@UntimelyRippd thanks, that's what I remember. Never a time when even top hourly wages could support me, myself, by myself. self

somewhere between 1968 and 1978, it became normal for a heterosexual couple to live together outside of wedlock. if you can figure out how the hell this seismic cultural shift managed to happen in such a very short time

Either shack up or get married, that was the economic choice at the end of that period, for me. Share property or become property. meh

Penises for All
no kidding
collective what now?

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/27/torches-of-freedom-wome...

I spent ten years, a whole decade with a Jungian psychotherapi$t. Yeeeaaah, I'm done now but go on. Every path is different thank dawg, gawd, everyone. Thanks a lot.

PEACE
namaste

best way to accomplish cultural shifts (whether major and permanent or minor and transient, e.g. annual fashion) is a combination of comfortably believable lies (which they call PR) and direct targeting of influential taste leaders within peer groups.

the kind of lingerie sold by Victoria's Secret was very hard to find in 1980; most women owned no such garments, and those who did owned very few. Susan Faludi documents the concerted PR program that changed all that.

we see the same thing happen in our political campaigns -- particularly in the way that the chatterati will jump on the latest talking points and blitherblather them as if they were anything other than carefully constructed propaganda. whether it's Reagan's "There you go again," or Dukakis in the tank, or the Dean Scream: in each case, the voters' view of both what happened and its meaning was delivered directly into their brains by talking heads, op eds, and "news" stories that weren't news at all, but propaganda.

what's interesting, though, is that there is a chaotic component to this sort of thing. although they try very hard, and they are compensated ridiculously well regardless of success, the people charged with manufacturing these shifts in opinion and behavior are really not very good at predicting how, when and whether a particular campaign will be successful, partly because generally they are themselves either extremely conventional thinkers, or mistakenly believe themselves to be creative geniuses. Sony's marketing team thought the Walkman was going to be a niche product. IBM thought personal computers were a losing proposition -- they only built one because they felt obliged, as IBM, to be represented in every computer market (which is why it sucked horribly -- it was engineered by their "C" team, and is also why they allowed Bill Gates to bamboozle them).

we tend to think that our political representatives are so ridiculously conservative because they are entirely beholden to their funders, who have such a strong interest in the status quo, but another reason is simply that they are dullminded and incurious. they all blather about the dynamism of american culture, but they are themselves astonishingly static individuals.

somewhere between 1968 and 1978, it became normal for a heterosexual couple to live together outside of wedlock. if you can figure out how the hell this seismic cultural shift managed to happen in such a very short time, you will be well on your way to understanding the weird dynamics by which major social changes manifest themselves.

@UntimelyRippd

somewhere between 1968 and 1978, it became normal for a heterosexual couple to live together outside of wedlock. if you can figure out how the hell this seismic cultural shift managed to happen in such a very short time, you will be well on your way to understanding the weird dynamics by which major social changes manifest themselves.

My first thoughts were the Summer of Love, Timothy Leary, Woodstock, etc. The year 1968 was a time of major cultural shift, for many reasons.

But then, on a page about the history of birth control in the US, I noted this:

1972: The Supreme Court (in Baird v. Eisenstadt) legalized birth control for all citizens of this country, irrespective of marital status.

It’s easy to forget now that before 1972, you could not get the pill or an IUD unless you were married. I was 13 years old in 1972. My generation was the first to grow up as women who had a choice. I always knew how fortunate that made me and my cohorts, and I had a deep gratitude to those who had fought and helped make this happen. Margaret Sanger was one of my heros.

We stopped rushing into marriage just as soon as we didn’t have to.

best way to accomplish cultural shifts (whether major and permanent or minor and transient, e.g. annual fashion) is a combination of comfortably believable lies (which they call PR) and direct targeting of influential taste leaders within peer groups.

the kind of lingerie sold by Victoria's Secret was very hard to find in 1980; most women owned no such garments, and those who did owned very few. Susan Faludi documents the concerted PR program that changed all that.

we see the same thing happen in our political campaigns -- particularly in the way that the chatterati will jump on the latest talking points and blitherblather them as if they were anything other than carefully constructed propaganda. whether it's Reagan's "There you go again," or Dukakis in the tank, or the Dean Scream: in each case, the voters' view of both what happened and its meaning was delivered directly into their brains by talking heads, op eds, and "news" stories that weren't news at all, but propaganda.

what's interesting, though, is that there is a chaotic component to this sort of thing. although they try very hard, and they are compensated ridiculously well regardless of success, the people charged with manufacturing these shifts in opinion and behavior are really not very good at predicting how, when and whether a particular campaign will be successful, partly because generally they are themselves either extremely conventional thinkers, or mistakenly believe themselves to be creative geniuses. Sony's marketing team thought the Walkman was going to be a niche product. IBM thought personal computers were a losing proposition -- they only built one because they felt obliged, as IBM, to be represented in every computer market (which is why it sucked horribly -- it was engineered by their "C" team, and is also why they allowed Bill Gates to bamboozle them).

we tend to think that our political representatives are so ridiculously conservative because they are entirely beholden to their funders, who have such a strong interest in the status quo, but another reason is simply that they are dullminded and incurious. they all blather about the dynamism of american culture, but they are themselves astonishingly static individuals.

somewhere between 1968 and 1978, it became normal for a heterosexual couple to live together outside of wedlock. if you can figure out how the hell this seismic cultural shift managed to happen in such a very short time, you will be well on your way to understanding the weird dynamics by which major social changes manifest themselves.

@k9disc works in very limited areas, and very well within that, but still nobody can explain what exactly gravity or consciousness is; despite theories about it. Wasn't a Sheldrake lecture banned from Ted Talks? I saw him in person a couple of times, and at the very least there were some hard-to-explain, without his theory, events documented.

I know (but can't find at the moment) that Thornhill, a main advocate for Electric Universe Theory, wrote a piece in response to Wiki editing the entry he made on the theory to falsify it seven times. He'd post it, they'd edit it, he'd correct it, they'd misrepresent it again... 7 times. He's surely right to complain that if it's an encyclopedia the duty is to present the theory as it is, whether true or false. Nobody edits, say, Phrenology to misstate the theory.

Right now my doctors prescribe me vitamin D3, folic acid, and strongly recommend co-enzyme Q10. Twenty years ago when health food advocates were saying you need these things the Medical Establishment (and my own doctor) said vitamins were mainly bunk.

to morphogenesis and morphogenic fields. I've seen several of his presentations. I'm a fan. He certainly opens up and fills the gaps in "settled science" with some interesting stuff.

I work with dogs and handlers from all over the world. I've seen anecdotal evidence of morphic resonance, and am attracted to Sheldrake's work because it accepts and explains situations I have experienced personally which mainstream material science suggests is fantasy.

20 years ago, no respectable scientist would allow animals to have feelings or emotions - only responses - at least that's the public angle of the science. Now, it is completely established that ALL mammals have the same 7 base level affective emotions.

Mainstream material science has completely zero clue on consciousness - it might even be a negative number. They don't want it to exist.

Scientific paradigms are in the midst of a dramatic change, IMO. This line of inquiry has played out. The Plasma/Electric Universe is next on the agenda, I think, and it's going to be a doozy. A bunch of "thoroughly discredited pseudoscience" will find itself at the center of "a new" science.

We've got to backtrack to the 1700s to get to our jumping off point of science. Gradualism and Uniformitarianism - ANYTHING BUT A FLOOD! - and Materialism and Empiricism - only measurable phenomena exist - overwhelmed our senses. That's a long way... Lots of knowledge to revisit.

And it ain't gonna happen. The "proven, settled science" is a complete misnomer. It often isn't "proven", and if it's "settled", as in above silly questions, it ain't science.