|
cooll6 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I think this guy is a libertarian. The way he conducts him self and talks about his ideas/ work, falls in line with many libertarian/ classical liberal views and ideologies. In todays society conservatism has become distorted and liberalism has become the politically correct way.
Our current society is built of institutions forming us into specialized members of society and placing us in groups rather than uniting us.
dvrjosh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Were you drunk when you posted that?
Auggie56 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Liberals have controled the US for forty years. No wonder were screwed up.
circlenumberseven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'll say again: What this psychologist has done is that he has gathered specific evidence that supports his 5 points. He doesn't care about the problem of morality, or the problem of politics; and he certainly doesn't explore the mechanics behind them.
Instead, what he does do, is to conclude these problems in the guise of popular identities. These identities have not always existed, but hearing this man, you would think they always have and always will. Its lazy, minus the excessive flattery.
Therizin0 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hmm..I totally agree you can't break people down too much..I don't like the the way labeling someone lib/con generalizes people either, and you can only attribute stereotypes to the label, not actually people, but I got the impression he's focusing more the spectrum of openness to experiences and how they rate those five basic ideas. And that they happen to match up to the 2 labels in an interesting and basic way. Humans are to complex to be summed up in a graph, but his hypothesis seems to fit.
circlenumberseven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
And while he is talking about every part of mankind that has ever happened, he misses out on media, war, and propaganda, which is very disappointing. So I guess what I don't like is that while JH says he is 'letting us out of the matrix' I think he is doing the complete opposite; putting us in a spot where we have no influence or control, we just 'are'.
I don't know though. I'm going to have to watch more of his videos to get a better idea...
circlenumberseven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The yin/yang comparison assumes that two trains of thought have always existed, and cannot be manipulated; the principle tool of man, however, is manipulation, so his argument for that falls flat on its face for me.
Liberals are not all revolutionists who want to bring down the government, and conservatives are not all corrupt backscratchers. But JH's meandering conclusion enforces that stereotype, that we must be either A or B.
circlenumberseven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I don't think these 5 points make any sense, because you can't do maths on a human being; and to devalue another human being into a social stereotype such as liberal or conservative is demeaning. Morals don't necessarily lead up to a certain way of politics.
Also, the idea of morality is always changing, so these 5 points will have to be revised again, and again, and they will never make sense except when applied to an exclusive stereotype, such as lib or con.
Therizin0 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Those 5 points seem like 5 pretty base foundations of people's moral views and how it informs some of their political opinions...aside from his approach (it's a 20 minute talk, and it's supposed to be engaging) what in the actual psychology do you have problems with? He addressed both moral and political I thought, and con/lib as yin and yang isn't a bad way of looking at it. There's input from both sides that can fill in gaps of the other. I'm just trying to understand more of what you think.
circlenumberseven (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Haha I'm not up in arms about it. It is very poor psychology whether moral or political; neither are addressed. He cherry picks examples over tens of thousands of years of human evolution and end up calling conservatism and liberalism yin and yang. I think he is more interested in flattery and winning applause then actually challenging popular opinion; if anything, he goes the other way and supports popular opinion and bias. He is clever about it though, I'll give him that. |
