Left vs. Right Data Visualization

[Moonbeam]

I think the language is rather unavoidable simply because it is descriptive of the way many people organize their thinking. One can reject the dichotomy as a way of organizing one's own thinking, and I applaud you for doing that, but the dichotomy is so pervasive in the real world it is essentially impossible to avoid acknowledging it.

- wolf

Not to mention that it's spot on.

 

[nonlnear]

nonlnear: I don't think dichotomy is a useful way to think about political perspectives, at least for people seeking to understand their politics, rather than manipulate the politics of others.

M: How would you look at politics then? It seems to me that the dichotomy is real and there for the manipulative taking, that seeing it, understanding it, can awaken new understanding and reduce the factors of manipulation. Knowledge will set you free, so to speak.

n: Dichotomy is only useful to a politician trying to buy your vote because to them the only answer of yours they care about is whether or not they get your vote. That is the only dichotomy that is of any true significance in all of this. Why would anyone except such a politician desire to make people think that one's understanding of the whole of human history, politics, and ethics can be boiled down to which side of a poster you fit on?

It seems we are saying the same thing.

M: When I look at which side I fit on the only question I have is why? What is the truth of human life that makes this stereotype so accurate, in my opinion.

Because your concept of truth is fairly well aligned with that of the person who drew the diagram. Not saying it's right or wrong, but the agreement is not necessarily evidence of anything "objective".

n: Sure, the fundamental issues that underlie politics are mostly very simple. However the truly substantial questions are almost always kept virtually perpendicular to the choices we face in the voting booth.

M: I would say the issues that underlie politics are emotional and extremely difficult to bring to conscious awareness. I think they don't come to the voting booth because we don't want them to. We do not want to know what we really feel. Politicians are us, doing what we ask. You are to blame for that because you are the only person you can change. It is my fault for me, seems to me

I don't think the issues that I see as important are difficult to bring to conscious awareness at all, at least not once they are vocalized explicitly. It is a direct and obvious consequence of the nature of power. Why is it that a substantial reckoning of the question "How much power over myself should I give you?" is never part of the debate between people who seek power over me? Obviously because the vast majority of people who seek power over me have an answer that they don't want to tell me. They would rather talk about the values of mine they can "identify with" so that I will like them. This strategy is usually framed in a way designed to make people believe that the issue is the outcome of the policy in question, when in fact the underlying issue is why anyone ought to presume to force their view on me in the first place.

Politicians are not us, and are not doing what we ask. If they were doing what we ask, then they would not require the force of law to compel the outcomes that they desire. The force of law is only required when one group wants to force another group to do something they do not want to do. If there were consent, then force would not be required. I have no power to (lawfully) compel you to do anything against your will. A politician does.

 

[yllus]

Considering the amount of education and funding, more like ten million in a couple hundred million had his exact particular opportunities. True, most of us didn't have his exact opportunities, but we've all had opportunities.

No, his case was truly one in a hundred million. The young Gates had the benefit of insanely exclusive access to mainframes and minicomputers in the early 1970s. He then had the benefit of attending a forward-thinking school that excuse him from math classes so he could develop his expertise in a computer. And one more time, whereas most people would be able to buy one hour a week's access to a terminal, he stuck upon a rare bug that allowed him unlimited time on one. That's just some of the things that went his way during his childhood.

Bill Gates is an outlier amongst outliers. It's not a situation that millions found themselves in.

 

[Patranus]

No, his case was truly one in a hundred million. The young Gates had the benefit of insanely exclusive access to mainframes and minicomputers in the early 1970s. He then had the benefit of attending a forward-thinking school that excuse him from math classes so he could develop his expertise in a computer. And one more time, whereas most people would be able to buy one hour a week's access to a terminal, he stuck upon a rare bug that allowed him unlimited time on one. That's just some of the things that went his way during his childhood.

Bill Gates is an outlier amongst outliers. It's not a situation that millions found themselves in.

Sounds to me like he had a level playing field and took advantage of his own skills to take control of his own destiny.

 

[her209]

The "Interferes With Social Lives" and "Don't Interfere With Social Lives" should be swapped.

 

[CycloWizard]

We are equal with respect to out rights not with respect to things. Inequality of opportunity is a fact of life. Inequality of participants is also. A proper aim strives to eliminate the inequality of opportunity as far as possible while enhancing personal opportunity as much as possible to each person's full potential.

To work toward each of these does not require tyranny. It requires intelligence and fair mindedness in the structuring of our institutions. Tyranny is the fear of the small minded that the pittance they have will be taken by somebody with greater potential if things were arranged more fairly.

I agree. The question is whether the government can actually enforce equal opportunity or whether it is better served keeping others from infringing on your opportunity.

 

[Anarchist420]

For everything the government does to try to make equality of outcome, they do twice as much to make the rich richer, like patents, military industrial complex, bailouts, central banking, and regulations. Socialism is just a game so that the richest get to control the wealth.

I honestly think that in a stateless society, outcomes would be a lot closer. But that can't happen in a world where democracy is deified.

 

[woolfe9999]

For everything the government does to try to make equality of outcome, they do twice as much to make the rich richer, like patents, military industrial complex, bailouts, central banking, and regulations. Socialism is just a game so that the richest get to control the wealth.

I honestly think that in a stateless society, outcomes would be a lot closer. But that can't happen in a world where democracy is deified.

Outcomes would be a lot clearer alright, all being determined at gunpoint.

- wolf

 

[yllus]

Sounds to me like he had a level playing field and took advantage of his own skills to take control of his own destiny.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Mr. Gates is phenomenally brilliant and ambitious. But his opportunities are not those most would have encountered.

 

[nakedfrog]

The "Interferes With Social Lives" and "Don't Interfere With Social Lives" should be swapped.

I thought so too. Other than that, it seems to be a pretty accurate representation.

 

[her209]

When another human being is involved in the decision of the outcome, then there is no such thing as an equal opportunity.

 

[Genx87]

it wasn't just not defending them. it was blaming democrats for a bipartisan effort.

Dont let the knee's hit you in the jaw. I didnt blame them, I pointed out Democrats stack the deck just as well.

 

[Moonbeam]

nonlnear: It seems we are saying the same thing.

M: Hehe, maybe

n: Because your concept of truth is fairly well aligned with that of the person who drew the diagram. Not saying it's right or wrong, but the agreement is not necessarily evidence of anything "objective".

M: My focus wasn't on whether I am objective but that I fit a category fit by millions, it seems to me and there is another one fit by millions more that is different. I am interested in why these perspectives exist. One possibllity is suggested by the chart itself, the difference in focus in raising children.


n: I don't think the issues that I see as important are difficult to bring to conscious awareness at all, at least not once they are vocalized explicitly. It is a direct and obvious consequence of the nature of power. Why is it that a substantial reckoning of the question "How much power over myself should I give you?" is never part of the debate between people who seek power over me?

M: Well I could answer that your concept of power is aligned in such a manner as to cause you to see power relationships that way.

n: Obviously because the vast majority of people who seek power over me have an answer that they don't want to tell me.

M: Hehe. They just might.

n: They would rather talk about the values of mine they can "identify with" so that I will like them.

M: Hehe, is that why you said 'it seems we are saying the same thing'?

n: This strategy is usually framed in a way designed to make people believe that the issue is the outcome of the policy in question, when in fact the underlying issue is why anyone ought to presume to force their view on me in the first place.

M: I understand what you are saying.

n: Politicians are not us, and are not doing what we ask. If they were doing what we ask, then they would not require the force of law to compel the outcomes that they desire. The force of law is only required when one group wants to force another group to do something they do not want to do. If there were consent, then force would not be required. I have no power to (lawfully) compel you to do anything against your will. A politician does.

M: Well OK, but I presume you vote. Others do and they make me eat what their person votes for. But with the internet, it seems to me we could easily dispense with the middle men and directly vote for our own self destruction.

Hehe

 

[drebo]

I wouldn't call Bill Gates "self made". The opportunities afforded to him that allowed him to get ahead of the pack are one in a hundred million.

He made one brilliant business decision (licensing DOS, rather than selling its source code, to IBM). That's all.

Not exactly "one in a hundred million". People make brilliant business decisions all the time.

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree. The question is whether the government can actually enforce equal opportunity or whether it is better served keeping others from infringing on your opportunity.

My view is that because inequality is systemic, only changing the system can improve the outcome. The system is the government so government action is required to change government inaction or past systemic mistakes. I am less worried about what one person might do than I am about what a massive unjust system can do. And I suspect that if folk had more real opportunity they would be too busy going after it than worrying about me.

 

[sonicdrummer20]

i wouldn't call bill gates "self made". The opportunities afforded to him that allowed him to get ahead of the pack are one in a hundred billion.

1;100,000,000,000

 

[yllus]

He made one brilliant business decision (licensing DOS, rather than selling its source code, to IBM). That's all.

Not exactly "one in a hundred million". People make brilliant business decisions all the time.

He was in the place to make a brilliant business decision at the age of 18 to IBM of all companies because he was already somehow a world-class expert in the area.

The somehow bit is what I've already explained - he had almost unlimited time (due to his location, parents, school, and the password bug) on a machines that top professors in the field didn't have as much time upon.

1;100,000,000,000

I was being conservative.

 

[werepossum]

I am rather slow. Of course I don't understand much of anything really. I am a dummy. I don't even really know what collectivism is. I do think I know that humans evolved for millions of years in small groups with divided labor where everybody did something for communal survival and that as a result we have profound social instincts that work to our survival advantage. I think we are collectivists in our genes, and the nonsense about the supremacy of the individual is modern drivel invented with the rise of the sickness of the ego.

So the left of the spectrum represents more of man's real nature while the right represents the nouveau ego-sick.

So the healthiest country on the planet turns out to be be North Korea, where the national pastime is trying to crush all outward signs of G-d and of individualism whilst quietly starving to death, and the sickest country is the USA, where the "poor" often own automobiles, sometimes homes, and not infrequently hundred dollar tennis shoes and running suits.

Thank you for sharing that bit of profundity with us sickly and less-evolved individualist types, as we would likely not have discovered it on our own.

 

[Moonbeam]

So the healthiest country on the planet turns out to be be North Korea, where the national pastime is trying to crush all outward signs of G-d and of individualism whilst quietly starving to death, and the sickest country is the USA, where the "poor" often own automobiles, sometimes homes, and not infrequently hundred dollar tennis shoes and running suits.

Thank you for sharing that bit of profundity with us sickly and less-evolved individualist types, as we would likely not have discovered it on our own.

I can only assume you are trying to prove that possums are blind in the light of day. And please note that bit of profundity was shared by you, not me, you, um, um, nice person who means only the best.

 

[Descartes]

No, his case was truly one in a hundred million. The young Gates had the benefit of insanely exclusive access to mainframes and minicomputers in the early 1970s. He then had the benefit of attending a forward-thinking school that excuse him from math classes so he could develop his expertise in a computer. And one more time, whereas most people would be able to buy one hour a week's access to a terminal, he stuck upon a rare bug that allowed him unlimited time on one. That's just some of the things that went his way during his childhood.

Bill Gates is an outlier amongst outliers. It's not a situation that millions found themselves in.

You're forgetting one very, very important part: His mother was President of United Way. Guess who was on the board of United Way? The President of IBM!

There's absolutely no question in my mind that *that* without the connection there would be no Microsoft.

But still, to your point, he had to have the ability to back it all up. He sold what amounted to nothing to IBM and managed to still answer the call. Without his background, education, etc. he wouldn't have the ingredients to make the pie.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Looking at the two dimensional drawing, I find myself represented by a perpendicular coming out from the screen into three dimensions.

Go figure.

 

[yllus]

You're forgetting one very, very important part: His mother was President of United Way. Guess who was on the board of United Way? The President of IBM!

There's absolutely no question in my mind that *that* without the connection there would be no Microsoft.

But still, to your point, he had to have the ability to back it all up. He sold what amounted to nothing to IBM and managed to still answer the call. Without his background, education, etc. he wouldn't have the ingredients to make the pie.

I remembered that his connection to the top of IBM as a teenager was rather fortuitous but couldn't remember the details.

As usual, we're in agreement - an amazing amount of luck went Mr. Gates' way. Vishnu knows that I've occasionally wished I'd grown up in Silicon Valley rather than in Toronto so that I might possibly have had the same early opportunities for success.

 

[WHAMPOM]

One of those requires tyranny to achieve.

Only when you equate tyranny with playing by the rules.

 

[WHAMPOM]

You're forgetting one very, very important part: His mother was President of United Way. Guess who was on the board of United Way? The President of IBM!

There's absolutely no question in my mind that *that* without the connection there would be no Microsoft.

But still, to your point, he had to have the ability to back it all up. He sold what amounted to nothing to IBM and managed to still answer the call. Without his background, education, etc. he wouldn't have the ingredients to make the pie.

Stealing someone else's operating system to sell to IBM after a little tweaking counts for what? Give me a billionaire's success story that did not have a whole lot of theft in it?

 

[Descartes]

Stealing someone else's operating system to sell to IBM after a little tweaking counts for what? Give me a billionaire's success story that did not have a whole lot of theft in it?

He didn't steal anything. He legitimately licensed the product to IBM. He had the market, the original creator of DOS did not. He was negotiating with leverage, that's all.

So, not sure what you meant there. Stealing is wrong, always. It's bad for business and generally people don't do it. Contrary to what most folks think, others really don't want your idea.

So it was with his mother's connection that he was able to broker a deal. IBM thought hardware was the future and they were wrong.