Not my place to comment on her psychology, I don't know the lady. What I do know is that I work in opposite of some of the generalizations. I don't like fear right about as much as I don't like pain. If I have a nightmare that keeps me up, I don't think about how awesome it was that I had that one instead of some other one that might of been worse; would or rather not had one at all.

I also don't mind moving out of my comfort zone per say. If there was a banana peal in a courtyard, I would make straight for it and trip on purpose to get a laugh at my own expense. Generally, being thought a fool I find very amusing even though it is rather awkward feeling.

I also didn't learn that I was a "white boy" until I was in 6th grade. Then, when I learned I was, I didn't know that was a pejorative!

I remember watching a program on human evolution where it was looking at monkeys and social groupings. The larger the brain of a monkey, the larger social groups they would form. If you carried the trend up to humans, our social networks would be at a max of about 120 people. I thought that was kind of interesting that human evolution might of really only prepared us for small town/tribal living and our brains really aren't capable of handling city living.

I experience that when I walk down a crowded street, how could I possibly be nice to all these people. More over, would I want to, that guy might be an asshole! Though I find certain individuals as actually identifying with groups, that is strange to me. I have never understood cheering for sports teams, you don't even know those people? I think some people do submit themselves to much to a group dynamic so that it suppresses their own rational individual ethos, some people just aren't that transcendent.

For my own opinion, it appears from the outside looking in that the first lady is pointing out that not being transcendent is bad, but she also seems to fail her own litmus test...it's hard to be a human for sure. Public people suffer from not only being human, but the subject of scrutiny for the rest of us.

In the Apology, Plato's account of Socrates's making his defense, there is an interesting bit about your "group dynamics" that I would beg to differ about.

When the trial was over, and votes tallied, it was a very close vote as to how many thought he was guilty, nearly a split decision. However, it was enough to convict. In Greek culture, when you were found guilty, both sides got to make a case for what your punishment would be. Socrates was pretty sarcastic and said things like he should get meals for life for his services to Greece as his punishment. In the end, MORE people voted for him to be executed than people who thought he was guilty. In other words, people who thought he was innocent voted for his death. You can trust groups if you want to, me, I will trust my friends and family any day of the week.

Which would be why I appreciate the meritocratic aspects of capitalism which act, again, as a conjugate to democracy.

Which (flame bait) is why I'm also for the independence of the federal reserve.

>> ^bmacs27:
I trust individuals better than collections of people, whether they be rich or poor.
That's where we differ. I believe injustice is plausibly rationalized by an individual. It is less likely to be rationalized by a collection of individuals.
When you concentrate power within a single human, I become increasingly nervous.
That's why democracy is the great leveler. The more votes, the more expensive it is for one man to buy them all.
In your case, for instance, one might imagine the federal or state law should intervene and remove the sheriff from power. Presumably, the federal government is too large, and dependent on too many actors, for any individual to purchase control over it.
Likewise I'm more likely to invest my capital in a corporation with a vetted board of directors than I am some dude with an idea.


In the Apology, Plato's account of Socrates's making his defense, there is an interesting bit about your "group dynamics" that I would beg to differ about.

When the trial was over, and votes tallied, it was a very close vote as to how many thought he was guilty, nearly a split decision. However, it was enough to convict. In Greek culture, when you were found guilty, both sides got to make a case for what your punishment would be. Socrates was pretty sarcastic and said things like he should get meals for life for his services to Greece as his punishment. In the end, MORE people voted for him to be executed than people who thought he was guilty. In other words, people who thought he was innocent voted for his death. You can trust groups if you want to, me, I will trust my friends and family any day of the week.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I wonder if Google will resist tinkering with search results to put Knol topics above wikipedia for google searches.

If I was a critic, I could claim that Knol is just a glorified "about.com"

I think I will.

I prefer the democratic group dynamic of Wikipedia.