02-21-2016, 11:43 AM
I would say the difference is environmental. It's not about the endpoint, but rather where an individual is coming from.
Most countries on Earth are, more or less, negatively-tilted, and that's going to rub off on their citizens. They (broadly speaking) encourage selfishness more than they promote service to others, and generally have power systems in place where selfish a-holes are more likely to succeed than selfless/giving types. And when selflessness is encouraged, it's almost always along tribal lines - Help US, but don't help THEM. This would, in my view, heavily dilute positive catalyst by adding a large dose of negativity.
(Ie, Christians who give endlessly to fellow members of the church, while supporting political candidates who'll bomb Muslims.)
So it's a matter of where each individual lies in relation to those 5% and 50% thresholds. If someone is raised in an environment where the "indifferent" are going to naturally be, say, 30% positive / 70% negative, then it would be roughly as difficult to move significantly in either direction.
Most countries on Earth are, more or less, negatively-tilted, and that's going to rub off on their citizens. They (broadly speaking) encourage selfishness more than they promote service to others, and generally have power systems in place where selfish a-holes are more likely to succeed than selfless/giving types. And when selflessness is encouraged, it's almost always along tribal lines - Help US, but don't help THEM. This would, in my view, heavily dilute positive catalyst by adding a large dose of negativity.
(Ie, Christians who give endlessly to fellow members of the church, while supporting political candidates who'll bomb Muslims.)
So it's a matter of where each individual lies in relation to those 5% and 50% thresholds. If someone is raised in an environment where the "indifferent" are going to naturally be, say, 30% positive / 70% negative, then it would be roughly as difficult to move significantly in either direction.