"You cannot solve a problem at the same level it was created."
If the problem we were solving for were some detail, 'where to place a road; what $ to allocate to this or that project' sort of thing, then the way to
The assertion & question of unity, unifying the country, wondering what the hell the problem is, and why is all this happening is taking center stage. Dramatically.
As is the corollary question being tossed about, "How to heal the Nation?".
There is a #systems principle
An excellent piece that raises a key question going forward:
— Bob Geiger (@GeigerNews) January 16, 2021
Should we ever "unify" with the worst among us?
"Unifying with those seeking white supremacy, voter suppression, and government overthrow seems like the very definition of madness."https://t.co/UgmPQfy05F
"You cannot solve a problem at the same level it was created."
If the problem we were solving for were some detail, 'where to place a road; what $ to allocate to this or that project' sort of thing, then the way to
But a decision is made, and typically people, and the various factions, come together and get to work in the context of the decision. Sometimes called 'teamwork'.
In other words, the problem was actually solved at the level of the commonly held values
The problem we are having today is exactly of this type, but the levels are far deeper. Deep enough to where there are no more levels upon which
Historians understand how these divisions are the drivers
For now it is relevant to assert the proposition that the Constitution is the bedrock of America. It is the axiomatic premise upon which
And, more darkly, who is and who is not part of this experiment... Not so much stated in terms of "why", that is the social context... but in absolute terms of "Is".
Later, because of the unresolved, inherent contradictions, the country would be plunged into the Civil War.
That was a hard example of the principle I am attempting to articulate.
In the end there was no deeper appeal to common values. As such there was no room for compromise, an agreed
Now, as many times before, we are busting at the seams with fundamental
I submit it is this basic fact that is the context of the manifest strife, and its seeming impossible reconciliation.
Impossible, because, it is, in fact, impossible.
Not without thinking (being) different. And no one wants
Now what?
It is said the Original Sin of America (even before its founding 1776 version) was slavery.
Constitutionally this was answered with whitewashed contradictions in terms of blacks, and also the American Indian. But it was the issue of Slavery, which has
And...it is still a vital force that once again is forcing the question onto the main stage.
It is a question so deep that it has no deeper level to appeal to in order to find a common ground from which to resolve it.
This, of course, is not true. But it is functionally true.
These are the questions that people now want to sweep under the rug
One side, the losers in this particular battle, want to "move on" for the sake of unity. "Don't tear the country apart by impeaching Trump". Or investigating who was involved in the Jan6
A problem cannot be solved at the same level it was created.
It sets up the stresses that become untenable compromises, that eventually break out again in a Civil War. And again in the Jim Crow era, sanctioned & instantiated by the arbiter of our foundational Constitutional norms,
More from Michael Beaton
It is not just wrong
& it is not just the epitome of historical ignorance,
& a comprehensive misunderstanding of the relationship of religious and civil society,
This is the declaration of a much deeper intention of instantiating an "American Fundamentalism".
Think "Gilead".
This is the low information ranting of fundamentalists who lay out the emotional, fact & history free, case for what is essentially an American Taliban.
There is no "compromise" or a sense of comity between differences. When you have "the truth" it is a violation to "compromise".
Others, like "The Grand Inquisitor" use the froth and confusion--and subsequent absolutist certainty of their "righteousness" generated by such as this. (and thus justification for killing/harming anyone who disagrees..In the name of God, of course)
It is useful demagoguery.
This battle has been raging for years. Perhaps forever.
One distinctive characteristic of America, has been keeping this level of fundamentalism out of secular power. Individuals, yes, but not the entire system.
One of the consequences of Trumpism is to equate patriotism w religion in a way that births what becomes a passionately ignorant fundamentalism, unmoored from fact or truth,wedded only to its own self as the measure & guide of truth.
It creates a condition of deep tribal devotion
& it is not just the epitome of historical ignorance,
& a comprehensive misunderstanding of the relationship of religious and civil society,
This is the declaration of a much deeper intention of instantiating an "American Fundamentalism".
Think "Gilead".
Georgia Republican candidate Kandiss Taylor goes full theocracy explaining her \u201cJesus, guns, and babies\u201d slogan:
— PatriotTakes \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@patriottakes) April 9, 2022
\u201cDon't talk to me about separation of church and state.\u201d
\u201cWe are the church and we run the state.\u201d
\u201c[Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists] don't get to silence us.\u201d pic.twitter.com/9nkkn3JRbM
This is the low information ranting of fundamentalists who lay out the emotional, fact & history free, case for what is essentially an American Taliban.
There is no "compromise" or a sense of comity between differences. When you have "the truth" it is a violation to "compromise".
Others, like "The Grand Inquisitor" use the froth and confusion--and subsequent absolutist certainty of their "righteousness" generated by such as this. (and thus justification for killing/harming anyone who disagrees..In the name of God, of course)
It is useful demagoguery.
This battle has been raging for years. Perhaps forever.
One distinctive characteristic of America, has been keeping this level of fundamentalism out of secular power. Individuals, yes, but not the entire system.
One of the consequences of Trumpism is to equate patriotism w religion in a way that births what becomes a passionately ignorant fundamentalism, unmoored from fact or truth,wedded only to its own self as the measure & guide of truth.
It creates a condition of deep tribal devotion
When (if) the full story of Jan6 ever comes out I predict it will have multiple levels of intention and complicity.
Broadly
1/The "base" level of the mob reacting out of what they believe & has been taught & insinuated into them for years.
I think this chaos is the cover for
other levels that seem to have a much more clear, "calm" mission.
These are the people who are now utterly confused that what they were told turns out to not be true.
These people being disbarred from flying, or taken into custody, thinking they were just returning home, are
bearing the brunt of the response by the law enforcement system. They are the easiest to see, find, and catch.
They are the pawns. They are the Orcs in the Trumpian system...expendable. Useful. Necessary. But Expendable as the strategy & tactics require.
Who knows if these
people, so adamant in their emotional pumped up outrage will figure this out. For now, the fact that they are the ones being hauled in, the first ones facing the consequences of their actions, seems to be solidifying their martyr frame of mind. I suspect they feel a kinship
with Trump, who does nothing but proclaim himself a victim and a martyr. In this they get to feel even moreso that they are part of the righteous army, gods army, doing gods work.
And they will be used again and again as necessary for the other levels.
Broadly
1/The "base" level of the mob reacting out of what they believe & has been taught & insinuated into them for years.
I think this chaos is the cover for
More details emerge. The goal of the January 6 terrorist attack was, in the screams of its perpetrators, to kill American elected officials.
— Eric Garland (@ericgarland) January 11, 2021
Prosecute every last co-conspirator. https://t.co/G2my10KdOM
other levels that seem to have a much more clear, "calm" mission.
These are the people who are now utterly confused that what they were told turns out to not be true.
These people being disbarred from flying, or taken into custody, thinking they were just returning home, are
bearing the brunt of the response by the law enforcement system. They are the easiest to see, find, and catch.
They are the pawns. They are the Orcs in the Trumpian system...expendable. Useful. Necessary. But Expendable as the strategy & tactics require.
Who knows if these
people, so adamant in their emotional pumped up outrage will figure this out. For now, the fact that they are the ones being hauled in, the first ones facing the consequences of their actions, seems to be solidifying their martyr frame of mind. I suspect they feel a kinship
with Trump, who does nothing but proclaim himself a victim and a martyr. In this they get to feel even moreso that they are part of the righteous army, gods army, doing gods work.
And they will be used again and again as necessary for the other levels.
More from For later read
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.
like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.
the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more
the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500
adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"
\U0001f91e ONLINE RAFFLE is available from @bodega for the upcoming "UNLV" Nike Dunk Low Retro. Open until 5 PM ET on 2/16.
— Kicks Deals (@KicksDeals) February 15, 2021
\u27a1\ufe0f\u27a1\ufe0f https://t.co/JxJlyPuJVo pic.twitter.com/zenWOCDg4L
like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.
the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more
the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500
adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"
You May Also Like
Great article from @AsheSchow. I lived thru the 'Satanic Panic' of the 1980's/early 1990's asking myself "Has eveyrbody lost their GODDAMN MINDS?!"
The 3 big things that made the 1980's/early 1990's surreal for me.
1) Satanic Panic - satanism in the day cares ahhhh!
2) "Repressed memory" syndrome
3) Facilitated Communication [FC]
All 3 led to massive abuse.
"Therapists" -and I use the term to describe these quacks loosely - would hypnotize people & convince they they were 'reliving' past memories of Mom & Dad killing babies in Satanic rituals in the basement while they were growing up.
Other 'therapists' would badger kids until they invented stories about watching alligators eat babies dropped into a lake from a hot air balloon. Kids would deny anything happened for hours until the therapist 'broke through' and 'found' the 'truth'.
FC was a movement that started with the claim severely handicapped individuals were able to 'type' legible sentences & communicate if a 'helper' guided their hands over a keyboard.
For three years I have wanted to write an article on moral panics. I have collected anecdotes and similarities between today\u2019s moral panic and those of the past - particularly the Satanic Panic of the 80s.
— Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) September 29, 2018
This is my finished product: https://t.co/otcM1uuUDk
The 3 big things that made the 1980's/early 1990's surreal for me.
1) Satanic Panic - satanism in the day cares ahhhh!
2) "Repressed memory" syndrome
3) Facilitated Communication [FC]
All 3 led to massive abuse.
"Therapists" -and I use the term to describe these quacks loosely - would hypnotize people & convince they they were 'reliving' past memories of Mom & Dad killing babies in Satanic rituals in the basement while they were growing up.
Other 'therapists' would badger kids until they invented stories about watching alligators eat babies dropped into a lake from a hot air balloon. Kids would deny anything happened for hours until the therapist 'broke through' and 'found' the 'truth'.
FC was a movement that started with the claim severely handicapped individuals were able to 'type' legible sentences & communicate if a 'helper' guided their hands over a keyboard.
THREAD: 12 Things Everyone Should Know About IQ
1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE
2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less. https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n
3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)
(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)
4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.
For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3
5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)
1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE
2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less. https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n
3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)
(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)
4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.
For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3
5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)
Took me 5 years to get the best Chartink scanners for Stock Market, but you’ll get it in 5 mminutes here ⏰
Do Share the above tweet 👆
These are going to be very simple yet effective pure price action based scanners, no fancy indicators nothing - hope you liked it.
https://t.co/JU0MJIbpRV
52 Week High
One of the classic scanners very you will get strong stocks to Bet on.
https://t.co/V69th0jwBr
Hourly Breakout
This scanner will give you short term bet breakouts like hourly or 2Hr breakout
Volume shocker
Volume spurt in a stock with massive X times
Do Share the above tweet 👆
These are going to be very simple yet effective pure price action based scanners, no fancy indicators nothing - hope you liked it.
https://t.co/JU0MJIbpRV
52 Week High
One of the classic scanners very you will get strong stocks to Bet on.
https://t.co/V69th0jwBr
Hourly Breakout
This scanner will give you short term bet breakouts like hourly or 2Hr breakout
Volume shocker
Volume spurt in a stock with massive X times
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.