I remember once analysing my own behaviour and developed what I called a “procrastinometer”. It was very useful for helping our children, then at school, work out why they occasionally fell behind on homework.
Consider going clockwise around a clock face.
1: Didn’t realise anything was required.
2: Knew something was required, but not what.
3: know what’s required, but not how.
4. Know what & how, but cannot be bothered (not seen as important enough. Also known as mismatch of understanding on the part of the task setting and task doer.
5. Know what & how, but expect to encounter unpleasant people and things en route.
There are probably others, but this may be helpful in answering the question. It’ll be complex, because people are different & so there may be several overlapping reasons across a population.
I identified a similar mechanism (yours sounds a bit like the 'four stages of competence'), which I called the 'moral excuses' system.
Whenever you encounter a situation you know is wrong and requires an intervention, your mind will fire up a 'moral excuses' system that will fire off an endless litany of excuses why you can't do something (by trying to frame the refusal as moral).
The usual ones are:
1) I can't help them (feigned helplessness; usually despite not knowing what the problem is)
2) They don't need (or want) help (the 'avoid social embarrassment' decree)
[Note: some victims will proactively refuse or resist much needed assistance fearing consequences or other harms, so getting an explicit flag should not be a requirement to assist anyway]
3) They need help, but it might be dangerous to me, and if I get injured/die I won't be able to help others or myself <--- where I think most people are at (it ignores you can take steps to reduce net risk and do risk management)
4) I'm trying to help them, but: it is a waste of my time to do so/no-one values my contributions, I should leave (this implies one cannot improve or low self-esteem)
5) I achieved something very small and it wasn't worth the effort (small changes have long-term positive impacts; plus you can redirect efforts to new approaches)
6) I achieved something big but it cost me a lot of effort (anything valuable always takes effort)
7) I'm not sure I can keep up this effort, I should quit/retire/resign <--- where I think some of the bigger hitters are right now (it is okay to take breaks; but never deal in absolutes)
I'm sure people will experience their own 'moral excuses', and your conscious brain can be extremely devious and ingenious in conjuring up new, custom tailored inventions why you must not or should do a thing to help others. That said, always check to make sure a fear is rational and not irrational.
I once came across a comment on a Quora ASD page which was insightful. The story on there was that a task needed to be completed and the person who made the comment actively tried to prevent a hierarchy from forming to complete the task on the basis that he felt each person could contribute without a leader. If I recall correctly a strong person, a bully of sorts was selected instead to make everyone do it. The commenter didn't like it nor did he understand it.
I thought about this and came to the realisation that the "bully" was not so much selected to make a person do things but because the very presence of a bully is a form of communication. That is each person knows the "bully" is strong enough to make another party perform, therefore that person will have to equally invest their efforts, raising the standard. In other words, if you knew your neighbour is going to do it, you better too!
It need not be a bully of course, just someone strong enough so everybody knows, activating their assumptions, raising their standards and getting things done.
If you mean about the neighbour, I'm not really sure it's quite that? I could have put it more strongly such as "assuming all neighbours". In this case, it would be like assuming everyone is going to put one step forward, therefore I better go one step forward to avoid losing out. I had always mentalised being led by example as optional in following a leaders actions, rather than getting out of imperilment (in status) by the assumed actions of many others who are known to be following a leader. Maybe I didn't get your point, not sure?
You write some great stuff. And, your consistent in your messaging, too. Very unusual. If you look around at many of the 'experts' we read on these substacks, being consistent (objectively) is almost unheard of.
Food/starvation... three meals away from revolution. But it is a very good question, I would have thought the jibjabbed who now know about the 'slow kill bioweapon' would have gone 'chicken oriental'... Maybe some have and it's simply not being allowed as a story in the MSM? I don't know, cognitive dissonance, resignation and depression... Maybe there is SOMA in the jibjabs too? It's bizarre... Perhaps the distraction of 'polycrises' being blared out 24/7...
Wow. That's a "soap box" speech that actually COULD spark a revolution. Old Sam Adams of the American Revolution used to write stuff like this, and make speeches. He called it "starting brush fires in men's minds."
The public anger is there, it's a matter of directing it to the proper target.
Amazing post. respect for your form and content. . . . I would be a paid sub but I’m out of work. . Thank you for the effort and energy you put in here. DD ( an American in UK)
I agree with you, the problem in beginning was being to nice. Yes, it didn´t work. Next time and I said that many times, if someone will touch my hand or push me to wear something on my face, I will break his hand or punch him in face.
Yes, the problem is that people are not prepare to fight for their live.
I remember once analysing my own behaviour and developed what I called a “procrastinometer”. It was very useful for helping our children, then at school, work out why they occasionally fell behind on homework.
Consider going clockwise around a clock face.
1: Didn’t realise anything was required.
2: Knew something was required, but not what.
3: know what’s required, but not how.
4. Know what & how, but cannot be bothered (not seen as important enough. Also known as mismatch of understanding on the part of the task setting and task doer.
5. Know what & how, but expect to encounter unpleasant people and things en route.
There are probably others, but this may be helpful in answering the question. It’ll be complex, because people are different & so there may be several overlapping reasons across a population.
I identified a similar mechanism (yours sounds a bit like the 'four stages of competence'), which I called the 'moral excuses' system.
Whenever you encounter a situation you know is wrong and requires an intervention, your mind will fire up a 'moral excuses' system that will fire off an endless litany of excuses why you can't do something (by trying to frame the refusal as moral).
The usual ones are:
1) I can't help them (feigned helplessness; usually despite not knowing what the problem is)
2) They don't need (or want) help (the 'avoid social embarrassment' decree)
[Note: some victims will proactively refuse or resist much needed assistance fearing consequences or other harms, so getting an explicit flag should not be a requirement to assist anyway]
3) They need help, but it might be dangerous to me, and if I get injured/die I won't be able to help others or myself <--- where I think most people are at (it ignores you can take steps to reduce net risk and do risk management)
4) I'm trying to help them, but: it is a waste of my time to do so/no-one values my contributions, I should leave (this implies one cannot improve or low self-esteem)
5) I achieved something very small and it wasn't worth the effort (small changes have long-term positive impacts; plus you can redirect efforts to new approaches)
6) I achieved something big but it cost me a lot of effort (anything valuable always takes effort)
7) I'm not sure I can keep up this effort, I should quit/retire/resign <--- where I think some of the bigger hitters are right now (it is okay to take breaks; but never deal in absolutes)
I'm sure people will experience their own 'moral excuses', and your conscious brain can be extremely devious and ingenious in conjuring up new, custom tailored inventions why you must not or should do a thing to help others. That said, always check to make sure a fear is rational and not irrational.
That would have helped me Mike!
I once came across a comment on a Quora ASD page which was insightful. The story on there was that a task needed to be completed and the person who made the comment actively tried to prevent a hierarchy from forming to complete the task on the basis that he felt each person could contribute without a leader. If I recall correctly a strong person, a bully of sorts was selected instead to make everyone do it. The commenter didn't like it nor did he understand it.
I thought about this and came to the realisation that the "bully" was not so much selected to make a person do things but because the very presence of a bully is a form of communication. That is each person knows the "bully" is strong enough to make another party perform, therefore that person will have to equally invest their efforts, raising the standard. In other words, if you knew your neighbour is going to do it, you better too!
It need not be a bully of course, just someone strong enough so everybody knows, activating their assumptions, raising their standards and getting things done.
I think the term for that is 'leading by example'.
If you mean about the neighbour, I'm not really sure it's quite that? I could have put it more strongly such as "assuming all neighbours". In this case, it would be like assuming everyone is going to put one step forward, therefore I better go one step forward to avoid losing out. I had always mentalised being led by example as optional in following a leaders actions, rather than getting out of imperilment (in status) by the assumed actions of many others who are known to be following a leader. Maybe I didn't get your point, not sure?
J6 planned as a pre-planned public display to dissuade the most motivated patriots, set an example?
the DC gang IS scared, they live in fear behind a razor wired electric fence.
You write some great stuff. And, your consistent in your messaging, too. Very unusual. If you look around at many of the 'experts' we read on these substacks, being consistent (objectively) is almost unheard of.
Keep it up.
Food/starvation... three meals away from revolution. But it is a very good question, I would have thought the jibjabbed who now know about the 'slow kill bioweapon' would have gone 'chicken oriental'... Maybe some have and it's simply not being allowed as a story in the MSM? I don't know, cognitive dissonance, resignation and depression... Maybe there is SOMA in the jibjabs too? It's bizarre... Perhaps the distraction of 'polycrises' being blared out 24/7...
Wow. That's a "soap box" speech that actually COULD spark a revolution. Old Sam Adams of the American Revolution used to write stuff like this, and make speeches. He called it "starting brush fires in men's minds."
The public anger is there, it's a matter of directing it to the proper target.
Amazing post. respect for your form and content. . . . I would be a paid sub but I’m out of work. . Thank you for the effort and energy you put in here. DD ( an American in UK)
Look after yourself first and foremost. Let me know if I can help in any way.
Thank you for your kindness. x
I agree with you, the problem in beginning was being to nice. Yes, it didn´t work. Next time and I said that many times, if someone will touch my hand or push me to wear something on my face, I will break his hand or punch him in face.
Yes, the problem is that people are not prepare to fight for their live.