This is a really interesting framework, my only concern is with "medicalizing" political beliefs a la drapetomania or whatever the Soviet name for "he's crazy, he thinks he's not free under Soviet rules" was.
My takeaway from this is that I don't have to be so annoyed when people make terrible political arguments, they're not necessarily dumb or malicious, they're just using their intellect as a personal defense attorney to explain how they feel in lofty terms.
I think for most people, your characterization is correct. Most people's political views are just repeating what other people said.
But I also think that it is very important to acknowledge the connection between ideologies and human psychology. A small minority of people are very heavily invested in their ideology, and it permeates their entire world view. This is particularly true for radical ideologies.
Sometimes it is better to come from the opposite perspective. We know that people with mental disorders exist, so what type of world views are most likely to appeal to them? I think that it is clear that they will tend to gravitate towards radical ideologies, and there is quite of bit of psychological research to back up this theory.
I think you can also make the case that most of the world's religions today began from the bizarre ramblings of monks who took drugs. Unlike the typical homeless person preaching to no listeners, this became institutionalized by ancient human clans or ancient civilizations thousands of years ago.
Thanks for the feedback, but I don’t see any other way. I use two different brands of editing software, but they both miss many errors and even sometimes create additional errors.
And the effectiveness of editing one’s own writing diminishes greatly with additional effort.
Unfortunately, typos are part of writing. I try to catch as many as I can before publishing (and afterward), but I am not going to catch all of them.
A goal of 100% lack of typos is the enemy of good writing.
😂🥴I understand. I just thought you might have a live person like a significant other or friend who might serve as casual editor; I’m so old I didn’t even think about software! 🤦♀️🤣
Typo: shouldn’t it be mental DISorders, not mental orders?
“Mild to moderate mental orders are very widespread in the general population (the percentage of those with severe mental disorders is more controversial)”
Isn't radical ideology needed sometimes? If the government actually is corrupt and mismanaged, then a revolution may be needed? The American Revolution is the prime example I guess: it's hard to argue that the Founding Fathers were all mentally ill?
I think it comes down to the results of the policies that the ideologies propose. Ultimately an ideology that produces positive results is beneficial. Unfortunately, few ideologies (radical or otherwise) do.
I think one is far more likely to produce positive results by decentralized experimentation, but, yes, sometimes a revolution can produce positive results. Those who uphold an ideology may sponsor a revolution, but it ultimately comes down to what they replace the Old Order with. It could be better. It could be far worse.
No, I do not think that the Founding Fathers were all mentally ill. They all seem very well grounded emotionally, though Jefferson may have been an exception there.
The institutions and values the Founders established have produced results and stood the test of time. My guess is that they all would have been happy to establish those institutions and values within the British empire, but the Tories would not let them.
The leaders of other revolutions, however, fit into the category of ideologues who care more about their ideas rather than achieving results for others. This does not prove that they had mental disorders, but it is a plausible hypothesis.
Unfortunately I think there are serious weak points in your arguments, although I don’t think most people would argue against the basic premise that we are seeing a lot of mental disorders and their effects on society right now. Empirical evidence via research is warranted. However, your arguments can be loosely applied as the first poster stated to the American a revolutionaries/revolution. How does accepting the death penalty, war, abortion, or many other beliefs fit into a positive ideology? It’s easy to see how it could fit into a negative ideology, but the exact same beliefs can be held by say Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin, but one ideology is qualifiedly better than the other, even for the greater good as well as the individual good.
"How does accepting the death penalty, war, abortion, or many other beliefs fit into a positive ideology?"
I am not trying to differentiate between "good" ideologies and "bad" ideologies in this article.
My guess is that you are using your own ideology as the measuring stick of what is "good" and "bad." So, your standard is based on your personal preference, not the impact of material reality.
I think we got our wires crossed; I was essentially saying the same thing. People could, and do, make a case that under the same circumstances- such as some form of killing- Communism is just and for the greater good, whereas American democracy is unjust and decidedly not for the greater good. Without empirical evidence that things not for the greater good attracts genuinely mentally ill people (cluster B) your argument is entirely subjective and applicable to both systems that result in “good” outcomes and “bad” outcomes. I hope that I made myself a little clearer. 🥴👍
This is a really interesting framework, my only concern is with "medicalizing" political beliefs a la drapetomania or whatever the Soviet name for "he's crazy, he thinks he's not free under Soviet rules" was.
My takeaway from this is that I don't have to be so annoyed when people make terrible political arguments, they're not necessarily dumb or malicious, they're just using their intellect as a personal defense attorney to explain how they feel in lofty terms.
Thanks for the comment.
I think for most people, your characterization is correct. Most people's political views are just repeating what other people said.
But I also think that it is very important to acknowledge the connection between ideologies and human psychology. A small minority of people are very heavily invested in their ideology, and it permeates their entire world view. This is particularly true for radical ideologies.
Sometimes it is better to come from the opposite perspective. We know that people with mental disorders exist, so what type of world views are most likely to appeal to them? I think that it is clear that they will tend to gravitate towards radical ideologies, and there is quite of bit of psychological research to back up this theory.
Here is one example:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/is-green-activism-based-on-good-intentions
I think you can also make the case that most of the world's religions today began from the bizarre ramblings of monks who took drugs. Unlike the typical homeless person preaching to no listeners, this became institutionalized by ancient human clans or ancient civilizations thousands of years ago.
You have several typos, you may want to consider an informal editor.
Thanks for the feedback, but I don’t see any other way. I use two different brands of editing software, but they both miss many errors and even sometimes create additional errors.
And the effectiveness of editing one’s own writing diminishes greatly with additional effort.
Unfortunately, typos are part of writing. I try to catch as many as I can before publishing (and afterward), but I am not going to catch all of them.
A goal of 100% lack of typos is the enemy of good writing.
😂🥴I understand. I just thought you might have a live person like a significant other or friend who might serve as casual editor; I’m so old I didn’t even think about software! 🤦♀️🤣
Typo: shouldn’t it be mental DISorders, not mental orders?
“Mild to moderate mental orders are very widespread in the general population (the percentage of those with severe mental disorders is more controversial)”
Good catch. Thanks.
Corrected. I also did another edit pass and a few other typos.
Isn't radical ideology needed sometimes? If the government actually is corrupt and mismanaged, then a revolution may be needed? The American Revolution is the prime example I guess: it's hard to argue that the Founding Fathers were all mentally ill?
Thanks for the comment.
I think it comes down to the results of the policies that the ideologies propose. Ultimately an ideology that produces positive results is beneficial. Unfortunately, few ideologies (radical or otherwise) do.
I think one is far more likely to produce positive results by decentralized experimentation, but, yes, sometimes a revolution can produce positive results. Those who uphold an ideology may sponsor a revolution, but it ultimately comes down to what they replace the Old Order with. It could be better. It could be far worse.
No, I do not think that the Founding Fathers were all mentally ill. They all seem very well grounded emotionally, though Jefferson may have been an exception there.
The institutions and values the Founders established have produced results and stood the test of time. My guess is that they all would have been happy to establish those institutions and values within the British empire, but the Tories would not let them.
The leaders of other revolutions, however, fit into the category of ideologues who care more about their ideas rather than achieving results for others. This does not prove that they had mental disorders, but it is a plausible hypothesis.
Unfortunately I think there are serious weak points in your arguments, although I don’t think most people would argue against the basic premise that we are seeing a lot of mental disorders and their effects on society right now. Empirical evidence via research is warranted. However, your arguments can be loosely applied as the first poster stated to the American a revolutionaries/revolution. How does accepting the death penalty, war, abortion, or many other beliefs fit into a positive ideology? It’s easy to see how it could fit into a negative ideology, but the exact same beliefs can be held by say Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin, but one ideology is qualifiedly better than the other, even for the greater good as well as the individual good.
I don't understand your question:
"How does accepting the death penalty, war, abortion, or many other beliefs fit into a positive ideology?"
I am not trying to differentiate between "good" ideologies and "bad" ideologies in this article.
My guess is that you are using your own ideology as the measuring stick of what is "good" and "bad." So, your standard is based on your personal preference, not the impact of material reality.
I think we got our wires crossed; I was essentially saying the same thing. People could, and do, make a case that under the same circumstances- such as some form of killing- Communism is just and for the greater good, whereas American democracy is unjust and decidedly not for the greater good. Without empirical evidence that things not for the greater good attracts genuinely mentally ill people (cluster B) your argument is entirely subjective and applicable to both systems that result in “good” outcomes and “bad” outcomes. I hope that I made myself a little clearer. 🥴👍