At times it feels like we could be re-entering the dark ages. Supernatural belief has unbelievably high amounts of covertly expressed power and influence in the highest places in our land. From APN refusing the atheists billboards on buses yet allowing John 316 messages, to the billions funneled into private schools at the expense of a well-funded and well-rounded public education for the majority of society. Well, as long as it helps either of the conservative duopoly's leaders win the lodge. Lets further salute reason by campaigning to delete the phrase "the advancement of religion" from the section of the Tax Act so these citadels of irrationality have to pay their way in society finally.

Chris
Perhaps you intended your comments as satire but I couldn’t see your point.
If you were serious I think you are making some huge assumptive leaps by saying that the US is more individually focused. I would like to see your objective research on that. Likewise Oprah and Dr twit with their following indicate group think not individuality.

When talking about aggregates you by definition are talking in terms of mass distribution of individual perceptions on the 'bell' curve mean. The nature of the curve determines the conclusion

By this reasoning an individual is a singular point on that curve and can be plus and minus of the mean to which the article refers. This also implies that a group of individuals can alter the mean. In this way the two are linked.

While the point that they are different is true however the individual is part of the whole. I would dispute that the author was talking about individuals but as the collective.
I for example are less likely to ignore (or deny it exists) a problem hoping it will go away than some on OLO and equally I am less likely to be come extreme about issues like dog exports to Asia.

PS I think the article was fine in fact In the absence of further contemplation I thought it explained a lot give the above caveat.

Inner Sydney tranny

You should remember that Australia needs Christians alot more than Christians need Australia. If you remove Christians tax-exempt status, they will eventually stop paying taxes altogether to the federal government.

Christians already have their own code of laws, it is not necessary for Christians to live under the fedearl governments laws. But they do so at the moment because Australian law is mostly in-line with Christianity.

So, I hope I'm clear. Christians don't need the government to have happy, productive lives.

Humanity is driven by emotion, not reason.

Our modern day Caesar’s are still shipping more sand around than grain, putting circus before the bakery.

We concern ourselves with ‘wants’ more than ‘needs’.

Many people will prioritize spending on a new car (regardless of the utility merit of their existing one), before providing for their old age.

Some actually demand government deal with the hard problems, like funding in old age, for them and leave them free to indulge their whims and fancies.

And some folk will even drive out of their way to respond to the implied slight should someone accidently cut them off in a car.

So, I am afraid, thinking that we have ever or will ever live either on the ‘eve of the time of reason’ or the during 'the time of reason’ is going to be like waiting for a fantasy.

People are just not like that and the only thing to do is accept that aspect of humanity because, demanding or insisting or wishing for it to be otherwise is one good way to grow cynical and waste ones’ own life.

Better for us all to live the life we individually see as ‘appropriate’ for ourselves and leave the rest of humanity to, if they wish, go to hell in a hand basket.

Sure as eggs is eggs, no one will thank you for imposing the wisdom of your 'reasoning' upon them,

although, regardless of how 'irrational' it might seem,

flatter them enough and you might start to achieve what your reasoning deduces

Wrong as it might seem, It's all down to the spin :-)

I don't question the good intent of the article, which is essentially about the frustration of dialogue across difference. But sorry, the explanations just aren't right. Groupthink is a small-group phenomenon that Irving Janis identified in the 1970s, whereby people are drawn into a decision without proper debate. Most of the things Young calls paradigms are not paradigms, just institutions and movements. There is no such thing as male and female language. What we do have are frameworks (or "frames") for talking about and representing ideas, some of which we accept blindly from the media, our cultures, etc. And cognitive dissonance is "an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously." (Wikipedia). So if you're going to write an article, Mr Young, do some proper research first.

People who are spiritually blind will never be rational. Often their only defence is pseudo science. Any Government or person with rational thought can see that the public school experiment has been a dismal flop. Humanistic dogmas however refuses them to swallow a little pride and face up to the fact that their psychology, 'science' and philosophy has produced nothing but bad fruit. Thankfully even many non believers still see clearly that biblical principles are by far the most successful. The author of Psalms was right when he said that a fool says in his heart their is no god. We have plenty of them.