Equality or enhancement?

[Metamorphosis]

Another reason why I am pro-enhancement is that I think these eccentricities are a part of our identity.

The ideology of balance tells us that we must even out all of our traits until there is no longer an imbalance. Supposing everyone became perfectly even, would anyone be different?
I think we sacrifice our identity in attempting to level our traits.

This reminds me of a book recently about certain deviant subcultures. It pointed out how middle class/"normal" people tend to play down thier unique qualities in an effort to maintain comformity, whereas certain subcultures will play up their unique qualities. Someone who is normally funny might become known for that, resulting in a constant feeling of needing to be funny. Likewise someone who is violent/prone to cosmic musing/crazy/etc.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This reminds me of a book recently about certain deviant subcultures. It pointed out how middle class/"normal" people tend to play down thier unique qualities in an effort to maintain comformity, whereas certain subcultures will play up their unique qualities. Someone who is normally funny might become known for that, resulting in a constant feeling of needing to be funny. Likewise someone who is violent/prone to cosmic musing/crazy/etc.

Yeah. I try the best I can to avoid persona control.
The concept kind of repulses me.

 

[white]

Equality is an ideal.

Enhancement is the reality.

I'd say it is harder to find a balanced person than a specialised person, to be honest. So I do not see why a balanced person is necessarily a conformist or mediocre, coming from that light.

It takes more work to be balanced and neutral, than to be specialised. In all things, it is easier to work on our strengths, than our weaknesses, simply.

The system that works for me is one where there's enough space for differences to develop and to enhance our strengths, but not so much freedom that the individual is pursued at the cost of alienation of others perceived to be "normal".

That he neglects his weaknesses while getting by on his strengths. Those blindspots are ultimately dangerous - too much focus on strengths is a weakness sometimes.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Equality is an ideal.

But like I say, it's a creepy ideal.
Maybe I want the weird mental lumps and jags that makes me a distinct person.

I'd say it is harder to find a balanced person than a specialised person, to be honest. So I do not see why a balanced person is necessarily a conformist or mediocre, coming from that light.

True, but if everyone aimed toward balance, they'd all become more and more the same.

It takes more work to be balanced and neutral, than to be specialised. In all things, it is easier to work on our strengths, than our weaknesses, simply.

I think that's part of the logic, though. You should work on your strengths because you'll gain nothing out of the futility of your weaknesses.
Look at Hillary Clinton! Why is she trying to reach across the isle and seem more moderate? She'll never win support of the right-wing, but she'll lose support of the left-wing by trying. John Kerry did the same thing.

The system that works for me is one where there's enough space for differences to develop and to enhance our strengths, but not so much freedom that the individual is pursued at the cost of alienation of others perceived to be "normal".

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

That he neglects his weaknesses while getting by on his strengths. Those blindspots are ultimately dangerous - too much focus on strengths is a weakness sometimes.

Of course, but I utlimately think there's a higher rate of profit from strength focus.

 

[white]

But like I say, it's a creepy ideal.
Maybe I want the weird mental lumps and jags that makes me a distinct person.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. I voted for leaning towards Enhancement.

True, but if everyone aimed toward balance, they'd all become more and more the same.

I did not mean they had to mimicry everyone else actually. I meant that while everyone is different, they practise more tolerance and patience, so as to jointly create that kind of safe environment where folks who were special in different ways, could still find their place. And folks who were ordinary, did not feel left out too.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Perhaps to draw an analogy, when Bill Gates was asked why was he leaving most of his money to charity vs to his children, his response as, "I believe kids should have enough so they feel comfortable to try something, but not so comfortable as to try nothing."

That's the kind of system I was referring to. One where differences have a space to be developed, but not so comfortable as to take out the need to work on our weaknesses altogether; and to use the strengths to help others vs merely use it to set ourselves apart, though it may appear to "water down" that strengths in some ways when we adapt, I think it actually adds a different dimension and cements it further.

Makes sense? I guess I've always believed that "to those whom much is given, much is expected".

Re Hilary: Her mistake was trying to be all things to all people. A balanced person would not aim for that.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Perhaps to draw an analogy, when Bill Gates was asked why was he leaving most of his money to charity vs to his children, his response as, "I believe kids should have enough so they feel comfortable to try something, but not so comfortable as to try nothing."

That's the kind of system I was referring to. One where differences have a space to be developed, but not so comfortable as to take out the need to work on our weaknesses altogether; and to use the strengths to help others vs merely use it to set ourselves apart, though it may appear to "water down" that strengths in some ways when we adapt, I think it actually adds a different dimension and cements it further.

I believe I follow.

Makes sense

My English professor says that like a catch-phrase, so now it always makes me think of her. Not that that's a bad thing, I adore my English professor.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

An extreme enhancement bias we have here.
This is kind of funny to me, because here in the USA at least, the education system is pretty much bent toward equalization. They always focus on where your failing, and tell you to pick up the pace. They cherish your talents very little up until higher-end college(so I hear).

 

[JustDave]

An extreme enhancement bias we have here.
This is kind of funny to me, because here in the USA at least, the education system is pretty much bent toward equalization. They always focus on where your failing, and tell you to pick up the pace. They cherish your talents very little up until higher-end college(so I hear).

College undergraduate programs also promote balance. Graudate programs do not. It's all about specialization.

 

[ygolo]

I think we should be careful to keep our other functions maintained at a certain level, but we should still focus primarily on our strengths, because that is how we were intended to work. That's what I think, anyway.

I think Athenian summed it up best.

On second thought, is balance a natural thing? I'm assuming it is but am not sure. What do you think?

Equilibrium/balance is very natural. However, I believe the natural "balance" is towards specialization. There is the least amount of tension when we are close to an ideal specialization, but have enough general qualities to get along. But, imo, that is still much closer to specialization.

If we didn't have specialization, most of our modern comforts would be non-existent. Almost all of us would have to be farmers (or Hunter/gatherers really). Some people are better at somethings when compared to others.

I did not mean they had to mimicry everyone else actually. I meant that while everyone is different, they practise more tolerance and patience, so as to jointly create that kind of safe environment where folks who were special in different ways, could still find their place. And folks who were ordinary, did not feel left out too.

I am not sure this is the same as "equalization." Cooperation, and equitable trade are important aspects that allow for specialization.

 

[white]

I am not sure this is the same as "equalization." Cooperation, and equitable trade are important aspects that allow for specialization.

Yaps. My vote was towards enhancement.

 

[kelric]

I would lean a bit more to equalization than most, I think, but at least part of that is that I tend to be more of a generalist myself (in fact, I'm often annoyed that our society requires so much specialization, but I'll not derail too badly).

In education, I think that generalization early-on followed by increasing specialization is a good path. But to completely discount other areas of thought to focus so completely on a specific topic (I used to be in lab research - some of the 1-track-ness there is mind boggling) seems limiting - you never know when knowledge of a seemingly unrelated topic will be just the thing that helps you move forward in a specialty.

Personality-wise, I'd place a larger (but not near complete) emphasis on equality. Trying to push myself deeper into those areas that I already do well is more comfortable, but I'm not sure that it's as healthy as branching out. I'd think that learning to look at things from multiple perspectives and opening up to other points of view would both help us apply our own strengths more effectively and help group up with others with different strengths where needed/wanted.

Not sure I made any sense there, but it was worth a shot.