angeljenny
A-List Customer
- Messages
- 339
- Location
- England
Uh oh - I think I am a sheep.
As simplicity can provide a wonderful clarity, I don't think a framework should be attacked just for being simple. For being wrong, yes, but I don't think this analogy is wrong and if it is then it's certainly not wrong because it's cynical. It also doesn't have to be the only model of the world. Others are allowed to overlap it.
My parents have lived in the same neighborhood for over 30 years and run a farm. During that time, they have seen all their original neighbors replaced. For the first time in that 30+ years, a neighbor offered his and his wife's help to my parents this past winter. The best part is that the neighbors noticed the changes in my mother's chore schedule, and checked up on her to make sure that everything was ok with my father (he was on bedrest for 7 months). The neighbor was sincere about helping, and later even gave my mother a copy of their schedules and what times they could help, complete with contact information at home and at work for emergencies.
My parents have never had a neighbor they felt they could call if something went wrong, and now they do. Now along the way, they've had people who have made horrific trouble for them, but these neighbors seem great, way better than the neighbors who had been there before my parents' moved in, who kept mainly to themselves with only one or two exceptions.
"No amount of police can enforce civilization where the normal, casual enforcement of it has broken down." Borrowed from the post above.
I have said for many years, it is ridiculous that a society deceive themselves into thinking the police are going to protect them. The police simply clean up the mess and try to determine "who dun it". It is a simple numbers game, there aren't enough police!! We, the general citizenry, have a responsibility to protect ourselves; by making good decisions as to the areas we frequent, by not exposing ourselves as a target (a weak or sick animal for predators to focus on), by carrying a weapon as I do.
I read an interesting piece about how our world today is divided into 3 groups; wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. The wolves are obviously predators, the sheepdogs are obviously protectors, and the sheep are the general populace. The sheep mill about complacently, safe in their sheer numbers, aware that danger lurks but smug that it "will never happen to them". They fear the wolves, but resent the sheepdogs herding them to safer environs, barking and nipping at their flanks. They have no love for, nor do they appreciate the sheepdogs until the wolves appear. Then, and only then, they twist and turn frantically searching bleating for a sheepdog to come save them, but alas, there are not enough sheepdogs to go around, and some sheep will be lost.
We can argue all day as to the relative sizes of these 3 groups, but the fact remains, it is a pretty accurate representation of our world. It is also open to debate as to how these groups compare in size to years past, but they have always been here and will always be, we must choose to be sheep or sheepdogs!
There is simplicity, simplifying and stereotyping. I don't think stereotyping and simplifying can lead to "clarity" since what is true for people always involves complications, inconsistencies and mystery as to what motivates us. Simplicity is very nice, especially when discussing things, and I generally generalize on here for simplicity's sake. But when it comes to "types" of people and what motivates them I will never claim to be an expert despite having an advanced degree in human psychology.
I didn't think it was wrong for being cynical but for being cynical only while leaving out other variables and viewpoints. You state that models can overlap- yes, they are only variables in a big picture. In the case of this specific framework, I think it was oversimplified and leaves out the issue of nurturing.
It's human nature to want to make the world tidy and simple, so to run with the framework in question, I can see some overbearing sheepdogs wanting to to justify seeing those they patronize as "sheep" while vilifying wolves so that they view their actions and attitudes as noble.
Having said all that, I think you make interesting and well thought out points and I really enjoy spirited dialog. I wouldn't call my response an attack, at least not given my (written word) arsenal.
I apologize for sending this conversation in a different direction, but I really need to vent. I attended a funeral this afternoon that had probably 250 people in attendance. Not one man in five had on a jacket and many of those who did wore theirs with an open-collar shirt. Although I find this distressing, I wasn't surprised. Formality is nearly a thing of the past. I don't like it and I don't accept it, but I can only control my own behavior. What really left me fuming was that immediately preceding me into the church was a young man who appeared to be in his mid-twenties. He was sporting a three or four-day growth of beard and was dressed in a teeshirt, cargo shorts, and sneakers. I couldn't believe my eyes. It took every ounce of restraint I could muster to keep from saying something to him. I feel like hunting him down and giving him a good throttling. I'm through venting. Please carry on.
I apologize for sending this conversation in a different direction, but I really need to vent. I attended a funeral this afternoon that had probably 250 people in attendance. Not one man in five had on a jacket and many of those who did wore theirs with an open-collar shirt. Although I find this distressing, I wasn't surprised. Formality is nearly a thing of the past. I don't like it and I don't accept it, but I can only control my own behavior. What really left me fuming was that immediately preceding me into the church was a young man who appeared to be in his mid-twenties. He was sporting a three or four-day growth of beard and was dressed in a teeshirt, cargo shorts, and sneakers. I couldn't believe my eyes. It took every ounce of restraint I could muster to keep from saying something to him. I feel like hunting him down and giving him a good throttling. I'm through venting. Please carry on.
"Attack" was a poor choice of words and I regret using it. Sorry about that. This whole exchange has also given me a lot of interesting things to continue thinking about, and I would also never claim to be an expert despite also having an advanced degree in human psychology, although since your degree is real you've probably already sussed out that I'm lying about that but whatever.
It's a good thing you were barely able to contain yourself. Yelling at and strangling people for dressing casually is almost as big of a faux pas as dressing casually itself, the keyword being almost. It might have felt proper at the time, but the next day you'd be mortified at the gossip from well-to-do society.
Could it be that the person in t-shirt and cut off shorts couldn't afford to dress? Just a thought-- though I admit, not likely given how the "style" of people are today.
I grew up well after personal service became a memory, but I think it would be a great thing to have again.
Things are unlikely to change back in that direction for the mass market, at least. Not unless there's some way to make it more profitable than the current way of doing things, but I'm not seeing it.
Jinkies, though, reading back over this thread I'm so glad it's in an area where non-members can't see it...