I don't know if it is de rigueur to resurrect such old threads, but I was quite interested in your thought process here prior to being knocked out of action these past months.

Anyway...

Well communism obviously. — StreetlightX

...isn't quite what I wanted to know about. When I asked what you would replace psychology with I didn't mean psychology as a political system (god knows what dystopia you had in mind if you thought that), I meant psychology as a means of estimating how people might respond to some action or circumstance. Presumably you don't go about acting toward others as if their responses are random and unrelated to your actions? Nor do I assume you advocate something like communism out of idle aesthetic preference. Rather, in both cases, you have some model in mind of how people are likely to respond to both your actions and to the circumstances of their environment that leads you to choose actions and advocate political systems.

I want to know how you think you've developed this model. I presume by experience (not yet excluding the possibly you think we're just born with it, but I'm going to at least put that possibility as unlikely). Your experience, however, is obviously that of a your particular culture, upbringing and disposition - a filtered, biased and confounded view.

Psychology, is an attempt to reach the same types of model, but via methods which minimise the biases of one's culture, limited personal experience and confounding factors (the latter being the easiest to tackle, but the former two, arguably most important).

I could see a very strong argument being made that psychology had failed manifestly in removing these problematic modelling factors, but I struggle to see how you might arrive at the conclusion that it shouldn't even try, that it's actually better to have those models based in the ad hoc reckoning of highly specific individual experiences. That's the part I'd like you to explain, if you've the inclination. Do you really imagine that despite the strong influence of our varying (and at times quite unpleasant) cultures, we all nonetheless arrive a a pretty accurate model of how other people respond, including all the various neuro-diverse people we may never have even met. Seem monumentally unlikely to me.

we can replace all psychologists with a coin flip machine considering you guys can replicate only about half of what happens in that 'science' anyway. — StreetlightX

I'm sure I don't need to tell someone as well-read as you that this does not make any statistical sense. A 50% replicability rate means that 50% of experiment results can be replicated (ie have a particular measure of robustness), the others lack such a measure (although they may be robust in other ways). It doesn't measure the probability of any particular model being right. Notwithstanding, my main point here is that you are using a model right now. Just in deciding if and how to respond to me you are using a model of human behaviour. You system has 0% replicability, so I fail to see how 50% isn't a massive improvement.

(On a side note, 50% is also about the replicability rate of the pharmaceutical and medical sciences - I don't think this is really the political environment in which to be claiming that we might as well disregard any results arising from fields of research with 50% replicability)

Is it always just different political views or are there more fundamental psychological differences that make those views appealing to us in the first place? — Apollodorus

I think a version of this is probably the case. We evolved from animals that survived well using group cooperation and during extreme environments animals that fended for them selves well. I'm suggesting altruism might be more appealing to certain people relative to the environment at any given time.

You could be right. Maybe there is a tension there between individual struggle for survival and increased security with attendant chances of survival within a group. Or egoism vs. altruism. And even altruism may in some ways be motivated by egoism. Human psychology can be quite complex. But I tend to believe that, irrespective of its evolutionary roots, psychology does play some role in politics.

Why is “the Left” called “loony”? — Apollodorus

I wonder if it's related to how left-wing, erm, eccentrics, are called "moonbats", while their right-wing equivalent are instead "wingnuts"

I think I quite like the sound of "moonbats". It seems so have a certain resonance with "loony" (< Luna, Latin for "moon"), though I must admit "wingnut" is quite funny, too. :grin:

BTW, which of them would you say are more disruptive and annoying than the others?

"moonbats". It seems so have a certain resonance with "loony" (< Luna, Latin for "moon") — Apollodorus

Yeah, that’s why I thought they might be related.

which of them would you say are more disruptive and annoying than the others? — Apollodorus

Definitely wingnuts. While there are certain a fair share of anti-science woo peddlers on the left too, they don’t have any significant political representation, meanwhile actual right-wing congresspeople are rambling about space laser and whatnot.

Looney is the word I'd use for those who would seek to impose their moral views on others through state coercion. — Tzeentch

kinda like feminists getting government to pass wage gap legislation even though wage gap is a myth hah

Generally speaking, bullies tend to be on the far right, and losers tend to be on the far left. The far right attracts bullies because of its emphasis on social hierarchy, dominance and the glorification of violence. The far left attracts losers because of its emphasis on collective responsibility (as opposed to taking care of yourself), the abolishment of hierarchy (so nobody is better than the loser) and a prophesied revenge upon whoever the loser is jealous of (the revolution). As it stands, both sides of the spectrum are loony, and it's best to not associate with them.

As it stands, both sides of the spectrum are loony, and it's best to not associate with them. — darthbarracuda

I agree. I think what tends to happen is that extremists start with some idea (like the Communist Manifesto) that sounds good on paper and that appeals to them emotionally, after which they get carried away and can no longer think rationally. And that's where "revolution", "jihad", or other forms of violence take over.

So, it seems that it all starts with emotions or some other psychological factors.

kinda like feminists getting government to pass wage gap legislation even though wage gap is a myth hah — MikeListeral

Is that a joke or do you really mean that wage gap is a myth?

I think what tends to happen is that extremists start with some idea (like the Communist Manifesto) that sounds good on paper and that appeals to them emotionally, after which they get carried away and can no longer think rationally. And that's where "revolution", "jihad", or other forms of violence take over. — Apollodorus

This is the problem with idealists and radicals.

Philosophers (or the philosophical types) are often idealists. They get carried so away with the ideology as they put on these ideological glasses on that blend everything to show how great their ideology is and hides the view any negative aspects. And anyone looking at the issues without those glasses and even remotely making a remark about the negative aspects will be seen as the enemy of the wonderful ideology, who then should be attacked.

There are those especially in the intelligentsia who do fall for the "Let's change the World totally"-argument that radical ideologies offer. As these usually have been among the smartest guys or gals around the block, they think that it's their calling, their chance to change the World. They have found their cause (at least for a while, that is). And as they are so smart, that change they are hoping for has to be important, radical, huge. Off with the old futile ideas! And this fits the progressive leftist as well as the right wing libertarian anarcho-capitalist.

There are those especially in the intelligentsia who do fall for the "Let's change the World totally"-argument that radical ideologies offer. As these usually have been among the smartest guys or gals around the block, they think that it's their calling, their chance to change the World. They have found their cause (at least for a while, that is). And as they are so smart, that change they are hoping for has to be important, radical, huge. Off with the old futile ideas! And this fits the progressive leftist as well as the right wing libertarian anarcho-capitalist. — ssu

You don't get it.

Everybody else is racist and sexist. Everybody else is stupid or brainwashed and chooses to believe in religious fairy tales over material reality. Only people like me are strong enough to face reality in its true form and understand that the people must actively take power from our powerful oppressors and in turn reclaim control our own destiny. If we need to break a few eggs to make the omelette then so be it - that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to my own mental health if it means a better future for humanity.

Is that a joke or do you really mean that wage gap is a myth? — Apollodorus

wage gap basically just proves that men work longer and harder

main reason for this is because women prefer foamily over work

which means most women want the wage gap to exist.

trying to eliminate it would be very stupid

You don't get it.

Everybody else is racist and sexist. Everybody else is stupid or brainwashed and chooses to believe in religious fairy tales over material reality. Only people like me are strong enough to face reality in its true form and understand that the people must actively take power from our powerful oppressors and in turn reclaim control our own destiny. If we need to break a few eggs to make the omelette then so be it - that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to my own mental health if it means a better future for humanity. — K Turner

I'm not sure if there's any sarcasm in what you say.

Well, off you go to the barricades...

wage gap basically just proves that men work longer and harder

main reason for this is because women prefer foamily over work

which means most women want the wage gap to exist.

trying to eliminate it would be very stupid — MikeListeral

The gender wage gap differs by age group and geographic location. For instance, in the UK there is no gender wage gap for full-time workers under 30 years old, while there's a huge wage gap in the US.

Child-rearing does contribute to the onset of a wage gap over 30, since most women still take several years out and this hits their careers hard. One recent push to even this out in the UK was to allow women to share their parental leave with their partners but, when it came to it, women declined. Hopefully over time, as paternity leave becomes more normalised, maternal gatekeeping will wane some and we'll see a more even spread of the personal cost of having children. However, while equality of outcome seems to be a rallying point for feminists and working women over 30, it's probably not top of the agenda for new parents trying to navigate their own lives.

Anyhow, this kinda-equity has been reached with great effort. Until a few years ago, there was a systematic wage gap that could not be put down to post-natal decisions. Women of all ages earned less than their male counterparts in the same role, and had hugely less access to the highest-paid roles. Equal opportunities legislation among other measures made that difference, which makes your statement:

trying to eliminate it would be very stupid — MikeListeral

very stupid.

free market capitalism doesn't care what gender or color you are, it only cares about money

if its paying someone less its because that person is earning less for that company

equality of outcome is nothing but a fancy word for socialism

its not my job to pay for other peoples kids. that's theft.

socialism is theft

every dollar you give away to a woman you first have to steal from a man

There’s more than 2 sides (right and left). There s a THIRD AXIS!! The 3rd believes that we have some obligation to take care of fellow countrymen (especially medically). But, we don’t necessarily believe extreme socialism advances a society or makes it more productive. 3rd axis believes that some people are more motivated than average - they deserve a reasonable compensation! But, unlike the right - we believe in a totally SECULAR Government - there should be no biblical references in our laws, etc. the 3rd axis is fine with CHANGE.
We are PROCHOICE, be there should be a maximum time limit (make up your mind before it’s basically a viable human - approx 1st trimester)
The 3rd axis agrees that without a border, you don’t have a country

free market capitalism doesn't care what gender or color you are, it only cares about money — MikeListeral

Utter nonsense. Doubling the employee pool was a boon for employers. It still needed to be forced to do it. If there's a way it can get away with paying any demographic less, it'll do it. It'd help if you stopped talking in propagandic cliche.

If there's a way it can get away with paying any demographic less, it'll do it. — Kenosha Kid

you get what you pay for

the more you play an employee the more they work

and the more they work is the more you should pay

free market takes care of itself. no need for government intervention

and definitely no need for more feminists with victim mentality

if women are strong why dont they go out and prove it instead of always trying to get men to give them more handouts

Thanks for the hypoxia perspective on macroeconomics.

*carries on speaking in propagandist cliche*
I picture you typing this in foetal position, sucking your thumb, rocking a little, whispering "Everything's okay. Everything's okay."