So, I was drafting a post about the Wall St. protests but hadn’t gotten quite right yet. Here was my opening paragraph:
I haven’t written about the Wall Street protests for a couple of reasons. First, I underestimated the staying power of the protesters. This seems a bad time of year to start an outdoor protest movement (September/October in New York City is marked by chilly weather and more than a fair share of rain, both guaranteed to sap spirits) and quite honestly I question the commitment of my countrymen to forgo creature comforts to make a political statement.
The second reason is that I just don’t think I do a very good job in assessing populist movements. I didn’t get the wave of Tea Party silliness in part because it wasn’t entirely clear what, exactly, the protesters wanted and the protesters here are the same. I blame this on my INTJ nature and use it to highlight the intense difficulty in engaging in analytical methodologies that involve the analyst having to think like someone else (even if they do share the same culture, language and other characteristics).
And so, imagine my surprise when today I see an Economist blogger write:
One thing that became clear to me in watching the development of the tea-party movement over the course of 2009-10 is that I’m not necessarily a good judge of what sorts of direct-action strategies are going to lead to mass movements with significant influence, and what sorts aren’t. I would never have believed, watching Rick Santelli rant on the floor of the NYSE about the possibility that he might have to chip in to bail out a neighbour who was underwater on his mortgage, that this might be part of the seeding of a major political movement.
Close enough to get me to trash my original post and try to find some original content. So, does that mean I’ve been absorbed into the hive mind or that great minds think alike?