Maw is entirely right and anyone who looks to psychology to explain politics is a moron. — StreetlightX
You're welcome. — StreetlightX
There are highly paid economists too, so... :wink:But hell, I'm paid an awful lot of money for my moronic guesswork so at least I've got something to cushion the blow... it's a wonder there's not more astrology consultants in the courts, corporations and civil service, they too could benefit from whatever mass deception I've inadvertently manged to weave. — Isaac
Though one wonders whom it is we should be consulting in matters of economics, psychology, or sociology. Roll dice presumably... — Isaac
I do not need to see the book to find out who the author is. I am not accusing you of anything. I am simply pointing to what has been said about him. — Fooloso4
To be clear, any attempt to psychologically map out an explanation for why and how conservatives and liberals or whatever political appellation believe what they believe is nonsense. It's about as vague as astrology and just as predictive. — Maw
Is that why they are trying to suppress discussion by attacking people and calling them names??? — Apollodorus
Is that why they are trying to suppress discussion by attacking people and calling them names??? — Apollodorus
The Left, laid bare of its ideological façade wrapped about by theories on economics and sociology, is simply a means of dragging humanity down to the lowest denominator in the name of ‘equality’.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery’.
Done with a different attitude, using psychology can perhaps be useful. — ssu
It's worth noting that all sorts of things have been tradition at some point or another. Female genital mutilation, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, inter cousin marriage, prescribed royal incest, etc. Sometimes going against the flow and being loony for they times isn't a bad idea. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Well, you are accusing me by implication: — Apollodorus
If the author was a far-left Marxist or Stalinist, would your argument be the same? — Apollodorus
I doubt that. But hell, I'm paid an awful lot of money for my moronic guesswork so at least I've got something to cushion the blow... it's a wonder there's not more astrology consultants in the courts, corporations and civil service, they too could benefit from whatever mass deception I've inadvertently manged to weave. — Isaac
Not at all. It may be vague in general outline but less so once you've looked into the more detailed facts of it. Most scientific theories start off about "as vague as astrology and just as predictive". If we dismissed everything before even considering or discussing it there would be no science.
Trial, error, modification, refining, certainty, that's how thought and knowledge progresses. But it often starts with a "vague" suggestion or proposition. — Apollodorus
Oh yes. Wonder how would Nietzsche do here. — ssu
Without having read the book (and it doesn't seem interesting), but by just looking at the quotes from the book, the vitriolic stance is quite evident. — ssu
Oh to be young and innocent. — StreetlightX
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. — praxis
Studying the mind to help explain behavior — praxis
Politics is an ecological phenomenon first and foremost, and the idea that it is built up of units of psychologies - as it were - is to completely misunderstand both the mind and politics. — StreetlightX
One has to recognize a certain normative autonomy of organism-environment functioning that doesn’t just treat political action as arising out of an anonymous plural’we’. — Joshs
Are there situations in which you think either side remain unaware of the arguments of the other, despite the mudslinging. It seems unlikely to me that if one were to ask a right wing political science graduate or economist what the arguments of their left wing counterparts are, they would be unable to answer. Most are quite conversant with the arguments of the other. — Isaac
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.