Announcement

Collapse

Psychology 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Tweb's couch. Please join us in discussing the joys of the human psyche. Watch in wonderment as the Tweb crowd has violent mood swings. help us understand what makes us tick.

Like everywhere else at Tweb our decorum rules apply.
See more
See less

Is Liberalism a mental disorder?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Some of you have missed how political beliefs seem to be founded in genetics and biology.
    That means that I changed from liberal to conservative as I matured. That what you are saying?


    Problem with your pseudo science it it is detecting differences in reactions but there is no way to determine if the differences are caused by differences in belief or differences in belief are causing the differences in reactions. That applies to your first example in the OP. The later examples are no more than declarations based upon poor evaluation.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      That means that I changed from liberal to conservative as I matured. That what you are saying?


      Problem with your pseudo science it it is detecting differences in reactions but there is no way to determine if the differences are caused by differences in belief or differences in belief are causing the differences in reactions. That applies to your first example in the OP. The later examples are no more than declarations based upon poor evaluation.
      In what way are the studies poor? What in particular makes it 'pseudo science'? Of course people can change their political opinions. I have explicitly said genetics is only one factor in a complex mix. I've seen you several times on various threads be very dismissive of just about any psychology. What leads you to this opinion?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
        Wo, slow down. I'm not suggesting that political opinion is TOTALLY determined by genetics, merely that it seems that genetics is a component.

        Look! Scientists disagreeing! I think that's cool. It certainly doesn't 'prove one view or another. I'm prepared to withhold judgement. Your reaction just seems so strong.
        Its strong because it sounds so outlandish. It doesn't strike you as outlandish?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          Its strong because it sounds so outlandish. It doesn't strike you as outlandish?
          "Outlandish" does not necessarily equate to wrong. I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand the possibility of some connection on some level. Some people may be more susceptible to fear, for example. .. maybe their amygdyla gets easily overstimulated. You don't see how that could have an effect?
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            "Outlandish" does not necessarily equate to wrong. I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand the possibility of some connection on some level. Some people may be more susceptible to fear, for example. .. maybe their amygdyla gets easily overstimulated. You don't see how that could have an effect?
            With politics? No. What would fear, or any emotion, have to do with liberal/conservative politics? Are liberals generally more fearful than conservatives or vice versa? There is absolutely no way at all for anyone to determine's one's political leanings based on genetics. They don't put a fingernail clipping under a microscope and say "aha! there's the liberal gene". They do twin studies which are fraught with problems that scientists have been aware of for quite awhile now. As professor Charney said, its pseudoscience. It seems to me as ludicrous as phrenology.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              With politics? No. What would fear, or any emotion, have to do with liberal/conservative politics? Are liberals generally more fearful than conservatives or vice versa? There is absolutely no way at all for anyone to determine's one's political leanings based on genetics. They don't put a fingernail clipping under a microscope and say "aha! there's the liberal gene". They do twin studies which are fraught with problems that scientists have been aware of for quite awhile now. As professor Charney said, its pseudoscience. It seems to me as ludicrous as phrenology.
              People who are more susceptible to fear might be easier to get whipped into a frenzy about issues like global warming or terrorism that deal with uncertain, amorphous threats, or become obsessive opponents of immigration. Clearly I'm not saying that there is a strong determinant based on our artificial political spectrum.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                People who are more susceptible to fear might be easier to get whipped into a frenzy about issues like global warming or terrorism that deal with uncertain, amorphous threats, or become obsessive opponents of immigration. Clearly I'm not saying that there is a strong determinant based on our artificial political spectrum.
                This is so vague its meaningless. Being more prone to fear isn't going to put you into a political party. All political parties thrive on fear. Again, this idea that party alignment is based on genetics is very eugenics-y sounding. Did the Jews not align themselves to the Nazi Party because they were genetically greedy and cowardly? Maybe blue eyed, blonde haired Germans are just genetically more courageous; More open to taking risks that involve world conquest!

                So help this blue-eyed, blonde haird German...if one of you cry Godwin!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                  In what way are the studies poor? What in particular makes it 'pseudo science'? Of course people can change their political opinions. I have explicitly said genetics is only one factor in a complex mix. I've seen you several times on various threads be very dismissive of just about any psychology. What leads you to this opinion?
                  I am generally dismissive of a lot of psychology as I was a psych major many years ago. That does not mean it is all bad, but . . .

                  Back in the early 60s there was an annual meeting, of the APA I think but am not sure. There was a lot of threats and intimidation of attendees because they did not declare homosexuality a normal healthy expression of human sexuality. It was in this atmosphere that homosexuality was ultimately declared to be such a normal healthy behavior. I read this in reports about the meetings and in the news papers. When asked for cites, I was not able to find any. A lot of that stuff disappeared and never made it onto the internet.

                  I explained the problem with the study you started with. You can not tell from the experiment whether the differences are caused by the political stance or if the political stance is caused by the differences.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Well I have the same political views as myself, and I also have the same DNA as I do, so maybe there is something to it?


                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      People who are more susceptible to fear might be easier to get whipped into a frenzy about issues like global warming or terrorism that deal with uncertain, amorphous threats, or become obsessive opponents of immigration. Clearly I'm not saying that there is a strong determinant based on our artificial political spectrum.
                      But what would cause the particular leaning? they could just as easily fear government conspiracy and have the opposite leaning - this makes no sense.

                      Genetics on something as mercurial as spectrum? That's really idiotic sounding to me - and both of my degrees are in political science. Leaning demonstrably changes over time - it's normal for people to become more conservative as they age - which makes it very hard to take genetics as a factor seriously.

                      You might make a reasonable case for genetics as a factor in political activism (some personalities are more likely than others to become active) but spectrum? No, that sounds as ridiculous to me as it does to Adrift.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        This is so vague its meaningless. Being more prone to fear isn't going to put you into a political party. All political parties thrive on fear. Again, this idea that party alignment is based on genetics is very eugenics-y sounding. Did the Jews not align themselves to the Nazi Party because they were genetically greedy and cowardly? Maybe blue eyed, blonde haired Germans are just genetically more courageous; More open to taking risks that involve world conquest!

                        So help this blue-eyed, blonde haird German...if one of you cry Godwin!
                        Sie sind Deutsch?
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                          In what way are the studies poor? What in particular makes it 'pseudo science'? Of course people can change their political opinions. I have explicitly said genetics is only one factor in a complex mix. I've seen you several times on various threads be very dismissive of just about any psychology. What leads you to this opinion?
                          Reading:

                          Originally posted by Twin Studies of Political Behavior:Untenable Assumptions?
                          We agree with the authors AFH when they state that theEEA is essential for conclusions drawn from twin studiesconcerning human behavioral traits. However, we concludethat the EEA has not been well tested nor validated.We point out numerous problems with the studies citedby AFH. These studies report small sample sizes with lowstatistical power, problematic retrospective interviews,and assumptions about misidentified zygosity that are oftennot supported by data. The attempts to control for traitrelevantenvironments in these efforts are quite limited,admittedly because it is difficult to know exactly which environmentalfactors to control for. Furthermore, several ofthe studies cited in support of the EEA contain evidencethat could be interpreted as arguing against the assumption.It is difficult not to get the sense that in the face ofinconvenient data, a fair amount of intellectual acrobaticswas necessary to arrive at some of the conclusions drawn.
                          http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mor...files/2008.pdf

                          Those are the biggies. Small samples are the bane of social science research. The environmental issues are major hurdles for twin studies. The zygosity business is questionable as heck.

                          Drawing conclusions with inadequate samples is just flat out bad research - the rest makes it worse.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Sie sind Deutsch?
                            Ja, ich bin, aber mein Deutsch sprechen ist nicht so gut.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The whole idea seems like pure Bulverism: http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html

                              ## This seems very apposite:

                              "Perhaps the commonest expression of this assumption that spiritual value is undone if lowly origin be asserted is seen in those comments which unsentimental people so often pass on their more sentimental acquaintances. Alfred believes in immortality so strongly because his temperament is so emotional. Fanny's extraordinary conscientiousness is merely a matter of over-instigated nerves. William's melancholy about the universe is due to bad digestion—probably his liver is torpid. Eliza's delight in her church is a symptom of her hysterical constitution. Peter would be less troubled about his soul if he would take more exercise in the open air, etc. A more fully developed example of the same kind of reasoning is the fashion, quite common nowadays among certain writers, of criticising the religious emotions by showing a connection between them and the sexual life. Conversion is a crisis of puberty and adolescence. The macerations of saints, and the devotion of missionaries, are only instances of the parental instinct of self-sacrifice gone astray. For the hysterical nun, starving for natural life, Christ is but an imaginary substitute for a more earthly object of affection. And the like.

                              We are surely all familiar in a general way with this method of discrediting states of mind for which we have an antipathy. We all use it to some degree in criticising persons whose states of mind we regard as overstrained. But when other people criticise our own more exalted soul-flights by calling them “nothing but” expressions of our organic disposition, we feel outraged and hurt, for we know that, whatever be our organism's peculiarities, our mental states have their substantive value as revelations of the living truth; and we wish that all this medical materialism could be made to hold its tongue.

                              Medical materialism seems indeed a good appellation for the too simple-minded system of thought which we are considering. Medical materialism finishes up Saint Paul by calling his vision on the road to Damascus a discharging lesion of the occipital cortex, he being an epileptic. It snuffs out Saint Teresa as an hysteric, Saint Francis of Assisi as an hereditary degenerate. George Fox's discontent with the shams of his age, and his pining for spiritual veracity, it treats as a symptom of a disordered colon. Carlyle's organ-tones of misery it accounts for by a gastro-duodenal catarrh. All such mental over-tensions, it says, are, when you come to the bottom of the matter, mere affairs of diathesis (auto-intoxications most probably), due to the perverted action of various glands which physiology will yet discover.

                              And medical materialism then thinks that the spiritual authority of all such personages is successfully undermined.

                              Let us ourselves look at the matter in the largest possible way. Modern psychology, finding definite psycho-physical connections to hold good, assumes as a convenient hypothesis that the dependence of mental states upon bodily conditions must be thorough-going and complete. If we adopt the assumption, then of course what medical materialism insists on must be true in a general way, if not in every detail: Saint Paul certainly had once an epileptoid, if not an epileptic seizure; George Fox was an hereditary degenerate; Carlyle was undoubtedly auto-intoxicated by some organ or other, no matter which,—and the rest. But now, I ask you, how can such an existential account of facts of mental history decide in one way or another upon their spiritual significance? According to the general postulate of psychology just referred to, there is not a single one of our states of mind, high or low, healthy or morbid, that has not some organic process as its condition. Scientific theories are organically conditioned just as much as religious emotions are; and if we only knew the facts intimately enough, we should doubtless see “the liver” determining the dicta of the sturdy atheist as decisively as it does those of the Methodist under conviction anxious about his soul. When it alters in one way the blood that percolates it, we get the methodist, when in another way, we get the atheist form of mind. So of all our raptures and our drynesses, our longings and pantings, our questions and beliefs. They are equally organically founded, be they of religious or of non-religious content.

                              To plead the organic causation of a religious state of mind, then, in refutation of its claim to possess superior spiritual value, is quite illogical and arbitrary, unless one have already worked out in advance some psycho-physical theory connecting spiritual values in general with determinate sorts of physiological change. Otherwise none of our thoughts and feelings, not even our scientific doctrines, not even our dis-beliefs, could retain any value as revelations of the truth, for every one of them without exception flows from the state of their possessor's body at the time.

                              It is needless to say that medical materialism draws in point of fact no such sweeping skeptical conclusion. It is sure, just as every simple man is sure, that some states of mind are inwardly superior to others, and reveal to us more truth, and in this it simply makes use of an ordinary spiritual judgment. It has no physiological theory of the production of these its favorite states, by which it may accredit them; and its attempt to discredit the states which it dislikes, by vaguely associating them with nerves and liver, and connecting them with names connoting bodily affliction, is altogether illogical and inconsistent.

                              Let us play fair in this whole matter, and be quite candid with ourselves and with the facts. When we think certain states of mind superior to others, is it ever because of what we know concerning their organic antecedents? No! it is always for two entirely different reasons. It is either because we take an immediate delight in them; or else it is because we believe them to bring us good consequential fruits for life. When we speak disparagingly of “feverish fancies,” surely the fever-process as such is not the ground of our disesteem—for aught we know to the contrary, 103° or 104° Fahrenheit might be a much more favorable temperature for truths to germinate and sprout in, than the more ordinary blood-heat of 97 or 98 degrees. It is either the disagreeableness itself of the fancies, or their inability to bear the criticisms of the convalescent hour. When we praise the thoughts which health brings, health's peculiar chemical metabolisms have nothing to do with determining our judgment. We know in fact almost nothing about these metabolisms. It is the character of inner happiness in the thoughts which stamps them as good, or else their consistency with our other opinions and their serviceability for our needs, which make them pass for true in our esteem...."

                              http://www.gutenberg.org/files/621/6...21-h.html#toc3

                              - William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), chap.1

                              ## The idea that liberalism is a mental disorder can be retorted with equal justice upon those of a different political persuasion who make it. It is a suicidal method of reasoning. It solves nothing, because it is vulnerable to the same attack. Nor is it a gracious way of proceeding.
                              Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 02-14-2015, 06:21 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Its a few steps away from saying something totally ridiculous like race is a factor in IQ
                                How is this in any way 'totally ridiculous'?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Bill the Cat, 02-21-2024, 07:44 AM
                                73 responses
                                339 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cerebrum123  
                                Working...
                                X