Measuring cynicism from zero



(From Wikipedia)

I was trying to remember what the opposite of cynical is and despite having the internet and stuff, I cannot find an exact antonym for it. It must be the loss of neurones. Naive does not seem quite right but it does fit with what I am trying to work out. In best Newspeak tradition I have decide to start measuring cynicism from zero. However Newspeak would always use a positive root, so as to avoid the use of negativism is language s0 double-plus uncynical is not really allowed.

I just asked someone about this and they asked why I was asking - this is my IM reply.

I was thinking about the Tax system yesterday and wondering why on earth the Child Tax Credit is done as a completely separate payment rather than a reduction in Tax code when I realised that it is because for a lot of people it is actually a benefit and they are not actually getting taxed so of course it couldn't be a tax reduction - it is an actual payment - but that made me wonder why we don't just formalise negative tax - so that our circumstances just decide whether we are a net contributor or a net beneficiary of the tax system - You wouldn't then have TAX and BENEFITS just a positive or negative contribution to the country. Then I thought I was being the opposite of cynical which I suppose is like Naive maybe double-plus Naive - if I was cynical I would be double-plus un-naive as in Orwell's newspeak.

As you can see it is an extension of yesterdays thoughts but following on from my musings on the opposite of cynical, I was wondering if I wasn't just too [opposite of cynical] which thinking about it is naive or double-plus-naive if you want the superlative. Anyway - measure everything from zero - not TAX or Benefit - just contribution. I am sure that many scholars of the state already think about it in these terms anyway - it's just that I would like to formalise that view.

It reminds me yet again of the problem that Richard Feynman had when he was at school, with a man who lost a hat over the side of a boat while rowing up a river. If he rowed for so long after losing the hat then, if he rowed at such a speed and the river flowed at such a speed, how long would it take him to get back to the hat once he turned round. The answer is of course as long as he rowed up the river after losing the hat. The speed of the river is completely irrelevant. I am back to black boxes in my head.