Variations in Ways Politicians Think

Variation in thought processes of politicians.

There seems to be an almost infinite number of variations in human appearance, but how about the differences in ways of thinking?

Do socialists, as differing from non-socialists, actually apply different criteria to any set of information when they think of how to respond?

There are the obvious ones, such as optimistic and pessimistic; and despite some wishing otherwise, there does seem to be differences between genders. Maybe this is differences in priorities in any decision making, but it has to be considered. Is it all nature or is it conditioning? There are the bureaucratic thinkers and the entrepreneurial thinkers. Taking a very broad, and slightly irrational, generalisation; there also seems to be different thought processes when city meets country.

City-born people generally think they are so superior to country-bred people. They think that because they have removed themselves from all contact with the natural way of living, they are sophisticated and so superior. This is where they are wrong. When it comes down to survival, that ultimate test of human capacity to deal with the reality of life, city people will fail, only country-knowledgable people can survive. The fictional story of The Honourable Crichton says it all.

City-minded people have this attitude that only things altered to suit them are acceptable, they cannot comprehend the idea that things work if left alone. If they see a gate open, they close it, if they find it closed, they open it. The very idea that someone or something, other than themselves, may have a purpose or reason for the gate being as they find it; is totally outside their understanding. How can anything be better without their management and control?

This is why socialism thrives in cities but does not in rural communities, and it is also why socialism always ends up failing to provide for all the people. The theoretical utopian concepts of equality for all, to each their needs, etc. simply does not work when crops fail, or when the electric supply crashes. Since they regard food as coming from shops and just materialise there without the need for dirt, sweat, getting up at dawn on cold December mornings, and struggling through mud and animal dung, they act as if these things do not have to happen. They then despise those who actually know how to produce food. The city socialists considers themselves to be the owner of all worthwhile knowledge, and so anything outside their own narrow view of things is unworthy of consideration. That is until the power is cut off and there is no food in shops, then they resort to trying to coerce those who do know how to survive into working for their urban, socialist needs.

All of this leads to the concept that, whenever we interact with another person, we should consider any differences between their thought processes and our own. The laws of homogeneous attraction means that most of the time we will become friends with those who have similar thought patterns to our own; but in business and non-social events, we will be in contact with people with very different thought patterns, very different views on how life should be. This can lead to different interpretations of the same set of information. I was once told by a Japanese teacher the story of an American diplomat being frustrated in his dealings with Japanese diplomats. The American claimed his Japanese contacts always agreed with him, saying yes, but did nothing. My teacher explained that the Japanese say “yes” meaning, "Yes, we hear you," not, "Yes, we agree with you." This difference in thought processing, this difference in interpreting the same information, can occur between people of the same country; to a countryman, a city thinker complaining that life is too slow in rural communities is simply showing the notion that city life is too fast.

Only the arrogant believe they are always right, so always consider that the person you are interacting with may think differently from you, even when using the same words and phrases.

When considering who to vote for, try to imagine the way each candidate will respond to a practical problem that involves your own family. Faced with, for example, the closure of a small school that your children attend happily, the city-minded socialist thinking will be along standard bureaucratic lines. The closure will mean greater uniformity in education, greater standardisation of outcomes, and so should go ahead. While the countryside thinking will seek ways to keep the school open, declaring that independence in ways of achieving good education needs encouraging.

Apply the same differing logics to an international issue. Should your government tear up existing treaties with another nation because that nation has changed its government to one advocating repressive actions against its own people? The city, bureaucratic mind will say we must keep a pretence of control, we must stay engaged, and we must not break treaties. The countryside thinkers will say we must end political and economic ties to show that such repressive activity will not be tolerated at any time. The politicians who think this way will be trying to establish links to whatever opposition still exists in the “offending” nation.

The way people think is important. Look beyond the soundbites and spin doctor-controlled images and try to see how a candidate thinks.