Because like it or not, not everyone has the capacity to be an innovator. Roughly only 10% of the population “ticks all the boxes” personality-wise to be a successful innovator. Inequality.
Then it is only those with the personality traits to be diligent and dutiful and hyper-productive to put those innovations into production. More inequality.
And it is only those who are willing to sacrifice success at most other of the game of life (family, leisure, social life, perhaps health or even ethics) to be the radically-successful administrators of the generative cycle.
But then if some of the success is not funneled down to those who because of simple biology could not ride the rocket to the top, resentment builds: and gross inequality is a major motivator of criminal behavior.
So how do you think we might balance the cycle so it remains generative and doesn’t fall into degenerative?
© 2026 – SoulSequel
15 responses to “The price of innovation, is inequality”
And BTW, traditional left-leaning “solutions” involving either hand-outs or “take-aways” have proven catastrophically unsuccessful in the 20th Century. (see Marxism)
Take-aways destabilize the generative system because they remove the motivation to innovate. (Or drive off/kill off the innovators).
And hand-outs don’t work because humans are essentially “beasts of burden”. We thrive off of having some set task; of finding a place of social and personal responsibility where we can honorably transform effort into recompense. Without this, the human organism atrophies and eventually dies.
@griz
You’re the same guy that bitched about ‘merican healthcare with your pinkeye episode,… & now this?
How far up Jordan Peterson’s ass can you go?
@luftballooneyegouge
Hey, I was trying to understand a very foreign planet I landed on! With so many similarities between us, that very incongruous difference really got my attention. (BTW, I can smuggle you back some off-the-shelf pinkeye meds if you ever have a need. Save you a few thousand dollars — even with the exchange rate!)
While I value Peterson’s intelligent insights, I’m not nearly as obsessed with him as some in this conversation!
@griz
Hypocrisy & Denial
@luftballooneyegouge
Which part is which?
The rationale of your response escapes me. If it’s a worthy point, you’ll have to unpack it a bit more.
Hey, if you want to pay thousands of dollars more than necessary to deal with a visual affliction . . . be my guest!
@griz
The rationale of all my responses seem to have always escaped you.
@luftballooneyegouge
And you feel no desire to unpack your rationale?
That’s an invite.
there’s a 3rd option, neither accepting the status quo, but also not resorting to handouts or taking away what people have.
One is a path of tears – one that was attempted even in biblical times. Kill everyone but the young who don’t meet a certain standard, training the young to be something else. This path would kill many millions, with no guarantee of success, only to have to repeat the process again and again
The other is slow path of change that happens one person at a time. Start with the youngest, the most impressionable, those who are disadvantaged. Train them early – maybe even earlier than others… and show them how they belong. Show them where their actions can make a difference. And after the training, give them a job and if they can’t do it, keep training them with other skills until they can.
@Jear77
In a purely naturalistic system there is only so much “energy”. (First Law of Thermodynamics). To apply more in area A, means taking it from other areas. So I’m not sure how, in a naturalistic system, this 3rd option would be “financed”.
The thing about training, is that it takes time. The young are very good at picking up “closed” systems like language, maths the sciences etc quite easily by rote learning. But the higher aspects of human learning are things that they need wise teachers to direct them into.
But here I have to stop . . . for it just occurred to me that you probably are not thinking of “higher education”, but just the lower rote education that would make many good little cogs in the wheel?
@griz both. Education at all levels. Training on how to recognize bad influence, i.e. gangs, drugs, addictions, dysfunctional relationships on all levels.
@Jear77
OK, you lost me on the segway into gangs, drugs, addictions etc.
That’s not really something science can teach them. Those are moral judgments.
@griz actually not really. I’ll give a bit more of a response tomorrow – after work, if I have time — AFTER posting an article. Bed awaits.
@Jear77
Have a restful sleep.
I would just state again that I really enjoy the discussions we have. You know that I sometimes have to be absent from them for days at a time because of my job.
If you need to be absent from them for whatever reason for a few days, no harm or foul.
First off, I think we need to accept your premise and I for one, do.
Next, those that innovate need to recognize that those that can’t need to be taken care of, and those that can’t may also need to recognize they need to be supported.
Now, here is where it gets tricky because it becomes political. Those that do are generally to the right, while those who take are generally on the left. those on the extreme right generally want to maximize what they keep and those on the extreme left want to suck every last drop of something for nothing that they can get.
The solution? We have to find a way to make the general populace meet in the middle. The extreme right needs to move closer to the middle, without being ON the border and those on the extreme left need to do the same. The right needs to know that society requires support and the money needs to come from somewhere. The left needs to to understand that the non innovators need to be fair about demands when working for the innovators.
I think we see this with Bill Gates & Warren Buffet. Gates has already thrown about $28 billion at charitable causes with a plan to distribute ALL of his wealth before he dies. Buffet, for all intents and purposes is doing the same. Too late for Zuckerberg as his wealth just dissipates before his eyes. What a waste? He could have been distributing billions that in reality were the manifestation of simple Wall Street dynamics that now just returns into the air from where it began.
@spitfire3dc
It would help if I knew which part of it you don’t accept and why.
I included in the supposition that “those who can” not taking care of “those who cannot” is illogical because it causes the proverbial rocket they are riding, to crash.
Try to remember that “liberal” and “conservative” don’t have to be political labels. They are also personality-types (which just happen to factor strongly in the political parties one votes for.).
Hard-core innovators (liberal personality-types high in intelligence, trait-openness, balanced in trait-extroversion (but tending towards introversion); and low in trait-conscientiousness, trait-agreeableness and trait-neurosity) tend to get the ball rolling . . . but are usually too flighty to worry about maximizing what they keep. They usually have to have a good balance of trait-conservatism (or hire someone who does). But the best innovators, exist at the extreme and have to hire someone who in essence becomes like their “handler” to keep them focused, on-track and from blowing all the profits on the next new fabulous project.
I’m considering whether we can actually “shift” our inherent character-traits. Our personality, yes: but usually only as an act of intentionally biasing our internal narrative. (Enforcing and denying our “inner voices”).
Yes, I’m mindful of what I offered about shifting my own personality towards more honesty. But “honesty” is technically not one of the “Big Five” Jungian personality archetypes.
(I haven’t worked up to “The Big Ten” yet!).