More society

Primary relationships, i.e. very close relationships, employ a pragmatic system of interaction. Tertiary relationships, or those with people we don't know at all, are most commonly handled idealistically because there are no distinguishing features between any individual of any tertiary party other than their potential to be anywhere between completely fine and completely inimical. Secondary relationships are with those who we may know "casually", such as normal friends, co-workers, employees of frequently frequented establishments that you've gotten to know on a first-name basis, take a very uncertain middle-ground that differs from relationship to relationship. With this perspective, I think I better understand how insanely difficult social and economic policies can become in a society of such numerous and complex social structures, and quite honestly I believe most of the American public (yes I'm generalizing) is not equipped to comment on or tamper with such policies. I don't mean they're not mentally equipped, but rather they don't have enough understanding of said social structures and other important social factors, and (more generalizing) are generally not found possessing the intellectual and psychological framework to process this information correctly, i.e. are too biased. I'd almost say there's decent merit in requiring a passing grade in a standardized college-level introductory sociology course in order to allow people to vote, or for that matter enter political forums or be a journalist for a news station or a political talk-show host, etc. I say standardized because I'd want to brainwash people I believe an understanding of the objective principles of the "science" of sociology is fundamentally important to accurately process information about other societies and the interaction between them, and so I would want the curriculum  to be unaffected by the emotional input of its teachers, a thing which I think sociology would tempt of the more emotionally loose professors.