in a capitalist system, psychopathy is more evolved because you get to climb the corporate ladder faster.
Which is why street youth crime in USSR was almost hierarchical - all territory was divided between gangs, their culture was almost commonly accepted, their leaders were well known to everyone living in their territory and the militia, and so on. And miraculously all that crap started receding when USSR ceased to exist. Despite still having a lot of presence. There are opinions that KGB simply preferred to have known and controlled crime instead of something growing under the radar. That’s irony.
OK, what I meant - that youth culture was psychopathic enough.
but I would refrain from using evolution/DNA example
I mean DNA logic, which is more complex than the “natural selection of good\bad genes” people often imagine to be evolution.
But this assumes that capitalism is unchanging, and final form of our society. But in reality, we can change the system. Under socialism or social democracy (with strict laws), psychopathy would no longer be ‘more evolved’.
This whole statement is honestly unchanged enough since 1919. Social democrats have become a normal political force even before WWI. And socialism has led to pretty psychopathic regimes.
Marxist idea of formations and stages reeks of magic for me. It’s extrapolation of the way history books and popular imagination show what has already happened to the future that hasn’t and things not yet known. It’s not synthesis, instead it’s more like extrapolation of limited projections.
Lysenko and Lepeschinskaya in Stalin’s USSR were honestly a logical result of such perception of the world. It’s often said that Stalin’s regime was in fact fascist, and that it wasn’t correct by communist ideology, and so on, but that idea doesn’t hold when you study it closely. It was both in vibes and in ideas of the future pretty Marxist. So were Khmer Rouge. And both had that flaw of common idea that the future is known.
It’s a trait of religions, by the way.
(Warning - yes, I know they won’t understand fully anything of the following, but they will understand some and will remember it’s not magic.)
First, show them how to make a paper animation (quickly changing pictures, lots of paper and two pencils are enough, don’t even need two pencils, but eh).
Second, show them how to make a paper computer (look it up, there are even ready books for children ; that is a bit more complex, you’ll need to cut some for registers and the “windows” to indicate current values and you’ll do the operations manually, and you’ll need more turning pencils).
Third, find some book about microprocessor design - I’m serious, you just have to show them in it the pictures about what is a decoder and what is a datapath and ALU, and what are interrupts, and what are registers (program counter and two-three other ones, suppose), and explain how this relates to the paper computer. Not much more.
Then you tell them that a computer is just many microprocessors running their programs, some run small simple programs to control dedicated devices, and some run big long complex programs. After that you show them some of the devices - like hard drive, RAM, video, audio, network card, thingies on the board. And tell that they work with other devices, like keyboards and displays connected electrically. And tell that this looks like a city.
For 6 years old this is not so good (but just like people normally do with airplanes and trains, you still should try, just this shouldn’t be your only try by far), but when I was 8-9 years old and wanted to learn, someone explaining step 3 to me would have helped.
Step 1 my dad had done, step 2 I think he did too, and it was in some book for preschool education I read, I didn’t know it was sky cool back then. Step 3 is more of an encouragement when you can’t quite mentally make the leap, from small elements which you know can be combined into complex things, to complex things themselves.
This is not an advice to teach a toddler computer design. Just like people don’t teach toddlers railway design or civilian engineering or automotive or airplane design. They still tell them various things of how those work, and build models, so they don’t have ideas from medieval bestiaries about these being magical monsters.