BF2S Forums American Exceptionalism: Truth or Bullshit?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:

That is kind of what I am saying. .. via moral corruption. We place our values not-so-much on talent, but rather achievement. Unfortunately one does not equal the other. In other words talent is not necessary for achievement. There is a distinct breakdown in our societal reward system.

I imagine this has always been a problem to some degree. However, I think it's more prevalent today. Maybe we are just more aware of it now?

So lazy people with talent should be viewed as better than those with less talent that achieve more? I'm confused to say the least. I'd say our values are perfect if we value achievement over raw talent...

I'm not saying what should or should not be. I'm reflecting and commenting on what I think we currently have. Not necessarily lazy .. but incompetent. We have hard working people that just suck at their jobs, and they are running the show. I feel that if you recognize talent then achievement will naturally occur (everyone wants to achieve). We have to put weight in what is most likely to return results. Also, talent is not necessarily without hard work and effort. Most people have to work hard in order to be good at what they do.

Kmar wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:

That is kind of what I am saying. .. via moral corruption. We place our values not-so-much on talent, but rather achievement. Unfortunately one does not equal the other. In other words talent is not necessary for achievement. There is a distinct breakdown in our societal reward system.

I imagine this has always been a problem to some degree. However, I think it's more prevalent today. Maybe we are just more aware of it now?

So lazy people with talent should be viewed as better than those with less talent that achieve more? I'm confused to say the least. I'd say our values are perfect if we value achievement over raw talent...

I'm not saying what should or should not be. I'm reflecting and commenting on what I think we currently have. Not necessarily lazy .. but incompetent. We have hard working people that just suck at their jobs, and they are running the show. I feel that if you recognize talent then achievement will naturally occur (everyone wants to achieve). We have to put weight in what is most likely to return results. Also, talent is not necessarily without hard work and effort. Most people have to work hard in order to be good at what they do.

Natural talent in an intellectual field is generally represented by IQ score. This represents the ease with which one learns something. So, two people with wildly different IQ scores will put in very different amounts of time and effort to learn the same thing. This has the effect of making those with higher IQs relatively lazy when placed in general population settings. This then carries over into job performance etc. I'd take a guy that had to work his ass off to make straight A's when looking to hire over someone that breezed through his coursework with virtually no effort attached. Why? Because I've been that asshole that slacks through classes most of his life and gets good grades. I get bored easily and it effects my job performance.

Now, intuitively, because I do the work with ease I should be promoted to higher level task work. Instead, that's usually given to people who show less competence but more willingness to work harder, mostly because they have to. I think I just contradicted myself and I find myself agreeing with you. The motto should be "Work smarter, not harder" but instead our nation's motto is "Work harder". Oh well.

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i'm not advocating a borg-like society at all - it's a bit of an extreme reduction to say that a society with a loose set of shared beliefs, values and moral aims is automatically alike to an hegemony of soul-less droids. society serves an important cultural and sociological role in our lives as an external framework that makes us fit into something bigger than the self and its own wants, greeds and motivations. it has always been very important, throughout the ages and through various models of society and hierarchy, to 'fit in' to a wider picture. nowadays there's a real lack of that cohesion in westernized 'democracies': people are instead just pursuing their own highly-individualistic goals and ambitions, and the only common factor unifying us all at the core is the force of the common market. no shared symbols, no shared idealisms, no shared beliefs. just a fragmented society only interacting at each level on an economic need.

Perfection.

perfection? i think you can criticise high-minded idealism in itself as a rationalist tradition, slightly out of touch... but i think that level of moral and spiritual (in the loose sense of the word - immaterial) transcendence is really needed to counterbalance cold empiricism and material 'progress'. without it the society just sorta loses its way. championing individualism and liberty is a noble cause in itself but you have to acknowledge on some level that as a species and a civilization we have inherent collectivist - perhaps instinctual - urges. again, you can criticise exceptionalism as much as the next high-minded ideal ideology... but they have a very important unifying function. perhaps i could construe the same point to say contentiously that, as much as fundamentalist islam is a moral aberration, it still has an important role in ideologically structuring a people.

From an economic standpoint, the collectivist ideals we as a people should uphold are a desire to maintain the health and well being of our trading partners, so long as they provide some societal value. Translated, universal health care would be a good societal goal, so long as it factors out those that don't put in any effort. So, only those in the work force, and those destined to join it, children, would be covered under such a universal system. The bums and the old would get left out as they have limited societal value. Harsh? Absolutely. As I said, this would be the mathematical economic argument.

But as for people working towards a single goal... This has rarely, if ever, been the case for any society. You point to the space program, well, that really had no effect on most Americans. It wasn't their goal and they contributed nothing more to it than whatever portion of their tax receipts politicians designated towards it. They went about their lives and looked up when a space shuttle launched. That was about the extent of it. The cohesive society you dream of would in fact have to be Borg-like in nature because keeping people focussed on a goal not of their own choosing is like pulling an eighteen wheeler with a piece of string.

i didn't point to the space program at all and i still think your thoughts on the matter are working on an already too narrowminded conception of a 'goal' or 'aim'. it doesn't have to be a tangible, material 'march of progress' - it doesn't have to be a space program or something with a direct, concrete symbol. to go back to the example of america in the antebellum era, you could say that the loose unifying goal, perhaps in certain communities/regions appropriately labelled 'exceptionalism', but otherwise elsewhere was a shared christian moral foundation. a solid belief that your nation was a grand experiment to display all the good and great principles of liberty, equality etc. whether present in one's thoughts or not, that background cultural 'atmosphere' does a lot to keep a society functioning healthily. whether or not it is healthy for the individual, though, is dependent entirely on that binding ideology and its particulars.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-11-20 13:24:44)

Uzique wrote:

i didn't point to the space program at all and i still think your thoughts on the matter are working on an already too narrowminded conception of a 'goal' or 'aim'. it doesn't have to be a tangible, material 'march of progress' - it doesn't have to be a space program or something with a direct, concrete symbol. to go back to the example of america in the antebellum era, you could say that the loose unifying goal, perhaps in certain communities/regions appropriately labelled 'exceptionalism', but otherwise elsewhere was a shared christian moral foundation. a solid belief that your nation was a grand experiment to display all the good and great principles of liberty, equality etc. whether present in one's thoughts or not, that background cultural 'atmosphere' does a lot to keep a society functioning healthily. whether or not it is healthy for the individual, though, is dependent entirely on that binding ideology and its particulars.

So you're talking about 'a nation ruled by philosophers' then. Plato was incorrect, a nation run by academics and theoretical models doesn't  work any better than what we currently have. It would require an autocracy with full control over the spectrum of human life within the realm. The problem with that philosophy is that you end up with a lot of one size fits all rules and regulations. That point of view is inherent to the left side of the political spectrum here in America, Turquoise being an example. It is the assumption that the few knows what's best for the many, and it is simply wrong. No all seeing eye can account for the myriad choices and decisions faced by the average human being on a daily basis, nor can it make the correct choice any more often than that individual. For example, I know that smoking is bad for me, but I accept the consequences of my actions and don't wish to have some philosopher king decree that I can no longer smoke. It's not his life.

I do not believe that to be the norm. Most people take advantage and utilize their skills .. or at least try to.

Kmar wrote:

I do not believe that to be the norm. Most people take advantage and utilize their skills .. or at least try to.

You haven't met my father.

Uzique wrote:

what qualifies your father as the norm? 'one size fits all rules'?

He's not the norm, but he's also not a statistical aberration. By any quantifiable means, my father is a genius. Encyclopedic knowledge of history, degree in pure mathematics, and a near photographic memory. His undoing was what you mentioned, the desire for most human beings to fit in to a societal structure. For him it was like hammering a square peg into a round hole. He ended up with serious self esteem issues, became a drug addict and alcoholic, and dropped out of the work force when he was 43. Spent some time homeless and now he collects social security, has himself a place to live, is clean, and does what he enjoys more than anything in the world: fucking around on computers, reading books and listening to music.

My stance on individualism and introversion is in direct response to what I've seen happen to him in his life. Me not giving a fuck about others opinions is the self defense mechanism I've built to prevent me turning into him

good will hunting is a bit of a hollywood-romanticised babble streak though, innit?

as much as that image and character archetype is wonderfully affable and identifiable... im not quite sure art imitates life on that one

im pretty much cool with that. good to live for something that isn't a printed-idol of currency

JohnG@lt wrote:

The story of Good Will Hunting didn't spring out of thin air Kmar, it's a lot more common than you imagine.

If it were common it would not have been an interesting story. His story was compelling not because he was lazy, but rather because he was undiscovered due to his troubled past. I just think its far more likely that someone would use their advantages .. genetic or otherwise.

Uzique wrote:

i think a society without a clearly defined collective, socio-cultural 'goal' and 'ethos' is a society in a state of decline

you can say what you want about strict ideological systems, nationalism, fanaticism etc... but they have a societal cohesion that we, in the west, do not.

the new symbology of western nations is conspicuous material consumptions; there are no transcendent ideals preserved anymore

This exactly, if a society does not have a reasonably consistent set of values and goals then its not even a society - just a collection of individuals squabbling over money.

Its interesting that in wartime we accept an immediate switch from capitalism to socialism/communism without blinking, a military draft, rationing, production determined by central government diktat etc. and with it great things have been achieved, radar, nuclear fission etc.