Many good points above- Frank's right about the lack of closure on-line, and that the festering of issues unresolved is a driver in the recurring acrimony.
Papicek, ARGeezer, I too value ET and have learned a lot here. I strongly hope we can continue to grow and enjoy the process.
Jerome, I too would see a more activist role for ET- we have the wits to do--do we have the drive? I think our battle to sink Tony Blair's perverse aspirations to bring his brand of hypocrisy to the heart of the EU was a good start,--but we had no second act. Also, your perceptions and ideas began the ball rolling, and we need them. It is, however, a good thing to broaden the base, if we can do so in a civil way.
In my opinion, social policy is based in the emotional, empathic elements that are at the core of defining "Quality of life". Economics needs to serve the creation of social policy. As a recovering technocrat, I have come to believe we need that empathic side badly, but it's irritating to the true technocrat, and all those who see the world in a mechanistic way, just as that machine-world seems hollow to me. We need a mix of both views.
Forgive my oversimplification- there are more dimensions than just these two, but I see these as central.
If I am able, I will continue to participate, come what may. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
As a recovering technocrat, I have come to believe we need that empathic side badly, but it's irritating to the true technocrat, and all those who see the world in a mechanistic way, just as that machine-world seems hollow to me. We need a mix of both views.
Indeed we do. But I know I can't provide what I don't have, and thus need others to bring their differences. Which means that we need to cohabit together because these differences can tear us apart at times. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I know I can't provide what I don't have
But when we start to get angry and to want to make disparaging comments and ad hominem attacks, we need to stop and ask ourselves why, if our own system is so well founded, does this so annoy us. After all, amusement would seem to be the better response. My own view is that being and seeming foolish at times is part of the human condition. But then my own limitations have given me ample opportunity for such reflections and that is just me. And/or, perhaps Godel's theorem is indeed widely generalizable. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Being annoyed or offended by something is actually a gift. It is an indication that there may be a chink in our understanding of the world.
Indeed.
One of my pet ideas, oft repeated here, is the idea of the "Crap Detector" as an essential component of problem solving, and an essential product of real education. Who said "education should make minds, not tools"?
That crap detector is never more valuable than when it alarms at our own bullshit. That anger- that urge to attack the person and not the proposition is the alarm. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
IOW, we cope with the low bandwidth of this medium by building mental models of the people that we encounter the most frequently. That mental model informs our readings when a more and less generous reading of comments may be made. And a mental model that dictates making the less generous reading will be self-reinforcing, since at least sometimes the more generous reading is correct.
The marker for this that is often found fairly early in a flame war is, "No, I didn't mean it that way", "I know you meant it that way because, before, you said this".
Of course, building mental models on the most generous reading will also yield a biased model, but its a happier mistake to be making. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
