Through fortunate circumstance I happen to be on Dr. Michael Eades’ email newsletter and this week’s (the second of the year) hit me right in between the ears. As a result I felt compelled to share it here. Eades and his wife Mary Dan are probably most famous for the book “Protein Power” and their strong advocacy of low carb diets, as well as scholarship on the paleopathology in support of that hypothesis.
But Mike is also a restless and curious mind and his newsletters run a gamut of topics. The most recent one included a piece from Paul Graham called “The Four Quadrants of Conformism” and I think it might render obsolete all of those “Left-Right” and “Nolan” diagrams that are supposed to explain politics. Indeed, I think it probably better explains politics (without having anything to do with politics) than anything I’ve ever seen.
Just for background and a starting point, I’ve included what I’ll call the “usual” or “traditional” chart purporting to show how politics in the US is divided, along with the “We’re so smahhht” libertarian, Nolan chart.
So basic as to be nearly useless
Allegedly Better
But anyone who’s followed politics finds that on any particular issue – like, say, for example, immigration or abortion – these charts tell us nothing. In fact, they may even cause more confusion than they add clarity. And then Paul Graham dropped this formulation in July 2020.
One of the most revealing ways to classify people is by the degree and aggressiveness of their conformism. Imagine a Cartesian coordinate system whose horizontal axis runs from conventional-minded on the left to independent-minded on the right, and whose vertical axis runs from passive at the bottom to aggressive at the top. The resulting four quadrants define four types of people. Starting in the upper left and going counter-clockwise: aggressively conventional-minded, passively conventional-minded, passively independent-minded, and aggressively independent-minded.”
For those who like the charts, Dr. Eades did the service of turning Graham’s formulation into a graphic.
Graham also asserts what may be the most bold point right up front:
I think that you’ll find all four types in most societies, and that which quadrant people fall into depends more on their own personality than the beliefs prevalent in their society.
The most compelling part of his argument is next and it hit a bullseye with me.
Young children offer some of the best evidence for both points. Anyone who’s been to primary school has seen the four types, and the fact that school rules are so arbitrary is strong evidence that the quadrant people fall into depends more on them than the rules.
The kids in the upper left quadrant, the aggressively conventional-minded ones, are the tattletales. They believe not only that rules must be obeyed, but that those who disobey them must be punished.
The kids in the lower left quadrant, the passively conventional-minded, are the sheep. They’re careful to obey the rules, but when other kids break them, their impulse is to worry that those kids will be punished, not to ensure that they will.
The kids in the lower right quadrant, the passively independent-minded, are the dreamy ones. They don’t care much about rules and probably aren’t 100% sure what the rules even are.
And the kids in the upper right quadrant, the aggressively independent-minded, are the naughty ones. When they see a rule, their first impulse is to question it. Merely being told what to do makes them inclined to do the opposite.
When measuring conformism, of course, you have to say with respect to what, and this changes as kids get older. For younger kids it’s the rules set by adults. But as kids get older, the source of rules becomes their peers. So a pack of teenagers who all flout school rules in the same way are not independent-minded; rather the opposite.
Oooh, boy. That last part kinda stings, but it’s like good humor: you can measure how good it is by either how hard you laugh or how much it makes you wince.
Graham’s essay goes on to deliver the coup de gras – and what I think is the greatest insight into the current state of political discourse in the country.
Princeton professor Robert George recently wrote:
I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it.
He’s too polite to say so, but of course they wouldn’t. And indeed, our default assumption should not merely be that his students would, on average, have behaved the same way people did at the time, but that the ones who are aggressively conventional-minded today would have been aggressively conventional-minded then too. In other words, that they’d not only not have fought against slavery, but that they’d have been among its staunchest defenders.
There ya go, Wokesters, Pow! Right in the Virtue Signaller.
Of course, the people who most need to understand this will be the people (1) least likely to be able to read and comprehend it, and (b) most likely to scream their defiance that THEY would EVER have held such “icky” beliefs. In other words, people who lack both self-awareness and honesty (and those are probably not unrelated).
Of course this formulation undoubtedly includes overlap among the categories, but it’s not hard to find where you are generally – and then think about the snitches from your elementary school days. One of my favorite lines by my old boss was this: “Did you ever notice that all of the people who work in HR seem to be the same kids who volunteered to be hall monitors in school?” An aggressively independent-minded type, he was on to Graham’s formulation years ago. It’s also interesting because with just a little thought you can plot a various childhood archetypes into the respective quadrants with ease.
Graham also adds two critical points about the top two quadrants. First:
I’m biased, I admit, but it seems to me that aggressively conventional-minded people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the trouble in the world, and that a lot of the customs we’ve evolved since the Enlightenment have been designed to protect the rest of us from them. In particular, the retirement of the concept of heresy and its replacement by the principle of freely debating all sorts of different ideas, even ones that are currently considered unacceptable, without any punishment for those who try them out to see if they work.
This ties in beautifully and explains what I’ve written here previously on both public education and culture – specifically, how we got the Salem Witch Trials and why the men who were a part of it were all the “Toppe Men” of their day. They weren’t outliers or non-conformists – anything but.
And the second critical point, which regards the aggressively independent-minded:
Why do the independent-minded need to be protected, though? Because they have all the new ideas. To be a successful scientist, for example, it’s not enough just to be right. You have to be right when everyone else is wrong. Conventional-minded people can’t do that. For similar reasons, all successful startup CEOs are not merely independent-minded, but aggressively so. So it’s no coincidence that societies prosper only to the extent that they have customs for keeping the conventional-minded at bay.
I won’t go any further because it would just be a wholesale copy and paste of both Graham’s and Dr. Eades’ work, but I thought it worth sharing here in a virtual space filled with (what seems to me, anyway) a majority of “aggressively independent-minded” people. And it certainly helps explain to me why libertarians and freedom-lovers generally can’t find doctrinal comity – and why the phrase “like herding cats” exists. It’s because we’re dealing with people in a quadrant that is already “high and to the right” and the folks on the furthest reaches of that have trouble even with those in the same quadrant if they happen to be closer to the center than further out on the fringes.
Submitted for your consideration and comment. (And in under 1500 words, bitches.)*
*And with pictures.
They can take our jobs, our guns, our free speech, and all of our freedoms…but they’ll never take my ability to First.
“Ladies first ?!”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0NkYlelUUck
That’s gonna leave more than a mark.
How aggressively conventional.
Yep. My analysis has always been more simplistic and less well-thought-out, but it is pretty much “libertarians are generally non-joiners, so how can we possibly organize & get our ideas to a wider audience?” I haven’t found an answer.
Libertarians, oddly enough, seem to include many prior military. I was pretty good at sticking to the rules that made sense – we needed a common base to work from. But I was very aggressive as a staff officer and an XO, in challenging what I saw as things that were dangerously wrong. It made me useful in war and an annoyance in peacetime. I didn’t realize I was not playing the game right until my last deployment, when it was confessed to me that I was in the “in case of emergency, break glass” group. I didn’t have the insight to recognize that I could have made things easier by making a few adjustments.
I posit that libertarians do that as a group, in politics/organizing. I am afraid I still catch myself doing it at work.
useful in war and an annoyance in peacetime
Something from the Patton line eh? That’s a truly curious paradox in the military, isn’t it? You would think society would want those useful in war in general to be cordoned off in the military, but in peacetime, that isn’t a happy lot.
Good points. I’ve been getting a lot more libertarian the last few years – although my experiences are vastly different from a lot of folks who actually spent a lot of time in combat arms admittedly. I’d like to think I’ve been rubbing off on a few more of my contractor/reservist/former military buddies along the way (sharing memes in group text messages go a long way with some folks – not to mention the guy who’s running his own restaurant and apparently talking with a law firm today because the health dept is finally about to crack down on him for his indoor seating arrangements).
I like to look back at John Ringo’s stuff in “The Last Centurion” as well as aspects he brought up in the Dark Tide Rising series. He may have been a bit optimistic there re: military vaccine distribution, but he also knows that absent the politics at the top, the military as a whole is vastly more capable than any other gov’t agency and has the reach/experience that most private orgs can’t muster – if necessary.
I moved quite a bit toward libertarian after leaving the service. I was a fairly conventional conservative before that, albeit one I’d still characterize as libertarianish. Very pro-law enforcement, supported the wars, etc.
Me too, except I might replace “annoyance” with “pain in the ass.”
I am sad I didn’t recognize this until too late – I could have been much more effective in peacetime.
I don’t think I could have changed that aspect of my personality; it’s too deeply ingrained. On the other hand, it’s a big part of what has made me a success as a quality systems consultant.
I knew a Signal Officer who could – in peacetime he was a National Guard officer who was about 95% By The Book. He got to Afghanistan and … he became a tiger in the field. The 1/501st paratroopers called him an absolute warrior. Back to peacetime, and he was just another guy supervising a part of an assembly line at a large plant. Amazing.
” I could have been much more effective in peacetime.”
Maybe you were supposed to be a pain in the ass.
“I was in the “in case of emergency, break glass” group.”
I have never heard it put better. I’m gonna get a little hammer and wear it around my neck
Of course, the people who most need to understand this will be the people (1) least likely to be able to read and comprehend it, and (b) most likely to scream their defiance that THEY would EVER have held such “icky” beliefs. In other words, people who lack both self-awareness and honesty (and those are probably not unrelated).
That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Jordan Peterson basically said the same thing when he said the progressives would have been Nazis in Germany. Not because they were true believers but because humans as social animals will go with the crowd. Present misanthropes excepted of course.
This also ties in with what Hannah Arendt was saying about Eichmann et al.
nazis in germany? shit
they are the nazis in America today
I have a lot to say about this topic, because I have thought a lot about it. I haven’t seen Graham’s version nor Eades’s work before this.
Don’t have time right now, though. I will say that a lot of the most annoying leftists I know seem also to occupy the “Aggressively Independent” quadrant as well, however, they don’t have any qualms about imposing rules on others.
I propose a third axis, which would be something like “propensity to want to control others.” The two dimensional space presented above really only concerns how people perceive and govern themselves. The third axis would be more about how they interact with others, which it more useful for understanding politics.
Most of the people I’ve known who were big into following the rules (to remove this from politics a bit) were complete hypocrites. I mean, pretty much all of them. The rules are for other people and exceptions should still be made for them. I think the emphasis here should be on how a person’s views conform to the larger society’s or at least an individual’s peer group.
Tattletales live to control. If they want to impose their rules on others, how is that independent? Aggressive, yes.
I think you’re missing my point that there is a third axis that describes this phenomenon.
Perhaps the third axis could be best described as “Willingness to consistently apply principles to oneself and others.”
I will say that a lot of the most annoying leftists I know seem also to occupy the “Aggressively Independent” quadrant as well
I think there was a time, decades ago, when a hardcore leftists was outside the mainstream of their immediate environment.
However, the Long March has made being a hardcore leftist the conformist position, not the aggressively independent position, in their immediate environment (academia, the media, and, more slowly, government bureaucracies). The Long March has now moved into large companies, which are increasingly “progressive”. Of course, the propaganda that leftists were the outgroup probably allowed them to continue believing they were aggressively independent,
Being leftist is a requirement to conform in more and more of society.
So now both the bottom left quadrant and the top left quadrant are quite hospitable to leftists, and as leftism always has a utopian strain, much of the bottom right quadrant as well. The propaganda that leftists are an oppressed outgroup, which appeals to their self-image of being outsiders to people in the upper right quadrant.
Isn’t the propensity to conform, and to be aggressive about that, independent of whatever the dominant political form is? That’s the point of the quadrant – they go along with the rules without really caring what the rules are.
Agreed. I was just pointing out that while leftism may once have been appropriate for the aggressively independent, it no longer is (without buying into the, err, false consciousness that leftism is an outgroup of some kind).
Now the really interesting overlay here may be in how The True Believer maps to the quadrants – and manipulates the absorption of an out-idea into a standard of conformity.
Interesting. All of my most lefty friends sometimes present outward appearances that they want to be “different”, but they’re screaming to be labeled & categorized on the inside. They long to be members of some group or another. Most wish they were something other than what they are (basic white folk) and lament that they can’t be black or native American or gay or trans. They hate their basicness & whiteness.
Because they don’t know who they are.
They don’t want to know.
There’s no there there.
People (at least people born since the 1960s) in the US have been told all their lives that it is important that they express their individuality, and that they are special. But at the same time recently they have been told that their tribe matters and that they must identify with it. This generates a significant amount of cognitive dissonance and they wrap themselves up in hypocrisy trying to apply both at once. The easy way out for them is to label opposing groups as “evil” or “regressive” and then they don’t have to think critically about themselves and their chosen groups.
What really gets complicated is when they want to be part of different groups that have slightly conflicting traits or goals. Then the cognitive dissonance is even further compounded.
That’s where intersectionality comes in – and where to put everyone on the victim stack!
Being a cisgendered gay white person (especially male) is now boring and passé. I’m not complaining, I’m boring so it fits me just fine. But accordingly many people who once found gay to be edgy now have to find new ways to seem edgy. Of course, edgy is almost always someone transgressing an outgroup boundary but conforming to an ingroup norm. So the transgressive are, paradoxically, just conformists of another stripe.
Yes, this
So, we’ll see more racism. After all what is more edgy now than racism?
Seriously.
That multiracial whiteness opinion piece was one of the absolute most racist things I’ve read. Yet it’s leftist orthodoxy presented in a major newspaper, and is hailed as deep intellectual thinking.
My thought exactly – we’ve been seeing more racism.
The migration from “colorblindness” to “anti-racism” is driven by that need to transgress the new outgroup boundary. Colorblindness became the new norm, and so it had to be transgressed by claiming it was really just more white supremacy and that aggressive anti-white supremacy was the new outgroup. Of course, aggressive anti-white supremacy pretty much became aggressive anti-white people.
And I see a lot of sheep who seize onto anti-racism because it is being promulgated into their environment as the new norm by the barrage of propaganda through the media, touting “anti-racism”, “diversity and inclusion”, etc.
Of course, edgy is almost always someone transgressing an outgroup boundary but conforming to an ingroup norm. So the transgressive are, paradoxically, just conformists of another stripe.
Burning Man is a wonderful example of this.
The quadrant model applies to any scale of social group you want to apply it to. We could even be parsed into within the confines of this group – we simply would not all fit in the upper right quadrant. We only do as the social group aperture is opened up.
s/b parsed into all four quadrants [within the confines…]
You’re special. You’re going to change the world. You should love yourself with no conditions. You should love others with no conditions unless they don’t love with no conditions. You are a product of your skin color. You are a product of your religion. You are a product of your heteronormality. You are whatever gender you choose.
Is it any wonder young people are confused? The adults have failed them miserably and are using them for their own ends.
^^ this.
I really only have one lefty friend remaining, and we have never, ever discussed politics. He’s blessedly remained the type of guy who doesn’t feel the need to introduce politics to every aspect of his life.
I want to be stereotyped.
Knew it!
Excellent.
Kind of mandatory with that setup.
I don’t want no hippie pad!
That’s what aggression IS. The imposition of one’s will where it currently is not implemented.
This is actually a pretty good summary of what I already thought about the (modern?) left. Their ideas dominate in all the major institutions, especially media/pop culture. Grouping people by personality types is more fluid than the binary Nolan chart grouping. People’s opinions change, but their personality types are relatively fixed. knowing the personality likely tells you what a person would have believed at a certain period of time.
Of course, this is also one of those things that confirms what we already want to believe about those we ideologically differ from. Plenty of people on the left still see themselves as bucking the system. I mean, their entire worldview revolves around that notion. They would deny that they are the dominant culture to begin with and would group things in entirely the reverse order that most of us here would.
Whether right or wrong, this would be a more controversial system.
This goes to my point, and is why I think the third axis is necessary.
Ideally in a libertarian/minarchist world, the third axis would have a length of near zero, to constrain the possible effects on others.
Then you aren’t talking about a community of human beings. Coercion is always necessary, at the edges, for social cohesion. I thought the anarchist view was to distribute coercion, not to live entirely free of it?
My version of anarchism in a truly unconstrained state would be to meet attempted coercion with immediate and overwhelming violent opposition. Granted, I wouldn’t last too long doing that–eventually a bigger dog would come along than I could handle. So, we all make compromises to some degree.
Even anarchism has agreed-to rules, no? And if rules exist, there must be some mechanism to deal with transgressions. You might, in theory, be able to avoid monopolization of coercion – but only by carrying the risk of uncontrolled escalation.
In anarchy, as I see it, the only safety is in deterrence. So, if you’re like that guy in Snow Crash with the nuclear warhead on a deadman switch, you’re as safe as is possible in that world. Still not super safe.
And there’s uncontrolled escalation at it’s best!
It’s the intersection of anarchy and nihilism.
If your theory of human society is as anti-human as communism, you might have a problem with your theory.
I hope you’re not thinking this is my actual philosophy of life.
Not at all.
I won’t go any further because it would just be a wholesale copy and paste of both Graham’s and Dr. Eades’ work, but I thought it worth sharing here in a virtual space filled with (what seems to me, anyway) a majority of “aggressively independent-minded” people.
Thanks, Ozy. Greatly appreciated.
De nada. My pleasure.
This is great, Ozy!
And much more useful that the ones normally pimped. I like the transformation over time from naughty to sheep – it makes complete sense. Also a good reminder to challenge your assumptions from time to time.
Do you have a link to Eades’ newsletter?
I don’t. I get it in email, though it appears that his blog captures some of it. I can’t tell for certain.
I just read the emails and occasionally respond. He’s a super nice guy. Just a great dude with an expansive and curious mind. I love chatting with him on the occasions we run into each other.
Thanks. I’ll subscribe.
Looks like I’m more of a dreamer.
*raises hand* Dreamer here.
Excellent breakdown. I like this much better than the traditional chart.
All that said I wonder if all of this political categorization means much. this is an interesting look but you have others as well. Like Jerry Pournelle’s chart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart#:~:text=The%20two%20axes%20are%20as,evil%22%2C%20preferring%20individual%20freedom.
And Arnold Klings three political axes
Arnold Klings three political axes
https://cdn.cato.org/libertarianismdotorg/books/ThreeLanguagesOfPolitics.pdf
So my third axis above most corresponds to Kling’s “Liberty-Coercion” axis. I haven’t read that work by Kling yet, but have read a lot of his other articles.
Trump Criticized For Loudly Denouncing Incoming Administration And Not Just Spying On Them Like A Normal President
Biden To Be Sworn In On Copy Of The Communist Manifesto
Study Finds Most Americans Support Making Wall Around Capitol Permanent To Keep Politicians In
1. Make the wall around D.C. permanent;
2. make sure there are no openings of any kind, and;
3. extend its height into sub-orbital space.
Eh. It’s a start.
4. Fill it with water.
4. Fill it with
waterrabid wolverines.More entertaining.
You’re going to need a rather large diaphragm or screw pump then.
*calls Winston’s mom*
Guess I’m Naughty. (Would explain a lot of my youth, actually.)
Not within the confines of this social group you aren’t.
Also, people don’t migrate through the quadrants, norms do. It is a matter of norm-conformity, not value of the norm itself.
Also, people don’t migrate through the quadrants, norms do.
Indeed. And that complicates things for the aggressively independent. Aggressively independent people who adopted leftist ideology when it was badthink have to rationalize their adherence to leftist ideology now that it is a predominant (in many environments) norm, especially where hardcore lefties have concentrated and made it a norm. You don’t see all that many leaving the lefty fold, even though their aggressively independent personality means they should.
The aggressively independent have an internal conflict when norms actually move their way. Fortunately, they have a built-in mechanism (as do we all) to resolve the conflict without giving up the ideology they are invested in – confirmation bias and rationalization.
Those of us who went for the libertarian flavor of badthink haven’t had that conflict arise.
Yeah, And the kids in the upper right quadrant, the aggressively independent-minded, are the naughty ones. When they see a rule, their first impulse is to question it. Merely being told what to do makes them inclined to do the opposite. pretty much sums up my school career in three sentences.
As a kid I would say I was Sheep with strong Dreamer tendencies.
“Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists!”
This is exactly why we have a 1st Amendment. At one point, many of the things we consider normal were started by someone in the upper right quadrant. Ending slavery, civil rights, women voting, gay rights, etc. Those ideas were once considered dangerous and undesirable by everyone in the left 2 quadrants. But just like slavery, most people will incorrectly claim “Oh I’d have totally been for… ” And they still think they are wise enough to identify what “next thing” is currently dangerous and undesirable but will be accepted in the future.
Someday it might be acceptable to be white again.
Part of the problem is also human beings’ need to classify & categorize literally everything. It’s really hard to suppress that need when it comes to our fellow humans.
So what you are saying is, there’s two kinds of people. Those who want to categorize other people, and those who don’t?
No, there’s one type, because the brain is wired to find patterns and categorize. No matter how much someone wants to pretend they don’t at the basic level, they can’t help it.
*golf clap*
“There are two things I hate in this world, people who are intolerant of other peoples cultures and the Dutch.” – AP
There are 10 kinds of people.
Those who understand binary and those who don’t
01001111 01101000 00100000 01110110 01100101 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100011 01101100 01100101 01110110 01100101 01110010 00101100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00101110
I only speak ASCII
*laughs in Unicode above the ASCII range*
dog whistle!
https://youtu.be/gDYp66HKsCQ?t=63
As Mo only used chars under 128, it’s both ASCII/Unicode.
“Drink More Ovaltine”
whoops, sorry, hex, not dec:
“Oh very clever, you. “
What about the other E kinds?
There are two kinds of people. Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
*narrows gaze*
*chuckle*
EvilSheldon is db sock confirmed.
better get a bulk rate on wedding cake
That seems like a pretty good need, though.
It’s obviously evolutionarily beneficial in many aspects of life. I, personally, don’t think it’s beneficial to apply it to fellow humans at any other level than “is this a human? Yes or No”.
That’s exactly what current political thinking is doing. If you agree with a speaker, you pass as human. If you disagree, you are an animal.
Can confirm.
Then they’re sub-categorizing people. They key is that all people are in one category. Once you see all humans as simply humans, then you’re able to treat people as individuals. I mean, if progressives & lefties did the math, they could see that as you divide people into more & more sub-groups, then you arrive at individualism anyway. But I know math, even philosophical math, is not their strong suit.
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
Ayn Rand
Nuhh UH!! It’s the individuals who have been oppressing the collectives this whole time!!!
tinfoil hat time:
The use of the term “inbred” it to imply that Those People are sufficiently genetically dissimilar from goodfolx that thay can reasonably considered as different species, and thus are not accorded the same rights as actual humans.
Probably as part of our evolutionary psychology?
Dangerous vs. non-dangerous?
It’s actually coup de grâce (French; rough translation: cut of mercy) though people often pronounce it like you’ve spelt it here (i.e., with the final consonant sound silent). The word gras means fat, so to the extent coup de gras has a meaning it would be akin to “trimming the fat”.
With that bit of aggressive conformity out of the way, I think Graham has identified a sociological phenomenon pretty solidly. The question that remains, however, is how do the aggressively conformant get led along? Something changes the norms and the zeitgeist and while the aggressively conformant always conform to something, it’s rarely the same thing twice.
cut of mercy, trimming the fat . . .
Por que no los dos?
It does have a John-o characteristic to it, I agree.
John would embrace the fat, not cut it.
By embrace, mean…
Or “to bludgeon with a can of Crisco. ” Or perhaps a sock stuffed with sticks of butter.
You gotta keep exchanging the sock with a fresh one from the fridge though.
Interesting run down Ozzy (good to see you btw). I probably fit somwhere in between the “Conventionally Passive – Independently Passive” realm. I’m not much of a tattletale, nor a bad boy.
This reminded me of a thought i had earlier this week. I was musing on the hypocrisy of certain individuals, and how people are willing to abuse/use powers in the service of destroying their enemies. I was thinking about how they so easily cast aside any notion of principles or heartfelt beliefs. It dawned on me that people like this don’t believe in anything except their own moral and intellectual rightness. In short anything can be ok, because they are by definition of their own beliefs, always right. And this is a real belief. This is why we see so much flip-flopping on a constant basis. Likewise, we see people who advocate for some of the halmarks of authoritarianism, claiming to be defenders of freedom. They _are_ good people in their minds, and there is no doubt in their mind about that.
This is what the LORD says: “Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind, who makes the flesh his strength and turns his heart from the LORD. -Jerimiah 17:5
Most people haven’t thought about their beliefs enough to figure out their first principles, and don’t have the base to build out from there.
There are two kinds of people. Some people divide everybody up into two kinds of people, and some people don’t.
Oh sure, but what do the people who don’t say?
We must silence these fascists.
As members of the writing and publishing community of the United States, we affirm that participation in the administration of Donald Trump must be considered a uniquely mitigating criterion for publishing houses when considering book deals.
Consequently, we believe: No participant in an administration that caged children, performed involuntary surgeries on captive women, and scoffed at science as millions were infected with a deadly virus should be enriched by the almost rote largesse of a big book deal. And no one who incited, suborned, instigated, or otherwise supported the January 6, 2021, coup attempt should have their philosophies remunerated and disseminated through our beloved publishing houses.
“Son of Sam” laws exist to prevent criminals from benefiting financially from writing about their crimes. In that spirit, those who enabled, promulgated, and covered up crimes against the American people should not be enriched through the coffers of publishing.
We are writers, editors, journalists, agents, and professionals in multiple forms of publishing. We believe in the power of words and we are tired of the industry we love enriching the monsters among us, and we will do whatever is in our power to stop it.
Do you know who else wanted to ban books written by undesirables?
*flips off safety*
Are we there yet?
Isn’t this all but admitting that the publishing industry is nothing more than a front for bribes and money laundering?
“performed involuntary surgeries on captive women”
Wait … what?
Some illegals in detention had health issues regarding their reproductive organs, and were given hysterectomies. Some activists (so, grain of salt) claim it was without informed consent. Which is certainly possible, of course, but both the illegals and the activists have mucho incentives to, err, color the facts.
I have conflicting confirmation biases on this one. So I file it under “possible, but unconfirmed”.
Oh, fuck off.
We are writers, editors, journalists, agents, and professionals in multiple forms of publishing.
Malice says the Cathedral is responding this way because they are in deep shit.
I’m inclined to agree.
They sure are making a lot of noise.
Just like CNN wanting to torpedo their competitors – even if you succeed, it doesn’t mean you’ll get more people to listen to you. It’s not like if you take away Fox News, everyone will say “Oh well, looks like I’ll switch to CNN.”
They control academia, the media, the corporations, entertainment, the entrenched bureaucracy, and the representative government. I like Malice but I think the deep shit part is wishful thinking.
Even those folks don’t buy books from lefties.
I find that lefties buy the latest, trendy books like those by Kendi and DiAngelo and then gush about how it changed them, how much they got it and buy in. It’s like going to a postmodern art gallery and watching people nod their heads at a blank piece of canvas, pretending they are in on it, when in fact they’re the butt of the joke by the artist.
In contrast (particularly for libertarians), others buy books and discuss the merits and faults of the arguments put forward.
Same here. I guess the same tactics would be used by people with their backs against the wall, and people consolidating their power, but that doesn’t mean people using those tactics are necessarily in the former group.
“our beloved publishing houses.”
Go fuck yourselves you holier than thou drama queens. Sweet Lord are these people full of themselves. Parallel institutions it is then.
Cut throat capitalist competition for the win!
… But they’ll enthusiastically publish every one of Obama’s 400-page brain farts even though he got us into a war in Yemen that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths (many of them children).
Ahem. Obama’s latest brain fart memoir, “Volume 1,” is 786 pages. Adam Corolla said he downloaded it to his phone and his phone was heavier.
performed involuntary surgeries on captive women
I remember that one. A government doctor treating illegal aliens*, as I recall, with a great deal of fog around the “involuntary”. With zero reason to believe it happened because Trump.
*Never forget: illegals who haven’t committed a felony can leave the US whenever they want, even if they are in detention. There is an odd element of voluntariness to their incarceration. Of course, many who are actually incarcerated have committed felonies.
When government does something bad, the buck only stops at the top if [WRONG TEAM] guy is in charge. Otherwise, it was low level guys making mistakes that will have to be punished.
Can’t decide if that is you yanking UCS’ chain or if you are just trying to establish your bona fides as an aggressively independent guy.
This wasn’t directed at anyone. I seriously wasn’t thinking of a single soul in particular when I wrote it. I don’t think I was trying to establish my bona fides either. (I would have thought the Anthrax book pretty much took care of that, but YMMV).
In truth, I think I fall somewhere slightly to the right of where the axes all meet, and I ride the line between dreamer and aggressive non-conformist. It just depends on how hard I’m pushed and whether the particular issue is one of those hills I am willing to die on. I’m also fortunate that as I’ve aged, and learned how to fight and take care of myself, it’s allowed me to feel more free to be more aggressively independent. You don’t necessarily need “fuck you” money, you really need to believe in your own ability to take care of yourself and your family. That confidence tends to bleed one from dreamer up into the “shove it up your ass” quadrant (when the issue warrants it).
As the old joke goes: “What are they gonna do, shave my head and send me to Afghanistan?”
There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
The kids in the lower left quadrant, the passively conventional-minded, are the sheep.
Or, perhaps, Kiwis.
Hard to separate sheep from Kiwis. You need a big crowbar.
Gahd-Daaaaamn!
Or a ewe haul.
Check out Juris, getting all ram-bunctious with the punnery!
That’s the lawyer in him, always wanting to butt heads with language.
Keep that up and I’ll lambaste you!
Merely being told what to do makes them inclined to do the opposite.
Uffda. I can’t tell you how many people in my life have figured out how easily I can be manipulated by utilizing my contrariness.
“No way I’d ever marry you”
“If you don’t know how to code that, I can get someone else”
Ayup!
And by the way it is rich for a Montanan to throw shade at some other group’s wool fetish.
The NoDaks don’t call sheep “Montana blonds” for no reason.
I’d like to say I’m ‘Naughty’, but ‘Dreamer’ is a better fit.
I move between them.
I aim to misbehave, but sometimes I just go for a walk instead.
I’m with you. I’m more likely to grumble to myself and I try not to make waves. This has been both helpful and not helpful in my life.
* buys grumbletarians.com, sets up redirect to here *
Oops, I was supposed to be making fun of Brooksy with that
Where would overly sarcastic asshole who just wants to be left the fuck alone fit on this chart?
By wanting to be put on the chart, you are expressing a feeling of a need to conform. Clearly you are a sheep.
db’s axis, I guess.
Do I deserve that? I probably deserve that.
Lol!
Perhaps the third axis could be best described as “Willingness to consistently apply principles to oneself and others.”
Sounds to me like “overly sarcastic assholes who just want to be left alone” fit just fine!
I am pretty much the unit vector on the axis of “overly sarcastic asshole who just wants to be left the fuck alone.”
I think that archetype is well represented here.
Like a room at a Jungian convention.
There’s a fourth dimension that’s hidden from the proles.
I’ll have you know I am *not* overly sarcastic!
Is there REALLY such a thing.
As members of the writing and publishing community of the United States, we affirm that participation in the administration of Donald Trump must be considered a uniquely mitigating criterion for publishing houses when considering book deals.
I can’t wait ’til a Russian publishing house puts out Steve Bannon’s memoirs.
Where would overly sarcastic asshole who just wants to be left the fuck alone fit on this chart?
I don’t know, but save me a seat.
^^ Confirms my “need to conform” hypothesis.
I realize you’re kidding but the truly radical nonconformists aren’t found in the comments sections of political message boards, they’re too busy trying to sneak cocaine across the border or whatever else it is that they do for fun.
Beat their heads against the padded walls of their cell?
Stinky, I love your goofy smiling dachshund avatar. Where did you find it?
Just did a quick search for “smiling dogs” and picked one with a decent resolution. There are tons of them out there.
Aw. Here, huh? https://www.askideas.com/50-most-funniest-dog-pictures-that-will-make-you-smile/
Coke users are not non-conformists, considering their need to stay within the lines.
Within? I can’t even see the lines anymore.
…sigh.
*narrows gaze*
I thought coke users were about making the lines disappear.
Or are they internalizing the lines?
Tough call.
Didn’t the coke users take a powder?
Seriously, our total social group will spread across all four quadrants.
Transgressions against Glibs behavior may be dealt with by administration of a good cat-butting (sounds pretty upper-left quadrant to me). Subsequent transgressions result in flat-out banning. Those who do not question this, or bridle against it are exhibiting behavior best described in the lower-left quadrant, no? Genial violation of the NSFW link is drifting to the upper-right, as long as it is tasteful, if not it runs up against the upper-left.
A good norm/rule is one that is easily internalized for the individual to self-police conformity.
I’m sure it will be firey but mostly peaceful.
DAY OF DESTRUCTION: “Chilling posters reveal Antifa is planning to clash with Trump fans at Inauguration Day riots”
Obligatory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY
Before she lost her mind, Dahlia Lithwick would occasionally write an interesting article.
order muppet vs chaos muppet
Every once in a while, an idea comes along that changes the way we all look at ourselves forever. Before Descartes, nobody knew they were thinking. They all believed they were just mulling. Until Karl Marx, everyone totally hated one another but nobody knew quite why. And before Freud, nobody understood that all of humanity could be classified into one of two simple types: people who don’t yet know they want to sleep with their mothers, and people who already know they want to sleep with their mothers. These dialectics can change and shape who we are so profoundly, it’s hard to imagine life before the paradigm at all.
The same thing is true of Muppet Theory, a little-known, poorly understood philosophy that holds that every living human can be classified according to one simple metric: Every one of us is either a Chaos Muppet or an Order Muppet.
Are you sure that was before she lost her mind? That first quoted paragraph is pretty damn derpy.
The Hegelian dialectic tends to do that to people. Somehow, they always stop achieving synthesis and start dividing everything into two groups and two groups only.
Derpy before Trump. Insane after Trump.
Wait… That was written with earnestness? I read it as mocking those people… But if it was written seriously then… :retreats further into reclusion:
Slate used to publish articles with the “LOW CONCEPT” tag that were generally “intended” to be humorous.
I worked in a college radio station for a few years, and the walls were covered with clippings and posters and graffiti, all generally what you’d expect from a college radio station. But my favorite piece of graffiti was:
“CONFORMITY IS WORTH IT”
As someone who is dispositionally non-conformist, it’s much appreciated. Being independent-minded isn’t 100% a positive thing. The downsides are clear and real. But to speak to the article, it’s one of those things where “it’s just who I am.” There’s an attraction to conformity for me, I just lack the ability to fake it very well.
Yeah, and I’ve been outspoken most of my life. It’s cost me friends, jobs and at least two lovers. And it’s hard to turn off, even when you’re thinking “Is this really the hill I wanna die on?”
“Lisa, ordinarily I’d say you should stand up for what you believe in, but you’ve been doing that an awful lot lately.”
I’m someone who always wanted to fit in, but couldn’t force myself to find things fun that others were finding fun and couldn’t fake it. Plus trying to fake it is exhausting and the rewards are small.
Finding a group you can fit in with helps.
/laments the complete lack of concerts over the past year.
[looks around chat room… shrugs… goes back to typing]
I am going to be aggressively independent and claim that many (most?) of us here, myself included, are actually passively independent.
^^^ This
But then we are all conforming…
I think it has to do with what authority you acknowledge as legitimate.
If yo believe in natural law, you are a sort-of comformist. Just to a weird set of rules that society as a whole doesn’t acknowledge.
That’s really it. The “non-conformists” are, more often than not, adhering to the set of rules of a subgroup rather than the majority set.
Who is their authority? My hypothesis is that the horizontal axis collapses down into “traditional” and “non-traditional” subgroup rather than “conforming” and “independent”
Everyone’s a mix of conformity and compliance, the question is how many people grit their teeth and do what they have to do rather than internalizing and believing in what they do. People can show similar behaviors outwardly while their internal motivations differ widely.
True, I think an interesting way to think about it isn’t necessarily conformity vs non-conformity, but weather principles are important vs not important. In this case, conformists “paradoxically” tend not to have principles that guide them, but go along with the prevailing crowd. Principled people quickly can find themselves rejected by the larger group of people for failing to conform to the whims of the times.
?
Hence why I hate mobs in general. Most people seek the comfort of the herd and will trample you without any remorse.
One of my earliest memories is being trampled at my 1st easter egg hunt. Mom only explained the “look for the eggs” aspect of the event. She omitted the “and don’t get trampled when they say ‘go'” part.
Unastoundingly, I’ve never been a fan of the herd either.
Well, neither they nor you know if it was really their feet that crushed you.
It coulda been the easter bunny. We’ll never know…
I like to point out to people that you have no idea what a person is capable of until you lift civil and social norms off them.
That neighbor you think is an upstanding nice guy? He could easily turn out to be a serial rapist if all threat of repercussions go away.
That nice lady down the street? Turns out she’s an informant and gets off on how it makes her feel powerful when she’s powerless in all other areas of her life.
I actually initially self-identified as “Dreamer” but I really really really dislike being told what to do. I don’t aggressively go out and violate rules, but I resent having them applied to me.
Oops, I was supposed to be making fun of Brooksy with that
*thumbs nose at Pope Jimbo*
Thhbbbbbbft!
The paradox of the nonconformist’s clique.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/35/71/f8/3571f8df37ff1bcaed0ff171f5dfa504.jpg
You know that if Trump had asked his supporters to wear masks, and they did, the intelligentsia would now be running about tut-tutting about the rubes and deplorables and their silly masks that “study after study shows do not stop the transmission of viruses.”
Which Sneetches have stars on their bellies?
the ones without steeches?
The time in the past when every “rebel” would wear nothing but black, listen to the same music and smoke clove cigarettes – we called it the “uniform of nonconformity”
Robert Smith haz a sad…
Weird Tangent: My friend smoked clove cigarettes at a Cure concert we went to. He wore boat shoes, though.
Don’t you go making fun of the goth kids.
Oh no, or what, they’ll kill themselves.
Those fuckety fucking fuckwits!
My credit card payment processors now have to send me a 1099 for my sales over $1200.
passive neutral-minded.
it works like Alignment, right?
I’ll add this thought on Graham’s conception – and Mike Eades’ graph of it – and then I have to run, but I’ll check back later.
I don’t see these as categories, but as a continuum. I also think it’s possible to change. I was an Uber sheep as a kid. I followed the rules to a T – and succeeded wildly within that system. What I had, however, was an insatiable curiosity and eventually, if you ask enough “why’s” and you genuinely care about the Truth, you’ll eventually pull back the curtain and see a confused old guy frantically yanking at levers. It can be a bit of a shock to the psyche. I had a number of those “A-ha!” moments to the point that I moved from sheep, to Dreamer, and then up to “none of you fuckers know any better than I do.” I think that’s a possible migration, so I’m certain these aren’t fixed categories, but it’s also unquestionably my experience that a LOT of people never change, aren’t willing to change, and don’t want to change. Many, many people find solace in being a sheep or a snitch.
Great article. Thanks, Ozy.
After your saying this, I can see a 2D version of this, with one layer being where what is culturally normal moves around (like Juris posits), and the other being where your own attitude evolves.
…and maybe db’s axis fits somewhere in there 😉
Good article. It sets up nicely a point I’m going to (hopefully) make.
Great article Ozy.
Thank you, OBE. This was a pretty quick throw-together, but it hit me just right.
OT: Handy Glibs, I need your help. Last night I heard a loud pop in my kitchen. I couldn’t figure out what it was. This morning my microwave and the igniters for my gas range didn’t work. They appear to be on the same electrical line. I went out and reset the circuit breakers. The got the microwave working but not the electric igniters. What am I overlooking?
Check the ignition transformer for your stove. Probably shorted out and tripped the breaker.
Thanks Scruffy. It is a gas range without a stove but I assume your advice stands. Is the transformer on the underside of the range?
Yes
You should be able to unplug the range and run an extension cord to it from a good outlet to see if it works. If it does work, then you’ve got a line short issue as db describes below. In which case, unless you’re comfortable working with electricity and wiring, switch the breaker off and call an electrician.
Thanks. That’s really helpful.
And move the microwave to another outlet for now.
/unhandy lady
I’d prefer a handsy lady.
That sounds bad. Unplug the range and check its outlet for voltage. Do the same for the microwave. If you know which breaker it is on, open the circuit and check the hot lead (line) at the outlet each appliance is plugged into to see if it’s grounded, using a multimeter. If the leads on your multimeter are long enough, with the circuit breaker open, check for continuity (low resistance) between the two hot leads. If that circuit is bad (high resistance or open circuit), then either the wire itself failed or the outlets could be damaged. Could be an undersized wire, or maybe a mouse or squirrel chewed through the insulation and grounded the line, fusing it.
In the worst case, the branch circuit to the range could have fused (real lucky it didn’t start a fire), or the outlet could have failed. I have seen some bad things in kitchen circuits like that, especially if they only used 14 gauge wire on a circuit that should have minimum 12 gauge. Be careful, because even if the wire to the range has fused, the melted ends could come in contact again and heat up, starting a fire.
Yikes. Thanks db. This may be more than I can handle. I was going to call an appliance repairman but it sounds like I need an electrician.
Check what Scruffy said above first. What he said is more likely, but if that’s not the problem, you may have circuitry problems in your walls.
Thanks db.
Sorry I may have jumped to the doomsday scenario too quickly.
The grandbaby mentioned in the last post arrived. Baby and Mom are fine. 10 pounds, 3 ounces. Grandma went “Yipes!”
Ouch
Congratulations
(O + C) ^2
Congrats! That’s a load!
Congratulations!
Congratulations Animal.
Wowza! And congrats!
Congratulations!
Congrats!
MAZEL TOV!!! Huzzah for a healthy new life! Also, ouch.
I have something to say here, and I apologize in advance to Ozy for it appearing on his article.
In the last post, someone posted, I think seriously, that masking up a child under 5 is child abuse. To that person: scre you. I have 2 children, one is 13, one is 5. I have sat down and had the serious talk with my 13 year old about how the mask mandates are not rooted in science, and are all about control. But this is a hoop we have to jump through right now. Do I think these mandates are unconstitutional? Absolutely. But I will mask up when I need to in order to avoid the conflict that could eventually lead to things like termination from my job. I need my job to feed my kids. When I am made to choose between masking up like a moron while employed, or taking a principled stand while unemployed, guess which one I’m going to pick? The one where my kids get to eat. I’m sorry that you don’t like the choice I’ve made, but this does not make me a child abuser.
I think we’re all quite aware of, and familiar with incentives here. It’s still child abuse, but it’s the coercive power of others forcing your hand. You have to compromise and make informed decisions. Absolute stands are rarely if ever practical, or realistic. You are not guilty of abusing your kids, but the coercive nature of the mandates, or school boards, or whoever, is the culprit, and you as an individual have limited power to resist that. We all recognize that, and that’s why we’re here in the first place.
Sorry if that’s an incredibly autistic overexplain.
No, I understand and its a fine well thought out explanation. I guess I just wanted to point it out because when I read it, it struck me as using the same kind of BS rhetoric that people here constantly (and rightly I believe) point out that the left uses. I’d rather it not be used here, or against me (I know, the statement was not directed right at me, but its hard to not be offended in my position. I’ve watched an entire family stop talking to my dad because my sister uttered the word “abuse”, even though he was not abusive. Im probably being oversensitive.
It was definitely worth bringing up. I’m sure you’re not the only one here who had had to make these choices, and you being up a very good point about the line of rhetoric. It helps to pull each other up on that kind of thing, or point out blind spots, etc.
Sorry to hear about your family. That’s a horrible situation.
Thanks. It is what it is. My sister drank the kool aide in college, so that, along with her being assaulted as a teenager pushed her to insanity. She’s pretty much a full on misandarist, therefore dad is an abuser because he yelled at her once in a while.
I think it goes without saying, especially on this site, that the child abusing bastards we refer to are the government and their media flying monkeys. It’s like with the free range kids thing, the issue is not parents who choose to keep their kids on a shorter leash, its the government and the cultural apparatus that has decreed that a 12 year old can’t walk 2 miles to school or hang out alone in a mall for a couple hours.
I think some here are fully practicing civil disobedience. I personally do not, I wear it when the sign says to and I rip it off my face as soon as I am back to a place where I am not afoul of the order.
When I am made to choose between masking up like a moron while employed, or taking a principled stand while unemployed, guess which one I’m going to pick?
Same here. Sucks, but I have duties that require personal sacrifice.
I live in the area where at least 95% of people wear face masks when they are outside. Do you tell your kids to wear face masks when they go for a walk? Even where I live there are no employment repercussions for not wearing a face mask on the street. The police don’t stop you either, they don’t give you warnings or tickets.
Our HOA has a lawn that’s open only to residents. It’s nice but often empty. Yet some of my neighbors make their kids wear masks when they play on that essentially private lawn when there’s nobody else there. These people are child abusers.
Do I tell my kids to wear them on walks? No. But thats not what the comment I am referring to said. It simply said that making kids under 5 wear a mask is child abuse. Not on a walk. Not in a store. Any time. I realize now that said comment was probably not directed at parents like me, so I apologize (To IH for my comment above as well). I just saw it as the type of rhetoric that blankets a whole group of people to label them something they’re mostly not. In this case, a child abuser.
I have sat down and had the serious talk with my 13 year old about how the mask mandates are not rooted in science, and are all about control.
And when your kid wears his/her mask after that talk, then it’s not child abuse. It’s people dealing with reality.
The people making their kids wear masks because they’re afraid their child will die, and they tell them as much, those people are child abusers. “Put this on or you’ll die, Sweetie.”, makes you a monster. “Put this on so you don’t get harassed.”, makes you a sensible parent.
https://twitter.com/JoshuaAtLarge/status/1351570584442974208
LOL.
Today is a good day to buy more mags.
Just saying.
I would, but as luck would have it, I had this unfortunate canoeing accident the other day…
You could always buy them on the assumption you might one day be gifted a firearm that would be suitable.
Or maybe he comes into some scuba gear.
OOooo… good deal. Thanks
Decent deal.
For those who prefer polymer.
Stock up now. We all know what’s coming.
No one has FAL mags anymore 🙁
https://www.dsarms.com/c-824-magazines-and-accessories.aspx
They’re sold out of steel; I don’t care for the polymer ones.
Here?
thanks
?
Are Thermold mags any good? Only PTR-91 10-round mags I can find.
I have no experience with them, but in my head they’re filed alongside Promags.
A quick google search indicates that might be because they used to be made in Canada.
/shrug
On the plus side, M27 links are still available and relatively inexpensive. 🙂
Don’t need no AR15 mags.
But MIni-14 and MIA mags would be useful.
Springfield Armory still had OG steel M1A mags, last I checked. Which was, admittedly, awhile ago.
Cheaper than dirt has factory mags, but fuck those guys.
Fuckin-a, thanks
I’ve seen an interesting “Motte and Baily” + gaslighting tact going around. When someone on the right says “Hey you are going to go after all the trump supporters as domestic terrorists” you will sometimes get the response “Oh, you’re the one saying all trump supporters are the violent insurrectionists, not us. We just want to go after those seditious extremists”.
Despite the fact that always, anyone who has supported trump has been labeled a far-right or alt-right extremist.
Oh, you’re the one saying all trump supporters are the violent insurrectionists, not us.
“Stop lying. It only makes you an even worse person than you are.”
Excellent.
I suppose there’s a mint to be made by teaching the upper right quadrant to pass for the lower left.
Problem is, there aren’t all that many people in the upper right. Really a niche market.
Isn’t that what Winston did in 1984? seems like the safest option is to opt out and be a prole.
Yeah, I was playing around in my head with what percentage of the population should go in each quad. Thinking clockwise from upper left 15, 10, 25, 50.
https://www.oann.com/twitter-considering-expanding-permanent-bans-to-other-gop-groups/
Burn the heretics!
Interesting business model.
Market cap of $36B
EPS of -1.58
We’re way overdue for a correction.
Really reeks of the 2000 tech bubble, doesn’t it?
It feels quite familiar.
There were quite a few “immortal” giants that fell very quickly that year.
Cause everyone believed him.
But remember, every kid in high school in the US has to read the crucible, and understand how the Salem witch trials were just like the red scare in Hollywood and the blacklists and it was just terrible.
I’m so upper right quadrant.
As for the part about them defending slavery. We figured this out on our own. Another example is they’re the ones who’d rat Anne Frank out. They’re the same ones ratting on their neighbours for having people over or not wearing masks at work.
Jews were dangerous and illegal. They could’ve started a fire in that attic.
Free speech doesn’t mean you can cry jew in a krauted attic.
Booooooo!
Shit, a krauted attic sounds like an entirely different problem you need a licensed professional to clean up.
Hah!
Thx Ozy. This makes a lot of sense.
If I had a do over I’d like to think I’d live more in the upper right instead of the lower right. Mostly I’ve just always wanted to be left alone.
Interesting. Im not really interested in doing things because someone told me to or because they told me not to.
Damn. Aaron Rodgers brings the pain.
He’s been un-Munned. “Prince” Harry needs to dump Markle and get back to naked billiards in Vegas and cheeky Nazi cosplay.
His lack of subservience to the DNC is… unnerving. He must be made to bend the knee. How can all those players feel safe when he is on the field, just waiting to do violence to them.
Some State Farm advertising exec is going to have a screaming orgasm if the Super Bowl is KC v. GB.
I fully expect State Farm to drop Rodgers after his wrongthink.
Ayup
I should add that I’ve mocked Rodgers quite a bit. I still believe he’s a closeted homosexual or at the very least bi. He’s an arrogant son of a bitch. But by god after Drew Brees caved like a bitch this off-season with the BLM shit, I’ve now become a bit of an Aaron Rodgers fan. I mean, I sure as shit don’t want to see Brady get a 7th ring or the woke Mahomes get a second.
Because of healing and unity?
I think I’m somewhere on the green line to the right of the crosshairs. In my head, reflexively rejecting rules because they are rules is little different than reflexively accepting them. I try to think about whether they make any sense. Believe it or not, some do.
I flit between the two lower quadrants. I’m not an aggressive person.
Don’t operate your grill indoors. Because harm. Rule makes sense, has a point to it. Good rule.
Seems simple enough, I’m not sure how things got so far off track.
Running off at the keyboard, does this seem to anyone else like a variation of von Moltke’s four types of officers?
In my case, I like to think that I’m straddling the line between Dreamer and Naughty, veering from one quad to the other depending on the circumstance.
In the Moltke matrix, well… I like to think that I’m clever. There’s no question that I’m lazy. It’s probably best that I’m self-employed.
I use that all the time when hiring people.
Interesting on how it maps to the grid above. Not a one-to-one correspondence anywhere, but I suspect there is some alignment.
Being an introvert, I can’t say that I am all that aggressive about anything.
Being Irish, I hold grudges for ever.
“He’s got Irish Alzheimer’s – he’s forgotten everything except the grudges.”
I saw this in the queue last week and resisted reading it…until now. Thanks Ozzy!
I like to think my kids are in the naughty quadrant, I tend to yell at them for getting caught.
I’m super authoritarian about forcing everyone to be a libertarian at gunpoint.
If you’re not willing to embrace freedom than you should be killed.
Militant agnosticism
I don’t know and neither do you!
THE LIGHTS CANNOT BE COUNTED! ADMIT IT!
*subscribes to Urthona’s newsletter*
Clicked too soon.
You can actually justify that as a form of (political?) self-defense.
*fweedom
Thanks OZY, and all of you for making this an enjoyable and comfortable place for an Old(er) Guy. The discussions and examples strike pretty close to home to some of my life’s experiences.
I recall a contemporary at work saying that if I would just do as he (they) said I wouldn’t rock the boat so much. My boss said, “At least (redacted) stores are making money.”
I always laughed when I heard the expression “Thinking outside the box” when it was too obvious that it was not meant to be a joke.
I am going to push back on this. (and someone else might have in the above comments) But this quadrant is too inflexible and doesn’t take into account the day to day realities of peoples lives, it only makes for a nice bit of wall paper. For example, my wife is a very highly placed HR executive, and at various points works in all four corners of the diagram, it simply depends on how much she knows about a topic, and how much she cares.
Or, look at a research scientist. They may need to regularly push the boundaries of what the feel is known in their particular field, but at the same time might crave the regular rules being followed, and might even punish those whom they feel are not properly respecting the rules that they find perfectly important; drunk drivers might be reported, colleagues that don’t obey the scientific method become ostracised.
Until it can account for those changes, it is as useless as the Myers Briggs.
Zwak, I appreciate your point, but I think this is a forest/trees issue. This is nothing more than a model – that’s it. It has value only to the extent that it helps explain some phenomena in the world and/or helps you/us understand that phenomenon a little better. Which, by the way, is nothing more than what science is (along with the “and provides predictive value better than randome chance). To the extent that this provides a more useful framework for political and/or policy differences, it may be useful.
For example, the intersection of the “Just Wear the Mask, Ozy!” people against political orientation is not a Left-Right issue. It’s not even Authoritarian v. Liberty loving (quite). This model, however, does a helluva job of helping to explain why there may be disparate political travelers who are all in the “Just Wear the Mask!” camp. (I think so, anyway). And to that extent, this model provides some utility. It does so in a way that (to me, anyway) seems much closer to what I’ve experienced across a large swath of my lifetime in a variety of contexts.
I think people trying to see themselves or loved ones as locked into a particular quadrant isn’t a healthy or helpful way of looking at it. As I noted in a comment above, it’s a continuum. And though I tend to be independent minded now, I wasn’t always so. Additionally, I straddle the fence between aggressively so and passively so, depending upon the circumstances and whether the issue is one I’m willing to fight about.
Regardless, it’s still a helpful way (for me) to think about some of what I’m seeing in the world. It’s a heuristic and like all heuristics it only has value generally and may very wall fall apart in any specific case. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a useful tool. Scientific models fall apart at the extremes or in any particular oddball N=1, but that doesn’t mean they’re not useful at all.