The Crayon Box Problem

[geekgirl]

After perusing much of this site, I have to say one of the more confusing things is what I've always called, "the crayon box problem". This, of course is from the old stoner joke: "Dude, how do I know if what I think is blue, and what you think is blue, is really blue?" Answer: "Check the f'ing crayon box."

The philosophical portion of the question is virtually ancient, and can even go back to Plato and his "pure forms" argument. The overall problem when we start talking in abstractions and ideas, is that there is no universal crayon box to refer to.

Which brings me to Left and Right. I was excited when I saw the Left/Right Libertarian topic on the list - but it was just a link to a confusing article from someone with a another totally different crayon box to refer to. Some of you, I think have a totally different crayon box from everyone else. Some of you are unsure of where the colors go, they just keep their most used ones up front. And one of you even seems to keep a special box that has crayons labeled in spanish, and they seem to enjoy refuting everyone's english color chart questions based on them. (Blue? There is no such thing. I have a crayon labelled, Azul, which you obviously are too stupid to understand). I think this is because they desperately want to think that their crayon box is *special* and *better* somehow.

<whew>

So, in the interest of clearing some of this up (or muddying it further), I thought I'd share how I organize my crayon box, and some of you can open your boxes... keep in mind, there ultimately are no right answers. There may be general agreements on some things, but it's kind of a quantum thing - I expect it to get more confusing as we look at it.

For me, I believe the fundamental political conflict throughout all of human history is the individual vs the group.

On the Right side of the spectrum, are the individuals. The ideologies on this side are Libertarianism, Conservatism, Objectivism, etc.... with anarchy being as far right/individualistic as you can get. The individuals on the Right tend to stay apart... they are The Loners.

On the Left, are the groups and collectives. Socialism, Communism, Progressivism... the far far Left being a complete totalitarian dictatorship. They are The Joiners.

What this has done for me through the years, it has explained a few oddities which I continually see popping up as questions around here.

Like: Why don't Objectivists comment on current events? Which really boils down to a question of proselytization. The unstated comparison involved in this question has to do with non-objectivists, which seem to constantly proselytize.

Objectivist's failure in this regard has been attributed - by some - to Rand's faulty ideas, or the Objectivist's inability to live up to them. (Or, confusingly, both.) However, in my crayon box, the answer is simple: Individuals don't proselytize. Groups do. (Usually, for the sake of creating new group members). A bunch of loners are not going to suddenly start indoctrinating people to "not be a Joiner". Loners are much more tolerant of individual differences... Joiners are engaged in a constant effort to destroy the differences and assimilate. Kinda like the Borg. They don't like differences, or lumps under the blanket... they want their blankets smooth and featureless. This is why the Left always tries to impose standards of behavior onto people; they think the best solution to people who don't agree with them is to convert or destroy them. The Right just ignores them.

This is why the Right always seems disorganized. We don't have "community organizers" on our side. Why we don't want unions. Why we're inherently distrustful of any organized portion of our society (say, HHS) compelling the disorganized elements to submit and comply. And the Left, if you notice, is all about unions and groups and mass protests. They are drawn to consolidations of power just as much as we are averse to it.

It also explains the Tea Party Movement. The TPM has been unusual in that it is one of the first times (in my memory) that the Right has actually gotten together as a group and did anything. The Left always marches - getting a bunch of Joiners to go join a march is easy; getting a bunch of Loners to show up in the same place and cooperate is quite a trick. SO there is a natural tension between Left and Right - the urge to join, the urge to stay apart.

Most of the media coverage of TPM has been from the Left and is focused on how disorganized they are. Then, there's the criticisms of their message: too many people, and they don't even believe the same thing. Then they try to tar the movement as exclusionary - racist, bigoted, etc. These are all the things a Joiner would fear, aren't they?

The loose, de-centralized organization is exactly what you would expect from a movement on the Right; a movement of individuals. The only unifying theme throughout all of it is the terror of the Loners as they see the Joiners taking too much control.

The thing that terrifies the Left most about the TPM is that its happening at all. Literally thousands of parties and millions of individuals later, and the Left still cannot grasp what they want or why they're there... and the usual tactic of humiliation just doesn't work like it used to. And it reveals the shameless ploy behind all their Leftist marches: it's a fraudulent imitation. A rip-off of the Real Thing.

When thousands of individuals gather somewhere to demand a redress from their govt, it's a powerful thing. Some of the finest moments in our history have been when we have come together as individuals to be a part of a collective effort. So, when a small minority of the population wants to take more control from the rest of us, what do they do? They get all their unions and 527 groups and coalitions for change and national socialist workers parties and united for change community organizers to show up and give the appearance of a mass of individuals. This is fundamentally important: the Left seeks power by imitating a powerful, natural, individualistic phenomenon. That's why the Left's marches are almost always astro turf; while the Right's marches are almost always grass roots (and, as such, happen far less frequently).

This is also why - if you've read my posts - I don't really care about the finer points dividing various individuals and their interpretation or adherence to some Objectivist screed... in a movement of individuals, it's to be expected that we all have different crayon boxes. That's the beauty of it. To sit around and debate the differences between Red, Fire Red, Sunset Red, and (my favorite) Corvette Red is pointless while there's a wave of blues outside the door, waiting to crash in and steal everyone's crayon boxes. The intolerance a few of you seem to have for anything that does not adhere to your strict interpretation of Objectivism is counterproductive; it only serves to keep us apart. We should be embracing the Red, and not worrying about the shades. Those of you that aim to stay "above the fray" by calling the rest of us posers, are the worst kind of purists. Puritanical, even. It's like you have one Crayon in your box, and you're not going to tell anyone what it is.

All that being said, how is your crayon box set up? Are there any colors I've missed in mine? It might be helpful to start in broad strokes - because like most quantum things, it can devolve into a mess at the finer level.

Edited January 3, 2011 by GeekGirl

[sjw]

Fundamental conflict: those who embrace reason vs. irrationalists who don't

Left: generally communist ideals

Right: generally fascist ideals

Rand described left/right as those who chose one or other side of the mind-body dichotomy.

"This is also why - if you've read my posts - I don't really care about the finer points dividing various individuals and their interpretation or adherence to some Objectivist screed... in a movement of individuals, it's to be expected that we all have different crayon boxes. That's the beauty of it."

A recipe for ultimate failure in politics. Politics should be like mathematics -- there is one truth, people can and should strive for a common understanding based in reason and reality. Creating a Tower of Babel is a good tactic for disrupting cooperation, and if the liberty movement weren't already a virtual Tower of Babel, one might imagine those who would want to thwart it creating one.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Fundamental conflict: those who embrace reason vs. irrationalists who don't

Left: generally communist ideals

Right: generally fascist ideals

Rand described left/right as those who chose one or other side of the mind-body dichotomy.

"This is also why - if you've read my posts - I don't really care about the finer points dividing various individuals and their interpretation or adherence to some Objectivist screed... in a movement of individuals, it's to be expected that we all have different crayon boxes. That's the beauty of it."

A recipe for ultimate failure in politics. Politics should be like mathematics -- there is one truth, people can and should strive for a common understanding based in reason and reality. Creating a Tower of Babel is a good tactic for disrupting cooperation, and if the liberty movement weren't already a virtual Tower of Babel, one might imagine those who would want to thwart it creating one.

Shayne

Maybe in physics there is One Truth but not in mathematics. There exist consistent geometries, Euclidean and non-Euclidean which are pairwise contradictory or contrary. They both cannot be true of the same spatial manifold at the same time.

Mathematics is a Big Tent discipline. The only requirement is logical consistency.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anonrobt]

And there is a difference between the collective - and the aggregate...

[geekgirl]

Fundamental conflict: those who embrace reason vs. irrationalists who don't

Left: generally communist ideals

Right: generally fascist ideals

Rand described left/right as those who chose one or other side of the mind-body dichotomy.

I divide along individuality, you divide along truth. Perhaps we argue different sides of the same coin? What I don't understand is why you put communist at the polar opposite of fascist; they are really very similar. I mean it's not a big leap from Mussolini's "fascism is everything inside the State, nothing outside of the State" to the State owing everything.

Could we say that the more irrational you are, the more likely you are willing to sacrifice your individuality to a collective?

How would a theocracy fit into this, or a monarchy?

[geekgirl]

Maybe in physics there is One Truth but not in mathematics. There exist consistent geometries, Euclidean and non-Euclidean which are pairwise contradictory or contrary. They both cannot be true of the same spatial manifold at the same time.

Mathematics is a Big Tent discipline. The only requirement is logical consistency.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Exactly! The Harmony of the Spheres!

(But, add a little chaos, and the whole thing goes to hell...)

And if you wanted to get really nuts, you could start to make comparisons of the urge to join and the urge to stay apart with the weak and strong forces.

Edited January 3, 2011 by GeekGirl

[sjw]

I divide along individuality, you divide along truth. Perhaps we argue different sides of the same coin? What I don't understand is why you put communist at the polar opposite of fascist; they are really very similar. I mean it's not a big leap from Mussolini's "fascism is everything inside the State, nothing outside of the State" to the State owing everything.

Certainly the violation of the sovereignty of the individual underlies both communism and fascism and their many variants. They have a common denominator, that doesn't mean they aren't different.

Individualism isn't anti-group, it's for forming groups, but only on the basis of individual consent. Indeed, so long as rational individualists fail to form groups and grow them, then true liberty will not reign.

Could we say that the more irrational you are, the more likely you are willing to sacrifice your individuality to a collective?

There are plenty of irrational people who reject self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is not the fundamental political evil, irrationality is.

How would a theocracy fit into this, or a monarchy?

These also violate individual consent. All tyrannies share this attribute. But left/right tyrannies what we get in modern democracies.

Shayne

[Elbow]

But we can all agree that the color blue is a specific frequency of light.

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

.

Which brings me to Left and Right.

I'm my opinion, the self-styled Left has appropriated the terms Left and Right from the French Revolution in order to avoid calling themselves what they really are, Communists and Fellow-Travelers. I prefer to call them Bolsheviks, since today's "Left" is basically an amalgam of Marxism, Leninism, and Frankfurt School "critical theory." Instead of calling their opponents "reactionaries" and "counter-revolutionaries," they smear them as "right-wing."

Fascists, as the term was used by Mussolini, are not quite the same as Nazis, i.e., "national" socialists, but both are variants of socialist collectivism. I see no benefit from calling Nazis and Fascists "right-wing."

This then brings us to the Bush policies of bailout and suspension of civil rights. The former, in my opinion, is pure fascism. Extension of civil rights to foreign assassins and saboteurs who are making a declared war on the USA seems absurd to me, even if not sanctioned by a foreign state, but suspension of civil rights of US citizens is unjustified given the current refusal of the government (neither Bush nor Obama) to clarify who our foreign enemies are. Aiding and abetting a foreign enemy is treason, a crime falling under US law, with no suspension of civil rights before conviction.

In my opinion, Major Nidal Hassan, the US Army psychiatrist who allegedly massacred his comrades in arms in the name of Islam, should be charged with treason as an agent of Iran, a declared enemy of the United States, but is entitled to a fair trial.

In my opinion, the sooner we stop mollycoddling the Bolsheviks and their Fellow Travelers by calling them Leftists, the better. And, no, Thomas Jefferson was not a right-wing extremist.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Jonathan David Leavitt

[sjw]

I'm my opinion, the self-styled Left has appropriated the terms Left and Right from the French Revolution in order to avoid calling themselves what they really are, Communists and Fellow-Travelers.

If you want to reject the Left/Right paradigm, I think that's a good idea, but once you've done that, it's a stolen concept to be using the term "Left" to smear everyone that fits under its heading. Really all you've done is reject the term Right, which is interesting.

The "Left" has traditionally been associated with civil liberties. In fact if you start talking about the Bill of Rights some on the Right would start accusing you of being a Leftist. Thomas Paine is categorized on the Left, and many on the Right are happy with that, particularly the religious Right.

In the end it's more helpful to talk about individual rights than it is Left or Right. The Left generally attack some individual rights and support others, and Right general does the reverse. What both hold in common though is the totalitarian idea that the entire nation should be subject to their particular rights-usurping ideas. They are both nationalists. Neither support the individual right of secession.

"All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another."

"When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact."

"Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains."

"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."

--Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

For me, I believe the fundamental political conflict throughout all of human history is the individual vs the group.

Yep.

I think the reason for this is somewhat obvious. Humans are partially altruistic and partially selfish by nature, and I think the Science (and Math) supports this. It is the balance of these inherent tendencies that has allowed humans to prosper and replicate so successfully. Sometimes the balance gets out of whack, swings too far one way and results in failure (usually at the cost of enormous suffering). Rand was a victim of one of these unfortunate swings.

I think Rand was so angry on the political level that she simply (and arbitrarily) chose the polar opposite of communism as the "proper" form of government and simply worked backward from there. To me at least, this is abundantly clear in her work and explains quite consistently her many obvious errors. However, I must admit it is certainly possible that she was just an emotionally atypical individual with only a tiny fraction of emotional depth that would exist in a "normal" person. Evidence could support this assertion as well. Perhaps a combination is even more likely.

Bob

[kiaer.ts]

But we can all agree that the color blue is a specific frequency of light.

No. (Sorry to disagree with your first post.)

[jriggenbach]

On the Right side of the spectrum, are the individuals. The ideologies on this side are Libertarianism, Conservatism, Objectivism, etc.... with anarchy being as far right/individualistic as you can get.

If you still think conservatives are individualists or have even the slightest interest in individual liberty, you're in for a rude awakening.

JR

[geekgirl]

I'm my opinion, the self-styled Left has appropriated the terms Left and Right from the French Revolution in order to avoid calling themselves what they really are, Communists and Fellow-Travelers.

If you want to reject the Left/Right paradigm, I think that's a good idea, but once you've done that, it's a stolen concept to be using the term "Left" to smear everyone that fits under its heading. Really all you've done is reject the term Right, which is interesting.

The "Left" has traditionally been associated with civil liberties. In fact if you start talking about the Bill of Rights some on the Right would start accusing you of being a Leftist. Thomas Paine is categorized on the Left, and many on the Right are happy with that, particularly the religious Right.

Broad strokes, keep it simple. Once you start discussing the origins and evolution of "liberal" and start importing "right and left" from the European Political scene... well, its all downhill from there. In that sense, Left/Right as terms are not very useful. But there most definitely are two sides, there most definitely is a Left and Right... there is one side of joiners and another, loners.

You seem to place any form of govt on the right side of the spectrum, and total freedom on the left - are you an anarchist?

A people can only handle as much freedom as they can be responsible for. A truly enlightened people could make anarchy work.

[kiaer.ts]

You seem to place any form of govt on the right side of the spectrum, and total freedom on the left - are you an anarchist?

Yes, but he won't admit it.

[sjw]

Broad strokes, keep it simple. Once you start discussing the origins and evolution of "liberal" and start importing "right and left" from the European Political scene... well, its all downhill from there.

LOL

Where's George H. Smith when you need him? I'm sure you and he would have a lot of fun together.

In that sense, Left/Right as terms are not very useful. But there most definitely are two sides, there most definitely is a Left and Right... there is one side of joiners and another, loners.

See JR's comment above.

You seem to place any form of govt on the right side of the spectrum, and total freedom on the left - are you an anarchist?

Wow. In my original response to you I said Leftism was associated with communist ideals, and you think that means total freedom. Are you a communist?

Generally I see the left and the right as different mixtures of rights-respecting and rights-violating ideals. I do not see one as any better than the other. As I said above, the best division is between those who are for individual rights, and those who are not. To fascists and communists, that position seems like anarchism, but it's not.

Shayne

[geekgirl]

In that sense, Left/Right as terms are not very useful. But there most definitely are two sides, there most definitely is a Left and Right... there is one side of joiners and another, loners.

See JR's comment above.

Conservatives may not be individualists, but what they believe is a hell of a lot more individualistic than marxism or communism. You have to start playing ball with at least the people who like the same game. Can a baseball player play with a softball player? Sure. A cricket player? Maybe. Hockey? Not likely. The problem with humans is they're all different; so if you're waiting for another player with your exact appreciation of the game and your exact stats... you may be sitting on the bench alone a long long time.

Wow. In my original response to you I said Leftism was associated with communist ideals, and you think that means total freedom. Are you a communist?

Nope. I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the communist party. One minute the communists are on the left and the conservatives are on the right, the next you appear to put all govt on the chart and yourself, off the chart. The overall impression is fuzzy with a chance of lunacy. Your political classification is like a little pinball machine - zipping back and forth, pinging and buzzing, lotta lights... but what it all means in the end <shrug> i don't know. I offered this topic not only because I think it's revealing in some ways and I'd like to get to know all of you, but this kind of exercise can help get one's own thoughts in order. If I feel like I'm playing a game of hot/cold with you... that because I think that's how you roll. If I seem like I don't have a clue what you think; that's because I don't.

But you should consider it positive for the moment that at least I consider you interesting enough to try to find out.

Generally I see the left and the right as different mixtures of rights-respecting and rights-violating ideals. I do not see one as any better than the other. As I said above, the best division is between those who are for individual rights, and those who are not. To fascists and communists, that position seems like anarchism, but it's not.

That, I can understand... but you're back in my crayon box now. I divide along individual/group. The more group-centric your ideology, the more you are going to inevitably trample on individual rights, and vice versa. Not seeing one better than the other shows a complete lack of discrimination, does it not? One thing Rand taught was to discriminate. "Once you have determined that one side is black and the other is white, you have no justification for choosing a mixture of the two." (from The Cult of Moral Grayness) I am supposing that this admonition would also include resigning everything to black and going home, as well.

I get the feeling that we have very similar crayon boxes, actually, but I also get the feeling that you take your individualism to the point where you constantly look for reasons not to agree. To remain alone, perhaps?

Edited January 3, 2011 by GeekGirl

[geekgirl]

Here's another helpful excercise. In a discussion with a liberal friend - (actually, she fancies herself a socialist, but really leans more Marxist... and then, surprisingly, has frequent bouts of Libertarianism she hasn't quite integrated ;) ) - about the "center" of the political media universe. Everyone keeps trying to portray FOX news as hard Right and MSNBC somewhere near the center, but I think most media saavy folk know that's not quite right. But a stupidly simple smack-the-forehead idea appeared: the center of the political media universe is CSPAN. Right?

I used to do a lot of audio/video production in the late 90s, and I totally love the hands-off approach CSPAN uses. Very little editing. Almost zero commentary. Dreadfully boring at times. My favorite part, really, is how they leave the mics on long before and after normal coverage wraps, so you can hear the reporters talking freely off script. (sometimes you hear the juiciest stuff!) I've done audio editing for conservative talk radio and podcasts, and I always was able to grab good media from CSPAN.

I'll even go so far as to say CSPAN has been one of the few govt expenditures I can support. Looking back on it, they're boringly impartial and have done more for transparency than any single entity I can think of. My last really big coding job (still ongoing, in some ways) was a broadcast streaming network for a record label back east... and when I saw CSPAN finished digitally archiving all of its broadcasts online, well, it made me horny, baby. A toast to CSPAN! (and that's the last of the pink champagne)

So what about that? Can we agree that CSPAN is a good reference point for center? If not, what else?

Edited January 4, 2011 by GeekGirl

[Jerry Biggers]

Here's another helpful excercise. In a discussion with a liberal friend - (actually, she fancies herself a socialist, but really leans more Marxist... and then, surprisingly, has frequent bouts of Libertarianism she hasn't quite integrated ;) ) - about the "center" of the political media universe. Everyone keeps trying to portray FOX news as hard Right and MSNBC somewhere near the center, but I think most media saavy folk know that's not quite right. But a stupidly simple smack-the-forehead idea appeared: the center of the political media universe is CSPAN. Right?

I used to do a lot of audio/video production in the late 90s, and I totally love the hands-off approach CSPAN uses. Very little editing. Almost zero commentary. Dreadfully boring at times. My favorite part, really, is how they leave the mics on long before and after normal coverage wraps, so you can hear the reporters talking freely off script. (sometimes you hear the juiciest stuff!) I've done audio editing for conservative talk radio and podcasts, and I always was able to grab good media from CSPAN.

I'll even go so far as to say CSPAN has been one of the few govt expenditures I can support. Looking back on it, they're boringly impartial and have done more for transparency than any single entity I can think of. My last really big coding job (still ongoing, in some ways) was a broadcast streaming network for a record label back east... and when I saw CSPAN finished digitally archiving all of its broadcasts online, well, it made me horny, baby. A toast to CSPAN! (and that's the last of the pink champagne)

So what about that? Can we agree that CSPAN is a good reference point for center? If not, what else?

O.K., except that C-SPAN is not funded by the government. It is totally funded by the cable TV industry.

On the issue of what is "Left" and what is "Right," you might be interested in the four-dimensional Nolan Chart, devised by the libertarian,David Nolan (recently deceased). If you have not seen the chart, go to the website, www.nolanchart.com or the discussion under "political spectrum" and "Nolan chart" on Wikipedia.Another interesting take is the "Pournelle chart," devised by Jerry Pournelle, a prolific author of science fiction and of comupter articles. Of the two charts, I think the Nolan Chart is much closer to describing the political spectrum than is Pournelle's. But even Pournelle's chart is an improvement over a two dimensional left-right line.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[geekgirl]

O.K., except that C-SPAN is not funded by the government. It is totally funded by the cable TV industry.

I totally did not know that. I knew that cable companies were required to make the space and carry it, but I didn't know they actually funded equipment/staff/production/etc. That makes it even cooler and even more in line with what I like - a private corporation that does it better! I guess it means the hunt for Things The Government Does Well goes on...

[sjw]

Nope. I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the communist party. One minute the communists are on the left and the conservatives are on the right, the next you appear to put all govt on the chart and yourself, off the chart. The overall impression is fuzzy with a chance of lunacy. Your political classification is like a little pinball machine - zipping back and forth, pinging and buzzing, lotta lights... but what it all means in the end <shrug> i don't know.

Hint: When something is confusing you, then you might want to consider, and I mean seriously consider, that you're confused, and that the solution is to not blame the other party, but rather to expend a good deal of energy trying to figure out what is going on. Or, you can just stay in your state of innocent simplicity. I think some might even find that to be cute.

Shayne

[jriggenbach]

Allow me to further clarify my earlier brief comment. Conservatives are not only not individualists, they are not closer to a libertarian position than contemporary liberals. On balance, I'd say they're worse than contemporary liberals.

JR

[geekgirl]

Hint: When something is confusing you, then you might want to consider, and I mean seriously consider, that you're confused, and that the solution is to not blame the other party, but rather to expend a good deal of energy trying to figure out what is going on. Or, you can just stay in your state of innocent simplicity. I think some might even find that to be cute.

Hint: communication is a two-way street. It is just as important for me to attempt to understand you, as it is for you to attempt to make yourself understood. I can seemingly grasp everyone else's crayon box - whether I agree with their arrangement or not - pretty easily. Yours, not so much. The reason I keep asking questions is that I am trying, trying to understand. I still haven't decided whether you are trying to make it a deliberately complicated process or not. You probably do think its cute. And that's probably why you're doing it.

But you know what, after a while, even curious people like me are just going to shrug and say, "really, who cares?"

[geekgirl]

Allow me to further clarify my earlier brief comment. Conservatives are not only not individualists, they are not closer to a libertarian position than contemporary liberals. On balance, I'd say they're worse than contemporary liberals.

JR

I guess we need to start comparing crayons again... who would you consider a contemporary conservative and/or liberal?

Because if you're talking classicly liberal (pre 30s), then I'd agree. But if you're talking about the current generic liberal class identity which is really just cover for progressives... things are a lot muddier.

[sjw]

Hint: When something is confusing you, then you might want to consider, and I mean seriously consider, that you're confused, and that the solution is to not blame the other party, but rather to expend a good deal of energy trying to figure out what is going on. Or, you can just stay in your state of innocent simplicity. I think some might even find that to be cute.

Hint: communication is a two-way street. It is just as important for me to attempt to understand you, as it is for you to attempt to make yourself understood. I can seemingly grasp everyone else's crayon box - whether I agree with their arrangement or not - pretty easily. Yours, not so much.

Again with the blame-shifting... You are ignorant, pretentious, and presumptuous, and at least two of those are pet peeves of mine.

Shayne