Anthropology vs Politics

[Baruch]

Any one who doesn't take account of anthropology, when discussing politics, doesn't know anything ...

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/11/16/the-11-nations-of-the-united-states/

Yes, only an external threat unites us.  Hence "Russia is coming" after "Terrorism is coming".  Saw it on Outer Limits or Twilight Zone episodes in the 60s.

[SGOS]

If I were unaware of what's going on in America and moving here from some foreign Hell hole, just by looking at the representative photographs in the link, I would want to locate in the Deep South, or New France nestled in the Deep Deep South, where it would seem Americans truly have their shit together.  But photographs can be deceiving.

But as I approach the sunset of my life, I recall the wisdom of a close friend of my youth:  "If you're getting laid, you've got your shit together.  If you're not getting laid, you don't have your shit together."  I propose that life is just that simple, but we lose our direction as we intellectualize over competing ideologies that confuse the real reason for our purpose on Earth.  I wish I knew now what I knew back then.  I just wanted to be happy, but I lost my way.

I'm hoping that on my deathbed, it will all become clear again.  I believe I am making progress in prioritizing the basics, but I was temporarily derailed for much of my life.  But it's still good to hold on to some clarity of vision.

[fencerider]

one more way to divide up the people. I wonder if that is a good map for a national election.

There are other ways to divide up a map. I dont know which has the most benefit for politics.

Not only is there urban and rural, there is also interior and border.  People in a big city have to learn how to get along with other people more than rural. And people near a border get exposed to other kind of people more than the interior.

There is also the original division. The civilized colonists lived on the Atlantic seaboard. In Georgia, S Carolina, N Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Maine, and New York. They all believed in government. They just didnt support the government made for wealthy people. But there were colonists that were anarchists. didnt want any government American or Brittish telling them what to do. Some of them moved south to Florida from Georgia. The rest moved west. The first Europeans in Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, western Pennsylvania and Ohio were all anarchists. They all grew up with this idea of the government being small enough to drown in a bath tub. an idea that had absolutely nothing to do with the American revolution


I would like to see a map divided up by Baruch. ;-) maybe that would help in an election.


We could also make a map with lines showing the area influenced by a particular religion.

[Baruch]

Classic recent US study of religion by geography:
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
Other than Protestant and Catholic, other religious influence is spotty.

Recent US politics study by ideological flavor:
http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/24/political-typology-reveals-deep-fissures-on-the-right-and-left/
Page 2 ... bystanders ... aka swing vote ... this is decisive ... the rest is just slice and dice of true believers.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/10/how-the-geography-of-u-s-poverty-has-shifted-since-1960/
Shift of poverty out of the South, and out of rural.  The stiffing of blue collar and white collar, everywhere.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/01/how-wealth-inequality-has-changed-in-the-u-s-since-the-great-recession-by-race-ethnicity-and-income/
It isn't over until it is over.  Lower class White wealth has declined, and not yet recovered.  Middle class Non-White was hurt even more, and has recovered less.  So basically ... if you don't help us ... why vote for you?  If you hurt us ... why vote for you?  Lower class Whites were screwed, and this probably hurt the D party more than the R party.  And Middle class non-White were very screwed, and stayed home, hurting the D party more than the R party.

My view?  I pretty much agree with the demographics ... my 8-values political survey put me more in the middle than anyone, so it makes sense that my view will track with the average person.  I am not very ideological, and not very ethnic.  Have had ups and downs in economic status all my life.

[Hydra009]

But as I approach the sunset of my life, I recall the wisdom of a close friend of my youth:  "If you're getting laid, you've got your shit together.  If you're not getting laid, you don't have your shit together."

I dunno about the wisdom of that saying.  I've personally seen a great many counter-examples.

[SGOS]

I dunno about the wisdom of that saying.  I've personally seen a great many counter-examples.

It's one of those things that sounds absurdly shallow at first but said with such conviction that you might end up vacillating between partial agreement and bemused dismissal.  Actually, I think it can be true for some and horribly wrong for others.  And like you, I have seen counter examples, one devoted marriage of 45 years that was totally sexless, as in <never/not once/tried it but it didn't work>.  And while I admired the affection and devotion of that couple, I wouldn't have traded places with either of them for a million dollars, and I think I would have suffered enormously.  On the other hand, I've known philanderers who I wouldn't trade places with either.

Also, the "wisdom" as worded equates emotional health with sex and rather oversimplifies a correlation.  Does getting laid involve great sex or crappy sex?  If it's crappy, I would have to wonder how it follows that one is therefore, emotionally healthy.  It was related somewhat thoughtfully at the time, but resulted in immediate laughter for both of us, because it draws on exaggeration to create humor.  Yet there are often grains of truth in humor.

For me, it's interesting to consider.  Could it be conditionally true to some extent?  Would a negative correlation - getting laid = not having your shit to shit together - be more true?  Or is there zero correlation?  There is a lot of variable context involved in the statement, both in how literally it is intended, and how literally it is perceived.

But it's probably not wise to analyze to death something said with lighthearted intention lest it lose all of its purpose.

[Baruch]

Empirical evidence:  Couples who make out once a week are the happiest.  There are always people who are "low libido" ... don't use outliers as the mean.  That is the problem with our politics now, we don't think of the mean, just the outliers.

[Cavebear]

I like my own company.  Having other people in constant contact annoys me.  Needless to say, I have never been married.

I would rather have complete control over my daily life 24/7 than put up with someone else and have 30 minutes of sex once a week.  And I was that way at 20.

My love of personal control over my life outweighs almost anything.

[Baruch]

I like my own company.  Having other people in constant contact annoys me.  Needless to say, I have never been married.

I would rather have complete control over my daily life 24/7 than put up with someone else and have 30 minutes of sex once a week.  And I was that way at 20.

My love of personal control over my life outweighs almost anything.

Personal control is important.  Particularly given the shit we have to put up with at work.  And no, sex with a partner is not a good enough reason to be a couple.  I am not sure what it, but it isn't that.  And no, I don't encourage sex out of marriage.