Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (8915)	4/6/2006 11:10:20 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 78411

Yes, but as I pointed out, it is neither unpleasant nor pleasant to say that things are divided between minority and majority. In the fifties it was important to be exceptional, not humdrum, not to be part of the group, not to conform. Our parents told us to excel as individuals. Many having been in the army bad us resist the mindless uniformity of authority or the pressure of peers. To be part of a trend or a group is to be a stooge. Gangs were stupid. Stand out was the message, be yourself. The individual is paramount. Collectives, herds rat races and hives are demeaning. We are all different. Boxes made of tick tacky all look the same. Big Brother is watching. Some groups appear inconsistent in their self labeling. Their social technique is manifold in it complexity, or perhaps just not coherent. They wish to dissent in practice but also belong or have the rights of the mainstream. Be different and differentiate themselves for advantage but resist labeling and torchlight parades, blend where they want and exclude others where they wish. Be part and be apart. Now how is the bread to be sliced to satisfy the complainers about what they perceive as persecutory labeling? It is my opinion that they have confused the wrong issue. If it is exception they want to live in then, they should champion their individual right not to belong to other than the separate tolerant group of non connected but supportive humans. It is in the collective self interest of the group to subjugate tensions and ameliorate, to seek a median level of stimulus and not to exacerbate. The argument about what a word means that is given scientific meaning is actually complex. Science may have prejudice as well, and not merely scientific. It does however so far the best job of adhering to balance. Its practicioners may however err humanly in assigning value outside the realm of the studies. It is legitimate to quarrel with the conclusions and the language insofar as it is clearly shown some intent has formed, or cant is followed to enforce some other than scientific path. It is clear though that the values colouring the word normal are purely social constructs that are posterior to what should be the dry and uncluttered scientific intent. Scientists may go astray in that they may harness their machinery to achieve social ends that do not embrace a purity of reason. Their critiques have to have a Kantian approach. Let the chips fall where they may. There is a difference between natural deviance and normal tendency. There may be false comfort in normality as the base changes subtly and criteria change over time to where we can no longer depend on our original criteria to tell us that normal has integrity to our former values as well. This is a fault of our perception of the nature of fundamental change and our imperfection of understanding of just what criteria to study that is most instructive about nature. The real question to be asked is what basis does the value judgement of normal tendencies have within our social constructs? The answer seem to be survival and group cohesiveness. Once it is known what the reasons are for the reactions of social groups to any deviation from their norms, then the amelioration of the results of the reaction and the mitigation of social unrest is within the grasp of even the feeble minded. EC<:-}