitive, and functional. As someone who will be undertaking an academic library website redesign this coming year, I would love to use your site as inspiration. Thanks, and stealing the design would be flattery. Must thank our outstanding university Web Team at St. Nice post that captures some very profound points.

Glad you included the hook about no one being able to do all of those things each and every day. Thanks for the comments, everyone! Does anyone want to highlight a particularly authentic leader in libraries that you know about? I can name several people that come across as open, supportive, and passionate about the work — Barbara MacAdam, AUL at the University of Michigan… Laurie Sutch, Academic Learning Facilities coordinator also at UM… these two taught me so much about being a leader early in my career.

The good-for-nothing brother killed the beloved nobleman and stole his identity. Now the townspeople want to see him lynched or burned alive, and it is only the priest who — consistently — offers a measured forgiveness conditional on penance and self-reflection. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce.

He further notes that this is why the townspeople can self-righteously consider themselves more compassionate and forgiving than he is. Actual forgiveness, the kind the priest needs to cultivate to forgive evildoers, is really really hard. The fake forgiveness the townspeople use to forgive the people they like is really easy, so they get to boast not only of their forgiving nature, but of how much nicer they are than those mean old priests who find forgiveness difficult and want penance along with it.

Whether or not forgiveness is right is a complicated topic I do not want to get in here. You can forgive theft, or murder, or tax evasion, or something you find abhorrent. You can have all the Utility Points you want. Tolerance is also considered a virtue, but it suffers the same sort of dimished expectations forgiveness does. The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: How many Virtue Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?

Of course I have nothing against gay people! We have a lot of people — like the Emperor — boasting of being able to tolerate everyone from every outgroup they can imagine, loving the outgroup, writing long paeans to how great the outgroup is, staying up at night fretting that somebody else might not like the outgroup enough.

This is really surprising. No one did any genetic engineering. No one passed out weird glowing pills in the public schools. And yet suddenly we get an entire group of people who conspicuously promote and defend their outgroups, the outer the better.

But if the Emperor has curly hair, are straight-haired people part of his outgroup? I want to avoid a very easy trap, which is saying that outgroups are about how different you are, or how hostile you are. Compare the Nazis to the German Jews and to the Japanese. The Nazis were very similar to the German Jews: The Nazis were totally different from the Japanese: But the Nazis and Japanese mostly got along pretty well.

Heck, the Nazis were actually moderately positively disposed to the Chinese , even when they were technically at war. Nazis and German Jews. South African whites and South African blacks. Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.

Anyone in the former Yugoslavia and anyone else in the former Yugoslavia. So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences. What makes an unexpected in-group? The answer with Germans and Japanese is obvious — a strategic alliance.

In fact, the World Wars forged a lot of unexpected temporary pseudo-friendships. Sure, scratch the paeans even a little bit and you find condescension as strong as ever. But eight hundred years of the British committing genocide against the Irish and considering them literally subhuman turned into smiles and songs about shamrocks once the Irish started looking like useful cannon fodder for a larger fight.

There are certain theories of dark matter where it barely interacts with the regular world at all , such that we could have a dark matter planet exactly co-incident with Earth and never know.

I see those guys all the time. What I mean is — well, take creationists. Not just in the sense of believing God helped guide evolution. I mean they think evolution is a vile atheist lie and God created humans exactly as they exist right now.

And yet, even though I probably know about a hundred fifty people, I am pretty confident that not one of them is creationist. Odds of this happening by chance? About forty percent of Americans want to ban gay marriage. I think if I really stretch it, maybe ten of my top hundred fifty friends might fall into this group.

This is less astronomically unlikely; the odds are a mere one to one hundred quintillion against. The only metaphor that seems really appropriate is the bizarre dark matter world. I live in a Republican congressional district in a state with a Republican governor. The conservatives are definitely out there. They drive on the same roads as I do, live in the same neighborhoods. But they might as well be made of dark matter. I never meet them. To be fair, I spend a lot of my time inside on my computer.

He figured he might as well ask one of the largest sites on the Internet, with an estimated user base in the tens of millions. In a thread with 10, comments, a thread specifically asking for people against gay marriage, I was eventually able to find two people who came out and opposed it, way near the bottom.

When I broke the numbers down further, 3 percentage points of those are neoreactionaries, a bizarre sect that wants to be ruled by a king. I get my news from vox. Even when I go out to eat, it turns out my favorite restaurant, California Pizza Kitchen, is the most liberal restaurant in the United States. I inhabit the same geographical area as scores and scores of conservatives.

Conservatives are all around me, yet I am about as likely to have a serious encounter with one as I am a Tibetan lama. One time a Tibetan lama came to my college and gave a really nice presentation, but if a conservative tried that, people would protest and it would be canceled. Or I guess it sort of also means someone who follows the Mosaic Law and goes to synagogue.

The defining factors of Judaism — Torah-reading, synagogue-following, mother-having — are the tip of a giant iceberg. The last section raised a question — if people rarely select their friends and associates and customers explicitly for politics, how do we end up with such intense political segregation?

A disproportionate number of my friends are Jewish, because I meet them at psychiatry conferences or something — we self-segregate not based on explicit religion but on implicit tribal characteristics. The people who are actually into this sort of thing sketch out a bunch of speculative tribes and subtribes, but to make it easier, let me stick with two and a half.

Harvard might skew in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans, in terms of liberals vs. Are these tribes based on geography? Are they based on race, ethnic origin, religion, IQ, what TV channels you watched as a kid? Some of it is certainly genetic — estimates of the genetic contribution to political association range from 0. For an attempt to trace the specific genes involved, which mostly turn out to be NMDA receptors, see here.

For now we can just accept them as a brute fact — as multiple coexisting societies that might as well be made of dark matter for all of the interaction they have with one another — and move on. But some people interpreted it that way, and there followed a bunch of comments and emails and Facebook messages about how could I possibly be happy about the death of another human being, even if he was a bad person?

Everyone, even Osama, is a human being, and we should never rejoice in the death of a fellow man. One commenter came out and said:. This commenter was right.

And I genuinely believed that day that I had found some unexpected good in people — that everyone I knew was so humane and compassionate that they were unable to rejoice even in the death of someone who hated them and everything they stood for. Then a few years later, Margaret Thatcher died. On the other hand, that same group absolutely loathed Thatcher. Most of us though not all can agree, if the question is posed explicitly, that Osama was a worse person than Thatcher.

But in terms of actual gut feeling? One of the ways we know that racism is a giant all-encompassing social factor is the Implicit Association Test. You can try it yourself here. Of course, what the test famously found was that even white people who claimed to have no racist attitudes at all usually had positive associations with white people and negative associations with black people on the test.

There are very many claims and counterclaims about the precise meaning of this, but it ended up being a big part of the evidence in favor of the current consensus that all white people are at least a little racist.

For example, if you are a white Democrat, your unconscious bias against blacks as measured by something called a d-score is 0. Okay, fine, but we know race has real world consequences.

Iyengar and Westwood also decided to do the resume test for parties. They asked subjects to decide which of several candidates should get a scholarship subjects were told this was a genuine decision for the university the researchers were affiliated with.

Some resumes had photos of black people, others of white people. Once again, discrimination on the basis of party was much stronger than discrimination on the basis of race. The size of the race effect for white people was only and in the reverse of the expected direction ; the size of the party effect was about for Democrats and for Republicans.

If you want to see their third experiment, which applied yet another classic methodology used to detect racism and once again found partyism to be much stronger, you can read the paper.

As early as , Smith et al were doing surveys all over the country and finding that people were more likely to accept friendships across racial lines than across beliefs; in the forty years since then, the observation has been replicated scores of times.

The literature was judged supportive of a weak version of belief congruence theory which states that in those contexts in which social pressure is nonexistent or ineffective, belief is more important than race as a determinant of racial or ethnic discrimination.

Evidence for a strong version of belief congruence theory which states that in those contexts in which social pressure is nonexistent, or ineffective, belief is the only determinant of racial or ethnic discrimination and was judged much more problematic. But Pew also asked how parents would feel about their child marrying someone of a different political party.

Yeah, people do lie to pollsters, but a picture is starting to come together here. Harvard, by the way, is a tossup. There are more black students — Since people will delight in misinterpreting me here, let me overemphasize what I am not saying. I am saying that the underlying attitudes that produce partyism are stronger than the underlying attitudes that produce racism, with no necessary implications on their social effects.

Every election cycle like clockwork, conservatives accuse liberals of not being sufficiently pro-America. And every election cycle like clockwork, liberals give extremely unconvincing denials of this. And much lower crime rates? I mean, come on, how did they get so awesome? Cesar Chavez was really neat. So were some other people outside the mainstream who became famous precisely by criticizing majority society. As unconvincing denials go, this one was pretty far up there.

But no one really held it against her. Probably most Obama voters felt vaguely the same way. Sure — number one in incarceration rates, drone strikes, and making new parents go back to work! All of this is true, of course. Sure — number one in levels of sexual degeneracy! Here is a popular piece published on a major media site called America: A Big, Fat, Stupid Nation.

Needless to say, every single one of these articles was written by an American and read almost entirely by Americans. Those Americans very likely enjoyed the articles very much and did not feel the least bit insulted. The other day, I logged into OKCupid and found someone who looked cool. I was reading over her profile and found the following sentence:.

Social media is full of people on both sides making presumptions, and believing what they want to believe. Let me put it as simply as I can for you […]. I want you white folks to understand that this is where the anger is coming from. You focused on the looting…. And on a hunch I checked the author photos, and every single one of these articles was written by a white person.

White People Are Ruining America? Bye Bye, Whiny White Dudes? Reasons Why Americans Suck 1: Some unsavory people try to use them to prove that white people are the real victims or the media is biased against white people or something. Other people who are very nice and optimistic use them to show that some white people have developed some self-awareness and are willing to engage in self-criticism.

That fits my model perfectly. Fox is the outgroup, ISIS is just some random people off in a desert. I would go further. Hating ISIS would signal Red Tribe membership, would be the equivalent of going into Crips territory with a big Bloods gang sign tattooed on your shoulder. But this might be unfair. But here I am, talking to my audience, who are mostly white British people and Americans. The sort of people in my audience are at zero risk of becoming ISIS supporters, but at a very real risk of Islamophobia.

So ranting against ISIS would be counterproductive and dangerous. On the other hand, my audience of white British people and Americans is very likely to contain many Fox News viewers and supporters. I have a lot of sympathy to hypothetical-Brand, especially to the part about Islamophobia. What Is It Good For? If he attacked ISIS, his viewers would just be a little confused and uncomfortable. The result is exactly what we predicted would happen in the case of Islam. Bombard people with images of a far-off land they already hate and tell them to hate it more, and the result is ramping up the intolerance on the couple of dazed and marginalized representatives of that culture who have ended up stuck on your half of the divide.

Sure enough, if industry or culture or community gets Blue enough, Red Tribe members start getting harassed, fired from their jobs Brendan Eich being the obvious example or otherwise shown the door.

Think of Brendan Eich as a member of a tiny religious minority surrounded by people who hate that minority. If you mix together Podunk, Texas and Mosul, Iraq, you can prove that Muslims are scary and very powerful people who are executing Christians all the time — and so we have a great excuse for kicking the one remaining Muslim family, random people who never hurt anyone, out of town.

We started by asking: This seems contrary to what we know about social psychology. We then noted that although liberals and conservatives live in the same area, they might as well be two totally different countries or universe as far as level of interaction were concerned.

Contra the usual idea of them being marked only by voting behavior, we described them as very different tribes with totally different cultures. The outgroup of the Red Tribe is occasionally blacks and gays and Muslims, more often the Blue Tribe. The Blue Tribe has performed some kind of very impressive act of alchemy, and transmuted all of its outgroup hatred to the Red Tribe.

This is not surprising. Ethnic differences have proven quite tractable in the face of shared strategic aims. Even the Nazis, not known for their ethnic tolerance, were able to get all buddy-buddy with the Japanese when they had a common cause. Once the Blue Tribe was able to enlist the blacks and gays and Muslims in their ranks, they became allies of convenience who deserve to be rehabilitated with mildly condescending paeans to their virtue.

Spending your entire life insulting the other tribe and talking about how terrible they are makes you look, well, tribalistic. It is definitely not high class. They are so interested in justice that they are willing to critique their own beloved side , much as it pains them to do so. We know they are not exaggerating, because one might exaggerate the flaws of an enemy, but that anyone would exaggerate their own flaws fails the criterion of embarrassment.

The Blue Tribe always has an excuse at hand to persecute and crush any Red Tribers unfortunate enough to fall into its light-matter-universe by defining them as all-powerful domineering oppressors. As a result, every Blue Tribe institution is permanently licensed to take whatever emergency measures are necessary against the Red Tribe, however disturbing they might otherwise seem.

And so how virtuous, how noble the Blue Tribe! Perfectly tolerant of all of the different groups that just so happen to be allied with them, never intolerant unless it happen to be against intolerance itself. Never stooping to engage in petty tribal conflict like that awful Red Tribe, but always nobly criticizing their own culture and striving to make it better! But I hope this is at least a little convincing. How virtuous, how noble I must be! Never stooping to engage in petty tribal conflict like that silly Red Tribe, but always nobly criticizing my own tribe and striving to make it better.

That means that, although my critique of the Blue Tribe may be right or wrong, in terms of motivation it comes from the same place as a Red Tribe member talking about how much they hate al-Qaeda or a Blue Tribe member talking about how much they hate ignorant bigots. I had fun writing this article. People do not have fun writing articles savagely criticizing their in-group. I can think of criticisms of my own tribe. Important criticisms, true ones.

But the thought of writing them makes my blood boil. That is how I feel when asked to criticize my own tribe, even for correct reasons. And if I want Tolerance Points, my own personal cross to bear right now is tolerating the Blue Tribe. I need to remind myself that when they are bad people, they are merely Osama-level bad people instead of Thatcher-level bad people.

And when they are good people, they are powerful and necessary crusaders against the evils of the world. The worst thing that could happen to this post is to have it be used as convenient feces to fling at the Blue Tribe whenever feces are necessary.

Which, given what has happened to my last couple of posts along these lines and the obvious biases of my own subconscious, I already expect it will be. But the best thing that could happen to this post is that it makes a lot of people, especially myself, figure out how to be more tolerant. Tolerance is, indeed, a pretty stupid thing to value.

Tolerate what is tolerable and intolerate what is intolerable. The class markers in this conception however popular it is are the complete opposite of reality. It might describe urban vs. There is always an extremely high chance you are on the wrong side of the conflict and are accidentally making things worse. At equilibrium half the resources are being spent on the evil team. A much better strategy is to try to make things marginally better.

This requires tolerating alot of horrible situations. For example I think everyone for jail on drug charges is a victim of prolonged kidnapping and depending on conditions torture. What good option do I have but to tolerate this horror and the many people I know who support it. There is also the historical angle. In many cases things that seemed intolerable heresy, witchcraft, etc were in fact very tolerable. I am not suggesting non resistance to evil.

But I am suggesting being very open minded. Is tolerance merely an observational quality? A synonym for forbearance. Do you tolerate things on the assumption that inaction may resolve the problem or reveal a solution? As I am understanding things the opposite of tolerating something is trying to change it.

This is dangerous and difficult. Your efforts will frequently fail or cause unindented conseuqences that make things worse. In many cases I might change things if I had an effective method. And I was suffiently confident my changes were good despite my brain running on defective hardware as elizier puts it. But I usually I do not. What I usually can do to help people is make them more comfortable, even if I should not try to fix serious problems.

I was confused as well. My guess is that they were suggesting that conservatives are actually rich and progressives are poor, despite what the lines about arugula and bottled water would tell you about their incomes. Well, a lot of poor people are progressive, and quite a few rich people are conservative. In America, this IS a class divide: Secondly, of course, it has a strong north-south component.

I, not being American , was rather surprised that it was the Republicans as opposed to the Democrats who were instrumental in the emancipation of the slaves. There was a pretty massive shift in the s and s when northern Democrats starting supporting the civil rights movement among other things. This alienated the conservative Southern Democrats, who defected to the Republican party making it more conservative in the process.

Carter won the South in , and Reagan did worse in the South in than his national average. Bush improved on that in , getting higher-than-nationwide in all Southern states but WV. By the time Clinton won in winning only 4 Southern states , the transition was pretty much complete. But what, specifically, does this entail? The worlds are just too separate for that to sting. Blue team people could block Red Team on Twitter or something.

So is engaging in a debate. So, what options left to express this intolerance and differentiate it from grudgingly or even angrily tolerating the existence of the other side? Only when you look at details, different people differ in their selection of which kinds of intolerance they realy hate outgroups intolerant to ingroups , and which kinds of intolerance are okay or even useful for some greater good ingroups intolerant to outgroups. In practice I would recommend being tolerant of most things, getting cut off in traffic, etc.

This leads to collective action problems which virtue-signaling helps to solve. Not singling out the site or its moderators, who, my personal dislike aside, at least try to do a somewhat decent job.

Yes, equal rights for women are incompatible with equal rights for men. When Martin Luther King Jr. I think everyone would agree that black skin contains a lot more character than white skin.

They have the same IP as a much less annoying poster. I will give the other poster the benefit of the doubt for now, but if there is another annoying person with the same IP I will stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and IP ban as well.

It seems to me that blocking Red Team on Twitter is indeed a form of refusing to tolerate them. How about trying to find conservative students and scholars, and sponsoring them for academic positions.

How about encouraging conservative speakers to appear on campus, or looking for conservative schoolteachers or text books. That would definitely be expressing viewpoint tolerance.

I very rarely interact with reds, outside of my family. But even aside from not describing my family at all, I just have no reason to trust a description of Reds given by Scott. Where could his knowledge of them come from? I was pretty glad when bin Laden was killed.

I literally worked for the blue team the DNC , and I felt good about that death though I feel guilty about that feeling. Also felt slightly sad about Thatcher. They are in general members of the same main tribe, but have subtle differences. Incidentally, you can see a similar internecine divide on the Blue side between Labor and Tech.

On the Red side you can see differences between, say Mormons and Southern Baptists. Which leads me to the question: That is clearly also a real phenomenon. I think a lot of it is to do with the degree of danger that groups perceive themselves to be in from outer-outgroups. All of these people were 1 male and 2 not originally from the Bay Area.

All of these people were 1 female and 2 born and raised in the Bay Area. Another big red divide at the moment is between tea party and non tea party, or between libertarian conservatives and religious conservatives. All would consider themselves conservatives, and all would intensly dislike leftists and liberals, but they also have some pretty big arguments with each other.

On the other hand, I found the data on how people are more biased on the basis of party than race to be fascinating, and very much worth further thought. Iirc New England c. Other nations in this hemisphere need not apply it to themselves. Remind me to tell you sometime about the time I tried to hit on the astonishingly beautiful woman whose favorite books list was… more than a bit heavy on Austrian economics.

Just as gay people can have internalized homophobia and oppressed proletarians can nonetheless defend capitalism, POC can perpetuate racism.

True, but the percentage of Autistic people in this community is undoubtedly far greater than average. So the stereotype undoubtedly has a degree of truth to it. Except that property damage stopped quickly when the Korean shopkeepers started defending their stores with guns. Of course things exist for reasons. I found that strange. This justification confuses me. Do they think that white people somehow created racial prejudice? The justification is that racism is the institutionalized system of prejudice against a minority race.

Since white men are the ones in power, females cant be sexists and poc cant be racist. Yes, and it is even defensible: Which group of people traveled so much around the world to feel the need to group European ethnies into a white category, African ones into a black one etc. My bet would be the British.

Here this grouping was unnecessary, because they just did not travel much, so they could just work on the ethnic level. I tried to think of examples of groups which it would make my blood boil to criticize. Tried the obvious targets, including neoreactionaries, conservatives, libertarians, white people, Christians.

I have yet been unable to find a group which I would be unwilling to criticize due to that sort of feeling. Not really sure if this counts. But it was interesting to find out. Maybe we should form our own non-in-group in-group. When are you printing the T-shirts? It might depend on the group who would hear the criticism. For example, you might criticize your romantic partner or your child to a trusted friend and feel fine about it, but sweat bullets if you did it in public.

Especially if you are facing a majority of people you know they will disagree. Well, I identify with them to a reasonable extent to perceive them as allies.

However, I was sweating blood last time on facebook, while trying to tell the group, that chemical induction of birth while unpleasant and not to be abused does not increase the rate of cesarean sections. I was trying to say, that randomised trials show this, and randomised trials are higher evidence than observational studies. I sayed that, otherwise, I am a loyal member of the group and doctors need oversight, because they ignore randomised trials in other questions.

It was just a minor disagreement, not a real criticism, but my blood pressure went up. I probably would not dare to post on their forum a lengthy article about what I dislike about that movent.

But here at SSC I can complain about them, knowing this audience will praise me for scientific thinking. I am just not sure how to do that properly. As an analogy, imagine someone criticizing racists by saying that their overly racist behavior will actually backfire against their own race, so to win against other races in long term, it is strategically better to become sincerely tolerant to other races.

Though I am not sure, in this specific situation, which group I would choose, so maybe I am again merely criticizing an outgroup. Cogitators prioritise system 2 to an insane degree and that has lots of harmful consequences.

Hows that as a criticism? Such a universe would not contain humanity as we know it. Disdain for the less-educated is just a class-signaling move for some tribes. As a Christian, I find it somewhat painful to criticise other Christians. Over here in the UK we evangelical Christians do a lot of distancing ourselves from American Republican evangelicals, a lot of apologising for what the Bible belt do and say.

Any large community will produce a fair number of embarrassing statements and actions and this provides fodder for anyone who wants to cherry-pick these instances and make the group in question look like the embarrassing uncles and aunts.

But hey, you obviously have made your judgments and I fully recognize that those are not often changed by comments on a web page. I find myself in the tricky situation of being an evangelical Christian in the UK sense while also having left-wing politics. Most of what I read on the internet is more influenced by left-wing politics than evangelical Christianity.

This means that a lot of what I pick up about what happens in the USA is filtered by left-wing news sources, and so USA Bible-belt evangelicalism comes across very badly. If you find examples of Bible belt, evangelical Republican Christians who are not an embarrassment, then you are the one engaging in cherry-picking. Thus justifying in your own mind the level of bigotry you express towards their group with vehemence.

And ALL right thinking people know that X is absolutely abhorrent. I actually agree with the rest of your post, but this is questionable on at least two levels: When donations to specifically religious organizations are excluded, New England launches ahead of the Bible Belt in charitable giving.

I work in the south. I work with evangelical Republican Christians. If you thought of to criticizing people who cannot find anyone to criticize, how would that make you feel? A nitpick from someone who sitting 10 feet from box-set DVD copies of all 7 seasons of the West Wing, and binge-watches it on a regular basis: Hence the square brackets. I really hate the blue tribe and the gray tribe, both of which I have ties to, and I find the red tribe sort of humorous and adorable despite disagreeing with most of their positions and having no ties to them.

I wonder what this makes me. Probably just an asshole. And if someone did have that criticism, then they probably would not choose that group to begin with. People on LW criticize LW all the time. I feel like you, Scott, are especially unwilling to criticize your in-group because you are a prominent voice for a group that you feel is under attack. Men — are too angry, have unhealthy desires for competition and domination, like sports too much.

Frat bros — Often misogynistic, perpetuate hookup culture which imho is bad, certain fraternities though absolutely not mine seem to actually have rape culture like the recent story about TKE at University of Wisconson-Milwaukee which is beyond appalling and reprehensible. Atheists — A lot of them are self-righteous and overly convinced of their own intelligence, a lot of them fail to see the good sides and certain truths of religion. Clearly your real ingroup is people who make lists of bad things about people!

Believe it or not I was about to make the last one that, but then I decided not to because imho meta-jokes are played out. People who can say bad things about all their ingroups — assholes, contrarians, are unable to properly integrate into their surroundings. Why do you think hookup culture is bad?

Hookup culture is bad because it has deleterious psychological consequences for all involved. The ability to handle this is, of course, a quantity that varies on a distribution, and some people deal with it better than others. But what else is new. I can demystify it for you. I note that a lot of the anti-hookup culture was enforced by women who exactly wanted to stigmatize acts that would make it harder for them to get and hang onto their husbands.

It was all supposed to be essentially the same for boys and girls: It was especially the lessening of gender polarity that kept the girls entranced …. And the dream for the girls at base was a dream of a sexual and social empathy that negated the strictures of gender…. It was a desire for a sexual community more like childhood—before girls were crushed under and segregated…. This recognition is the first step toward changing the policies that govern our nation and affect entrepreneurs and investors.

While the information theory of economics is concerned with the forces that create growth, it is also focused on those which hinder it. While the information theory of economics recognizes that entrepreneurial creations drive economic growth, it places equal importance on the environment in which they operate:. One fundamental principal of information theory distills that the transmission of a high-entropy, surprising product requires a low-entropy, unsurprising channel largely free of interference.

Predictable and stable carriers. In technology, a fiber-optic cable is an example of a low-entropy carrier: Surprising and unexpected signals. In economics, new creations and inventions by entrepreneurs are examples of high-entropy signals: For example, the success of a radio or internet signal depends on the existence of a low-entropy channel that does not change substantially during the course of communication. And the profits will not be taxed away. That results in less entrepreneurial creations, which means less knowledge and wealth in the economy.

Too much noisy interference from governments and central banks distorts market signals. They also increase the hassles of doing business, which stifles innovation and discourages entrepreneurship. Ultimately, this makes the country less wealthy and prosperous. Identifying both the drivers and destroyers of economic growth is what George does so well with his information theory of economics. It has changed how I think about the economy, and what policies we should pursue going forward. If this can happen, I have great hope for the future.

What a great conference it was this year: I was really enthusiastic about it when I came back to the office and now I think my other colleagues want to go as well next year. Yet, George is only one of the speakers that attendees will get to hear and meet. I really hope you can be there to experience it in person, with me. That does it for the second installment in this five-part series. Spatial economics will give rise to new markets, more innovative businesses, new lifestyles and different career opportunities.

At the same time, major research institutions like McKinsey, Brookings, and Pew are releasing studies on the topic. Findings from these studies all draw the same conclusion: When I see multiple forecasts, which arrive at the same conclusion, I get a little nervous.

When the consensus expects one thing to happen, quite often the exact opposite ends up occurring. Here are two reminders of just how wrong the consensus can be. As we know now, that was pretty much the bottom for oil prices.

Needless to say, investors who allocated capital according to these prevailing thoughts would have been on the wrong side of two seismic shifts. When this happens, it tells me that I should seek out independent and unique perspectives.

Someone who offers exactly that is Karen Harris. I would wager you have never heard of Karen. Karen and her team at Macro Trends focus on developing insights about global macroeconomic and social trends. They also work with institutional clients to embed macro strategy into their investment and business decisions.

I am featuring Karen in this five-part series because of her pioneering work on the declining cost of distance—a topic which fits hand in glove with automation, and has profound implications for investors and entrepreneurs. Before we proceed, I want to let you in on a secret: The declining cost of distance may be the one of the overarching trends that shapes the economy and financial markets in the coming decades. When I say this is one of the most critical concepts to grasp going forward, I mean it.

The Declining Cost of Distance, opens with this thought:. While not widely recognized, the cost of distance—that is, the cost of moving information, people, and goods—is a key driver of business and individual decision-making. For example, the cost of moving goods is the reason why companies like Amazon strategically place their warehouses near major transportation routes.

On an individual level, the cost of moving oneself is the reason you would ideally live near your workplace. The need to minimize the cost of distance has caused businesses and individuals to cluster around urban areas.

This trend began during the Industrial Revolution years ago, when millions of people moved to cities to work in factories. To date, the cost of distance has remained a critical calculation for businesses and individuals regarding where to operate and live. Which leads to the question: How would the world change if the cost of distance fell dramatically and greatly reduced the importance of location?

Robotics, 3-D printing, delivery drones, logistics technology and autonomous vehicles are giving rise to new products and services that sharply erode the cost of moving people, goods and information.

Compare the cost of sending information via an email to sending it by postal letter. Or the cost of making a long-distance phone call today versus two decades ago. Data from The World Bank show that the cost of transporting goods by air and ocean freight has dropped substantially over the past 40 years.

The rise of online communication channels and computer systems has enabled many individuals to work from remote areas, so they no longer have to travel to an office.

Technology is creating a post-urban world in which physical location will not be the primary driver of where people live. This is the biggest shift in how economies function since the Industrial Revolution, when the population of London and other English cities doubled in just 50 years.

The declining cost of distance will allow millions of individuals to reassess where they live. At the same time, constraints on businesses such as scale and density will be reduced, creating new opportunities for businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. Think about where you would live if you could work from anywhere.

Or, what would happen to urban economies and real estate prices if millions of people decided to leave? These are just two factors to consider on how the declining cost of distance is a complete game changer.

Advances in technology already are beginning to lower costs in manufacturing and service, allowing both to be profitable at reduced scale. The declining cost of distance will allow businesses to operate at a smaller scale, which will disrupt the tight constraints that most operate under, today.

Today, a 6,—8, square-foot Apple store requires a population of roughly two million people within its target radius to be profitable. This required population density is a huge barrier to entry, making small operations completely unviable. But I have good news, automation is changing that. Automation is also changing the business model of casual dining outlets like McDonalds and Burger King. On the surface, automation is bad for jobs. For example, Macro Trends estimate that by employing service robots, casual dining outlets could reduce staff from 25 to 8 people.

However, as automation will enable businesses to operate at a smaller scale and scope, it may create jobs net-net. While automation will reduce the number of people working at each location, by lowering operating costs, automation will make smaller scale and scope locations economically viable. In effect, the volume of stores would increase, while the number of people working at each location would fall.

For the first time ever, large retailers and dining chains will be able to operate in smaller, less dense markets. The large retail stores and restaurant chains that I have the pick of here in Dallas, may open locations in the much smaller neighboring cities of Allen and Katy.

As I mentioned above, when there is a strong consensus on a topic, it almost always pays to seek out an independent view. While automation will render some jobs obsolete in the coming decades, I believe it will also create a lot of opportunities. Along with changing how businesses operate, the declining cost of distance will also alter where individuals choose to live and how they work.

According to the US Census Bureau, the percentage of the US population that lived within 10 miles of a city center declined by 2. That might not seem much, but it represents almost 6 million people—more than double the population of Chicago. While the declining cost of distance is only beginning to gather pace, it is likely one of the reasons for this move away from cities.

As more businesses open locations in less dense, rural areas, these areas will become more attractive places to live. A Macro Trends poll shows that an increasing number of people want to live in rural areas. However, a greater variety of amenities is only the start of how the declining cost of distance is going to transform rural areas… and possibly cities, too. Virtual communication tools and computer systems are giving people who live in rural areas access to many of the same employment opportunities that city dwellers have.

As opportunities to telecommute work remotely increase, fewer people will need to travel to work. Right now, my team lives in a wide range of locations: While we operate across several time zones and live in vastly different locations, thanks to online communications tools and shared computer networks, we operate as if we were all under the one roof.

At the same time, the absence of an office greatly reduces overhead costs. Best of all, each one of us gets to work from wherever we please. Take my friend and colleague Jared Dillian, for example. When Jared was working at Lehman Brothers in New York, there was no escaping the ultra-high cost of living.

Today, Jared is able to work from his beachfront home in South Carolina. As the following chart from Macro Trends shows, its base case is that a further 10 million people will move out of urban areas by A move of this magnitude would have massive implications for the economy and the employment landscape. For example, a mass exodus to rural areas could create a boom in the construction industry, akin to what took place in the s.

Conversely, urban real-estate prices, which are notoriously high across the globe, could plummet as demand falls. Still, there are a lot of unknowns. Would millions of Americans switching from urban to rural living ignite a baby boom and cure our demographic problems? After all, birthrates are substantially higher in rural areas.

Plus, families could dramatically reduce their cost of living by moving out of cities, allowing them to feed more mouths. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I have many more questions I want answered about the declining cost of distance. For example, what are the opportunities and risks for investors, and how will the reduction in the scale and scope of businesses in advanced economies affect emerging markets?

To learn more about attending the SIC , and about the other speakers who will be there, I encourage you to click here. I attended my first conference this year and loved it! I am a small investment manager just starting out, so I was looking to gain some perspective on how to protect my portfolio and profit from likely events that will be occurring in the future.

That concludes the third part of this series. I want to get your thoughts and questions regarding Karen and her insights into the declining cost of distance. New federal initiatives—whether tax cuts, infrastructure, or otherwise—will not provide a boost to the economy if they are funded with increases in debt.

The rationale behind their dual mandate is that by keeping inflation and interest rates steady, they will create a stable economic environment, which will be conducive to employment growth. When the economy is slowing: The Fed lowers interest rates, spurring economic activity. This helps the economy avoid recession. When the economy is booming: The Fed hikes interest rates, slowing activity. This stops the economy from overheating.

Fed actions end up working in a pro-cyclical, instead of a counter-cyclical, manner. Strict adherence to their dual mandate has made them blind to certain economic developments. For example, while the Fed was focused on unemployment and inflation during the s and early s, they failed to do anything about the massive buildup of debt. This laid the groundwork for the financial crisis. When debt levels rise past a certain threshold, additional debt-financed stimulus becomes ineffective.

Worse yet, when an economy becomes extremely indebted, monetary policy stops working altogether. I often get asked if I am still a deficit hawk. And that, my friends, is a game-changer.

With traditional methods of stimulus incapable of spurring growth, what will happen in the next downturn? As this trend develops, it could force a rewiring of the financial system and a deleveraging of the global economy. Given the wide-ranging implications, this is a critical trend for investors to grasp. When I need insight into the relationship between debt and the economy, there is one person I turn to. And that is my dear friend, Lacy Hunt. Lacy Hunt is the executive vice president and chief economist at Hoisington Investment Management.

I really do enjoy picking his brain about all things economics. I regularly phone him on a Monday morning when something is puzzling me. In a recent interview, Lacy cited a study by the McKinsey Global Institute which analyzed dozens of instances where countries had become over-indebted:. In , McKinsey looked at 24 advanced economies that became extremely over-indebted.

McKinsey says that a multi-year sustained rise in the savings rate, what they term austerity, is needed to solve the problem. A decade on from the financial crisis, instead of deleveraging, our debt burden has increased. Until the debt burden is reduced, further debt-financed stimulus will not spur growth.

While nobody in Washington seems to have realized that our debt problem cannot be solved by more debt, it is important for investors to keep this in mind when allocating capital. Future tax cuts and other fiscal measures may generate spurts of growth, but given the debt burden, it will fizzle out shortly thereafter.

Our Latest

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Thank you for visiting the homepage of this five-part series on the individuals and ideas shaping my worldview. I have gained a lot of knowledge from these truly great minds, and the purpose of this series is to share what I have learned with you, my readers. I’m confident that the writings that.

Privacy FAQs

WRITE MY PAPER FOR ME - WE CARE ABOUT QUALITY OF OUR SERVICE. We promote ourselves as college paper writing service that has earned its popularity by delivering outstanding quality articles.

About Our Ads

Worldview Matters provides materials for training teachers in Christian schools and parents in the home, with an emphasis on the Christian worldview. The goal of Sudoku is to fill in a 9×9 grid with digits so that each column, row, and 3×3 section contain the numbers between 1 to 9. At the beginning of the game, .

Cookie Info

@laughlovelogan oh. na dann fuhlst du den selben schmerz wie wir.:/ ich muss sogar in den "ferien" ein essay schreiben und 2 bucher lesen.. Fallstudie beispiel essay. @dwightxjim someone told me once their english tests are literally "who did romeo kill a.) whoever b.) etc" like theres no essays. lalla essaydi after ingres grand personal narrative vs essay.