That just describes other lucrative, but bullshit industries such as economics, evolutionary psychology, neuromarketing, etc. How much do you think Larry Summer gets paid despite constantly being wrong? Either way, what's the problem? You get paid good money from clueless individuals or corporations to produce nonsense. I think that's great. — Maw

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

As I said, I wasn't discussing the matter seriously. It's like trying to have a serious discussion with a child about the virtues of bedtime. I get it, you hate reductionist and evolutionary psychology - what's not to hate. The idea that us poor psychologists are too anal (ref), to think about their models in terms of the ecologies and environmental networks within which they're embedded would be naive if it wasn't in this case rather just a cliched Danish Gambit.

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.

Are you making a distinction between being aware of the other side’s argument,and understanding that argument in the way that they intend it? Or are you assuming that to parrot back to the other their talking posts is equivalent to sharing thr other’s interpretation of the meaning of the political stance? Are opposite sides in today’s polarized political scene misreading each other, or reading each other accurately and disagreeing about other issues (namely moral stance and motivation) ? — Joshs

I don't really think either apply. It's pretty clear that the arguments put forward by either side are moves in the rhetorical game, so I think if one were to 'understand' their intentions the only understanding to be had would be of the expected impact the argument would have, rather than anything much relating to deeper intentions. There's understanding how the other side functions, and how their belief systems evolve, and then there's the arguments they put forth. I don't see any reason to believe the two are the same.

But let's assume they are for a second. What would it take for you to feel content that side A had 'understood' side B? As I (and the rest of my profession) have but recently learnt from reading Streelight's post, side B's 'understanding' would only ever be a state of their network, it's not like it could ever be some kind of photograph of side A's True Position.

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.

Personally, I tend to believe that society must urgently depoliticize itself and start taking a more holistic view of itself and of its problems. The interests of the whole, not of political factions or special interest groups must be made the primary concern. — Apollodorus

I disagree.

You cannot depoliticize the society. People simply disagree. That is human nature. Yet even if we disagree, we can make things together.

In a republic, politics has to function, democracy has to work. A representative system is the only way when the society is comprised of million of people. If you had the near perfect society, lot of people would disagree with the idea that it is perfect and have different opinions how to make it better. At the community level or in a mini-state, direct democracy can work.

When we simply accept that a) totally sane and intelligent people can have totally opposite views to what we consider sane and intelligent and that in the end b) voters are informed and intelligent enough for elections to guide the representative system, democracy will prevail. If we think that people can "vote wrong" or worse, that a large part of our fellow citizens represent a danger to the society, then we are in perilous waters.

Both leftist and right-wing populism tries to create a juxtaposition between "us" and "them" and seek basically to dehumanize the other side as the culprit of all problems in the society. Things don't deteriorate because nobody does anything and people let problems to grow bigger: the idea is that some people are on purpose creating the problems. With classic Marxism it's obvious with talking about the class-enemy, but the far right is totally on board with similar rhetoric, just with different culprits and scapegoats. It is the political extremes who see politics literally as a battlefield where the other side is the enemy.

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

Funny enough, it looks like it's others who keep talking about it.

Judging from those quotes, the stance is also old, and tired. Nothing new there. — Ciceronianus the White

Why create something new, when the old still works?

Just wait for a new generation to come around, and then repeat the old dogmas. They are new ideas again, because nothing ever happened before me!

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

You can find this type of reasoning in a plethora of books, from reactionaries to liberals. The article that @fdrake supplied "raises concerns about a core/critical assumption in the literature" vis-a-vis "personality causally preceding political ideology", so this isn't my own pet qualm or strawman. To @StreetlightX's point, 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.

It seems to me you're reacting against the latter, individualistic "mental traits determine political activity/ belief/affiliation" belief, and not necessarily the idea that political ideologies and psychometric quantities can covary. — fdrake

or rather that evidence shows one does not precede the other, and they may develop in tandem. — praxis

This doesn't seem to be any more interesting, causal, or explanatory than any other preferences or attitudes that develop/form over time, such as personality and music preference, personality and hobby preference, political attitudes and literature preferences, or whatever other combinations.

It is the political extremes who see politics literally as a battlefield where the other side is the enemy. — ssu

The extremes inspire, influence or manipulate and mobilize the mainstream. And political parties do conduct their election campaigns like military operations on an ideological battlefield, not just the extremist factions within them.

Don't forget that political parties started off as small (radical) groups that overtime won the support of large sections of society through propaganda of all shades, etc.

This brings us to the other thing which is that the polarization started with the left who rose in opposition to the status quo. Without the left's opposition, there'd have been no polarization. So, the issue of how the polarization came into being is another aspect to the problem that needs looking into.

Both leftist and right-wing populism tries to create a juxtaposition between "us" and "them" and seek basically to dehumanize the other side as the culprit of all problems in the society. Things don't deteriorate because nobody does anything and people let problems to grow bigger: the idea is that some people are on purpose creating the problems. With classic Marxism it's obvious with talking about the class-enemy, but the far right is totally on board with similar rhetoric, just with different culprits and scapegoats. It is the political extremes who see politics literally as a battlefield where the other side is the enemy.

That’s one of the frightening aspects of identity politics: the corresponding reactionary identity politics that is almost certainly to follow. Neither side can prevail until the other is vanquished.

Permanence is slow change. — Fooloso4

No it isn't. That's not the definition of permanence.

Neither side can prevail until the other is vanquished. — NOS4A2

Correct. Politics is about accumulating as much power as possible just like others accumulate wealth. Once one side has become dominant there is nothing to prevent it from exterminating the opposition. It's happened many times throughout history and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

... 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.

Permanence is slow change.
— Fooloso4

No it isn't. That's not the definition of permanence. — Apollodorus

Can you give me an example of something that never undergoes any change?

By the way, the larger context of my comment is in reference to Heraclitus and flux. Some here may have picked up on it, obviously you have not.

In any case, it would be designed for a particular audience, an audience that is inclined to maintain the status quo. — praxis

Well perhaps @Isaac could clue us in as to who signs his paycheck

So you work for the Koch bros, @Isaac?

Can you give me an example of something that never undergoes any change?

By the way, the larger context of my comment is in reference to Heraclitus and flux. Some here may have picked up on it, obviously you have not. — Fooloso4

Well, your context must have been so large as to have no bearing on the permanence I was referring to in the topic. The normal meaning of permanent is "lasting (for a long time)". It doesn't need to be everlasting in the absolute sense. That's why we've got phrases like "permanent ink", "permanent scar", etc. It isn't eternity we're talking about here.

But Marxists are always right, so you can relax.

The normal meaning of permanent is "lasting (for a long time)". — Apollodorus

If you go back to my earlier comments you will see that I already addressed this. For example, the Constitution and amendments. It does not last unchanged.

But Marxists are always right, so you can relax. — Apollodorus

I am not a Marxist. Far from it. How about focusing on what I and others actually say rather than labeling us and attacking the label?

How about focusing on what I and others actually say rather than labeling us and attacking the label? — Fooloso4

That's exactly what I'm saying. It wasn't me who started the labeling. And the topic wasn't about Heraclitus, though you may have missed that point in your zeal.

And why are you upset for being called a Marxist? Surely that ought to be a compliment?

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

More than this too: is allows liberals and others to ignore any substantive engagement with issues. Why take seriously questions of poverty or corruption or tax when "oh you believe X because of personality trait Y". It's claptrap that personalizes the political and bypasses questions of coalition building, consensus, material conditions, or systemic analysis. It takes the political out of politics. Which is a wonderful relief for these people who now have to no longer think about any of this stuff and they can leave it to medical journals to ask about why the poor are complaining so much about wage theft or some such. The psycologization of politics is a cancer.

I am not interested in your petty bickering.

Did I give any indication that I am upset by being called a Marxist? It is simply that your insult ("But Marxists are always right, so you can relax.") missed the mark.

If you have anything substantive to discuss I will respond but I will no longer abide the petulant attacks on me. And before responding that I have done the same, read through my posts and separate them from what others may have said.

As I said, I didn't mean to upset you. I've only been on here a few days not many years like yourself. I thought you were part of the hit squad that was labeling, attacking, and trying to ban me from the forum for starting the discussion. And I don't think "Marxist" is an insult. On the contrary, as Marxists are knowledgeable people like Marx, Lenin and Mao, I was trying to pay you a compliment. I didn't know much about Marxism before joining this forum but now I'm learning quite a lot. I quite like the impeccable and skillful manner in which you're presenting your arguments and I thought I must learn something from you while I can

trying to ban me from the forum — Apollodorus

We are not going ban you just for mentioning a book by a fascist scumbag. I expect it was unintentional. I’ve removed the name and title from the OP. The topic of discussion is fine. Try to steer clear of neo-nazi resources in future though as you might be misinterpreted.

The psycologization of politics is a cancer. — StreetlightX

That was exactly my point. Society is being politicized and politics is being psychologized. If it carries on like this we'll end up with a society in which half the population are "paranoid schizophrenics" or "psychopaths" and the other half psychiatrists, a bit like in the Soviet Union.

Then maybe you can stop the others from constantly mentioning the book, too. Thanks.

the arguments put forward by either side are moves in the rhetorical game, — Isaac

What would it take for you to feel content that side A had 'understood' side B? — Isaac

side B's 'understanding' would only ever be a state of their network, it's not like it could ever be some kind of photograph of side A's True Position. — Isaac

I agree that side A can never have a ‘true picture’ of side B. But I begin from the belief that , at least in the U.S., side A and B inhabit different universes of thought. don’t think there is a single rhetorical game, but different games played in parallel universes.

Furthermore, these universes tie together and inform a multitude of specific political positions: gun control , climate change , views about covid danger and mask wearing , abortion, death penalty , immigration , terrorism, identity and gender politics, patriotism, economics, religion. A traditional worldview can justify the seeming paradox of protecting the newborn but favoring gun ownership and the death penalty, of not tolerating any ambiguity or complexity in one’s sciences.

So what can ‘understanding’ accomplish if not a fusion of outlook between A and B? It can allow side A to see
the logic of side B’s positron from their vantage even when side A continues to prefer their own viewpoint.
To succeed at this means to no longer have to delegitimize B’s thinking. What fuels today’s polarizing political scene is not simply that the opponents see the world differently , it’s that they cannot fathom how one could in good conscience hold the views of the opposing side. This leaves only delegitimizing explanations for the
other’s behavior. For instance, their reasoning can be faulted. The are all crazy, or looney, as the OP said. The other option is to impute their values. The dont really believe that what they are doing is is the best interest of everyone, this is just an excuse to cover up nefarious motives, like greed and lust for power.


To understand the other side in their terms is to recognize not only the legitimate moral righteousness that informs it l, but to be prepared for the possibility that they will be unable to recognize your own position in such morally neutral terms.
Thus, this kind of understanding of the other doesn’t have as its goal the aim of persuading them to adopt your position, knowing that they may see this as a betrayal of their values. Its advantage is to protect you from reacting violently, punitively, condemningly, toward the other.

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.

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.

“The Psychology of Politics: How does psychology make sense of the madness of politics?”

By Lisa J Cohen, Psychology Today

“The extensive media coverage of politicians' lives provides ample opportunity for clinicians to make inferences about politicians' psychological traits. Notably, the conclusions that different clinicians draw are quite similar. One of the most common traits that clinicians talk about is that of narcissism […] Interestingly, attitudes toward the 5 categories of moral concerns[1] may also influence political beliefs. In other words, political conservatives and liberals may emphasize different categories of moral instincts from one another […] This study helps us understand why people with equally strong moral convictions may vehemently disagree on political issues such as abortion, capital punishment and flag burning.

1. Harm/care, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, Purity/sanctity, and Fairness/reciprocity.

So, politics does have something to do with psychology after all, But it takes a "philosophy forum" to deny it ...

Here's another interesting piece from Live Science;

Firstborn Siblings Are More Conservative, New Study Finds

And, of course, we all know how the media has been branding its political opponent Donald Trump as suffering from some "narcissistic personality disorder".

I don’t think the application of psychological models to politics is without merit , but it depends which ones. What you’re citing here, trait and birth order theories of personality , are the kind of reductive accounts that I think are not only unhelpful but dangerous.They give us a justification for dismissing the thinking processes that others use to generate their political beliefs and instead attributing their beliefs to simplistic unconscious causes. Personality traits are only background contributors. They don’t create political values.