The Red-Blue Happiness Gap

[Moonbeam]

The Red-Blue Happiness Gap

Is the liberal focus on individual powerlessness and trauma undercutting our own political efficacy?

jill.substack.com

When I read pieces like the above I do not feel so alone. I think this article covers the kinds of topics that have become of interest to me reading P & N. I see the same weaknesses in conservative and liberal thinking that the author and those she quotes are addressing.

And the whole focus of my effort to describe self hate as the source of our sense of victimization and rage is my effort to evolve resilience. We do not have to be who we were made to feel we are because of the possibility of dealing with trauma in healthy ways. But before any are willing to attempt to change they must first be inspired by that need. One way to increase need is to face the hopelessness of staying on course when headed for a cliff. Hope the article is of interest to you.

 

[dank69]

The Red-Blue Happiness Gap

Is the liberal focus on individual powerlessness and trauma undercutting our own political efficacy?

jill.substack.com

When I read pieces like the above I do not feel so alone. I think this article covers the kinds of topics that have become of interest to me reading P & N. I see the same weaknesses in conservative and liberal thinking that the author and those she quotes are addressing.

And the whole focus of my effort to describe self hate as the source of our sense of victimization and rage is my effort to evolve resilience. We do not have to be who we were made to feel we are because of the possibility of dealing with trauma in healthy ways. But before any are willing to attempt to change they must first be inspired by that need. One way to increase need is to face the hopelessness of staying on course when headed for a cliff. Hope the article is of interest to you.

Dealing with trauma in healthy ways can become enabling victimization to continue if a person is not careful.

Got to the second paragraph before the author went way wrong:
"left shift away from a belief in just about any individual control over one’s life"

Straw man already. That is a misguided conservative interpretation of the policy position of the left.

Additionally, in the first paragraph she argues conservatives are happy with the way things are. Except they aren't happy. They are raging enough to attack our government and to block traffic to protest mandates that have already been lifted. You know why? Because you can't stop change. The world changes exponentially every day, and they are fucking terrified of it.

Not reading further. Feel free to quote portions you think are important that are not wrong.

 

[sdifox]

Err the conservatives are getting their way, why wouldn't they be happier?

 

[K1052]

Err the conservatives are getting their way, why wouldn't they be happier?

In my experience that actually makes them feel worse and be even more combative.

 

[fskimospy]

Article seems based on the straw man that liberals believe everything or almost everything is based on system and circumstances. I would agree that liberals see systems and circumstances as significantly more important than conservatives but the idea that this article puts forth that liberals view everyone as beings without agency, trapped in our circumstances is nonsense, which is probably why she cites exactly zero evidence in support of this foundational point.

 

[Moonbeam]

Article seems based on the straw man that liberals believe everything or almost everything is based on system and circumstances. I would agree that liberals see systems and circumstances as significantly more important than conservatives but the idea that this article puts forth that liberals view everyone as beings without agency, trapped in our circumstances is nonsense, which is probably why she cites exactly zero evidence in support of this foundational point.

I thought the article was based on the idea that some people handle trauma better than others and that the psychological awareness of that fact deserves more attention on the right and the left where, on the liberal side, where that resilience is lacking, a less than rational response manifests, namely the idea that free speech causes harm and so should not be permitted in the opinion of those it triggers who lacking the resilience to deal with it.

The defensiveness of liberals on this point is in my opinion pretty profound but I thought the author did an accurate job.

So no, she didn’t say all liberals are that way, but the ones who lack a specific mental attitude that they control their destiny are. She clarifies that attitudinal difference with more and better words than I just did.

 

[dank69]

I thought the article was based on the idea that some people handle trauma better than others and that the psychological awareness of that fact deserves more attention on the right and the left where, on the liberal side, where that resilience is lacking, a less than rational response manifests, namely the idea that free speech causes harm and so should not be permitted in the opinion of those it triggers who lacking the resilience to deal with it.

The defensiveness of liberals on this point is in my opinion pretty profound but I thought the author did an accurate job.

So no, she didn’t say all liberals are that way, but the ones who lack a specific mental attitude that they control their destiny are. She clarifies that attitudinal difference with more and better words than I just did.

"on the liberal side, where that resilience is lacking, a less than rational response manifests, namely the idea that free speech causes harm and so should not be permitted"
Why is this response attributed to liberals? Which liberals? The ones banning books? The ones preventing actual history from being taught? The problem is that people just fucking say liberals are doing "things" with absolutely no evidence supporting those accusations.

 

[fskimospy]

I thought the article was based on the idea that some people handle trauma better than others and that the psychological awareness of that fact deserves more attention on the right and the left where, on the liberal side, where that resilience is lacking, a less than rational response manifests, namely the idea that free speech causes harm and so should not be permitted in the opinion of those it triggers who lacking the resilience to deal with it.

The defensiveness of liberals on this point is in my opinion pretty profound but I thought the author did an accurate job.

So no, she didn’t say all liberals are that way, but the ones who lack a specific mental attitude that they control their destiny are. She clarifies that attitudinal difference with more and better words than I just did.

Then how do you explain this quote? Bolded mine.

But the left shift away from a belief in just about any individual control over one’s life, and the reliance on the language of harm and trauma to justify much-needed change, may actually be making liberals more fatalistic than simply dissatisfied.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then how do you explain this quote? Bolded mine.

Perhaps it's because I approach things with a different attitude than you do. Maybe I am looking for what I find makes sense to me and not what I can nit pick. I read the remark in context where she describes different reactions to trauma and how they affect how liberals deal with conservative infliction of trauma more generally even against their own kind in an effort to have a face and ignore societal defects. I read that owing to the stress in our society from political polarization and stagnation in the direction of change, that stress is translating in those who lack 'resilience" with all she describes that to mean to represent an effect that is more than ever noticeable on the left.

But the left shift (a shift is a movement in a direction or a phenomenon that is increasing or decreasing in prelevance. It is only needs to be observavble not universally applicable. She makes that point clear in the context of the piece )away from a belief in just about any individual control over one’s life, and the reliance on the language of harm and trauma to justify much-needed change, may actually be making liberals more fatalistic than simply dissatisfied. (If you are not seeing a rise in fatalism on the left than, well, best I not say.)

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps it's because I approach things with a different attitude than you do. Maybe I am looking for what I find makes sense to me and not what I can nit pick. I read the remark in context where she describes different reactions to trauma and how they affect how liberals deal with conservative infliction of trauma more generally even against their own kind in an effort to have a face and ignore societal defects. I read that owing to the stress in our society from political polarization and stagnation in the direction of change, that stress is translating in those who lack 'resilience" with all she describes that to mean to represent an effect that is more than ever noticeable on the left.

But the left shift (a shift is a movement in a direction or a phenomenon that is increasing or decreasing in prelevance. It is only needs to be observavble not universally applicable. She makes that point clear in the context of the piece )away from a belief in just about any individual control over one’s life, and the reliance on the language of harm and trauma to justify much-needed change, may actually be making liberals more fatalistic than simply dissatisfied. (If you are not seeing a rise in fatalism on the left than, well, best I not say.)

Her piece is clear that her thesis is based on this idea and that it explains the happiness gap, or at least explains it to a greater degree than other things. The fact that her basis for this seems, well, wrong that's a big problem with the piece.

I think you find the piece emotionally satisfying and that's fine, but basing it on something that's pretty clearly false is not doing it any favors. If she thought it was simply one observable attribute and might on net do that while not largely explaining the phenomenon as you claim then she should have said that, but she didn't.

 

[Moonbeam]

"on the liberal side, where that resilience is lacking, a less than rational response manifests, namely the idea that free speech causes harm and so should not be permitted"
Why is this response attributed to liberals? Which liberals? The ones banning books? The ones preventing actual history from being taught? The problem is that people just fucking say liberals are doing "things" with absolutely no evidence supporting those accusations.

People on the right convinced me it's happening.

By the way, I have a problem communicating with you that I believe goes to different ways that we think. I do not think I have ever in my life used the term 'straw man' against someone else's argument. I do not know what a straw man is. I don't categorize arguments by type. I simply feel what I feel about the logic in them and respond to that directly. I am not able to think in the categories you seem to enjoy and thus have no idea what you are talking about when you do. A straw man might be great for thinkers but I don't think I am one. I just use the word think for what I feel that forms my opinion. Most of what I feel is that I do not know what others think they know because I failed to prove to myself that I what I wanted to believe was real. My viewpoints are informed by unlearning what others know and I know I don't know. There was a lot of pain in discovering that, at first.

 

[dank69]

Perhaps it's because I approach things with a different attitude than you do. Maybe I am looking for what I find makes sense to me and not what I can nit pick. ...

I don't want to say that's the wrong way to approach learning, but...well, best I not say.

 

[dank69]

People on the right convinced me it's happening.

By the way, I have a problem communicating with you that I believe goes to different ways that we think. I do not think I have ever in my life used the term 'straw man' against someone else's argument. I do not know what a straw man is. I don't categorize arguments by type. I simply feel what I feel about the logic in them and respond to that directly. I am not able to think in the categories you seem to enjoy and thus have no idea what you are talking about when you do. A straw man might be great for thinkers but I don't think I am one. I just use the word think for what I feel that forms my opinion. Most of what I feel is that I do not know what others think they know because I failed to prove to myself that I what I wanted to believe was real. My viewpoints are informed by unlearning what others know and I know I don't know. There was a lot of pain in discovering that, at first.

Well, I'm certainly not typing out all this every time just because someone doesn't want to take 10 seconds to Google a term they're unfamiliar with:

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument

It would do you well to fucking learn it because it is the root of 90% (conservative estimation IMO) of all criticism people have of the left.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Dealing with trauma in healthy ways can become enabling victimization to continue if a person is not careful.

Got to the second paragraph before the author went way wrong:
"left shift away from a belief in just about any individual control over one’s life"

Straw man already. That is a misguided conservative interpretation of the policy position of the left.

Additionally, in the first paragraph she argues conservatives are happy with the way things are. Except they aren't happy. They are raging enough to attack our government and to block traffic to protest mandates that have already been lifted. You know why? Because you can't stop change. The world changes exponentially every day, and they are fucking terrified of it.

Not reading further. Feel free to quote portions you think are important that are not wrong.

This article is rather long and it does make a few rather flawed assumptions so I didn't read it in its entirety, but from what I skimmed there are a few ideas that are worth pondering.

One idea is that it would serve conservatives well to be a little less satisfied in life so that they would be less content to accept poor standard of living brought to them by republican policies (lower education ranking, higher infant mortality, less access to healthcare, more poverty).

And on the other side liberals do put a lot more weight on external circumstances (rightly so) when determining individual chances at succeeding in life, which could make them more apathetic when it comes to taking action to shape their political environment. I mean, Democrat election turn out has always been an issue, perhaps there is something to it, perhaps it would server liberals well to be a bit more optimistic about change and hope you know?

 

[dank69]

This article is rather long and it does make a few rather flawed assumptions so I didn't read it in its entirety, but from what I skimmed there are a few ideas that are worth pondering.

One idea is that it would serve conservatives well to be a little less satisfied in life so that they would be less content to accept poor standard of living brought to them by republican policies (lower education ranking, higher infant mortality, less access to healthcare, more poverty).

And on the other side liberals do put a lot more weight on external circumstances (rightly so) when determining individual chances at succeeding in life, which could make them more apathetic when it comes to taking action to shape their political environment. I mean, Democrat election turn out has always been an issue, perhaps there is something to it, perhaps it would server liberals well to be a bit more optimistic about change and hope you know?

I did go back and read the whole thing after one of Moonbeam's follow-up posts and I agree, how a person deals with PTE (as she calls it) can have a huge affect and people should be taught those things. However, I'm not going to let continued straw-manning of the left slide.

 

[Moonbeam]

Her piece is clear that her thesis is based on this idea and that it explains the happiness gap, or at least explains it to a greater degree than other things. The fact that her basis for this seems, well, wrong that's a big problem with the piece.

I think you find the piece emotionally satisfying and that's fine, but basing it on something that's pretty clearly false is not doing it any favors. If she thought it was simply one observable attribute and might on net do that while not largely explaining the phenomenon as you claim then she should have said that, but she didn't.

What do you see as what she bases her thinking on and why is it wrong? I find the piece resonates with my ideas that attitude creates the world and that it is attitude not the world that needs changing. You see the world as a place where the self is at war with injustice and inequality whereas I see the world as a creation of a self at war where that self is the war. This only involves feeling in the sense of the joy of being that is when I am not.

 

[dank69]

What do you see as what she bases her thinking on and why is it wrong? I find the piece resonates with my ideas that attitude creates the world and that it is attitude not the world that needs changing. You see the world as a place where the self is at war with injustice and inequality whereas I see the world as a creation of a self at war where that self is the war. This only involves feeling in the sense of the joy of being that is when I am not.

"I find the piece resonates with my ideas that attitude creates the world and that it is attitude not the world that needs changing." It's both that need changing.

 

[fskimospy]

What do you see as what she bases her thinking on and why is it wrong?

Uhm, I just told you?

 

[woolfe9998]

People on the right convinced me it's happening.

By the way, I have a problem communicating with you that I believe goes to different ways that we think. I do not think I have ever in my life used the term 'straw man' against someone else's argument. I do not know what a straw man is. I don't categorize arguments by type. I simply feel what I feel about the logic in them and respond to that directly. I am not able to think in the categories you seem to enjoy and thus have no idea what you are talking about when you do. A straw man might be great for thinkers but I don't think I am one. I just use the word think for what I feel that forms my opinion. Most of what I feel is that I do not know what others think they know because I failed to prove to myself that I what I wanted to believe was real. My viewpoints are informed by unlearning what others know and I know I don't know. There was a lot of pain in discovering that, at first.

A straw man is when someone misstates the argument of the other person. Like if I said some schools should be closed due to COVID, and you responded by saying it's ridiculous that I want to close all the schools in America.

Doesn't really require a specific frame of mind to understand that, and I'm pretty sure you actually do understand it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Uhm, I just told you?

Was it this?:

Article seems based on the straw man that liberals believe everything or almost everything is based on system and circumstances. I would agree that liberals see systems and circumstances as significantly more important than conservatives but the idea that this article puts forth that liberals view everyone as beings without agency, trapped in our circumstances is nonsense, which is probably why she cites exactly zero evidence in support of this foundational point.

If so what she is saying is that conservatives wear a happy face to stave off fear and anxiety as a mechanism to deal with anxiety and they do so via things like conformity to norms, the resistance to change, and the notion of fate, that god smiles on them.

Liberals, her real claim to your point here I believe, are less able to engage in such defense mechanisms and thus are more susceptible to feelings that the system and circumstances are against them and thus are more in need of alternative understandings and methodologies to deal with negative life events. This is here her notion of the need for self capacity to deal with trauma come in. She goes into how understanding the danger of defeatism is more dangerous to people who feel their lives to be like leaves in the breeze than those who have found coping mechanisms to deal with their own personal past trauma. Having myself experienced a transformation in a split second attitudinal shift that took me from black despair to utter piece, I feel I understand her point. The world didn't change, I did.

 

[Moonbeam]

A straw man is when someone misstates the argument of the other person. Like if I said some schools should be closed due to COVID, and you responded by saying it's ridiculous that I want to close all the schools in America.

Doesn't really require a specific frame of mind to understand that, and I'm pretty sure you actually do understand it.

I understand it perfectly now that you specifically give an example but would never categorize such an argument as a straw man or use that term in answer to it is so confronted. I would argue back that the need to close some schools would be based on rational applicable to those schools and not all schools in the US. I see the flaw in the logic, I don't name it as a particular kind of flaw. And I will forget it in five minutes. @fskimospy above gave me something to work with after using the term.

 

[fskimospy]

Was it this?:

Article seems based on the straw man that liberals believe everything or almost everything is based on system and circumstances. I would agree that liberals see systems and circumstances as significantly more important than conservatives but the idea that this article puts forth that liberals view everyone as beings without agency, trapped in our circumstances is nonsense, which is probably why she cites exactly zero evidence in support of this foundational point.

If so what she is saying is that conservatives wear a happy face to stave off fear and anxiety as a mechanism to deal with anxiety and they do so via things like conformity to norms, the resistance to change, and the notion of fate, that god smiles on them.

Liberals, her real claim to your point here I believe, are less able to engage in such defense mechanisms and thus are more susceptible to feelings that the system and circumstances are against them and thus are more in need of alternative understandings and methodologies to deal with negative life events. This is here her notion of the need for self capacity to deal with trauma come in. She goes into how understanding the danger of defeatism is more dangerous to people who feel their lives to be like leaves in the breeze than those who have found coping mechanisms to deal with their own personal past trauma. Having myself experienced a transformation in a split second attitudinal shift that took me from black despair to utter piece, I feel I understand her point. The world didn't change, I did.

I agree with the idea that being able to deal with trauma more productively is likely important for living a happier life. I am much less convinced of her causal theory for how this explains the conservative/liberal happiness gap for two main reasons:

1) There's a decent argument in recent research that the gap doesn't even exist.
2) If it does exist, her explanation for the cause rests on a dubious foundation.

 

[dank69]

Was it this?:

Article seems based on the straw man that liberals believe everything or almost everything is based on system and circumstances. I would agree that liberals see systems and circumstances as significantly more important than conservatives but the idea that this article puts forth that liberals view everyone as beings without agency, trapped in our circumstances is nonsense, which is probably why she cites exactly zero evidence in support of this foundational point.

If so what she is saying is that conservatives wear a happy face to stave off fear and anxiety as a mechanism to deal with anxiety and they do so via things like conformity to norms, the resistance to change, and the notion of fate, that god smiles on them.

Liberals, her real claim to your point here I believe, are less able to engage in such defense mechanisms and thus are more susceptible to feelings that the system and circumstances are against them and thus are more in need of alternative understandings and methodologies to deal with negative life events. This is here her notion of the need for self capacity to deal with trauma come in. She goes into how understanding the danger of defeatism is more dangerous to people who feel their lives to be like leaves in the breeze than those who have found coping mechanisms to deal with their own personal past trauma. Having myself experienced a transformation in a split second attitudinal shift that took me from black despair to utter piece, I feel I understand her point. The world didn't change, I did.

"Liberals, her real claim to your point here I believe, are less able to engage in such defense mechanisms"

Did she though?

 

[MrSquished]

"on the liberal side, where that resilience is lacking, a less than rational response manifests, namely the idea that free speech causes harm and so should not be permitted"
Why is this response attributed to liberals? Which liberals? The ones banning books? The ones preventing actual history from being taught? The problem is that people just fucking say liberals are doing "things" with absolutely no evidence supporting those accusations.

Don't forget conservatives not only being too sensitive to learning about history, you can't even talk about non hetero relationships in Florida anymore.

Also the cult leader of conservatives, Trump, was so sensitive to any word of criticism. And his supporters loved this whiny bitch

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree with the idea that being able to deal with trauma more productively is likely important for living a happier life. I am much less convinced of her causal theory for how this explains the conservative/liberal happiness gap for two main reasons:

1) There's a decent argument in recent research that the gap doesn't even exist.
2) If it does exist, her explanation for the cause rests on a dubious foundation.

I think you are confusing the fact that what conservatives report about their inner sense of how happy they are and the fact that the lack of a willingness to address inequities in life that directly lead to misery in their own life are two different measures of how happy they are. Likewise, liberals report feeling less happy than conservatives even though their political activities have made the world a happier place to be. Your expression of dubiousness just suggests to me you place less credence than I do in how attitude affects happiness. I have been thinking about the effects of trauma on people for a very long time and why some manage better than others. I think the author has focused there too and has insight to offer.