| Materialist | | 100% |
| Existentialist | | 81% |
| Postmodernist | | 81% |
| Modernist | | 63% |
| Cultural Creative | | 50% |
| Fundamentalist | | 38% |
| Romanticist | | 38% |
| Idealist | | 25% |
20 comments:
Took test two times for when a question was open to interpretation, or shades of affirmation or dissent, and could not attempt to capture my views with one alone; the second test I took, answering those "disputed questions" in the "other way" I would believe, compared to the first. Unsurprisingly, the results are much the same, just a matter of degree.
First:
Cultural Creative 75%
Fundamentalist 50%
Idealist 50%
Existentialist 38%
Postmodernist 38%
Romanticist 38%
Modernist 25%
Materialist 0%
Second:
Cultural Creative 69%
Fundamentalist 63%
Idealist 50%
Postmodernist 38%
Romanticist 38%
Existentialist 31%
Modernist 25%
Materialist 0%
Not at all surprising - if anything I'm an "anti-materialist". I think the category of "fundamentalist" is too narrow, as it basically means "believer in organised religion" in the context of the quiz, unlike the general usage which is meant to be "Fundamentalist protestant absolutely literal traditional hermeneutic, Genesis science, young earth creationist".
I would have called myself, using "idealist" in the philosophical sense (as a contrast with pragmatist or utilitarian), an "Idealist Roman Catholic".
I have no idea what a "cultural creative" is or is supposed to be. I've never heard the term used.
I looked up "cultural creative" - I'm not sure it fits. Wikipedia gives the following DSM-IV like list, with "ten or more means identification with CC" - I don't believe that to be accurate, because some statements I wholly agree with, where as some are misleading, and some I am fundamentally opposed to.
* love of nature and deep caring about its preservation, and its natural balance.
* strong awareness of the planet-wide issues (i.e. climate change, poverty etc.) and a desire to see more action on them
* being active themselves as well (e.g. cradle2cradle principle)
* willingness to pay higher taxes or spend more money for goods if that money went to improving the environment
* heavy emphasis on the importance of developing and maintaining relationships
* heavy emphasis on the importance of helping others and developing their unique gifts
* volunteer with one or more good causes
* intense interest in spiritual and psychological development
* see spirituality as an important aspect of life, but worry about religious fundamentalism
* desire equity for women/men in business, life and politics
* concern and support of the wellbeing of all women and children
* want politics and government to spend more money on education, community programs and the support of a more ecologically sustainable future
* are unhappy with the left and right in politics
* optimism towards the future
* want to be involved in creating a new and better way of life
* are concerned with big business and the means they use to generate profits, including destroying the environment and exploiting poorer countries
* unlikely to overspend or be in heavy debt
* dislike the emphasis of modern cultures on "making it" and "success", on consuming and making money
* like people, places and things that are different or exotic
Of these, a short commentary:
I agree fully with:
Unlikely to overspend or be in heavy debt.
Dislike the emphasis of modern cultures on "making it" and "success", on consuming and making money.
Are unhappy with the left and right in politics.
Heavy emphasis on the importance of helping others and developing their unique gifts (with qualifications, as I believe "to each his own": as example, I am opposed to modern schooling: some people are stupid, and no amount of coaxing is going to make them doctoral material).
Volunteer with one or more good causes (even though I don't actively volunteer do to not owning a car/lack of transportation).
Intense interest in spiritual and psychological development.
See spirituality as an important aspect of life, but worry about religious fundamentalism.
Heavy emphasis on the importance of developing and maintaining relationships (even though I have about two real-life relationships, I agree in principle.
I am full in support of "concern and support of the wellbeing of all women and children" as well.
I am neutral about:
Want politics and government to spend more money on education, community programs and the support of a more ecologically sustainable future (somewhat: I agree with all except for "ecologically sustainable", I believe the "environment" crap is hyped, and don't give a shit about it in any case, especially not in the warped way people do it today, i.e. buying a new "green car" which is worse for the environment than the old car, because of all of the energy and materials it took to build, not nearly off-set by the slightly better hydrogen powermill in it).
Strong awareness of the planet-wide issues (i.e. climate change, poverty etc.) and a desire to see more action on them (I am very concerned about poverty, but don't give two pennies about "climate change" hysteria).
Being active themselves as well (e.g. cradle2cradle principle)
Want to be involved in creating a new and better way of life (the Bolsheviks and Nazis thought they were creating a "new and better life".
Like people, places and things that are different or exotic (lots of times "exotic" means "multiculturalism", which, combined with the teachings of Mahomet, is slowly strangling the civilised world).
I am opposed to:
Love of nature and deep caring about its preservation, and its natural balance (most people who get in to this are as much nutters as the fundies).
Willingness to pay higher taxes or spend more money for goods if that money went to improving the environment (I'm not a materialist nor a lover of money, but come on).
Desire equity for women/men in business, life and politics (I'm a complementarian: misogyny is a different story, but, to quote a very unpopular USSC case and apply it to the sexes, "separate but equal" or "different but equal [in dignity]", not in fact. Physical differences alone make men superior in strength and spatial coordination, and women superior in being able to bear children. Men are superior in general at the hard sciences such as mathematics, women in general are superior at languages, etc.).
Optimism towards the future (self-explanatory: the world at the current moment is as bad as it was, or worse, than during the Cold War, but in a different way, with different threats [i.e. Mahometan Shari'a and White Supremacy, corrupt governments, atheism and fundamentalism, wars]).
Are concerned with big business and the means they use to generate profits, including destroying the environment and exploiting poorer countries (too long to get in to in 4096 characters).
See, I agree with some, am neutral about some, and oppose some. Some I strongly agree with, some just barely. Some I strongly oppose, some I just barely oppose. The attempt to qualify a group with "ten of the above" yet having such wildly differing criteria means either I'm a very unusual person for holding the views I do in the combination I do, or the sociologists who came up with this classification were full of crap, as they so often are.
I don't think you are a cultural creative either. I think the test is picking up you are a millennial and the test (and worse yet the wikipedia definition) is combining a philosophical system with generational beliefs.
Would you care to elaborate on that? I'm not familiar with the terms you used ("millennial" - from context, I don't think you mean "tribulationist" or anything to do with chiliasm), and if you have the time, I wouldn't mind hearing a brief analysis of "generational beliefs" co-opted into a "philosophical system" (i.e. what is the resultant system?), and how the result defines a "cultural creative" is (that is not equivalent to the Wiki definition), so on and so forth - from what I've seen you're most definitely intelligent enough to fill in the blanks and get the idea of where I'm going (many to most people aren't).
Your view of the issue seems to have greater depth and nuance than mine: I assumed it to be another artefact of all "categorisation systems", from those for life (Linnaeus) to those for human attributes (from Phrenological Eugenics in the past to the DSM-IV in the present day), and the false "conservative/liberal" dichotomy, whereas many people are both conservative and liberal, but are not moderate, as the false dichotomy doesn't allow for variant, non-party-line views on individual issues. This seems to be much the same: there is a "cultural conservative" or "millennial"(?) party line, and if you have 5.1/10 on it, you're assumed to be a card-carrying member.
I realise the above is not the most cohesive and coherent piece I've ever written, but I think it shall serve to communicate the rudiments of my thoughts.
Would you care to elaborate on that? I'm not familiar with the terms you used ("millennial" - from context
I meant the group of people born between 1982 and 1995. IMHO generations have collective experiences. The silent generation grew up in the depression and the war. Those experienced fundamentally shaped them.
My generation for example saw divorce hit as a mass phenomena. We as children went from a culture of stable families to unstable families and saw child neglect. That's why our generation is a bit obsessive about safety for children.
A lot of the mixture of viewpoints I saw under the wikipedia article for cultural creatives strike me as millennial characteristics. Your generation's politics.
In terms of generational beliefs. There are a lot of theories on this. I wasn't intending to be too specific though in terms of interesting parallels I'd go with the Strauss theory.
I'm ashamed to be born when I was if this is my generation's politic.
Multiculturalism, detached "love" - "love is letting someone do whatever makes them happy", do what you want if it feels good, bankrupt morality, all cultures are equal, no savages and no civilisation, no viewpoint is more right than another, we're all entitled to our own truths, and our own iPods, facebook/myspace... BLECH.
I do appreciate having been born in the information age, if not somewhat before the Internet. I can't imagine what the "Post-Millennials" will be like, having grown up with the internet and all the world's information and entertainment at their fingertips, on iPhones and computers, from the earliest age through Sex-messaging.
Based on that, I would have to divide that generation again, and say that 1975-1985/90 had similar characteristics, growing up in the beginning of the information age, but still with some traditions around, whereas 1995 and after is growing up in the heart of the information age. Also the 1975-1985/90 cohort can be distinguished possibly by having been mainly the children of the baby boomers, 1940-1960, whereas the 1990/95 and later are generally the children of the children of baby boomers.
Maybe the "pendulum will swing" according to the Strauss-Howe theory and the next generation will react against the libertine-ism and moral bankruptcy and rampant success-worshipping, education for all, cut-throat materialism, of the baby boomer-to-Millennial generations - I can hope.
I can't imagine what the "Post-Millennials" will be like, having grown up with the internet and all the world's information and entertainment at their fingertips, on iPhones and computers, from the earliest age through Sex-messaging.
Yeah that's why they do a cut off in 1995 the iGeneration. Kids born after that have never seen a world without ubiquitous cell phones, without almost universal internet. That's my daughter's generation.
And yes there is a difference in outlook. They are all young so we'll have to see how it plays out.
I'm ashamed to be born when I was if this is my generation's politic.
You are a good guy but you choose your own path. I doubt you would have fit regardless. But the way you choose to rebel is very millennial if you think about it. You rebel by become an ultra conservative Catholic. A very healthy kind of rebellion.
My generation people rebelled by doing drugs, having a lot of sex, cutting themselves, anorexia. You had a lot of options but they were all destructive.
I guess we will see about the generation after the iGeneration. That will be mainly millennial generation's kids. We have to find out what your generation are like as parents.
I find it funny that my generation's rebellion is conservatism and religion, as the rebellion of the baby boomers was libertine "free love", socialism, and atheism.
The drugs seem to fit in every modern generation though, ever since the Jazz seen with them hep-cat negroes brought that doob on the scene, and the Vietnam veterans brought dope addiction back with them.
The promiscuity, self-mutilation, and eating disorders (now in addition to Bipolar, ADHD, depression, etc.) were still going strong as of six or seven years ago in high school.
The "millennial movement" seems to be what they call Emos, or Hipsters - a kind of post-modern digestion of all of the countercultures and rebellions of the last fifty years, regurgitated and stripped of their original power and meaning.
The "millennial movement" seems to be what they call Emos, or Hipsters - a kind of post-modern digestion of all of the countercultures and rebellions of the last fifty years, regurgitated and stripped of their original power and meaning.
My daughter agrees with you. She talks about emos as wannabe goths who aren't willing to actually do goth stuff: blood drinking, 19th century costumes, wicca....
OTOH if it is any consultation during the 1980s there was a whole tie-dye movement where people had their hair long... but they read all sorts of hippie literature and talked about it but: stayed in high school, didn't move to communes, didn't really rebel more than just smoke pot... So our generation was pathetic in the same way.
On the other hand. I was part of epicenter of proto-goth (I missed real goth by about 5 years), I knew a lot of people into the hardcore environmentalism / Peta stuff. The whole grunge style that the hipsters are imitating, well that was my fiance.
We never would have thought of that stuff as worth imitating. I also had tremendous jealousy towards the baby boomers but now my generation is the one the kids want to be like. Its helped me see it in a new light. And I often enjoy your versions of things better. For all the talk... Lady Gaga is doing stuff much faster than Madonna ever did. The comparisons take whole decades from Madonna and compare them to single years of Gaga.
Not to mention that what Lady Gaga does faster, she does /faster/, and harder as well, if you get my drift. Madonna was considered absolutely shameless (up to and including her lesbian kiss of that other singer, just a few years ago, when homosexuality wasn't quite as mainstream as it is today - by a long shot) from what I remember of the time and from my older brothers.
Lady Gaga makes Madonna look like Judy Garland. Miley Cyrus is more in the ball-park of "Madonna-level impropriety", the only problem, uh, I mean, "cultural difference", being that she's 15 years old instead of 20/25.
Miley Cyrus at 15 v. Britney Spears at 15 from a few years back also makes Britney Spears - who was considered to border on child porn at the time if I remember - look mild.
And stupidity is increasing at an exponential factor. Towards the end of my sojourn in high-school are where the "early adopters" of technology began trying to video-camera all of their friends, acquaintances, and everyone else either fornicating or using drugs.
How stupid do you have to be to /let/ someone film you, with your knowledge, with a needle of heroin in the arm, or a pipe full of a hallucinogen stronger than acid in the mouth?
Back in the day, they needed paparazzi for that. Now, all they need is a friend - money-grubbing or not, it happens at all levels of society, where money isn't a dream in the blackmail-sort-of-way.
Maybe that's why I don't have any friends - I value my privacy. And privacy is hard to come by in this Brave New World. And these same people who smoke massive amounts of grass and adopt "the man is out to get me" persona are the same ones that willfully surrender any hope at privacy with Myspace, Facebook, camera-phones, etc.
I begin to wonder how anyone in my generation will be able to run for elected office without half a dozen scandals hitting them before polling day.
Lady Gaga makes Madonna look like Judy Garland.
She does in the first few years. No question Lady Gaga's early stuff is more risque than Madonna's was. But Gaga's never done anything like Madonna's Erotica album or Sex. On the other hand songs like Bad Romance are darker than anything Madonna sung about.
Miley Cyrus at 15 v. Britney Spears at 15 from a few years back also makes Britney Spears - who was considered to border on child porn at the time if I remember - look mild.
Britney is much more overtly sexual than Miley
-- She also physically matured earlier, Britney at 17 with makeup could pass for 22.
-- Britney is gorgeous, Miley is cute
-- Britney did stripper type dance moves quite naturally while protesting her virginity, Miley when trying to be bad seems like she's pretending.
Miley is kinda a normal teenager, acting out. But I agree what Madonna was doing in her early 20s is like Miley.
I begin to wonder how anyone in my generation will be able to run for elected office without half a dozen scandals hitting them before polling day.
It won't be scandalous. You own it, there is no scandal. Scandals exist right now because of hypocrisy. When everyone has photo evidence they have to be honest about their teenage sex / drug life.
If that's the case, the squeakier clean the record the better, I assume - unless promiscuity is pride - so I should run for office.
Having a dope addiction that's not on tape versus having a heavy hallucinogen habit that is on tape - which would garner the least votes?
It seems the world is more and more moving towards "more evil" and "less evil", not "good" and "evil" - but anyone who's read Nietzsche and understood the impact he and Schopenhauer had on Western philosophy and culture would have seen that one coming.
By the way, I agree with most of Schopenhauer's positions: "If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?"
It seems the world is more and more moving towards "more evil" and "less evil", not "good" and "evil" - but anyone who's read Nietzsche and understood the impact he and Schopenhauer had on Western philosophy and culture would have seen that one coming.
My feeling is that every era has their sins and their issues. There was a sort of casual ethnic chauvinism that existed when I was growing up that just doesn't exist today. For example when I was in Philadelphia the democratic primary was the election and the two parties were the black party and the Italian party with Irish, Jews and WASPs being the swing voters. That sort of thing doesn't exist today. Until the recent hispanic bashing African Americans were the only large ethic group that clearly identified with one party or the other.
Another example is adult / teen sex. When I was growing up lots of 15 year old girls would have 20-28 year old boyfriends and that was considered normalish. Today it wouldn't be tolerated. When I grew up pederasty was a normal way that boys were brought into sexuality, today it is rare.
Another area are pollution and safety standards. When I was a kid there were many lakes and rivers that were simply unsafe to swim in, much less drink from. Today dumping just doesn't happen.
I tend to think every era has its sins. And even on sex. During the height of the Victorian era you have very prudish women and no pornography. Thus 4% of the female population were prostitutes, which if you think about the numbers means that a huge percentage of the men, married or not was carrying on a fairly regular pay for sex relationship.
By the way, I agree with most of Schopenhauer's positions: "If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?"
Well yes. I agree. Our animal selves keep the evils of our demonic selves in check.
"When I grew up pederasty was a normal way that boys were brought into sexuality, today it is rare."
I can't believe this: isn't pederasty by definition "Greek love"? If you mean older women/younger men or what today is called the Cougar, I could see, but not in the usual sense of the word pederast.
If it's not too much trouble, could you provide me with some sources or references so I can see for myself?
As, in any case listed here, pederasty or cougarasty, I'd no idea it was any more common than incest at any time in recent memory, but I've not made a great study of sociology of either today or yesterday, and virtually no study of sexology beyond the most cursory examinations of both in some of the more widely-disseminated or popular sources.
Post a Comment