An open letter from a dinosaur

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Dear Progressives,

Turn-about being fair play, I figured that I'd write a mirrior of Bean's post But where to start?


A couple months back Johnathan Korman wrote an excellent post on the poles of american politics. In it was the following line ...the correct social order is natural but not effortless — without devotion to the correct social order, conservatives believe we devolve into barbarism.

Do you genuinely believe that if you'd been transported back to fifteenth-century London as a baby, you'd realize all on your own that witch-burning was wrong, slavery was wrong, that every sentient being ought to be in your circle of concern? If so I'd like to know why,because as far as I can tell Homo Sapiens today are no more mentally capable than the Homo Sapiens of 500 years ago. I assert that our current high quality of life has more to do with culture and technology than it does with any inherent superiority to those who came before us. The fact of the matter is that we live in a civil society where, for the most part, people raise their kids to obey the law, pay their taxes, and generally not kill each-other without a damn good reason. It is this state of civility that conservatives seek to conserve.

The majority of these conservation efforts focus on individual and family responsibilities/virtue. They operate on the theory that if you want innovation you need to reward innovation. If you want virtue reward virtue. If you want stable kids reward stable families, because barbarity is never more than a generation or two away. If you want good social order we must reward virtue and punish vice.

It is in this space that intent runs head-long into perceived intent, and I start to turn into my grandad...

Using anfalicious' recent example, I am simply flabbergasted that a "post-gendered society" is even a topic of discussion outside of science fiction. Feminism has moved from arguing that women should be treated equal and have the same rights as men, etc... To that that men and women should be interchangeable. I am expected ignore the fact that the burden of reproduction is carried disproportionately by the female of the species. I am expected to ignore the differences in biology. To ignore the different strengths and weaknesses of both and how they compliment each other. I am expected to be genderless. I am not therefore I am a misogynist.

Global warming is based on computer models that keep failing. Catastrophic predictions are constantly proven wrong and (surprise, surprise) the only solution ever proposed is higher taxes and greater regulatory powers. I suspect that a dog is being wagged therefore I am a "denier".

I don't want to live in a world of "Honor Killings" and medieval torture and I refuse to coddle or kow-tow to those that do therefore I am a Islamiphobe.

I oppose gun control therefore I want children to die.

I support voter ID laws therefore I am a Racist.

Fascist.

Terrorist.

Killer.

I could go on...

These are labels that have been applied to me by my so-called intellectual and moral "betters" in an effort to shut me up.

I am a dinosaur. Hear me roar.

Comments

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

. . . if you want innovation you need to reward innovation.

I think you're referring to the capitalist system of financial reward for work performed and risk taken. Sadly, it turns out that giving people money is a good way to demotivate them.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Anyone who works a job in the tech industry like I do can affirm the truth of this.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

1++

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Funny, I would say I'm about twice as happy about my work as I was 6 years ago and I'm making about twice what I made then. And I believe that if you increased my salary, I would increase my productivity, as I'm not at 100% right now. Certainly if I was, then any salary increase would not do anything towards that end, but I'd be less likely to try and change jobs. So, money/salary is a good motivator for me.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Research like this shows trends, not absolutes. Also, self-reporting is often misleading. I, too, could claim an increase in productivity with salary increases; but would this happen? Since people tend to remember what is most on their minds, their efforts at increasing productivity might flavor their memories of actual work accomplished over given periods of time.

I'm not calling you or anyone else a liar; far from it. I'm just pointing out that the conventional wisdom might not be as wise as once thought.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

There's also a difference between productivity and creativity. I doubt earning twice as much will make you twice as creative, which is generally what innovation is about. gunslnger may have been replying to a non-point.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's basically because it's too simplistic. There are many types of compensation that matter in different degrees to different people. I might value getting more paid time off whereas a coworker might value extra health benefits more, and a third might really like getting stock options in the company, and someone else might only respond positively to getting little "that-a-boy" awards every week. Basically, it just shows that salary alone is not a motivator for all, but doesn't mean that salary is not a motivator at all for no one.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I'm going to lean toward the research on this one. It has been replicated many, many times. What you are talking about sounds suspiciously like "common knowledge," which . . . well . . . .

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The research shows a "what" and I'm giving a "why" for that "what", so...you're just being contrarian because...

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/does_money_really_affect_motiv.html

Other than its functional exchange value, pay is a psychological symbol, and the meaning of money is largely subjective. For example, there are marked individual differences in people's tendency to think or worry about money, and different people value money for different reasons (e.g., as a means to power, freedom, security, or love). If companies want to motivate their workforce, they need to understand what their employees really value — and the answer is bound differ for each individual. Research shows that different values are differentially linked to engagement. For example, income goals based on the pursuit of power, narcissism, or overcoming self-doubt are less rewarding and effective than income goals based on the pursuit of security, family support, and leisure time. Perhaps it is time to compensate people not only according to what they know or do, but also for what they want.

This is basically what I said. If you still want to disagree, take it up with Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic and get back to me when you're done.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Actually, nothing in the quote is contrarian to my statement. The studies to which I linked noted that increasing monetary rewards destroys performance in less-that-rote tasks where creativity and less-than-usual thinking are involved.

Your link notes what types of compensation motivate individuals based on their goal sets, saying nothing about the effect such compensation has on higher-function task performance.