So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point. — Xtrix

Can you support that statement with evidence? I mean it’s not a fabrication is it?

Once man had witnessed the results of his creative act then the act had an intent, he could apply that act over and over. Then it was given a purpose. Obviously, in the beginning, that purpose was to benefit man.

Creativity absent of tangible benefit seems to be subjective in nature. — Outlander

That’s a very good point I think, and most discussions get bogged down by subjectivity.

Does it help us find knowledge or only reinterpret it? — TiredThinker

Making use of fire; Is that new knowledge or is it just reinterpretation? Or are they the same? Striking a flint to get a sharp edge: knowledge or interpretation?

It seems to me to be interpretation. But I don’t know what to call the step before lighting a fire or striking a flint.

I imagine TiredThinker was hoping for a bit more than that. It’s still possible to discuss what exactly this creativity is.

Edit: Does it help us find knowledge or only reinterpret it?

How does creatively help us survive? — TiredThinker

There’s been a lot of discussion in this forum about creativity, but more often in the sense of art, which I presume were not talking about here, nor do I want to.

How does creativity help us survive? Somehow I think it’s bigger than helping us survive. It’s that we are creative creatures and that’s why we’re here and not a footnote in history.

Edit: it seems a bit like asking how does breathing help us survive?

it’s not being the way that they are that made them rich, but being rich that made them the way that they are. — Pfhorrest

So you disagree with my “supporting evidence”?

If you have the courage to regularly experience individual boredom, discomfort or risk, you may be surprised at what you learn about yourself and your relation to the world. — Possibility

This is quite patronising. You’re suggesting that having the philosophical position that life has no purpose, that it is meaningless (and I think that creates confusion) that those people are lacking courage to experience particular aspects of life, or disinterested in learning about themselves, as if they spend their life locked in their room.

And yet Zen Master Shunryu Suzuki said “I discovered that it is necessary , absolutely necessary, to believe in nothing ... no matter what god or doctrine you believe in, if you become attached to it, your belief will be based more or less on a self- centred idea ... But I do not mean voidness ... This is called Buddha nature, or Buddha himself.”

What motivates a billionaire to keep working?

Status is a very big part of it. They want to win. That’s part of the motivation. We’re all competitive in our own way. It’s part of our tribal DNA. If you think about tribal societies, the person who has the most power also has the most access to resources, and they can protect and provide for their family. The closer others are to that leader, the safer they feel. It’s the pursuit that brings them happiness — the pursuit of business goals or their passion, that is giving them joy. The money is a side effect, but it’s not what is giving them joy. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/your-money/inside-the-minds-of-the-ultrawealthy.html

You made a bunch of statements without support, and you know it. Stop wasting my time. — Xtrix

“So what makes wealthy people different?”


1. More extroverted.

2. More conscientious.

3. More emotionally stable.

4. More self-centered.

‘The "entrepreneurial personality profile" has been described by a combination of high extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness as well as lower agreeableness and neuroticism.
This constellation is thought to address typical affordances [yep: researchers love awkward phrases] of being an entrepreneur such as acquiring new customers, managing finances, developing innovative products, negotiating with suppliers, and coping with enduring phases of uncertainty and risk.’

https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/how-rich-people-think-differently-than-everyone-else-this-new-study-reveals-personality-traits-of-self-made-millionaires.html

Research:

The Journal of Analytical Psychology

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bjop.12360

You made a bunch of statements without support, — Xtrix

What sort of support would I need to satisfy you?

and to accept our individual existence as fundamentally unnecessary. — Possibility

How is that different from;

Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless. — Brett

This then is the fundamental political question because it determines what sort of institutions we build or hold onto, what sort of communities we want to live in. The left/right divide ignores the implications, and then addresses that original political question by how best we should live now that we are here.
— Brett

You'd have to explain that. — schopenhauer1

Optimists ... will see existence itself as a positive, and they will see the maneuverings of having to survive, find comfort, entertainment, of trying to navigate the contingent harms that may befall as worth it. — schopenhauer1

The pessimist does not see existence itself as a positive. They do not see the maneuverings of having to survive, find comfort, and entertainment as positive. Rather, they simply view situations of "dealing with" to get by. In other words, Life presents one thing after another to deal with. — schopenhauer1

The use of optimist/pessimist tends to skew the meaning towards happiness and unhappiness, or positive and negative. From a Kantian point of view the negative/pessimist is really the acceptance of the limits of our knowledge to the phenomenal realm.

Really, instead of optimist/pessimist, we’re talking about fatalism and destinism, acceptance versus resistance or the East and West.

For Schopenhauer our lives are swept along by Will. This experience lies behind our suffering and can only be alleviated through asceticism, or particular ways of living according to Eastern philosophy, of acceptance.

The West perceives life differently. It doesn’t accept our condition or any sense of fatalism, it resists that sense of futility.
It’s the response, negative/ positive, that determines our culture and how and why it’s constructed in the way it is.

Politics is the pushing and shoving that goes on within each culture but on the basis that the idea of negative/positive has already been decided.

The more fundamental issue is whether the whole life enterprise should be brought about and carried forward, especially on behalf of other people. That is the more fundamental political difference. — schopenhauer1

This then is the fundamental political question because it determines what sort of institutions we build or hold onto, what sort of communities we want to live in. The left/right divide ignores the implications, and then addresses that original political question by how best we should live now that we are here.

prediction error - — Possibility

What’s a “prediction error”?

The problem is that we are not yet in a position to choose the full terms of our existence, because we are not yet sufficiently aware, connected or collaborating with existence to accomplish this. And we won’t get there by halting all attempts to relate to what we don’t understand. — Possibility

In the meantime we have to live this life. And I don’t see that what @schopenhauer1 and I are saying is halting all attempts to relate to what we don’t understand. In fact I see it as looking straight into the eyes of what we don’t understand, without fear.

Edit: Sorry, “without fear” is a little dramatic.

Does being a certain kind of person make you rich, — Pfhorrest

I think being a certain kind of person will determine just how someone becomes rich. Pablo Escobar was rich, something like 30b.

But like minded people, within reason, will associate with like minded people. But everyone does that. So I don’t think wealth itself is the reason that those people come together.
Wealth obviously can have an impact on personality, but in what way? I think the general feeling here is that wealth corrupts, if not the personality then in the effects of their actions. Which may be the same thing. But surely wealth creates many things that are good. Can wealth only contribute the bad?

but I would suspect that wealth has a far greater impact on personality — Pfhorrest

Wealth is a subjective idea, don’t you think? So do you think that might apply to all people, not just the wealthy? When it comes to wealth, or just having money, people are generally susceptible to its affect, whatever the reasons, even not having money. There are many reasons people want money, where do you separate or draw the line between wealth and personality being the driving force?

Yes, that is fabricated if there's no evidence to support it. — Xtrix

But I did give evidence. I put up information on the early life of Carlos Slim, Larry Ellison and Sheldon Adelson. I know that’s only three individuals out of many. But regardless you can’t say my thoughts on hard work are fabricated. And while I’m at it I notice you don’t call my list of negative traits a fabrication.

you've not demonstrated it with anything other than simple assertions and statements about "reading and thinking." — Xtrix

A bit of experience, a bit of reading, a bit of reasoning. — Brett

That’s my actual statement. First of all experience. You don’t have to believe me, but experience is not fabrication. Nor is reading. That’s why you asked for some reference to reading on the subject. And reasoning? Well that’s what we base a lot of our conversation here on isn’t it?

I have not said I find these people innocent or good, I’ve just commented on what appear to be traits of people who succeed.

But you said you wanted some reference on these people

who exactly these people are and if there are trends in their philosophies or religious outlooks.”

And yet without actually having read anything others referred to, unless you’re a speed reader, you have somehow determined that my comments are fabrication.

I think it's often forgotten that behind major corporations there are real people making the major decisions, with real thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and values. Since they're the "masters of the universe," it's worth understanding exactly who they are. — Xtrix

Right. That’s where your interest lay. Not exactly quantifiable traits based on statistics are they? How are you going to measure them? At least my comments on hard work are measurable.

Somehow you went from seeking information on their “ thoughts, feelings, beliefs and values” to proof that "the rich are sociopaths."[/quote]

But I find it unlikely that someone with such immense power would voluntarily work to unmake their source of that power. — Pfhorrest

It’s a big challenge. It’s the sort of challenge someone who likes a big project might take on, someone with real ambition. Of course if you believe their raisin d’être is profit then you can’t see it happening. And governments serve short terms and new ones can mess up the plans of the previous, and even then they’re always in election mode. But where else could you turn and how else could it happen?

No, but I see how you might think that.

What I’m saying is why not one of those 1% being given the challenge to fix it, even if it was a 50 year contract. Who else would have the ambition, the drive, the ability and imagination to make something so big happen if they were given a clearly measurable objective?

Now at the risk of name calling I’m going to suggest that the someone who could make this happen is someone who everyone seems to despise.

My problem is I largely agree with you but it’s the mechanic of it that I find problematical. Because to bring and end to the renting situation as it is requires action by the government. And governments are notorious at misunderstanding or messing up these things and in the end wasting a lot of money and messing things up to the degree that they’re worse than the problem they tried to resolve.

Edit: and when a house becomes an asset, even owned by an individual not a landlord, then the market heats up.

Thanks, I’ll have a read of that later.

How do we get from there back to a world where ownership is widely distributed again, and keep that from falling back into this shitty situation again? — Pfhorrest

That is my point. How does it get started?

I think home ownership for those who want it would be a good beginning. It’s an asset you have to look after, it gives you a stake in the community, and it serves a greater purpose than just being an asset.

But then people need secure, reasonable wages to manage it.

However, the irony is they need other people’s money to get started.

that reserve capital is the savings that all those people have because they're all capable of earning more than they need to get by (because their jobs pay them so well and their fixed expenses like rent are so low). So to get anything new done, you just need to get enough people to agree to pool their time and money together to make it happen. — Pfhorrest

Who are these people working for that pay them so well that they have enough excess money to save and eventually pool their money for some other collective venture? And if their jobs pay them so well and their fixed expenses are so low why would they want to go any further, what could drive them when they already have enough.

You're giving yourself away when you talk like this. So many tacit assumptions.
— Xtrix — Brett

Apparently there is scholarship out there which people (like Bitter Crank) have recommended; that's what I was looking for from people here. — Xtrix

So you don’t yet know what the answers are, which is why you want research, but you know I’m wrong. How do you explain that?

Why is all the money collected somewhere else that the workers need to borrow it from, instead of just pooling their own savings together? — Pfhorrest

Sure they can pool their own savings, but it’s unlikely to be enough to buy a factory and machinery.

Then as Banno would say “Fuck off”.

What exactly are you attributing to "human behavior"? The profit motive? — Xtrix

In none of those characteristics have I mentioned the “profit motive”. I’m talking about the nature of people to work hard, to work with like minded people, to project into the future.

Just tell me none of this is true.


1: They’re very hard workers

2: They’re very good a setting an objective and then making a plan to get there

3: They’re very good at projecting into the future

4: They’re very adaptable

5: Many of them are very innovative

6: They’re very good at choosing people to work with, understanding them, motivating them

7: They inspire people within their circle

8: They have a through understanding of the world they’re operating in

9: They’re very good at networking

You're giving yourself away when you talk like this. So many tacit assumptions. — Xtrix

Giving myself away as what? And speaking of assumptions what about:

The general trend is the 1% aren't self-made but inherit their wealth and social advantage. — apokrisis

its the fact that you fabricated shit out of thin air and expect anyone to put in any effort to take that shit seriously. — StreetlightX

Like the idea that they work hard. Hardly fabricated.

I asked for research. — Xtrix

Okay, my apologies for thinking about it.

Pathetic response. Just delete the ones you don’t agree with.

assuming they can be totalized as a group outside the narrow metric of wealth - — StreetlightX

Isn’t that what’s being done here?

Well tell me which ones are incorrect, just do it instead of waving your hands around.

Your list of positive or negative attributes doesn't tell us much, other than your own intuitions about the matter. — Xtrix

Tell me where I’m wrong then.

s but this is hardly research, Brett. — Xtrix

No, it’s a group of people with opinions discussing something.

I was thinking more in terms of ideologies and values, — Xtrix

Then you have to know who they are instead of just determining it from prejudices.

The argument was that the rich are rich because they inherited money. So I gave some examples of where that is not true.

I'm not sure you're understanding what is being called for here. — Xtrix

What is being called for then?

A bit of experience, a bit of reading, a bit of reasoning. If you like you could post which ones you think are wrong or don’t make sense.