This is my first blog on the big "Gun Control Debate", but it may not be my last. I have been watching the debate and keeping my comments to myself so far. This debate is a very good example of the mental state and mental capacity of our population and it is not good. The debate has ranged around and has now boiled down to this key point. A large percentage of the USA population seems to favor more extensive background checks before a person can buy "another" gun. Notice that I say, "another" gun since all the proposals do not propose to take any guns away form those who now have guns. I don't have the exact number, but there are now many millions of guns in the hands of citizens here in the USA. Most of those people who favor more extensive background checks think that checks will have the affect of reducing shootings like the one at Sandy. They also think that more extensive background checks have "no" bad affects. Let's take a more detailed look at the facts and see if our population has it right.
Most of our citizens think that we need to keep guns out of the hands of "nuts". First, we need to see if we can agree on who is one of these "nuts". Try this. How would you predict which one of these "nuts" would use a gun to commit a crime? What do you think your batting average would be? How high do you think the prediction would have to be before you would deny one of our citizens who has not committed any kind of crime from owning a gun? In the case of a person who is on trial for murder with a gun, how sure does the jury have to be before they convict that person? If the person on trial can not afford a lawyer, how much should tax payers have to spend for his lawyer? Now back to the "nut" who has committed no crime but is not allowed to buy a gun. How much should us tax payers have to pay to defend that "nut's" constitutional right to buy a gun? I don't think you think that some government clerk should be able to deny a citizen who has not committed any crime from owning a gun do you? If a government clerk can deny you any of your constitutional rights do you think that is a road that we want to go down? I don't think so.
Who is going to examine the "nut" and recommend to the government clerk that the "nut's" right to buy a gun should be denied? Is it your preacher, a cop or a psychologist. What kind of batting average do you think cops or psychologist would have in "predicting" who, if they bought a gun, would then go out and kill someone with it? Let's take a group of 1,000 of these, so called, "nuts" who want to go out and buy a gun and see how many many would go out and kill someone. Out of that group of 1,000, let's assume that 1 would eventually go out and kill someone with the gun. With me on this one? The government clerk would deny 999 of these, so called, "nuts" the right to buy a gun who would never use their gun to commit any kind of crime. What if you were one of these 999 people who had some kind of mental problem, like depression or anxiety, would you go see a doctor if that doctor could "turn you in"? Who would defend your constitutional right against the government clerk to own a gun?
The "nuts" are not the "nuts" mentioned above, they are the "nuts" who want to deny people who have committed no crime their constitutional rights. You can not be put in jail or have your rights denied because of what you are thinking nor for your exercising your free speech. Part of the price we pay for free speech and the right to own a gun is that you have to also extend those same rights to a few "nuts". Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Boston Marathon, Bayes Theorem, Fungible
This is just a reminder of my prior blog where I pointed out how incompetent our President Obama is. He said two things so far that prove that he is incompetent. First, "We will hunt down those who did this and bring them to justice." The people who do things like this have zero fear of punishment so bring them to justice does nothing to prevent future such events. Second, he said, "Until we get all the fact, we can not say anymore about this event. We do not want to get ahead of the facts." Did Obama ever hear of Bayes' Theorem? If you read my prior blog, I tried to explain Bayes' Theorem which states that it is stupid not to take into account all "prior" knowledge. Obama acts like he just set foot on the Earth and has no prior knowledge about terrorists. We have so much prior knowledge about events like this that an idiot would know that it was 99% chances that this was a terrorist. It may be proven to be some kind of lightning strike, but until that can be proven, I am going with the position that it was a terrorist.
Why is it that our President Obama just can't say the word "terrorist"? I know a few mentally retarded people who could get the correct answer on this one in less than 10 seconds. Is our President that stupid or just a dishonest Judas?
Do not think because of my position on the event at the Boston Marathon that I do not have sad feelings for those injured. I do. My concern is with the very strange behavior of our President. I have been working to connect the dots on Obama and the picture that connecting the dots paint is not good for the future of our country. What else would you expect of a clever Judas?
PS----It is just like clock work. Obama is trying to close the barn door after the horse has gotten out. They should have not left the barn door open in the first place. Capturing and punishing those who set the bomb will have zero affect on any other similar event happening again. If you figure, for example, that there are 1,000 people here in the USA who want to kill us and you capture 2, how much do you think it will reduce the chances of another event? There will still be 998 people out there who want to kill us. That is the reason that "prevention" is the only logical action. Further, if rather than catching the actual people who set the bomb, you just went out and grabbed 2 people from the 1,000 out there who want to kill us, wouldn't the odds of another event be exactly the same? The bottom line is, where should we spend out money? Catching people who have no fear of punishment or preventing similar events? We only have so much money to spend. Why is it that we can not understand that terrorists are "fungible". If you don't know what that means, look it up.
PS---One more point. Look at it this way. Rather than spending more than 50 million dollars trying to find tha bad guys and bring them to justice, why don't we just give each of those killed 10 million dollars? It would do the same to prevent more future events!
Why is it that our President Obama just can't say the word "terrorist"? I know a few mentally retarded people who could get the correct answer on this one in less than 10 seconds. Is our President that stupid or just a dishonest Judas?
Do not think because of my position on the event at the Boston Marathon that I do not have sad feelings for those injured. I do. My concern is with the very strange behavior of our President. I have been working to connect the dots on Obama and the picture that connecting the dots paint is not good for the future of our country. What else would you expect of a clever Judas?
PS----It is just like clock work. Obama is trying to close the barn door after the horse has gotten out. They should have not left the barn door open in the first place. Capturing and punishing those who set the bomb will have zero affect on any other similar event happening again. If you figure, for example, that there are 1,000 people here in the USA who want to kill us and you capture 2, how much do you think it will reduce the chances of another event? There will still be 998 people out there who want to kill us. That is the reason that "prevention" is the only logical action. Further, if rather than catching the actual people who set the bomb, you just went out and grabbed 2 people from the 1,000 out there who want to kill us, wouldn't the odds of another event be exactly the same? The bottom line is, where should we spend out money? Catching people who have no fear of punishment or preventing similar events? We only have so much money to spend. Why is it that we can not understand that terrorists are "fungible". If you don't know what that means, look it up.
PS---One more point. Look at it this way. Rather than spending more than 50 million dollars trying to find tha bad guys and bring them to justice, why don't we just give each of those killed 10 million dollars? It would do the same to prevent more future events!
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Dowry vs Darwin
What do you think about societies who have the custom of "dowries"? Don't know what that means? In some societies a girl will not be accepted by a potential husband unless the girl has enough wealth so that she is not a burden on the potential husband. Sounds like an awful custom, but it exists in many societies. What would you think if you had a girl rather than a boy? Having a girl could bankrupt a family by the process of dowry that would be required to get her married off. As you might guess, in many societies, the birth rate for girls is "much" lower than that for boys. As strange as this custom is, I see it as something that needs to be analysed. What impact does such a custom have on the characteristics of people who have lived under the rules of dowry over a long period of time? That is what I want to explore.
As you might have guessed, the custom of dowry has a big impact on birth rates. It is actually a form of birth control. If a family can not come up with an adequate dowry, their daughter my never marry and thus never have children. She does have one other alternative and that is to marry someone with a much lower social and economic standing. The net affect of this process is to assure that families that are not economically successful that their children will marry others who are in a similar situation.You may be starting to ask, "What has this to do with Darwin"? I think, a lot.
If economically successful people marry others who are also economically successful, it would stand to reason that any inherited characteristic that would aid in that economic success would be pass along and concentrated. Like wise, if the unsuccessful similarly marry and have children, their characteristics would also be concentrated. I am not going into detail on what I think the different characteristics are, but you would have to agree that this process of dowry does have an affect over time.
A little side note on how important mating patterns can have, let me tell you about modern milk cows. Today, we have cows that produce much more milk than did cows just a few generations ago. We would all have to say, "that is good", but did you know this? The ability of cows to produce such large amounts of milk is the result of selective breeding over many generations. If, however, we let these great cows breed randomly, the amount of milk produced would go down about 10% per generation. That means we could lose all the progress from years of selective breeding in just a few years. A key point is that the progress can be lost at a much faster rate than it was produced. Got that?
Darwin has been working to help us humans deal with the problems of the world and survive since the beginning of time. Like the practice of dowry that encouraged those who were successful in dealing with the problems of the world to reproduce, Darwin did the same thing. All this is a build up to the realization that us humans have been canceling out Darwin's efforts and that from the custom of dowry. The reason that I am so concerned about recent changes in human behavior is that, as with the milk cows, the work that took Darwin thousands of years can be lost in just a few generations. I do not claim to know what all those characteristics that Darwin was able to concentrate in us humans are to help us deal with the problems of the world, but I do know that they are being lost.
We may have modern medicine, but we are not healthier than we were just a few generations ago. We have more health problems today than we did a few years ago. The only difference is that the modern medicine allows us to survive. We may live longer, but it is not because we are healthier.
How about SAT test scores? They have been going down. Do you know why? Is it because we do not spend enough on education? I don't think so. Remember that taking Darwin out of milk cow breeding can cause milk production to go down as much as 10% per generation.
I know that it is not PC to discuss genetic factors unless it has to do with some known health problem. If genetics can affect basic health, why would you not expect it to affect other aspects of human existence? Like I said earlier, I don't know what the factors are, but I know that they are not "zero". I am not blind and I hope that you are not either. Look at the size of families today compared to a few generations ago. Notice that there is a very large difference in the size of families based on
cultural factors and economic success. Seems the wealthier a family is, the fewer children they have and the poorer a family is the more children they have. Some families don't even have both a mother and a father supporting their children. To not think this action does not have an affect on the genetics of our population is to be "blind" or stupid.
Watching grass grow has more action than human genetics, but that does not mean it is more significant. Keep your eyes and mind open because some very big things are happening and I don't think they will turn out to be good.
As you might have guessed, the custom of dowry has a big impact on birth rates. It is actually a form of birth control. If a family can not come up with an adequate dowry, their daughter my never marry and thus never have children. She does have one other alternative and that is to marry someone with a much lower social and economic standing. The net affect of this process is to assure that families that are not economically successful that their children will marry others who are in a similar situation.You may be starting to ask, "What has this to do with Darwin"? I think, a lot.
If economically successful people marry others who are also economically successful, it would stand to reason that any inherited characteristic that would aid in that economic success would be pass along and concentrated. Like wise, if the unsuccessful similarly marry and have children, their characteristics would also be concentrated. I am not going into detail on what I think the different characteristics are, but you would have to agree that this process of dowry does have an affect over time.
A little side note on how important mating patterns can have, let me tell you about modern milk cows. Today, we have cows that produce much more milk than did cows just a few generations ago. We would all have to say, "that is good", but did you know this? The ability of cows to produce such large amounts of milk is the result of selective breeding over many generations. If, however, we let these great cows breed randomly, the amount of milk produced would go down about 10% per generation. That means we could lose all the progress from years of selective breeding in just a few years. A key point is that the progress can be lost at a much faster rate than it was produced. Got that?
Darwin has been working to help us humans deal with the problems of the world and survive since the beginning of time. Like the practice of dowry that encouraged those who were successful in dealing with the problems of the world to reproduce, Darwin did the same thing. All this is a build up to the realization that us humans have been canceling out Darwin's efforts and that from the custom of dowry. The reason that I am so concerned about recent changes in human behavior is that, as with the milk cows, the work that took Darwin thousands of years can be lost in just a few generations. I do not claim to know what all those characteristics that Darwin was able to concentrate in us humans are to help us deal with the problems of the world, but I do know that they are being lost.
We may have modern medicine, but we are not healthier than we were just a few generations ago. We have more health problems today than we did a few years ago. The only difference is that the modern medicine allows us to survive. We may live longer, but it is not because we are healthier.
How about SAT test scores? They have been going down. Do you know why? Is it because we do not spend enough on education? I don't think so. Remember that taking Darwin out of milk cow breeding can cause milk production to go down as much as 10% per generation.
I know that it is not PC to discuss genetic factors unless it has to do with some known health problem. If genetics can affect basic health, why would you not expect it to affect other aspects of human existence? Like I said earlier, I don't know what the factors are, but I know that they are not "zero". I am not blind and I hope that you are not either. Look at the size of families today compared to a few generations ago. Notice that there is a very large difference in the size of families based on
cultural factors and economic success. Seems the wealthier a family is, the fewer children they have and the poorer a family is the more children they have. Some families don't even have both a mother and a father supporting their children. To not think this action does not have an affect on the genetics of our population is to be "blind" or stupid.
Watching grass grow has more action than human genetics, but that does not mean it is more significant. Keep your eyes and mind open because some very big things are happening and I don't think they will turn out to be good.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Bernie Madoff vs Obama
Bernie Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme for over 16 years before he was exposed. That's right 16 years. During that time he appeared to make more profit for his customers than any other stock manager. Per reports, smart people trusted their money with Madoff. We are not talking about a few close friends. We are talking about hundreds of people. There were also people who were in competition with Madoff who were earning less for their customers. After watching Madoff earn all that money for all those years, what do you think his customers , competitors and regulators thought about what Madoff was doing? Did you ever think about that? How could this guy beat all the brokers in the world year in and year out? Was he that smart? Was he that lucky? Did he have inside information? How did he do it? The whole thing boils down to one simple principle and you ask, "what is that?"
Here it is. If you are looking for the cause of something, you need a "complete" list of all the possible causes. In the case of Madoff, this list, for some reason, did not include the possibility that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. If that single possibility had been on the smart people's list, any high school kid could have concluded that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. The fact that it was not on the list, hundreds of supposedly smart people did not come the correct conclusion. Now, looking back this all seems so simple and it should have been, except for the fact that this simple principle was not used.
If you have followed this so far, the next point is to ask, "why not'? Why didn't some of these hundreds of people who claimed to be so smart did not have as a possibility on their list the possibility that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme? The reason is that these people were really not that smart. They had blind spots in their thinking. Madoff was a Jew and most of his customers were also Jews. Did they have too much trust in Madoff because the was also a Jew? Were most people intimidated by the presents of Madoff? Did he have "charm" that blinded them? I think that you could make a list that went on and on, but the bottom line is that they did not have a complete list of the possibilities and as a result Madoff stole millions of dollars with his Ponzi scheme before he was caught. You must be starting to ask, "what does this have to do with Obama?"
Here is what. Why is Obama doing all the strange things that he is doing? Are all of his actions connected with some plan? He was elected on the basis that he was going to "change" things, but he never told the stupid people who voted for him what those changes were going to be or how this country would be different or better after his changes were made. Isn't that right? Now, just like in the Madoff case most people have some kind of list of the basic reasons why Obama has been doing the things that he has. If you have your list, you will find that your reasons do not fit very well with Obama's actions. That should be a hint that you are not testing the correct reasons and thus do not have the correct reason on your list. Again, it is just like with Madoff. Would you like to know the correct reason that is missing from your list? It is not the Ponzi scheme as in the Madoff case. It is that Obama is a "Judas". He wants to destroy the USA and is doing every thing that he can to do just that. Unless you were smarter than those hundreds of people who did not see that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, you would not have concluded that Obama was a Judas either.
Did you ever hear someone comment about how smart Obama is or what a good speaker he is? Did you ever hear someone comment about what a nice family Obama has? I am sure that you did. What does this have to do with whether or not Obama is a Judas or not? Nothing! The fact is, Obama would not be a very convincing Judas if he appeared to be stupid, a poor speaker or had a dysfunctional family. Obama is a very good Judas, just like Madoff was a very good con man. The whole purpose of this blog is to open your eyes to the "possibility" that Obama is a Judas, just like it would have been nice if someone had opened hundreds of people's eyes that it was possible that Madoff was a con man.
How smart are you? Did you predict that Madoff was a con man? What is your prediction about Obama? Look in the mirror and ask if that person is really smart, has a blind spot or is honest?
PS---Obama has only been President for about 6 years. It took 16 years to expose Madoff, but in the case of Obama, were are not talking about a few million dollars. We are talking about our country and the future of our kids. What are the risks if you are wrong about Obama and he is a Judas?
Here it is. If you are looking for the cause of something, you need a "complete" list of all the possible causes. In the case of Madoff, this list, for some reason, did not include the possibility that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. If that single possibility had been on the smart people's list, any high school kid could have concluded that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. The fact that it was not on the list, hundreds of supposedly smart people did not come the correct conclusion. Now, looking back this all seems so simple and it should have been, except for the fact that this simple principle was not used.
If you have followed this so far, the next point is to ask, "why not'? Why didn't some of these hundreds of people who claimed to be so smart did not have as a possibility on their list the possibility that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme? The reason is that these people were really not that smart. They had blind spots in their thinking. Madoff was a Jew and most of his customers were also Jews. Did they have too much trust in Madoff because the was also a Jew? Were most people intimidated by the presents of Madoff? Did he have "charm" that blinded them? I think that you could make a list that went on and on, but the bottom line is that they did not have a complete list of the possibilities and as a result Madoff stole millions of dollars with his Ponzi scheme before he was caught. You must be starting to ask, "what does this have to do with Obama?"
Here is what. Why is Obama doing all the strange things that he is doing? Are all of his actions connected with some plan? He was elected on the basis that he was going to "change" things, but he never told the stupid people who voted for him what those changes were going to be or how this country would be different or better after his changes were made. Isn't that right? Now, just like in the Madoff case most people have some kind of list of the basic reasons why Obama has been doing the things that he has. If you have your list, you will find that your reasons do not fit very well with Obama's actions. That should be a hint that you are not testing the correct reasons and thus do not have the correct reason on your list. Again, it is just like with Madoff. Would you like to know the correct reason that is missing from your list? It is not the Ponzi scheme as in the Madoff case. It is that Obama is a "Judas". He wants to destroy the USA and is doing every thing that he can to do just that. Unless you were smarter than those hundreds of people who did not see that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, you would not have concluded that Obama was a Judas either.
Did you ever hear someone comment about how smart Obama is or what a good speaker he is? Did you ever hear someone comment about what a nice family Obama has? I am sure that you did. What does this have to do with whether or not Obama is a Judas or not? Nothing! The fact is, Obama would not be a very convincing Judas if he appeared to be stupid, a poor speaker or had a dysfunctional family. Obama is a very good Judas, just like Madoff was a very good con man. The whole purpose of this blog is to open your eyes to the "possibility" that Obama is a Judas, just like it would have been nice if someone had opened hundreds of people's eyes that it was possible that Madoff was a con man.
How smart are you? Did you predict that Madoff was a con man? What is your prediction about Obama? Look in the mirror and ask if that person is really smart, has a blind spot or is honest?
PS---Obama has only been President for about 6 years. It took 16 years to expose Madoff, but in the case of Obama, were are not talking about a few million dollars. We are talking about our country and the future of our kids. What are the risks if you are wrong about Obama and he is a Judas?
Climax World
Exactly what is a "Climax World"? It does not have anything to do with sex so get your mind out of the gutter. My first encounter with the "Climax" concept was back in college related to the state of old forests. If a natural forest continues to grow, the type of trees as well as the size and density of the forest changes over time unit it gets to a final "Concept" that "stops" changing. It is like a forest getting the end of the road. In Northern forests, the end state is a forest with mostly large Hemlock trees. Hemlock trees don't even start growing until at least 250 years after a major forest fire. Right after a forest fire, there will be lots of game in the forest, but as the forest ages the number of animals in the forest goes down until in the end at "Climax" there almost zero animals in the forest. This is a little like Yellow Stone National Park before the big forest fire a few years ago. Now there are all kinds of new animals in the park. Now, what does all this have to do with "Climax world"? I will get the that next.
The main point is that when a system reaches "Climax" the rate of change almost goes to zero. We had a "Climax" state here on Earth just before the Dinosaur die off where nothing much was changing. There were very few mammals. Reptiles dominated the Earth, but not after the big die off. When the Earth changed from its "Climax" state, mammals and other animals started to flourish. That is when us humans started to develop and went on to dominate the world. Now, back to Yellow Stone National Park. If things keep going the way they are and we have no big forest fires, in about a thousand years Yellow Stone Park will be back into a "Climax" state. My point is that system cycle and we have to recognize that fact.
For thousands of years, us humans were organized with social and economic units that were run by Kings and Queens. In my opinion, these were "climax" states where little happened. It was very static, like in the "Climax" forest. If you were born into the King and Queen group, you lived in "fat city". If not, there was very little chance that you would ever get a seat at the table. This is the way it was and most of the human race was cut out of the action and were not able to produce or create wealth. Historians us terms like the "dark ages". What they were talking about is a "Climax" state. Are you starting to see how this concept works?
Now, I am starting to get to my point. The USA has been into and out of mini-climax states. Look at the period between 1929 and 1941. It was the period that we call "The Great Depression". It was really a period when not much was happening. I call it a "mini-climax". The way we got out of the "mini-climax" was WWII. Just as this was the point where we got out of the "mini-climax", it was also the point where we started progressing toward another "Climax" state. Notice that we had all the growth and generation of wealth starting in 1941, but recently things have slowed considerably until today growth in wealth is almost zero. Are you starting to see the pattern?
This concept works on companies too. Look at GE, GMC or IBM as these companies have grown bigger and bigger, their rate of innovation has slowed. Notice that only the smaller companies are the ones who do most of the innovation? I think that is has something to do with the "comfort" factor. If things get too easy, innovation slows. Back in the 1930's people wanted a better quality of life and now most have gotten that better quality of life. They, we are getting to that "Climax" state where not much changes. Look at our schools. Back in the 1930's we knew that we had to get a much better education if we wanted that better quality of life and we did. Now that we have that better quality of life, why do we need to work so hard for a better education? Are you starting to see that the reason for the decline in the quality of our education?
This concept of "climax" is all over the place and it applies to all kinds of systems and situations. It is not enough to just understand the concept of Climax, we need to figure out how to get out of a Climax state so that we can have growth and the creation of wealth and more quality of life. I don't know how to do that, but I do know how it has happened in the past and in all cases, it has been beyond the control of us humans. I hope that his blog starts you thinking in a new way about our current situation.
PS----There is another thing that happens in social/economic systems as they move toward "Climax" and that is they get more brittle. They may seem hard and stiff, but like glass they can shatter with just the right blow. Think of the Aztec's. They were very advanced with a strong central control system, much like we have here in the USA today. All Cortez had to do was to capture the King and the Aztec world was conquered. Centralized control systems may appear to provide the best quality of life, but they suffer from being brittle. Sound familiar? Think of urbanization vs rural. Which do you think could most easily shatter like glass? This brings me to one final point. If we were going to elect a leader for our centrally controlled system, at what stage in the cycle would we be most at risk for electing the "wrong" leader? In the rural stage, a central leader could not do too much damage to the system, but in the more advanced "Climax" stage, the wrong leader could destroy the system much more easily. At the time we elected Calvin Coolidge we had a lot less risk than now when we have elected Obama. The risk is not doing the right thing, it is doing the wrong thing and I think you can understand that simple point. We are at much more risk today than at any point in our history.
Ask yourself this simple question. Did your father work harder than you and do your kids work harder than you? Could it be clearer?
The main point is that when a system reaches "Climax" the rate of change almost goes to zero. We had a "Climax" state here on Earth just before the Dinosaur die off where nothing much was changing. There were very few mammals. Reptiles dominated the Earth, but not after the big die off. When the Earth changed from its "Climax" state, mammals and other animals started to flourish. That is when us humans started to develop and went on to dominate the world. Now, back to Yellow Stone National Park. If things keep going the way they are and we have no big forest fires, in about a thousand years Yellow Stone Park will be back into a "Climax" state. My point is that system cycle and we have to recognize that fact.
For thousands of years, us humans were organized with social and economic units that were run by Kings and Queens. In my opinion, these were "climax" states where little happened. It was very static, like in the "Climax" forest. If you were born into the King and Queen group, you lived in "fat city". If not, there was very little chance that you would ever get a seat at the table. This is the way it was and most of the human race was cut out of the action and were not able to produce or create wealth. Historians us terms like the "dark ages". What they were talking about is a "Climax" state. Are you starting to see how this concept works?
Now, I am starting to get to my point. The USA has been into and out of mini-climax states. Look at the period between 1929 and 1941. It was the period that we call "The Great Depression". It was really a period when not much was happening. I call it a "mini-climax". The way we got out of the "mini-climax" was WWII. Just as this was the point where we got out of the "mini-climax", it was also the point where we started progressing toward another "Climax" state. Notice that we had all the growth and generation of wealth starting in 1941, but recently things have slowed considerably until today growth in wealth is almost zero. Are you starting to see the pattern?
This concept works on companies too. Look at GE, GMC or IBM as these companies have grown bigger and bigger, their rate of innovation has slowed. Notice that only the smaller companies are the ones who do most of the innovation? I think that is has something to do with the "comfort" factor. If things get too easy, innovation slows. Back in the 1930's people wanted a better quality of life and now most have gotten that better quality of life. They, we are getting to that "Climax" state where not much changes. Look at our schools. Back in the 1930's we knew that we had to get a much better education if we wanted that better quality of life and we did. Now that we have that better quality of life, why do we need to work so hard for a better education? Are you starting to see that the reason for the decline in the quality of our education?
This concept of "climax" is all over the place and it applies to all kinds of systems and situations. It is not enough to just understand the concept of Climax, we need to figure out how to get out of a Climax state so that we can have growth and the creation of wealth and more quality of life. I don't know how to do that, but I do know how it has happened in the past and in all cases, it has been beyond the control of us humans. I hope that his blog starts you thinking in a new way about our current situation.
PS----There is another thing that happens in social/economic systems as they move toward "Climax" and that is they get more brittle. They may seem hard and stiff, but like glass they can shatter with just the right blow. Think of the Aztec's. They were very advanced with a strong central control system, much like we have here in the USA today. All Cortez had to do was to capture the King and the Aztec world was conquered. Centralized control systems may appear to provide the best quality of life, but they suffer from being brittle. Sound familiar? Think of urbanization vs rural. Which do you think could most easily shatter like glass? This brings me to one final point. If we were going to elect a leader for our centrally controlled system, at what stage in the cycle would we be most at risk for electing the "wrong" leader? In the rural stage, a central leader could not do too much damage to the system, but in the more advanced "Climax" stage, the wrong leader could destroy the system much more easily. At the time we elected Calvin Coolidge we had a lot less risk than now when we have elected Obama. The risk is not doing the right thing, it is doing the wrong thing and I think you can understand that simple point. We are at much more risk today than at any point in our history.
Ask yourself this simple question. Did your father work harder than you and do your kids work harder than you? Could it be clearer?
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
"Follow Your Dream" And Darwin
I have noticed in the past 50 or so years that high school advisers, more and more, advise our kids to "follow your dream". This means that they should study what they "like" and take classes in college that they "like". Hidden in all this is the meaning of "like". What "like" really means is something that is easy for you or that gives you a lot of pleasure. Now, I have a very different take on the "follow your dream" concept.
It is a basic principle that if you want to get stronger, you need to do things that are difficult. Running up hill is better for you than running down hill. This concept applies to almost everything. If we ask, what is the objective of education including college, it has to be to make you "stronger". I see kids all the time who are good in sports or art who go to college to play sports or to take art classes. These are the "easiest" classes that they could take. If they take the "easiest" classes, how much stronger do you think those classes make them? Are you starting to follow this logic?
Now, look at college majors like the STEM 's. For most of our kids, these are very difficult classes, so they avoid them and take easy majors. They do end up spending their time and money, but get a college degree in the end. The question is, was all that time and expense worth it"? Are they now as strong as they could be?
What parents need to do is to show their kids that the "easy" path is not the best path for life. Recall my blog about "comfortable shoes"? Education and life is just like wearing those fancy comfortable shoes or sleeping on that soft bed. If things seem too easy, they most likely are. This should be a wake up call that you can do better and should. What seems to have happened here in the USA for the past 50 years is that we have taken the easiest path and now we find ourselves at the bottom of the hill while others who have taken the more difficult path are standing on top of the hill. It is as simple as that.
If it is your "dream" to do well in life, you are not going to get their by following the easiest path. Those who do well in life mostly got there by taking the harder paths and getting back up after they had been knocked down. Our kids stay down when they get knocked down because they are not strong enough to get back up.
It is a basic principle that if you want to get stronger, you need to do things that are difficult. Running up hill is better for you than running down hill. This concept applies to almost everything. If we ask, what is the objective of education including college, it has to be to make you "stronger". I see kids all the time who are good in sports or art who go to college to play sports or to take art classes. These are the "easiest" classes that they could take. If they take the "easiest" classes, how much stronger do you think those classes make them? Are you starting to follow this logic?
Now, look at college majors like the STEM 's. For most of our kids, these are very difficult classes, so they avoid them and take easy majors. They do end up spending their time and money, but get a college degree in the end. The question is, was all that time and expense worth it"? Are they now as strong as they could be?
What parents need to do is to show their kids that the "easy" path is not the best path for life. Recall my blog about "comfortable shoes"? Education and life is just like wearing those fancy comfortable shoes or sleeping on that soft bed. If things seem too easy, they most likely are. This should be a wake up call that you can do better and should. What seems to have happened here in the USA for the past 50 years is that we have taken the easiest path and now we find ourselves at the bottom of the hill while others who have taken the more difficult path are standing on top of the hill. It is as simple as that.
If it is your "dream" to do well in life, you are not going to get their by following the easiest path. Those who do well in life mostly got there by taking the harder paths and getting back up after they had been knocked down. Our kids stay down when they get knocked down because they are not strong enough to get back up.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Poverty And Darwin
It seems that all we hear on TV is that kids from "poor" families have all kind of social problems, like dropping out of school, doing drugs, getting knocked up and committing crimes. The way a "one mover" would solve the problem of poverty would be to give the "poor" person your money so that the person would no longer be "poor". What we need to do is to stop using "poor" as the reason for many of our social problems and shift to "why" the person was "poor". We will never solve the problems associated with "poor" if we don't start focusing on the "cause" rather than the result. This is the problem with the "one movers". Now let's look at Darwin and how he would do things differently.
As I have blogged in the past, Darwin rewards "good" behavior and the "one movers" reward "destructive" behavior. It is as simple as that. The following is going to be based on "averages" and does not account for each individual in that "average". The fact that you may know of an individual who is "not" "average" does not invalidate the logic of this blog. Remember that!
Try this. If a kid is not on the honor roll in their school, it is possible for a "one mover" teacher to change the kid's grade from "C" to a "B" and thus move them to the honor roll. Does this really help the kid? What if the kid's parents were poor and we gave them free money so that they were no longer poor? Further, if their kid was not on the honor roll because the kid's parents were poor, then what excuse would we used to explain the kid's grades after we gave the kid's parents free money and they were not longer poor? My point is that jumping to being poor as the cause for poor performance in school or life avoids the real question of cause. I have traveled the world and have seen first hand, people who were really poor and their kid's did better in school than most of our kids. Accepting being poor as the cause of poor performance in school and life just does not cut it. We need to look for the "real" cause. If being poor was the true cause, we could have solved that long ago. Lyndon Johnson tried do cure the problem with his "Great Society" program and we all know that turned out.
How does Darwin deal with problem of poor performance in school and life? He makes it difficult for those who make the poor decisions that lead to poor performance in school and life. Notice that Darwin rewards those who make the correct decisions and punishes those who make poor decisions. The poor performance in school and life is the "punishment" for making poor decisions in the first place. When you hear someone talk about a kid from a poor family, did you ever hear them explain why that family was poor? Did you ever hear a poor person explain that the reason they were poor was the result of poor decisions that they had made? I never did and that is the root of the problem. Like a drunk, a drunk can not get better until they admit that they were the ones who made the bad decisions to drink or do drugs. What we now have is a bunch of people who claim that they are victims and we let them get by with lie. I never have seen a person who was poor who could tell me who victimized them and exactly how they did it. If we were honest, we would expect others to honest as well and thus we would not accept bull shit excuses like being poor or being a victim.
The "average" wealth per capita of the world has been going up for the last several hundred thousand years until just recently. That progress was the result of Darwin and Darwin alone and us humans operating under Darwin's rules. The "average" wealth per capita of the world has recently turned down and we need to ask, why? What has changed? Us humans think that we have gotten so smart that we don't need to operate by Darwin's rules. If we see people who are poor, we can give them money so that they are no longer poor. Problem solved!!!! See how smart us humans are?
Being poor is Darwin's score card for people making poor personal decisions.(on average). Not liking being poor is your motivation factor to make better decisions. There is no place for those who "like" being poor. Sorry!! Every time you encounter a person who claims that their lack of quality of life is because they are poor, ask them what they think made them poor. Ask them about their personal decisions during their life and how they affected their current situation. Since over 50% of Blacks do not finish high school and 90% of Blacks do not major in the STEM's wouldn't you expect to find that at least 75% of Blacks turn out to be poor? This is all caused by their personal decisions and has nothing to do with some bad rich person victimizing them.
As I have blogged in the past, Darwin rewards "good" behavior and the "one movers" reward "destructive" behavior. It is as simple as that. The following is going to be based on "averages" and does not account for each individual in that "average". The fact that you may know of an individual who is "not" "average" does not invalidate the logic of this blog. Remember that!
Try this. If a kid is not on the honor roll in their school, it is possible for a "one mover" teacher to change the kid's grade from "C" to a "B" and thus move them to the honor roll. Does this really help the kid? What if the kid's parents were poor and we gave them free money so that they were no longer poor? Further, if their kid was not on the honor roll because the kid's parents were poor, then what excuse would we used to explain the kid's grades after we gave the kid's parents free money and they were not longer poor? My point is that jumping to being poor as the cause for poor performance in school or life avoids the real question of cause. I have traveled the world and have seen first hand, people who were really poor and their kid's did better in school than most of our kids. Accepting being poor as the cause of poor performance in school and life just does not cut it. We need to look for the "real" cause. If being poor was the true cause, we could have solved that long ago. Lyndon Johnson tried do cure the problem with his "Great Society" program and we all know that turned out.
How does Darwin deal with problem of poor performance in school and life? He makes it difficult for those who make the poor decisions that lead to poor performance in school and life. Notice that Darwin rewards those who make the correct decisions and punishes those who make poor decisions. The poor performance in school and life is the "punishment" for making poor decisions in the first place. When you hear someone talk about a kid from a poor family, did you ever hear them explain why that family was poor? Did you ever hear a poor person explain that the reason they were poor was the result of poor decisions that they had made? I never did and that is the root of the problem. Like a drunk, a drunk can not get better until they admit that they were the ones who made the bad decisions to drink or do drugs. What we now have is a bunch of people who claim that they are victims and we let them get by with lie. I never have seen a person who was poor who could tell me who victimized them and exactly how they did it. If we were honest, we would expect others to honest as well and thus we would not accept bull shit excuses like being poor or being a victim.
The "average" wealth per capita of the world has been going up for the last several hundred thousand years until just recently. That progress was the result of Darwin and Darwin alone and us humans operating under Darwin's rules. The "average" wealth per capita of the world has recently turned down and we need to ask, why? What has changed? Us humans think that we have gotten so smart that we don't need to operate by Darwin's rules. If we see people who are poor, we can give them money so that they are no longer poor. Problem solved!!!! See how smart us humans are?
Being poor is Darwin's score card for people making poor personal decisions.(on average). Not liking being poor is your motivation factor to make better decisions. There is no place for those who "like" being poor. Sorry!! Every time you encounter a person who claims that their lack of quality of life is because they are poor, ask them what they think made them poor. Ask them about their personal decisions during their life and how they affected their current situation. Since over 50% of Blacks do not finish high school and 90% of Blacks do not major in the STEM's wouldn't you expect to find that at least 75% of Blacks turn out to be poor? This is all caused by their personal decisions and has nothing to do with some bad rich person victimizing them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)