The political compass: sense of c99, where its members stand.
After days, weeks, even months of surfing the intertubes (well, actually alligators don't surf) I have come across many websites on YouTube. Some are absolutely looney, and I am not talking about Alex Jones et.al (although he is definitely "out there"). If you like conspiracy theories, you will have your heart's delight. Now, I do frequent the "Amen Corner" such as TYT, Jimmy Dore, Humanist, Secular Talk, and the Sane Progressive. But, desiring not to live in a pseudo-progressive ideological bubble, it is good to take a look around and see whatever other views are available, even the probably improbable ones. One doesn't have to swallow everything that's put out. Use critical thinking skills before judging. After all, we at c99 hold ourselves up as being able to dissect through the B.S. with reason (even if a certain amount of confirmation bias is inevitable).
Thus I have come across some truly interesting sites, with which I do not or may not agree. Many of these sites, even RW ones can present reasoned arguments; these are worthy of critical examination.
I actually am more prejudiced against so-called liberal sites that were all in for Killary; e.g., HuffPo, NYT, WaPo, primarily because they completely deny their biases.
One fantastic (an adjective I rarely use) site which is extremely thought-provoking is that of Sargon of Akkad, whose a Brit by the name of Carl Benjamin. I strongly recommend taking a look at his site. Because he has a UK-type of outlook, his take on events American can, like DeToqueville, be quite accurate.
An essay of his, my Political Compass results inspired me to look up this test which I completed several years ago, and repeated just before watching his video. I did not want to have my responses prejudiced by his--and they weren't.
The test, which is free, and the results which are instantaneous upon test completion, also free are pretty interesting. To take the test merely go to socialcompass.org. Completion takes less than 10 minutes. Of course not all answers are black or white.
My results landed me in the lower left (green) area. My scores were: economics: -6.5; social: -5.69.
This puts me in the same general quadrant as Ghandi, though I possess little of the man's greatness.
It could be quite interesting to gain a sense of the community, at least on how we rate on the Political Compass.
I've published my results. I would certainly be interested if others would do the same in the comment section.
Comments
As Kermit said: "It's not easy being green"
Some quibble.
So-called liberal sites that were all in for Killary; e.g., HuffPo, NYT, WaPo, primarily because they completely deny their biases. Those are "so-called liberal" sites because they don't claim to be. It is the RW that says they are. WaPo is in its own world. The real so-called liberal sites in the tank for Hillary were sites like dailykos, TPM, and MotherJones. To this you can add John Oliver, Bill Maher, and a few others.
A site you omitted that absolutely belongs to the Amen Corner is Lee Camp. He has a very interesting interview on the primary and what next with an ex-Bernie staffer, who is a replace and not reform guy with a plan.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
@dkmich Freakin Bill Maher last
Freakin Bill Maher last night
was branding Chomsky as a nutjob. And announcing that people who called Hellery the "Lesser Evil" to Trump , all owe Maher an apology now. With douchebags like Maher representing the "Left" no wonder people call the Left idiots.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
I used to like Bill Maher
but he's been feeding at the corporate trough for much too long and has become sedate from it all. Too fat, dumb and happy.
I stopped watching him some years ago after the end of "Politically Incorrect". I was taken aback when he came out for Hillary. Further confirming my completely non-scientific theory that money is very much like processed cocaine.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Saw a recent clip of Mahrer. I thought it was Meet the Press
Bunch of right wingers who he did not challenge as they were all against Trump. Great friends to have.
Saw a recent clip of Mahrer. I thought it was Meet the Press
Bunch of right wingers who he did not challenge as they were all against Trump. Great friends to have.
Maher needs to get over himself, but probably never will.
Wow. Thanks for sharing that video!
Finally -- something and someone saying things that encourage me.
He makes a great case that the time is ripe for a new party to emerge and succeed in the complete demise of democrats, due to lack of interest. And we will get to watch them go away like the Whig party. I love it -- I want to believe!! I really do.
The only part I question is if Bernie Sanders:
1) can be pursued to do this. (this guy says yes, and he worked with Bernie directly, so he's in a better position than me to know, but I'm still skeptical. But, I also feel it's possible he is right, and Bernie would go for it.
2) does the success of this new party absolutely depend on Bernie? Because, first see point 1. What if Bernie won't step up? Or maybe he feels he's too old or whatever to do this, and steps aside?
Note for anyone who hasn't listened to the interview: he's not saying start with electing Bernie as president, but with running candidates for congress in 2018, backed by Bernie's new party. It took six years for the Republican Party to kill off the Whigs and take the White House. Bernie as the presidential nominee in 2020 and taking over congress is the longer range goal. But fueled by Bernie's movement, and starting now with congressional seats.
So my question is, does the whole thing rest on the element of having a "trusted, charismatic leader" (Bernie)? Or, isn't there enough anger and frustration and disgust out there to do this even if Bernie personally doesn't? Will he really be so bold? I'm just not sure he would, and I hope it's not all resting on this one person making it happen or not.
But, just bringing people into the party in trying to "draft" him could build a fire that won't be stopped either way.
Strategic question... if this were to happen, I'd expect Elizabeth Warren as the dem nominee in 2020. She would be the perfect person to try to rehabilitate their image, capture the anti Wall Street message, and ride the wave of women in pink hats who so badly want a female as president...IOW, identity politics. As much as we scorn it (and I do), I grudgingly admit that it works on a lot of people. So, how does the Bernie party take that on? Tulsi? Just a thought.
Anyway, off to watch the other video below. Thanks dk, lots of food for thought.
I keep hearing Sanders' saying he would not run
"as a spoiler," which is a telling choice of words, esp. for a man who chooses his words as carefully as does Bernie.
When Jackson ran, Sanders said Jackson should have gone third party. After that, Sanders always endorsed the Democratic nominee, starting with Bill Clinton in 1992. Whether you believe the deal Sanders made with the Democratic Party after Jackson ran has something to do with that change probably depends upon your opinion of Sanders generally and how comfortable you are making assumptions. (I said only that I did not know.)
http://caucus99percent.com/content/spoiler-candidates-and-protest-votes-...
Never liked Maher
He's a self-absorbed douchebag of moderate intelligence who thinks he's much smarter and funnier than he is. My favorite bit from him was during the primarywhen he pulled that you eat the chicken if you can't get the fish bullshit. He acknowledged that when he was young he was stupid like the Bernie or Busters and voted for Nader. That was some Henry Hyde-like youthful indiscretion. Douchebag was 40 when he voted for Nader. That kind of basic dishonesty is disqualifying in my book.
Maher
For a comedian, he is exceptionally thin-skinned. Almost as bad as Trump.
Every time he makes a joke, and the crowd doesn't react the way he wants to, he scolds them. He needs to hear the laugh to boost his flaccid ego. It's kind of pathetic actually.
Here's mine:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
On their 2016 US Election page
They show how all the candidates scored. Interesting how Sanders and Stein score just a bit Left Of Center. Then all the establishment candidates (including Clinton) scored VERY HARD Right Of Center.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
Thanks for the link. I will try to find time for the test later -- after I shovel the damn snow.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Agree with the those candidate test results, but
who needed a test score to tell us those things?
@Citizen Of Earth
Lol, Clinton probably got an aide to do it for her.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
My results
Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.13
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
This is how to start a new party.
Start with half a party (The Bernie supporters) and take them with you.
https://draftbernie.org
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79
Maybe. As soon as Teddy Roosevelt decided not to
run as a Progressive, the Progressive Party imploded.
History does not determine the present, though. Hence "Maybe."
Although I agree with your post, parsing of concepts
with similar words is bound to cause confusion, even amongst the concerned. I consider equal rights and equal treatment under the law to be feminism--or is it feministic? I would have to keep running back to your definitions, using almost identical words but which denote two very different social views. A better choice of wording must be selected for common parlance or the difference between the two will be relegated to the political arcane.
As to the matter of equal rights for women, you find no difference--but that is wrong. It is wrong because government can and does take away a woman's right to be pro-choice in certain states. Can government require castration or vasectomy?
This "female rights" dialogue requires considerable clarification using differentiating terminology more definitive that "-ist" or "-ism".
Did you intend to reply to me, or only to Dennis?
If you intended to reply to Dennis, your reply may be in the wrong place because it showed up in my "My Comments" as a reply to me.
If you intended to reply to both of us, as having both our names in your post indicates, I am not understanding what parsing of concepts you think my post did. I meant simply that forming a political party by breaking away from a larger political party may or may not guarantee that the "breakaway" party succeeds. It hasn't been a guarantee in the past, but that doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.
I got this HW, thank you
As you concluded, this must have been intended as a reply to my post.
Yes I agree. it's annoying yet, it is important to be clear that a feminist is a person and feminism is a thing. I'm not anti-people. I'm anti-feminism.
Factually, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
And more importantly Abortion is not an equal rights issue. It's a women's issue. Men can't get pregnant.
Yes government can, has and does allow castration as punishment. Can a women be forced to have an abortion by government as punishment? Not in this day I think. Though certainly in the past government has done so.
Has chemical castration of sex offenders been outlawed?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93947&page=1
I'd like to suggest there are a few holes in the point you're trying to make here.
Feminism is equal treatment? For who? Women only? If equal treatment was the goal shouldn't feminism be irate over the disparities in child custody?
The Supreme Court has found that equal protection under the law does NOT mean equal treatment under the law.
Which means among other things that men can be charged more for insurance. Ever hear feminism speak to that disparity? I haven't.
So feminism isn't about equal rights? It's about equal outcomes?
Equal treatment? You're going to have to explain that to me better I'm afraid.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
I like your succinct restatement of the definitions.
Feminism is a thing; feminist is a person.
I get that, you get that. But I'm still not sure most people will get that.
This would make a great topic for a full essay. One brief comment before leaving this matter: Forced abortion is not the issue. The issues are: forced non-abortion, intrusive vaginal ultrasound, permission of sperm donor to terminate pregnancy. Aww this post is about the political compass as a whole, I did not intend to give particular weight to any of the questions, although those answers may be weighted by the developers for scoring.
Well, but for your bringing Sargon to the table
I would likely have remained quiet. I took your urging to explore outside the bubble as an opportunity to do just that.
Sargon is much less polite about feminism than I am.
In any case, trying to equate anti-feminism (as feminism manifests itself in our society) with support for forced pregnancy, ultra-sounds and forced abortion is disingenuous but sure to stop a conversation.
No sperm donors should NEVER be allowed to terminate a pregnancy. Her body, her choice. But he damn well better pay child support!
Yeah, this whole thing is about a political compass.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
I'm glad you contributed, Dennis
The type of discussion, such as feminism, is the lifeblood of a political website.
More
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
That was interesting
I landed solidly in the lower left corner: liberal/libertarian.
economics: -7.75. Social: -6.87
My favorite question on this quiz: "astrology accurately explains many things." LOL!
What does it mean if you agree with that one, I wonder.
I wonder how they figured out how Ghandi
would have answered that one. I had to disagree because I don't know enough about astrology to agree with it.
Good question
If I had to guess I'd say no, he didn't believe in astrology.
I've been contemplating this and although it seems at first glance that a yes answer would be from left-leaning types, upon reflection I think it actually would indicate an authoritarian bent, as it suggests a belief that there is some outside force or greater power that is controlling things, and that there is an underlying explanation for everything, not just chaos and randomness.
Gandhi said this, which I found interesting:
That is decidedly anti-authoritarian. So I'd put him down for a no.
Me too, that's what I want to be when I grow up.
Goes with what I've been asking, why do we need a president? I think we need to stretch our imaginations a little bit on this governing thing. Obviously people have done it in the past.
Regarding astrology
There is no correct answer for me. I think astrologers place too much belief in it whereas scientists so strongly believe it is fluff that they refuse to examine it.
When I investigated it for myself I found there was something there but it needs more rigorous study than a non-scientist like myself could undertake.
There are several "branches" of astrology, not all of which can be studied independently of one another. The best known is "natal astrology" that calculates the aspects of the planets and constellations to your time and place of birth. Those planets and constellations and degrees from each other define some of your characteristics. These can be described as either personality or spiritual influences or both. These influences are so numerous that very little can be ascertained by asking "what's your sign".
Transit Astrology can be divided into two types, the first of which requires the natal chart. One can track the movement of (primarily) planets over time and these movements can be interpreted depending on the placements of planets in the natal chart. For example, the planet Saturn is associated with the father, discipline, restriction and hard lessons that take time and pain to get through but which improve you in the long run. It is said to become a major influence whenever it returns to the natal position which happens approximately every 30 years or so. Did you have a difficult time around the age of 30? 60? This is just one small example of how one applies the transit of planets to the natal chart. Astrologers tell you they can determine such things as when you married, had children, other major markers in your life using your natal chart and the transits.
Transit Astrology can also be interpreted more broadly, in how the earth, societies and nations can be influenced by the movement of the planets. For example, the planet Uranus is associated with innovation, revolution, sudden change while Mars is martial, associated with machinery and aggression. A funny one is what happens when Mercury turns retrograde (which means from earth it appears to be orbiting backwards, tho it isn't in reality). Mercury rules communication, so that is when communication breaks down, it becomes more difficult to communicate and computer glitches proliferate. So whenever I had computer problems on the job I would announce that Mercury was retrograde (whether it was or not). Mars retrograde, on the other hand would signify mechanical problems and breakdowns.
Transit Astrology can be taken through history as well, to look at larger social movements over time. For example, the conjunction or strengthening position of Mars (military) and Saturn (restriction, authoritarianism) might indicate a more fascist period. Nations have "birthdays" too so transit astrology can be applied to individual countries as well.
The primary tool of an astrologer is the "Ephemeris" which tracks the movement of planet and can predict the movements of planets into the future using measurements of degree, minute and seconds. Some resources: https://www.google.com/search?q=ephemeris+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I don't argue for or against astrology. Like I said, it might be an interesting study. One would first have to learn astrology before any credible study could be undertaken and that will take some serious time. People don't realize how complex it can be.
I actually think it would be an excellent tool to help teach math in school. Teens are attracted to astrology because they want to know who they are and astrology gives them an inkling to think about. But to do it properly you have to calculate the movements of the planets by degree, minute and seconds, so it is instructive and a good intro to geopositional math.
However, unlike Nancy Reagan, I would not base any major decisions on the word of an astrologer.
Just as an aside, I've never been able to calculate my own natal chart with any certainty. My mother was a scientist and would not tell me the time of day I was born because she hoped to discourage my adolescent interest in such "bunk". Time of day is essential to mapping out the natal chart, so there you have it. If I cared, I could hire an astrologer to backtrack using transits and compare them to momentous events in my life to get a better guess at time of day, but I don't care enough so I remain uncharted territory!
Wow this turned out much longer than I'd anticipated, but I might as well toss it out there!
You missed the entire target with this one.
We have no reason to take astrology seriously. Just like we have no reason to take homeopathy seriously. There is no theoretical foundation for taking either of those two activities seriously.
I can speak for the entirety of the scientific community on this one: Give us some reason to consider this to be of any interest, and we will go crazy getting PhD's, publications, and tenure track positions for discovering a whole new realm of sciencey stuff.
Intimating we (scientists) are being close minded is insulting. Every attempt to demonstrate anything real about astrology has come up empty.
PR, although I agree with your astrological disbelief
but the point of this essay is to differentiate political types. The Republican party has largely morphed into anti-scientific denunciations (e.g., creationism, climate change disavowal, etc.)
Thus, I think it appropriate to include that question in a political assay, as opposed to a scientific inquiry.
Climate change denial
is the same as claiming astrology has any validity. So, anyone claiming scientists should be wasting their time on claims of astrology is as bad as someone thinking we should seriously consider the claims of climate change deniers.
@PriceRip
Astrology is probably much less harmful than any other magical belief I, at least, can think of, so I wouldn't personally class it in with anything capable of causing planetary disaster.
Just my 2 cents, if course, but I rather doubt that many take astrology seriously enough to actually base an entire worldview - or the chances of the survival of life on Earth - on it.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
May I remind you of Ronnie Rayon's alternate brain?
Nancy, his loving spouse and latter-day puppet master, fervently believed in astrology. And to think her dad was a neurosurgeon (gasp!) I imagine, if they could have gotten the votes, Astrology could have been elevated to a cabinet position.
@Alligator Ed
Lol, I actually thought of that but then considered that the Reagans hardly counted as those who should be enabled in making decisions affecting anyone else. But since, of course, there's been only that sort allowed into the White House...
If they had any sense, they'd place life over profit and enough would be enough, regarding wealth - much as enough is enough for the planet outside this circle of reality-deniers but afflicted with and perishing because of them.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Teaching Physics difficult enough . . . sigh
It is harmful to those that mistakenly think it is compatible with STEM subjects. This sort of nonsense could cause your potential career options to become severely limited.
I really don't appreciate the additional burden of dealing with magical thinking from a junior colleague. Students not capable of thinking rationally usually found alternatives to taking my classes.
Seems like people are always looking for small talk...
...to avoid being depressed. Astrology fits the bill pretty well, especially in the context of the morning horoscope in the newspaper. I think most people understand it as just small talk. Those who shape their lives by astrological predictions are doing the same thing that very religious people do: looking for comfort and social support in what can be an ugly, traumatic World, and often being exploited because of that.
Beware the bullshit factories.
@PriceRip
I had no idea that astrology interfered with such areas - you have my sympathy, if that helps. Probably not, I'm afraid...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I have met students
that were not considered serious students because of their "curious" question. In one case the student was one of the brightest I had met in years. I was about the only faculty member willing to talk through the details of his "crazy" ideas. I cannot take any credit for his subsequent success, but I like to think I help get him moving in the "right" direction.
Many STEM students choose the STEM route late (some not until they are in college) in their schooling. Learning a discipline takes time and (well) discipline as a sensei would say, and the process is better undertaken earlier rather than later.
Please cite the scientific efforts
that have made to prove or disprove astrology.
As I said above, one needs a thorough understanding of astrology before one can challenge it. The only "scientific" approaches to the subject have woefully lacked any understanding of astrology and its mechanics except at the most basic (newspaper astrological forecast for Gemini today!) level.
And I will say that yours appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, as I have seen so often with scientists. Remember please, how often in history scientists rejected new information that was contrary to their beliefs.
I come from a family of scientists. Yet my Grandpa was in touch and collaborated with the likes of Joseph Campbell, Steinbeck and Ricketts. My grandmother was descended from a long history of Orthodox priests.
I love, respect, even revere science. But I recognize that it cannot be the answer for all of our questions. There is mysticism, within which I board all the entirely personal experiences of faith, life and death, transformation, transmogrification, revelation, inspiration.
Just because you are scientific doesn't mesn you have to ignore all those extremely personal and internal experiences in human beings, some of which have actually transformed the thinking of people on this planet.
I wish the scientific method could be applied to internal experiences, but it can't. Yet science has identified the area of the brain that experiences spiritual awareness. Interestingly, this was discovered by studying epileptics.
Seriously, something is preventing me from saying more. I've been trying to say a number of things, but am stymied. As I have something like a mystic in me, I listen to that voice.
So now I shut up tho I have much more to say.
A partial contradiction to your assertion is in order
Techniques such as fMRI can image brain energy changes for all sorts of experiences, which because they cannot be directly experienced by others are often called subjective. The parts of the brain affected by numerous subjective experiences, even love and hate, have been imaged. This is not to say that the perceptions of these feelings can be transmitted to other individuals so that the other can personally experience that perception. For instance, when tasting a substance, certain brain areas are activated while others are depressed. Scientists can see where in the brain those changes are occurring, but not themselves experience the same sensation, mood, or thought.
yes, and it is through similar
tests that the religious experience has been located in the brain. Again, so interesting that the study found its inception while studying the epileptic experience, which has often been associated with mystical experiences. That same brain site is visited by nuns, monks, priests, meditation practicers, and anyone in prayer regardless their religion, et al.
Dostoevky's The Idiot attempts to describe some of his own experiences as an epileptic, many of which were mystical in nature. And then we have this proliferation of people in mental institutions who are experiencing some sort of religious breakdown. It is like they went too far into the mystical aspect of life. Their numbers dominate in those mental institutions. There is enough of the mystic in me that I became well aware of such pitfalls. As a young adult, the mentally ill were attracted to me wherever I went. That is gone now, but I don't know how to explain it.
There are aspects of life that cannot, absolutely cannot be described by the scientific method. There absolutely IS a mystical aspect to life that is experienced and reported by billions of people around the planet. You might want science to be the answer to all things but it is unable to describe the panoply of human experience. Think gnosis - inner knowing that is so private and personal it cannot be conveyed to another. There are billions who have that.
Look at how dismally that pseudoscience of psychology has managed to describe the human experience. For the benefit of society, at best they have only identified aberrant behavior harmful to society. Otherwise, they give you drugs and claim it's s chemical problem. Really. as a doctor, you know how miserable progress has been in that arena.
I find it fascinating that the Bahai faith claims science will prove the existence of God. It also predicted from the mid 1800's from the middle east (Persia at the time), equality for women and all races, the globalization of communication and brotherhood. Those are remarkable claims - especially considering from whence they came. I wish for them to become true.
But I'm very reluctant to send them any money. They do ask for it.
Agreed. Just because a thought process can be imaged
has no reflection on the validity of the thought. The same brain areas could be activated in a person who thought the earth was flat versus one who thought the earth was (semi)spherical.
Definitely Not
Yeah no I have to call this out here. It's almost historically ironic that you prop up astrology (a pseudoscience) while trying to call out psychology as a pseudoscience (which it isn't). It just seems to be a complete lacking in the understanding of the field.
"psychology as a pseudoscience"
As you point out: This is a most outrageous suggestion. From my point of view I see it as a soft science because of a common flaw in how science is perceived. There is this notion afoot that the foundation of "real" science is experimentation and measurement. This has lead many (physical as well as social scientists) down the path to ruin. The reality is that Psychology like the other soft sciences have yet to develop a good theoretical foundation from which to continue. The fact that there are "schools of thought" in Psychology confirms the truth of this assertion. The works in progress in neurology will soon provide the connections (between my field and theirs) needed to construct the missing theoretical substructure.
You should acquaint yourself with neuropsychology
before issuing a blanket condemnation as a soft science. Such an assertion means that a particular discipline understands the physical underpinnings of events before they can be considered "hard" science, to use your terminology. Example: the utility of aspirin being a defervescent, analgesic, and anticoagulant, the first two of which were known for more than 100 years before the underlying biochemistry was known; the anti platelet action of aspirin has only been understood for less than 30 years. Does that therefore imply that using aspirin, prior to discovery of the modes of operation was unscientific, even though empirically aspirin evidenced those properties in a measurable way even before the mechanisms were discovered?
The major complaint about psychology is that there are too many proposed solutions, none of which have been measurably verified. This may be true. But medicine was in a descriptive phase for centuries before mechanistic understanding evolved. Neuropsychology has a strong descriptive base, founded on principles such as neuroanatomy, biochemistry, genomics, heredity, trauma, etc. It is certainly the case that neuropsychology does not represent the majority of so-called psychological doctrine, which I agree is just that: doctrine. But please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a solid core of verifiable knowledge (scientifically speaking) in neuroscience.
For Both PR and The Gator
I'm going to try and address both at once here so it may get a bit messy flowing back and forth here.
Both of you are approaching this at somewhat the same angle, while diving back to neurology/neuropsych. There are a few things I would like to touch upon here.
To begin, while people have been trying to study the human mind and behavior for centuries, the field of Psychology is relatively young since about the late 19th century. As the Gator pointed out that we can identify phenomena without understanding the scientific mechanisms behind them. The schools of thought approach human behavior differently because of their internal philosophies.
We had psychoanalysts, behaviorists, social, humanists, cognitive behavioralists, evolutionary, neuropsych, etc.. The thing is that going through each school, we find areas where they don't have answers for specific phenomena and behaviors, but to a surprising degree, actually have sharp clarity in understanding certain facets of human behavior. But also, some fields are meant entirely to focus upon a certain facet of human behavior (like social psychologists or industrial/organizational psych). Psychology is yes the study of the human mind and behavior, but also a means to predicting behavior. I mean the entirety of behaviorists was empirical, observable data; that behavior is conditioned into organisms through outside stimuli and internal processes (aka the beef with psychoanalysts) were magical and untestable.
I apologize if I seem I'm rambling, I'm just trying to figure out a way to pin down my thought here on this. Regarding a theoretical foundation or a linking agent, we could see the future with neuropsych. But as we see, human behavior is much more than certain lobes lighting up and certain neuronal pathways firing. Considering that CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) has similar success rates with dealing with depression compared to anti-depressant SSRI's (which would mostly be the suggestion from a neuro perspective that we just have to tweak our internal brain chemistry via drugs). And that is something that I wish to point back to Gator regarding "too many solutions, none of which have been measurably verified". What are we viewing as measurably verified? The entirety of measurement in the psych community dives into statistical analysis to assess significant differences in variables tested. Are we talking about treating mental disorders? Analyzing conditioned behavioral patterns? There isn't going to be a catch-all for the entirety of human behavior, ranging from human crowd dynamics to concerns of sociopathy. The schools of thought in psych are often viewed (sometimes internally in the community and often externally from those outside the field) as competing with one another. But more often than not, they complement each other in how they can describe certain facets of human behavior.
Not perhaps the most elegantly flowing post and I jumped through points, but tried to hopefully make my case to the physicist and doctor. A tall order to fill for sure from a lowly bachelors like myself haha (though hoping to get my own letters here in front of my name in the future
)
Thanks for the comment.
I have never said nor believed that "drugs are the only answer". In fact medications should be withheld until other modalities such as lifestyle changes, nutritional improvement, counseling, mindfulness, sleep hygiene and many others have been optimized. In some cases, such as epilepsy, non-pharmaceutical treatment to the exclusion of medication is doomed to failure. I am also aware of changes in fMRI studies over time occurring with CBT in the absence of medication administration.
This is just another topic arising from this amazing comment chain which has touched upon so many topics which makes me proud to be part of this c99 community.
Right
Right no, no I wasn't trying to imply that at all. Sorry if that came across as such. I was merely trying to make my case of solely through a neuro lens. Again, absolutely, there are certain conditions which a pharmacological approach is a necessity to help alleviate symptoms (forms of schizophrenia come to mind).
My point I guess with the issue of CBT is that, regarding a measurable variable against another treatment option, such as an SSRI. I wasn't trying to say that you probably weren't familiar; I was merely using it to solidify my case. That yes we can have multiple solutions to a problem, but mostly we test its effectiveness in treatment but also across various populations as well. Let's state that our theoretical foundation is rooted solidly into neurochemistry. This follows a medical model of these are your symptoms, and you are deficient in X Y Z neurotransmitter, here is a pill boost. That's somewhat predominant in the psychiatric field. I don't have inherent problems with medication (and I wasn't trying to assert that you were pushing pills or anything of the sort).
Overall, if I were to employ CBT on a depressive client as well as pushing them away from toxic (psychologically toxic, not chemical) environmental stimuli, I can affect change similar to the neuro model to addressing the problem. The thing that I am trying to say is that the neuro model is bottom-up approach when it is more appropriate to go for a top-down approach. If you are depressed, you are deficient in serotonin, so here is an SSRI, which will then go to correct your behavior. But that doesn't address at all thought patterns, environmental stimuli, history, etc. That top-down approach of we will address your thought patterns to help change behavior, change environmental stimuli, examine a client's history of behavior work down all the way to a neuro model of changing neuronal firing and pathways. I guess I just wanted to throw my 2 cents into the mix here.
Yea, its late so this is short.
I think you and I are on the same page, and I will get back to this tomorrow to explain this cryptic note.
I don't want to repeat myself
But I have a response to pricerip above that explains my thought about psych and the scientific method as I understand it (not being a scientist). I did put astrology in the same bucket. Thanks for at least recognizing that astrology at least attempts to be scientific!
I'm always happy to be corrected. Truth is what matters, after all. Al is right - there has been a lot on the biological/physiological level with all the fabulous new tools we have. And we all know how well-developed the psychological art of propaganda has become. I don't at all say the field is invalid. I just think far more caution is required than say, the study of catalytic effects between various compounds - a much more controllable experiment.
You are being belligerent.
It is clear that you have no interest in attempting to understand. You remind me of the student that insisted that I was a shitty teacher because I assigned homework problems. He refused to do the problems because, obviously, the proper approach to teaching was for me to show the students how to work the problems then they would know how to work the problems. No, fucking shit, AND this was in an upper division class, what the holy fuck!!
If you should decide to activate your brain maybe then we can have a conversation.
@PriceRip
Personally, I was under the impression that she was attempting to explain her point of view and am unsure how you perceived her to be belligerent in so doing?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Why do I think @gustogirl is being belligerent.
The first problem I have with advocates of pseudo science is their insistence that we have the responsibility to investigate their bit of "insight" without any indication that it has any foundation in reality.
The second bit is her suggestion that I lack an understanding of astrology. That's just plain ridiculous. NO, I do not need to know all the trivial details of the various variations on the theme. I have a deep understanding of astrology because I have a deep understanding of real science. To make the case that astrology is real requires you either explain how the fundamental forces (actually interaction modalities) of nature connect the human condition to the state of the cosmos, or provide some evidence that some other (as yet to be examined) force exists. The burden of demonstrating the reality of the claims of astrology is upon them.
Well, what can I say about this bit of prose. Sigh, I haven't rejected any "new information" as no "new information" has been proffered. Pseudo scientist love to "take the high ground" and claim we just are jealous of their superior "open mindedness". They pretend the foundation of science is measurement and experimentalism and therefore we are the rogue anti-science naysayers.
This is too much, in my opinion.
There must be a better way.
MAN!
This is total Bullshit
Your statement is grounded in profound arrogance.
You have to admit that your
comment here is pretty arrogant as well.
Why not stop this thread? It's not helpful and difficult to understand for its emotional intensity.
At another place you are a radical feminist? Uh, that's scary. Just saying.
https://www.euronews.com/live
You didn't read what I said.
You make statements about astrology. I point out there has never been any presentation of any reason to think there is anything Real with respect to this thing called astrology. You then fire back with "show me the science".
There is no science to "prove" a negative of this sort. There is no "science" that "proves" unicorns do not exist, that leprechauns do not exist. I can not take you seriously with your "challenge" particularly given my comment about how we would jump at the chance to discover new science.
Your characterizing my response as a "knee-jerk reaction" is so profoundly insulting.
Obviously, I am wasting my time here as you and many others here don't give a damn.
please pardon this interruption PR
I want to ask PR about something and asking here at the end of a dialogue seemed like an ok place to pose it
As an educator, you're thoughts especially should be considered to my thinking. I was hoping to hear feedback from you on the following discussion, from a 'state of the college campus' angle. Much of this discussion is centered around academia. Are you required to give trigger warnings? for example. Any thoughts you're willing to share would be most welcome. You don't owe me any favors and I shan't think less of you should you decline. I simply hope to understand my world better.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv7LvRhvgNI width:420 height:315]
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces
The short answer is, "No, but I teach science, so what possible triggers are we likely to encounter."
The rather longer answer is: We need more radical "ball busting" feminists to take down the chauvinist oligarchy that drive much of the animus on this campus. Some of my new colleagues (particularly from the coasts) experience cultural shock after being here a few months. For some the discrimination is subtle and it takes a bit of time to figure out what is so disconcerting, for others the slights and disrespect are painfully obvious. One of the reasons I have had problems with department chairs, deans, and others in authority here at UNK is that I am not subtle, and I have been effective in confronting these cretins over the years. The sad reality is that women here are victims.
My raison d'être is to make people (particularly students) uncomfortable. Without cognitive dissonance learning cannot occur. So, I suppose I will have a whole new set of challenges when I get back to the west coast.
As a physicist I like to point out that a 60 Hz wave has a wavelength of about 3100 miles. Kearney is equidistant from either coast, hence, Kearney will always be totally out of phase with either coast. Ha Ha
So while this new form of feminism may be a thing, it has not (at least from what I know) become a thing here, and I still refer to myself as a radical feminist.
Thank you PR
I don't want to make a snake out of an elephant. So I seek other perspectives. Appreciate your time.
Thanks again.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
@ PriceRip please calm down, there are lots of readers here who
do give a damn about what you say and write. What can I say. I am closer to science than to mysticism in my upbringing and early educational and professional life when I was younger.
But I happened to have been married to a man, who (very unfortunately) made his mind dependent on Vodoo beliefs during his lifetime, the sort that is practiced in Benin, where you find also some practices in JuJu. These 'religious' beliefs are very strong, dangerous and cause mental health problems that can lead you to not be able to function properly in today's world of acadmia and Western sort of professionalism. My husband was very well educated and had a professional career as an economist. Yet his dependencies on those beliefs killed him in the end. So, I have some 'insight' into it and to the destructive forces it can have on people.
Therefore I wouldn't advise you to get upset or feel insulted by what gustogirl (I think it was her) said. It's a discussion that leads nowhere but emotionally destructive break-downs on both sided involved.
Let it go, but stay here. Your contributions are very welcome and appreciated.
https://www.euronews.com/live
@ PriceRip - and if you think I am a little weird
with what I disclose in my comments, just take this one:
[video:https://youtu.be/CJh59vZ8ccc]
https://www.euronews.com/live
You speak the truth.
The "don't give a damn" comment was mostly about the fact that most people don't really care to understand how science really works. There is so much anti-science sentiment (a huge amount from the "left"), and as I have always been immersed in this world, I take it a bit too seriously. And, I really get upset when someone suggests, or intimates I don't understand science.
I know a little bit about Vodoo
and how " · · · 'religious' beliefs are very strong, dangerous and cause mental health problems · · · " my extended family is mostly mormon. I am very aware of the dangers of cults.
I seem to have upset you.
(I'm not sure which answer to reply to.)
For that I apologize, but it seems an over-reaction to feel the need to insult me. I certainly did not mean to insult you personally. I did not expect such an emotional response from a scientist. Had I a little less fortitude, you may well have chased me permanently off this site, especially because you have the superior advantage of actually being a scientist. Your insults were very personal and wounding. You made me feel inferior, and I presume that was your intent.
My intent was primarily to explain astrology because I did study it (self-taught) for a quite a while. Although I know much more about it than most people, I still never acquired sufficient expertise to claim the title of astrologer - we do know many charlatons aren't stymied by such limitations. Their presence is what often makes people reject it out of hand without any investigation.
I doubt you read my description, which was intended to be informative rather than controversial. I never ever claimed to believe in astrology but I guess you didn't read that part either. That I don't dismiss it outright might be a cue for a teacher to help me figure out how it might be tested - if that leads to the fact it isn't testable, I would learn that through the effort rather than through authoritative dismissal, which was incidentally, my mother's method.
I do not recall the name of that one guy someone cited at TOP in a similar discussion who apparently used the scientific method to debunk astrology and I was hoping someone would refer me to any scientific approaches to astrology. I wanted to look those up. That is why I asked, not because I needed anyone to run around and prove a negative. As I explained in the narrative you didn't read, astrology is mathematically based, so it isn't a question of proving a negative. It is a question whether the math has any relationship to reality. To me, that sounds like an imperfect, but testable proposition. But then, I'm not a scientist.
As for the lengthy conversation that follows about psychology et al that seems to have garnered a slightly prickly but very polite and objective response to my opinion of the "scientific" nature of psychology: please let me ask the scientists this question:
My understanding is that (other than repeatable etc.) that at least one definition of the scientific method is that in an experiment, only one variable is allowed to vary - all others much remain constant.
So how do you do that when dealing with the human psyche?
The other reason I brought that up is that it also describes the difficulty of examining the mathematics of astrology as it related to the human experience. You just can't hold enough variables still.
Again, my apologies if any of my wording was less than objective, because the intention was certainly meant only to invite an unemotional, objective discussion for anyone interested.
see, kiss and make up and smile ...
and we are sane again.
Smile
and
put up that mask
I can't tell you how much I destested middle-aged ladies in the cashier's line at the grocery shop telling me I should "Smile". So, hugs may be a good idea right now, no?
https://www.euronews.com/live
You asked for it, you got it!
Send me 20 bucks and I'll tell you
I read my Tarot Cards instead
So now I know I'm going on a long journey into madness, but will have fun getting there.
On Gandhi and astrology: my Magic 8 Ball says "all signs point to no."
Maybe it means that
that you've had a reading with a skillful astrologer at least once?
After all, "Seeing is believing," as the cliché goes.
I got my Magic 8 Ball in a dimestore. Remember those?
It worked no better than majority of the Wall Street geniuses who failed to predict the crash of 2008. How about a ouija board instead?
Nope. I don't remember.
I've never seen either of those things, except that I have seen ouija boards on TV, usually in lame films, but most recently on Downtown Abbey. Even as a young child, I would not have bought anything like that.
BTW, you apparently assumed that my post referred to predictions. If so, your assumption is wrong.
My reply about the Magic 8 Ball was actually to CS in AZ
I have no idea it got where it got to.
Laughing at astrology
I guess you've never heard of Caroline Casey then? Woo!
https://kpfa.org/program/the-visionary-activist-show/
More on her page, like this:
more connectedness
Let us not forget Nancy Reagan turned to astrology in White House to protect her husband. So there. LOL!
Nope, never heard of her
I've no doubt she's marvelously entertaining and interesting to her audiences. The general fascination with astrology, people seeking some explanation and structure to help them navigate life, is widespread. In skillful hands, the art of storytelling can be very powerful, even transformative, and is, in my opinion, a valid healing art. Astrology can serve as a framework for that, as can many other mythological belief systems.
Astrology, however, is not real, it's a belief system. It was under the "religion" section on the questionnaire for a reason. So I really was wondering how they rate the answer to it in terms of scoring the test.
In other words, astrology is another opiate of the masses
Boy, if that isn't mumbo-jumbo worthy of Hillary and Obama, then I am certainly ignorant of the ruins of dominance. If astrology is effing powerful, how come astrology let us get into this mess? And if astrology is so powerful, why does anyone's belief in its existence make any difference at all? Democratic animism my butt! Let's go with Pizzagate instead: "Demonic Animism" and soul cooking.
Yes, I'd agree
Now that I think about it, yes, I would agree that astrology is in some ways a form of religion. And like most religions, it can provide believers with a sense of comfort and/or pain management, similar to opium, true. And like other religions, Astrology is also used by many unethical grifters to fleece people who are susceptible to it.
I'm an atheist because I can't believe in mythological stories as true, even if I wanted to. To me, that would be like trying to believe in santa. It's just not something I can do. sometimes I wish I could, but that drug simply doesn't work on me anymore.
Score
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
I felt the questions, however, were too obvious, and one could easily manipulate the score on the two axes if one chose to do so.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
My wife knows how to write these . . .
More importantly, she knows how to not write surveys, and this one is so very flawed as to be
Yes, and there is no choice
for indifferent.
-8.75
-5.64
dfarrah
@dfarrah Good point!
Good point!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
We need a trust-buster to break up the too-big-to-fail
corporations. My current negative view of large corporations is due to their undue influence on elections and the economy. I think I would have had a more moderate score in the economic sector 20 years ago.
Econ -8.13
Social -6.46
(There are too many significant figures here.)
The political compass algorithm is flawed.
I have very strong opinions and the algorithm placed me at (-8.88,-8.56) on the grid.
If enough people here participate, a scatterplot of results might be interesting. Maybe someone could get the denizens of DailyKos to provide enough data for a valid comparison. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation.
The denizens of DKos would think it's a mind control plot
by Putin.
BTW, if you look at Alexa ratings for DKos over the last year, they track Hillary's unfavourable rating remarkably well. One could have used this to forecast her loss to Trump. I believe that site did more harm than good to the Dems as a whole.
I'm off to do the test. Will post my results.
As if there is an independent thinker among them.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
My guess is they'd lie if they placed center-ish or right-ish.
Because I love to laugh, I was always grateful to some of the posters who who self-described as very liberal, but "pragmatic" for posting their alleged scores. I so enjoyed them. Didn't believe them for a second, but enjoyed them,
I think someone at TOP referenced this same site
because a lot of people used their coordinates as part of their signature, sometimes a link. I seem to recall some post that talked about it and everyone gave their scores.
@gustogirl
Yeah, and doesn't that now kinda makes you wonder if that was brought up and/or used by some to establish bona fides as actual progressives?
The quiz I really liked was the one that wound up showing people that Bernie was typically the candidate closest to what they wanted, according to their answers...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Pages