Well, that was an interesting post -- the proportions of 'thinkers' vs. 'reactors' you write of might correspond to the natural proportions of people born with various COMT mutations. See https://larryturner.substack.com/p/mass-hypnosis-is-a-feature-not-a for explanation of what I am getting at here. Interestingly, there are some human practices -- like eating certain environmentally-determined diets and that good old, now-lost relaxing habit of smoking -- may well haved formerly pushed many natural non-thinkers into thinking.
Thanks Larry, that is an interesting link, I read it and will reply on your Substack. Re: smoking, I have not considered an increase of independent thought as a potential benefit of it, but I am aware of both its calming effects as well as its appetite suppressant qualities (which is one of the factors why prior generations, which smoked so much more, were so much thinner than us).
I find the description of the boomer generation a little shallow and over the top. They weren't running the world until around 2000 so much of the damage you describe they perpetrated in the 80's they were in their 30's and 40's, raising children, holding down jobs with both men and women having to work at that point. Plus you missed perhaps one of the most important elements of that generation: they were the first to grow up with television and thus were the first generation broadly subject to national propaganda (as opposed to local community propaganda) in human history. The 60's were partly a CIA psyop, the music industry largely controlled. The Boomers are the first generation to grow up in what was, essentially, a Truman world. Of course because of their inflated numerical girth - hence Boomers - they cut a demographic-economic swathe through society which was exploited by the corporate classes every step of the way. It might end this decade as most of them still alive find their life savings wiped out in a Reset, a fine end to their generation.
In any case, I think you project far more agency on their generation than is realistic. First because they weren't running things until fairly recently; and second because they were the most brainwashed, manipulated generation in human history up to that point.
Regardless, I don't mean to single out boomers for special abuse. I could just as easily harp on the "Greatest Generation" for falling for psy-ops in WW2, or the "Lost Generation" for falling for psy-ops in WW1, and there are plenty of individuals within each generation who buck the generalizations made. The underlying point is more that prosperity breeds decadence and carries within it the seeds of its future downfall. The next section, "The Dissemination of Information in Technological Society", delves into the technological aspects of control...
Well the 'underlying point' is good, but I find how you got there a little slapdash! (It also felt a little like animus, at least to me.) But then the next chapter sounds interesting and apropos because I think the boomers were the first super-controlled generation in part because of their unusually obese demographic bulge. That said, have noticed that my parents generation born in 20's and 30's are extremely trusting of authority and science and experts of all sorts, including even bank managers. Whereas their parents generation from the 1870s-90s were very different: far more self-reliant, also felt responsible for how society goes, that their roles mattered, that they were creating a world together, not spectators or passive participants which you see much more with Boomers (though mixed) and perhaps even more with younger generation. I get on very well with my 31 year old son but cannot for the life of me figure what he feels about politics and stuff. But then I didn't see that stuff either when I was that age so I don't make much of it. From what I can tell he thinks everything comes down to profit-motive and there are no conspiracies at play short or long term. But he grew up with computers - and became a programmer - and video games and his sense of reality is far more cyber-oriented than any boomer can imagine, I suspect. Even those who, in retirement, are glued to their screens nearly every waking hour. It's something they watch; he lives in that realm, or maybe it in him, I suspect.
As to that chart, quite possibly it was boomer programming geniuses who developed the CDS et alia derivatives OTC markets which have doomed western capitalism to shipwreck any time now!
The quality of your maps and your skill at conveying them continues to reward me for taking the time to read this essay series sequentially. I've now noticed perhaps a dozen topics I've thought needed to addressed (but not being addressed elsewhere) be addressed by you, already.
I am experiencing this as well. Started out of order, restarted in order. It is more comprehensible this way. Agree with the level of skill and diligence apparent in this work. It is a rewarding read.
I just read the U of Nevada study by Heavey and Hurlburt and I have some questions:
In the article you cite it for reasoning that only 22%-34% of people have frequent internal dialogues
I'm not hear to dispute that direction but asking for some clarity with the study. It charts the frequency of each internal process (inner speech, inner seeing, etc.) in that percentage range just stated. Does the chart indicate that only 22-34 percent of people have any of these activities occurring at once or that those processes only happen 22-34 percent of the time to the participants in the study? I assume many of these processes are occurring at the same time? Is the study marking if each is experienced at each beep
I guess I just have questions wrapping my head around the whole study because the claim you make from it is quite jarring considering how grave the situation must be for average cognition. I had to check out the study and now have trouble understanding the results clearly
Hi Michael, thanks for the question. I agree that the way the study is phrased is confusing.
The 30 Phase II study participants wore beepers which off six times a day for three days and they were asked to describe what they were thinking or feeling at the time the beep went off. Several phenomena could and frequently did occur simultaneously. My focus was on unsymbolized thinking, defined as “thinking a particular, definite thought without the awareness of that thought’s being conveyed in words, images, or any other symbols”, which the average frequency for it was experienced only 22% of the time on average, and with 30% of the participants never experiencing it at all. I appreciate your feedback here and am updating the post to be clearer.
yea it makes sense for sure and your explanation helps because of how alarming is to know that roughly 70 percent of people have only thoughts that are simple reactions and processes akin to basic cognition (not in depth thought). I appreciate how the study determines what is a more nuanced and conscious thought as opposed to a simple surface level observation which I think is logical to assume everyone has but wouldn’t qualify as in-depth consciousness
I still think your ideas extending from this realization are an accurate assessment of the state of cognition (at least in US college level individuals - a sample population that would represent a supposedly ‘smart’ and ‘aware’ yet common demographic)
Great and penetrating question! Intuitively, if uncomfortably, that study seems right to me. Struggling with my internal dialog growing up through a somewhat drug addled haze, I eventually found sufficient peace and balance through faith and self-acceptance. Perhaps prayer, framed as relating to God, was historically a common path to internal dialog? That idea correlates well with the relative decline of religiosity and the apparent mass formation hypnosis surrounding us.
The discussion of deontology and consequentialism presents a wonderful frame in which I recognize my process for understanding myself and the world around me. Thanks for that.
I feel like I'm just plugging my music but your thoughts around boomers and peoples general inability to plan for harder times are the main themes of my latest release - Doomsday Prepper.
Thanks very much. I shared your piece with the study of people not thinking at the top on The Automatic Earth news aggregate and it generated a bit of discussion.
Hey I am absolutely loving your piece from a while back about Tolkien etc. and in december 2020 I wrote - 'I was not born for Mordors’ whore therefore your more debt sure to score
Low on the rung of our new law like under a tonne or better hung from the door'
And was thinking alot about what you have so wonderfully covered.
I am only part way through your series and blown away with the depth of your analysis (yes, yes, yesssss...) the one thing that surprises me is that you have skipped Gen X from your analysis. (Not sure of this relates to this specific post or the next... one.) I am on the edge, the last boomer or the first Xer (born 1963); in the early 80s, my teenage years, the punk told us “no future” and indeed we could see unemployment like our older siblings (the boomers) never experienced. It was already hard for our generation (I “identify” with Xers - however I loathe the identification shit now), but your post seem to say that the boomers are the parents of the millennials; NO! Are we the Xers meant to be erased from the collective memory? You are better than that and I would expect a correction on your thesis - which I enjoy thoroughly as already mentioned. You have missed a whole generation.
Well, that was an interesting post -- the proportions of 'thinkers' vs. 'reactors' you write of might correspond to the natural proportions of people born with various COMT mutations. See https://larryturner.substack.com/p/mass-hypnosis-is-a-feature-not-a for explanation of what I am getting at here. Interestingly, there are some human practices -- like eating certain environmentally-determined diets and that good old, now-lost relaxing habit of smoking -- may well haved formerly pushed many natural non-thinkers into thinking.
Thanks Larry, that is an interesting link, I read it and will reply on your Substack. Re: smoking, I have not considered an increase of independent thought as a potential benefit of it, but I am aware of both its calming effects as well as its appetite suppressant qualities (which is one of the factors why prior generations, which smoked so much more, were so much thinner than us).
And it also benefits the brain... (one of) the reason(s) thereis now much more brain related problems
I find the description of the boomer generation a little shallow and over the top. They weren't running the world until around 2000 so much of the damage you describe they perpetrated in the 80's they were in their 30's and 40's, raising children, holding down jobs with both men and women having to work at that point. Plus you missed perhaps one of the most important elements of that generation: they were the first to grow up with television and thus were the first generation broadly subject to national propaganda (as opposed to local community propaganda) in human history. The 60's were partly a CIA psyop, the music industry largely controlled. The Boomers are the first generation to grow up in what was, essentially, a Truman world. Of course because of their inflated numerical girth - hence Boomers - they cut a demographic-economic swathe through society which was exploited by the corporate classes every step of the way. It might end this decade as most of them still alive find their life savings wiped out in a Reset, a fine end to their generation.
In any case, I think you project far more agency on their generation than is realistic. First because they weren't running things until fairly recently; and second because they were the most brainwashed, manipulated generation in human history up to that point.
Hi Random, if we assume boomers came to power around 2000, that's also an interesting link to this chart, when total federal U.S. debt went from growing linearly to growing exponentially: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe02120dc-1899-4e17-b68d-95ba2aa265b9_844x764.jpeg
Regardless, I don't mean to single out boomers for special abuse. I could just as easily harp on the "Greatest Generation" for falling for psy-ops in WW2, or the "Lost Generation" for falling for psy-ops in WW1, and there are plenty of individuals within each generation who buck the generalizations made. The underlying point is more that prosperity breeds decadence and carries within it the seeds of its future downfall. The next section, "The Dissemination of Information in Technological Society", delves into the technological aspects of control...
Well the 'underlying point' is good, but I find how you got there a little slapdash! (It also felt a little like animus, at least to me.) But then the next chapter sounds interesting and apropos because I think the boomers were the first super-controlled generation in part because of their unusually obese demographic bulge. That said, have noticed that my parents generation born in 20's and 30's are extremely trusting of authority and science and experts of all sorts, including even bank managers. Whereas their parents generation from the 1870s-90s were very different: far more self-reliant, also felt responsible for how society goes, that their roles mattered, that they were creating a world together, not spectators or passive participants which you see much more with Boomers (though mixed) and perhaps even more with younger generation. I get on very well with my 31 year old son but cannot for the life of me figure what he feels about politics and stuff. But then I didn't see that stuff either when I was that age so I don't make much of it. From what I can tell he thinks everything comes down to profit-motive and there are no conspiracies at play short or long term. But he grew up with computers - and became a programmer - and video games and his sense of reality is far more cyber-oriented than any boomer can imagine, I suspect. Even those who, in retirement, are glued to their screens nearly every waking hour. It's something they watch; he lives in that realm, or maybe it in him, I suspect.
As to that chart, quite possibly it was boomer programming geniuses who developed the CDS et alia derivatives OTC markets which have doomed western capitalism to shipwreck any time now!
The quality of your maps and your skill at conveying them continues to reward me for taking the time to read this essay series sequentially. I've now noticed perhaps a dozen topics I've thought needed to addressed (but not being addressed elsewhere) be addressed by you, already.
I am experiencing this as well. Started out of order, restarted in order. It is more comprehensible this way. Agree with the level of skill and diligence apparent in this work. It is a rewarding read.
I just read the U of Nevada study by Heavey and Hurlburt and I have some questions:
In the article you cite it for reasoning that only 22%-34% of people have frequent internal dialogues
I'm not hear to dispute that direction but asking for some clarity with the study. It charts the frequency of each internal process (inner speech, inner seeing, etc.) in that percentage range just stated. Does the chart indicate that only 22-34 percent of people have any of these activities occurring at once or that those processes only happen 22-34 percent of the time to the participants in the study? I assume many of these processes are occurring at the same time? Is the study marking if each is experienced at each beep
I guess I just have questions wrapping my head around the whole study because the claim you make from it is quite jarring considering how grave the situation must be for average cognition. I had to check out the study and now have trouble understanding the results clearly
Hi Michael, thanks for the question. I agree that the way the study is phrased is confusing.
The 30 Phase II study participants wore beepers which off six times a day for three days and they were asked to describe what they were thinking or feeling at the time the beep went off. Several phenomena could and frequently did occur simultaneously. My focus was on unsymbolized thinking, defined as “thinking a particular, definite thought without the awareness of that thought’s being conveyed in words, images, or any other symbols”, which the average frequency for it was experienced only 22% of the time on average, and with 30% of the participants never experiencing it at all. I appreciate your feedback here and am updating the post to be clearer.
yea it makes sense for sure and your explanation helps because of how alarming is to know that roughly 70 percent of people have only thoughts that are simple reactions and processes akin to basic cognition (not in depth thought). I appreciate how the study determines what is a more nuanced and conscious thought as opposed to a simple surface level observation which I think is logical to assume everyone has but wouldn’t qualify as in-depth consciousness
I still think your ideas extending from this realization are an accurate assessment of the state of cognition (at least in US college level individuals - a sample population that would represent a supposedly ‘smart’ and ‘aware’ yet common demographic)
"DO NORMAL PEOPLE HAVE INTERNAL DIALOGUES?"
Great and penetrating question! Intuitively, if uncomfortably, that study seems right to me. Struggling with my internal dialog growing up through a somewhat drug addled haze, I eventually found sufficient peace and balance through faith and self-acceptance. Perhaps prayer, framed as relating to God, was historically a common path to internal dialog? That idea correlates well with the relative decline of religiosity and the apparent mass formation hypnosis surrounding us.
The discussion of deontology and consequentialism presents a wonderful frame in which I recognize my process for understanding myself and the world around me. Thanks for that.
I enjoyed reading both sections of the introduction. This part hit:
"If one is going to have deontological beliefs, one must be precise and deeply considered about exactly what that means, which few people attempt."
Indeed. Even fewer are willing to stand on those beliefs when tested.
I feel like I'm just plugging my music but your thoughts around boomers and peoples general inability to plan for harder times are the main themes of my latest release - Doomsday Prepper.
https://open.spotify.com/album/5WMPBnSdBTRa282GUcFz3S
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtsRhv0gj5Q
This was a great song - very catchy - thanks for sharing.
Edit: I've listened to it a bunch more times and have shared it with some friends.
Thanks very much. I shared your piece with the study of people not thinking at the top on The Automatic Earth news aggregate and it generated a bit of discussion.
Hey I am absolutely loving your piece from a while back about Tolkien etc. and in december 2020 I wrote - 'I was not born for Mordors’ whore therefore your more debt sure to score
Low on the rung of our new law like under a tonne or better hung from the door'
And was thinking alot about what you have so wonderfully covered.
Here is that track ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmAhPm8deMs
One thing I have to say, “uninterrupted prosperity”? 1970s ring a bell?
I am only part way through your series and blown away with the depth of your analysis (yes, yes, yesssss...) the one thing that surprises me is that you have skipped Gen X from your analysis. (Not sure of this relates to this specific post or the next... one.) I am on the edge, the last boomer or the first Xer (born 1963); in the early 80s, my teenage years, the punk told us “no future” and indeed we could see unemployment like our older siblings (the boomers) never experienced. It was already hard for our generation (I “identify” with Xers - however I loathe the identification shit now), but your post seem to say that the boomers are the parents of the millennials; NO! Are we the Xers meant to be erased from the collective memory? You are better than that and I would expect a correction on your thesis - which I enjoy thoroughly as already mentioned. You have missed a whole generation.