I wonder if time preference is related not just to future orientation, but also to past orientation. Rightists tend to have a much broader, much deeper historical appreciation than leftists do; by contrast, leftists tend to be as disinterested in, even hostile to, history, as they are manifestly unconcerned with the future.
All knowledge is ultimately historical knowledge, of necessity. This is even true of immediate sensory impressions, which due to the constant speed of light only ever tell you what something looked like in the past. The ability to project into the future seems to be intrinsically bound up with one's perspective on the past. An understanding of the past is in turn largely a matter of crystallized intelligence: smarter people learn faster and therefore build up a larger body of knowledge regarding what has happened, which then improves their ability to infer what will happen based on what is happening.
The second sentence is right on the money. Though Americans call them "progressives," that homegrown word, this is the ideology of socialism, encoded by Marx in communism: "All groups and individuals are equal, so any difference in behavior and success must be because of oppression." This moves seemlessly from oppressive business owners to oppressive Whites. (And racialism was always a part of it; Marx' son-in-law, one of the leading communists in France, said that he was proud of having "the blood of three oppressed races," Blacks, Indians and Jews, and the Black blood made him the most proud.) People need to understand that socialism is simply a method for exploiting elections: Promise benefits and money in exchange for votes. The equality talk is simply an excuse for the theft. The Left is about taking, the Right is about building. So the Left needs excuses, the Right needs exact measurements - of things and of individuals and groups.
Therefore, if anyone wants things like Medicare, don't say you're a socialist, a word that doesn't fly in the U.S. anyway. Say you're a nationalist. Just like caring about women doesn't make you a feminist. Socialism, and feminism which is part of it, rests on the worldview outlined above. Further expressed in the socialist, "The history of a nation is the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed," which they also say about families.
When e.g. the Iranian government gives oil at a reduced price to people, that isn't "socialism," it's nationalism. They chased out the socialists long ago, to be used by the U.S. government online as "Look, these Iranians cheer our sanctions". But I digress.
I wonder if time preference is related not just to future orientation, but also to past orientation. Rightists tend to have a much broader, much deeper historical appreciation than leftists do; by contrast, leftists tend to be as disinterested in, even hostile to, history, as they are manifestly unconcerned with the future.
All knowledge is ultimately historical knowledge, of necessity. This is even true of immediate sensory impressions, which due to the constant speed of light only ever tell you what something looked like in the past. The ability to project into the future seems to be intrinsically bound up with one's perspective on the past. An understanding of the past is in turn largely a matter of crystallized intelligence: smarter people learn faster and therefore build up a larger body of knowledge regarding what has happened, which then improves their ability to infer what will happen based on what is happening.
Although some of the most historically knowledgeable people I’ve met were old school Marxists.
Sure. And those old school Marxists also tended to be high-IQ. That was a very different Left.
/ wistfully wipes a single tear off cheek
The second sentence is right on the money. Though Americans call them "progressives," that homegrown word, this is the ideology of socialism, encoded by Marx in communism: "All groups and individuals are equal, so any difference in behavior and success must be because of oppression." This moves seemlessly from oppressive business owners to oppressive Whites. (And racialism was always a part of it; Marx' son-in-law, one of the leading communists in France, said that he was proud of having "the blood of three oppressed races," Blacks, Indians and Jews, and the Black blood made him the most proud.) People need to understand that socialism is simply a method for exploiting elections: Promise benefits and money in exchange for votes. The equality talk is simply an excuse for the theft. The Left is about taking, the Right is about building. So the Left needs excuses, the Right needs exact measurements - of things and of individuals and groups.
Therefore, if anyone wants things like Medicare, don't say you're a socialist, a word that doesn't fly in the U.S. anyway. Say you're a nationalist. Just like caring about women doesn't make you a feminist. Socialism, and feminism which is part of it, rests on the worldview outlined above. Further expressed in the socialist, "The history of a nation is the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed," which they also say about families.
When e.g. the Iranian government gives oil at a reduced price to people, that isn't "socialism," it's nationalism. They chased out the socialists long ago, to be used by the U.S. government online as "Look, these Iranians cheer our sanctions". But I digress.