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
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
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
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
I disagree.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
Something of a strawman given that I think only Apollodorus takes that book seriously — praxis
Why create something new, when the old still works?Judging from those quotes, the stance is also old, and tired. Nothing new there. — Ciceronianus the White
Something of a strawman given that I think only Apollodorus takes that book seriously. — praxis
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
It is the political extremes who see politics literally as a battlefield where the other side is the enemy. — ssu
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.
Permanence is slow change. — Fooloso4
Neither side can prevail until the other is vanquished. — NOS4A2
... 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
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. — Fooloso4
The normal meaning of permanent is "lasting (for a long time)". — Apollodorus
But Marxists are always right, so you can relax. — Apollodorus
How about focusing on what I and others actually say rather than labeling us and attacking the label? — Fooloso4
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
trying to ban me from the forum — Apollodorus
The psycologization of politics is a cancer. — StreetlightX
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
The psycologization of politics is a cancer.
— StreetlightX
That was exactly my point. — Apollodorus
It's claptrap that personalizes the political and bypasses questions of coalition building, consensus, material conditions, or systemic analysis. — StreetlightX
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.