Systemic Issues

Author: Theweakeredge ,

Posts

Total: 10
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 3,406
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Throughout my time here I've interacted with a wealth of different people, with different views on things; people of different religions, different politics, different standards of evidence, etc, etc. There are some people who are very similar to me, with very similar beliefs, and only a very minute difference in ideology separates us. Similarly, there are people who are quite literally the opposite of me, and they have one or two things that we might agree on. However, there is one thing that I think dictates the biggest difference in how people think. This is a question of epistemology rather than one of ideology, which is to say, how we process and comprehend information is fundamentally opposed, separate. 

I think the clearest example of this would be Individualistic versus Systemic thinking. This isn't just in regards to things like racism and sexism, which are two of the most obvious examples of such differences in thinking, it also affects something as simple as how we understand definitions. I'll go into an example of something which highlights this contrast in knowledge with one of the more obscure instances of this thinking. Election! Not the actual act of electing officials, though it is influenced by this thinking, I'm specifically referring to how we view elected officials. The individualistic minded among us would view each politician as uniquely responsible for each bill they pass, disavow, or even ignore. Whereas systematically minded people would think that a particular bill being passed is more or less due to a system of people.

Let's do a classic one, Trump versus Biden. The more conservatively minded will typically disavow Biden at every turn, take any excuse to rip into him. Conversely, they will typically defend or uphold Trump, even with apparent lies by Trump, but to get to the heart of the matter - the most typically defended point of Trump is that he was good for the economy (less so after Covid). Whereas most left-minded people would see that as a product of Obama's pre-established laws. What I'm trying to point out is that individualists typically care more about what a person has achieved, and more systemic-minded people typically care more about how something has been achieved. This explains why most conservatives find Biden so unfit to hold office. In their minds, Biden already had his chance and achieved nothing, and now he's stumbling over his words.

With this understanding let's take a look at the case of systemic racism and sexism, starting with sexism just to separate ourselves from more controversial topics at first. I typically see people arguing along these lines, "Sexism was abolished, females have the same rights as you and I," then the Systemicist might respond, "There are several ways that females are still disadvantaged by the society around them". If my theory holds up, then the first response should be based on achievement, which it is, they point out that there are laws in place that make females legally equal to men. But... on first look, the Systemicist doesn't really care about how achievement was made, but how it hasn't been made.  You see, just as Individualists care about what an individual hasn't accomplished, Systemicist care about how the system hasn't accomplished.

It is a very thin line, and it can cross just like that. This isn't just a party line, sometimes liberals argue individualistically and sometimes conservatives argue systematically. For example; Cancel culture and freedom of speech. More liberal-minded people who would cancel an individual are specifically worried about what that person has accomplished and typically less concerned about how that person affects others. Conversely, Conservatives think that free speech should always be allowed because of how it accomplishes freedom. It's not exactly intuitive, because some liberals do care about how it affects things, and some conservatives do care that that individual person is being "repressed." I'm just giving an example of when the terms can be switched.

Ultimately the divide is means versus ends. One side cares about how something is accomplished, whereas the other cares about something being accomplished.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 76
Posts: 3,582
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
--> @Theweakeredge
I like your approach, not just looking at individualistic vs. systemic, but that something is accomplished vs how it is accomplished. To me, the 'how' of accomplishment is just as important, if not more so, than the accomplishment, itself. It appears to be a morality tale, of a sort. Maybe the term 'morality' is fraught with too much baggage; something like our discussion, and, frankly, disagreement, on definition of gender, for example. And that we disagree, which, is fine, I suppose, since we approach from different perspectives, is, itself, more of a matter of how we disagree than that we happen to disagree. perhaps the term ought to be integrity, but even that has baggage. I mean integrity, in this matter of how to accomplish or accomplish by any means. I think one has more integrity if they are more concerned with how something is accomplished than that it is accomplished by any means available. The "any means" camp would accomplish a thing without care for its consequences, whereas the 'how' camp may choose more amenable consequences and avoid a negative consequence, especially to others rather than themselves.

For example, If I want to be rich, and I don't care how it is accomplished, there are certainly ways to accomplish it, such as selling drugs, but I don't like the consequences for anyone else, let alone me.  On the other hand, if I become educated in a lucrative field, and ply my trade honestly and lawfully, and use my wealth to benefit others as well as myself, than I can face the mirror and like the guy I see.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,804
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
I understand some of what you are saying but not the overall application of it, since I think there's more types/dynamics and 'inbetweeners' and stuff.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 3,406
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
For sure, I just thought that highlighting these two specific types of thinking is important to realize the underlying assumptions between both sides of many many arguments. They are foundational ways of thinking, or more appropriately, foundational ways of prioritizing
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 365
Posts: 11,804
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Theweakeredge
It isn't that the right wing only see individual attained goals while the left wing only see the means and efficiency of achieving those goals. This is not only an oversimplification but is wrong and naive.

The right wing see the system too, they want a system that brutally punishes any who are drains on it and generously rewards those who do the most for it. Consequently, their system does end up considering achievements more than left-wing systems. The reason for this lies in the desired systematic reward vs punishment dynamic. The left wing want a system that rewards those who try and punishes those who get too far without trying. 

Individualism is held more sacrosanct in the right wing's ethos because their systematic thinking incorporates that as a basis on which to build the system.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Generally speaking, the  right-wing { conservatives? } walk more in fear of;

1} loss of money { riches } above and beyond that of normal survival with an average savings account,

2} people of color and this is often leads to inability of ways to express their fears that are not violent or racist,

3} systemic way of life i.e. a change and transformations of culture and the known order ergo a fear of unknown,

4} government even tho government may assign them some degree of individual rights.

Generally speaking, left-wing walks more in fear of;

1} the violent { crazy } right-wing,

2} violent { crazy } left-wing,

3} violent [ crazy } independents.

Loss of structural integrity is equally feared by both sets of  viewpoints.






Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 1,735
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @Theweakeredge
The individualistic minded among us would view each politician as uniquely responsible for each bill they pass, disavow, or even ignore. Whereas systematically minded people would think that a particular bill being passed is more or less due to a system of people.
So then it behooves you to make explicit your meaning when you state "system of people." What is a system of people if not a composite of individuals who maintain individual values?The individualistic minded understand that ultimately values are attributable to the individual. It is far more prudent to attribute responsibility to an individual than it is to attribute responsibility to a group, whose individual members may be involved for a variety of reasons.

The more conservatively minded will typically disavow Biden at every turn, take any excuse to rip into him.
I don't think that's "conservatively minded." Liberals--so called Liberals--took shots at Donald Trump at every turn. (Forgive my incitement of violence.)

Conversely, they will typically defend or uphold Trump, even with apparent lies by Trump, but to get to the heart of the matter - the most typically defended point of Trump is that he was good for the economy (less so after Covid).
Accusing a politician of lying is like accusing water of being wet.

Whereas most left-minded people would see that as a product of Obama's pre-established laws.
Yes, they're oblivious.

What I'm trying to point out is that individualists typically care more about what a person has achieved, and more systemic-minded people typically care more about how something has been achieved.
Not at all. You're simply characterizing individualists as consequentialists. The means are important as well. Case in point: conservatives oppose raising taxes (not really, but that's their public veneer) especially as it concerns funding social welfare programs. It isn't that they oppose the reduction of the "poverty rate;" they oppose the means so-called Liberals employ to address it.

This explains why most conservatives find Biden so unfit to hold office.
Conservatives find Biden unfit to hold office because he's a democrat. I'm sure old Joe has a litany of neuroses and perversions that adds fuel to the fire, but his being a democrat is the fundamental reason.

With this understanding let's take a look at the case of systemic racism and sexism, starting with sexism just to separate ourselves from more controversial topics at first. I typically see people arguing along these lines, "Sexism was abolished, females have the same rights as you and I," then the Systemicist might respond, "There are several ways that females are still disadvantaged by the society around them". If my theory holds up, then the first response should be based on achievement, which it is, they point out that there are laws in place that make females legally equal to men. But... on first look, the Systemicist doesn't really care about how achievement was made, but how it hasn't been made.  You see, just as Individualists care about what an individual hasn't accomplished, Systemicist care about how the system hasn't accomplished.
Because the argument against the "system" is fundamentally premised on a delusion, i.e. women = men. The deficiency isn't in what the system "hasn't accomplished" but the reasons it attempts to accomplish something that it can't.

It is a very thin line, and it can cross just like that. This isn't just a party line, sometimes liberals argue individualistically and sometimes conservatives argue systematically.
Because your argument is flawed. You're essentially arguing that conservative minded people are consequentialists and so-called liberals are deontologists. Neither are restricted to conservatism or so-called Liberalism.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 3,406
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
--> @Athias
I won't bother responding, why? Because from the first resopnse its clear that you don't go back and correct things I address later in the post. You have essentially written a Cinema Sins script.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 1,735
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @Theweakeredge
I won't bother responding, why? Because from the first resopnse its clear that you don't go back and correct things I address later in the post. You have essentially written a Cinema Sins script.
It's your call.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
0} 8  billion people, using systems that are ecological unsustain-able beyond 2232 { LINK }  if not sooner,

....0a} watch movie "Rickover: Birth of Nuclear Power" to see extra-ordinary mans view of future of society/humanity, that, is similar to others scientist types who came out of this mans era (30's, 40's 50's 60's, 70's, 80's }
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, the  right-wing { conservatives? } walk more in fear of;

1} loss of money { riches } above and beyond that of normal survival with an average savings account,

2} people of color and this is often leads to inability of ways to express their fears that are not violent or racist,

3} systemic way of life i.e. a change and transformations of culture and the known order ergo a fear of unknown,

4} government even tho government may assign them some degree of individual rights.

Generally speaking, left-wing walks more in fear of;

1} the violent { crazy } right-wing,

2} violent { crazy } left-wing,

3} violent [ crazy } independents.

Loss of structural integrity is equally feared by both sets of  viewpoints.