I need to write an update about my models about these two categories of people which I have earlier described as "nurturer/thinkers" as compared to "posturers." I have been studying Canada, New Zealand, and recently Britain. And I see that these categories don't really fit these groups of people in countries outside the usa; and they might not even fit well most places outside of my little tourist town where I live in the Rocky Mountains.

A better description of these two groups which is more universal is those who are curious about the world, and who put a high priority on learning lots of eclectic things - as compared to those who simply walk through the motions of life as it is laid out for them. The latter group is larger than the former group, in every part of the world that I've seen so far.

And there is definitely friction between these two groups. During this play - the Mikado - which I've been working on in recent weeks, there was a 13 year old boy who I saw was very curious about the world - he had studied additives to foods - he knew what some of those multisyllable words on packaging labels mean - he had a fascination for history which we touched on in conversation once or twice, he had a very well developed stage character, and he seemed to have a knack for charming younger children as well. And yet, there was some tension between the rest of the cast and him.

One of our theatre set designers who I brought on board, also is this type of person - a very wise and caring person who had a very strong vision for the set, who was very dedicated in her work in helping to bring this wonderful little theatre town into existence. She is a person who was able to delegate tasks, and who knows how to mentor people, and get people situated where they can be fruitful in their efforts. And yet, again, there was friction between her and the other people working on the play.

I, myself, have also felt this effect. And what seems to happen (especially when a person is young) is that he or she develops a prop in his life - some kind of improper manner of relating to others or some kind of poor habit that helps him understand this social handicap he has, within a context that makes sense to him. These are very ignoble social habits that one develops. It's tragic, because these bad social habits become ingrained, and they hamper one's life as one grows up to be an adult.

So, this is a very fascinating social dynamic which I have studied at length - it's the riddle that I have needed to figure out, in order to move forward with my life. And looking at the social dynamic in Britain, in Canada, and in New Zealand really helps. I see that Canada and Britain have a problem with deep thinking people making those nations' entire public discourse into a giant tug of war game. If you're a deep thinking person - you start seeing what social trends will lead to... and you see what things are good and bad for your society - and you tend to want to "toss in your oar" (to use a Gilbert and Sullivan anachronism), to influence winds of consensus - and also governmental and business policies. The problem that occurs, is that there are also many unreasonable people who see your passion for persuasive discourse, and they make a sport out of coming in to argue against your stance. And this just makes a mess. For ordinary people, it's like having parents who are always fighting and at each other's throats.

And honestly, I think that New Zealand shows us the way forward. There, they have an ethic that there is to be no persuasion at all in public discourse. When following their news media over the net - the only time I see persuasion is when I watch advertisements for goods and services. Journalists also seem to have a strong ethic about nurturing their citizenry. They seem to appreciate the magnitude of the influence they have over the zeitgeist of their society. Unlike Britain or Canada, New Zealand's daily literature is not full of wordy essays from people who have had magnificent personal insights about issue a or b or c. New Zealand's journalism is very frank, transparent, and concise. It's not created by the curious autodidacts - but instead it is created by those who are somewhat less curious about the world - those folks who are walking on the road of life quite contentedly, without giving much time to introspective thought. However, because of these accepted Kiwi ethics about:

• nurturing one's society,
• and not having persuasive writing as a form of public discourse

New Zealanders seem to reach a lot of right conclusions about matters, a lot earlier than other english speaking countries - (even as compared to Britain ;-) ). And consequently, New Zealand is the most progressive english speaking nation. Just to spice up this essay, I'll give two very interesting examples: They were both the first nation to give women the right to vote - in 1893. And they were the first nation to legalise prostitution - in 2003.

So, I really am considering emigrating to New Zealand. I find that Kiwis (New Zealanders) on the internet are some of the only people who value what I have to say in my essays. They find my manner of relating to people with text to be endearing. And so I would encourage any people out there who see themselves as being misunderstood geniuses to take a good long hard look at New Zealand. Study up on it. It takes a few weeks of following current events with their news media outlets to get a picture of the country - to see their passions, and their ways of thinking and living. It's good to study a country through a tragedy, through many joys, and through a big political change. I'm sad I didn't watch the elections where John Key replaced Helen Clark. I was too busy watching the election of Barack Obama in the Usa, and the defeat of Stéphane Dion in Canada.