On liberals and conservatives

[interchange]

In another thread, I posed this:

"The polarized versions of the liberal and conservative camps are in my mind 2 different solutions to the same conflict:
separation/dependence

The conservative side is more projective -- seeing others as threats and responsible for their own failures
The liberal side is more introjective -- taking on an exaggerated sense of controlling the external environment

Naturally, conspiracy theorists are going to align with the former. The latter is probably more polarized with extreme socialist/communist viewpoints.

Personally, I wish society better supported alternative compromises to the need for autonomy and the reality of dependence."

@Moonbeam suggested that this be discussed separately as not to hijack the original thread. Thus this posting.

I would further state that this is in my mind the most influential conflict which is satisfied by our political affiliations, but it is not the only one involved, and there are some people who have done well in this conflict which use political affiliation to primarily address other ones, but I think it is a significant minority.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

this seems to be more discussion oriented than p&n, imo, anyway.

 

[interchange]

If it needs to be moved, I don't mind.

 

[agent00f]

As I posted in the other thread, at least some of these categorizations are largely useless since a great deal of these words are culturally defined. Communism (or even socialism) is for example considered extreme but democracy is not, despite similar basis of justification.

 

[Moonbeam]

this seems to be more discussion oriented than p&n, imo, anyway.

Since his wish is to discuss the polarized versions of the liberal and conservative camps, and P & N is little more, in my opinion, anyway, a reflection of this, any attempt to explain or understand these differences belongs right here in this forum.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Since his wish is to discuss the polarized versions of the liberal and conservative camps, and P & N is little more, in my opinion, anyway, a reflection of this, any attempt to explain or understand these differences belongs right here in this forum.

you're right and it will devolve into a pissing contest at some point anyway.

 

[Moonbeam]

Unfortunately for me anyway, I have to get ready to make a long drive, or long for me. But....................

interchange: The polarized versions of the liberal and conservative camps are in my mind 2 different solutions to the same conflict:
separation/dependence.

M: I don't know much about that. What I see is 'two different means of adapting to traumatic childhood events', identification with the perpetrators, Stockholm syndrome, essentially, the conservative adaptation to authoritarianism and identification with the victim, rebellion against authority. These would seem to lead to a similar result as the two you suggested:

1. The conservative side is more projective -- seeing others as threats and responsible for their own failures
2. The liberal side is more introjective -- taking on an exaggerated sense of controlling the external environment

i: I would further state that this is in my mind the most influential conflict which is satisfied by our political affiliations,

M: I know the words but I do not know what you are saying with them. I do not know why I run constantly into this problem. I also do not know how to fix it if fix it is what is required. I get the feeling, and that is how I get most things, by feeling, that you are saying something in words that you may have formerly used to make concrete some abstract ideas and speak in shorthand by referencing these prior summaries. If that makes no sense, as it is doing just what it says, my shorthand version of what I have observed myself doing which confuses people, using words that I have used before to say this, maybe I can say that I feel you are using a language I am not familiar with. Anyway, the only thing I can say is to say it differently or add more context of examples.

i: but it is not the only one involved, and there are some people who have done well in this conflict which use political affiliation to primarily address other ones, but I think it is a significant minority.

M: Same issue for me here. I don't understand a conflict being influential and having no clear grasp of what that refers to I can't judge what is implied by it not being the only one so I can't figure out if it a significant minority or not.

By the way, I hope everything went well for your wife and I can extend congratulations on your being a new father of a healthy baby.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Doesn't really address social conservatives (external control of others' bodies), nor what happens when loss of self-control causes people to switch viewpoints rapidly (e.g. the economically laissez-faire period of Reconstruction up until the Great Depression, after which you had the most sudden swing to socialism in the nation's history). I agree that there are fundamental tenets that probably a lot of people hold whether or not they're even conscious of them, but I don't see an easy way to deconvolute politics and the mental states that cause them.

 

[interchange]

I don't know much about that. What I see is 'two different means of adapting to traumatic childhood events', identification with the perpetrators, Stockholm syndrome, essentially, the conservative adaptation to authoritarianism and identification with the victim, rebellion against authority. These would seem to lead to a similar result as the two you suggested

We are talking about the same thing. Your words seem less neutral than I prefer to be, which we could dive into, but we have to put a period on the end of every sentence so I'd be happy to say you understood me.

I know the words but I do not know what you are saying with them. I do not know why I run constantly into this problem. I also do not know how to fix it if fix it is what is required. I get the feeling, and that is how I get most things, by feeling, that you are saying something in words that you may have formerly used to make concrete some abstract ideas and speak in shorthand by referencing these prior summaries. If that makes no sense, as it is doing just what it says, my shorthand version of what I have observed myself doing which confuses people, using words that I have used before to say this, maybe I can say that I feel you are using a language I am not familiar with. Anyway, the only thing I can say is to say it differently or add more context of examples.

I try to speak in the most direct and neutral language I have, which I recognize is probably the farthest from understood by others. But we are operating on the same concept. It is my observation that general American culture is likeliest to produce the biggest struggles around this developmental task and thus require our biggest tools to work through. I believe you and I are two people who have much greater than capacity to think about the mental operations of ourselves and others, and also people who have had large enough struggles with this task that we are unsatisfied that any of our tools are sufficient to master it, even though, ironically, they are significantly more advanced than those who seem satisfied with it.

Same issue for me here. I don't understand a conflict being influential and having no clear grasp of what that refers to I can't judge what is implied by it not being the only one so I can't figure out if it a significant minority or not.

Perhaps not relevant. If some other idea of liberalism or conservativism comes up that doesn't fit our model, we'll tackle it then.

By the way, I hope everything went well for your wife and I can extend congratulations on your being a new father of a healthy baby.

Thanks! She and wife are doing great. My 2 year-old is, on the other hand, living this struggle and it is killing me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Doesn't really address social conservatives (external control of others' bodies), nor what happens when loss of self-control causes people to switch viewpoints rapidly (e.g. the economically laissez-faire period of Reconstruction up until the Great Depression, after which you had the most sudden swing to socialism in the nation's history). I agree that there are fundamental tenets that probably a lot of people hold whether or not they're even conscious of them, but I don't see an easy way to deconvolute politics and the mental states that cause them.

I would answer this by presenting a supposition that awareness is of two kinds, awareness of what one presumes one is aware of is and awareness of how one reacts to what that awareness. I theorize that the more one becomes conscious of how one reacts to ones awareness, the deeper that awareness grows and changes. Furthermore, I would suggest that the more deeply one becomes aware of what colors and molds the contents of what we are aware of, the more like what really is, our awareness becomes. I would also ask if that is so then is it possible to become so aware of what is that what one is aware of is awareness itself, what really is becomes what awareness itself, that the observer and the observed are one, that everything that is and the self are the same thing.

If so that one might put some value on learning how we work.

 

[interchange]

Doesn't really address social conservatives (external control of others' bodies), nor what happens when loss of self-control causes people to switch viewpoints rapidly (e.g. the economically laissez-faire period of Reconstruction up until the Great Depression, after which you had the most sudden swing to socialism in the nation's history). I agree that there are fundamental tenets that probably a lot of people hold whether or not they're even conscious of them, but I don't see an easy way to deconvolute politics and the mental states that cause them.

Oh God. Looking at all those variables would be indeed quite complicated.

Perhaps I should reframe my conditions: this is generally what I see in people who today identify strongly as either liberal or conservative.

The origins and merits of their policies, politicians, history thereof, change over long time scales and background of American culture over time... Wow that's too much.

 

[Moonbeam]

We are talking about the same thing. Your words seem less neutral than I prefer to be, which we could dive into, but we have to put a period on the end of every sentence so I'd be happy to say you understood me.



I try to speak in the most direct and neutral language I have, which I recognize is probably the farthest from understood by others. But we are operating on the same concept. It is my observation that general American culture is likeliest to produce the biggest struggles around this developmental task and thus require our biggest tools to work through. I believe you and I are two people who have much greater than capacity to think about the mental operations of ourselves and others, and also people who have had large enough struggles with this task that we are unsatisfied that any of our tools are sufficient to master it, even though, ironically, they are significantly more advanced than those who seem satisfied with it.



Perhaps not relevant. If some other idea of liberalism or conservativism comes up that doesn't fit our model, we'll tackle it then.



Thanks! She and wife are doing great. My 2 year-old is, on the other hand, living this struggle and it is killing me.

I will reply later when I have more time to the philosophical questions we are dealing with here but will say, since the matter of children is dear to my heart, just ad a few thoughts.

The great danger to children as I see it is that they mirror not who we think we are but who we really are and they do it by imitation, they act like we really are, the part of us that holds us in contempt, our self hate, and it can cause rage and retaliation. This is a major reason why I feel it is so important for us to understand that we feel the worst in the world so we know this feeling can be triggered and further that although we feel it is true, it isn't true at all. I would stress, therefore, how important it is to forgive others who sin because we feel full of it ourselves and to condemn others is therefore to condemn ourselves. We can't just yank out our feelings of self hate, but knowing they are there and anticipating what that will mean makes us less subject to unconscious impulse. As parents we are simply doomed to fuck us as far as I can tell so we have to do it with all the love that we can. Your kids are going to love and hate you but love is the one feeling that can never be taken. Later......God willing.

 

[agent00f]

Oh God. Looking at all those variables would be indeed quite complicated.

Perhaps I should reframe my conditions: this is generally what I see in people who today identify strongly as either liberal or conservative.

The origins and merits of their policies, politicians, history thereof, change over long time scales and background of American culture over time... Wow that's too much.

It's simply a matter of definition that conservatism looks to the past and tradition, and liberalism to the future and progress. The words are defined that way in english & western languages in general and america is hardly the first country in town.

It just so happens that our specific past is the 50's or before, vs. the slow march of progress towards egalitarian society over the last century.

As to why some prefer tradition and some progress, it makes sense that some heterogeneous mix of attitudes was advantageous to the survival of human groups, not unlike differentiated behavior in other pack animals. The mistake here is trying to hit everything like a nail when one is motivated to use a hammer psychoanalysis. The crux of evolution behavior isn't individual motive but caused certain systemic features to remain alive.

 

[interchange]

The mistake here is trying to hit everything like a nail when one is motivated to use a hammer psychoanalysis. The crux of evolution behavior isn't individual motive but caused certain systemic features to remain alive.

I am not a politician. I am a person posting musings on an internet message board about as far removed from actual political influence as I can imagine. You seem hostile toward my approach at exploration.

And I am not asking here to answer why the human mind has evolved to have the mechanisms it does. I am wondering, quite simply, in the very here and now, what lies just beneath what we can easily see that motivates us to choose the sides we have chosen.

 

[agent00f]

I am not a politician. I am a person posting musings on an internet message board about as far removed from actual political influence as I can imagine. You seem hostile toward my approach at exploration.

And I am not asking here to answer why the human mind has evolved to have the mechanisms it does. I am wondering, quite simply, in the very here and now, what lies just beneath what we can easily see that motivates us to choose the sides we have chosen.

I'm just pointing out that human biology is the way it is as a result of some process, and therefore it's critical to understand that process to build an accurate view of what we are from first principles. It's also important to collect wide ranging empirical data, like that over history, to generalize then verify any insight previously procured, so that what results are improvements over rhetorical guesses.

The first process reveals that just like other pack animals some biological proclivity to varying roles is common. And history tells us that that there tends to be traditionalists vs the progressive minded. Numerous (rather clever) minds in the past have also noticed this, like Hegel's dialectical treatment of the very issue, arguably influential enough to have changed history itself.

Just as in any other field/endeavor, not much is possible without some sense of the existing milieu and hopefully appending to it what we can. It's certainly possible there's some inadequacy of existing understanding that can filled by whatever psychological insight, but the object of study here doesn't exactly rest in a vacuum. In short, the first order of business for any upstart theorizing is what does this explain that cannot be with preexisting methods of inquiry, which were just laid before you.

 

[lopri]

It is an odd diagnosis that childhood trauma plays such a decisive role on one's ideological bent. How does that square with the fact that liberals dominate urban areas and conservatives rural areas? How about economic status? Education?

Furthermore, (traumatic) experiences that change one's ideological views are not limited to childhood. Those who served in military and fought in war, those who have found God in their adulthood, those who have suffered life-threatening illness, those who migrated to different country for whatever reason, etc. may form different worldviews from the ones they had prior to the aforementioned events.

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f: It's simply a matter of definition that conservatism looks to the past and tradition, and liberalism to the future and progress. The words are defined that way in english & western languages in general and america is hardly the first country in town.

M: You addressed this to interchange but it looks like a continuation of arguments you were making against mine in another thread so I will address the problems I have with your points:

To say this is simply a matter of definition says nothing. We all know that liberal and conservative represent mental states that have been present in history for a long time. They have been identified and named for that reason. What the names are doesn't matter. The important thing is that tha mental states are real and open to analysis and scrutiny. So you are saying something that is both true but has nothing to do with the discussion that I can see.

a: It just so happens that our specific past is the 50's or before, vs. the slow march of progress towards egalitarian society over the last century.

M: yes and so what?

a: As to why some prefer tradition and some progress, it makes sense that some heterogeneous mix of attitudes was advantageous to the survival of human groups, not unlike differentiated behavior in other pack animals.

M: So true but so what. This is the reason it would be good if there were more understanding that might bridge the conservative liberal divide, That fact, however, yield no insight into why some go liberal and sone go conservative. It tells us there are evolutionary benefits down each road but not why we are on the path we are on.

a: The mistake here is trying to hit everything like a nail when one is motivated to use a hammer psychoanalysis. The crux of evolution behavior isn't individual motive but caused certain systemic features to remain alive.

M: There is no mistake being made as you describe. We know what remains alive and why. I am interested in understanding if self awareness of how liberal or conservative responses are triggered can lead to better decision making. I find it dangerous to be driven psychotic by every reference to some fantastical terror or caught unawares in a state of blissful high-minded indifference. You seem to me to be doing the latter, fencing away the job of understanding your own individual motivations via a screen of endless argumentation.

 

[Knowing]

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Debate-Edmund-Burke-Thomas/dp/0465050972

Here you go.

Also this:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00CCGF81Q?ref_=dbs_s_w_srch_l_p1_1&storeType=ebooks

A left / right dichotomy is unreasonably simplistic.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is an odd diagnosis that childhood trauma plays such a decisive role on one's ideological bent. How does that square with the fact that liberals dominate urban areas and conservatives rural areas? How about economic status? Education?

Furthermore, (traumatic) experiences that change one's ideological views are not limited to childhood. Those who served in military and fought in war, those who have found God in their adulthood, those who have suffered life-threatening illness, those who migrated to different country for whatever reason, etc. may form different worldviews from the ones they had prior to the aforementioned events.

I hope any oddness you see is more apparent than real. In part I am arguing a psychological origin to c/l differences because I thing there is a strong temptation to assume party affiliation might be genetically determined with all the hopelessness that determined fate implies.

My guess is that because of the great plasticity of the brain, the brain develops or changes according to which neurons fire and strengthen and multiply or atrophy from disuse. I think all of the things you suggest are reasons for hope, that our fate isn't fixed.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f: It's simply a matter of definition that conservatism looks to the past and tradition, and liberalism to the future and progress. The words are defined that way in english & western languages in general and america is hardly the first country in town.

M: You addressed this to interchange but it looks like a continuation of arguments you were making against mine in another thread so I will address the problems I have with your points:

To say this is simply a matter of definition says nothing. We all know that liberal and conservative represent mental states that have been present in history for a long time. They have been identified and named for that reason. What the names are doesn't matter. The important thing is that tha mental states are real and open to analysis and scrutiny. So you are saying something that is both true but has nothing to do with the discussion that I can see.

The point is the linguistic definitions mirror historical phenomena and far predate the american experience. This suggests that analyzing only the particulars of our case misses out on all other data, not unlike only looking under a particular lamppost for your keys in broad daylight. My subsequent further post clarifies why looking at psychology in lieu of everything else further expands this analogy to key which others have located using more effective methods than mental divination. And my previous posts on the explain how humans are motivated to seek anthropomorphic/personal explanations for phenomena however much beyond ourselves.

a: It just so happens that our specific past is the 50's or before, vs. the slow march of progress towards egalitarian society over the last century.

M: yes and so what?

It's an explanation for the observed phenomena which doesn't require psychoanalytics. Much like explanation of lion pack behavior in a zoo also doesn't.

a: As to why some prefer tradition and some progress, it makes sense that some heterogeneous mix of attitudes was advantageous to the survival of human groups, not unlike differentiated behavior in other pack animals.

M: So true but so what. This is the reason it would be good if there were more understanding that might bridge the conservative liberal divide, That fact, however, yield no insight into why some go liberal and sone go conservative. It tells us there are evolutionary benefits down each road but not why we are on the path we are on.

Why does biological expression need a psych explanation? How about why certain people are religious, when it's plainly visible that it's a cultural habit which is largely passed down from parent to child. A similar lineage exists for politics, but clearly not nearly as strong since political affiliation isn't quite as captive as history demonstrates.

Now it's certainly possible there is some psychological component, but despite what psychologists like to believe humans are still largely biological creatures with a psychological component called ego which likes to believe we're better than we are.

a: The mistake here is trying to hit everything like a nail when one is motivated to use a hammer psychoanalysis. The crux of evolution behavior isn't individual motive but caused certain systemic features to remain alive.

M: There is no mistake being made as you describe. We know what remains alive and why. I am interested in understanding if self awareness of how liberal or conservative responses are triggered can lead to better decision making. I find it dangerous to be driven psychotic by every reference to some fantastical terror or caught unawares in a state of blissful high-minded indifference. You seem to me to be doing the latter, fencing away the job of understanding your own individual motivations via a screen of endless argumentation.

I've seen you experiment in a sense on the various conservatives on this forum. The only strategy which seems to work well is domination, the big-sentence authority putting people in their place. Really not so far displaced from the safari, whose inhabitants you know better than to psychoanalyze.

 

[interchange]

Now it's certainly possible there is some psychological component, but despite what psychologists like to believe humans are still largely biological creatures with a psychological component called ego which likes to believe we're better than we are.

Firstly, you have created a false dichotomy between biology and mind.

Secondly, your observation of the ego in my view is very limited.

However, limited or no, how could you make such an observation and then declare that such a thing is irrelevant to the discussion of why our politics are what they are? Such a thing is absurdly contradictory.

 

[agent00f]

Firstly, you have created a false dichotomy between biology and mind.

Well, given one is science-ish based on some evidence and the other is mostly anthropomorphic rhetoric so I would say there's some difference.

Secondly, your observation of the ego in my view is very limited.

However, limited or no, how could you make such an observation and then declare that such a thing is irrelevant to the discussion of why our politics are what they are? Such a thing is absurdly contradictory.

It's pretty evident that our go-to explanations for everything involve human attributes, including that for the sun and moon or such before telescopes & whatnot came along. So you can understand my reluctance to depend on similar first pass for something as complicated as the brain.

 

[interchange]

Well, given one is science-ish based on some evidence and the other is mostly anthropomorphic rhetoric so I would say there's some difference.

It's pretty evident that our go-to explanations for everything involve human attributes, including that for the sun and moon or such before telescopes & whatnot came along. So you can understand my reluctance to depend on similar first pass for something as complicated as the brain.

I will help you construct an argument:

1. What we know about the brain that constitutes "good science" is inadequate to explain what we observe about human life.
2. Other attempts at understanding them come from our observations of ourself. One collection of general theories of mind are commonly applied and developed through something called psychoanalysis.
3. You hold these invalid because they are not based on "good science"
4. You seem to more ambivalent about the importance of mind (that which is currently unexplainable by "good science") toward our discussion. You are making arguments that such a thing is irrelevant to this discussion, yet you are also making arguments that are quite contradictory to that, such as an observation that human beings hold ourselves to be better than we are, and that if we encounter something for which we do not have "good science" to prove, we use what we know of ourselves to explain it.

Where politics, therefore, deviates from "good science", then it is by this definition precisely a result of the operations of our minds. I do not see very much "good science" when it comes to politics.

Separately, there is a question of validity of the framework of mind I am stating. I agree it could never be rigorously defended. Except, it seems we both agree that no such theories could ever be rigorously defended.

Herein lies the question: can our theories of mind, though by definition flawed, do better than no theory of mind?

 

[glenn1]

In another thread, I posed this:

"The polarized versions of the liberal and conservative camps are in my mind 2 different solutions to the same conflict:
separation/dependence

The conservative side is more projective -- seeing others as threats and responsible for their own failures
The liberal side is more introjective -- taking on an exaggerated sense of controlling the external environment

Naturally, conspiracy theorists are going to align with the former. The latter is probably more polarized with extreme socialist/communist viewpoints.

Personally, I wish society better supported alternative compromises to the need for autonomy and the reality of dependence."

@Moonbeam suggested that this be discussed separately as not to hijack the original thread. Thus this posting.

I would further state that this is in my mind the most influential conflict which is satisfied by our political affiliations, but it is not the only one involved, and there are some people who have done well in this conflict which use political affiliation to primarily address other ones, but I think it is a significant minority.

When it comes to economics it's probably the reverse - liberals tend to see a vast conspiracy of evil rich people from whom the "little guy' needs protection, to be provided by those same liberals of course. Another important dividing line is whether the person prizes fairness of process or fairness of results.

 

[interchange]

When it comes to economics it's probably the reverse - liberals tend to see a vast conspiracy of evil rich people from whom the "little guy' needs protection, to be provided by those same liberals of course. Another important dividing line is whether the person prizes fairness of process or fairness of results.

Very fair point. Both are projective.

I am wondering, though, in this if one projection is a greater distortion of reality than another. I think so.