Published October 3, 2021 at 11.00
Column. Anyone who wants to make a career in the Swedish power elite has significantly more to gain from appearing ignorant but benevolent than competent and capable of making correct decisions. Jan Tullberg writes about a society that is about to perish by female values.
Like the article p & aring; Facebook
More by Jan Tullberg
- This is how Statistics Sweden obscures the exchange of people
- The world's best country
- Bulletin's editor-in-chief is a bad joke
- Accusing the left of racism is a urdum idea
- There are no free lunches – or?
- Is Sweden a democracy?
- It's right to generalize
- Baizuo – the Chinese word for PK nonsense says more than you think
- Does Sweden remain Swedish?
- Do not buy the talk of & quot; hatred and threats & quot;
- This is how the EU should take the net giants by the ear
- A tentative start
- & nbsp;
- 1 of 10
- ▶
The composition “stupid” is not as strange as it looks. Being kind is a positive word, let alone something reserved. Being stupid is negative, but it is also a strong defensive word. The ancient Greeks had the saying: “Against stupidity the gods also fight in vain.”
He who claims something stupid often gets a strong position. The critic can be criticized for being superior and condescending, while stupidity excuses kindness as a natural naivety.
The stupid is like a child and it is not so easy to win a debate with allowed arguments when many adult arguments become disqualifying .
A rational adult debate is often based on evidence – “I believe it when I see it” – but many others have a more religious view: “I see it when I believe it”.
In general, there is justification for two gender stereotypes. Men often try to make their opinions as rational as possible, while women strive to win an emotional comparison.
When we lived in an enlightenment paradigm, everyone emphasized the rational in their arguments, but in a more feminized age, emotional arguments become stronger. The political debate is less and less about interests, which ordinary voters can quite easily relate to, and more and more about diffuse moral foundations,
A politician should preferably be knowledgeable and competent, but in an increasingly complex society it becomes increasingly difficult to assess knowledge and skills. A kindly stupid post then becomes so unassuming that it is easy to accept.
When voters are so ignorant, they can also begin to fail in their own analysis of society, the debate can be perceived as a social competition. One question asked in US presidential elections is: “Would you like to have a beer with this candidate?”. The question is now also asked in Sweden.
We live in a kind of religious time and very vague values are given great importance. It is highly unclear what “equal human value” really means, but it is attributed great importance.
The focus shifts to female qualities such as being kind and sensitive to the feelings of others. Professor Mats Alvesson writes and lectures on the “paradox of stupidity”, that when certain prejudices are common, compliance with these ideas begins to count as a person's social benefit. he is naked.
A prerequisite for finding a rational collective solution is an open debate with a high level of ambition. The good solution is not born out of a limited debate where everyone is afraid to step on any significant party.
The PK culture means a strong stupidity. At another time, with another hypocrisy, the Catholic Church introduced a position in papal elections as “the devil's advocate.” Someone has to bring the problems to light and deviate from the praise of people who have been promoted high above their level of competence, it was considered at the time.
At the top of today's establishment there is a great interest in having a romantic view of leadership who celebrate their own achievements and smooth over failures. But you can not learn from success if you do not learn from failures. In this inability lies the destructive of stupid kindness.
I think the benevolence against stupidity follows from the advantage of kindness. The stupid one does not impress with his brilliance, but wins by not being threatening.
If you immediately appear kind, you are less of a threat and stupidity can be seen as a lack of cynicism and suggestion. In a messy debate, little is revealed about the logic of the solution, but mostly about the attitude of the spokespersons. Kind to others is attractive.
In a feminization of politics, female politicians become less male-influenced and male politicians more female-influenced. The debate loses focus on logic and mechanics, but instead becomes more focused on attitudes.
Increased complexity pulls in the same direction. Politicians' contempt for voters also pulls this way; the opponent's most ignorant sympathizer is the one who can most easily get a page change.
Anyone who sees a different development believes that voters are becoming increasingly well-educated. This can be doubted. My assessment is that the voter is becoming increasingly indoctrinated in etiquette issues. Those who have taken an environmental course feel more knowledgeable, although it was mostly about alignment. You can not do much more, but you have been strengthened in the belief that what has been said is also true.
Part of the modern trend is “believing without belonging”. Most people in the West who are attracted to an Islamophilic position lack a religious interest. They are not tempted to participate, but are rather proud that they are so benevolent, without harboring any genuine interest. It will be a triumph for stupid kindness.
For several years now, the confidence barometer in Sweden has been pointing more towards mistrust than trust. Swedes' confidence in political parties is now 21 percent. An earlier barometer asked the question “when you think 5-10 years in the future, how much confidence do you have for Sweden to meet the following challenges?”
The “high-tech challenge” 61 percent believed that Sweden would meet, but only 17 percent believed that we would meet the “integration challenge”. Most challenges had expectations around 30 percent of being able to cope.
These should be golden times for the Sweden Democrats to contrast with the sickle. The Moderates seem to me to be a collection of weak cards and the Social Democrats as well and with naked power ambitions that should undermine their credibility. But despite dissatisfaction with politics, the situation is accepted.
In fact, some institutions have become stronger despite weak results. That confidence in the courts is at 65 percent and that of the police at 73 percent must be seen as the triumph of hope over experience. The stupid ones want the police and the courts to succeed so that they do not have to engage themselves in the problems. Criticism is seen as destructive, as it points to a responsibility to contribute to change.
I believe that SD should be pragmatic and clearly accept its minority position: “We always argue for the best solution, our own. But we always vote for the second best solution, the one that pulls in the right direction and has a chance to win in the Riksdag “.
Interest in what voters call “political quarrels” is limited in the electorate. The Social Democrats were right when they tried to bribe the term “cooperation party” on themselves.
An example for Sweden is Denmark where the public reacted to the anti-Danish reaction after the Muhammad cartoons in 2005. Denmark opted out of multiculturalism and went back to the goal of Danish Denmark.
The murders in 2017 on Drottninggatan in Stockholm gave a confused reaction, in Sweden no token fell down. We still live in the land of the stupid. At some point, however, the Swede should wake up from the denial of the problem. leadership, even though it mainly consists of bad solutions.
The establishment decides on a solution that the people obey, the government's consensus prevails. The people are dissatisfied, but can not really dare to throw the mangles out of the temple.
We are in this time of rampant problems for a long time. But as long as the Christmas tree does not burn up, the establishment believes that everything is fine in the kingdom and the people patiently clench their fists in their pockets.
JAN TULLBERG
Jan Tullberg is an author and associate professor of business administration. He is the author of the book & nbsp; Låsningen: An analysis of Swedish immigration policy & nbsp; which was published in 2014. More texts by Tullberg can be read on his website.