Women want mediocre men, and men are working hard to become as mediocre as possible.—Margaret Mead

so true

This world would be in big trouble if it weren't for MOST OF IT being mediocre!

Our society would devolve into savagery if it weren't for yes-men and the unambitious. We CANNOT have a society in which there are too many--nor can a society even tolerate--independent thinkers and ultra-capable and -ambitious and -competitive people.

What does being mediocre have to do with having integrity?

Either you misinterpreted my writings, or I didn't explain myself in full.

And you don't have to buy into what I say. I'm not trying to convinve anyone of anything in that post.

And where did I say that all ambitious, highly intelligent and capable people are assholes. A few of my friends are ambitious and highly intelligent, and I consider a cousin of mine gifted. None are assholes.

You wrote: "Being all the things you say would destroy society is precisely how we became a friggin' society in the first place and it'd be a damn good thing for the jellyrolled public to remember their roots."

Part of the reason we evolved and became a society is because we've always had leaders and followers - not just leaders.

If our society would be better off with highly capable, ambitious, independent thinkers:

> Who would serve my coffee?
> Who would pump my gas?
> Who would clean toilets?
> Who would stack orange crates?
> Who would pick tomatoes?
> Who would sell me a mango on the street corner by my job?
> Who would handle the register at Stop and Shop?
> How would we keep members of society keep moving in the same direction - something important for our society to be orderly?

You wrote: "The devolution of society happens because those mediocre excuses for human beings can't stand to have their own spinelessness juxtaposed with a non-mediocre person - they have to actually face their failings and can't stand it so they do what they can to destroy those who excel."

I disagree. Just as I know some competent, ambitious people who aren't assholes, I also know MORE than enough unambitious people that have no ill feelings towards people are better looking, more athletic, more intelligent, wealthier, and so on. They have NO intention of destroying those who are in different situations or higher in the socieconomic strata. In fact, some are so content and happy with their lives that being ambitious, earning more, or destroying their SUPPOSED betters (being "higher up" doesn't make one a better human being) doesn't even occur to them! Some don't even know better that their place in the socioeconomic scale doesn't even occur to them. They don't go to sleep thinking "Am I accomplishing enough in life?", "What's my net worth?", or "Those fucking bastards! I'm always getting short handed - getting the short end of the stick!" Nope, they get up, go to work, maybe have a girlfriend/boyfriend, and that's life.

Oh... and why would you insinuate that being an ordinary schlub is akin to being resentful, malicious, and spineless? I know many ordinary people who are none of these.

Alright, I'll wait.

And as for you talking about spinelesssness juxtaposed with competence and integrity - I'm not sure what you're getting at. Some people are more competent, blessed, and gifted or luckier than others - bigger, more athletic, more muscular, smarter, better looking, monetarily privileged, socially privileged, and so on.

What do you mean by juxtaposed? Should a more competent or better looking person brag and be boastful? I suppose some of us can. But what does that do to others who are less lucky, less privileged, less skilled, less successful? Only one thing: MAKE THEM FEEL BAD.

Although I don't know my exact IQ, I think it's safe to say that it might be in the 130s - not a genius, but definitely bright. Most who know me think so as well. I did damn good in the hard sciences and math I studied in school. I once worked with a certified nurse assistant in a hospital (someone whose job calls for NO ambition but rather to clean the feces and piss off of old folks as well as feed and bathe them and turn them and cater to their every complain) who confided in me that she thought she had various learning disabilities and had a low IQ and was always complaining of physical fatigue. Would it be right for me to boast, "Me, I never had a problem with learning - always got A's in math, biochem, organic chem, biostatistics - all the hard shit I was good at. Speaking of fatigue, I'm gonna do my 45 minute tempo run tonight; I'm in pretty darn good shape. I don't know what your problem is."

Is this the kind of juxtaposition you speak of, or another sort. If you speak of something like challenging and holding accountable (and perhaps PUNISHING) the incompetent morons in the White House who've arrogated positions of power and control through glib of the tongue and crookedness, then I'm all for pointing out their spinelessness and deception. (In some cases I'd use EXTREME measures if I had the power to do so.)

Wow, you don't have very strong feelings on the subject, do you? ;-)

Ok, a few things....
1) I read your initial post as painting with a very broad brush the need for the mediocre and as glorifying their role in society.

I simply happen to disagree. I think the mediocre are the reason our society has devolved. Simply put, you painted with a broad brush and generalizations so to keep things nice and simple, so did I.

This is where it's possible you didn't explain yourself well and I, in turn, fell prey to the same oversimplification.

2)

I'm typing this as I sip my coffee, so I can't write much now. But here are a few things for the time being...

I agree with much of what you say, and couldn't show what I DO agree on because... well, I didn't write much in this whole post compared to you, and I didn't know where you were coming from on this whole mediocrity issue as a whole.

1) You don't need to be a lazy SOB to be a burger flipper at McDonald's. So I don't look at it as a need for having slovenly servants. Who knows? People take up positions of coffee pouring and buttering bagels because they're getting through college, need some extra money, came here from another country and have little other employment choice, and so on.

2) Correct! Our livelihood once depended on physical strength for survival, not just money.

3) I'm not as modest and coddling as I might have come across. I have some radical ideas on a whole socioeconomic tune up, but rarely mention because some people are VERY sensitive. (These ideas only came to be considered radical up until about a 60 years ago - up until the age of political correctness. I won't discuss them on here because I don't feel they should be discussed on here.)

But I'll say this. There was a time where we didn't coddle criminals or constantly protect people from their own vices and lack of will power. We didn't have our courts and prisons clogged up. When some pederast or murderer popped up, we'd take them to the town square and be done with them.

4) Self help books are god awful.

I'll be back.

And by the way, I'm bright and ambitious and not an asshole.

Are you in favor of eugenics?

*sigh* The sticky questions....

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Would take nine days to type out my exact feelings on this topic - and other sticky ones like euthanasia and sterilization - but suffice it to say that applied correctly (and by "correctly" I mean how I would want it done, not how Hitler or anyone else previously associated with the concept wanted it done), I think we'd be way better off for it.

I had a feeling that Hitler would be mentioned if I brought up eugenics. Nothing wrong with bringing him up, but I predicted right. :)

Contrary to popular belief, Hitler was a Johnny-Come-Lately in European history with much of what he did and believed.

I'll be back.

Of course.... he's the modern poster boy but I fear he's given the concept an undeservedly bad rep. I'm not terribly educated on the history of eugenics (the incredible lack of likelihood of it ever occurring keeps it in the 'light/theoretical' category rather than the 'under serious consideration' category). Feel free to enlighten me. This could be fun!

I don't know much on it.

All I know (if what I THINK I know is accurate) is that the Ancient Greeks (who Hitler highly admired, but thought were a bit inhumane in their eugenics practices) chucked defective babies off cliffs and that ancient Europeans used to let the elderly, demented, and sick wander into the forest (didn't have nursing homes back then). Homosexuals were drowned in Northern Europe. Madison Grant wanted to implement a eugenics program in the United States.

I'm not in favor of any of that stuff, but have thought of other measures.

And what you're speaking of, keeping a nation healthy and strong physically, morally, and socially would take a major remodeling of our society.

There were European societies throughout history that had social programs to make people strong from the beginning. I guess this could sort of be considered eugenics because it provided for better human stock. Crypteia was practiced in Ancient Greece - a practice in which every autumn, unarmed young Spartan men were called to attack the helot population and take whatever they wanted from them. It was a rite of passage.

Eugenics doesn't have to involve cruelty or restriction either. Socioeconomic incentives have been used also. Hitler gave incentives to German women who who got knocked up enough and provided healthy offspring.

And as I wrote above, that guy didn't practice much new - anti-semitism, racial socialism, eugenics, social reforms, etc.

So you can see what we talk about is VERY different than modern America.

(Note: I'm NOT fond of Hitler; I'm ethnically Jewish.)

Hitler was highly motivated and ultra capable... Kinda wanted to say that lol

Bricknyce's posts have made me think. I should be less elitist, and more accepting of "regular folk" in future. Thanks man!

On eugenics: there are two varieties of it. Negative eugenics means culling whoever is considered weak by force. Positive eugenics means encouraging those considered strong to breed more, by eg giving them increased government benefits or somesuch.

Eugenics can also happen without central oversight. There is a theory for instance that a eugenic process took place spontaneously in Britain in the 19th century as society's less capable elements were culled through harsh working conditions lack of safety nets, while more successful segments of the population were very fecund for some reason. I am unable to find the source material for this at the current moment, however.

The opposite of eugenics is dysgenics. See for instance the movie Idiocracy.

One thought: if we had 10x as many highly ambitious people in society, wouldn't the rate of technological innovation increase? Ie we could automate a lot of menial tasks. Look at Japan, they have robot nurses and stuff.

Also, if there was no supply for streetsweepers, mango salesman, dishwashers, etc, wouldn't the salaries for those jobs go up dramatically?

Found a link: http://darwinianconservatism.b...

Clark's answer is that from 1200 to 1800 in England, there was a Darwinian process of "survival of the richest" by which the richest families had the highest fertility rates, so that their offspring spread through the population of England. This evolution favored the spread of middle class or bourgeois values. "Thrift, prudence, negotiation, and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent, and leisure loving" (166). "The bourgeois values of hard work, patience, honesty, rationality, curiosity, and learning" were embedded "into the culture, and perhaps even the genetics" of the English (11).