[Paleopsych] short term thinking
shovland at mindspring.com
Thu Aug 5 22:58:14 UTC 2004
I think in recent years, among the elite classes,
the pendulum has swung to the side of personal
gain at the expense of the whole, but I also
think that the pendulum continues to swing.
One of the sites I visit regularly is that of
Chief Executive magazine:
In one of their surveys they found a widespread
concern with growth and profits among CEO's.
In part those problems are a function of
the current distribution of personal income.
80% of the American people have less to
spend than they did a few years ago.
This results in lower unit sales for items like cars,
and cost pressures for the producers of many
In cybernetic terms, this is a negative feedback loop.
If they offshore production to reduce costs, they also
offshore consumer income, which makes things worse.
In recent months China and Japan have reduced their
purchases of our debt, so the pressure on our system
Owners of SUV's continue to whine about the price of
gas, but it will only go up. They will adapt, albeit slowly.
I think we will all adapt, but at a glacial pace.
From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:13 PM
To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org
Subject: [Paleopsych] short term thinking
>>Spending less on bombs or on personal consumption
frees up money for other pressing uses, but only if
everyone does it.<<
--This seems to be the type of problem that
characterizes the transition into this century. When
everyone is doing something that makes sense in purely
selfish terms but undermines the safety of the whole,
how do people decide where to put their energy? When
"everyone's doing it", what enables someone to do what
everyone SHOULD be doing, rather than what everyone IS
We all know that shopping at WalMart takes money away
from people who have more personal investment in their
community, people who work hard to live the American
dream but lack the power of a mega-store. But we shop
there anyway (I've been there twice, after swearing
I'd never go, because they're cheap and big). SUVs eat
gas and make it very hard for people in smaller cars
to see around corners and to feel safe in traffic...
we buy them even when we know the money goes to the
Saudis. Why? Not because we like the consequences, but
because we compartmentalize the consequences, and we
play a game in which selfish choices are rationalized
as "making no difference because to change would
require everyone to change at once."
Is there a point where everyone DOES change at once?
Or will a society march into the abyss, making small
selfish choices out of the belief that nobody else
will cooperate in changing the game?
>>What, exactly, is the incentive problem that leads
nations to spend too much on armaments?<<
--Fear, guilt and status insecurity. Fear is
self-explanatory, guilt often leads to more of the
behavior which triggers it (mastering an emotion by
deliberately invoking it) and insecurity leads to
behavior which may make no rational sense but makes
sense on the level of symbolism and display. We drive
SUVs because they make us feel secure, even if they
make us less secure in real terms. We take the guilt
and displace it toward a scapegoat. "No
environmentalist sissy is going to tell ME what to
drive!" Making it possible to keep passing the buck
until consequences become intolerable.
Whenever there is a disconnect between short term and
long term rationalizing, there is inevitably a point
where compartmentalized realities clash. That point
can cause a lot of strange behavior.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
More information about the paleopsych