Society and Personality

Post Reply New Topic

I've been finding that my Personality clashes with North American Society. It kind of makes me want to move to London, where my Quirks won't be noticed.

I find that my personality surprises, disarms, as well as amuses north american society and i'm gonna stay here and stand out. ^_^

The reason why their is not alot of "great men" is because there are so many good people and many people are intelligent, inovative and educated. What about great women?

I personally found this section most striking:

*thinking of the United States* Oh, how accurate that is...

Finally, beliefs that align with mine. So society has been declining since as far back as that? That sucks. Hopefully I'll be able to do something about that. If I ever get the chance, I'd immediately jump at the idea of abolishing the US gov't and starting over. Our society and gov't are well overdue for a revolution of some kind. Society as a whole is getting less and less intelligent, and more and more lost in their lives. Unlike Einstein, I'm not very optomestic about it ever getting better.

Call me an optimist but I really like todays society.
Mainly because we are trying to get multiculturalism.
I know that society is not completely accepting but I sure hope it it will be.
The next big step is environment.

Very insteresting, Sophist (and frighteningly accurate as well ). It reminded me quite a bit of a very interesting book I've been reading about finding the right balance between the individual and the community, as well as a bit in a book written by a theoretical physicist about the progression of civilization. The former states that when the emphasis is placed to much upon the community, or the group, not only does the stagnation of ideas occur, as well as an emphasis on conformity that tends to marginalize and isolate the weak and the non-conformists, but the group becomes closed in on itself and believes that it's way is the only right way and views outsiders as undesirable or a threat (this can occur with individuals as well). This results in large groups-be they clans, religions, or nations-becoming hostile toward one another. This is related to the latter, the bit in that book by a theoretical physicist, Machio Kaku, about the progression of civilizations, which he believes has three major stages. Our civilization is described as being a type 0 civilization, which, among other things, is limited in its use of energy and has not yet crossed the uranium barrier, which means-and I'm sure I'm explaining this very crudely-that we possess knowledge of the element uranium and how to use it in nuclear weapons but our civilization is structured in such a way that there is a risk of misuse and the destruction of our civilization that could result (this relates to the fact that our technology has developed faster than our humanity as Einstein once stated). The way in which our civilization is now structured is in the form of hostile nation-states, groups that are relatively closed in upon themselves and have an inherent sense of their own superiority. The only way to cross the uranium barrier and move from a type 0 civilization to the next stage, a type 1 civilization, is, he believes, to change the structure of our civilization from nation-states to a structure that encompasses all of humanity on a global scale. If less emphasis is placed on the group, and balance is found between the individual and the group, groups can become more open to other groups, reducing conflict and allowing such a global community to occur. I think this is already been happening, and I am optimistic too

Its funny, because America seems to have the worst of both worlds. On the inside there is an encouragement of ruthless individualism (i.e. extreme capitalism) in which there is an "each man for himself" mentality.

However, on the outside, there is this arrogant group mentality of "we're Americans, and we're superior to the rest of the world". This mentality has caused great tension between America and Europe and wars between America and the Middle East. I just hope it stops before something terrible happens!

RobertN, you're getting the minority mixed up with the majority. That kind of thinking belongs to crazy fanatics, and there's a lot less than you think. And our gov't is that way I suppose, but they aren't the majority.

I've noticed that, despite that people are people no matter where they are, the US is quite rude. Individualism and a cowboy mentality are causing us to lose our bonds with one another. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and a fair amount of people would rather step on your face than look at you.

Such a lack of consideration. And it's spreading into other countries because now tv and the internet make us within just a couple seconds of the opposite side of the word.

The US is beginning to value shallowness and profit more and more. I don't like saying it and maybe that's just because that's all the media portrays. I know there are "thinking" people out there. Kinder people. People who aren't so defensive. But I wish there were more.

I wish this country (and most every country) weren't run on money as the ideal of profit. It's dangerous to elect leaders who only care about their rich citizens.

Sophist, that's why I want our gov't to be re-established. We should abolish it and start over knowing what we know now and using it to make a better poilitical system. Constitutionally, that's allowed. I don't like it here, but I don't know if the rest of the world is any better.

*he stands from his seated position, the moment the orator concludes, raises his arms, high above his head, not fearing to be noticed, rather challenging to be seen, he claps, a fervent, ear popping clap, once, twice thrice, over ond over, unending, as a tear of joy rolls down his cheek, gaining momentum and finally splashing to earth. As if in cue, the tear splash, and all rise, in the same instance, cheering, clapping, whooping, whistleing, and chanting, "ENCORE, ENCORE!"


I AM NOT A PESSI-PROPHET. LIKE YOU, I BELIEVE IN CHANGE. IN MY SWEET, SHORT LIFE, I HAVE LEARNED ONE THING IS CONSTANT. THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS THE SAME AS A PENDULUM, FLUCTUATING BETWEEN GROWTH AND SUPPRESSION. WE ARE INDEED NOT IN THE GROWTH PHASE OF OUR EXISTENCE (IN TERMS OF HUMANITY OR CIVIL PROGRESS) AND I PUSH MY MIND IN SEARCH OF THE KEY THAT WILL FORCE THE PEASANTS TO UNITE AND FORCE SUCH CHANGE, FOR ALL MEN AND ALL THINGS WRITTEN ABOVE.

THOUGH I SEARCH I REALIZE THE LACK OF CHARISMA. AND NOTE MY QUEST WILL NEVER FINISH WITH I BEING THE GREAT MAN OF YOUR QUERRY. I DO NOT CARE TO BE THAT GREAT MAN. I WISH ONLY TO BE INVOLVED. I HAVE MANY KEYS IN MY MIND WITH AN INABILITY TO FIND THE LOCK. I WANT TO BE A STRONG DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THAT GREAT LEADER.
THAT IS MY REALISTIC AIM. AND I WILL.


Sophist, i have been thinking for quite a while that the next great man will in fact be a woman.
The writing has been on the wall for quite some time. Are you a great woman?
Do you aspire to be more than common?

Are there enough resources available to you to act. I do not mean money, whe i say resources.
I mean out side the box thinkers, think tanks, strategists, common disenfranchised people with real solutions. People who can focus on the task at hand with zeal and obsessivenes. People with single minded focus and drive, other, near great people. I feel like all those things are real close but i cannot quite figere out where you would look for such people and resources of mind.

Remember rosa parks didn't need alot of money.
just enough to pay the fine.
which i am sure the church paid in her place.

All rosa parks needed to do was sit down and refuse to get up so one of the elite may take her place.
her simple act, so much change.

Rember it was 85 years prior that slavery was abolished in America. But the black people were still just as disenfranchised when rosa sat as they were under slavery.
many believe that that simple act of defiance was the birth of the civil right movement.

It was another decade later that the civil rights act truly freed the slaves.

Democracy is a process, which takes time. Nothing happens overnight. but an organized well thought out , group of diverse individuals can plan, plot a nd push the system into the right direction. And then be ready once the people are finally ready for change.

Currently i view Americans as mindless drones acting only how the mass media tells them to act.

i have a starting point or philosophy idea;

Lets start a new political party.

and we dont need politicians to run for election either.

We would be the NON-INCUMBANT PARTY.

its so simple. Think; Reps and Dems are basically the same ( its a duopoly), one professes to be for this or that and they both claim to be different from the other, but they are not.

Bottom line with politicians is that they all claim alot of good things but never honor any promise, besides the promises made behind closed doors to the people who funded their campaign.

only 2 requirements needed to win an election.
They can only be elected with big bucks to campaign with
and
receive the popular vote.

currently.

in truth one of these two requirements are not necessary.

So, teach the politicians that if you do not honor your commitments to the people then you will not be a career politician.

This would have to begin at the local level (Not many people vote) It would be much easier to gain popular support for the anti-incumbant vote.

However, local politicians are better than federal, for the most part. And the reason being is that, by design they are more beholden to the needs of the constituant. But still there are pleny of abuses there as well.


]The state level could be done, but would require more time to generate momentum. Once you get change at the state level the federal level is not far behind.

Any ways the starting point is to get more responsibility out of our public servants. currently they shall be titled corporate servants.

Yeah, I've noticed that too, the direction our society is being steered into is social Darwinism, in a way-survival of the wealthier and more powerful, basically, in a country where upward mobility has become rather difficult for many. That sort of attitude may have been beneficial to our species at one point, but it seems to me that that is no longer the case and that it harms us rather than helps us. We should work, as individuals and as a society, to become more inclusive, to accept and take care of and empower everyone, the weak and the powerful, the poor and the rich, and those who differ from societal norms. I think our society would be greatly enriched as a result, and that the right balance between the individual and the community could be found.

I agree with this. When too much emphasis is placed on how much money one has or is capable of making, it becomes an indicator of sorts of their worth as a person in terms of the benefits they receive, even when those benefits are actually basic needs such as affordable health care. Each person has equal worth and dignity as a human being, and thus deserves to be able to maintain at least a comfortable standard of living.

Each country would really benefit from being an even mix of Socialistic and Capitalistic.

It's impossible for the human animal to not be capitalistic. But if people could see that they would gain more by improving the whole of society, this could work.

Pure capitalism is dangerous. And humans would be absolutely nowhere if we didn't rely and aid each other. Nowhere. We are what we are because we are a society, standing on the shoulders of those who came before us and those who are now around us.

The way the US is today, it is beginning to remind me of the little bit I know about the French Revolution. Except that Americans are far more apathetic now. I wouldn't mind a rebuilding of goverment, myself... but, um, the more peaceful the better. I'm not too big on battle and blood, personally.