Thank you for the nice remarks. That post was too long but I appreciate you taking the time to read it. I'll be honest and admit that it gives me some satisfaction - a little boost to the ego - that you found it to be worth the trouble.

Oh and I found your harsh style here to be very effective. Warranted too I should add.

Great insight as usual. Thank you.

Your position on this is quite obvious so allow me to ask, do you recognize the problem that the statement calls our attention to and if so, is there a logical process that can be considered to improve the problem that you perceive? — Myttenar

Sorry. I didn't think this was aimed at me. I do have a response.

I recognize a whole range of problems in our political, economic, and international situations. I attribute many of them to the short-sightedness, self-interest, ideology, poor planning, lack of compassion, racial and ethnic prejudice, and other factors. Maybe even evil in some cases. I don't think idiocy in either those who govern or those who are governed has a role in most cases. I think putting philosophers or technocrats as such in governing roles is a terrible idea.

I don't think there is a logical process that will solve any of our problems, although reason, science, history, and other intellectual approaches have a role to play. This is a political problem with political solutions, if any. Primary solution - govern from the middle. How to do that. Too big a subject. I'm not sure how much I have to offer in figuring it out.

" I don't think there is a logical process that will solve any of our problems."

So it follows that these problems then are illogical problems?

The people who prosper most are the unethical, no-conscience, crude, selfish and aggressive people. ...people who don't care how many people have to suffer or die to make possible their lavish lifestyle.

The scum rises to the top.

Idiots? Yes, in a way,

On the material level, the rulers know what they're doing. As I said elsewhere, they employ top experts in psychology, marketing, technology, and strategy of all kinds. In the sense of knowing how to win, how to maintain their power, under every forseeable contingency, they know what they're doing.

But does that really mean that they know what they're doing in a meaningful sense?

Though they aren't signing a parchment document that explicitly sells their soul for material gain, I claim that they're doing something that's effectively no different from that. The difference is only in the details.

That's something that's been well-understood for a long time. The Book of Ezekiel says:

"What profit it a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

(No, I'm not a biblical-literalist. Though I'm a Theist, the facts I mention here are obvious whether you're a Theist, Atheist or Agnostic.)

Within the scope of their little game as they perceive it, they're winning. It's what's known as a Pyrrhic victory.

What they don't understand is that they're really harming themselves the most. They're their own worst victims.

So: Are such people idiots? Sure. That's what I'd call anyone who thinks that it's possible to really ultimately get away with even the most heinous acts.

Let them have their Pyrrhic victory in their little game. That's why another famous person said:

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

Michael Ossipoff

(Y)

That is pretty much exactly what I meant by "idiots". I meant idiots in a far deeper sense than just IQ, which no one (except you) stopped to consider - "idiots" meaning puppets of their conditioning ... if you cut open their brains, you won't find one original thought. People who are, in essence, living their whole lives on the public stage ... entirely calculated and calculating ... with not the slightest smidgen of originality/creativity/authenticity/sincerity ... no soul ... just empty hollow shells of human beings ... actors following the same old script. In essence, such people are whores ... their entire lives are dictated to them by money/fame/power/whatever ... ironically, they're servants/slaves, while it seems, on the outside, to be the opposite.

In a sense, they're not even alive. Their reality exists entirely on the thin superficiality of material/political success/fame. In terms of human evolution, most might consider these people advanced humans, because they seem to be able to harness the power of the human brain to achieve "great things", but I'd argue exactly the opposite. If brains is what defines us, then I'd say that these people are quite backward in evolutionary terms, because they are unable to stop for one second to question what they're doing ... much like a computer will do what you tell it to do, without questioning it. "Computer, launch an ICBM to take out half the Middle East." Computer: "Yes, Sir !" (Computers aren't smart, they're just fast, (fairly) predictable, and able to reproduce (fairly) consistent results ... I program them for a living, so I know) They're slaves to their minds (conditioning), not the other way around. An intelligent human, to me, is one who is able to use his/her mind and come up with an original thought, regardless of whether the whole world would disagree with that thought ... i.e. not one whose mind uses him/her, not one who blindly plays out a script that everybody else in the world is following.

Albert Einstein famously said, "There are two things that are infinite - the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." and "Imagination is more valuable than knowledge." We all know about his contributions to science, but he was also a deeply spiritual/philosophical man and that is what I find most inspirational about him.

Just because the whole world thinks one is successful, that doesn't mean much to me. I've come to learn the hard way that the majority is often wrong :) I am often extremely cautious when rendering a judgment on something when the whole world thinks positively/negatively about it ... myths, misinformation, and polarized opinions are much too easily parroted :)

Thank you for taking my "abysmal" and "lazy" (according to one person) statement and explaining, quite eloquently, what I meant :D

(Y)

So it follows that these problems then are illogical problems? — Myttenar

I'd say the solutions to the problems are not logical or illogical. Logic applies to propositions - statements of fact. It doesn't address applying human values, identifying problems and goals, deciding the appropriate method to achieve goals, and determining when those goals have been met. Applying, identifying, deciding, and determining are human acts. In the context of a society or government, they are political acts.

Logic applies to propositions - statements of fact. It doesn't address applying human values, identifying problems and goals, deciding the appropriate method to achieve goals, and determining when those goals have been met. Applying, identifying, deciding, and determining are human acts. — T Clark

I would disagree to this statement on the grounds that one can logically identify a problem for example. We can logically deduce if goals are met. We use our personal/perspective logic to set goals.

Logic develops ideas far beyond statements of fact given what we deduce from the premise. More than mere propositions or statements.

Maybe I've missed something here?

I would disagree to this statement on the grounds that one can logically identify a problem for example. We can logically deduce if goals are met. We use our personal/perspective logic to set goals. — Myttenar

It would be helpful if you can give me an example of logic being used to apply human values, identify problems and goals, decide the appropriate method to achieve goals, and determine when those goals have been met.

Take for example a man attempting to fix an electric pump.
Logic is the reason he is fixing it, first of all from the proposition of "does it work" with an observation being made and conclusion derived that it is not, logic is used to make the decision to fix it, the man has realised in a logical process of deduction that the pump doesnt work (identifying a problem) and since it doesn't work logically moves to the solution of fixing it (setting a goal) and logically determines how to fix it (determining method) and identify when the problem is fixed(determine when a goal has been met).
Logical reasoning at every step.

I can't find it right now, but I read a column a few months ago that said the opposite: it is the highly-educated elites who keep everything running. Without the highly-educated elites, I recall the author saying, the farmers, postal carriers, and the rest of us non-elites would be helpless. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I'd like to hear some examples of highly educated elites who keep things running. I can't think of any. How about the highly educated elites who almost collapsed our economic system in the 2000s. How about the highly educated elites who started a disastrous war in the middle east which has destabilized the area, sent a million refugees into Europe, killed tens of thousands of people, and made the US less secure.

I think there is a case to be made that highly educated people have driven technological innovation. That's not a small thing. But it doesn't make the trains run on time or feed the babies.

What no side of this discussion tells me is why anybody wants to put their own role in the system on a pedestal. The common worker often sounds as elitist as the paper shuffling CEO ("Without the work that I do, the whole system would implode"). — WISDOMfromPO-MO

An elitist who makes $30,000/year with two children.

People mostly care about power, influence, prestige, status, wealth, etc. Pragmatic considerations, — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No. People mostly care about paying the rent or mortgage; buying food for their families; buying a new car, boat, tv, or smart phone; whether the Patriots win he Superbowl; etc.

Apparently people can't be happy with being good at something and being fairly compensated for it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

CEOs, good at what they do or not, are paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per year. Many competent people are paid less than they need to support their families and have a safe, secure, and satisfying life. Make sure everyone has enough to live on, a decent place to live, decent schools for their children, quality medical care, and I don't care who runs the country. Except no Republicans.

Take for example a man attempting to fix an electric pump.
Logic is the reason he is fixing it, first of all from the proposition of "does it work" with an observation being made and conclusion derived that it is not, logic is used to make the decision to fix it, the man has realised in a logical process of deduction that the pump doesnt work (identifying a problem) and since it doesn't work logically moves to the solution of fixing it (setting a goal) and logically determines how to fix it (determining method) and identify when the problem is fixed(determine when a goal has been met).
Logical reasoning at every step. — Myttenar

All you've done is described the process of pump repair and then put the word "logic", "logical", or "logically" in front of everything. Please describe what you mean, in logical terms, what realizing in a logical process of deduction that the pump doesn't work" means. Logic doesn't tell him to fix the pump - the fact that he doesn't have any water to drink, flush the toilet, or wash with is not a logical There was no logic. He turned on his water and nothing came out. Describe how one logically determines how to fix the pump.

These people could find themselves a place in society. They could go into politics. They could, for example, study philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University. A prominent politician who is highly qualified in an academic field is not unheard-of. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, obtained a doctorate in quantum chemistry and worked as a research scientist for a number of years. Tristram Hunt, former Labour MP, and former Shadow Secretary of State for Education, is a historian, author, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, and lecturer in modern British History at Queen Mary University of London.

It would be, except that I don't think most people are so obsessed. Most people seem like they are just trying to get through the day, their life, without too much misery.

Some, a small minority, really are obsessed with power, influence, prestige, status, wealth, etc. and they are a troublesome lot. — Bitter Crank

Kind of ethnocentric of me.

The overwhelming majority of people who are living under the global capitalist system--and the number who have managed to escape that system is probably miniscule--are living on the periphery and are indeed just doing what they have to to survive.

But I think that is safe to say that among the small privileged minority living in the core people do not seek work that they are good at. People seek careers in professions with very high salaries, high status/prestige, and/or above average power--never mind how good they would be at the work. Competition for positions in those careers is intense. People do things like cheat on college entrance exams, lie on resumes, etc. to have an edge over the competition. Networking and connections are more important than knowledge and skills that can be used performing work. Marketing one's self effectively is far more important than proficiency/ability in performing work.

If you think about it, actual knowledge and skills don't play much of a role in the market for highly-sought jobs. Somebody with more knowledge and better skills but no bachelor's degree is going to be overlooked as employers only consider candidates with a BA or BS, no matter how mediocre those candidates are.

If people actually tried to be really good at something, and if hiring and promotions were actually based on knowledge and skill, the economy would look much different in post-industrial society.

since deductions are made in the process, logic has been used. I'm not sure where the problem in understanding that is, I assumed it was common knowledge .

since deductions are made in the process, logic has been used. I'm not sure where the problem in understanding that is, I assumed it was common knowledge . — Myttenar

We've determined that we need a working pump. Please lay out some specific deductions that will be made to identify a solution to the problem.

the fact that he doesn't have any water to drink, flush the toilet, or wash with — T Clark

This information + logic is why the man knows to fix the pump. Repeat process for next step. Information + logic. It's that simple

Kind of ethnocentric of me. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What's ethnocentric about it?

people do not seek work that they are good at. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

We may not live in a strict meritocracy, but most employers/managers have a reasonably good idea of what excellent performance looks like. People who like what they are doing are more likely to perform at high levels. After all, most of have a limited repertoire of what we can do well.

People seek careers in professions with very high salaries, high status/prestige, and/or above average power--never mind how good they would be at the work. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

They do, but I do not think there is any reason to suppose that millions of people breeze into their high-prestige, high power, highly paid jobs without being expected to deliver the goods--doing what they were hired to do, and doing it quite well, at least, and on time.

The workforce is not entirely rational when it comes to gets hired to do what -- everyone has witnessed examples of people getting jobs without being qualified (because they gave good head maybe). I have gotten a couple of jobs that I wasn't really qualify for, but I didn't give anyone head to get them. What happened? I washed out of the jobs. There is such a thing as knowing how to do something, on the one hand, and not knowing shit from shinola on the other hand. Other people actually can tell if you know what you are doing.

Along the lines of irrationality... there are jobs in industry, government, and NGOs that are so nebulous nobody can tell what the employee is supposed to be doing -- including the employee. It doesn't matter who gets these jobs, because they are pretty much empty from the start. But most jobs are NOT like that. Most jobs involve concrete activities that are purposeful, measurable, and observable. If you fuck up on the job, it will show.

I suppose everyone has had negative experiences in workplaces where there were people who didn't know how to do their jobs, despite their training. Like I said, I was in a job like that three times. The first one was a temp job in a call center. Couldn't figure out how the database system worked. booted in one month. The second one was as a departmental principle secretary at a University. Way, way too many details for me to learn and manage in the very distracting office setting. Gone in 14 months, voluntarily. The third instance was in a job I was initially qualified and able to do, and did do. But after 2 years, we had to seek contracts with very different requirements. I was supposed to be doing something called "risk reduction case management". Even though I had written the grant, the guidelines were extremely nebulous, and wasn't trained to do the kind of case management that the agent thought I should be doing (but which didn't have much to do with the objectives of the grant). Conclusion: Fired 7 months into the contract.

Now, in the other jobs that I held (some 38 years worth) I was generally able to function quite successfully, do the job I was hired to do, and did it well. But... there were these three that were totally out in left field for me. Other people have been in the same situation: Just not able to do the job for which they were hired.

The failures are the exceptions. Most people who are hired are identified as capable of doing the job, and do perform adequately.

Success and failures occur at all levels of employment, from menials on up to top executives; the successes far outnumber the failures. You (or I) may absolutely loathe the society we live in, but the fact is, as loathsome as it is, it functions successfully to keep being loathsome. It doesn't fall apart.

An intelligent human, to me, is one who is able to use his/her mind and come up with an original thought, regardless of whether the whole world would disagree with that thought ... i.e. not one whose mind uses him/her, not one who blindly plays out a script that everybody else in the world is following. — Aurora

But philosophical materialism and its favorite offspring, determinism, are increasingly telling us--and increasingly being accepted for saying--that how we use our minds, along with the accompanying content of those minds, is entirely effects of causes that we have no control over.

The behavior you deem to be idiotic was, we are increasingly being told, selected through natural selection because it is advantageous.

Of course, tomorrow it might not be advantageous any longer. Who knows what will be selected then. Maybe low IQ will be advantageous. Or low empathy/affect.

And let's not forget that physical traits like a symmetrical face may correlate with, or even cause, ascent to positions of power and influence. Having the savvy--and the money--to buy cosmetic surgery may play as big a role there as biology.

And guess who gave us all of these ideas? A lot of the people you would call idiots. It wasn't serfs or hourly workers who came up with things like determinism and evolutionary psychology.

But, then again, we are increasingly believing that the serfs and hourly workers have no control over things like their role in producing ideas.

It's looking more and more like future generations will believe that we are all puppets.

Wouldn't that make all of us idiots?

— Bitter Crank

I don't know what rigorous scientific research says, but my subjective experience says that good work has little to do with hiring, assignments, promotions, etc.

I have seen too many people who cut corners, break rules, lie, cheat, etc. be recognized and praised as the top performers. I have seen too many people who do not care about the quality of their work be recognized and praised as top performers. I could probably think of a lot of other assymetry between quality of work and rewards for work.

I have been fired when I was being honest and following proper procedure while people who were cheating were retained and praised as invaluable assets. It has happened numerous times.

I'm not saying that people fail. Customers, workers, managers and shareholders all get what they want, and the whole enterprise is considered a success. The whole economy is considered a success.

I am saying that doing what one is exceptionally good at is obviously not what the economic system we have encourages.

Economists may call it efficient. I call it wasteful.

But philosophical materialism and its favorite offspring, determinism, are increasingly telling us--and increasingly being accepted for saying--that how we use our minds, along with the accompanying content of those minds, is entirely effects of causes that we have no control over. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I have no clue what "philosophical materialism" or "determinism" is, and for the purpose of this exchange (between you and I), it doesn't matter what those are or have to say. What I'm talking about is much more fundamental, doesn't require reading any fancy textbooks with cryptic words, and is something each of us, scientist or not, philosopher or not, CEO or janitor, is capable of understanding, provided we are conscious. Conscious, not in a medical sense, but in a more general sense ... simply aware of ourselves as being more than just a body and mind.

In other words, this goes way deeper than science, but yet, it is far simpler and more fundamental.

When you become aware that you are not just a body and mind, that you have a consciousness that is your essence (it is what makes you "alive"), then, you are no longer stuck in your mind. You can step out of the mind. You can use your mind instead of the mind using you. Then, you are no longer a slave to the mind/body. And, from that place, can come original/creative thought.

While I agree that the mind does dominate human existence (and that IS the entirety of the problem), it doesn't mean that we have no control over our minds. And, I didn't need to research philosophy to know that. It just requires being conscious ... stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind. And, most people aren't conscious. (that's what makes them idiots ... "unconscious" is another word)

So, we are all inherently intelligent, but in most people, that intelligence is unrealized, undiscovered, because it is obscured by that zombie-like blind adherence to what society teaches them (i.e. conditioning) and an inability to think for themselves (which is only possible if one is conscious) ... all it takes is that stepping back, to realize ... "Wait a minute, just because XYZ says this is so don't make it so. Just because this is what I've been doing for 60 years doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."

That's all it takes for an idiot to realize that he/she is actually quite intelligent :)

And, this is not me sitting on a high horse pointing the finger at everybody else. I was one of those idiots too ... asleep like a zombie, a high-functioning corpse with a heartbeat ... sprinting on that treadmill with the script in front of me ... till I woke up. And, so can everyone, but very few actually wake up, because they associate being human with being slaves to their minds, forgetting that they are, first and foremost, conscious beings (that are not yet aware of their consciousness).

Sometimes, it takes being afflicted with cancer and being told one has 6 months to live, for a person to "wake up".

I'm not saying that people fail. Customers, workers, managers and shareholders all get what they want, and the whole enterprise is considered a success. The whole economy is considered a success. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, I don't have reams of data at my finger tips, either. But... Logic tells us, does it not, that if customers, workers, managers, and shareholders are all getting what they want, then the system has to be working. Customers want affordable and decent-quality goods; workers want reasonable labor loads and adequate pay managers want production to go smoothly and profitably; and shareholders want dividends and their assets to hold value.

If everyone in the economy is fucking up, fucking each other over, fucking off, and constantly lying, cheating, and stealing then no one is going to be satisfied: not the consumer, not the worker, not the manager, not the stockholder.

Most people are getting what they want. The economic system is big enough and complicated enough to allow for a certain low level of continuous failure. 35,000 people die in traffic accidents, true. But out of 320 million americans covering hundreds of billions miles a year on the roads, that is a low failure rate. Sure, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in every organization--whether it be the Cancer Society, Apple Computer, Exxon, or the Arkansas legislature. But, if the level of waste, fraud, and abuse is low and tolerable, we can live with it.

It takes an extremely efficient and vicious police state to eliminate all waste and fraud. I'd rather have some waste, fraud. and abuse and NO police state. As the recently disgraced Garrison Keillor said at the National Press Club a while back:

We should be careful, though, not to make the world so fine and good that you and I can't enjoy living in it. A world in which there is no sexual harassment at all is a world in which there will not be any flirtation. A world without thieves at all will not have entrepreneurs. (Laughter.) A government in which there are no friendly connections or favors between politicians and powerful people would be the first in the history of mankind. (Laughter.) And a world without fiction, my friends, would be unbearable for all of us. — Garrison Keilor

"...how do we get from here to there?"

Not via democracy, according to Plato. Governments have to use restriction, social manipulation and force with results that history has shown to be abysmal.

My own view is that the wisest and the best should rule (I agree with Plato there). However, we have no reliable way of agreeing who is wisest and best (I disagree with Plato there). And every person is unwise and imperfect to some extent at different times. So we rely on the opinion of the crowd to balance out biasses and come to the least-bad solution. I think this is what Churchill meant when he said that democracy is the worst kind of government apart from all the other kinds that have every been tried.

Well, I don't have reams of data at my finger tips, either. But... Logic tells us, does it not, that if customers, workers, managers, and shareholders are all getting what they want, then the system has to be working. Customers want affordable and decent-quality goods; workers want reasonable labor loads and adequate pay managers want production to go smoothly and profitably; and shareholders want dividends and their assets to hold value.

If everyone in the economy is fucking up, fucking each other over, fucking off, and constantly lying, cheating, and stealing then no one is going to be satisfied: not the consumer, not the worker, not the manager, not the stockholder.

Most people are getting what they want. The economic system is big enough and complicated enough to allow for a certain low level of continuous failure. 35,000 people die in traffic accidents, true. But out of 320 million americans covering hundreds of billions miles a year on the roads, that is a low failure rate. Sure, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in every organization--whether it be the Cancer Society, Apple Computer, Exxon, or the Arkansas legislature. But, if the level of waste, fraud, and abuse is low and tolerable, we can live with it.

It takes an extremely efficient and vicious police state to eliminate all waste and fraud. I'd rather have some waste, fraud. and abuse and NO police state. As the recently disgraced Garrison Keillor said at the National Press Club a while back: — Bitter Crank

Clearly you do not know what I mean by wasteful.

A system that does not encourage people to realize their true, full potential is sad.

A system that incentivizes underachievement is sad.

A system that does not stress honesty, integrity, doing things the right way, etc. is pathetic.

And be careful about what you want, you may get it. Look at the University of Louisville. Rick Pitino was getting what he wanted. U of L basketball fans (the customers) were getting what they wanted. Pitino's boss, Tom Jurich, was getting what he wanted. U of L, the donors, the sponsors, the taxpayers, etc. (the shareholders) were getting what they wanted. But now the U of L basketball program is the face of an investigation into corruption involving many NCAA schools, shoe companies, etc.; Pitino and Jurich have been fired and are probably never going to be hired anywhere else; the 2013 NCAA championship may be vacated; the future of the basketball program is uncertain; with yet another scandal on its hands, the future of the entire athletic department is uncertain; major damage to the entire product--college basketball--has been inflicted, not just damage to one brand; and all stakeholders are now suffering.

Almost everybody was getting what they wanted in Waco, Texas and at Baylor University: relevance in big-time college football. I heard that in a meeting with the university's governing board one donor said, "I don't want to hear one more thing about the university's mission. I was promised championships!". Now the whole community, the whole university, and all of college football have been severly damaged by a sexual assault scandal of unprecedented magnitude.

Soft drink makers, their employees, their customers, and their shareholders have apparently been getting what they want for a long time. Now we have an obesity epidemic. Now the industry might meet the same fate as the tobacco industry.

Again, if things like the actual quality of the product; the actual knowledge and skills that a person possesses; etc. were valued, the economy would look a lot different in post-industrial society.

it doesn't mean that we have no control over our minds. And, I didn't need to research philosophy to know that. It just requires being conscious ... stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind. — Aurora

The materialists and determinists will probably tell you that that "stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind" is an illusion.

And they will probably say that empirical science shows that it is an illusion.

Here's T Clark's formulation - In any enterprise; soccer team, engineering office; factory floor; hospital; McDonalds; 25 % of the people are competent, 25% are incompetent, and the middle 50% are more or less ok. I have seen a good manager or coach take the bottom 25% and make them ok; make the middle 50% better, provide support to get the best work out of the top 25%, and get them to all work together better to create an effective workforce. There aren't many managers or coaches who can do that. I guess that's because 25% of the managers and coaches are incompetent and 50% are just ok.

The materialists and determinists will probably tell you that that "stepping back and seeing that you're not your mind" is an illusion.

And they will probably say that empirical science shows that it is an illusion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You and I are speaking from different planes altogether. I don't foresee us making much headway, to be honest.

If you ask me, this is not something that science has the authority to lend an opinion to, because it goes way deeper than science, i.e. science is irrelevant here. (And I say this as someone who studied computer science and loves science of almost all kinds ... in other words, I'm a science lover, not a science hater) But then, you will respond quoting some scientific research that someone out there that has done. Apples ... oranges. Apples ... oranges. Bla bla bla ... blu blu blu. We're getting nowhere :) It's ok, this happens on such forums a lot. But, it needs to be pointed out, to avoid unnecessary frustration.

With all due respect to those "proofs", a "proof" only "proves" something if the person you're showing it to agrees with it :)

In other words, "fact" is only what a handful of "experts" agree on, and usually only because there is no one out there with the motivation or ability to disprove what they have to say .. the same "experts" that, until not long ago, considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder ... the same "experts" that called Pluto a "planet" and then changed their minds ... the same "experts" that agree and then disagree, on a daily basis, about the negative impact of the cholesterol content of egg yolks :)

Churchill — Cuthbert

In another good quote, Churchill said "Americans will do the right thing after they have tried everything else". [1]

[1] According to Quote Investigator, the gist of the quote (in more elegant form) was spoken by Abba Eban in 1967. Some of the versions say "Nations will do the right thing..." Churchill wasn't credited with the quote until 1980. Churchill scholars say they can't find such a quote in his writings. So, he probably didn't say it, but it doesn't matter. Churchill gives a quote more cachet than Eban uttering it, even if Eban is more elegant.

Soft drink makers — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola are quality products. Yes, they have sugar in them, but where in the advertising or on the cans does it say that one should drink as much of the stuff as one can get one's hands on. Beer, wine, and rye whiskey are fine products too. The brewing and distilling industry has never said that one should get drunk in one's youth and then stay that way for the next 70 years, Bacon is a fine product. That doesn't mean that one should wrap a piece of rich fudge in raw bacon and then deep fat fry it. Such concoctions are heart attacks on a stick.

A chef remonstrated with Julia Child about the amount of butter, sugar, and other fine ingredients she was putting into a dessert. She said, "Well, you're not supposed to eat the whole thing -- each person is supposed to get just one small slice."

You can only help people so far.

I am convinced that the entire problem boils down to the artificial, socially/culturally-constructed divisions between households and firms; labor and capital; etc.

I believe that I have said it in other threads on this website. I have said it on other websites: Every economic actor should be equal.

I do not have the time to outline it / spell it out again. But, in a nutshell, every economic actor should consider him/herself to be a business, and every economic actor should be taxed, regulated, recognized, etc. as a business. Basically, every economic actor, including individuals, should be thought of like what economic theory now calls a firm. Nobody would be a "worker". Everybody would be a business selling a product and/or service. Everybody would be an independent contractor. Everybody would bid on as many different contracts as they want/need to--individuals working all day, all week in the same job for the same company would no longer be the norm.

Maybe the biggest reason why people do not realize their full potential in acquiring knowledge and developing skills is because we have an economic system that requires people to have narrow specializations working all day and all week in narrowly-defined roles. If you are an exceptional writer, you will have a difficult time ever utilizing that skill if you are sitting in a cubicle with a headset on and taking phone calls 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. If you are a good teacher, you will have a difficult time ever utilizing that skill if things like designing and implementing training are concentrated in one department or the job of one person and you are in another department and/or role doing nothing but sales all day. Etc. Etc.

I have seen nothing presented in this thread that is to the contrary of what I have been saying. We do not have an economic system that encourages people to realize their true, full potential. We have a system that encourages and/or incentivizes people to make decisions about formal education, training, and work based on things that have little to do with what they would excel at and make the greatest contribution at. Many years ago when I was in an introductory political science class I was caught off guard by the number of classmates who said that they wanted to go to law school. I sensed that they believed that law school was their ticket to above-average social status, prestige, wealth, influence and power. The exponential number of other paths to a fulfilling, meaningful future that they could consider apparently were far from their radar screens. From elementary school through college, and beyond, the message that we are given is that if you want to be successful and live a good life you have to follow certain narrowly-defined paths. How good you might be on those paths, how well-suited your personality and aptitudes are for those paths, and how much more productive you might be avoiding those paths are not things that people consider, I think it is safe to say.

It is that tunnel vision that results in the overwhelming majority of people never realizing their true, full potential, in my estimation. The OP in this thread does not change anything, in my estimation. The OP in this thread simply calls for a new variation of that tunnel vision.

True change would start with asking how we can marshal the full potential of all people for the benefit of everybody. Saying, like the OP here, that we need a certain kind of people with a certain kind of training making the decisions for a change is really just more of the same.