"type": "split",
"children": [
{
- "id": "97e9e987167c8649",
+ "id": "3c6d67e1105bb837",
"type": "tabs",
"children": [
{
- "id": "5fcd2c8580ba81ba",
+ "id": "9da568e6f78dc7f8",
"type": "leaf",
"state": {
- "type": "markdown",
- "state": {
- "file": "PoC Research (Poster)/PoC Poster Overview.md",
- "mode": "source",
- "source": true
- },
+ "type": "empty",
+ "state": {},
"icon": "lucide-file",
- "title": "PoC Poster Overview"
+ "title": "New tab"
}
}
]
"pdf-plus:PDF++: Toggle auto-paste": false
}
},
- "active": "5fcd2c8580ba81ba",
+ "active": "9da568e6f78dc7f8",
"lastOpenFiles": [
+ "Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses/Reading Response Week 4/Cohen Cole -- 2014 -- The Creative American -- The open mind -- Cold War politics and the sciences of human nature.pdf",
+ "Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses/Reading Response Week 4/RC Reading Response Week 4.md",
+ "Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses/Reading Response Week 4/Whyte -- Groupthink.pdf",
+ "Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses/Reading Response Week 4/Heinmiller -- Need for nonconformists -- GER -- 1958.pdf",
+ "PoC Research (Poster)/PoC Poster Overview.md",
"Bundesverfassungsgericht/Urteil_des_Ersten_Senats_vom_5_November_2019.pdf",
"Bundesverfassungsgericht/References on Bundesverfassungsgericht.md",
- "PoC Research (Poster)/PoC Poster Overview.md",
"PoC Research (Poster)/PoC Poster References.md",
- "Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses/Reading Response Week 4/RC Reading Response Week 4.md",
- "Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses/Reading Response Week 4/Cohen Cole -- 2014 -- The Creative American -- The open mind -- Cold War politics and the sciences of human nature.pdf",
- "Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses/Reading Response Week 4/Heinmiller -- Need for nonconformists -- GER -- 1958.pdf",
- "Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses/Reading Response Week 4/Whyte -- Groupthink.pdf",
"Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses/Reading Response Week 4",
"Recontextualising Creativity",
"Recontextualising Creativity/RC Reading Responses",
+# Notes
+
+## [[Cohen Cole -- 2014 -- The Creative American -- The open mind -- Cold War politics and the sciences of human nature.pdf|Cohen Cole]]
+(imma only read it for now)
+
+defining feature of the positive personality that can make America immune: creativity - autonomy, rationality, tolerance and open-mindedness
+
+bring cohere to America's increasingly complex and diverse culture and at the same time would mitigate the conformity that many social critics feared - both in traditional society and modern mass society. 'unity in diversity'
+
+
+## [[Heinmiller -- Need for nonconformists -- GER -- 1958.pdf|Heinmiller]]
+Individuality is lost in group conformity, or at least it has felt like that for now.
+Individualism seems to be on the rise again. Conformity pressures are bad for engineers and scientists, so it must be understood.
+Conformity of action, and conformity of thinking.
+
+Conformity in that day (apparently):
+> "The blind, uncritical acceptance of beliefs and choices in the absence of conviction based on evidence and logical grounds."
+
+Argument:
+- Conformity of action is essential. Why?
+ - Society would collapse if people wouldn't conform.
+ - Conform to laws, business practices and acceptable manners in personal relations
+(Not sure I believe that thing above)
+
+Argument:
+Intellectual conformity (in the strictest sense) "Rigid intellectual conformity" - without conviction (actual, grounded belief) - not good
+- Implied: no dissent allowed
+- no moral responsibility "just following orders principle" as I like to call it
+- Opposite of personal freedom
+
+Did they have to have this position?
+ I feel like the stereotype and idea of the soviet union being the machine that it is where everyone must tow the party line and there exists no one else is being setup here in the background to be knocked down - to show that this is where the american way perseveres and beats out the Russian approach.
+
+Teamwork is now, more important than ever, because there no longer is the personal capable of understanding everything in depth enough for there to be a massive change. The great man theory, in a way, is dead.
+
+What teams must look out for:
+- Group harmony and agreement is not the goal
+- They will not always end up being right
+
+Intellectual conformity, also hinders the group.
+Mostly because it destroys the validity of group consensus. (In my opinion)
+
+Conformity != loyalty
+Loyalty, must mean doing the best, as perceived, for the organisation.
+
+A company needs "creative, self reliant people if it is to prove capable of adapting sucessfully to changing technological and economic conditions."
+
+"An appreciation of the need for competition of ideas, tolerance of dissent and unquestioned freedom of opinion safeguard the preservation of a free way of life." (Robert Paxton)
+- I think this distills, in a way, the American cold-war critique of the Soviet Union pretty well
+
+## [[Whyte -- Groupthink.pdf|Whyte]]
+
+Argument 1:
+- People are starting to think that the individual no meaning
+- Even though that is the most american thing
+- too many things are focused on the group e.g. "group dyanmics", "social interaction" etc. etc.
+ - It feels a bit like he is ignoring personal psychology and this is not a valid argument but who am I
+
+Man I get the feeling this guy, says many nice things about the USA. He highly praises US group work, "American genius for cooperative action" and "so wholeheartedly to the job of mastering group skills [as in the US]", and he does acknowledge at least that it's a strength.
+
+Basically saying that it's focused too much on the group. Also based on poor examples. Things have to swung too much in the direction of group work, thinking about the group.
+Group think interesting title in that sense.
+
+He defines groupthink, and will admit its loaded.
+- Differs from instinctive confirmity
+- "rationalised conformity"
+ - "an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well."
+- The main 3 ideas that underpin it:
+ - "That moral values and ethics are relative;"
+ - "That what is important is the kind of behaviour and attitudes that makes sense for the harmonious functioning of the group;"
+ - "That the best way to achieve this is through the application of 'scientific' techniques"
+
+This defines a _miserable_ man, formed by his group and environment. No self determination.
+"... trained elite that will benevolently manipulate us into group harmony. And who's to be the elite? Social engineers..."
+
+Says this is related to the book 1984
+
+The youth is as group minded as we have ever seen. - (This is far from the usual attitude I would say that people have of the youth, just intuitively.)
+
+The scary part is not being the pawn, but the willing apprentice.
+
+Being part of a group is necessary in a social context, and these kids can't survive without it. (They are bored with themselves) a girl says.
+
+This, more and more, feels like a, I would say conservative piece of populist rhetoric almost. I might look further into William H. Whyte Jr. soon.
+
+"practical relativism" is what the youth engages in. Absolute morals disappear. black and white exists sure, but determined by the group. That group won't censure him.
+
+"These me don't question the system. Their main aim is to make it work better - to get in there and lubricate the machinery. They're not rebels' they'll be social technicians for a better society." - One of the mentors at a university. (Most out of my ass source for a quote that I have ever heard in my life)
+
+People are turning toward personnel work
+
+The treadmill is about security and emotional safety. It's also pleasant enough. "Strain of resignation"
+
+### The System Lovers
+There is no longer really the culture of rebellion among young people. That was something in the thirties. Apparently backed up by Fortunate analysis. Sometimes the system also becomes the hero.
+
+Brings up the story with the sinking mine sweeper.
+Seems like a downright parody to him, if it had been written at another time. (Who says it wasn't then?)
+I read the plot. It does not seem like satire. Honestly it seems a bit wild.
+
+"... I see that we were in the wrong... the idea is, once yo uget an incompetent ass of a skipper - and it's a chance of war - there's nothing to do but serve him as though he were the wisest and the best, cover his mistakes and keep the ship going, and bear up. So I have gone all the way around Rboin Hood's barn to arrive at the old plattiudes, which I guess is the process of growing up."
+
+"Obedience and discipline few could have caviled at" - not even sure what that word means - either way... what does discipline have to do with this? It's a personal thing. Maybe not back then?
+
+Marquand: we must surrender the individual, without that surrender we can't win a war, and this is a lesson fo antithesis of democracy. "unqestionining obedience must be accorded to a superior officer, no matter how personally odius or stupid this indvidiual may be..."
+Wild take. I am agreeing more and more with Whyte on some parts.
+
+### The permissive way
+Against formalism (whatever that is)
+
+too much attention on the individual
+
+They already won. (vs. Absolutists, things like that, medievalists)
+
+They wanted to fight dogma and became the dogma.
+
+I don't entirely get his point throughout here, but is he critiquing the idea that the way people around us behave, and judge us is not good?
+
+This take is going all over the place I feel like.
+From what I understand he is arguing the idea that...??? I am not sure.
+
+Who is Allen Zoll?? (Far right american. From what I can understand he also disavows him quite heavily)
+
+Don't speak out, fear losing their standing as "liberals"
+These people are "progressives" as he calls them
+
+Breakdown of family values and community ties. Alright buddy we are here.
+
+"Healthy political base" in America. Okay yea buddy. Calm down here.
+
+Our blind faith in "scientism". I am pretty sure this was a dog whistle but I am not sure... but maybe not... and probably not back then.
+
+> ... people do not always argue because they misunderstand one another; they argue because they hold different goals.
+
+I would argue this is the case maybe 10% of the time.
+
+Individuals just stand out sometimes - do incredible things sometimes that a scientific approach etc. cannot match. His past wouldn't be able to predict it and all your measurements cannot match the single man sometimes.
+
+don't return to "rugged individualism" (thank you)
+
+don't sacrifice autonomy for the harmony of the group
+
+new respect for the individual
-# References
-- Cohen-Cole, J.
\ No newline at end of file
projects / research-obsidian.git / commitdiff