ME and I have sidetracked what was on-topic into political territory. So I'm moving that side discussion to Paradise.
I think the general premise of the thread still applies here.
ME and I have sidetracked what was on-topic into political territory. So I'm moving that side discussion to Paradise.
Before the Soviet Union we were we, and they were the Nazis and Japanese. My impression was that politicians who belong to the "greatest generation" tended to get along relatively well was because so many of them fought together in WWII. That may have been a high point for Congress functioning. Or a myth. Believe whatever narratives you prefer.
You aren't crazy if your dead father's ghost really does tell you to avenge his death.Symmachus wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 4:30 pmIt's obvious that this pathology manifest differently on each side, and that there is not a single one-to-one equivalency. But the left hand and the right hand are extensions of the same sick body, and the self-righteousness paranoia emanating from that body is the one the thing all Americans are united on. This thread starts out at realizing that there is something rotten in Denmark, but it quickly turns into a series of self-admiring apologia for Claudius because of the convenient and apparently comforting truth that Hamlet really is insane.
I think that is not entirely a myth, though it has taken on features of myth, with consequent distortions. The dysfunction of congress and much else in American government, in my view, has much more to do with structural changes, which in turn have had a warping effect on a disintegrating national culture. Americans had a very strong sense of shared national identity even before the Second World War. The kinds of rhetoric about American identity that we have seen since the late 60s and which have been loudly amplified in recent decades have been part of an overall erosion of American identity.Analytics wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 11:08 pmBefore the Soviet Union we were we, and they were the Nazis and Japanese. My impression was that politicians who belong to the "greatest generation" tended to get along relatively well was because so many of them fought together in WWII. That may have been a high point for Congress functioning. Or a myth. Believe whatever narratives you prefer.
Both can be true.
I don't see that that is actually what is happening. This isn't about politics primarily, though politics is where it is most readily on display and certainly policies can have distorting effect. People aren't self-segregating and choosing news sources that confirm their biases because they have passionate views on foreign policy or the marginal tax rate or health care reform. Even those issues are now framed culturally (for example, Democrats recently linking Middle Eastern politics to the identity politics—not my favorite descriptor, but it will have to do for now—of this country; Republicans do likewise with other issues).Analytics wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 11:08 pmThere are psychological and sociological reasons why people divide themselves up into us vs. them, and see virtue in us and malevolence in them. That's totally true. And our relatively mobile and semi-virtual universe allows an actual and virtual Great Sort to happen. We no longer have to get our news from the local paper and Walter Cronkite, and we no longer have to talk to our neighbors if they hold the wrong political views. And we don't even have to stay in that neighborhood if the political ads on their front lawns get too obnoxious. So we don't have to confront the reality of their views and can feel righteous indignation about the caricature we have of them.
Not the party but the primary voters and especially the donors. Campaign finance reform was a terrible idea. It has made the parties extremely weak by historical standards. Added to that, most voters aren't even responding to politicians; they are responding to networks. Fox News is much more powerful than the Republican party, as the so obviously liberal media establishments are much more powerful than the Democratic party, which is blurry-lined shadow of its former self. It was really something to see the New York Times interrogating the would-be nominees in the Democratic presidential race. Very instructive indeed.Analytics wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 11:08 pmAnd the problem is exasperated by a two-party system where too much power is controlled by the party itself. If you don't fall in line with your party's leader, the party will not support your legislative agenda or your reelection campaign. Your own party will punish you severely for doing anything other than falling in line.
You’re endorsing an approach towards people who view things differently from you that bypasses their own self-understanding and instead simply pathologists them and medicalises their perspective. This pseudo-science isn't worth taking seriously, sorry. Not merely on its own terms—this is hardly a clinically rigorous study, and "conservative" has a different meaning in the UK, especially back in 2011, and of course "conservative" and "liberal" are not objective terms anyway, nor is "fear" for that matter—but I have watched liberals obsessively scratching themselves in panic since Trump got elected. The pandemic response invalidates in my mind the very tired narrative liberals tell each other: conservatives are just scared of what is new, unlike we open-minded liberals. Uh huh. Sure. What happened to Kwaku's amygdala, by the way?Analytics wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 11:08 pmHaving gotten all that out of the way, let's return to the real issue--that They on the Right really are worse than Us on the Left. Quoting Psychology Today:
Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals.The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.
Again, complete lack of self-awareness here. You yourself have just posted a claim dressed up as science that the other side is suffering from a brain issue that leaves them in a state of fear, and you imply that they lack agency because they are manipulated by propagandists who play to their irrational fears—and you believe this is all just the objective reality that you, the analytical person, have approached rationally! Doesn't that strike you as an amazing coincidence to have found out that the people you disagree with are just crazy? You can now dismiss these humans as irrelevant. I would submit to you that the left has done an amazing job of demonizing their political opponents, because they have convinced you of all this to the point that you exhibit no skepticism and on this post at least no awareness of what a caricature you are presenting, not only of the other side but of your own—and you back it up with a link to a half-assed political project dressed in social science garb popularized in an online magazine. The New York Times knows how to play to their audience just as well as Fox news does. In fact, I think they are much better, because Fox News viewers know they are watching conservative news, but New York Times readers and NPR listeners think they are just being good citizens by getting their news-entertainment from respectable and supposedly reputable outlets: there is no wall in their mind between their own perceptions and reality. It reminds me of the old Soviet joke: What's the difference between a New York Times reader and a Pravda reader? The Pravda reader knows it's all bullsh!t.
Yes, again, only the propagandists on your side have a conscience. They only "make an effort" and "implement" something that you admit is propaganda? The whole snake-oil business of "fact-checking" is a lot more than "making an effort" but it is still propaganda.
See, you think you've got a real gotcha moment here that illustrates the depravity of the Right, when actually you just don't understand them. Sure, the strategy meant to whip up voters was a cheap simplification, as all campaigns are. But no amount messaging one way or the other would change the fact that conservative politicians and activists and conservatives who follow politics were opposed to that because they oppose the federalization of state programs on principle and (rightly) saw Obamacare as nudging the country towards a national health care system—which is exactly where the discussion has gone with "Medicare For All" (puzzling that Democrats don't tout Obamacare as a great success).Analytics wrote: ↑Thu May 27, 2021 11:08 pmThe best example of this is the right's reaction to Obamacare. The truth of the matter is that Obamacare had many shortcomings and weaknesses. It had major room for improvement. But still, its underlying premise was based upon Romneycare in Massachusetts, which in turn was based on a plan originally devised by the Heritage Foundation.
Did the Republicans in Congress make any constructive suggestions for improving a law that fundamentally was conservative in nature? No. Did they engage in honest debate about the law's merits? No. Did they offer any alternatives to the healthcare system? No.
Did they even try to understand the bill? No!
Instead, they hired Frank Luntz to conduct focus groups to scientifically determine what description of a complicated healthcare bill would be the scariest to average Americans. It turns out that calling Obamacare a "government takeover of the healthcare system" was scientifically proven to be the scariest thing they could say, despite the fact that this characterization had nothing to do with what Obamacare actually proposed. So Republicans at all levels and their pundits went on a 24/7 blitz of calling Obamacare a government takeover of healthcare.
YES! And, thank you.Symmachus wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 4:29 am
I will gladly beat up on Republicans, but the blind faith of this thread's many Democratic supporters in their own righteousness is reflective of this turn in the culture that we are all supposed to believe is about politics yet is manifesting itself as something that has the feeling of a religious dispute. I'm not saying that politics is religion or even that it has replaced it (though it clearly is gone!). I can't quite put my finger on it. It seems to me that, basically, there is a series of disruptions that have been happening more or less simultaneously if not in tandem, and they've also started to converge. These kinds of convergences don't resolve themselves gently.
Reminded me of this. I have not read the whole book. I enjoyed the audio sample and will get to it soon.
This may seem redundant to re-quote this summary twice again.Symmachus wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 4:29 am
I will gladly beat up on Republicans, but the blind faith of this thread's many Democratic supporters in their own righteousness is reflective of this turn in the culture that we are all supposed to believe is about politics yet is manifesting itself as something that has the feeling of a religious dispute. I'm not saying that politics is religion or even that it has replaced it (though it clearly is gone!). I can't quite put my finger on it. It seems to me that, basically, there is a series of disruptions that have been happening more or less simultaneously if not in tandem, and they've also started to converge. These kinds of convergences don't resolve themselves gently.
That's an interesting point, because I think I know what you mean—I sometimes dream about differential equations—but yet I still feel that "unnatural" fits. So of course it could just be that I'm not everyone and other people find math and natural science completely natural. But maybe the point is that "unnatural" needs some nuance.Lem wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 6:54 pmIf by "to human nature" you mean many or possibly even most humans, I would agree. But to say they are "alien to human nature" unfortunately seems to imply that a significant minority of humans are alien.Physics Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 6:02 pmMath and science are alien to human nature in a way that nothing in the humanities or social sciences is.
I apologize, I don’t think I was clear enough in my point. When you said:Physics Guy wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 6:27 pmIn some ways I feel at home and in other ways alien. Does this make more sense to you?
My response was more to indicate that elements of the humanities and social sciences may feel as alien for some as math and science do. It’s not a comment on human nature, however, but rather an indication of the almost infinite variety of humans within that nature. Your answer was a great example of what I meant, so in the end it seems we agree. Does this make more sense to you?Physics Guy wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 6:02 pmMath and science are alien to human nature in a way that nothing in the humanities or social sciences is.
Mayan elephant, I am puzzled enough to find these comments a real stumbling block to understanding your point. As you note victims do existbut I do not see democrats all thinking they are victims. I am a long term democrat liberal sort and do not think of myself as a victim, no good reason to. I have not heard liberal friends speaking about being victims or indicating that they think they are victims.. It appears possible that you are imaging crap going on in other peoples heads which is not actually there.Mayan Elephant wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 3:49 pm
This selfish conscientiousness has gone too damn far for too damn long and is now, however, anchored in self-victimization. The party and its supporters have positioned themselves as the only righteous victim. However, they cannot be pacified. It will never be enough. It will never be their fault. They are the only entitled clan and everyone must pay for the all the wrongnesses, both real and imagined.
I am not discounting real victimization. There are real victims of real atrocities. However, every g*damn democrat is not a real victim of the imagined crap they have going on their heads. And, every person that doesn't pacify their nonsense is not the culprit for the self-prescribed feelings of horror and threat that are spun into a feelings goulash by NPR, The NYT and the social media silos and algorithms.