11 American Nations
Locked
1234
... 12
1234
... 12
 
|
An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess'
cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be crufted into: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Steve:
I would like to hear your critique of the 11 Nations framework. I recently read the book and found it fascinating. The book is well researched and documented - though the reading style of the book is in the "popular-style" as opposed to an academic textbook-style. I think of the book as a modern day version of the layered invasions of the British Isles over the last 1500 years. The original Celts then the usual-suspects of Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans - and in the recent 50+ years - American Pop Culture. I say modern-day as the 11 Nations formed in the last 400 years rather than the 1500 of the British Isles invasions. I think we all see elements of his main thesis in our local areas. In MSP, we have neighborhoods that historically were settled by different ethnic groups - lots of Scandinavians in this region. In recent decades we have Hmong, Somali, and Mid-East cultures settling in. The article you linked referred to a Woodard article at Tufts. I link it here. It takes the basic 11 Nations Framework and uses it to review gun violence in America. I have seen other articles by Mr. Woodard concerning the Tea Party in reference to the early October Gov't shut-down. At Tuffs on Gun Violence: http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html At Washington Monthly on Gov't Shutdown: Oct. 15, 2013: Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/regional_differences_have_doom047323.php Nov/Dec 2011: A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2011/features/a_geography_lesson_for_the_tea032846.php?page=all Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029 I admit to lacking the chops to professionally "vet" Mr. Woodard's theory. However, the book has verisimilitude in its structure and is heavily documented. I hope to hear more from you for an additional point-of-view. Thanks, StephT On 11/8/2013 11:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' > cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with > it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than > red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be > crufted into: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [EXTERNAL] 11 American Nations
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
The concept is tainted by the cultural biases of the author.
----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Smith [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [FRIAM] 11 American Nations An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be crufted into: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [EXTERNAL] 11 American Nations
|
|
Whose writing is not colored by their cultural biases? I didn't find it to be so slanted that I'd consider it to be “tainted," but maybe that's my own cultural bias in play. It seemed pretty reasonable to me. But then, I haven't read the book itself.
Gary On Nov 9, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Parks, Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote: > The concept is tainted by the cultural biases of the author. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steve Smith [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:27 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [FRIAM] 11 American Nations > > An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' > cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with > it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than > red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be > crufted into: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
It makes sense in a sorta-kinda way, but after a century of different migration patterns other than the original east-to-west direction, the effect seems diluted. I’ve lived in 5 of the regions, and in three of the cases we were near (i.e. one county in the west, maybe a couple of counties in the east) the boundary with another region. There were of course differences, but not enough generalizable ones to justify 11 zones, in my opinion.
—Barry On Nov 8, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be crufted into: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
signature.asc (859 bytes)
Re: [EXTERNAL] 11 American Nations
|
|
In reply to this post by Gary Schiltz-4
I agree all publications have cultural biases. However, if Mr. Woodard
is of British Isles descent, then he by definition doesn't have cultural biases on this subject matter. Its about the settlement of North America by mostly the English. Though to be fair there are French, German, African, and First Nation peoples he discusses. What particular biases does he show to which you object? I am of British and German descent so I wouldn't necessarily recognize those biases. StephT On 11/9/2013 10:58 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote: > Whose writing is not colored by their cultural biases? I didn't find it to be so slanted that I'd consider it to be “tainted," but maybe that's my own cultural bias in play. It seemed pretty reasonable to me. But then, I haven't read the book itself. > > Gary > > On Nov 9, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Parks, Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> The concept is tainted by the cultural biases of the author. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Steve Smith [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:27 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [FRIAM] 11 American Nations >> >> An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' >> cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with >> it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than >> red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be >> crufted into: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [EXTERNAL] 11 American Nations
|
|
The comments to the original Post article are entertaining, looks like nearly everyone found something to bitch about. -- rec --
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Stephen Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: I agree all publications have cultural biases. However, if Mr. Woodard is of ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [EXTERNAL] 11 American Nations
|
|
That is the beauty of having a stong,
clear opinion about something, it provides a target to throw darts
at.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [EXTERNAL] 11 American Nations
|
|
In reply to this post by Parks, Raymond
Ray -
I agree that (especially with Woodard's attempt to address the Tea Party directly) his biases do show, but I would still contend that while "tainted" by that, his general structure is far from invalidated. Can you provide an alternative geo-political structuring or modifications to his that you believe are more accurate (or even align with your own biases better)? I'm much less interested in the conclusions that Woodard draws from his framework than the reframing of the conversation it implies. I'm very tired of the traditional Blue/Grey, Rural/Urban, Coastal/Heartland, North/South, East/West divisions.... they have their place but do not suffice to explain a lot and seem to serve mainly to keep us high-centered. - Steve PS Response to StephenT in progress... > The concept is tainted by the cultural biases of the author. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steve Smith [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:27 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [FRIAM] 11 American Nations > > An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' > cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with > it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than > red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be > crufted into: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Thompson
StephenT -
> I would like to hear your critique of the 11 Nations framework. I > recently read the book > and found it fascinating. The book is well researched and documented > - though the reading > style of the book is in the "popular-style" as opposed to an academic > textbook-style. Thank you for asking. I appreciate that you have read his book. No simple binary subdivision of this country (red/blue, north/south, urban/rural, etc) is likely to be more than of limited use in understanding "who we are" and in my opinion, of getting off the high-centered position we've been in for a (very?) long time. As for my quibbles: I'd want to split TX (and perhaps the OK/KS parts of Appalachia) and give them to a separate Texas itself... despite Daniel Boone and the Alamo and all that. They are specifically bellicose enough to demand their own identity and sadly, that alone might be enough to grant it to them. I believe their affinities to the West and the South are different than the rest of Appalachia. I was surprised to see so much of the upper Midwest declared part of Yankeedom. I don't have a lot of direct experience, so my opinions here are very thin. I'd be inclined to coin a "Rustbelt Nation" running from PA across OH, capturing Chicago and the WI/MI industrial centers. I think his distinction between the Far West and El Norte are overstated but that is probably my own myopia, having spent my life in those regions. More importantly, I think he mischaracterizes the West's "dependence on the Federal Government". The railroad and the post-civil war strengthening of the Federal Government *did* lead the bulk of the resources/land in the west to be owned by the US government and made available to big industry at a discount to exploit. The *people* of the west, however, were already operating small scale, subsistence "extractive" industry... they were ranchers, farmers, prospectors, hunters/trappers. Big money/industry co-opted not only their labor but their hearts and minds to some extent. It was still happening in MY youth (60's, 70's and beyond) with big money/industry offering good/quick money in return for support by the locals to do more and more invasive things in their homelands. They pitted the locals against "the Feds", all the while surely buying "the Feds" off back in DC. Gun culture in the west derives from a very real recent (1-2 generations) utility to most of it. > I think of the book as a modern day version of the layered invasions > of the British Isles over > the last 1500 years. The original Celts then the usual-suspects of > Angles, Saxons, Vikings, > Normans - and in the recent 50+ years - American Pop Culture. I say > modern-day as the > 11 Nations formed in the last 400 years rather than the 1500 of the > British Isles invasions. I think something similar can be found everywhere. For example when you think of the Byzantine then Roman colonizations, then how the various Mongols/Huns/Vandals/Goths etc. swept through Europe and even Northern Africa, or the many peoples and influences in the Indian Subcontinent, it is staggering. > I think we all see elements of his main thesis in our local areas. In > MSP, we have neighborhoods > that historically were settled by different ethnic groups - lots of > Scandinavians in this region. > In recent decades we have Hmong, Somali, and Mid-East cultures > settling in. MSP? I'm not sure I know where you hail from.. the UK? > > The article you linked referred to a Woodard article at Tufts. I link > it here. It takes the basic > 11 Nations Framework and uses it to review gun violence in America. Coming from a neo-frontier gun-culture, I am saddened by the texture and the level of gun abuse/violence we have today. It is paralleled (and surely eclipsed) by the violence we do to ourselves and eachother through addiction and economic warfare (home and abroad). I think much of our gun violence has roots in deeper places (poverty, addiction, loss of identity)... one can say "guns don't kill people" "people do" or "bullets do" but our socioeconomic conditions are what set the stage for it in many ways. > I have seen other articles > by Mr. Woodard concerning the Tea Party in reference to the early > October Gov't shut-down. See my thoughts on Tea Party under separate cover. If this turns out to be a little (more than usual) ragged, it is because my internet has been out most of the day and I'm now trying to get this out in case I lose it again. - Steve > > At Tuffs on Gun Violence: > http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html > > At Washington Monthly on Gov't Shutdown: > Oct. 15, 2013: Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/regional_differences_have_doom047323.php > > > Nov/Dec 2011: A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party > --------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2011/features/a_geography_lesson_for_the_tea032846.php?page=all > > > Amazon: > http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029 > > > I admit to lacking the chops to professionally "vet" Mr. Woodard's > theory. However, the book > has verisimilitude in its structure and is heavily documented. I > hope to hear more from you > for an additional point-of-view. > > Thanks, > StephT > > > On 11/8/2013 11:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' >> cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree >> with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general >> than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to >> be crufted into: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Steve:
Also more insights, thanks. I consider the 11 Nations as a model. With all models there are abstractions in order to make it manageable to gain insights of the domain. Mr. Woodard's model is very rich as models go - certainly more so than the binary scales you point out have become trite. My personal 'model" for models is a rough diamond in the process of being polished. Each model is a facet - rough or partially polished - of the diamond and provides a point-of-view/insight into the knowledge domain represented by the diamond. Multiple models are appropriate with each providing a set of abstractions. I agree there are multiple ways to abstract a domain into a model. We each have personal experiences with portion(s) of the model and thus have opinions on how that portion should be restructured. But we also have to consider our perspective is limited to our personal experiences. If the author applied an "abstracting process" consistently and as objectively as possible, then we should consider the efficacy of the model as a whole. I also did not expect the upper Midwest to be Yankeedom. I would have thought it was thoroughly Midlands. In Minnesota our cultural history is predominantly either Scandinavian or German. We are very community oriented - with a local public school in the midst of and surrounded by residential homes. Which I understand is a Yankeedom characteristic of my Puritan ancestors. (I do not condone the Puritan "violence" they committed against other non-Puritan faiths) So I look at Mr. Woodard's argument to assess why he considers my region Yankeedom-based and not an entirely separate "nation" of Scandinavians. MSP - airport designation of Minneapolis-St Paul. My attraction to the model is for its historical, layered, montage-like perspective. Multiple layers of tissue-paper provide a perceived color or shape that was not anticipated or designed by any of the underlying layers. My paternal line came from New England via Erie PA and Chicago IL. My maternal line is mostly German and Welsh (with a rumored Loyalist fighting for the Brits). They came through Kentucky, Indiana, and finally to Chicago. I like the 11 Nations model for its historical perspective on how our country came to be in its current form. My part of this discussion is based on the book/model as a whole. I have not focused much on the specific articles using the model to critique the Tea Party and gun-violence. Thanks, StephT On 11/9/2013 10:37 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > StephenT - >> I would like to hear your critique of the 11 Nations framework. I >> recently read the book >> and found it fascinating. The book is well researched and documented >> - though the reading >> style of the book is in the "popular-style" as opposed to an academic >> textbook-style. > Thank you for asking. I appreciate that you have read his book. > > No simple binary subdivision of this country (red/blue, north/south, > urban/rural, etc) is likely to be more than of limited use in > understanding "who we are" and in my opinion, of getting off the > high-centered position we've been in for a (very?) long time. > > As for my quibbles: > > I'd want to split TX (and perhaps the OK/KS parts of Appalachia) and > give them to a separate Texas itself... despite Daniel Boone and the > Alamo and all that. They are specifically bellicose enough to demand > their own identity and sadly, that alone might be enough to grant it > to them. I believe their affinities to the West and the South are > different than the rest of Appalachia. > > I was surprised to see so much of the upper Midwest declared part of > Yankeedom. I don't have a lot of direct experience, so my opinions > here are very thin. I'd be inclined to coin a "Rustbelt Nation" > running from PA across OH, capturing Chicago and the WI/MI industrial > centers. > > I think his distinction between the Far West and El Norte are > overstated but that is probably my own myopia, having spent my life in > those regions. > > More importantly, I think he mischaracterizes the West's "dependence > on the Federal Government". The railroad and the post-civil war > strengthening of the Federal Government *did* lead the bulk of the > resources/land in the west to be owned by the US government and made > available to big industry at a discount to exploit. > > The *people* of the west, however, were already operating small > scale, subsistence "extractive" industry... they were ranchers, > farmers, prospectors, hunters/trappers. Big money/industry co-opted > not only their labor but their hearts and minds to some extent. It > was still happening in MY youth (60's, 70's and beyond) with big > money/industry offering good/quick money in return for support by the > locals to do more and more invasive things in their homelands. They > pitted the locals against "the Feds", all the while surely buying "the > Feds" off back in DC. Gun culture in the west derives from a very real > recent (1-2 generations) utility to most of it. > >> I think of the book as a modern day version of the layered invasions >> of the British Isles over >> the last 1500 years. The original Celts then the usual-suspects of >> Angles, Saxons, Vikings, >> Normans - and in the recent 50+ years - American Pop Culture. I say >> modern-day as the >> 11 Nations formed in the last 400 years rather than the 1500 of the >> British Isles invasions. > I think something similar can be found everywhere. For example when > you think of the Byzantine then Roman colonizations, then how the > various Mongols/Huns/Vandals/Goths etc. swept through Europe and even > Northern Africa, or the many peoples and influences in the Indian > Subcontinent, it is staggering. >> I think we all see elements of his main thesis in our local areas. In >> MSP, we have neighborhoods >> that historically were settled by different ethnic groups - lots of >> Scandinavians in this region. >> In recent decades we have Hmong, Somali, and Mid-East cultures >> settling in. > MSP? I'm not sure I know where you hail from.. the UK? >> >> The article you linked referred to a Woodard article at Tufts. I link >> it here. It takes the basic >> 11 Nations Framework and uses it to review gun violence in America. > Coming from a neo-frontier gun-culture, I am saddened by the texture > and the level of gun abuse/violence we have today. It is paralleled > (and surely eclipsed) by the violence we do to ourselves and eachother > through addiction and economic warfare (home and abroad). I think > much of our gun violence has roots in deeper places (poverty, > addiction, loss of identity)... one can say "guns don't kill people" > "people do" or "bullets do" but our socioeconomic conditions are what > set the stage for it in many ways. >> I have seen other articles >> by Mr. Woodard concerning the Tea Party in reference to the early >> October Gov't shut-down. > See my thoughts on Tea Party under separate cover. > > If this turns out to be a little (more than usual) ragged, it is > because my internet has been out most of the day and I'm now trying to > get this out in case I lose it again. > > - Steve >> >> At Tuffs on Gun Violence: >> http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html >> >> At Washington Monthly on Gov't Shutdown: >> Oct. 15, 2013: Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/regional_differences_have_doom047323.php >> >> >> Nov/Dec 2011: A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2011/features/a_geography_lesson_for_the_tea032846.php?page=all >> >> >> Amazon: >> http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029 >> >> >> I admit to lacking the chops to professionally "vet" Mr. Woodard's >> theory. However, the book >> has verisimilitude in its structure and is heavily documented. I hope >> to hear more from you >> for an additional point-of-view. >> >> Thanks, >> StephT >> >> >> On 11/8/2013 11:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' >>> cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree >>> with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general >>> than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" >>> to be crufted into: >>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
StephT -
Thanks for more insight into your perspective, including your politics and demographic embedding. I appreciate your thoughts about models in this context. What I think I appreciated most about Woodard's model was it's richness as you call it, but that it seemed to have *little* if any embellishment or gratuitous richness. My own myopia had me thinking that his distinction of El Norte from Far West was gratuitous, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me. I also think it is natural that each person making a set of abstractions or model will generate one that reflect their perspective. One person's perspective is another persons bias, if you will. While I think the model Woodard presents is relatively accurate and useful for many purposes, I can see how his biases stated in his narratives against the Conservatives (especially the ultra/teabunch) would put off those sympathetic to them. But he is not alone, not in the least. As I think I have stated before, the basic message of the Tea Party or even Conservatives in general is not the source of my challenge to them, it is their methods (as you speak of "soiling the manger") that puts me at odds with them. Mean spirited, ruthless, selfish. <political rant based on personal anecdotes> I may have a foot halfway down the Autism spectrum because I often take things very literally, in this case, the stated ideals of political parties or platforms. This allows me to (try to?) take such things at pure face value... accept the story and ignore the messenger and in fact the behaviour of the messenger... at least for a while. But eventually my intuitive side screams at me to "notice the behaviour" and I have to give up on them. I helped usher in the Reagan/Bush 80's with my single little vote based on the ideals of the Conservatives, but it wasn't long into that period that I realized they didn't really mean what I heard them say. "Trickle Down Economics" was probably the most blatant of it... "give to the rich and they will take care of the poor". While I worked at the gem of the military-industrial complex, and believed in the principle of "someone has to have the big stick, it might as well be us", I was still too young and naive to realize that the problem with being the one holding the big stick is "who you become" when you have power. Power *is* corruption... and we've been building our relative power in the world for at least 100 years, and for the most part what it has bought us is the (deserved) mistrust of the world. Despite our inneffectuality in places like Vietnam and now Afghanistan/Pakistan, we do have a very big stick and we seem to like to use it, and if it isn't effective enough, that is good enough reason to go shopping for a bigger stick. Once the gild was off the Conservative Idealism, I found the Liberal Idealism a refreshing embrace... I was naturally empathetic and even with Conservative Ideals, wanted everyone to "be happy", so it was easy for me to accept the social progressiveness of the Liberals even though I had some doubts about *their* methods (especially fiscal policy). At least it didn't seem mean-spirited. Then the Political Correct movement caught hold, and I saw *that* side of the mean spirit... a fairly strict code with specific prescribed terms, activities and postures, and fairly significant penalty (strong censure and even excommunication from the group) for small deviations from the code, I was sickened. This left me happily, "a man without a Party", but wiser for having taken the two dominant ones seriously for a bit. My personal experience, coming from Greater Appalachia rootstock but raised in the Far West and El Norte made it easy for me to appreciate the Libertarian's self-reliance model (but not THEIR mean-spirited style either). I became (yet more) cynical about the political process and the political milieu itself and subsequently sat out nearly 2 decades of elections, sniping from the sidelines, ignoring the trite "if you don't vote, you can't have an opinion" retorts. My sympathies have always been socially progressive but my intellect clung to more conservative fiscal models... I now feel very heretical in my opinion that we are an incredibly wealthy nation of spoiled brats, conservative and liberal alike, rich and poor (to some extent) alike. Against the liberal position, our biggest concern seems to be that our poor can't eat healthily because all they can afford is McDonalds, or that we need to spend more money on education because clearly too many children learn little or nothing after 12 years in the system, or that everyone should have equal access to a broken medical system? On the conservative side, it seems to oscillate between the belligerence of "the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to build, maintain and flaunt in public a large arsenal of high tech weapons backed by an arbitrary large store of ammunition" and "Sanctity of Marriage" and "Anti-Choice" rhetoric and "if we test kids hard enough they will be forced to have learned something". While I appreciate the Guy Fawkes style sentiments of Occupy and the 99% rhetoric, I think we should examine that *we* are the 1% in the world (well, maybe 10 or 20%) but nevertheless, while we want to blame *our* elites for our troubles (and with good cause) we seem to miss the fact that all but the most destitute among us *are the elites* to the third world and are causing *them* the same troubles, extracting their labor and their resources for our comfort and convenience. We have lost many of the self- reliant skills and make-do perspectives that defined us during our expansionist/pioneer period and we have distorted others (e.g. contemporary gun/vigilante culture). We are not who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad. Each of those 11 nations in Woodard's model have a strong story about what makes them unique, what they are proud of. I hope we might look to those ideals and return to them, not as laurels to rest on, but things to aspire to. I don't have enough direct experience with Tidewater and Deep South to know exactly WHAT makes them proud of themselves, but I'm sure there is some honest, deep goodness at the roots of their story. The rest of it may only see them through a caricature of slaveholding, mysogeny and racial violence, but I suspect there is something less negative to work with there... and the rest of our caricature of them doesn't help them aspire to it. I believe that the only way out of our spoiled and usurious lifestyles is to return to the roots of what we can honestly be proud of and focus on that. In many ways, I feel we long ago threw out the baby and kept the bathwater. It shows in virtually every walk of life. We are now much more interested in what everyone else is "doing wrong" than what "right we should be doing". We are more worried about how ObamaCare is going to improve or hurt our personal lot than how it might shape the country and the relations between the haves and have nots, how it might reshape our entire medical system (for better or worse). I think the Tea Party has "shat the nest", I think they will never be taken seriously again except by themselves, and the Republicans in general will be tainted by them forever as well. I think that a pluralistic voice of mature, thoughtful citizens can reshape our political landscape, but I'm not sure we have many of those voices in Politics or in the Media. We have a few, and they tend to be on the Left side of the Aisle. It is their style of maturity and thoughtfulness that I want to see spread, the right message (Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, etc.) that will spring from a larger thoughtful debate on all topics. I believe that the times may be right for a return to responsible populism, but it does require putting down our entitled perspective and many of our divisive assumptions. Woodard, by explaining more of what *actually* divides us in more detail may have set the stage for that larger conversation. I won't hold my breath for it, but I am seeking to open that conversation with others where I can... to try to break the stalemate that has gripped us for decades. The silver lining of the TeaParty's "brinksmanship" may be that it is helping to force us to this position. I think also that Obama's failures on so many fronts also helps force and inform a better discussion. I think Obama's intentions were sincere, and I believe that much of his failures reflect more on his opponents than on his allies, but more than anything, it should show us how deadlocked we are. Our next two elections need to make significant qualitative changes, not just more of the same, each leaning further and further out of the canoe trying to tip it their way. </political rant> - Steve > > Also more insights, thanks. I consider the 11 Nations as a model. > With all models there > are abstractions in order to make it manageable to gain insights of > the domain. Mr. Woodard's > model is very rich as models go - certainly more so than the binary > scales you point out have > become trite. > > My personal 'model" for models is a rough diamond in the process of > being polished. Each model > is a facet - rough or partially polished - of the diamond and provides > a point-of-view/insight into > the knowledge domain represented by the diamond. Multiple models are > appropriate with each > providing a set of abstractions. > > I agree there are multiple ways to abstract a domain into a model. We > each have personal experiences > with portion(s) of the model and thus have opinions on how that > portion should be restructured. > But we also have to consider our perspective is limited to our > personal experiences. If the author applied > an "abstracting process" consistently and as objectively as possible, > then we should consider the > efficacy of the model as a whole. > > I also did not expect the upper Midwest to be Yankeedom. I would have > thought it was thoroughly > Midlands. In Minnesota our cultural history is predominantly either > Scandinavian or German. We > are very community oriented - with a local public school in the midst > of and surrounded by > residential homes. Which I understand is a Yankeedom characteristic > of my Puritan ancestors. > (I do not condone the Puritan "violence" they committed against other > non-Puritan faiths) So I > look at Mr. Woodard's argument to assess why he considers my region > Yankeedom-based and not > an entirely separate "nation" of Scandinavians. > > MSP - airport designation of Minneapolis-St Paul. > > My attraction to the model is for its historical, layered, > montage-like perspective. Multiple layers > of tissue-paper provide a perceived color or shape that was not > anticipated or designed by any of the > underlying layers. My paternal line came from New England via Erie PA > and Chicago IL. My maternal > line is mostly German and Welsh (with a rumored Loyalist fighting for > the Brits). They came through > Kentucky, Indiana, and finally to Chicago. I like the 11 Nations > model for its historical perspective > on how our country came to be in its current form. > > My part of this discussion is based on the book/model as a whole. I > have not focused much on > the specific articles using the model to critique the Tea Party and > gun-violence. > > Thanks, > StephT > > > > On 11/9/2013 10:37 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> StephenT - >>> I would like to hear your critique of the 11 Nations framework. I >>> recently read the book >>> and found it fascinating. The book is well researched and >>> documented - though the reading >>> style of the book is in the "popular-style" as opposed to an >>> academic textbook-style. >> Thank you for asking. I appreciate that you have read his book. >> >> No simple binary subdivision of this country (red/blue, north/south, >> urban/rural, etc) is likely to be more than of limited use in >> understanding "who we are" and in my opinion, of getting off the >> high-centered position we've been in for a (very?) long time. >> >> As for my quibbles: >> >> I'd want to split TX (and perhaps the OK/KS parts of Appalachia) and >> give them to a separate Texas itself... despite Daniel Boone and the >> Alamo and all that. They are specifically bellicose enough to >> demand their own identity and sadly, that alone might be enough to >> grant it to them. I believe their affinities to the West and the >> South are different than the rest of Appalachia. >> >> I was surprised to see so much of the upper Midwest declared part of >> Yankeedom. I don't have a lot of direct experience, so my opinions >> here are very thin. I'd be inclined to coin a "Rustbelt Nation" >> running from PA across OH, capturing Chicago and the WI/MI industrial >> centers. >> >> I think his distinction between the Far West and El Norte are >> overstated but that is probably my own myopia, having spent my life >> in those regions. >> >> More importantly, I think he mischaracterizes the West's "dependence >> on the Federal Government". The railroad and the post-civil war >> strengthening of the Federal Government *did* lead the bulk of the >> resources/land in the west to be owned by the US government and made >> available to big industry at a discount to exploit. >> >> The *people* of the west, however, were already operating small >> scale, subsistence "extractive" industry... they were ranchers, >> farmers, prospectors, hunters/trappers. Big money/industry co-opted >> not only their labor but their hearts and minds to some extent. It >> was still happening in MY youth (60's, 70's and beyond) with big >> money/industry offering good/quick money in return for support by the >> locals to do more and more invasive things in their homelands. They >> pitted the locals against "the Feds", all the while surely buying >> "the Feds" off back in DC. Gun culture in the west derives from a >> very real recent (1-2 generations) utility to most of it. >> >>> I think of the book as a modern day version of the layered invasions >>> of the British Isles over >>> the last 1500 years. The original Celts then the usual-suspects of >>> Angles, Saxons, Vikings, >>> Normans - and in the recent 50+ years - American Pop Culture. I say >>> modern-day as the >>> 11 Nations formed in the last 400 years rather than the 1500 of the >>> British Isles invasions. >> I think something similar can be found everywhere. For example when >> you think of the Byzantine then Roman colonizations, then how the >> various Mongols/Huns/Vandals/Goths etc. swept through Europe and >> even Northern Africa, or the many peoples and influences in the >> Indian Subcontinent, it is staggering. >>> I think we all see elements of his main thesis in our local areas. >>> In MSP, we have neighborhoods >>> that historically were settled by different ethnic groups - lots of >>> Scandinavians in this region. >>> In recent decades we have Hmong, Somali, and Mid-East cultures >>> settling in. >> MSP? I'm not sure I know where you hail from.. the UK? >>> >>> The article you linked referred to a Woodard article at Tufts. I >>> link it here. It takes the basic >>> 11 Nations Framework and uses it to review gun violence in America. >> Coming from a neo-frontier gun-culture, I am saddened by the texture >> and the level of gun abuse/violence we have today. It is paralleled >> (and surely eclipsed) by the violence we do to ourselves and >> eachother through addiction and economic warfare (home and >> abroad). I think much of our gun violence has roots in deeper >> places (poverty, addiction, loss of identity)... one can say "guns >> don't kill people" "people do" or "bullets do" but our socioeconomic >> conditions are what set the stage for it in many ways. >>> I have seen other articles >>> by Mr. Woodard concerning the Tea Party in reference to the early >>> October Gov't shut-down. >> See my thoughts on Tea Party under separate cover. >> >> If this turns out to be a little (more than usual) ragged, it is >> because my internet has been out most of the day and I'm now trying >> to get this out in case I lose it again. >> >> - Steve >>> >>> At Tuffs on Gun Violence: >>> http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html >>> >>> At Washington Monthly on Gov't Shutdown: >>> Oct. 15, 2013: Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/regional_differences_have_doom047323.php >>> >>> >>> Nov/Dec 2011: A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2011/features/a_geography_lesson_for_the_tea032846.php?page=all >>> >>> >>> Amazon: >>> http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029 >>> >>> >>> I admit to lacking the chops to professionally "vet" Mr. Woodard's >>> theory. However, the book >>> has verisimilitude in its structure and is heavily documented. I >>> hope to hear more from you >>> for an additional point-of-view. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> StephT >>> >>> >>> On 11/8/2013 11:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>>> An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' >>>> cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree >>>> with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less >>>> general than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural >>>> "melting pot" to be crufted into: >>>> >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Steve:
Ouch. Its uncomfortable when you hold up a description of America....by making us look in the mirror. Ol' Pogo was right. (We have met the enemy and he is ...). Rant away, my good man. You have thought deeper on this than I have. My attraction to the 11 Nations Model is its nuances that I would not have been able to find - even if I could do the research. I also contributed with a vote for Reagan. Tho in my young case, he just seemed more "with it" than his opponent. Except for Mondale - natch in that election I voted for the Hometown boy. I also hope for a balanced give-n-take at the center. There are moderate Republicans, but they dare not speak out because of Duke Norquist. He will pile on obscene amounts of money to take down any Republican who doesn't hold the "party line" and kiss his ring on bended knee. Notice how newly elected Republicans all make the pilgrimage to the Duke's castle? So who are these Republicans representing anyway? Those who voted for them or those who give them money? With moderates on both sides of the aisle we could actually make government work. Your comments lead me to infer there are other demographic or political models you use. I would like to hear about them. Thanks, StephT On 11/10/2013 10:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > StephT - > > Thanks for more insight into your perspective, including your politics > and demographic embedding. I appreciate your thoughts about models in > this context. > > What I think I appreciated most about Woodard's model was it's > richness as you call it, but that it seemed to have *little* if any > embellishment or gratuitous richness. My own myopia had me thinking > that his distinction of El Norte from Far West was gratuitous, but the > more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me. > > I also think it is natural that each person making a set of > abstractions or model will generate one that reflect their > perspective. One person's perspective is another persons bias, if you > will. > > While I think the model Woodard presents is relatively accurate and > useful for many purposes, I can see how his biases stated in his > narratives against the Conservatives (especially the ultra/teabunch) > would put off those sympathetic to them. But he is not alone, not in > the least. As I think I have stated before, the basic message of the > Tea Party or even Conservatives in general is not the source of my > challenge to them, it is their methods (as you speak of "soiling the > manger") that puts me at odds with them. Mean spirited, ruthless, > selfish. > > <political rant based on personal anecdotes> > > I may have a foot halfway down the Autism spectrum because I often > take things very literally, in this case, the stated ideals of > political parties or platforms. This allows me to (try to?) take > such things at pure face value... accept the story and ignore the > messenger and in fact the behaviour of the messenger... at least for a > while. But eventually my intuitive side screams at me to "notice the > behaviour" and I have to give up on them. I helped usher in the > Reagan/Bush 80's with my single little vote based on the ideals of the > Conservatives, but it wasn't long into that period that I realized > they didn't really mean what I heard them say. "Trickle Down > Economics" was probably the most blatant of it... "give to the rich > and they will take care of the poor". > > While I worked at the gem of the military-industrial complex, and > believed in the principle of "someone has to have the big stick, it > might as well be us", I was still too young and naive to realize that > the problem with being the one holding the big stick is "who you > become" when you have power. Power *is* corruption... and we've been > building our relative power in the world for at least 100 years, and > for the most part what it has bought us is the (deserved) mistrust of > the world. Despite our inneffectuality in places like Vietnam and > now Afghanistan/Pakistan, we do have a very big stick and we seem to > like to use it, and if it isn't effective enough, that is good enough > reason to go shopping for a bigger stick. > > Once the gild was off the Conservative Idealism, I found the Liberal > Idealism a refreshing embrace... I was naturally empathetic and even > with Conservative Ideals, wanted everyone to "be happy", so it was > easy for me to accept the social progressiveness of the Liberals even > though I had some doubts about *their* methods (especially fiscal > policy). At least it didn't seem mean-spirited. Then the Political > Correct movement caught hold, and I saw *that* side of the mean > spirit... a fairly strict code with specific prescribed terms, > activities and postures, and fairly significant penalty (strong > censure and even excommunication from the group) for small deviations > from the code, I was sickened. This left me happily, "a man without > a Party", but wiser for having taken the two dominant ones seriously > for a bit. > > My personal experience, coming from Greater Appalachia rootstock but > raised in the Far West and El Norte made it easy for me to appreciate > the Libertarian's self-reliance model (but not THEIR mean-spirited > style either). I became (yet more) cynical about the political > process and the political milieu itself and subsequently sat out > nearly 2 decades of elections, sniping from the sidelines, ignoring > the trite "if you don't vote, you can't have an opinion" retorts. My > sympathies have always been socially progressive but my intellect > clung to more conservative fiscal models... > > I now feel very heretical in my opinion that we are an incredibly > wealthy nation of spoiled brats, conservative and liberal alike, rich > and poor (to some extent) alike. Against the liberal position, our > biggest concern seems to be that our poor can't eat healthily because > all they can afford is McDonalds, or that we need to spend more money > on education because clearly too many children learn little or nothing > after 12 years in the system, or that everyone should have equal > access to a broken medical system? On the conservative side, it > seems to oscillate between the belligerence of "the Second Amendment > guarantees me the right to build, maintain and flaunt in public a > large arsenal of high tech weapons backed by an arbitrary large store > of ammunition" and "Sanctity of Marriage" and "Anti-Choice" rhetoric > and "if we test kids hard enough they will be forced to have learned > something". While I appreciate the Guy Fawkes style sentiments of > Occupy and the 99% rhetoric, I think we should examine that *we* are > the 1% in the world (well, maybe 10 or 20%) but nevertheless, while we > want to blame *our* elites for our troubles (and with good cause) we > seem to miss the fact that all but the most destitute among us *are > the elites* to the third world and are causing *them* the same > troubles, extracting their labor and their resources for our comfort > and convenience. > > We have lost many of the self- reliant skills and make-do perspectives > that defined us during our expansionist/pioneer period and we have > distorted others (e.g. contemporary gun/vigilante culture). We are > not who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad. > Each of those 11 nations in Woodard's model have a strong story about > what makes them unique, what they are proud of. I hope we might look > to those ideals and return to them, not as laurels to rest on, but > things to aspire to. I don't have enough direct experience with > Tidewater and Deep South to know exactly WHAT makes them proud of > themselves, but I'm sure there is some honest, deep goodness at the > roots of their story. The rest of it may only see them through a > caricature of slaveholding, mysogeny and racial violence, but I > suspect there is something less negative to work with there... and the > rest of our caricature of them doesn't help them aspire to it. > > I believe that the only way out of our spoiled and usurious lifestyles > is to return to the roots of what we can honestly be proud of and > focus on that. In many ways, I feel we long ago threw out the baby > and kept the bathwater. It shows in virtually every walk of life. > We are now much more interested in what everyone else is "doing wrong" > than what "right we should be doing". We are more worried about how > ObamaCare is going to improve or hurt our personal lot than how it > might shape the country and the relations between the haves and have > nots, how it might reshape our entire medical system (for better or > worse). > > I think the Tea Party has "shat the nest", I think they will never be > taken seriously again except by themselves, and the Republicans in > general will be tainted by them forever as well. I think that a > pluralistic voice of mature, thoughtful citizens can reshape our > political landscape, but I'm not sure we have many of those voices in > Politics or in the Media. We have a few, and they tend to be on the > Left side of the Aisle. It is their style of maturity and > thoughtfulness that I want to see spread, the right message > (Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, etc.) that will spring from a > larger thoughtful debate on all topics. I believe that the times may > be right for a return to responsible populism, but it does require > putting down our entitled perspective and many of our divisive > assumptions. > > Woodard, by explaining more of what *actually* divides us in more > detail may have set the stage for that larger conversation. I won't > hold my breath for it, but I am seeking to open that conversation with > others where I can... to try to break the stalemate that has gripped > us for decades. The silver lining of the TeaParty's "brinksmanship" > may be that it is helping to force us to this position. I think also > that Obama's failures on so many fronts also helps force and inform a > better discussion. I think Obama's intentions were sincere, and I > believe that much of his failures reflect more on his opponents than > on his allies, but more than anything, it should show us how > deadlocked we are. Our next two elections need to make significant > qualitative changes, not just more of the same, each leaning further > and further out of the canoe trying to tip it their way. > </political rant> > > - Steve >> >> Also more insights, thanks. I consider the 11 Nations as a model. >> With all models there >> are abstractions in order to make it manageable to gain insights of >> the domain. Mr. Woodard's >> model is very rich as models go - certainly more so than the binary >> scales you point out have >> become trite. >> >> My personal 'model" for models is a rough diamond in the process of >> being polished. Each model >> is a facet - rough or partially polished - of the diamond and >> provides a point-of-view/insight into >> the knowledge domain represented by the diamond. Multiple models are >> appropriate with each >> providing a set of abstractions. >> >> I agree there are multiple ways to abstract a domain into a model. We >> each have personal experiences >> with portion(s) of the model and thus have opinions on how that >> portion should be restructured. >> But we also have to consider our perspective is limited to our >> personal experiences. If the author applied >> an "abstracting process" consistently and as objectively as possible, >> then we should consider the >> efficacy of the model as a whole. >> >> I also did not expect the upper Midwest to be Yankeedom. I would >> have thought it was thoroughly >> Midlands. In Minnesota our cultural history is predominantly either >> Scandinavian or German. We >> are very community oriented - with a local public school in the midst >> of and surrounded by >> residential homes. Which I understand is a Yankeedom characteristic >> of my Puritan ancestors. >> (I do not condone the Puritan "violence" they committed against other >> non-Puritan faiths) So I >> look at Mr. Woodard's argument to assess why he considers my region >> Yankeedom-based and not >> an entirely separate "nation" of Scandinavians. >> >> MSP - airport designation of Minneapolis-St Paul. >> >> My attraction to the model is for its historical, layered, >> montage-like perspective. Multiple layers >> of tissue-paper provide a perceived color or shape that was not >> anticipated or designed by any of the >> underlying layers. My paternal line came from New England via Erie >> PA and Chicago IL. My maternal >> line is mostly German and Welsh (with a rumored Loyalist fighting for >> the Brits). They came through >> Kentucky, Indiana, and finally to Chicago. I like the 11 Nations >> model for its historical perspective >> on how our country came to be in its current form. >> >> My part of this discussion is based on the book/model as a whole. I >> have not focused much on >> the specific articles using the model to critique the Tea Party and >> gun-violence. >> >> Thanks, >> StephT >> >> >> >> On 11/9/2013 10:37 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> StephenT - >>>> I would like to hear your critique of the 11 Nations framework. I >>>> recently read the book >>>> and found it fascinating. The book is well researched and >>>> documented - though the reading >>>> style of the book is in the "popular-style" as opposed to an >>>> academic textbook-style. >>> Thank you for asking. I appreciate that you have read his book. >>> >>> No simple binary subdivision of this country (red/blue, north/south, >>> urban/rural, etc) is likely to be more than of limited use in >>> understanding "who we are" and in my opinion, of getting off the >>> high-centered position we've been in for a (very?) long time. >>> >>> As for my quibbles: >>> >>> I'd want to split TX (and perhaps the OK/KS parts of Appalachia) and >>> give them to a separate Texas itself... despite Daniel Boone and the >>> Alamo and all that. They are specifically bellicose enough to >>> demand their own identity and sadly, that alone might be enough to >>> grant it to them. I believe their affinities to the West and the >>> South are different than the rest of Appalachia. >>> >>> I was surprised to see so much of the upper Midwest declared part of >>> Yankeedom. I don't have a lot of direct experience, so my opinions >>> here are very thin. I'd be inclined to coin a "Rustbelt Nation" >>> running from PA across OH, capturing Chicago and the WI/MI >>> industrial centers. >>> >>> I think his distinction between the Far West and El Norte are >>> overstated but that is probably my own myopia, having spent my life >>> in those regions. >>> >>> More importantly, I think he mischaracterizes the West's "dependence >>> on the Federal Government". The railroad and the post-civil war >>> strengthening of the Federal Government *did* lead the bulk of the >>> resources/land in the west to be owned by the US government and made >>> available to big industry at a discount to exploit. >>> >>> The *people* of the west, however, were already operating small >>> scale, subsistence "extractive" industry... they were ranchers, >>> farmers, prospectors, hunters/trappers. Big money/industry >>> co-opted not only their labor but their hearts and minds to some >>> extent. It was still happening in MY youth (60's, 70's and beyond) >>> with big money/industry offering good/quick money in return for >>> support by the locals to do more and more invasive things in their >>> homelands. They pitted the locals against "the Feds", all the >>> while surely buying "the Feds" off back in DC. Gun culture in the >>> west derives from a very real recent (1-2 generations) utility to >>> most of it. >>> >>>> I think of the book as a modern day version of the layered >>>> invasions of the British Isles over >>>> the last 1500 years. The original Celts then the usual-suspects of >>>> Angles, Saxons, Vikings, >>>> Normans - and in the recent 50+ years - American Pop Culture. I say >>>> modern-day as the >>>> 11 Nations formed in the last 400 years rather than the 1500 of the >>>> British Isles invasions. >>> I think something similar can be found everywhere. For example when >>> you think of the Byzantine then Roman colonizations, then how the >>> various Mongols/Huns/Vandals/Goths etc. swept through Europe and >>> even Northern Africa, or the many peoples and influences in the >>> Indian Subcontinent, it is staggering. >>>> I think we all see elements of his main thesis in our local areas. >>>> In MSP, we have neighborhoods >>>> that historically were settled by different ethnic groups - lots of >>>> Scandinavians in this region. >>>> In recent decades we have Hmong, Somali, and Mid-East cultures >>>> settling in. >>> MSP? I'm not sure I know where you hail from.. the UK? >>>> >>>> The article you linked referred to a Woodard article at Tufts. I >>>> link it here. It takes the basic >>>> 11 Nations Framework and uses it to review gun violence in America. >>> Coming from a neo-frontier gun-culture, I am saddened by the texture >>> and the level of gun abuse/violence we have today. It is paralleled >>> (and surely eclipsed) by the violence we do to ourselves and >>> eachother through addiction and economic warfare (home and >>> abroad). I think much of our gun violence has roots in deeper >>> places (poverty, addiction, loss of identity)... one can say "guns >>> don't kill people" "people do" or "bullets do" but our socioeconomic >>> conditions are what set the stage for it in many ways. >>>> I have seen other articles >>>> by Mr. Woodard concerning the Tea Party in reference to the early >>>> October Gov't shut-down. >>> See my thoughts on Tea Party under separate cover. >>> >>> If this turns out to be a little (more than usual) ragged, it is >>> because my internet has been out most of the day and I'm now trying >>> to get this out in case I lose it again. >>> >>> - Steve >>>> >>>> At Tuffs on Gun Violence: >>>> http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html >>>> >>>> At Washington Monthly on Gov't Shutdown: >>>> Oct. 15, 2013: Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/regional_differences_have_doom047323.php >>>> >>>> >>>> Nov/Dec 2011: A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2011/features/a_geography_lesson_for_the_tea032846.php?page=all >>>> >>>> >>>> Amazon: >>>> http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029 >>>> >>>> >>>> I admit to lacking the chops to professionally "vet" Mr. Woodard's >>>> theory. However, the book >>>> has verisimilitude in its structure and is heavily documented. I >>>> hope to hear more from you >>>> for an additional point-of-view. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> StephT >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/8/2013 11:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>>>> An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' >>>>> cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree >>>>> with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less >>>>> general than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural >>>>> "melting pot" to be crufted into: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
ST -
> > Ouch. Its uncomfortable when you hold up a description of > America....by making us look in the mirror. > Ol' Pogo was right. (We have met the enemy and he is ...). Rant away, > my good man. You are welcome ;^)! > > You have thought deeper on this than I have. My attraction to the 11 > Nations Model is its nuances that > I would not have been able to find - even if I could do the research. Certainly it was the product of someone who spends their life in such pursuits. Whether any one of us might align with his biases (I think Ray was referring to the clear anti-Tea sentiments he very clearly used the model to support when he said biases). I *hope* some (Ray, ???) who are more naturally aligned with the Conservatives, more likely to be at least partially understanding of the Tea-party line would weigh in on the model and offer alternatives to some of the perspectives it offers. I think it is a good model and that it reflects much of what is good as well as what is questionable about the posture of each region. > I also contributed with a vote for Reagan. Tho in my young case, he > just seemed more "with it" than > his opponent. Only for us to realize he was already slipsliding into Alzheimers as we voted him in! He played the part of Hawkish/TrickleDown President *much* better than his intellectual grand step-child GeeDubya, but I'm not sure he was any more present or cognizant of the realities of the situation. Both had enormous machines (with some of the same parts... e.g. Wolfie and Rummy) behind them to make the sense that their administrations made (whether we agree with them or not). > Except for Mondale - natch in that election I voted for the Hometown boy. > > I also hope for a balanced give-n-take at the center. I'm thinking in a higher-dimensional model and I'm not sure that the "center" is exactly what I seek. I think on some topics/axes, a Centrist approach is called for, on others something qualitatively different may be called for. The 11 nation model of our nature, origins and affinities suggests such a high dimensional model (many I'm sure) of the issues we should be facing. > There are moderate Republicans, but they dare not > speak out because of Duke Norquist. He will pile on obscene amounts > of money to take down any > Republican who doesn't hold the "party line" and kiss his ring on > bended knee. Notice how newly > elected Republicans all make the pilgrimage to the Duke's castle? So > who are these Republicans > representing anyway? Those who voted for them or those who give them > money? Money in electoral politics is clearly a problem. I was not originally swayed by the "money is not speech" argument, but I've come to believe that campaign finance/funding both directly and through PACs that support an "issue" (not explicitly a candidate) is very questionable. I think we need to find a way to take the money out of the electoral process. > > With moderates on both sides of the aisle we could actually make > government work. I think we may need some "out of the box" thinking to make it work truly well. I agree that compromise is often required (thus the place of centrism) but I think we need some significant shifting in the landscape in some cases, or all we are doing is making a dangerous machine run more smoothly? > Your comments lead me to infer there are other demographic or > political models you use. I would > like to hear about them. I think that the 11 Nations Demographic is a good basic model of geopolitical demographics... I offered my "adjustments" or "nuances" to it already... I think that given such an understanding of people's history and motivations, it could be easier to find alignments between otherwise disjoint factions instead of always having to be pitted against one another. My fundamental alternative political model denies the two-party system. I think force-fitting a high-dimensional (multi-issue) problem into a two-party system yields untenable circumstances and deadlocks. I know that our electoral system almost guarantees a 2-party system and I'm not deeply knowledgeable enough of the law in that regard to know how we could escape it... it might be a easy as deciding to do it and doing it, or it might be nearly impossible given the vested interests who surely prefer it this way. I think a very conservative single-payer health system could be designed that could be stomached by all. I think more progress on the natural tension between energy/environment could be had. I think more progress on limiting the extreme aspects of our gun culture could be achieved. But as long as every compromise feels like a concession and everything is about making points and avoiding setting precedents and "not giving an inch" we don't have a chance at progress. I agree that the Teabaggers blew it with their extortionist tactics, but maybe it helps all sides recognize that they *don't* want to remain deadlocked, even in lesser struggles? I think for the most part, the progressive/liberal perspective is gaining populist ground naturally... I think that slow steady progress can be had on many fronts if there is no grandstanding or poor sportsmanship while that trend is in play. I think the same could happen for trends in favor of the conservative line, but I haven't seen much humility or good sportsmanship there... But I could be very wrong... I'm often a Pollyanna abut many issues. I no longer spend much time in direct conversation with strong Conservatives, so I don't know "the opposition"... but I do have plenty of friends who are socially progressive (abortion, gays, immigration, health-care, war, environment) but own guns, have fiscally conservative ideas, etc. It seems as if we have a new "Silent Majority" that aligns many of the issues of the day in progressive but not radical ways. I'm also a big proponent of personal change... I think Kennedy's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" is due for a serious revisit. How can *WE* help solve our national illiteracy problem (not spend more money, not testing the crap out of kids)? How can *WE* reduce violence (not hire more police, not lock more people up?). How can *WE* help feed the hungry? Can self-organizing, thoughtful boycott movements shape corporate policies better than regulation and loud protests? Can refusing to work-for, invest-in, buy-from our worst offenders help fix things? Not churlish/childish protests and angry demands, but thoughtful, engaged research into who and where the worst offenders are, followed by thoughtful, actionable responses? I may be being PollyAnna about this. I feel that we are too accustomed to demanding that our Federal Government fix our problems through spending and regulation and then cynically disappointed when it doesn't happen. I'm not playing Small Government here, I'm suggesting that some grassroots *change* might obviate the need for so much political struggle and possibly more personal action/responsibility might in fact lead to reduced need for gov't regulation and spending. I hope this was responsive enough to your questions, I know it was a bit of a tangent. - Steve > > > > On 11/10/2013 10:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> StephT - >> >> Thanks for more insight into your perspective, including your >> politics and demographic embedding. I appreciate your thoughts about >> models in this context. >> >> What I think I appreciated most about Woodard's model was it's >> richness as you call it, but that it seemed to have *little* if any >> embellishment or gratuitous richness. My own myopia had me thinking >> that his distinction of El Norte from Far West was gratuitous, but >> the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me. >> >> I also think it is natural that each person making a set of >> abstractions or model will generate one that reflect their >> perspective. One person's perspective is another persons bias, if >> you will. >> >> While I think the model Woodard presents is relatively accurate and >> useful for many purposes, I can see how his biases stated in his >> narratives against the Conservatives (especially the ultra/teabunch) >> would put off those sympathetic to them. But he is not alone, not >> in the least. As I think I have stated before, the basic message of >> the Tea Party or even Conservatives in general is not the source of >> my challenge to them, it is their methods (as you speak of "soiling >> the manger") that puts me at odds with them. Mean spirited, >> ruthless, selfish. >> >> <political rant based on personal anecdotes> >> >> I may have a foot halfway down the Autism spectrum because I often >> take things very literally, in this case, the stated ideals of >> political parties or platforms. This allows me to (try to?) take >> such things at pure face value... accept the story and ignore the >> messenger and in fact the behaviour of the messenger... at least for >> a while. But eventually my intuitive side screams at me to "notice >> the behaviour" and I have to give up on them. I helped usher in the >> Reagan/Bush 80's with my single little vote based on the ideals of >> the Conservatives, but it wasn't long into that period that I >> realized they didn't really mean what I heard them say. "Trickle >> Down Economics" was probably the most blatant of it... "give to the >> rich and they will take care of the poor". >> >> While I worked at the gem of the military-industrial complex, and >> believed in the principle of "someone has to have the big stick, it >> might as well be us", I was still too young and naive to realize that >> the problem with being the one holding the big stick is "who you >> become" when you have power. Power *is* corruption... and we've been >> building our relative power in the world for at least 100 years, and >> for the most part what it has bought us is the (deserved) mistrust of >> the world. Despite our inneffectuality in places like Vietnam and >> now Afghanistan/Pakistan, we do have a very big stick and we seem to >> like to use it, and if it isn't effective enough, that is good enough >> reason to go shopping for a bigger stick. >> >> Once the gild was off the Conservative Idealism, I found the Liberal >> Idealism a refreshing embrace... I was naturally empathetic and even >> with Conservative Ideals, wanted everyone to "be happy", so it was >> easy for me to accept the social progressiveness of the Liberals even >> though I had some doubts about *their* methods (especially fiscal >> policy). At least it didn't seem mean-spirited. Then the Political >> Correct movement caught hold, and I saw *that* side of the mean >> spirit... a fairly strict code with specific prescribed terms, >> activities and postures, and fairly significant penalty (strong >> censure and even excommunication from the group) for small deviations >> from the code, I was sickened. This left me happily, "a man without >> a Party", but wiser for having taken the two dominant ones seriously >> for a bit. >> >> My personal experience, coming from Greater Appalachia rootstock but >> raised in the Far West and El Norte made it easy for me to appreciate >> the Libertarian's self-reliance model (but not THEIR mean-spirited >> style either). I became (yet more) cynical about the political >> process and the political milieu itself and subsequently sat out >> nearly 2 decades of elections, sniping from the sidelines, ignoring >> the trite "if you don't vote, you can't have an opinion" retorts. My >> sympathies have always been socially progressive but my intellect >> clung to more conservative fiscal models... >> >> I now feel very heretical in my opinion that we are an incredibly >> wealthy nation of spoiled brats, conservative and liberal alike, rich >> and poor (to some extent) alike. Against the liberal position, our >> biggest concern seems to be that our poor can't eat healthily because >> all they can afford is McDonalds, or that we need to spend more money >> on education because clearly too many children learn little or >> nothing after 12 years in the system, or that everyone should have >> equal access to a broken medical system? On the conservative side, >> it seems to oscillate between the belligerence of "the Second >> Amendment guarantees me the right to build, maintain and flaunt in >> public a large arsenal of high tech weapons backed by an arbitrary >> large store of ammunition" and "Sanctity of Marriage" and >> "Anti-Choice" rhetoric and "if we test kids hard enough they will be >> forced to have learned something". While I appreciate the Guy >> Fawkes style sentiments of Occupy and the 99% rhetoric, I think we >> should examine that *we* are the 1% in the world (well, maybe 10 or >> 20%) but nevertheless, while we want to blame *our* elites for our >> troubles (and with good cause) we seem to miss the fact that all but >> the most destitute among us *are the elites* to the third world and >> are causing *them* the same troubles, extracting their labor and >> their resources for our comfort and convenience. >> >> We have lost many of the self- reliant skills and make-do >> perspectives that defined us during our expansionist/pioneer period >> and we have distorted others (e.g. contemporary gun/vigilante >> culture). We are not who we are proud of being for the most part, >> and I find that sad. Each of those 11 nations in Woodard's model >> have a strong story about what makes them unique, what they are proud >> of. I hope we might look to those ideals and return to them, not as >> laurels to rest on, but things to aspire to. I don't have enough >> direct experience with Tidewater and Deep South to know exactly WHAT >> makes them proud of themselves, but I'm sure there is some honest, >> deep goodness at the roots of their story. The rest of it may only >> see them through a caricature of slaveholding, mysogeny and racial >> violence, but I suspect there is something less negative to work with >> there... and the rest of our caricature of them doesn't help them >> aspire to it. >> >> I believe that the only way out of our spoiled and usurious >> lifestyles is to return to the roots of what we can honestly be proud >> of and focus on that. In many ways, I feel we long ago threw out >> the baby and kept the bathwater. It shows in virtually every walk >> of life. We are now much more interested in what everyone else is >> "doing wrong" than what "right we should be doing". We are more >> worried about how ObamaCare is going to improve or hurt our personal >> lot than how it might shape the country and the relations between the >> haves and have nots, how it might reshape our entire medical system >> (for better or worse). >> >> I think the Tea Party has "shat the nest", I think they will never be >> taken seriously again except by themselves, and the Republicans in >> general will be tainted by them forever as well. I think that a >> pluralistic voice of mature, thoughtful citizens can reshape our >> political landscape, but I'm not sure we have many of those voices in >> Politics or in the Media. We have a few, and they tend to be on the >> Left side of the Aisle. It is their style of maturity and >> thoughtfulness that I want to see spread, the right message >> (Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, etc.) that will spring from a >> larger thoughtful debate on all topics. I believe that the times may >> be right for a return to responsible populism, but it does require >> putting down our entitled perspective and many of our divisive >> assumptions. >> >> Woodard, by explaining more of what *actually* divides us in more >> detail may have set the stage for that larger conversation. I won't >> hold my breath for it, but I am seeking to open that conversation >> with others where I can... to try to break the stalemate that has >> gripped us for decades. The silver lining of the TeaParty's >> "brinksmanship" may be that it is helping to force us to this >> position. I think also that Obama's failures on so many fronts also >> helps force and inform a better discussion. I think Obama's >> intentions were sincere, and I believe that much of his failures >> reflect more on his opponents than on his allies, but more than >> anything, it should show us how deadlocked we are. Our next two >> elections need to make significant qualitative changes, not just more >> of the same, each leaning further and further out of the canoe trying >> to tip it their way. >> </political rant> >> >> - Steve >>> >>> Also more insights, thanks. I consider the 11 Nations as a model. >>> With all models there >>> are abstractions in order to make it manageable to gain insights of >>> the domain. Mr. Woodard's >>> model is very rich as models go - certainly more so than the binary >>> scales you point out have >>> become trite. >>> >>> My personal 'model" for models is a rough diamond in the process of >>> being polished. Each model >>> is a facet - rough or partially polished - of the diamond and >>> provides a point-of-view/insight into >>> the knowledge domain represented by the diamond. Multiple models >>> are appropriate with each >>> providing a set of abstractions. >>> >>> I agree there are multiple ways to abstract a domain into a model. >>> We each have personal experiences >>> with portion(s) of the model and thus have opinions on how that >>> portion should be restructured. >>> But we also have to consider our perspective is limited to our >>> personal experiences. If the author applied >>> an "abstracting process" consistently and as objectively as >>> possible, then we should consider the >>> efficacy of the model as a whole. >>> >>> I also did not expect the upper Midwest to be Yankeedom. I would >>> have thought it was thoroughly >>> Midlands. In Minnesota our cultural history is predominantly either >>> Scandinavian or German. We >>> are very community oriented - with a local public school in the >>> midst of and surrounded by >>> residential homes. Which I understand is a Yankeedom characteristic >>> of my Puritan ancestors. >>> (I do not condone the Puritan "violence" they committed against >>> other non-Puritan faiths) So I >>> look at Mr. Woodard's argument to assess why he considers my region >>> Yankeedom-based and not >>> an entirely separate "nation" of Scandinavians. >>> >>> MSP - airport designation of Minneapolis-St Paul. >>> >>> My attraction to the model is for its historical, layered, >>> montage-like perspective. Multiple layers >>> of tissue-paper provide a perceived color or shape that was not >>> anticipated or designed by any of the >>> underlying layers. My paternal line came from New England via Erie >>> PA and Chicago IL. My maternal >>> line is mostly German and Welsh (with a rumored Loyalist fighting >>> for the Brits). They came through >>> Kentucky, Indiana, and finally to Chicago. I like the 11 Nations >>> model for its historical perspective >>> on how our country came to be in its current form. >>> >>> My part of this discussion is based on the book/model as a whole. I >>> have not focused much on >>> the specific articles using the model to critique the Tea Party and >>> gun-violence. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> StephT >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/9/2013 10:37 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>>> StephenT - >>>>> I would like to hear your critique of the 11 Nations framework. I >>>>> recently read the book >>>>> and found it fascinating. The book is well researched and >>>>> documented - though the reading >>>>> style of the book is in the "popular-style" as opposed to an >>>>> academic textbook-style. >>>> Thank you for asking. I appreciate that you have read his book. >>>> >>>> No simple binary subdivision of this country (red/blue, >>>> north/south, urban/rural, etc) is likely to be more than of limited >>>> use in understanding "who we are" and in my opinion, of getting off >>>> the high-centered position we've been in for a (very?) long time. >>>> >>>> As for my quibbles: >>>> >>>> I'd want to split TX (and perhaps the OK/KS parts of Appalachia) >>>> and give them to a separate Texas itself... despite Daniel Boone >>>> and the Alamo and all that. They are specifically bellicose >>>> enough to demand their own identity and sadly, that alone might be >>>> enough to grant it to them. I believe their affinities to the West >>>> and the South are different than the rest of Appalachia. >>>> >>>> I was surprised to see so much of the upper Midwest declared part >>>> of Yankeedom. I don't have a lot of direct experience, so my >>>> opinions here are very thin. I'd be inclined to coin a "Rustbelt >>>> Nation" running from PA across OH, capturing Chicago and the WI/MI >>>> industrial centers. >>>> >>>> I think his distinction between the Far West and El Norte are >>>> overstated but that is probably my own myopia, having spent my life >>>> in those regions. >>>> >>>> More importantly, I think he mischaracterizes the West's >>>> "dependence on the Federal Government". The railroad and the >>>> post-civil war strengthening of the Federal Government *did* lead >>>> the bulk of the resources/land in the west to be owned by the US >>>> government and made available to big industry at a discount to >>>> exploit. >>>> >>>> The *people* of the west, however, were already operating small >>>> scale, subsistence "extractive" industry... they were ranchers, >>>> farmers, prospectors, hunters/trappers. Big money/industry >>>> co-opted not only their labor but their hearts and minds to some >>>> extent. It was still happening in MY youth (60's, 70's and >>>> beyond) with big money/industry offering good/quick money in return >>>> for support by the locals to do more and more invasive things in >>>> their homelands. They pitted the locals against "the Feds", all >>>> the while surely buying "the Feds" off back in DC. Gun culture in >>>> the west derives from a very real recent (1-2 generations) utility >>>> to most of it. >>>> >>>>> I think of the book as a modern day version of the layered >>>>> invasions of the British Isles over >>>>> the last 1500 years. The original Celts then the usual-suspects >>>>> of Angles, Saxons, Vikings, >>>>> Normans - and in the recent 50+ years - American Pop Culture. I >>>>> say modern-day as the >>>>> 11 Nations formed in the last 400 years rather than the 1500 of >>>>> the British Isles invasions. >>>> I think something similar can be found everywhere. For example >>>> when you think of the Byzantine then Roman colonizations, then how >>>> the various Mongols/Huns/Vandals/Goths etc. swept through Europe >>>> and even Northern Africa, or the many peoples and influences in the >>>> Indian Subcontinent, it is staggering. >>>>> I think we all see elements of his main thesis in our local areas. >>>>> In MSP, we have neighborhoods >>>>> that historically were settled by different ethnic groups - lots >>>>> of Scandinavians in this region. >>>>> In recent decades we have Hmong, Somali, and Mid-East cultures >>>>> settling in. >>>> MSP? I'm not sure I know where you hail from.. the UK? >>>>> >>>>> The article you linked referred to a Woodard article at Tufts. I >>>>> link it here. It takes the basic >>>>> 11 Nations Framework and uses it to review gun violence in America. >>>> Coming from a neo-frontier gun-culture, I am saddened by the >>>> texture and the level of gun abuse/violence we have today. It is >>>> paralleled (and surely eclipsed) by the violence we do to ourselves >>>> and eachother through addiction and economic warfare (home and >>>> abroad). I think much of our gun violence has roots in deeper >>>> places (poverty, addiction, loss of identity)... one can say "guns >>>> don't kill people" "people do" or "bullets do" but our >>>> socioeconomic conditions are what set the stage for it in many ways. >>>>> I have seen other articles >>>>> by Mr. Woodard concerning the Tea Party in reference to the early >>>>> October Gov't shut-down. >>>> See my thoughts on Tea Party under separate cover. >>>> >>>> If this turns out to be a little (more than usual) ragged, it is >>>> because my internet has been out most of the day and I'm now trying >>>> to get this out in case I lose it again. >>>> >>>> - Steve >>>>> >>>>> At Tuffs on Gun Violence: >>>>> http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At Washington Monthly on Gov't Shutdown: >>>>> Oct. 15, 2013: Regional Differences Have Doomed the Tea Party >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/10/regional_differences_have_doom047323.php >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nov/Dec 2011: A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2011/features/a_geography_lesson_for_the_tea032846.php?page=all >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Amazon: >>>>> http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I admit to lacking the chops to professionally "vet" Mr. Woodard's >>>>> theory. However, the book >>>>> has verisimilitude in its structure and is heavily documented. I >>>>> hope to hear more from you >>>>> for an additional point-of-view. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> StephT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/8/2013 11:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>>>>> An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. >>>>>> Suess' cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I >>>>>> don't agree with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations >>>>>> (5.5x less general than red/blue?) it captures what I know our >>>>>> cultural "melting pot" to be crufted into: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ============================================================ >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
pride and entitlement (was 11 American Nations)
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
I'm always late to the game, since I (try to) unplug on weekends. But this excerpt caught my eye: On 11/10/2013 08:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > We are not > who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad. Each > of those 11 nations in Woodard's model have a strong story about what > makes them unique, what they are proud of. I hope we might look to > those ideals and return to them, not as laurels to rest on, but things > to aspire to. > > [...] > > I believe that the only way out of our spoiled and usurious lifestyles > is to return to the roots of what we can honestly be proud of and focus > on that. In many ways, I feel we long ago threw out the baby and kept > the bathwater. It shows in virtually every walk of life. We are now > much more interested in what everyone else is "doing wrong" than what > "right we should be doing". To be proud of something that's biologically (or otherwise, I guess) determined seems a bit odd, to me. E.g. other Texans claim to be proud of their being born and/or raised in Texas makes me laugh and cringe at the same time. (To this day, Renee' claims that I'm not _really_ a Texan because I tend to point out the stupidity that is most of Texas ... my addiction to pickup trucks isn't enough, apparently. Having been adopted as an infant, I can't really argue with her... I used to imagine my biological mom was sequestered at a distant nunnery in Houston for 6-10 months to avoid the shame of birthing a bastard.) Anyway, I can't accept determined attributes as being something worthy of pride. Enter the "free will" -- for individuals -- and "stigmergy" -- for collectives -- debate(s). What attributes can we really be proud of and what do we chalk up as hysteretic? Similarly, what can we _expect_ from those around us without seeming "spoiled and usurious"? Even the most John Wayne style individualist (self sufficient, yet generous, honorable, naively respectful, etc.) will end up disrespecting her environment (people and things) because individualism is ... bullsh!t, to put it nicely. So, one not only should we have expectations, we _must_ in order to fully understand symbiosis. (That reminds me of the continuing increase in narcissism scores of college students. Oddly, as civilization progresses, entitlement progresses... funny that.) What should we expect, if not lives better, richer, more luxurious, more relaxing, than our parents'? -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [EXTERNAL] 11 American Nations
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
I would analyze this using the algorithm I learned from my history teacher in high school - Social, Political, Economic, Moral, Emotional - drawing on openly available information from the World-Wide Web. In some ways, this is a big data exercise, albeit drawing from previous big data sources.
Social - I would start with http://aschmann.net/AmEng/#SmallMapUnitedStates, overlay that with this - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - and this - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/10/us/20090310-immigration-explorer.html . The latter two are overly simplistic, like all big data projects, lumping together disparate groups under one label. A major example is New Mexico - the Wikimedia article recognizes the Spanish distinction for many counties in New Mexico, but the NYT (typically racially insensitive) lumps all Hispanics together under the "Latin America" origin. However, they do seem to show what people believe is their cultural heritage. This article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States - provides a reasonable summary of immigration to the United States. I haven't yet found a good article about migration within the United States. That is also important in understanding the resultant cultures. Political - I would use a selection of red/blue/other maps starting at the local level up to state level. If I was being pedantic, I'd go on to analyze the actual votes of elected officials with respect to party platforms - there are groups who monitor voting records whose information might be useful. The point being to show the past and current political atmospheres of the various regions. I suspect this would find a lot of contradictions - places where the local politicians are one variety while the national-level are another. This reflects the changing political atmosphere - voters understand that politicians in DC gain power with longevity and are reluctant to change even when political views are not a match. Economic - Per-state GDP information plus industry type information plus growth/decline of both. General categories of industry are also useful - extractive versus manufacturing, for example. Government spending at all levels is important - New Mexico is shaped by the Federal spending in this state. That reminds me of another factor - the percentage of property rights owned by the government (land, water, mineral, air, et cetera). Moral - Crime statistics, trends, criminal/victim demographics, religiosity (numbers of churches, numbers of churchgoers, church/sect/cult), marriage/divorce rates, maybe throw some modern-day Kinsey reports into the mix to account for marital fidelity and extreme deviancy. Opinion poll results about moral issues would be a major source. Emotional - Music - http://martinprosperity.org/papers/Geography%20of%20Music%20Preferences%20formatted.pdf Literature is another emotional indicator. I would look at various electronic media emotional content analysis, but I fear that does not adequately reflect the total population. Hobbies are a possible emotional indicator - how much people in a region indulge in hobbies vs not having time or energy or interest for them, possibly the type of hobby. The trick is to collect all of this data and then analyze for various geographic areas, both historical and current, to determine where these change significantly enough to show a different culture. The analysis should start with the smallest feasible geographic units and slowly build up if it isn't stable at that level. If enough variables, maybe 10 out of 100, are different from one county to the next - they are different enough to be marked as such. The sub-nations or regions are collections of geographic regions that fit within a fuzzy filter of themselves. I'd expect that some of the data would not vary enough to be a major input to this process, while others (language) have much greater variance. That would lend itself to weighting by variability of the indicator. Another part of the analysis might look at the variability of indicators in a region - if that's possible - so that cultures that tolerate more variability would stand out. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: [hidden email] SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) On Nov 9, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Ray - > > I agree that (especially with Woodard's attempt to address the Tea Party directly) his biases do show, but I would still contend that while "tainted" by that, his general structure is far from invalidated. > > Can you provide an alternative geo-political structuring or modifications to his that you believe are more accurate (or even align with your own biases better)? > > I'm much less interested in the conclusions that Woodard draws from his framework than the reframing of the conversation it implies. I'm very tired of the traditional Blue/Grey, Rural/Urban, Coastal/Heartland, North/South, East/West divisions.... they have their place but do not suffice to explain a lot and seem to serve mainly to keep us high-centered. > > - Steve > > PS Response to StephenT in progress... >> The concept is tainted by the cultural biases of the author. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Steve Smith [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:27 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [FRIAM] 11 American Nations >> >> An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' >> cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with >> it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than >> red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be >> crufted into: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [EXTERNAL] 11 American Nations
|
|
Ray:
Thanks for the resources to investigate. This will take a bit of time. However, at what point do you say "I don't have the time to duplicate or generate my own research to derive a model similar to 11 Nations"? We can not all be experts in everything. At some point we must depend on others to have done a "reasonably" objective job of creating their model. I don't know of a formal rubric / algorithm / process by which one critiques scholarly works from outside the field. I am sure such tools exist. It looks like you are showing one below. I wonder if there is such a process taught in Library Science? Do such folks need to critique books as they are published as to the efficacy of adding them to the local collection? StephT On 11/11/2013 11:40 AM, Parks, Raymond
wrote:
I would analyze this using the algorithm I learned from my history teacher in high school - Social, Political, Economic, Moral, Emotional - drawing on openly available information from the World-Wide Web. In some ways, this is a big data exercise, albeit drawing from previous big data sources. Social - I would start with http://aschmann.net/AmEng/#SmallMapUnitedStates, overlay that with this - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - and this - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/10/us/20090310-immigration-explorer.html . The latter two are overly simplistic, like all big data projects, lumping together disparate groups under one label. A major example is New Mexico - the Wikimedia article recognizes the Spanish distinction for many counties in New Mexico, but the NYT (typically racially insensitive) lumps all Hispanics together under the "Latin America" origin. However, they do seem to show what people believe is their cultural heritage. This article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States - provides a reasonable summary of immigration to the United States. I haven't yet found a good article about migration within the United States. That is also important in understanding the resultant cultures. Political - I would use a selection of red/blue/other maps starting at the local level up to state level. If I was being pedantic, I'd go on to analyze the actual votes of elected officials with respect to party platforms - there are groups who monitor voting records whose information might be useful. The point being to show the past and current political atmospheres of the various regions. I suspect this would find a lot of contradictions - places where the local politicians are one variety while the national-level are another. This reflects the changing political atmosphere - voters understand that politicians in DC gain power with longevity and are reluctant to change even when political views are not a match. Economic - Per-state GDP information plus industry type information plus growth/decline of both. General categories of industry are also useful - extractive versus manufacturing, for example. Government spending at all levels is important - New Mexico is shaped by the Federal spending in this state. That reminds me of another factor - the percentage of property rights owned by the government (land, water, mineral, air, et cetera). Moral - Crime statistics, trends, criminal/victim demographics, religiosity (numbers of churches, numbers of churchgoers, church/sect/cult), marriage/divorce rates, maybe throw some modern-day Kinsey reports into the mix to account for marital fidelity and extreme deviancy. Opinion poll results about moral issues would be a major source. Emotional - Music - http://martinprosperity.org/papers/Geography%20of%20Music%20Preferences%20formatted.pdf Literature is another emotional indicator. I would look at various electronic media emotional content analysis, but I fear that does not adequately reflect the total population. Hobbies are a possible emotional indicator - how much people in a region indulge in hobbies vs not having time or energy or interest for them, possibly the type of hobby. The trick is to collect all of this data and then analyze for various geographic areas, both historical and current, to determine where these change significantly enough to show a different culture. The analysis should start with the smallest feasible geographic units and slowly build up if it isn't stable at that level. If enough variables, maybe 10 out of 100, are different from one county to the next - they are different enough to be marked as such. The sub-nations or regions are collections of geographic regions that fit within a fuzzy filter of themselves. I'd expect that some of the data would not vary enough to be a major input to this process, while others (language) have much greater variance. That would lend itself to weighting by variability of the indicator. Another part of the analysis might look at the variability of indicators in a region - if that's possible - so that cultures that tolerate more variability would stand out. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: [hidden email] SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) On Nov 9, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Steve Smith wrote:Ray - I agree that (especially with Woodard's attempt to address the Tea Party directly) his biases do show, but I would still contend that while "tainted" by that, his general structure is far from invalidated. Can you provide an alternative geo-political structuring or modifications to his that you believe are more accurate (or even align with your own biases better)? I'm much less interested in the conclusions that Woodard draws from his framework than the reframing of the conversation it implies. I'm very tired of the traditional Blue/Grey, Rural/Urban, Coastal/Heartland, North/South, East/West divisions.... they have their place but do not suffice to explain a lot and seem to serve mainly to keep us high-centered. - Steve PS Response to StephenT in progress...The concept is tainted by the cultural biases of the author. ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Smith [[hidden email]] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email] Subject: [EXTERNAL] [FRIAM] 11 American Nations An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess' cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be crufted into: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: pride and entitlement (was 11 American Nations)
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen:
I took Steve's comments to refer to the behaviors that help define the people in each of the 11 Nations - not necessarily the genetically determined characteristics. For example: Appalachia & Yankeedom - the independence that brought them to America Yankeedom & Midlands - the family and community orientation. et cetera I took Steve's comments to mean if these groups could focus on the positive behavioral characteristics we could collectively interact more positively. I understand your frustration at not being accepted even though you have been a resident of a location for a very long time. I hear that New England is the same way .... as well as my own State of Minnesota. Tho to be (funny) fair, if you put on the Fargo Accent you will fit in "just swell, don' tcha know.." (Just mimic the speech patterns of Sarah Palin (I don't recommend her politics). Her family and others were settled from Northern Minnesota to a region of Alaska in the 1920s for employment. I understand the entire valley in Alaska all speak with the Fargo accent. StephT On 11/11/2013 11:04 AM, glen wrote: > I'm always late to the game, since I (try to) unplug on weekends. But > this excerpt caught my eye: > > On 11/10/2013 08:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> We are not >> who we are proud of being for the most part, and I find that sad. Each >> of those 11 nations in Woodard's model have a strong story about what >> makes them unique, what they are proud of. I hope we might look to >> those ideals and return to them, not as laurels to rest on, but things >> to aspire to. >> >> [...] >> >> I believe that the only way out of our spoiled and usurious lifestyles >> is to return to the roots of what we can honestly be proud of and focus >> on that. In many ways, I feel we long ago threw out the baby and kept >> the bathwater. It shows in virtually every walk of life. We are now >> much more interested in what everyone else is "doing wrong" than what >> "right we should be doing". > To be proud of something that's biologically (or otherwise, I guess) > determined seems a bit odd, to me. E.g. other Texans claim to be proud > of their being born and/or raised in Texas makes me laugh and cringe at > the same time. (To this day, Renee' claims that I'm not _really_ a > Texan because I tend to point out the stupidity that is most of Texas > ... my addiction to pickup trucks isn't enough, apparently. Having been > adopted as an infant, I can't really argue with her... I used to imagine > my biological mom was sequestered at a distant nunnery in Houston for > 6-10 months to avoid the shame of birthing a bastard.) > > Anyway, I can't accept determined attributes as being something worthy > of pride. Enter the "free will" -- for individuals -- and "stigmergy" > -- for collectives -- debate(s). What attributes can we really be proud > of and what do we chalk up as hysteretic? > > Similarly, what can we _expect_ from those around us without seeming > "spoiled and usurious"? Even the most John Wayne style individualist > (self sufficient, yet generous, honorable, naively respectful, etc.) > will end up disrespecting her environment (people and things) because > individualism is ... bullsh!t, to put it nicely. So, one not only > should we have expectations, we _must_ in order to fully understand > symbiosis. (That reminds me of the continuing increase in narcissism > scores of college students. Oddly, as civilization progresses, > entitlement progresses... funny that.) What should we expect, if not > lives better, richer, more luxurious, more relaxing, than our parents'? > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: [EXTERNAL] 11 American Nations
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Thompson
The SPEME algorithm works for historical analysis by looking at multiple sources (primary, secondary, et cetera) and placing the person within those spectrums. Once you have the sources placed within those spaces (and they are spaces, not just ranges), one can look at their differences and see if those are observational or cultural (i.e. did one person only see the war events from limited perspective or does he have a cultural bias about the warring parties). Only then do you have a chance at understanding what was probably the reality - if you can keep your cultural biases out of the process.
As for the "good enough" issue - I think it is possible for ordinary individuals to duplicate the 11 nations work using other methods if they are willing to put in the non-trivial effort. You could use free or low-cost resources at either Amazon or Microsoft to pull in all of the data one considers relevant from the WWW, run it through MapReduce (preferably using an abstraction language), and generate analyses. Finding like-minded individuals would distribute the load. The Internet and WWW make this possible - before them, only an academic with access to a lot of source material could have done it. Likewise, only like-minded academics would have found each other and distributed the work load. Now, like-minded ordinary individuals can find each other via the Internet and WWW. This is part of the major current phenomenon of our time - the gradual shift of what used to require large, communal resources to the possibility of being done by individuals. LIbrary science is driven by categorization and customers - what doesn't the library have and what will the library patrons demand. I'm sure there are many librarians who think the works of Will and Ariel Durant are substandard - but their libraries have those books. BTW, I personally like their work for the breadth and, if one considers the background of the authors, the books can be used with that grain of salt. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: [hidden email] SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder) On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Stephen Thompson wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Hysteresis, Stigmergy, Free Will, and Enlightened Self-Interest
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen -
> To be proud of something that's biologically (or otherwise, I guess) > determined seems a bit odd, to me. E.g. other Texans claim to be proud > of their being born and/or raised in Texas makes me laugh and cringe at > the same time. ... > > Anyway, I can't accept determined attributes as being something worthy > of pride. Enter the "free will" -- for individuals -- and "stigmergy" > -- for collectives -- debate(s). What attributes can we really be proud > of and what do we chalk up as hysteretic? In the spirit of staying (returning to) the list's avowed topic, Let's do look at this in terms of hysteresis and stigmergy (which you brought up). If we take our culture of origin (not neccesarily birth nor genetics, but our formative years, our nuclear family, our community) as a stigmergic system with hysteresis but we also acknowledge human consciousness, self-awareness and free will, then I think you can see the distinction between what I said and what you heard. If we truly understand the complex dynamic of the social system we are embedded in (and in this case, shaped by) then we might have a chance of exercising some of our free will in an enlightened self-interest manner. What I'm espousing is an attempt to understand (be enlightened) about our own nature (to the extent it was determined by our origins) and to exercise whatever free will we have to A) improve our own lot within the context of the system(s) we are embedded in, and B) to groom (change our behaviour/trajectory in the system in a way that predictably changes the whole system) those systems in a way that we believe suits our self-interest. Hysteresis itself does not admit free-will, and stigmergy, a bit more refined, the feedback system being mediated by "symbols" of sorts is a step closer. While neither model free will, it does seem that self-aware agency within a system allows for free will to be part of the dynamic. You might have a better way of saying this (or denying it)? You found the embedding of Texas too difficult to change or endure so you kicked a few of your jets in a way that threw you out of it's orbit and into another orbit... others who remained in Texas may have *liked* the very things you did not and chose to stay and reinforce them as best they could (images of GeeDubya dragging mesquite branches around on his ranch for the cameras) while others stayed and perhaps tried to adjust the Symbol sets involved in the Stygmergic Loops (e.g... those fighting against the death penalty, etc.). Think Willy Nelson's song: "Mommas - Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to be Cowboys". > Similarly, what can we _expect_ from those around us without seeming > "spoiled and usurious"? Even the most John Wayne style individualist > (self sufficient, yet generous, honorable, naively respectful, etc.) > will end up disrespecting her environment (people and things) because > individualism is ... bullsh!t, to put it nicely. I think our species has a great deal of diverse ability... as omnivores we can survive, even thrive on a wide range of foodstuffs, as tool-wielders with opposable thumbs (and language?) we can modify our environment (physical and social) in a way that lets us live everywhere from (nearly) the highest mountains, the coldest arctics, the scantiest of islands, the driest of deserts... and as social animals, we can survive and thrive in a wide variety of social contexts. Even a single individual can engage in a strong collective during part of their life, and become a hermit for another part. We are all Siddhartha if we choose to be. I think you can see the difference between a healthy member of a healthy group and a "spoiled and usurious" parasite living on a stew of resources taken thoughtlessly from "the commons" by pirates supported by whatever it is said "parasites" can offer them (votes, deference, $$?). > So, one not only > should we have expectations, we _must_ in order to fully understand > symbiosis. I didn't mean to dis the concept of expectations. Expectation without commensurate responsibility is what I call Entitlement. When we presume something is owed to us (often because of our genetics or our nationality or perhaps just the luck of our circumstances), I think we are engaging in UNENLIGHTENED self-interest. We may get what we expect but we also likely don't appreciate the full context of our "having" and whether it bites us in our own lifetimes or not, it likely bites our friends, family, children... or theirs... or more likely, someone we've never met but would probably have sympathy for if we realized what we were doing to them? Maybe Xenophobic, Jingoistic, Racist strategies have a high utility factor within many contexts, but I believe that we are evolving away from those being required (Tit for Tat?) to survive and possibly counter to being able to thrive in the world shrunk small by communication and transportation. > (That reminds me of the continuing increase in narcissism > scores of college students. Oddly, as civilization progresses, > entitlement progresses... funny that.) What should we expect, if not > lives better, richer, more luxurious, more relaxing, than our parents'? I have no problem with everyone aspiring to a richer, more luxurious, possibly more relaxing but also more adventurous, more interesting, more suited to becoming more enlightened and to pursuing the self-interests informed by that. None of that requires the bulk of what passes for "progress" today. Fortunately my children ?spontaneously? recognized that part of the vector of the trajectory I'd helped put them on was bogus. While they do like a good roof, warm durable clothing, and nourishing and tasty foodstuffs, they are seeking something more than simply more quantity or hyperbolic versions of that. Perhaps they had to be two generations away from the shadow of our "great depression" from "the great wars" or from the political and economic forces that drove some of their ancestors to put all their worldy wealth down on a one-way ticket to North America. Perhaps in the third world and various "emerging Nations" this is what people have to focus on... more calories, a larger suite of nutrients, a roof and walls and clothing that protects them from the elements. I grant those people might naturally be focused on material quantity. But in the first world, it is latent (or not) hoarding IMO. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |