FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

As the single most important technology to counter the negative effects of economic inequality, we need to create the demand for its development and use now.
CLICK HERE to learn more about the EIRA and how it will save humanity by stopping inequality.
CLICK HERE to watch a video on the EIRA.

Posted on: » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:36 am #31

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #25, Posted Apr 21, 2019
Here is my list of major factors that can significantly impact and prevent the Economic Inequality Rating App project from working as predicted. Areas of concern include the future of Democracy, time restrictions due to the technological si...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:36 am

I can think of only one other hindrance (perhaps?) to the success of the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) and this has to do with consolidations of companies within industries. An example of this is shown in an Oxfam report indicating the interactions between 10 companies that control the food and beverage industry around the world with their inter-meshing subsidiary connections.

(View the link https://www.dropbox.com/s/axdrfohl1jr1t ... 2.png?dl=0 to get the impressive graphic imagery)

This I believe is not a game changer when it comes to economic inequality ratings but it does muddy the water and is something to consider. There are probably other examples of industry consolidation, such as the banking industry, that have been transformed into just a handful of companies controlling their industry.

From People also ask
What companies control the food industry?
Only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world. These companies — Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, Associated British Foods, and Mondelez — each employ thousands and make billions of dollars in revenue every year.Apr 4, 2017

Business Insider
"These 10 companies control everything you buy"
By Kate Taylor, Apr. 4, 2017
https://www.businessinsider.com/10-comp ... try-2017-3

Although the headline of this article is misleading, because it should state, "Only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world," NOT EVERYTHING, the original Oxfam analysis is a real eye opener.

The EIRA creation team of experts will need to determine just how much each of the downstream subsidiaries causes their own distinct economic inequality rating. There are always varying degrees of control between satellite companies and the parent company each with their own unique set of values and distinct freedoms from parental control. But I would think there will be enough of a distinction between these companies to see differences in economic inequality between the various brands. In the larger picture this may be more of a hassle than an actual hindrance.

~SV~
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:35 am #32

User avatar
Doctor A
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #22, Posted Mar 6, 2019
POSTS REGARDING "A GUIDE TO HALTING THE EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE BY STOPPING ECONOMIC INEQUALITY" BEGIN HERE WITH THIS POST #22.

Doctor A prese...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Doctor A » Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:35 am

The premise for the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) is summarized in the following seven basic points found in "The Guide To Saving Humanity." This is located on the navigation bar of the Fight Inequality home page. This Summary Preface makes crystal clear why we need to stop the growth of economic inequality and how the EIRA will be developed to accomplished this.

There is abundant literature to show that new technology is a fundamental driver of economic inequality. Among the following seven basic points below, this impact of new technology on equality will be explained and substantiated.

1) Technological singularity is defined as a hypothetical point in the future when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization. Due to the exponential processing power of the coming super computers, a technological singularity will occur. Advancing at inconceivable rates, it will overwhelm our human capacity to understand it. This rapidly approaching future is expected to create one of either two adverse events. The first is a dystopia, an imagined state or society in which there is great suffering or injustice, typically one that is totalitarian or post-apocalyptic. This new reality will be perverted beyond recognition from that of our present-day existence. The second adverse outcome is that it will create an even greater likelihood of a world causing human extinction.

2) This dismal future is being caused by an inherent difference in brain structure between liberals and conservatives. Scientific research clearly shows that conservatives have a larger amygdala—a brain structure grouping of neurons shown to play a key role in the processing of emotions—that is more prominent in conservatives than in those of a liberal persuasion. In conservatives the larger amygdala incorporates an evolutionary survival mechanism that is more fear based. This excessive fear mechanism manifests itself in the thoughts and actions of conservative individuals causing them to act in ways that promote economic inequality. In other words, it is this fear-based aspect of the conservative brain structure that causes them to advance increased economic inequality in our society.

3) Since the 1970s—spurred on by conservative fear-based policies—economic inequality has dramatically increased. Most of the social and health ills of the world are directly caused by this inequality. Historically economic inequality has been the basis for the collapse of many past civilizations. The United States, with an ever-increasing rate of economic inequality, is well on this same path to self-destruction.

4) As stated above, there is abundant literature to show that, new technology is a fundamental driver of economic inequality. Not only will the top 1% mindset not try to regulate this rapidly advancing new technology, but they will want to generate high profits from it so that they can create even newer technology that will further exacerbate economic inequality in favor of their own interests and at the expense of the wellbeing of the general population. This conservative fear-based mentality places a higher value on profit motive than on welfare for all. This means that conservatives will apply little regulatory control to the coming technological singularity; it will run its course unabated in order to maintain a high profit motive for the few at the top. Consequentially, this quest for profits and a lack of regulations will either bring about a dystopian future of inequality-based suffering and lack of the people’s democratic power or human extinction—or, ultimately, both. To prevent these dire events, we must first stop runaway economic inequality.

5) Almost all economic inequality is initially premised at a subconscious level and occurs with little conscious thought. The proven social psychology of this occurs by placing an individual on a specific tier in the social hierarchy. The gap in social rank between an individual’s lower socio-economic standing and that of those at the top of the hierarchy is what defines economic inequality. Research shows that this inequality manifests itself as toxic to both the individual and society at large. By reducing economic inequality, we can reduce its insidiously progressing poisonous impact upon us all.

6) The proposed Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) will rate products, services, and individuals based upon how much economic inequality they produce. A high rating on the EIRA means that the product or service for purchase creates a high amount of economic inequality and should be avoided in favor of a purchase with a lower EIRA rating. This choosing of a company or service with a lower economic inequality rating will transfer wealth from the elite 1% back to those who support the 99% when the product or service is purchased. This reduces economic inequality (without changing any laws or voting anyone into office) simply by giving the consumer accurate information by which to make their purchasing decisions. By having a rating system based solely upon economic inequality parameters, we members of the 99% can make an informed and purposeful decision to reduce economic inequality, which in turn will support all our best interests.

The ratings loaded into the app will be determined by a team of experts based solely upon economic inequality parameters; this differentiates us substantially from other rating systems. The EIRA tells us what product or service to choose solely based upon how much that product or service will reduce economic inequality. Because economic inequality is what causes most of the problems in the world and is at the core of creating many misalignments in other value systems, these other value systems will need to be subordinate to the value of reducing economic inequality.

7) The transfer of wealth from the 1% back to the 99% by use of the EIRA will significantly reduce the nationwide economic inequality experienced in today’s society. This puts power back into the hands of the 99% where it rightfully belongs. Only then will economically based social ills within our society begin to dissipate—including the dire consequences of a realized dystopian reality and ultimate elimination of the human race.

Our future's bleak outcomes are being enhanced by two powerful streams merging together to create the ultimate disaster: the coming technological singularity and increasing economic inequality. Economic inequality creates more new-technology profitability for the 1%, which then creates more uncontrolled economic inequality through further investing in new technology. These two streams—technological singularity and economic inequality—massively feed upon each other. The proposed EIRA can change the trajectory of these negative outcomes for the betterment of all humanity.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:46 pm #33

MaureenCarter
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #31, Posted Sep 11, 2019
I can think of only one other hindrance (perhaps?) to the success of the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) and this has to do with consolidations of companies within industries. An example of this is shown in an Oxfam report indicating ...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by MaureenCarter » Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:46 pm

FIGHT INCOME AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY: One problem came to mind about the Economic Inequality Rating app but I have already thought of a solution. It may be easier for a team of experts to obtain raw economic inequality rating data from a public rather than a private company. The private organization may be loathe to turn over any such data. In this eventuality the company would be given an extremely high rating such the number 100. This high number would be solely reserved for these types of situations indicating cooperation was not forthcoming and members of the 99% should not use the product or service.
Times Referenced: 2

Posted on: » Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:56 pm #34

MaureenCarter
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #33, Posted Nov 16, 2019
FIGHT INCOME AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY: One problem came to mind about the Economic Inequality Rating app but I have already thought of a solution. It may be easier for a team of experts to obtain raw economic inequality rating data from a ...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by MaureenCarter » Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:56 pm

An idea crossed my mind regarding the viability of the Economic Inequality Rating App and its role in fighting against income and economic inequality. I foresee educating the public regarding the need to get on board with the EIRA as an impediment. Basically people are reluctant to change their behavior in short order and the project may require a major educational drive in the form of advertisement. I assume this advertisement will need to stress the unity of the 99% over political party line. An alliance between conservatives and liberals will reduce the polarization seen in the USA knowing we have a common cause. We are all in this together and only by being united will we be able to defeat the elite and oligarchs to control our own future. Our forefathers came together to fight the Nazis and politics fell by the wayside. We must do the same. It is a make or break moment to take back our democracy and set the path anew or be crushed beneath the wheels of the new machine.

Doctor A, in his "A Guide To Saving Humanity," estimates the following amount of capital needed to implement the project,
The initial cost to set up this project is high. But in comparison to what the consequences would be due to not setting up the project, this is minuscule. I estimate to set up the app for near full development would cost about $100 million. Out of this amount, creating the database and the advertisement will be the most costly items. The app technology itself for hand held use is already state of the art and can be readily purchased or developed.
Let's suppose 70% of this estimated cost would be needed to create the database leaving $30 million for a national advertisement campaign. Is this enough? I do not know or have expertise in this area. I think a significant amount of donations would be forthcoming if we were to revive the raw energy of the members of the Occupy Wall Street Movement from 2011. This way we could call upon these members of the 99% to kick-start the app providing a quick way to gain traction and donations. From my view, the 2011 OWS movement had an idea as to what they wanted as an end game but did not have a plan to get there. The EIRA would act as a solid bridge as part of a business plan that people can get behind and not just a vague idea that goes nowhere.

I do not want to be misconstrued. A literal resurrection of the OWS movement and bringing it back to life from the ashes is not what we want or need. Instead I am saying there are organizational elements that can be tapped to bring our project forward expeditiously.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:06 pm #35

User avatar
Jessica
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #33, Posted Nov 16, 2019
FIGHT INCOME AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY: One problem came to mind about the Economic Inequality Rating app but I have already thought of a solution. It may be easier for a team of experts to obtain raw economic inequality rating data from a ...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Jessica » Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:06 pm

A possible obstacle I see to making the Economic Inequality Rating App function to significantly reduce economic inequality has to do with the time frame necessary to accomplish its goals. Doctor A in his "A GUIDE TO SAVING HUMANITY," in section IV wrote,

[quote
I have been asked, "Is there still time for the EIRA to become a success with the looming technological singularity?" I believe the answer is yes, there is still time to accomplish our goal of stopping economic inequality with the app. By 2029, about 9 years from now, it is estimated Artificial Intelligence will be on par with the adult human wet brain. Sometime after that, with estimates of 2045 to 2049, the full effects of the technological singularity will be known. So, I think a window of opportunity of at least 9 years plus a number of more years exist depending upon the speed of the developing singularity. This is sufficient time for the app to be successful in moderating the direction the technological singularity takes. [/quote]

However, I see here two different issues of timeliness.

The first has to do with actually developing the EIRA and having it distributed on a large enough scale for the 99% to use it. How quickly this will come about is dependent mostly upon obtaining the finances and the will of the populace to make it a successful campaign. But, what I want to focus on in this posting is the time it will take for the individual using the device to no longer feel disenfranchised at a subconscious level. Obviously, the greater the financial backing for the distribution of the app itself the quicker it can get into the hands of the end users. This is one level of success. However, what I wish know is how long it will take after this distribution of the app and its widespread usage for an individual to be impacted by the change in inequality around them. In other words, how long will it take an individual to adapt at a subconscious level to their newfound status of lowered economic inequality?

I do not know of any research addressing this issue of timeliness. I surmise the process is akin to moving from a culture of high economic inequality to one of a lower economic inequality. How long does this adaptive period take? For example, if an individual was to move from a country of high economic inequality, such as the United states, to a country with significantly lower economic inequality, such as Denmark, then how long would it take for their subconscious to adapt to the new environment. Additionally, could this change be monitored with studies monitoring their levels of happiness or contentment?

When I first moved to a small town in Mexico, I gave myself 100 days to see if I would like the experience. Right around day 60 I noticed I no longer experienced the physical and social environment as being so foreign or alien. I was beginning to adapt to my new environment. Based upon my conversations with other gringos, I noticed most of them seemed well adjusted by their own accounts after a years time. This relatively short adaption process gives me hope that the subconscious of individuals going from a high level of economic inequality to that of a lower level will work within a similar time frame. In fact, most people I encountered who had lived in Mexico for a year expressed to me they felt happier and more content. This gives me hope the adaption period can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:54 am #36

User avatar
Doctor A
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Jessica, Post #35, Posted Dec 8, 2019
A possible obstacle I see to making the Economic Inequality Rating App function to significantly reduce economic inequality has to do with the time frame necessary to accomplish its goals. Doctor A in his "A GUIDE TO SAVING HUMANITY," in section IV wrote,
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Doctor A » Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:54 am

The Democratic Party is most aligned with the ideas and values associated with the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA). One way to reduce the timeliness issue is to garner their support. There are approximately 75 million registered Democrats in the USA. If this party was to adopt the EIRA as a plank in their party and promote it, a sizable number of their members would be willing to use the app in their daily lives. One would think this plank would also be used as a strategy to get elected or reelected within the Party.

After the Democrats, the Independents would be the next group of politically motivated individuals who would support the use of the EIRA. The Republicans would be least likely of the major political groups to buy into the concept. However, I firmly believe with education pointing out the benefits of the device and the consequences of not using it, a significant portion of this population would also adopt it into their daily lives.

Another timeliness issue is having the financial means to initially develop the EIRA. The Democratic party has wealthy patrons who could fund the project outright. There are also several billionaire Democrats currently running for the Presidency who have the wherewithal to speedily move the project forward.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:12 pm #37

User avatar
Doctor A
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #22, Posted Mar 6, 2019
POSTS REGARDING "A GUIDE TO HALTING THE EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE BY STOPPING ECONOMIC INEQUALITY" BEGIN HERE WITH THIS POST #22.

Doctor A prese...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Doctor A » Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:12 pm

Some perspectives on subconscious vs conscious thoughts and the role of social values systems as these subjects relate to the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA).

An individual asked me to review what he and others thought was a way to save the planet. "If we can all consume more sustainably, we can reach a circular economy and reverse environmental and social problems."The name of the platform is Earth Accounting, Sustainable Shopping Made Easy.

Here are the links I received regarding the platform,

Link for EA video https://www.crowdfunder.com/Earth-Accounting

Link No 2: https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sear ... tion=click


Previously I wrote about the subconscious mind vs the conscious mind pointing out only about 5% of our brain activity is at a conscious level; this points the way towards the subconscious brain being more powerful than the conscious brain (by powerful I mean it is more integrated with the autonomic nervous system and the hormonal system which evolutionary evolved from the nervous system as a means of communications .
1) Conservative minded brain structure

We fancy ourselves like Rodin's statue "the thinker" as thoughtful and pensive individuals grappling with the great ideas of the world. Even if a lesser ape was to assume the same anatomical position as that of the statue, we know we are the true masters of our own thoughts and hence our own destiny. Not so for the lesser apes. Yet neuroscience research points out that only about five percent of our brain activity is at a conscious level, the remainder remains in the murky world of the subconscious.

Through millions of years, evolution has created us this way so much so that our thoughts and hence actions are dependent largely upon the physical structure of our brain. We are not nearly so smart and clever as we think we are. Rather we are to a large extent slaves to the will of this biological structure. If an anatomical brain structure is present we think and behave one way and conversely, if it is absent, we think and behave quite differently.
The following is my review of the platform and why I feel it will not work to save the planet.
With respect to the email I received and the videos I reviewed regarding Earth-Accounting:

The basis for my ideas are formulated around the subconscious thoughts, (fast and powerful), vs conscious thoughts, (slower and not as powerful).

We know from (f)mri and neuronal conduction studies that 95% of our thoughts occur at a subconscious level and the smaller remainder is at a conscious level where we can actually perceive our thoughts. This smaller portion is where we actually "think." But the subconscious is actually much larger and faster than the conscious mind. It has developed over millions of years and provides us shortcuts as a powerful and faster alternative to "thinking" at a conscious level. The conscious 'thinking" is not only slower but demands too much data input to draw its conclusions. The classic example of this is the fight or flight response. This shortcut way of subconscious
thinking gives us a much more powerful way of responding rather than "thinking" about what is happening and then trying to respond to a situation.

Economic inequality exists much more at the subconscious mind than at the conscious level of thought. When we walk into a room where people are working, they automatically place us into a position within a social hierarchy at a rapid and powerful subconscious level. Perhaps a little later someone may have noticed we were wearing expensive suits and shoes and then start to "think" about our economic and social positions in life. But most of the heavy lifting has already been done by the subconscious and the die is cast. We as human organisms are acutely in tune with this subconscious process and even small changes can cause large distortions to our mental and physical elements at a subconscious level. This is why economic inequality is so powerful.

People try to stop economic inequality at a conscious "thought" level but this will not be successful because the human organism is hardwired mostly to view economic inequality at a subconscious level. Most system I have seen to reduce economic inequality do so by trying to get us to think about it which is the wrong approach. Most system also uses a social value system of some sort as a vehicle to accomplish this. By way of example, regarding your partner in today's phone call, he talked about ethical products (we will just look at this one isolated factor for now). But there are two main problems with this:

First, many people's ethical views are not the same. There are those who may not support animal testing for a new drug on moral grounds. Then there are those people who believe we have a higher moral duty to use this type of testing to save human lives at the expense of animal lives. We see this dichotomy on apps such as Buycott where one group supports Koch brother products because they support conservative views and another group does not support these products because they believe in progressive views.

Secondly, and by far the most important point is, you can have a new drug that uses animal testing and by the view of most people is unethical and yet it causes less economic inequality than a more ethical tested drug.

So there are two positions: (A) where a drug produced uses unethical testing but causes less economic inequality and (B) comparing this to a drug produced without animal testing but the overall process causes more economic inequality.

In my system, we always choose the (A) position because this communicates to the human organism a much faster and powerful response about economic inequality. It is almost as if the human organism does not even need to know at a conscious "thinking" level what is happening.

This does not mean we abandon our social value system that says animal testing is unethical. We still go out and protest this form of treatment cruelty and still vote and fight for laws protesting these practices.

The bottom line is, with the EIRA, we always need to choose the product with the lowest EIRA score regardless of the social value system. This is what the human organism understands in the long run. In fact, I am of the opinion, the user of the EIRA does not need to know how the specific rating was generated as long as it is based upon pure economic inequality and not social value systems.

If we have a room of a certain size, and if we look at a group of people within this box, as economic inequality begins to fall due to using the EIRA, the individuals at an unconscious level will notice this change and begin to adapt to the lower economic inequality becoming mentally and physically healthier. Now If we expand this box's sample size to the size of a state within the USA, then the members within the entire state will become healthier. Still yet, if we expand the number of people to that of the entire USA, they too will become healthier. They do not even need to know why at a thought level this is happening to them; they are just "magically" getting better.

This is why I state in my Guide we need pure economic inequality ratings and not ratings of social value systems,

"Section Three-The Need for Rating Specialists
Although in theory any individual could rate any product or service based upon their own internal compass, in practice it is more likely, and arguably would be much more useful, to have "specialists" in various areas provide the data for such a decision. Examples of such specialists may include economists, business reporters, business researchers, college academicians, social researchers, work standard bureaus, and a multitude of other appropriately qualified individuals that will feed their information to a host platform to generate the final inequality rating.

Guidelines can be set up by these specialists as to what weight to give the manufacturer, associated organizations, and associated individuals or other aspects of the rating. These guidelines will include the editing and changing of ratings overtime as the variables change. This includes weighing attributes by those individuals in the 1% who are supportive of the 99% in a more favorable light than those hostile to our cause as long as this analysis is truly based upon economic inequality and not just verbal window dressing."
So, it does not matter how sustainable, green, or socially conscious a product is. What is most important is how much economic inequality the product or service produces and how we can reduce it.

My idea to produce a pure economic inequality rating is based upon, "does the product or service transfer wealth from the 1% to the 99%?" Any product or service that does this, and the more it does so in absolute terms, the lower its rating will be. This is what we want as consumers. I think economists and others can develop this form of rating system.



Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Mon May 04, 2020 12:02 pm #38

MaureenCarter
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #14, Posted Nov 28, 2018
There is not much more of an existential threat to our lives than homicide. Murder rates in the USA are driven by income and economic inequality and crime rates are soaring as these inequalities continue to increase. Perceived social status is the main factor fueling the murder problem.
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by MaureenCarter » Mon May 04, 2020 12:02 pm

Child abuse rises with income inequality. This can be added to our long list of maladies associated with economic inequality.

Science News
Child abuse rises with income inequality
Date: February 11, 2014
Source: Cornell University
Summary: As the Great Recession deepened and income inequality became more pronounced, county-by-county rates of child maltreatment -- from sexual, physical and emotional abuse to traumatic brain injuries and death -- worsened, according to a nationwide study.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132959.htm
"Our study is the first to demonstrate that increases in income inequality are associated with increases in child maltreatment," said John J. Eckenrode, professor of human development and director of the Family Life Development Center in the College of Human Ecology. "More equal societies, states and communities have fewer health and social problems than less equal ones -- that much was known. Our study extends the list of unfavorable child outcomes associated with income inequality to include child abuse and neglect."
"Child maltreatment is a toxic stressor in the lives of children that may result in childhood mortality and morbidities and have lifelong effects on leading causes of death in adults," they wrote. "This is in addition to long-term effects on mental health, substance use, risky sexual behavior and criminal behavior … increased rates of unemployment, poverty and Medicaid use in adulthood."
Journalist's Resource
The link between child abuse and income inequality: Research brief
September 19, 2014
From the Scholars Strategy Network, written by John Eckenrode, Cornell University
https://journalistsresource.org/studies ... rch-brief/
So far, most studies of the health effects of income inequality have focused on adults – although a few have linked inequality to higher rates of infant mortality, preterm births, and low weights for newborn babies. Child abuse and neglect is another important public health issue, and a new study I have done with my colleagues Elliott Smith, Margaret McCarthy, and Michael Dineen asks whether U.S. counties with higher levels of income inequality also have more reported instances of child abuse and neglect.
The results of this research tell a clear story about inequality and harm to children:

Overall, the higher the level of income inequality in a county, the higher the reported rate of maltreatment of children tends to be. That is true no matter what the average family income happens to be.

Poverty still matters, however, because the impact of greater income inequality on maltreatment of children is more pronounced for poorer counties and somewhat less pronounced in somewhat better-off counties. In other words, the worst situation for children is to grow up in a very poor county where there is a lot of income inequality.

Yet it would be a mistake to conclude that inequality affects only children living in poor counties or plagues only children in poor families. Like air pollution, inequality exerts its toxic effects for all children.

Our findings show that, when it comes to child maltreatment, there are no “safe” levels of inequality. Even small increases in income gaps have adverse effects — child mistreatment worsens as we go from counties with low levels of inequality to counties with a bit more.
Scholars Strategy Network
How Economic Equity and Hope for the Future Could Reduce Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States
April 30, 2019
https://scholars.org/contribution/how-e ... ted-states
Child maltreatment (including physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect) has been linked to negative health and economic consequences in both the short- and long-term. As adults, children who were the victims of abuse and neglect are more likely to be depressed, unemployed, commit crimes, and use social services.

Child maltreatment also generates substantial costs to society. The lifetime cost for each maltreated child who does not die is estimated to be $242,426 – totaling $145 billion in the United States in 2019 dollars. Because the costs in human suffering and economic resources are so high, researchers work to understand how best to prevent the maltreatment of children.
An increase in child abuse is now added to the bottom of our list:

Wars (increased)
Terrorism (increased)
Life expectancy (decreased)
Math and literacy (decreased)
Climate change (increased)
Infant mortality (increased)
Homicides (increased)
Imprisonment (increased)
Teenage births (increased)
Trust (decreased)
Obesity (increased)
Mental illness (increased)
Drug addiction (increased)
Alcoholism (increased)
Social and work mobility (decreased)
Impact of money in politics (increased)
Pollution (increased)
Women's rights (decreased)
Racism (increased)
Food Insecurity (increased)
Loneliness (increased)
Homelessness (increased)
Child Abuse (increased)
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:26 pm #39

User avatar
Doctor A
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #37, Posted Apr 16, 2020
Some perspectives on subconscious vs conscious thoughts and the role of social values systems as these subjects relate to the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA).

An individual asked me to review what he and others thought was a ...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Doctor A » Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:26 pm

People try to stop economic inequality at a conscious "thought" level but this will not be successful because the human organism is hardwired mostly to view economic inequality at a subconscious level. Most system I have seen to reduce economic inequality do so by trying to get us to think about it which is the wrong approach.
I would like to expand upon this concept as it explains why the EIRA approach will be successful in stopping economic inequality where former approaches have failed:

Past attempts and initiatives to mitigate economic inequality have relied upon trying to change social value systems. These systems operate at a conscious level of thought and include far ranging ideations such a stopping the use of animal testing for drug development, green initiatives, or promoting the rights of the LGBTQ community in the workplace as a tool for change. A person's value system describes a person's beliefs as to what is important to them and gives the individual a basis for their ethical positions which extend out into the community and society as a whole. But changing an individual's value system is not the same as changing economic inequality parameters. Although counterintuitive, changing social value systems do not get at the root cause of economic inequality which exists at a subconscious level. For this reason, past attempts to stop economic inequality by changing society’s value system have been ineffectual.

In contrast, the EIRA is designed to only evaluate economic inequality parameters. It does this by appraising the wealth produced from the sale of a product or service. If the appraisal indicates most of this wealth goes to just a few individuals at the top of the company producing the product or service, then this creates a high level of economic inequality. However, if the appraisal indicates most of the wealth is distributed to many people within the company, then much less economic inequality is created.

The EIRA does not extraneously consider the influence of an individual's or society’s value system in its appraisal. This is exactly why the EIRA will be successful in reducing economic inequality where as past attempts have failed. The EIRA gets at the root cause of economic inequality which operates at a subconscious level. Social value systems on the other hand operate at a conscious level of thought and are not powerful enough to get to the root causes creating economic inequality. This is the reason the evaluation of social value systems are doomed to fail when trying to stop matters related to economic inequality.

We fancy ourselves as being great thinkers, as being thoughtful and pensive individuals grappling with the great ideas of the world. Yet neuroscience research points out that only about five percent of our brain activity is at a conscious level, the remainder remains in the murky world of the subconscious.

This points the way towards the subconscious brain being more powerful than the conscious brain. By powerful I mean it is more integrated with the autonomic nervous system and the hormonal system which evolutionary evolved from the nervous system as a means of communications. Additionally the subconscious works faster than the conscious mind. A somewhat analogous system we are all familiar with is the fight or flight response. We respond to a frightening stimulus near instantaneously and with great force for our own protection whereas our thoughts are much more slow and cumbersome in dealing with the stimulus. Furthermore our conscious thoughts do not produce as powerful a response.

Through millions of years, evolution has created us this way so much so that our thoughts and hence actions are dependent largely upon the physical structure of our brain. We are not nearly so smart and clever as we think we are. Rather we are to a large extent slaves to the will of this biological structure. If an anatomical brain structure is present we think and behave one way and conversely, if it is absent, we think and behave quite differently.

We know from (f)mri research and neuronal conduction studies that 95% of our thoughts occur at a subconscious level and the smaller remainder is at a conscious level where we can actually perceive our thoughts. This smaller portion is where we actually "think." But the subconscious is actually much larger and faster than the conscious mind. It provides us shortcuts as a powerful and faster alternative to "thinking" at a conscious level. The conscious 'thinking" is not only slower but demands too much data input to draw its conclusions.

Similarly, economic inequality exists much more at the quick and powerful subconscious mind than at the conscious level of thought. When we walk into a room where people are working, they automatically place us into a position within a social hierarchy at a rapid and powerful subconscious level. Perhaps a little later someone may have noticed we were wearing expensive suits and shoes and then start to "think" about our economic and social positions in life. But most of the heavy lifting and evaluation has already been done by the subconscious and our position is more set in stone than not. This is why economic inequality is so powerful and resistant to change.

People try to stop economic inequality at a conscious "thought" level but this will not be successful because the human organism is hardwired mostly to view economic inequality at a subconscious level. Most of the systems addressing the problem of elevated economic inequality do so by trying to get us to think about it which is the wrong approach.

Moreover, many people's ethical value systems are not the same. There are those individuals who may not support animal testing for a new drug on moral grounds finding the practice abhorrent. Then there are those people who believe we have a higher moral duty to use this type of testing to save human lives at the expense of animal lives and believe not doing so is equally abhorrent. We see this dichotomy on apps such as Buycott, JustCapital, and green sustainability projects such as Earth Accounting.

Buycott pits conservative social values against progressive social values in a tug of war with neither side being able to pull the other across the finish line. The net result is nothing really changes. JustCapital defines what is "just" in a company by a large group of individuals expressing their ideas and social values. These are at a conscious level of thoughts. Earth Accounting plans to save the earth through limiting human consumption of the environment, which is to say through social values, to make the planet more sustainable. Unfortunately all of these systems miss the mark by focusing on social values rather than purely economic inequality principles which is the real culprit. Although all are noble in their objectives, they will be ineffective in their ultimate goal of saving the planet and humanity.

Let us look instead at the impact of economic inequality upon the world in the listing below. Here we can recognize the real culprit is economic inequality. By stopping or even reversing economic inequality we can make real progress in changing the ills of the world.

Wars (increased)
Terrorism (increased)
Life expectancy (decreased)
Math and literacy (decreased)
Climate change (increased)
Infant mortality (increased)
Homicides (increased)
Imprisonment (increased)
Teenage births (increased)
Trust (decreased)
Obesity (increased)
Mental illness (increased)
Drug addiction (increased)
Alcoholism (increased)
Social and work mobility (decreased)
Impact of money in politics (increased)
Pollution (increased)
Women's rights (decreased)
Racism (increased)
Food Insecurity (increased)
Loneliness (increased)
Homelessness (increased)
Child Abuse (increased)

The use of the EIRA by the 99% does not necessarily mean we abandon our social value system. To the contrary, we still go out and ardently protest what we think is unethical by promoting social discourse and legal reform for the values we believe in. Our passion may include stopping slave labor in technology production or fighting for green solutions to our environmental problems. But now we take the overarching view that solving economic inequality takes precedent in solving so many of these social value system problems and we put solving economic inequality front and center in our quest to do good in the world.
Times Referenced: 0

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests