Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Progressivism in Three Easy Steps: Seduction, Hypnosis, Regression

Now, we all know -- half of us anyway -- that of all the forms of maya, the beauty of woman is supreme. My son is what, 19 months old now? And yet, I’ve already drilled this important life lesson into him. “What is nice from afar may be far from nice,” and all that.

But just to show that biology isn’t destiny, there is a different half of the population -- comprised of both male and female -- who know that, of all the forms of intellectual illusion, the beauty of liberalism is supreme. These two forms of maya are not unrelated; you might say that heathens have two mamamayas.

Being that I was once a liberal, I am now fully aware of just how seductive their ideas are. It is a commonplace to point out that liberalism is felt and not thought, but it’s worse than that. Liberalism seduces the mind by appealing to weakness and to a desire to regress, while conservatism imposes itself on the mind with ineluctable truths. Liberals very much resent this imposition, as it feels “aggressive” to them. On the other side, conservatives resent the seductiveness of liberalism, as they know it is manipulative.

Now this principle of seduction is something that Genesis, in its uncreated wisdom, has been trying to warn us about through 3000 years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax. It’s the first thing that really “happens” to man, and coincides with his awakening to self-consciousness. Let’s call them “Wanda” and “Duane” to protect the innocent. The snake -- the perfect symbol of an earthbound horizontality -- seduces Wanda, Wanda seduces Duane, and gravity takes care of the rest, down through the ages.

So a troublesome principle of seduction seems to be woven into the fabric of our existence and is deeply implicated in our primordial calamity.

It is a banality to point out that satan -- or whoever this rascal is -- never “forces the issue.” He never relies upon the principle of conquest. Rather, he is a seducer. A tempter. A flatterer. A genial chap. Please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of wealth and taste... my name is Kofi Annan. He actually has two powers, the seducing principle and a hypnotizing principle. Thanks to the latter, you “won’t feel a thing,” so to speak, as he lays your soul to waste. For one thing, you’ll do it to yourself, because his only power over you is your own temptation externalized.

The fall into error begins with seduction and hypnosis, but ends in a forfeiture of freedom that has the appearance of adolescent, pseudo-manly “rebellion” as a consolation. This rebellion is associated with intoxication, which is why you see the same pattern over and over with regard to the left: hypnotized hordes intoxicated by the spirit of rebellion.

You may remember that last week I stumbled upon the Mother of all Moonbat Psychobloggers. Well, this week I may have chanced upon the Father of all Anti-Idiotarian Psychiatrists, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, who has written a book entitled The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. From some of the excerpts posted on his website, it looks quite promising, a bit like Dr. Sanity after a night of shoooting limoncellos with George Clooney, when she'll say anything.

In a recent editorial, Dr. Rossiter describes the unhappy psychological world of the liberal, which is

“filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are.... poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized."

But here we see the principle of seduction in all its naked glory. For as Dr. Rossiter writes, these victims are sympathetically assured by Wanda and the snake that they "bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the ‘root causes’ of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors...”

Furthermore, once seduced and under the hypnotic spell of regressive progressivism, Duane is freed from the need to achieve emotional maturity, and “is instead invited to begin a second childhood.  Like the child at play, he is given, or at least promised, ultimate economic, social and political security without having to assume responsibility for himself.  The liberal agenda requires him to remain in an artificial environment -- the daycare program of the grandiose state -- where he need not become an adult, take responsibility for his own welfare, nor cooperate with others to achieve what the state will give him for nothing.”
   
Like me, Dr. Rossiter traces these regressive liberal impulses to their origins in infancy: “These longings to be taken care of, to be relieved of the responsibilities of adult life.... are properly satisfied in the dependent attachments of children to their parents.  They are not properly satisfied in the dependent attachment of adults to the state.  Instead, the gradual replacement of the dependency longings of the child with mature capacities for competent self-reliance and cooperation with others, as opposed to parasitism on the state, is a critical developmental goal.  Whether or not that goal is achieved has profound implications for the nature and extent of government in a given society.”

Once again we see the deep irony in naming their movement “progressive,” because this is an agenda that specifically prevents it. Rather, it facilitates “denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity... fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family,” and so much more.

Hmm, we’ve probably exceeded the fair use limit in quoting Dr. Rossiter. Perhaps we can make it up to him by purchasing his book. I know I will.

Humanism is the reign of horizontality, either naïve or perfidious; and since it is also – and by that very fact – the negation of the Absolute, it is a door open to a multitude of sham absolutes, which in addition are often negative, subversive, and destructive....

In a word, there is nothing more inhuman than humanism, by the fact that it, so to speak, decapitates man: wishing to make of him an animal which is perfect, it succeeds in turning him into a perfect animal...
--F. Schuon

57 Comments:

Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Good Morning Bob!

A good friend of mine made an interesting observation I thought perhaps should be tossed into the blender here...

When we learn something, our brains restructure (chemically and physical links) -so this creates a situation that can be good, or bad.

Without the spiritual component, one finds that they end up not being able to "see" certain things or concepts due to their own internal "filter" of the structure of their thinking / minds.

This led to his term for people who take the "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up" types -he referred to them as having "Hardening of the Categories" -love that term.

And now, back to my regularly scheduled coffee and cigar...

-Luke

12/05/2006 08:15:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

"the citizen is freed from the rigors of emotional maturity, and “is instead invited to begin a second childhood. Like the child at play, he is given, or at least promised, ultimate economic, social and political security without having to assume responsibility for himself...remain in an artificial environment -- the daycare program of the grandiose state -- where he need not become an adult, take responsibility for his own welfare, nor cooperate with others to achieve what the state will give him for nothing.”

OK, you got my attention, where do I sign up?

;oP

12/05/2006 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger Jody said...

"Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

-Fear and aggression
-Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
-Uncertainty avoidance
-Need for cognitive closure
-Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin."

12/05/2006 09:16:00 AM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Jody:

BWWWWAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

BWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

BWAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

12/05/2006 09:20:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

"Four dopey liberal researchers who culled through 50 years of propaganda about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is a mean, icky doctrine that scares them because it would force them to grow up. Not really, because tenure makes that unnecessary, but still, it's the principle of the thing."

12/05/2006 09:24:00 AM  
Anonymous juliec said...

Jody, you bring up these points as though they are necessarily bad things. Let's see...

"Fear and Aggression" - Sometimes, these are appropriate responses. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, with a likely intent to do you harm, your best response is going to be fear tempered with resolve (aka "courage"), along with some well-placed aggression against your would-be attacker. It helps tremendously if you know what you are doing, and have planned in advance for such an eventuality (i.e. self defense training, a gun and appropriate training...) This kind of preparation is also known as "taking responsibility for your own health and well-being."

12/05/2006 09:25:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Jody. Good stuff, lets look here:

-Fear and aggression
Julie covered this. There are real things to fear, and there are real cases for the need to be aggressive. I think that the only real concern is that conservatives might fear too many things or be too aggressive, but managing those things is a part of maturing.

-Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Dogmatism is the formation of concrete ideas and systems which encapsulate important ideas and concepts. Dogma isn't the problem but instead the inability to amend or birth new Dogma.

As for intolerance of ambiguity, this is a misunderstanding. We're intolerant of using ambiguity or mystery as an excuse. We understand that there are great mysteries in the world, but those things are not excuses to sit on your hands. You have to figure out what you can know about them as solidly as possible so that you may advance your understanding and creating working dogmas and formulas by which to solve problems. We all know about the mysteries and ambiguities- just the most practical of us treat them with intolerance because they are not helpful in and of themselves in making decisions. Just ask a smart merchant.

-Uncertainty avoidance
Again, uncertainty is not useful in making decisions. It is the forge in which certainty is born, but too much uncertainty can unhinge a person. When you have many responsibilities in life you must manage your life as best as you can. Mitigating risk includes avoiding uncertainty at times.

-Need for cognitive closure
This seems like a form of sanity. Are you sure this is a bad thing?

-Terror management
The world has a Hobbesean character in the right circumstances. See Mel Gibson's new film 'Apocalpyto' for an in depth analysis. Mostly, this is just a cheap shot in the likeness of the whole 'hate/fear' meme. Stop abusing it, you twits. If conservatives seem to 'fear' something, it may be because it threatens their way of life... surprised? Unless it makes intuitive sense that it DOESN'T threaten someone's way of life, then you're not going to be able to sell the idea. Fairness reigns supreme in the world of sale.

Jody... those people are nitwits. They really are.

Well, you have to understand that for yourself, so don't take my word for it.

12/05/2006 09:41:00 AM  
Anonymous juliec said...

continuing...
"-Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
-Uncertainty avoidance"

These two appear to go hand in hand. Clearly, the world is not divided into black and white or even simply varying shades of gray, but is rather and entire spectrum of colors with varying hues and intensities, and an almost infinite number of combinations of these hues. It is very helpful to be able to distinguish red from orange from purple, etc. In fact, rendering everything in shades of gray makes life a great deal more difficult - ask anyone who is actually colorblind. My point, simply, is that certainty, when it is certainty of Truth, is very useful.

As for dogmatism, I am guessing that in this context it refers to reliance on established traditions. While not all traditions are good or relevent in this modern era, many, particularly those pertaining to how to deal with various situations, have been so long established because they are very helpful. To go back to the color analogy, if you wish to make a particular green it is helpful to know that it requires more than just yellow and blue. Certain yellows and blues, in various quantities, and sometimes with the addition of a little black or white, will yield drastically different results. If the result you want is "grass" and not "baby vomit", it would be helpful to follow established methods of mixing to achieve that result.

12/05/2006 09:46:00 AM  
Anonymous juliec said...

Oh good - River Cocytus already did this for me. I must he's done a much better job than me of debating these points:)

12/05/2006 09:52:00 AM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Someone blathered..

"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism..."

I suspected at that moment it was 4 liberal researchers who do not understand conservatism, and view it with malice to boot.

".. the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition", recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin."

QED

Cognitive error: trying to define conservatism or realists using liberalism or idealist frames of reference. Core Dump.

These kinds of articles and research generally (to me) come across as attempts to wrap a blanket of afore mentioned "mental disorders" around those who disagree with liberals, or to whom they envy (but will never admit to).

Having agreed with themselves, they are now satisfied that they can feel safer since they've defined conservatives as an "them" and not an "us".

How unenlightened and oversimplified this is.

Yet it seeks authenticity by the rhetoric of masqueraded ad-hominem attack to their conservative straw man, and an appeal to the crowd for strength.

Not logical to be sure, but highly predictable.

Which is why realists are really annoying, those who so easily see the nonsense for what it is.

What the study really is saying, is that unable to grow, or break forth from a codependant dependancy class, non conservatives feel weak, and seek to have equal standing with those who they envy and are not like. They seek this, yet themselves resist the change they claim conservatives are incapable of.

They live in fear.

Just remember, what a liberal says is smoke and mirrors. The liberal is driven by what he or she desires, and believes the ends justify the means.

Since such an a-priori stance could be perceived as gauche at times, they spend inordinate amounts of time adding wrappers to the argument to cover and disguise this -at least for their own consciences, but at the expense of everyone else.

It is a meager and unevolved state of selfishness. This is why many are also narcissists, and why most realists at some point just have a visceral reaction of, "Oh GROW UP!"

This, unfortunately, only reinforces the victimhood of the liberal, strengthening their resolve to be more rebellious, more outrageous, and more "wrapped" to prevent their seared consciences from complaining or correcting the situation.

It is this act of the will, the use of the wrappers to lie to themselves, which results in the evil and corruptness that can manifest in things like Stalinism or Facism.

Once someone is a "them" -they are dehumanized, and can be dispensed with. (vis -the Jews, Gypsies etc. in Nazi Germany) -these ideas are then wrapped with propaganda designed to maintain the emotional furvor about "them". Not seeing this is immature as well.

The seduction is complete when it makes a feedback loop. The lies reinforce themselves and the act of the will to not challenge them is in place.

It creates a seeker (there is a seeker born every minute) someone seeking more reinforcement that they are okay -all based upon externals and "them" issues.

This is similar to what my friends and I call, "The X-Files Proof" -the fewer the pieces of evidence, the higher the "proof" of a conspiracy or the "truth".

Unfortunately, this is always a front loaded, pre determined conclusion -without allowing evidence to change the viewpoint. Again.

In this, they behave like religious fundamentalists. In a scientific hypothesis we say something is a certain way. We then decide to dismantle this or "break" the hypothesis.

If it breaks, it is invalid. Or in the breaking process, we refine it and it gets better as a model, being revisted as needed.

In a fundamentalist religious system, you have a concept or idea, and you are not one of "us" if you don't agree.

There is no discussion, no history, no review of information, and no "how did you arrive at that conclusion?" -such questions are "them" indicators for the fundamentalist, which signal danger and threat. (Approach / Avoidance logic).

Furthermore, being emotionally based, but having learned to mimic what appears on the surface to be some form of "clear thinking" in their statements, a liberal can generally be discovered by attempts at discussion of the main points of their current thesis.

In such challenges, you may as well have said, "Oh yeah? Well you're fat and your ugly, and your mother dresses you funny!" -this is based upon observational responses from liberals -who take challenge to their thesis as a personal attack.

For them it is.

This is because they are aware you are pointing out (at the very least) that they have chosen to not reshuffle the cards and look again at reality and the interpretation of same. It is something they have already chosen to refuse to do.

Hence, they feel threatened personally. Thus the personal attacks.

What they are really living in is abject fear -masked over with the wrappers to create safety in numbers.

It strikes to their hearts (whats left of them) and thereby is terrifying. It also feeds-back to what their fears suspect of "them".

The entire House of Cards would come down if there was a revisitation on a concept which could give a different or exceptional result. This does not fit the "front loaded" method of the fundamentalist mind.

Moreover, to the liberal, this is unthinkable. It is better to add cards to cover this infraction of thought.

Okay, back to my coffee..

-Luke

12/05/2006 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger Jody said...

Bob, I for one will never let it be said that you let facts get in the way of your opinion.

From further down in the article:

"The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism. "

12/05/2006 10:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does this description of Liberals fall into your idea of mind parasites? And are there "good" mind parasites? Like the baseball player that instinctively acted humbly in the past when he hit a home run?

Maybe good parasite is one of them oxymoron thingys huh.
SteveH

12/05/2006 10:45:00 AM  
Blogger HV said...

There have been a lot of studies like the one referred to by Jody. John Ray at dissectleft.blogspot.com thoroughly debunks them. It's his academic specialty and he has lots of his peer-reviewed papers on the subject at his site.

12/05/2006 10:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I always read, always enjoy, and have never commented, but I had to write in to say nice Lebowski reference. That's fairly advanced movie quoting, even for you Bob!

12/05/2006 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger ximeze said...

Jody:

You're doing an awful lot of quoting of other's material. Have you synthesized any of this stuff?

It is cheating to rely on quotes only - somebody else's opinion is no proof of a valid argument. What do YOU think?

You'll have to do better than a book-report if you want to play around here & get any respect.

12/05/2006 11:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Sorry Jody, but knowing what I know and having done my OWN research - the article you quote is complete bullshit. Obviously written by people who do not understand the conservative mind in the least. And I'm not impressed that four people agree.

12/05/2006 11:25:00 AM  
Blogger HV said...

To summarize, the critics of the "cognitive style" studies generally seem to argue that the studies have a basic flaw:

"As the partisan arguments and value-laden terminology used by Altemeyer and others make clear, the measures used to score the traits are themselves partly or mostly based on ideology. Hence the two parameters (personality and ideology) are not independent, and any correlation between them would be spurious."

-T.J. Nelson, brneourosci.org

Some psychologists question whether "traits" such as "intolerance for ambiguity" even exist.

12/05/2006 11:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

-Fear and aggression
-Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
-Uncertainty avoidance
-Need for cognitive closure
-Terror management


Could their projection of their own views onto conservatism be any more blatantly obvious?????????????

12/05/2006 11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous GLASR said...

The five descriptors offered by Jody's research team sound and look like great tools for empowering individuals. Peel 'em off the pile, stand 'em up, send 'em on their way.

12/05/2006 11:44:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

hv: intolerance of ambiguity seems to me to be a ideologically framed descriptor designed to corral parts of particular traits into a convenient grouping.

It would be kind of like grouping cute, furry animals into one group and not-so-cute and not-so-furry animals into another, and declaring them essential, taxonomic groupings.

Oh, sorry... some people do that, too. (Most of them are kids.)

12/05/2006 11:54:00 AM  
Anonymous robinstarfish said...

maya is a sham?
lipstick makes my boyfriend weak
i get what i want

12/05/2006 12:11:00 PM  
Anonymous George said...

"Being that I was once a liberal, I am now fully aware of just how seductive their ideas are."

Bob, if you were taken in by the Loony Left, you were in no sense a liberal -- at least not a classical liberal.

12/05/2006 12:26:00 PM  
Anonymous robinstarfish said...

wanda winks at duane
from the apple drops a worm
kennedy votes aye

12/05/2006 12:31:00 PM  
Blogger Jody said...

In posting a link to the Jost and Kruglansk study, readers here started arguing about the validity of the study, about the data that was collected and how it was interpreted, even the assumptions made regarding that data in the first place. That’s all pretty cool, empirical science based argument, the kind of stuff that Bob poo-poos in his column.

Jost and Kruglansk responded to many of those critiques when the article was first published. Indeed, most of those criticisms were published in the same 2003 issue of the APA journal that the Jost study appeared. (See Greenberg, et.al “Psychological Motives and Political Orientation – The Left, The Right and the Rigid: Coment on Jost et.al,”), demonstrating the analysis that argumentation that mark good science.

While I’m by no means an expert on this subject, scanning some of the articles and commentary about Jost’s article written in the last three years, none of it is empirically based. I look forward to reading someone who can critique the argument on research based grounds – and if anyone knows of any, please post it here --or who utilizes the same techniques to study liberal thought. That’s how knowledge advances.

Anyway, my point here is that, rightly or wrongly, you can speak about the psychology of a person’s political philosophy based on data, methodology, and principles viewable, understandable, replicable, even modifiable or disprovable, by anyone, or you can pull it out of your ass, affix some letters to it, present it as “learned” gospel and hope like mad no one notices the smell.

Personally, I’ve never been much for cow-pastures.

12/05/2006 02:35:00 PM  
Anonymous jwm said...

robinstarfish:

Those were good.
:)

JWM

12/05/2006 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger ximeze said...

Jody said:
...or you can pull it out of your ass, affix some letters to it, present it as “learned” gospel and hope like mad no one notices the smell. Personally, I’ve never been much for cow-pastures.

My,my now, stamping your feet in frustation won't make it all go away. Big girls should learn to be more refined.

12/05/2006 03:08:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

jody:

It is as Mark Twain said:

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I myself never doubted, necessarily, the findings, per se, but rather, the ideological framework from which they were viewed. This is what I see being the main critique. The authors claims to the opposition are rather foolish.

What is a 'conservative', anyway? One who desires to conserve tradition. Their blinder is simply this: The world does not consist of 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' in such a simple sense. To think so is in fact to meet their own criteria for 'Conservatism'.

But like you said, 'I'm not an expert' on the subject.

12/05/2006 03:13:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

jody -

Not sure what exactly you are doing here. Perhaps you took offense at something one or all of us said? Perhaps you haven't yet found a comfortable place in the cosmos? Perhaps you are still struggling to rationalize your chosen lifestyle? What is your point?

12/05/2006 03:15:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Jodikins earlier scribbled...

"Jost and Kruglansk responded to many of those critiques when the article was first published."

(excess repeat blah removed)

Refutation itself, does not necessarily address the issues adequately. This would be true if their arguments were somewhat circular -although perhaps hard to detect for some.

I've read marvelous articles and refutations, comments, etc. that were all sophistry. But wow, the wording and techno-jargon was so cool, any casual observer would not notice.

The problem I have with the study, is the a-priori position it seems to take. This, in and of itself is indefensible, and merely presumes to give wind to its own sails.

Further windage / blow-viation does not make the substance of the thesis any greater, nor does it make the frame of reference disappear.

This is what some of us maybe find objectionable. We know we are being lied to, and futhermore, we are being asked to go along with that as "good" methodology (another lie).

Perhaps this is what you object to? Those of us who do not take things at face value, even if there is a Piled higher and Deeper (PhD) behind the author's name?

For all our great ideas, recall Rutheford's great work, "The Philosophy of Science" -all things start with ideas, and some of the thoughts or presumptions are not always valid, even if we call it "Science".

Doing so, does not make it some external reality or truth hanging out there in space, which merely exists waiting for us to get a cosmic clue.

There seems to be a penchant for no (human) peer review of liberalism and its offshoots.

-Luke

12/05/2006 03:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Der Fledermaus Kompt said...

Jody is that rare find-- an effective dissenter, which this site badly needs.

Bob is notorious for cobbling together his material in slapdash fashion, changing the subject when he runs out of answers, and so forth, and this is a wake-up call for him to do his homework a little more thouroughly in the future. He's got to step up.

The conservative mindset IS notoriously fear-driven and this fact should be out in the open where it can get just consideration.

12/05/2006 05:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

My favorite part of the magician's dinner show is the part where the guy hypnotizes someone.

The other guests laugh when the hapless chump is clucking like a chicken, but remember, he can only do that if he is subconsciously consenting to the control and influence of the magician.

It's almost as much fun to watch trolls commenting under the influence of the Left, absolutely sure that they are spouting their own thoughts. I just hope that some day soon, the seducer will let them come back to their senses before they vote in another Jimmy Carter.

12/05/2006 05:26:00 PM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Yeah, and he still hasn't answered that damn question about the seven levels!

12/05/2006 05:32:00 PM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

I think he meant Jody is an "affective" dissenter. But then that's true of all liberals, including der mighty maus....

12/05/2006 05:35:00 PM  
Blogger dicentra63 said...

I'm not going to address Jody's counter-arguments at this time; rather, I'm going to address the seductivness of one particular doctrine that is floating around now.

Victor David Hansen just wrote a piece in which he sums up the two opposing attitudes toward the war on terror.

The "Majority Opinion" is the one the Dems favor, which is the "we've done all we could in Iraq, now let's gracefully exit" opinion. The Minority Opinion is the "warmonger" viewpoint.

I must admit, after reading the Majority Opinion, that it seemed pretty good to me. I liked it a lot, in fact, because it means that things aren't as bad as I think they are, and that we can follow the path of least resistance without suffering too many bad consequences.

It means that we don't have to fight the majority Dems, we don't have to fight the war of opinions at home, and we can go back to Sept. 10.

VDH said on Hewitt that people have been writing to him and saying that his representation of the Majority Opinion was exactly how they saw things, so it's not as if he were distorting someone else's view.

This is the thing, though. The times in my life when I've gotten into the most trouble, when I've gotten myself into the worst pinches (to put it mildly), are when I've grossly underestimated the consequences of my actions, believing that those who warned me against doing thus and so were being paranoid, reactionary, and unreasonably cautious.

So I have to ask myself, should I switch sides, become one of the Lotophagi, and hope for the best, or should I continue to worry and fret that we're going to screw it up really bad this time?

Based on my past experiences with how easy and seductive it is to underestimate danger, I think I'll stick with the worry and fretting. At least that way, I give myself a fighting chance to prepare.

12/05/2006 05:37:00 PM  
Blogger LukeBlogWalker said...

Der Fledermaus Kompt whined...

"The conservative mindset IS notoriously fear-driven and this fact should be out in the open where it can get just consideration."

LOL, I am supposed to buy that remark? Insist some more, then it will be true! (But only for you)

The framing of your argument gives away your stinking liberalism!

It is only notoriously fear-driven if you are a member of the paranoid left, who just Luuuuvs to shovel such drivellious snot upon the rest of us.

As if we'll all join the Club of the House of Cards and choose blindness as a means of safety!

Good comparison on the Hypnotist act Argish one. Another HypnoTroll exposed!

-Luke

12/05/2006 05:45:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

For what it's worth - the glamour that seduces - and all that seduces bears, to some extent, a glamour - probably has a real power in itself, maybe even what could be termed an "occult" power. The word "glamour", now most often referring to the merely "fashionably attractive", is derived from "gramarye", which was a Scottish school of the magical arts. To "glamorize" then, is to literally cast a spell so that one misperceives reality.

Odd concept, but the 20th-21st centuries are certainly the age of glamour, what with mass media able to cast glamorizing spells through high-tech means. The medium through which a "glamour spell" travels must be metaphysical in nature, even if the glamour is not spiritual per se. Considering that we cannot be seduced by a glamour unless we are first tempted, we then must all contain a certain metaphysical receptiveness, open to the lowest or the highest. Or to put it another way, we literally have heaven and hell, the entire cosmos, within us.

I never cease marveling at the miracle of the human dynamo.

12/05/2006 05:51:00 PM  
Blogger HV said...

I really have a hard time accepting that Jost et. al. is science, so I don't want to spend a lot of time debating it. I suggest, Jody, that you pursue the debate with Dr. John Ray, who is quite accessible, and is an expert on this subject. I note that Dr. Ray has over 100 papers on this topic online at one of his many websites. Here are some non-technical excerpts from his writings.

John Ray's blog entry for Oct. 24, 2006 (dissectleft.blogspot.com):

The last few sentences above reflect the familiar claim (going back to at least 1950) from Leftist psychologists that conservatives are in some sense psychologically inferior or disabled. I have been rebutting such tripe for over 30 years so I cannot work up enough enthusiasm to go to the library and look up the full article but it seems from the abstract to be just another rehash of an earlier collaborative article by Jost that I have already demolished

From http://jonjayray.cafe150.com/unschol.html:

I spent 20 years from 1970 to 1990 getting over 200 articles published in the academic journals of the social sciences which subjected the various politically relevant theories of psychologists to empirical test. The only test that psychologists normally give to their theories is to seek the opinions of their students on a variety of issues and present THAT as evidence about how the world works. My consistent strategy was to do the same sort of test among random samples of people in the community at large. I found that people in the community at large are not nearly as accommodating to the theories of psychologists as psychology students are!

My non-conformist behaviour in actually doing a serious test of these theories won me no kudos, however. I appear to have had far more articles on political psychology published in the academic journals than anyone else and so would therefore -- by conventional academic criteria -- normally be considered the No. 1 world expert on the subject but in fact my writings have always been comprehensively ignored. My findings did not produce the RIGHT CONCLUSIONS, you see. In fact my findings showed the theories concerned to be wrong in almost every respect.
...

Although the authors express some pride that they "cast a wide net" in looking for articles to include in their summary, they in fact leave out practically everything that does not suit them. They look only at articles that they like. It is NOT in any way a comprehensive, objective survey of the literature on the subject. For instance, how many of my articles did they cite? Just two. So just in ignoring the great bulk of my articles on the subject they ignored half the relevant literature. But Leftists always have been good at ignoring evidence.

So they say that their Leftist approach to the study of politics "has withstood the relentless tests of time and empirical scrutiny" and go on to cite 13 articles that support their approach as evidence for that assertion. If they had been fair and objective, they could also have quoted 100 articles of mine that upset that assertion. But in good Leftist fashion it is only people who support their views that they cite. No tolerance of ambiguity there!

Their ignorance of what conservatism is also shows in the means they use to measure it. Psychologists measure traits by use of "scales" (sets of interrelated questions). The more "conservative" statements you agree with, for instance, the more conservative you are said to be. The big hitch, of course, is in deciding what is a "conservative" statement. And psychologists have arrived at some strange conclusions in deciding that. Two of the most popular scales that psychologists use in studying conservative politics are the 'F' scale -- put together in the late 1940s by the (Marxist) Adorno and his group -- and the RWA scale put together by Altemeyer. Yet in general population samples Leftist voters are just about as likely to get high scores on both scales as Rightist voters are! (See e.g. here) So once again we have psychologists seriously telling us that a lot of Rightists are Leftists.
...
The central weasel word above is of course "reliably". Psychologists have the strange habit of taking a correlation seriously as long as it is "statistically significant". But ANY correlation will be statistically significant if the sample size is large enough! So we have the weird phenomenon of correlations as low as .15 (meaning that there is only a 2% overlap between two groups of people) being taken as proof of something ( See e.g. here). What this means in practice is that if 51% of voters for the conservatives get a high score on the RWA scale and 49% of voters for the Leftists get a high score on it (which is roughly what happens), psychologists say: "Aha! We told you so! This scale measures conservatism!"). And if that happens often we get statements such as the one that the RWA scale "reliably" measures conservatism. That roughly half of their "conservatives" vote Leftist does not seem to bother anyone at all!

12/05/2006 06:18:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Mix and match categories as you see fit. ;^)

-Fear and aggression:


“In those societies, EVERYONE is equally miserable. That I wouldn't mind. What I don't like is me being miserable while other people around are not. That's really demoralizing.”

“Nobody is wealthy until everyone is healthy. If you can't dig that, then you belong in your diseased culture. You're adapted to it, and you're welcome to it. Just don't expect everyone to like it.”

“In our society, you have to constantly worry about where your money is coming from and whether you'll have enough to live on or not.”

“I know I am a troll and an outcast; I am ugliness that despairs of its ugliness. My only relief comes from attacking others, which is a symptom of my insignificance and my diseased state.”



-Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity:


“There should be a guaranteed job for everyone who wants one."

"There should be healthcare for everyone, regardless of income.”

“We don't need this nose-to-the-grindstone mind-set anymore; lets just let it drop. The farmers raise huge quantities of food, and everything else is just smoke and mirrors. So what's the holdup?”
Just grow and distribute the damn food already.”



-Uncertainty avoidance:


“One thing about the communal emphasis of progressives is that it holds out the promise of a "safety net" to catch people who are having trouble getting subsistence and shelter; this is a great comfort to have.”

“Our culture is so cold; lose your money, sleep under a bridge...even the most primitive societies are more pleasant to live in than this one in that regard.”



-Need for cognitive closure:


“If our economic system can't accomodate these reasonable goals, then it aint where it should be yet, no matter how much "wealth" it creates.

“This is really annoying. Can't anyone come up with a system where everyone is automatically covered so we can all just relax and focus on productivity and art? Ideas, anyone?”



-Terror management:


“We don't need this nose-to-the-grindstone mind-set anymore; lets just let it drop. The farmers raise huge quantities of food, and everything else is just smoke and mirrors. So what's the holdup?”
“Just grow and distribute the damn food already.”

One thing about the communal emphasis of progressives is that it holds out the promise of a "safety net" to catch people who are having trouble getting subsistence and shelter; this is a great comfort to have.

Our culture is so cold; lose your money, sleep under a bridge...even the most primitive societies are more pleasant to live in than this one in that regard.

There should be a guaranteed job for everyone who wants one. There should be healthcare for everyone, regardless of income.

“This is really annoying. Can't anyone come up with a system where everyone is automatically covered so we can all just relax and focus on productivity and art? Ideas, anyone?”

12/05/2006 06:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

We are we arguing? 70 years of Soviet psychiatric research already proved that American leftists are 100% mentally healthy. And useful.

12/05/2006 07:03:00 PM  
Anonymous stu said...

Speaking of fear.

I was just watching a spot on Fox News. Sean Hannity's show. (Sometimes I just need a fix of the MSM)

Anyways, he was talking about that black professor who called for the extermination of all white people.

He was interviewing the head of some black activist group, and this guy basically said he agreed that all white people should be extermined. Openly. On the air. Unabashedly.

And he could not have been more serious.

There is no doubt in my mind that this man would kill me he had the opportunity and believed he'd get away with it.

There are so many sick people in the world. They are everywhere. And they will act out their sicknesses on you and me and anyone who crosses their paths.

In this kind of world, it's difficult to not be afraid of these monsters. At least not without God. And it's simply idiocy to not be on gaurd against them.

And speaking of monsters.

I was thinking about the "humanoid" monsters and what they can tell us about the human monsters and the monster ideologies of our real world.

Vampires - Those who feed on others. The ultimate parasites. Sustained only through sucking the life force from others. If you let them bite you, they will drain your lifeforce and corrupt your soul.

Frankensteins - Abominations created, not in the image of God, but as a warped imitation of the image of man. Those who distance themselves from God. Who think they can design better than Him. Blatant contradictions of the Divine Plan. Hubris run amok.

(Please note that I am a strong advocate of evolution and humans creating. But there must exist the realization that even when humans appear to be the creators, God is nevertheless the true architect behind the scenes.)

Werewolves - Those that cannot control their base animal drives. They do not transcend, but instead give in. Wallowing in their basest of impulses. A slave to the vital, the horizontal and the corrupt.

Zombies - Literally, the walking dead. Those who have lost the battle. And given up the fight. There is nothing for them here, and they only exist to feed on the higher intellect and detroy the vertical.

12/05/2006 07:33:00 PM  
Blogger Ben said...

To state the obvious, it's not the fear... it's what you do with it.

How one react to that fear distinguishes conservatives from liberals.

In my admittedly anecdotal experience, conservatives generally have the more productive and ultimately healthy reaction to fear.

12/05/2006 08:01:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

stu -

Ahhh, the monsters...

From the mind of God comes...perfect man.

From the minds of men come...monsters.

Fear is the mind killer.

12/05/2006 09:30:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

Don't forget Cabbage Patch dolls.

12/05/2006 11:11:00 PM  
Anonymous juliec said...

Hoarhey - I love it! I think you should win the prize for providing the best exmples.

Stu - some of my worst (ex) friends were emotional vampires. Like vampires of folklore, they can only come in if you give them permission. These days, I can see them coming a mile away. They still seem to be drawn to me, though. I must not eat enough garlic...

Petey, NoMo & Will - thanks for the laughs. I couldn't sleep tonight, and I feel better already. Now if I can just get my mental applications to shut down for the night, I'll be set...

12/06/2006 01:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Politics, Religion and Money.
To attach these to 'G_D' (directly or indirectly) is a waste of time and energy, in my opinion.
From my point of view, The King and The Lord and The Father are not interested in any of it.
Sorry if that ruffles some feathers. I'm always open to learning something new, and i look at all of you as teachers.
Will's comments seem to resonate best with me for some reason, but i can learn anything if the teacher has patience and a true heart.
Teach us well because we have to teach our children and set them on the Good path.
Or tell me to go away if the initiative is not going to be taken up.
Regardless of your answers, i am grateful to all of you for just "Being".

12/06/2006 06:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, that was me, Dougman.

12/06/2006 06:28:00 AM  
Anonymous GLASR said...

Heavens to Wal Mart! If only GBob had used the affect of characters from Dave Alvin as opposed to "the Marshall" the testing by the unsteady would effect less of a circular firing squad. It's all about the love. Cannon fodder from the 5GW warriors of the opposition have lost their entertainment value.

12/06/2006 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger ximeze said...

GLASR: huh??

Dougman: the Divine, by nature, is "above" the tawdry things of this world, unlike us, who's sorry state is very much "in" it.

It's all well & nice to try withdrawing, to try & convince ourselves that doing battle for the causes of Truth & Good are somebody else's job.

Who's job is it? Why are we here, if not to be warriors in the service of a Higher Authority? What of value will we have to teach our children if we demonstrate spinelessness in the face of adversity?

The only thing needed for Evil to prevail is for Good men to do nothing. Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's & give to God that which is God's.

12/06/2006 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

“-Fear and aggression
-Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
-Uncertainty avoidance
-Need for cognitive closure
-Terror management”

Jody, have you not noticed the obvious, that these are the default responses of human beings in general? Does anyone seriously believe that there aren’t fine examples in both parties – and everywhere else for that matter?

As always, it’s a question of whether you choose to engage your mind (“As above, so…”), evaluate the default against what other options thoughtful questions might lead you towards, which implies that there is a Better, a Proper, not only Ends towards which to aim, but which you should strive for.

It is That belief, belief in a higher, integrated, all encompassing meaning and value that is the mark of the conservative, and it is the rejection of such a concept which is the mark of the leftie. And as Hoarhey so perfectly noted in his examples from recent commenter’s, the lefties more often than not suffer from that which they accuse.

The rejection of a uniting vision leaves you not only rudderless, but maples, able to react only within the confines of the situation (of the Galmour, Will?), guaranteeing that the situation will reinforce itself.

Give me the dogmatic hidebound conservative over the leftie any day, they at least think that there is a map and a destination worth steering towards, and so are more likely to actually get somewhere worthwhile … someday.

12/09/2006 08:43:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Stu! Good description of the real Monsters!

12/09/2006 08:45:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

NoMo said... "Fear is the mind killer"

A slight quibble, Fear is only an alarm bell, a friend calling your attention to the possible existence of things you have a history of being concerned with.

Failing to respond to Fear's alarm and only adding your shrieks to its clanging, and of not reevaluating what concerns you, That is the mind killer.

12/09/2006 08:49:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Will said… “The medium through which a "glamour spell" travels must be metaphysical in nature…” I think you’ve got it there. In some ways that is the mode of ‘communication’ which underlies all we then say and do on top of it.

I’m hoping to be able to post on this idea this weekend, my first non-working one in O so long

12/09/2006 08:53:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Petey said... “… 70 years of Soviet psychiatric research already proved that American leftists are 100% mentally healthy. And useful.”
LOL!!!

12/09/2006 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

ximeze said...
“What of value will we have to teach our children if we demonstrate spinelessness in the face of adversity?”

As ‘conservatives’ such as Pericles, Cicero, Edmund Burke, Patrick Henry & Winston Churchill have said down through the ages “The only thing needed for Evil to prevail is for Good men to do nothing”, why is that such a hard lesson for lefties AND conservatives to learn?

It is always such a temptation to leave the difficult and unattractive work for others to do. Without a proper Glamour front and center in the peoples minds, the difficult and unattractive remain unattractive, and the lazy evil (“… all must choose between what is Right and what is Easy…” – Dumbledore) will prevail by default.

That is the true danger behind the lefties assault on the Myths (In the finest sense) of God and of America – they have pulled down, ridiculed and discarded the Glamour of doing what is Right, and where there is no Vision, the people will perish.

12/09/2006 09:17:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

LukeBlogWalker said... "Hardening of the Categories"

LOL! I really like that!

12/09/2006 09:27:00 AM  
Anonymous PsychoPrincess said...

Van said: "Failing to respond to fears alarm and only adding your own shrieks to its clanging, and of not re-evaluating what cocerns you, That is the Mind Killer."

Agree. Only one answer for Fears of all kinds: FAITH. Apply actively, generously, then one can know Love really does conquer Fear.

Practical application: "Feel Fear; And Apply Active Submission/Faith."

Progressivism, the way Bob blogs it, is not only a mind killer.

JODY: FYI: We, who are In (more properly termed "Outside of") the Psych profession shorten the nickname of the APA's gag-rag to "PSYCHOBULL".

12/15/2006 02:12:00 AM  
Anonymous PsychoPrincess said...

Van said: "Failing to respond to fears alarm and only adding your own shrieks to its clanging, and of not re-evaluating what concerns you, That is the Mind Killer."

Agree. Only one answer for Fears of all kinds: FAITH. Apply actively, generously, daily. Then one can know Love does conquer Fear.

Practical application: "Feel Fear; And Apply Active Submission/Faith."

JODY: FYI: We, who are In (more properly termed "Outside of") the Psych profession shorten the nickname of the APA's gag-rag to "PSYCHOBULL".

12/15/2006 02:14:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home