Progressive Folly

One of the biggest mistakes we make is underestimating human adaptability. A much bigger mistake is assuming you can steer that adaptation on a large scale.
It never ceases to amaze me how Progressives get this backward. They have no trouble referring to human shortcomings, so long as you don’t apply such understanding to their noble selves. They’ll castigate any number of individuals for a long standard list of moral failures. Yet, they somehow imagine they are wise enough to formulate a valid plan of action to correct human truculence on the broader scale. I suppose that’s in part because they refuse to recognize their own truculence. It’s always justified one way or another.
Virtually every progressive solution has failed, miserably, publicly and often more spectacularly than the grandness of their efforts. But they always blame the people involved who refused to change at the snapping of their fingers. It’s really odd the faith they have in human adaptability — “anyone can figure this out” — but they insist all it takes is a little more education. In other words, none of us is more than a lump of clay in their capable hands. That there could ever be something in human nature which cannot possibly be fixed is a heresy in their minds.
Yes, we ought to raise a high moral standard, but ought also be wholly unsurprised when any significant portion of any population won’t embrace it. There are factors in human character which cannot ever be accounted for in the sense that it could be something you’d resolve with enough effort. Man can be manipulated until he knows about it, suspects it, or simply imagines it falsely. Sometimes not even then. Flee from fools who say, “There ought to be a law…”
The social sciences are not pointless, because humans tend to be predictable in some ways. But those sciences only go so far. Pushing too far makes you a fool. This is why I opposed anyone using a personality inventory unless they know enough to write their own. A part of any realistic moral standard is preparing for failure of adoption. Never assume you understand why any particular individual opts out. At least one-third of the questions on, say, the Myers-Briggs Assessment infuriate me in forcing me to choose an option which simply does not fit me. I do not fit into their nasty little matrix, but idiots will presume I’m simply suffering an attitude problem. Even if they are correct, it still invalidates their matrix, because I know what most of the questions are trying to prove, and I can make the assessment say almost anything I want. Other similar assessment tools are worse. They do fine when you want to get a feel for populations, but only the most shallow and thoughtless portion of humanity will fit into their assessment matrix. Do you really want to promote that kind of thing?
Worst of all, most assessment matrices tend to steer people into a frame of reference which may not actually be honestly where they are. This is probably the biggest abuse charge I can level at psychometrists, as the majority have far too much progressive self-assurance they can solve the world’s problems if everyone could be forced to take their little tests. What’s the Type for an arrogant know-it-all who wants to force others to fit their elegant dreams? Who are willing to promote hatred and random bloodshed in order to promote their vision? Sounds like a psychopath to me. It’s the same crap we face when you hear about such wonderful movements as “stop slut-shaming” or “make guys more sensitive” or any number of other demands we all agree to force some group or agency do something which simply cannot be forced.
In the end, it all falls well under the umbrella of Western materialism. People aren’t allowed to be people, whereas Scripture promotes the idea everyone should be encouraged to take their own path before the Lord, because the human soul is the only part of Creation which will outlast Creation. Most of the various assessment tools, both for groups and individuals, are anti-Christian abominations.