> “Neither one. Both ways are simple-minded– they are only for people who cannot cope with contradiction and ambiguity.”
This is very interesting as I've been thinking a lot lately on the subject.
What Nell chose is really the third way which is in no way better (or worse) than the other two. I don't know how to call it, but it's basically independent open minded.
Let me explain why, from >40 years of being that way. Not because I'm complex minded or anything like that, that's just my personality. Rebel on one issue, trust the tradition on the other, change my mind on past choices, choose the middle ground and upset both sides, and any other variation you can think of.
To keep it as short as possible I will have to simplify: you really only have 3 choices: lead, follow or get out of the way. For lead and follow you need other people and people only get together if they have a common way of thinking. So those options are only available for people who are (or appear to be) conformists or rebels. So what's left for individualists? Just to get out of the way and achieve pretty much oly what 1 person can achieve - not much. You can also fake going with one side or the other for a time being, but you can't form life long relationships (which are also required for important stuff) so it won't last long. And this society aspect is just one example. Another quick simple one is you tend to keep reinventing wheels.
So yeah, being independent open minded is just as simple minded as the other options. In reality none of them are simple, they are just personality types each with pros and cons. Each can overcome some situations and fail in others just as likely. No mental model inside of one persons head can keep up with reality (even reduced to only society interactions). Any attempt to classify one model as being superior is just trying to feel good about one self and superior to others, and that IS simple-minded.
> “Neither one. Both ways are simple-minded– they are only for people who cannot cope with contradiction and ambiguity.”
This is very interesting as I've been thinking a lot lately on the subject.
What Nell chose is really the third way which is in no way better (or worse) than the other two. I don't know how to call it, but it's basically independent open minded.
Let me explain why, from >40 years of being that way. Not because I'm complex minded or anything like that, that's just my personality. Rebel on one issue, trust the tradition on the other, change my mind on past choices, choose the middle ground and upset both sides, and any other variation you can think of.
To keep it as short as possible I will have to simplify: you really only have 3 choices: lead, follow or get out of the way. For lead and follow you need other people and people only get together if they have a common way of thinking. So those options are only available for people who are (or appear to be) conformists or rebels. So what's left for individualists? Just to get out of the way and achieve pretty much oly what 1 person can achieve - not much. You can also fake going with one side or the other for a time being, but you can't form life long relationships (which are also required for important stuff) so it won't last long. And this society aspect is just one example. Another quick simple one is you tend to keep reinventing wheels.
So yeah, being independent open minded is just as simple minded as the other options. In reality none of them are simple, they are just personality types each with pros and cons. Each can overcome some situations and fail in others just as likely. No mental model inside of one persons head can keep up with reality (even reduced to only society interactions). Any attempt to classify one model as being superior is just trying to feel good about one self and superior to others, and that IS simple-minded.