Now Aubrey Marcus … what is going on?!

[Oeaohoo]

34 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Ask yourself "Where does that pull on my psyche come from?”

Why psychologise it? The resurgence of the Right in the West is happening for political reasons, not psychological ones.

[Emerald]

14 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Why psychologise it? The resurgence of the Right in the West is happening for political reasons, not psychological ones.

Political movements are almost always formed (at least partially) in response towards collective psychological patterns or as a means to compensate for and balance out collective psychological patterns.

So, you cannot separate politics from human psychology as there is a reason why people gravitate towards the movements they gravitate towards.

And with what the poster that I was responding to said, they were describing that they noticed themselves having a magnetic pull towards Fascism. And a pull towards a pattern like Fascism is usually as a result of some internal drama playing itself out externally.

For example, someone might project their authoritarian parental figure onto a Fascist leader... or authoritarian leader more generally. And this can activate a child aspect of them that still sees the parent as perfect. And this gets projected onto a given politician.

Or, they can play out traumas around unfairness and scarcity from childhood... and scapegoat and project that onto people of different groups who they perceive as getting unfair treatment or taking up all the resources.

And these are just a couple examples that are more straight forward.

Here's one that's a bit less straightforward. A person has authoritarian parents. And they come to rebel from those parents... and develop a contrarian way of thinking.

And if a political figure comes on the scene that comes across as anti-establishment, the person may feel "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." And then, the contrarian can begin conforming to this anti-establishment dictator figure. And then, the contrarians repressed conformity starts to bear its head in unconscious ways. 

[Oeaohoo]

“I just want my government to import less migrants.”

”Ah, the dreaded Authoritarian Personality rears its head again! Will we ever learn?! Sit down in my armchair, inmate, we have a lot of work to do on you… Now, tell me about your Mother.”

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Oeaohoo said:

“I just want my government to import less migrants.”

”Ah, the dreaded Authoritarian Personality rears its head again! Will we ever learn?! Sit down in my armchair, inmate, we have a lot of work to do on you… Now, tell me about your Mother.”

You may be joking, but if you worked directly with people to help them explore their unconscious, it's genuinely not that far off from how it actually is.

Once I was working with a coaching client who was surprised to find herself voting for the far right party in her country. 

And when she told me this, I asked her questions to help her explore that deeper. And eventually she stumbled upon the realization that the leader of the party reminded her of her dad and his absolutist authoritarian personality.

And consciously, she felt a lot of negative feelings towards her dad and felt rebellious towards him and his authoritarian ways since her teens. But as a child, she saw him as all knowing and had very positive feelings about him, that got repressed because of a variety of different circumstances that happened in her pre-teens and teens year.

And once she realized that she was transferring her repressed positive feelings and illusion of perfection about her dad onto this leader, it broke the fever for her. 

And for me, when I was really involved with canvassing for Bernie Sanders during the primary that he lost against Biden, I got super involved. And on Super Tuesday, when the Democrats all got together and dropped out and endorsed Biden and screwed Bernie over, I had a lot of grief come up.

And I cried on my couch. And I realized that, despite having genuinely progressive values, I had been using the idea of getting Bernie elected to avoid my own problems by getting my hopes up about more macrocosmic problems.

And when I lost hope for Bernie, all the sadness that I was distracted from came up to the surface.

So honestly, my estimate is that 80% of politics can be chalked up to individual and collective psychological dynamics.

Edited Monday at 02:56 AM by Emerald

[aurum]

3 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

It looks like  Charles Eisenstein also derailed. But I can find the exact Reel,Post or Info where he implicitly show that he is supporting Trump Victory. 

That would be my guess. He was on the campaign staff for RFK.

[Tanz]

Jill Stein was the best canditate. Harris and Trump were both terrible choices. Both can be picked apart.  

I dont blame the Trump side or the Harris side for their ignorance.  There were both arguments in support of them.

Jill Stein didnt have much objections and its absurd Americans didnt take her seriously.  

If the dems chose Bernie in 2016, Trump would never become president and the world would be very different today.  Bernie got beat but cheating Hillary and the DNC and he never spoke up.  The dems deserve what happened, sort of like how a woman sticks with a man after getting beat by him regularly for years.  They produced Obama and just regressed backwards by putting in Hillary, Biden and a soulless Harris.  

Edited Monday at 08:07 AM by Tanz

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Why psychologise it? The resurgence of the Right in the West is happening for political reasons, not psychological ones.

The goat oeaohoo is back.

I think you would be right, if most people would be actually voting based on substance and not on perceived good and bad. That perceived good and bad in most cases backed up by feelings that a given propaganda machine created in you and then circling this back to your claim - this eventually becomes a psychological issue (where the ability to persuade you will be constrained by the aritficially created feelings in you) and not an issue on disagreeing on substance and about policy.

Even in the context where one actually cares about the facts and open to be persuaded on a descriptive ground - Most of the convos go like this: "I don't like policy X because it has effect Y" - well you are wrong about X creating Y, here is the evidence - "Well ,okay ,maybe but it will have effect Z as well" - You are wrong about that as well, here is evidence. And then this goes on after a while where you end up at a place where we start to talk about values rather than just about outcomes and effects. 

The disagreement  eventually becomes about why you hold the values that you hold and why those values important to you (which also eventually becomes a psychological discussion). 

 

[LSD-Rumi]

Not surprised. This person struck me as intellectually ungrounded since the first video I saw for him. He would fall for the silliest of new age ideas proposed by his guests.

Basically, he endorsed Trump because he was called antivaxx, lol.

Edited Monday at 09:16 AM by LSD-Rumi

[Ishanga]

17 hours ago, Ulax said:

Okay I think I get you.

I think when you say 'there is no credibility to our judgment' that is too absolute of a claim. I think that it would be more accurate to argue that there is doubt over the credibility of our judgment regarding some aspects of their lives.

Like if you saw Elon Musk dropkick a baby, you wouldn't need to understand what it means to be rich to be able to credibly judge him.

Yes correct, the action speaks for themselves.. Its super hard for Us normal ppl that work jobs and live in a slave like atmosphere to judge accurately that elites, I'm not for them in anyway, I'm just saying it is sort of a different world, I wouldn't want to be Musk or any of them, Trump either, who would need the hassle and the fact that maybe half the population hates them, here in Canada half the population hates Trudeau, he's Young man, he will be out of office in a year then what, live the rest of Your life looking over Your shoulder? He'll probably leave the country and live elsewhere...But we cannot really know what it is like or what they are like since most of them hide their true selves and only reveal a public persona..

My problem is when ppl are dead sure about someone but they have no clue or credibility to judge that person from just the difference in lifestyle and knowing,, Putin I think we sort of know what he is, he's doing this war vs Ukraine and its obvious he has no compassion or consciousness level of realization if he is doing it this way..its not like Ukraine attacked them first right...

[Ulax]

3 hours ago, Ishanga said:

Yes correct, the action speaks for themselves.. Its super hard for Us normal ppl that work jobs and live in a slave like atmosphere to judge accurately that elites, I'm not for them in anyway, I'm just saying it is sort of a different world, I wouldn't want to be Musk or any of them, Trump either, who would need the hassle and the fact that maybe half the population hates them, here in Canada half the population hates Trudeau, he's Young man, he will be out of office in a year then what, live the rest of Your life looking over Your shoulder? He'll probably leave the country and live elsewhere...But we cannot really know what it is like or what they are like since most of them hide their true selves and only reveal a public persona..

My problem is when ppl are dead sure about someone but they have no clue or credibility to judge that person from just the difference in lifestyle and knowing,, Putin I think we sort of know what he is, he's doing this war vs Ukraine and its obvious he has no compassion or consciousness level of realization if he is doing it this way..its not like Ukraine attacked them first right...

Yes I would agree it is hard to understand their lives. And that people are often uncharitable in their arguments about how easy it is to be them.

[Ishanga]

6 minutes ago, Ulax said:

Yes I would agree it is hard to understand their lives. And that people are often uncharitable in their arguments about how easy it is to be them.

Its like ppl will watch everything a rich and famous or successful person will do, but to be them is another story... I recently watched some video's on the guy that created Hotmail, and then sold it to Bill Gates, he instantly become a multi multi millionaire, worth 200Million, of course he said in the beginning he felt high as a kite, bought stuff, travelled and such, but after awhile it settled down, and the stuff and fame was not so important, but ppl focus on the stuff and think that will fulfill them, it won't.. So being Musk would not be something I would want to be, I would not want the responsibility, the exposure, the work load or fame..

[Joshe]

8 hours ago, zurew said:

Even in the context where one actually cares about the facts and open to be persuaded on a descriptive ground - Most of the convos go like this: "I don't like policy X because it has effect Y" - well you are wrong about X creating Y, here is the evidence - "Well ,okay ,maybe but it will have effect Z as well" - You are wrong about that as well, here is evidence. And then this goes on after a while where you end up at a place where we start to talk about values rather than just about outcomes and effects. 

The disagreement  eventually becomes about why you hold the values that you hold and why those values important to you (which also eventually becomes a psychological discussion). 

haha, I like this. Do you know of any books or anything that go into this more deeply? I feel like we need an updated resource on this whole phenomenon. 

I've had several conversations where I lead someone to see their position is irrational and they just say things like "yeah, you have a point, something to think about". 😂 I mean, I understand bias, but damn, strap on a sack. It's like they don't have the courage to be wrong, which makes me think they really want to be right due to some inferiority/superiority complex. Just a theory, and it wouldn't apply across the board but I think it's an aspect in at least some cases. 

Edited Monday at 04:59 PM by Joshe

[zurew]

35 minutes ago, Joshe said:

haha, I like this. Do you know of any books or anything that go into this more deeply? I feel like we need an updated resource on this whole phenomenon.

Unfortunately I dont know any books, since Im very poorly read, but our friend @Oeaohoo might be able to help you out, since he is a well-read guy. Probably one of the most well-read guy on this forum.

Im not even sure what field or what subject would be the closest to tackle with this phenomenon. Probably books on rhetoric and articles and videos around the concept of being resistant to evidence might help.

It takes a lot of character to admit when one is wrong (and that wont happen during the debate or the conversation, because its in most cases just way too humiliating , especially if the debate is fiery) . The other thing is the underlying assumption about caring about truth . that actually needs to be there, but in most cases people dont care , people care about the aesthetic of caring about truth.

The other thing is that we are not rational in general. We have positions grounded in feelings in most cases about the vast majority of the subjects and we don't have a clear concept about how we could be persuaded to change our position on most the beliefs we hold. Like when you ask yourself the question of "what would change my belief on this x thing" - you will realize , that when it comes to  the vast majority of beliefs that you have, you don't have a clear view how it could be done.

Edited Monday at 05:32 PM by zurew

[Joshe]

@zurew Thanks. Yeah, I need to drill this into my skull:

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

The other thing is the underlying assumption about caring about truth . that actually needs to be there, but in most cases people dont care , people care about the aesthetic of caring about truth.

It's like I know it, but I don't want to accept it and I continually rebel against it. 

[Joshe]

I just had an idea. What if all debates and arguments were moderated by a well-trained AI and the unbiased AI could be the judge. I know there'd be problems but they could be ironed out. Imagine that as the battleground of ideas. Meet me in the ring mother fucker! 😂

I intuited a while back that many non-thinking people would hate AI due to it's fact-based approach pushing back against their ideas. I've seen my family members reject it's factually correct answers and they justify it with "you can't trust that thing. It's not always right". haha. 

Actually, thinking about it more. This could be a really big deal and even core to society at some point in the future. It's very ambitious but it could be huge in terms of financial success AND in healing the collective epistemology. 

Edited Monday at 05:52 PM by Joshe

[Nemra]

💡

We need an AI for this forum that analyzes and provides info about what we write, like whether it's factual, aggressive, hostile, offensive, etc., before posting.

Edited Monday at 06:17 PM by Nemra

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

I intuited a while back that many non-thinking people would hate AI due to it's fact-based approach pushing back against their ideas. I've seen my family members reject it's factually correct answers and they justify it with "you can't trust that thing. It's not always right". haha. 

Thats what happened with fact checking website. People that disagreed would go to the ad hominem of questioning the credibility of the fact checkers rather than the argument itself. Or even in the 2020 election where the attacked the vote counting machines. People will destroy actual truth to defend their 'truth'. Which is basically a delusion that makes them feel good.

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

💡

We need an AI for this forum that analyzes and provides info about what we write, like whether it's factual, aggressive, hostile, offensive, etc., before posting.

Fact checking is good but AI isnt always right there either.  Also I think a little bias and emotion is healthy within reason because it keeps the human element alive.. If you want to use AI it will basically expose our biases because it just goes on facts and not emotion though it does try to convey that it grasps when there is an emotional issue at hand.  But that's mostly because of the data it's been fed.  So it's good for expanding our perspectives in many regards however using it full time might make the place dull.  If it was constantly monitoring us it would feel like Big Brother was watching and moderating but in this case a robotic Big Brother far more intelligent than us...and we would try to adhere it it's standards...that's fine but again we could be sacrificing the very thing that makes us human.  Emotion!

 

Edited Monday at 07:48 PM by Inliytened1

[Nemra]

@Inliytened1, think of AI as a reflection of millions of people who have biases. Now that's powerful!

It's not only about trusting the AI on some stuff, but also about understanding why, how, and what the AI responds. Although, it's a game changer in terms of learning factual things.

I want to make connections in my mind in an interactive way. And in the case of AI, the connections can become very advanced very fast.

However, I'm not saying that it replaces other tools.

Also, notice that what you said can be said of books.

Edited Monday at 08:18 PM by Nemra

[Inliytened1]

17 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Inliytened1, think of AI as a reflection of millions of people who have biases. Now that's powerful!

It's not only about trusting the AI on some stuff, but also about understanding why, how, and what the AI responds. Although, it's a game changer in terms of learning factual things.

I want to make connections in my mind in an interactive way. And in the case of AI, the connections can become very advanced very fast.

However, I'm not saying that it replaces other tools.

Also, notice that what you said can be said of books.

It's interesting to say the least. I see your perspective on this and it is highly valued.  Wow I just sounded like AI there!  AI is completely objective so supplementing the forum with this could provide some value but if we have to rely on AI to govern us than perhaps we have to look in the mirror.