![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 30. Go back in thread:
Posted by garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 9:10:38
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views, posted by onceupon on March 23, 2009, at 19:10:23
Well you explained that a lot better than I.
"..vilifying the other party, no matter if it's logical or not."
I like the idea of third parties too. It more evenly distributes power and lets more people have a voice, and leads to less corruption; but then again, in parlamintary systems, I've heard they often don't get a lot done.
Posted by garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 9:15:02
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views, posted by SLS on March 24, 2009, at 7:40:32
Hi Scott,
Maybe I didn't explain it well, or maybe you didn't read my post carefully-it really has little to do with politics-its a mindset.
If an idea of the left/right is presented by the other party, it's put down whether or not the person agrees with the concept...it's not rational. I've seen some very, very angry people villify others in this way.
That has little do with passion. If one was passionate about a particular ideal, it wouldn't/shouldn't matter if it was presented by a republican or a democrat.
I think our Founding Fathers were rational.
Posted by Garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 9:22:19
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views, posted by SLS on March 24, 2009, at 7:40:32
Okay-I'm terrible at articulating emotions and stuff like that.
So I can give you an example that maybe you'll see more clearly. Not comparing apples to oranges, just phychological manifestations.
Say someone abuses their child, it has nothing to do with the child. A person addicted to alchohol--has nothing to do with alchohol.
I'm speaking of political discourse behavior in a similar sense; not mainstream behavior of people passionate about politics, but dysfunctional behavior.
Well, I must get back to my homework. I'm having trouble getting motivated to do my project today.
Posted by Garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 9:22:47
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views, posted by onceupon on March 23, 2009, at 19:10:23
Group think is one of my favorite topics though!
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2009, at 11:10:42
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » onceupon, posted by Garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 9:22:47
I don't know I just think what I think. Listen to others ultimately think after weighing whast others say for my own opinion. Never get involved in politics. I don't understand it. Just not my thing I guess. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on March 24, 2009, at 11:57:02
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » SLS, posted by garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 9:15:02
I did read your post. I thought I did so carefully enough, especially because I planned to respond to it.
I reread your post.
I think I just plain disagree with you.
- Scott
Posted by garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 12:36:20
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » garnet71, posted by SLS on March 24, 2009, at 11:57:02
Hi-Would you then conclude that dysfunctional ideologies manifest into all other areas of society--everything from relationships, family, work, entertainment, sex, etc., with the exception of just one area-political discourse?
If not so, then how do you see dysfunctional psychological behavior in regard to political-related ideology, outside of the merit of the actual issues?
Posted by SLS on March 24, 2009, at 14:09:34
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » SLS, posted by garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 12:36:20
> Hi-Would you then conclude that dysfunctional ideologies manifest into all other areas of society--everything from relationships, family, work, entertainment, sex, etc., with the exception of just one area-political discourse?
>
> If not so, then how do you see dysfunctional psychological behavior in regard to political-related ideology, outside of the merit of the actual issues?
I am afraid that this is too intellectual a question for me to respond to.
- Scott
Posted by Sigismund on March 24, 2009, at 17:43:34
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » SLS, posted by garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 9:15:02
I don't know anything about rationality or what it is. (Having said that, the US constitution has lasted so long because it is so good, I think?) Left and right are not extreme views. Those views are most often found in religions. If we could see Christianity afresh, we might find it passing strange. Perhaps Nazism and communism with their demonologies are extreme. I think we are getting hatred mixed up with extremity. Naturally there is a lot of hatred in politics.
Posted by Sigismund on March 24, 2009, at 17:45:32
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » garnet71, posted by SLS on March 24, 2009, at 14:09:34
What's a dysfunctional ideology?
It will depend on your time frame.
Take it in 1940, Nazism looks pretty functional. Take it in 45 communism looks good. Now neither do.
Posted by Sigismund on March 24, 2009, at 17:49:20
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » SLS, posted by garnet71 on March 24, 2009, at 12:36:20
I need to read "Aztecs: An Interpretation" by Inga Clendinnen.
They had some interesting ideas and practices.
Posted by Dinah on March 24, 2009, at 18:35:26
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views, posted by Sigismund on March 24, 2009, at 17:43:34
Why would that be natural?
Posted by Dinah on March 24, 2009, at 19:30:03
In reply to Pathological Extreme Views, posted by garnet71 on March 23, 2009, at 16:07:57
My mother is like this. While in one to one conversations with people of all sorts she tends to find more to like than to dislike, when speaking in more general terms she practically foams at the mouth. She never sees anything to criticize in a politician she's decided to support, and nothing remotely positive in one she's decided to dislike.
I don't think it does her any real harm. Although I think some workmen at her house deliberately wound her up just to watch her spin. I make sure to keep an eye on the topics of conversation in public and head her off at the pass. So it's not a problem to her, it's more a problem for those around her who might be incredibly embarrassed.
It really is unlike her, come to think of it. She's many things, but a hater she's not in general.
Posted by Sigismund on March 24, 2009, at 22:40:45
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views, posted by Sigismund on March 24, 2009, at 17:43:34
Perhaps I expressed myself badly, Dinah.
Maybe I should have said 'commonly', instead.
I don't know why this is, but it seems so to me.
Posted by SLS on March 25, 2009, at 6:49:49
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » garnet71, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2009, at 19:30:03
Politics is an extremely personal matter, as is religion. We are indeed political beings. In this regard, that which is most personal is most passionately and vigorously guarded and advocated for.
I guess that people with an anger that is indeed pathological will act out explosively to a political trigger if they are a politically inclined individual. However, the trigger for someone like this might be of a completely different content.
Obviously, one does not need to be pathological to become extremely angry when confronted politically. I think political confrontation is an attack on such a personal belief system, that it is extremely arousing. It is possible that this level of arousal leads to stresses that cause the individual to enter a different mental state; one that does not always seem logical or consistent. It might even impair judgment. Yes, people will defend that which is most personal to them by rejecting all potential adversaries.
Have you ever noticed that when involved in an arousing discussion of politics or religion, some people seem to take on a different personality and altered judgment? Just human - not pathological. Pretty stark, though.
- Scott
Posted by Garnet71 on March 25, 2009, at 8:32:46
In reply to Pathological Extreme Views, posted by garnet71 on March 23, 2009, at 16:07:57
Thanks for adding all your opinions. I think some of it culture, some of it is dysfunctional herd mentality, and some of it are the other reasons.
In UG school, I could state a dozen left-leaning views that I agree with, then state one right-leaning view, and be given evil looks and other disapproval from classmates or professors who were 90% white Americans. There was open hate against men-extreme feminist views too. I did not feel comfortable openly expressing my views there. I do not feel comfortable at all there and cannot wait to graduate this spring. Never fit in.
I got to Grad school where 75% are foreign students. My first day there, I felt a sense of belonging-I finally fit in somewhere. We had lengthy discussions criticizing Obama and Bush admin. and everyone else, discussing the merits or demerits of their policies. No hate or mass thinking. From my experience there, I could stand up in front of a class of 30 people and say theoretically "I love George Bush" and we could have an intelligent, lengthy discussion about it. In response, someone would simply ask for example "which of his policies do you advocate for? Strong opinions would emerge, but it would be argued respectfully (backed by argument is extremely relevant here). Politics is not too personal for people who live in oppressive countries, or countries that were recently opressed. I can't believe how political speech has changed in our country on a mass level. In some ways, it has become dysfunctional and lacks individual thought. Anywya, it's ironic I have to be around a group with no common ethnicities as myself, to feel like I fit in.
At UG school, there was fear (of it affecting one's grades for one) to criticize Obama for anything, while it was acceptable to criticize Bush openly. One could not even question Obama, even as one of his supporters. I think that is what concerns me most-the social bullying-type behavior that emerges from questioning a popular leader. That is scary.
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 8:57:42
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views, posted by SLS on March 25, 2009, at 6:49:49
But no one is attacking her. In fact, the workmen wound her up by expressing some very very extreme views that she would agree with, not ones that she would object to.
Believe me, no one argues with her. Dismisses her maybe. But it wouldn't matter. She can work herself up talking to herself.
I suppose it could be some us vs. them mentality. But that isn't like my mother at all. I'm not saying she's tolerant exactly because she isn't. But she generally finds enough good in people to keep in mind no matter what bad she sees. It's one of her nicer qualities.
Yet I do now recall that she has always had an explosive temper, one that caused some real damage when she was young. Maybe there is some connection.
But it doesn't seem like anger, you know? Hard to explain...
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 9:08:11
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views, posted by Garnet71 on March 25, 2009, at 8:32:46
Well, I'm guessing that is a case of group norms. Most groups have them, and most groups defend them fiercely. It's not just a question of us vs them, I don't think. Group norms could be the very cornerstone of social order.
Some groups try to do away with group norms, but in my experience they just substitute them with other group norms that may be a bit harder to see but are just as clad in iron. For example my new Sunday School class is enormously tolerant and would never ever reject anyone for their political beliefs, or any other beliefs really. Yet I'm guessing intolerance would be treated without any tolerance at all. My therapist and I laugh about this all the time. We both really value tolerance, but we sometimes find ourselves enraged by intolerance. "I can't tolerate intolerance!!!"
I don't know if group norms can or should be done away with. They serve their purpose. Once you have the freedom to choose your own groups, you'll be able to choose ones that reflect your own values.
What's really interesting is watching group norms change. Sometimes pretty rapidly. Which leads me to wonder if they were really core group norms at all. Perhaps there are two different circles involved. The core group norms are at the base, and the beliefs and values that are seen as arising from those norms circle somewhere above. If the group members quit believing that the second tier arise from the first, they can change them pretty quickly.
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 9:45:40
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » SLS, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 8:57:42
Hmmm...
As luck would have it, I was just reading different people chiming in on something an actor said about a costar. Some took it at face value as meaning exactly what he said. But others managed to hear him saying the exact opposite of what he said, or managed to construct a whole and very complex framework to explain why he said it in such a way that it ended up that he meant the opposite.
I remember having a whole convoluted explanation of why Santa existed even after my friends and teachers told me he didn't.
Maybe if someone is really really invested in a particular belief or in a particular person, they find it easier or more beneficial to stretch their powers of rationalizing to make new data fit their mental viewpoint than to adjust their mental viewpoint to incorporate new data.
Which is apart from group norms, I think. And would explain my mother better than Garnet's classmates.
It might help me understand my mother better if I understood why those beliefs are so important to her. Even when they appear to contradict other beliefs she holds in other areas of her life.
I must not invest that much of myself in my political beliefs. I believe I can now say that all but one of the politicians I have wholeheartedly supported has disappointed me enough to change my support from wholehearted to partial-hearted.
Posted by garnet71 on March 25, 2009, at 10:36:31
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » Garnet71, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 9:08:11
I like that you brought up group norms. There is a line between group norms and fascism.
I've met a lot of people from Eastern Europe and discussed government. Maybe its the norm there to put politics in the open rather than make it personal, as a result of their recent history. But how is it that Americans forget our history via being intolerant to individual thought and intellectual criticism of the status quo?
Group norms are the norms until someone starts questioning them--then writing about them. Remember that during the French Revolution, (and many other points in history) there was fear to question the status quo, to go against the norms, and political/religious speech had to be expressed creatively via the arts.
During the Renaissance, you had an emergence of authors who wrote anonymously, adopted pen names, and the proliferation of new literature genres such as satire--stealth criticism; hidden behind unrelated concepts.
Erasmus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ErasmusI feel like we are regressing. It was always widespread economic distress/famine that led up to communism, fascism, the stripping of freedom.
I hadn't paid attention to the news in a while, but recently tuned in again. The whole world is experiencing a drastic economic shift. I hope people do not sleep through this, and are not conveniently distracted and misdirected by such things, for example, as executive bonuses.
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 10:56:54
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » Dinah, posted by garnet71 on March 25, 2009, at 10:36:31
Fascism is only one type of group norm. I wouldn't equate the two concepts.
It's my experience that group norms are never eliminated, only replaced with other group norms.
For example, I was in a group that was pretty conservative, and I kept getting into trouble. So my husband suggested I join a group he was part of. Intellectual free thinkers who weren't at all rigid in their beliefs. Wrong! They just had a different set of sacred doctrine, and I managed to offend them too. Even now, when I'm in a group I'm unlikely to offend, the group norms are there and will no doubt be fiercely enforced. As I said, any intolerance would not be tolerated. While another group may find our group to be in violation of their own group norms, or values, of standing up for what's right, etc.
All groups have group norms. Group norms aren't bad, IMO. It's just useful to keep in mind that they exist. And just as strongly in those groups who are proud to have done away with group norms as in those who are comfortable with traditional group norms.
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 10:58:14
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » garnet71, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 10:56:54
Or at least group norms in the sense that I mean them.
Posted by Garnet71 on March 25, 2009, at 11:04:38
In reply to Pathological Extreme Views, posted by garnet71 on March 23, 2009, at 16:07:57
At the beginning of the Great Depression, the world abrubtly halted spending via international trade, all countries closed up. Many economists attributed this to the facilitation of the GD.
It seems now, the world has abruptly halted spending via credit/lending.
I see all the trillions the U.S. govt is spending. It seems, at times, a way to prevent another G.D. At the same time, we are printing money and selling more bonds to cover it. The U.S. is still the most desirable country to invest in, if I'm not mistaken. As long as the Chinese are willing to continue to buy the bonds, we will be ok in sustaining the deficit, if growth results. However, the Chinese will own the U.S. someday if this rate continues. In addition, with the expansion of our money supply, the inflation risk is huge. If the spending does not facilitate growth, we will be in trouble.
It was from world economic distress that communism and Hitler emerged. (I know-everyone uses Hitler to validate a point; I do too..lol)
Yet, all I hear on the political scene is it's ALL the democrats fault or it's ALL the republicans fault. Again, it's scary.
Anyone want to meet me in a beer hall for a drink?
Posted by Garnet71 on March 25, 2009, at 11:07:41
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views » garnet71, posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 10:56:54
I hear ya Dinah. I think you may be linking the subject more in terms of sociology while I may be linking the subject more in terms of history. lol
Posted by Dinah on March 25, 2009, at 11:10:13
In reply to Re: Pathological Extreme Views, posted by Garnet71 on March 25, 2009, at 11:07:41
Well, this is the Psychology Board. :)
Discussions of the topic that aren't based in Psychology or Social Psychology should be posted on the Politics Board. So yes, I was definitely limiting my reply to the psychological aspects.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.