I can partly agree with you because I'm not sure that we know what the costs really are yet and 'the opposite' could be worse. I'm also not sure that we know the opposite or know what's possible. This is where the road branches to progressive or conservative, I guess.

According to selectorate theory particular forms of governance can be irrelevant. It has to do with concentrations of power.

And were people fundamentally unhappy before the introduction of political parties? — Apollodorus

Odd question because it assumes people are fundamentally unhappy with political parties and it's unclear what 'fundamentally unhappy' even means in this context. I imagine that many are happy that the party system can be so divisive because they benefit from its divisiveness.

Personally I wouldn’t have it any other way. — NOS4A2

Naturally, because it's worked out okay for you so far.

There's a lot of irresponsibility in 'free society' and it has an ever escalating cost. I can only imagine that either you deny the cost or simply don't give a fuck. Whatever the case may be, it's a free society so you're cool.

Baker speaks of taking Buddhist premises for granted and then eventually coming to believe them. His meaning is unclear but it's pretty clear that he's referring to the 4NTs when he (assuming 'he' cuz I'm a lazy chauvinist) mentions 'premises'. It all hinges on the 1st NT so it is key. The first is that life is suffering or dissatisfaction, to put it bluntly. There's no way to view the situation, view life, where this is actually the case. Life is comprised of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize your immorality there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If you realize emptiness or your 'true nature' there's satisfaction and dissatisfaction. If we can see satisfaction as dissatisfaction then why can't we see it the other way around, or the way it actually appears to be?

So what, then, is the problem with individualism? — NOS4A2

In a word: responsibility. People like freedom but responsibility is a big bummer.

Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying. I didn't realize that you were only referring to Baker in the OP. Anyway, Baker's criticism is that the doctrine is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have an idea of what he means and don't disagree.

It's good to be in the small coalition of power in an autocracy but the people always do better in a democracy, I understand.

i was trying to point out that I see no rejection of Buddhism. — FrancisRay

I suspect that nothing would convince you otherwise. Am I right? Be honest.

in a society that aims to enforce diversity, the tensions that arise between groups holding different views tend to be more and more accentuated. — Apollodorus

On the other hand, Jim Crow laws, for example, didn't seem to ease the tensions in race relations very well. Perhaps those Southern Democrats weren't up to date on the latest political psychology journals.

Thanks, Isaac, that’s helpful.

Or perhaps beachgoers all jacked-up on ice cream swim more erratically and farther out to sea and the sharks don't sense the added sweeteners at all. Again, someone must do a study.

I don't know what the critter thing is about. You can safely drop me into the general 'animal lover' category though, though I'm not crazy about sharks.

Perhaps sharks are attracted to ice cream lovers for some as yet inexplicable reason. We just don't know. Someone needs to do a study.

if that someone has the statistics to back up his conclusion then his investigation can hardly be dismissed as "nonsense". — Apollodorus

I'm only familiar with MFT so my comments are limited to that theory. You re-quoted this from The Righteous Mind:

Conservatives react more strongly than liberals to signs of danger, including the threat of germs and contamination, and even low-level threats such as sudden blasts of white noise

This is pivotal to MFT?

I like the way Klein casually mentions "A virus isn’t just any threat, some researchers say. It is the threat at the root of these psychological cleavages." What researchers and how did they did they arrive at that conclusion?

My takeaway from MFT is that what separates us politically is mere social constructs and not particular traits or moral intuitions. Isn't everyone afraid of disease and death? Doesn't everyone value loyalty and fairness? Does being a member of tree-hugger clan mean that you have to think and act in a particular way? Sure, to be in good standing, but circumstances change and what it means to be a tree-hugger may change with it.

Is MFT even considered part of political psychology?

@Isaac

I think any 'traits' we identify are socially mediated constructions, not features of the psyche that can be 'discovered' by any experimental set-up. So the premise is flawed from the start, but this has been at issue for over twenty years, so the likes of Klein and Haidt are just being disingenuous pretending otherwise.
— Isaac

It’s been awhile since I read Righteous Minds but I seem to recall the ‘foundations’ being regarded as social constructs. Constructs that are based on moral intuitions that we all possess. You’re against this intuitionism? — praxis

I'm guessing that you're not comfortable with the term 'trait' because it may imply inborn and immutable qualities rather than something like ingrained habits or socially mediated conditioning? We each have particular conditioning or ingrained habits. I can't see how that's disputable.

Also, there are studies on moral intuition that experiment with babies, such as the following.



Going back to the stupid article that Maw referenced, it appeared to intentionally stress a flawed premise to try proving that the whole enterprise is weak in its explanatory or predictive power. From my understanding of it that premise is not stressed or pivotal to the theory.

It ain't on the top three list.

It's not nearly as much fun as listening to Miles Davis,
— FrancisRay

And then again, some of your responses come across as incredibly condescending. — T Clark

One of the many benefits of Zen and the art of 'getting it'.

The topic is an invitation to express our disillusionment with Buddhism and I too wish synth the best of luck with that endeavor.

Pretty evident that I find it stupid, but not worthless, however if you just wanted to get a quick hit-in-run dig to make you feel a little better about yourself I'd understand. — Maw

Laziness and self-indulgence are two of my worst traits.

I think any 'traits' we identify are socially mediated constructions, not features of the psyche that can be 'discovered' by any experimental set-up. So the premise is flawed from the start, but this has been at issue for over twenty years, so the likes of Klein and Haidt are just being disingenuous pretending otherwise. — Isaac

It’s been awhile since I read Righteous Minds but I seem to recall the ‘foundations’ being regarded as social constructs. Constructs that are based on moral intuitions that we all possess. You’re against this intuitionism?

Beating up a “stupid” article, what is it kill the scarecrow day where you live?

The article is worthless. I’m not just saying that because I find foundation theory compelling and given that you also find it worthless there’s no point in bothering to explain.

Well, as I say, we can't all be perfect. But have you read the article I referred to in my other post? I believe it confirms much of what I was saying.

“The Psychology of Politics: How does psychology make sense of the madness of politics?” It's from Psychology Today. — Apollodorus

I’ve only skimmed your posts, and from what I’ve read seem to be all over the place in a futile attempt to promote some ideology rather than seek the truth of the matter. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

The article appears to reference moral foundations theory, judging by the snippet you posted. That theory doesn’t support anything I’ve read from you.

The psycologization of politics is a cancer.
— StreetlightX

That was exactly my point. — Apollodorus

Great minds think alike!

It's claptrap that personalizes the political and bypasses questions of coalition building, consensus, material conditions, or systemic analysis. — StreetlightX

Out of your categories it would fit as part of 'systemic analysis', I believe, assuming that minds are part of the system.

Non-intellectual would be, well, literally non-intellectual. Even saying that something does and does not exist is unmistakably intellectual. It has purpose and meaning.

So you work for the Koch bros, @Isaac?

... the reduction of political ideology and attitudes to innate personality traits appeals to non-revolutionary types (i.e. non-Leftists/Socialists etc.) because existing political structures become justified based on "innate traits" and act as a barrier to structural change. — Maw

I can easily imagine this to be real but haven't seen it myself. In any case, it would be designed for a particular audience, an audience that is inclined to maintain the status quo, some because it's beneficial to them personally and others out of mere loyalty to the tribe.

At the hight of my involvement I could be found bowing before a Zen priest in the predawn twilight of an alleyway in Santa Monica. Him saying that I don't need to bow (habitual demonstrations of fealty come later). Though I liked him very much and enjoyed the ritual of it all, it was never really for me. I gradually learned, by myself, that meaning is all around us and within us. To be spoon fed is to be coddled like a child, and a coddled child never grows up.

non-intellectual (Zen does not exist and does not exist). — synthesis

Fixed that for ya.

Knowledge is Realisation. . . . — FrancisRay

I know a lot about Africa but have never been there and haven’t experienced it. For all I know it may not actually exist.
— praxis
Exactly. Knowledge is going there, — FrancisRay

??? I've never gone there. I have a lot of knowledge about Africa.

I don't know what you mean by 'grandiose view'. — FrancisRay

Exactly. There's nothing grand about it.

You can study the mind to explain behavior but you can't study the mind to explain the ends to which that behavior will be put ('behaviour' here being a weasel word meant to capture apparently literally any action at any scale in any circumstance, presumably). — StreetlightX

Behavior to distinguish between feeling or thought and action. For instance, abortion 'feels' wrong to me yet in behavior I support it. Or conversely, I might go to the auto mall intent on buying a safe family car, whatever that might be and because that best suites family needs, and pull into the driveway later with a sports car and various rationalizations for the purchase.

Studying the mind to help explain behavior sounds reasonable to this (me) moron.
— praxis

Well the promise of political psychology is more complex than that. What the OP and the book in question is describing here is a trait-based framework where personal traits such as "authoritarian" or "cooperation" or "openness to change" or "cosmopolitanism", "introversion-extroversion", "agreeableness", "curiosity" and a potpourri of other traits (and in the case of the book in question, narcissism) can explain or predict a person's political orientation, attitudes, or policy preferences. This is bunk. — Maw

Something of a strawman given that I think only Apollodorus takes that book seriously.

I was previously unaware (until fdrake's post above) that studies in openness correlating to progressive/conservative have been somewhat debunked, or rather that evidence shows one does not precede the other, and they may develop in tandem. I first learned of the correlation via Moral Foundations theory, which I find compelling.

Knowledge is Realisation. . . . — FrancisRay

I know a lot about Africa but have never been there and haven’t experienced it. For all I know it may not actually exist.

It's not sensible to have a shallow experience and then form views about how important it is. — FrancisRay

It’s sensible to have a grandiose view of something without any evidence of its grandiosity?

Generally speaking, Zen students are those who are the purists and wish to 'cut to the chase,' that is, if you get it (that meditation IS the path), what's the point of the rest? — synthesis

In a word, meaning. Now try to tell me that zen is meaningless, I haven’t had a good laugh yet today.

Oh to be young and innocent. — StreetlightX

Touché. I was really fishing to see how far our friend Apollo has gone down the rabbit hole, if he’s a Big Lie subscriber.

anyone who looks to psychology to explain politics is a moron — StreetlightX

Studying the mind to help explain behavior sounds reasonable to this (me) moron.

Many serious Zen students (including myself) do not consider themselves Buddhists. — synthesis

... because you don’t subscribe to its teachings, right?

Imagination fueled by paranoia, that's how. — Apollodorus

I’m far less paranoid since Trump was resoundingly rejected by the American people.

If a book is in a regular bookstore, it's on political psychology and has endorsements from psychology professors on the back cover, why the hell would you google the author? — Apollodorus

Oh to be young and innocent.

I'm glad you aren't a communist terrorist although these days one can never know. — Apollodorus

Frank is a Green Party terrorist and pelts people with fruits and vegetables, out of the psychotic belief that they need more fiber.

I have a brother who's two years my senior and who I grew up with. He was always resistant to new experiences and change, and is very much conservative. I'm the opposite.
— praxis

Perhaps older siblings tend to be more resistant to change. This would tend to support what I was saying. — Apollodorus

What you were saying is nonsensical but even if it were not I have another brother who is 10 years my senior and is very much progressive liberal, and at least as open to new experience and change as I am.

In any case, the book I'm reading has absolutely nothing in it about "Nazism", "Odinism" or "anti-semitism". What the author does in his spare time is his business. Maybe he acquired new interests after writing the book. I don't think that's a reason to ban it or try to suppress philosophical debate on a discussion forum. If anything, any such attempts can only serve to confirm the point he's making, i.e. that spurious "scientific" analysis is being used to suppress political opposition. — Apollodorus

Honestly, I thought the book was comedy until I looked it up, which confirmed that it's comedy.

I tend to think of an archetype as a recurring natural pattern. Something that may be recognized in literature but not coined by it. Baby-boomer is a term used to distinquish a particular generation, for the most part, and not even particularly categorical in nature. For instance, no one ever says things like, "Don't be such a baby-boomer."

A baby-boomer could be prototypical or stereotypical but there's no such archetype.