Deconstruction makes us sociopaths

There are no facts, only interpretations; a wise man once said this.

What is an interpretation?

It can be many things, but the most basic type of interpretation is how much information you include in your decision-making.

If you “boil down” a situation to one or two factors, it gets easier to make a choice, but you run a greater risk of unintended outcomes or band long-term aggregate results.

One great example comes to us from the auto industry, which sometime in the 1970s began manufacturing specialized “donut” spare tires.

Instead of including a full-size wheel and tired as an extra, the car companies “saved” money and reduced costs by specially manufacturing smaller, flimsier spares.

On the surface, and if we’re only looking at a single factor, this is a great decision. $10 saved per million cars sold adds up to quite a bit of money. Over time, it’s a massive fortune.

There’s also science behind it. Most people never get flats. If they do, they’re usually close to home and the places they normally go for tire repair. Also, people like paying less for cars.

In every detail, it’s correct to use a donut spare. Most people do not notice. It saves money and space. Your average person doesn’t care whether they have a full spare or not.

That’s one perspective, or interpretation. Another says we should look at not as few factors as possible, but as many. We want to look at them all simultaneously.

Possibly we could describe this point of view as the “whole experience” outlook. What is the whole experience of the end user? What is the whole experience of society by having this product in its midst?

Although most people do not get flats, when someone does, it’s a bit of an unreal shock because they’ve pushed the possibility out of their head.

If their experience begins with a donut spare, they will remember it badly. These tires are so flimsy and miserable that they require you to stop what you’re doing and go immediately to a tire repair.

From the whole perspective, the experience of the individual with a donut spare is alienating and negative, in part because at that moment the decision to save $10 on a fake spare will seem absurd. The experience of civilization at large is that discontent, rage and ill will spread and people distrust industry even more.

The whole approach takes into account many more factors over a greater span of time. The surface assessment, that uses as few factors as possible, predicts immediate results only in the context of the factors it concerns itself with.

In this sense, it is the result of deconstruction. As good post-modernists, we “deconstruct” objects, ideas and people by removing them from their context and breaking apart their factors, then looking at those one at a time.

As the whole view shows us however deconstruction separates us from reality as it is, which is a broader and deeper experience. The numbers make sense on our spreadsheets, and science tells us to go ahead, and yet something is missing.

That something is not a part of the whole, or a forgotten factor, but the whole itself: the connection between all the parts that reveals the hidden form behind the manifestation we know as physical form.

Our society misses out every day as its deconstructed ideas make people more alienated, distrustful and resentful. In addition, we miss out on a greater experience of life we might enjoy.

29 Responses to “Deconstruction makes us sociopaths”

  1. EvilBuzzard says:

    But how can you say that? Sociopathy was defined the way it was to serve the vested intrests of a non-sociopath power structure. The whole thing smacks of in group cronyism.

  2. crow says:

    I remember the fascinated, outraged shock I felt when I first saw one of these spare tires. There was so something so obviously wrong about it that I just stared and stared. And ugly, too!
    I also noticed how nobody else noticed.
    There is this constant erosion of dignity in the way we moderns do things, that subtracts from the whole experience of living; indeed dignity is something that becomes harder and harder to define, because of its extreme scarcity.
    Meanwhile, where I live, I often see people using these spare wheels for weeks on end, sometimes two or three of them, at a time, instead of real ones. With broken mufflers dragging underneath their vehicles, lights out and trim falling off…
    I seem to be living in a society where everybody does everything and has everything, whether they can afford it, or not. I see a shambles, but again, nobody else ever seems to notice.

    • ferret says:

      I remember I had a kit I bought and I fixed flat tire, I think, in five minutes. I was surprised I did it so fast, and I fixed it on the car: I didn’t take it off. I always have this kit with me, and I think everyone should. I check air pressure in my full size spare weel, I rotate all five of them; I believe I can get maximum life from them if I do it as I learned in the manual I read when I have time, though I have more things to do.
      I forgot to tell, I have a small compressor I bought for $12, and I feel I can go wherever I wish, if I have it in my car, and I will be safe, I think.

  3. Lisa Colorado says:

    To take the analogy further… What kind of person keeps the donut tire on the car and doesn’t get the tire change? If your tires are middle-aged, you have to buy 3 more tires along with it. If you don’t have that kind of money, your life becomes all about putting up with jerry rigged kind of thinking. It’s kind of like telling a lie. You have to maintain that lie.

    What kind of person, on the other hand, buys five tires, and rotates the extra one in with regular tire rotations, and then if they get a flat, ignores the donut and uses the extra tire? Someone who’s got their thinking straight and can add that detail in. That’s all they have to remember regarding tires.

    Most of us just get the flat, cuss, and spend all that is required, which makes the industry happy but results in lots of extra waste.

    • Anthony says:

      I wonder, what kind of person manages to live without a car?

      • crow says:

        Most of the world’s population?
        There was a time, not so very long ago, when nobody had one.
        I didn’t, until my late twenties.

        • 1349 says:

          18 or so years ago my family had no home phone – and of course no cell phones – and it felt normal. We could only talk to our relatives if we visited them. We (well, my parents, not me) had to be very punctual for appointments. We had to lead more or less scheduled, organized lives. =)

          • crow says:

            I remember no phones. Everything worked just fine without them. When they started appearing, those who had them had a huge ‘advantage’ over those that didn’t. Soon, if you didn’t have one, you couldn’t expect to find a job.

          • ferret says:

            I had a friend that had no phone, I mean, a land line.
            I remember, I would walk my room back and forth for a while for no reason, then tell my parents I was going to my friend, and leave.
            We always met with my friend on the way from my to his house.
            I was young and had no idea about probabilities of such events; so I accepted these exact halfway meetings as something normal.
            All these events were not planned and organised, but all this was so natural.

    • Lisa Colorado says:

      Right–my kid doesn’t want a car. He’ll probably end up living someplace where he doesn’t need one. It doesn’t represent freedom to him.

      • crow says:

        It is just possible that this essay isn’t actually about cars, wheels and tires. We should try to figure out what it is about before someone notices :)

        • ferret says:

          Genuine traditionalists do not change customs easily.
          And, of course, if not you, nobody would notice: we keep this style for years.
          And it’s safe. No discussions.

          • crow says:

            We discuss a great deal, here, Ferret.
            We talk about stuff.
            It’s not actually necessary to hurl abuse at each other by way of doing that, or demand proofs and such. Although, to be sure, that’s what happens on most forums.
            You could even say that what goes on here is a traditional way of interacting with strangers. It avoids becoming do-or-die.
            I do agree, though, that it’s usually pretty free-form.
            I like it.

            • ferret says:

              We talk about stuff

              In his articles Brett articulates interesting ideas, that mostly remain unnoticed. Read an article, then read comments, make statistics, and it will be obvious.

              Imagine you are expressing on of your ideas or observations to your friend, and he ignores what you are saying. Or, you are talking about an iterpretation of an idea in a J. Evola’s book, and your friend contributes to the conversation by discussing advantages of electronic books after he’d learned yours was a paper one.

              That what we do in this forum.

              And this is a lack of culture of conversation whwich is an important part of a good tradition.

              It is simply impolite.

              what goes on here is a traditional way of interacting with strangers

              You want to say, for the sake of interacting with strangers we shold digress from the topic and discuss unrelated stuff, including anecdotes from the personal life?

              If this is the goal, I’m ready to help. I have a lot of stories to tell in order to please my ego.

              But who would contribute from repelling readers from the site?

              • crow says:

                I contribute what I have learned from personal experience. Ego doesn’t enter into it.
                You contribute what you have read from Wikipedia and other people’s experiences. Along with a megadose of arrogance.
                If I repel people from from this site, I sincerely hope you are among them.

                • ferret says:

                  If I repel people from from this site, I sincerely hope you are among them.

                  If you are not repelling people, there are two possibilities:

                  1. You insincerely hope I’m among them
                  2. You’ve lost hope to see me among people

                  which both are fine with me.

                  But wait, why have you decided it is your job description, when I clearly stated that the anecdotes from MY life could repel readers, so I refrain from telling them.

                  • crow says:

                    I have decided you are an enemy. Since you very obviously are. You deluge writers and commenters with aggressive challenges and demands, accuse them of all kinds of things, project upon them things that you manifest in doing so, and generally behave in needlessly adversarial fashion.
                    This may be how Russians do things, but not everybody is a Russian, and almost nobody is you.
                    Your credibility is shot.
                    Start over, or get lost.

  4. Dr. Linda Gonzalez says:

    Whenever a person attempts to describe a woman’s soul or her character, he inevitability uses words such as tender, acquiescent, and soft. These words merely describe her sexual organ. It is unavoidable to think of woman outside of the sexual sphere. Indeed a woman’s whole worth is found in her moist and pliable organ.

    A woman is simply incapable of dignity, self-worth, virtue, or morality. She is a beast, and behind women’s universal narcissism is self-hatred. They externalize their penis-envy through hatred of men and all things masculine.

    The misogynist is mistaken. He views women through the lens of masculinity and expects women to act like men — with dignity and righteousness but a woman does not possess moral agency anymore than the beasts of the field. She is not immoral but amoral.

    Today the lines are blurred and what once men knew about women they have forgotten. When a man finally understands the truth about women he will begin to view them as a different species, similar to the monkeys or beasts of burden.

    • Anonymous says:

      Very insigthful and true.

      Women are , for the great majority part, not human, but they are like mirrors which copy what is currently the social consensus, thus they lack integrity and any ability to discern what is true or false.

      Women are fags.

      At least a great majority of women fail to raise themselves above the group morality and -thinking : If they are able, they pack together to slander, and be they the weaker part, they attempt to construe themselves as victims and their betters as aggressors. It’s a universal woman and fag tactic.

      Women are hipster fags, and all their mind can reach is to calculate the way to the husbands purse, while the other hand shops for handbags and kittens — thats what they call multitasking. But that cannot make up for the fact, that women are AT LEAST 5 IQ points lower, and deviate less towards the top of the scale, where mostly exclusively men are found.

      • 1349 says:

        In your degenerate society, maybe.

        But a normal woman is a conservative (keeper). Women, not men, pass the tradition on to the next generation.
        A man is liberal in the good sense (explorer, adventurer).

        A normal woman is wise. A normal man is brave.

        • crow says:

          Women are wise? Lucky you, to live in a culture where that is so.
          I’ve always made the unfortunate mistake of assuming qualities, in women, that they have never had. Maybe that’s only true, though, in anglo cultures.
          Come to think of it, I am about the only brave man I have ever met, too.

        • ferret says:

          But a normal woman is a conservative (keeper). Women, not men, pass the tradition on to the next generation.

          Wery true. Though men also play this role. I would say, women are kind of limited by this conservative mission, or having more opportunities for keeping traditions (starting with the nursery rhymes and the like). But, every word of the father is very important to the son: it imprints in his soul.

    • crow says:

      Interesting observations.
      Demonstrably true of every woman I’ve known intimately, up to and including my present wife.
      But somehow she has become very different, over time, and now is the antithesis of your description. This is a very rare thing, and I often can’t believe my good fortune, although she is the first to say the good fortune is all hers, and she has gained far more from my presence than I have from hers.
      We do still disagree on that one :)

  5. NotTheDude says:

    I have been reading this blog blog for a few years now after wandering in the wilderness that is conservative internet sites. all I can say is that it is great to see some sense around.

  6. thordaddy says:

    Deconstructionism can be better understood as the radical liberal’s subconscious desire to self-annihilate spiritually, intellectually and lastly, biologically. We all have these self-annihilating desires the difference being that the radical liberal exalts and embraces them and the Supremacist attempts to submit, subdue and bury these inclinations. Deconstructionism is an “intellectual” attempt at justifying and rationalizing self-annihilation.

    What the tire analogy says is that the individual that uses a spare tire like a real tire is dancing with death. When he doesn’t meet his fate, he believes himself to be radically “free.”

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>