Apparently in the technical sense.
Readers know that I am suspicious of psychology in general, and never more than when it tries to reduce political differences to psychological errors. So I advise a grain of salt here, though truly the virtue signaling is becoming insufferable.
8 comments:
I will post on this soon. Thanks. One reason to be more accepting of this result is that it treads into dangerous territory in the social sciences, where one can be denounced for having wrongthink. The individual authors may be comfortable with the result, but there are people who don't want this to be true. I always consider it a mark in a researcher's favor when they come up with something unpopular, rather than sliding around trying to give evidence for things they want to be true by pointing out correlations rather than causes.
As for psychology in general, the phrase "skin in the game" tells you a lot. The branches of psychology where people have consequences for their evaluations tend to be more scientific and attract a tougher breed. For example attending a conference on predicting future criminal behavior, the keynote speaker quite vividly rammed home that even though papers for decades have focused on small-effect or no-effect studies according to things that they thought would be fun to think about, such as strict parenting, religiosity, socioeconomic status, etc, there were really just two big ones: substance abuse and brain damage were strongly correlated with with reoffending. He also identified a few moderate ones, but miles away from the ones above. Everyone in the field wanted something more psychology-related to be key. But they follow the data, because thy have to make recommendations to the courts. Skin in the game matters.
Human identity is psychotic by definition, as anything that threatens it is met by social or instinctive defense/attack methodologies.
THis does not mean the person knows what is going on. Look at B Clinton for example. He lived in an abusive environment, and he survived by internalizing this as normal and making sure his political instincts were so sharp, he could swing to whatever mood the powerful wanted.
This internal trauma was internalized, so he became an abuser later on in life, because that was just normal, his identity. He fragmented and became a broken tool. That uses sex slaves on Epstein's island, as more broken tools. Of a party that is a bunch of broken humans who have internal problems.
One cannot resolve problems without recognizing they exist. How can America solve treason, Grim, when nobody recognizes that the traitosr are in power?
Much of the Leftist alliance are possessed by demons and internally broken. Humanity call this a "mental disease" or by some other name, like narcissism.
Nobody talked about mental disease back in the bible days or 2000 years ago, Grim. There's a reason for that.
There were people too stupid to live, perhaps, or those autistic like Matthew, but mental disease as we know it, is classified the way it is because it makes more sense to atheists/materialists. It can be treated by drugs. But can demons be treated by drugs? Maybe not, as people realize now.
“As for psychology in general, the phrase "skin in the game" tells you a lot.”
That principle surely holds broadly.
“Nobody talked about mental disease back in the bible days or 2000 years ago, Grim.“
Nor gunpowder. At least one of those inventions was an advance; well, by some lights.
Nor gunpowder.
Chinese got there first ; )
Or at least, the technology was preserved from ancient days there.
The hubris of Western civilization is that moderns think the ancients had worst tech, thus by definition everything the West knows is just a more accurate and truer version of reality.
But given the CYcle of Civilizations, the reverse is sometimes true.
King David pretended to be mad 3000 years ago. 1Samuel 21-24.
Post a Comment