'RWA' ='AFAF' by Niki2

America loves a winner!

You sure do go a long way to attempt to dismiss , out of hand, anyone who is a conservative.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 12:34 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Raptor: What I wrote was quite clear. You're an AFAF. No sense trying to talk sense to you.

You just can't contain yourself from responding with a snark to anything I put up, can you? Sad.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 2:15 PM

KANEMAN

If you say so. Nothing like a lecture from some old washed up hippie bi-sexual. Thank you. Now, if you would only spend more time in the shower and less time blathering here.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 3:42 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

I'm not a conservative and even I find most of that post offensive.

I'm referring to Niki's post, not the others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:00 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Niki's observations are based in fact.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_
backfire/

Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even STRONGER.

On its own, this might not be a problem: People ignorant of the facts could simply choose not to vote. But instead, it appears that misinformed people often have some of the strongest political opinions.

The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even MORE strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire.

In addition, there is a field of widely reproduced research on authoritarian mindsets, you can get an idea about it here
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 4:52 PM

Niki

1) All sides hold conventions of proper believe or behavior, and expect others to hold to those. Some are held by nearly everyone, some held by small small groups, partisan and not.

2) You see right wing hostility because you're in the line of fire, but the left does its fair share to the right.

3) All humans submit to authorities. Submitting to the Alpha dominant in a group is principle primate behavior. People under more fear probably do it more. It says something about their govt. and society more than about them.

The Milgram experiment proved that any human can be driven to this level of submission.

But even so, I'm not buying.

The US govt. left and right, since 1991, deliberately tortured, raped, maimed and murdered in a premeditated fashion anywhere from 150,000 to 2.6 million men women and children... and instead of expressing some dissatisfaction at that, much of the left decides to devote their energy to debasing portions of the American electorate such as the tea party...

And I don't mean you don't care about those issues, I'm sure you do, but it's the balance of where you're directing your attack.

And yes, I knew that when you started this you were not referring to me, just as I know that when Pirate News is ranting, he also doesn't mean the I am the evil force destroying the world. But I still tell him that he needs to redirect his aim.

Specifically, I think my main point was not that RWA was attacking the right unfairly, though it was, it was that the underlying psychology was bunk, IMHO. It was based on the analysis of surface wedge issue positions, prone to influence by any media exposure. It was not based on how personalities develop, such as child psychology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2010 10:14 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It was not based on how personalities develop, such as child psychology.

Doesn't make it any less correct an assessment.

I been meanin to bridge that gap by explaining how and why, but that'd be a loooong bit I don't have the time for - not to write, but to crush the knowledge down into a couple paragraphs instead of pages, that takes time...

But really, do I *have* to explain how the brutal, sadistic methods of Dobsen, Ezzo and others in combination with the vicious doctrine of most mainstream religion create folk like this as efficiently as an assembly line... again ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 2:59 AM

Frem,

Sorry this is a little long, read through it though, if you can.

I don't doubt that the authoritarian type exists or that it can be created, just as psychopaths can be created (and I don't believe they are born) but this theory has two basic flaws:

1) the analysis isn't very scientific, it takes surface views that seem to be no more than talking points.

2) it attaches it to a population that it doesn't like, which smacks of intellectual superiority complex.

We live in a society where self appointed elites assume themselves perfect and tell us what is wrong with the rest of us. That is where this theory is coming from.

Maybe they're some sort of authoritarian themselves, but I think they come about it something like this:

"Hey kid, you're bright, and not very popular in school, all these dumb kids score much lower on tests than you do, but much better on dates. That's because society is all wrong and you should be in charge."

That's one of the many socialist college sells, it's the one that I got, and you don't have to be any personality type to buy it, you just have to be a moron, like I was.

Here's another one:

"You're a member of a downtrodden group. We (Whites/Blacks/Women/Gays/Christians/Jews/Aryans) have to stick together. The reason we're downtrodden is that the power is oppressing us. But here's the solution: Join us, because we're the group of you, we're the only group that really support you, who are defined by some random social or genetic traits you were probably born into! Of course, because you join us, you will believe as we do, because these are not just the beliefs of us, these are the beliefs of you."

That's worth a re-read. I may not put it as best I could but I ran into this again and again.

But before the screwed up college sell, comes the screwed up childhood, especially before the jackboot is created. The healthy upbringing is not about to buy the "you should be a jackboot" sell, but healthy is an elusive thing, and yes, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

I have a friend who says he was raised to be a neolib/neocon but also raised to be so social that it was an utter fail because he lacks any real feeling that he should put his will over someone else's. That and listening to Ron Paul, but the thing is that all the above messages and many more are received by humans who have different levels of receptivity to different messages dependent on their past and present.

What you can't really do is take a random set up beliefs and draw up a personality archetype from there and get an accurate picture of who they are or how they got there. At the very least what I've seen so far of this theory not only completely fails to do so, I think it's absolutely on a par with the 1920s genetic criminality, and probably weaker than some of the stuff Pirate News posts.

Also, it's a glass house to be throwing stones. Sure, Rap posts divisive partisan propagandistic threads and threadjacks that distract people and divide them, but two thoughts about that, 1) Isn't it sort of what you expect given his job, and didn't passed MI people kind of do the same thing? and 2) I think the house is a little too glassy for Niki to be throwing stones on this one, since she does the same thing at least as often?

I don't think that this reflects their personality types, or really anything about them other than their jobs. That doesn't mean that no authoritarian personality exists, but it's not something we should hurl at each other, and it's certainly not something which is explained by this theory.

Ultimately, just because some behavior exists, and a theory to explain it has been written doesn't make it so. PN can say it was just caused by Jews and that's becomes a theory. Actually, I confess it's a better theory. But it's still nonsense.

It's like CTTS is having a hell of a time on the GW thread with just raw science which I thought was pretty solid: greenhouse theory of pollution is just insufficient to explain the effects we see. That doesn't make anyone a deny pollution or GW or that a greenhouse effect can be caused by co2 or that co2 levels rise, but rather that the connections between these things are tenuous and there is much else going on. And that's straightforward science that can be easily proven.

People just like to blame problems on their enemies and opponents and then come up with reasons afterwords to explain why, which is really just rationalization. The result is gibberish.

I don't recall finding anything in RWA theory remotely credible, and what I don't think I posted on the board, but if you want a real comparison, I think it's about on a par with creationism. My reluctance to discuss it comes from the same rejection of basic arrogant ignorance whether it be theocracy or acadmedia.

That said, if you have theories on this, of course I'd much rather talk about that, because I'm sure it will be much more founded in thought and rational analysis and not rationalization.

ETA: I don't doubt that there's some sort of agenda behind Dobson, and that he's not just misguided, and that he has an effect on children. A simple scan of the reviews of any of his books on amazon will show that it's not very successful at creating automatons, but rather dysfunctional people who hate their families. Perhaps that's why the crosshairs interpretation of "Focus on the Family" seems so fitting...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 4:26 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You sure do go a long way to attempt to dismiss , out of hand, anyone who is a conservative.

You sure do go a long way to play the "victim card".

She just said that there are authoritarians ON BOTH SIDES, and that calling out RIGHT-WING Authoritarians only was unfair.

In other words, she went a long way to explain why she DOESN'T dismiss anyone who is conservative, but rather dismisses anyone who is blinded by ideology on either side.

Naturally, being blind yourself, you missed 100% of the point, and will no doubt insist that not a single one of the authoritarian traits could be applied to you. Hell, I'm about as left-wing a poster as anyone here, but even *I* can recognize some of those traits in my own behavior.

And as Niki pointed out, we ALL have them to some degree.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 4:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT: Normally a bright person, you are nearly 100% wrong in your assessment. Humans do not have "alpha dominant" males because humans are not harem species; our specie's reproductive strategy is far more complex.

The left-wing often finds itself in a position of telling RWAs that yes, 2+2=4, the earth is round, and there is no Santa Claus. I'm sorry if reality seems hostile to RWAs (and you) but facts are facts.

Also, there ARE born psychopaths. Saying there are no born psychopaths is like saying there are no born autistics and no born schizophrenics. It is prolly a developmental- epigenetic result and not fundamentally genetic, but there are about a zillion ways for human brain development to fall out of the norm, and this is one.

I think the difference between authoritarians and otherwise is that authoritarians are first and foremost believers. They will believe what the authorities tell them, without questioning their own assumptions or banging contradictory ideas together. They may believe in the power of money or the necessity of blood sacrifice, but either way they never challenge their own ideas. It's not their ideas per se... even the author of the book says so... but they way those ideas are handled. If you want, I can tell you my a priori assumptions; I doubt an authoritarian can do that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 6:23 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I’m just getting back now; something happened yesterday that put me “out of commission” as it were and I never got back.

I find some interesting comments in this thread, but it seems as if the point I was trying to make got lost in there somehow. I was talking about US, here on FFF, and my reasons for using RWA to refer to some people here, the fact that it had been brought to my attention that it might offend all conservatives, and that being why I was choosing another term. I wasn’t defining how all “authoritarians” (in the more general sense) are, and I mostly only use the term, now AFAF, when one of the FEW truly AFAFs here spouts something that shows them clearly to have that mentality. For the most part, they know who they are, and they hate me pretty virulently already.

I’m sorry it offended you, Gordon, that was the opposite of my intent.

Excellent post, Kiki, and specifically explains one of the reasons I feel the way I do. Especially “it appears that misinformed people often have some of the strongest political opinions”, as has been obviously one of the things that upsets me about the mindset. Thank you. I had read the first article for which you provided a link, and it summed up some of what I believe about AFAFs here perfectly.

Ironically, the second link is TO the very book which, upon reading, I found explained a lot of what I have seen and experienced, and from where I got the term RWA. It won’t convince anyone here, because as you might have read, DT dismisses it entirely on his own grounds, as I have no doubt others do. If Altemeyer’s theories have been discussed elsewhere by objective scientists or others, it might help those like DT understand or accept it more, but I feel that even if such were cited, they would be rejected as biased as well. But it made me smile that you cited the very book, containing the concepts, from which my references to RWA originated. :bigsmile: It’s something someone here referred me to some time ago, and it was so on point and so well studied, with experiments, etc., that it impressed me deeply and, when I see the aspects of RWA exhibited so strongly here by some, why I called it out.

DT, I disagree.

1) As an example, those some of you call “libs” often believe in the sanctity of personal choice in such things as abortion, same-sex marriage, civil rights, etc. It’s not a matter of aggressively believing everyone should agree, and those things aren’t generally considered “conventional”, it’s more a matter of recognizing them and WISHING everyone felt the same. And don’t believe in legislating against any of them. Nor do we believe in educating AGAINST the things that are “conventional”. I know there’s a lot of grey in there, such as prayer in schools, but the EFFORT is to create a level playing field, if you will, where everyone has the right to do as they believe as long as it doesn’t impinge on others. That is true of people on the right and left in that many don’t believe in the government forcing people to “be” against what they believe in.

2) As to the hostility, my intent in using AFAF or RWA is about the people HERE, and if you don’t think we libs receive the major amount of hostility, and the most virulent in how it’s expressed, you’re deliberately blinding yourself. With only a couple of exceptions, what is said about “libs”, etc., is vicious and often obscene, and very, very personal in my case. I know only two people who return the favor somewhat in kind, yet I see extreme hostility to anything I post from several on the right. I’m responding to that.

3) I don’t think people responding to fear in general is something we can put on the government or society. And specifically here, what I see is exactly what was documented by Altemeyer, the extreme fear that “If we don’t do such-and-such, America as we know it is dead” and talk of revolution and the apocalypse, etc. That’s what I mean by fear. I don’t believe as you do that all people submit to authority equally, I see people on both sides who reject what authority tells them. I don’t mean insofar as laws, I mean insofar as beliefs and how they are acted upon. What I see HERE is mostly parroting of what the AFAFs have been told by those they consider authority figures without question, aggressively, without any concept that anything different might be true, and without regard to any facts. It is that which I am addressing.

I also reject that any human can be driven to the level of submission exhibited in either the Miligram or the Stanford study. I don’t believe I would, certainly under those circumstances. I’m sure there ARE circumstances under which I could be driven to harm another, but what I don’t believe is that it would take as little provocation as many others, certainly not the level the two studies exhibited.

I disagree that the study in question was merely talking points, and it was done by someone who ran experiments, is studied by others and has been confirmed independently. You choose to believe a certain way about it; that’s your right. I believe otherwise, especially as it chronicled and explained what I have personally experienced, specifically here and on other internet sites, which is to what I am applying the concept. I don’t believe for a minute that Altemeyer believed himself “perfect”, and “elites” being generally used in the pejorative to refer to the left, I disagree completely with your statement. I got as far as your first quote, which I think is absolutely fallacious. I got as far as “you’re a member of a downtrodden group” in the second quote, and left at that point, as it is apparently intended to reflect the left, as was the previous text, while if you look at it, the right at this time In history is doing pretty much the same thing, for example telling it’s followers that THEY are a “downtrodden group”, with immigrants and Blacks, etc., taking their jobs, and the left wanting to legislate against them, etc. It goes both ways.

What I think is missing in your view is that I’ve been referring to authoritarian FOLLOWERS, not authoritarians themselves, which seems to be what the discussion has come to be about.

Yes, Mike, you understood the purpose behind my post, and the explanation of why I’m going to use AFAF rather than RWA in future. I can’t help who it offends, but when I see it to excess, it reflects what I believe is true.

Sig, your last paragraph nailed part of it for me. Not only that facts are irrelevant, and as Kiki remarked, it’s about people who are not only incapable of questioning their beliefs, but refute or disregard any facts to the contrary AGGRESSIVELY without ever, or very rarely, considering anything else.

That’s about it. I’ve said my piece and have a doctor’s appointment soon and another this afternoon, so I won’t have time to discuss it further right now or respond to many other threads, if there are any I about which I have something to comment. This was an attempt to clarify my use of a term, as it applies to only a very few here who exhibit the mentality, and to find a term that is clearer in that I’m not using it to generalize to all on one side, only to specific posters and only when they exhibit the mentality to extremes.

Ooops; just heard a message coming through on the machine that my doctor is out sick, so ignore what I wrote earlier, my next appointment isn't until this afternoon in the City, so I have time to continue the discussion or participate in others after all.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 6:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Siggy, I can't seem to FIND the bloody thing, but I did wanna get your opinion on something relative to your field as I understand it.

I was reading a piece on how Oxycontin caused people under it's influence to become more protective and supportive of those within their "monkeysphere" - but also realized almost by accident within the study that they become *exponentially* more hostile and aggressive to those outside of it, as well as their positions and beliefs, something seemingly related to the mental "retrenchment" which these folk engage in when confronted with facts in opposition to their preciously held beliefs...

And it got me thinkin about some of your own comments about the dopamine-reward rush and it's seeming addiction causing behaviors that would otherwise seem nonsensical.

There has GOT to be some relation here, but I wouldn't have the first damn clue how to go about getting a handle on it, other than maybe trying to hand it off to Doc Perrys people if I can somehow manage to even explain it coherently.

The irony is that it does give credence to my assessment that these people are clinically insane, in the scientific sense of the word, and maybe some bio-chem insight into perhaps WHY.

Also, thank you muchly for those research links regarding possible trigger factors for vaccine damage risk assessment, although from what I understand of what the folks workin on it are trying to tell me, sorting this into a coherent brief is gonna take a LOT longer than expected, and of course I am frustrated by dealing with a process I don't even comprehend enough to assist...
This is also complicated by many scientific personnel tending to hold certain beliefs with an almost religious fanaticism even in the face of contrary evidence - something I wouldn't have expected amongst them, but just goes to show that people are human, and everyone has their own biases and prejudices, really.

Still, if this leads to better isolating those risk factors so alternate solutions can be adapted, it's worth the effort - and despite my dislike and distrust of them, apparently someone within the CDC had a similar idea and they are also doing some research on those risk factors, we wound up kind of tripping over them while doing follow up and someone pointed out they'd been asked the EXACT SAME QUESTIONS by the CDC quite recently, so I hope to hell they have better qualified people workin this one than I do - although I still don't trust them and for damn good reasons.

Anyhow, any insight you can give on the neuro-bio-chem aspect of this would be most welcome, although I do know and respect the fact that you're damn busy as of late.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 7:51 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I've been accused of being an RWA.

The idea is laughable.

I bend my knee to noone. Man or woman.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 7:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You are actually THE most perfect exampe of an AFAF on this board, Wulf...to the point where I sometimes wonder if you spout what you do deliberately to sound like one. You couldn't be more of a stereotype if you TRIED, and I think I'd rather believe you're putting us on deliberately than you actually believe what you spew.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 8:01 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

According to you Nix, and those of your kind who are still stuck in the slave-mentality.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 8:24 AM

Sig,

1) I never said male, not did I intend to. Ever seen a group of highschool girls go to a shopping mall? How about a group of older women going out to a brunch? You never noticed any women in either group deferring automatically to one member of the group?

Much of these so called theories are about what people *want* to believe. The nature of our species however is pretty much out there for anyone to study. It's not that different from the behavior of apes.

2) I can reject the idea of born psychopaths because:
a) There's no scientific proof
b) I find the idea innately fascist, and believing in it would lead one to support a fascist society in which we would be trying to determine who those psychopaths were at a very young age before they could do any harm and..

Consider this one very seriously:

such a society would put its children through hell in the process.

Not to mention, they would make errors in this determination.

c) It's a free country, I can believe the moon is made of green cheese if I want, but honestly, I think psychos are made, not born. I invite anyone to study the childhood of Charles Manson. I didn't for a long time, and then I ran into it, and at the end, I didn't say "Oh what a shock he did this" I thought, "of course, how could anyone expect anything different."

d) I'm dubious about the born mental states. There's so much that goes into it, including prenatal chemical events which are fairly common in our society and have profound effects like those I described below to Frem. Autism and schizophrenia, while more scientific than psychopathy, are not really scientific themselves. Early childhood trauma is also a likely suspect in both cases.

I'm fairly sure that being born with an abnormally high dopamine level which they now call "psychotic" is not going to lead you to behave in a psychopathic nature. In fact, I don't think it even increases the chances that you will.

Quote:
I was talking about US, here on FFF, and my reasons for using RWA to refer to some people here

Niki, here's a humble suggestion:

Don't.

I mean, you're free to do what you want, but I think it's a really bad idea. Read Orwell's Politics in the English Language and you'll get what I mean.

Personally, I oppose all infighting or demonization of any user. Haven't you noticed that I have at times defended, I believe, every single user here? No one should be opposed to, or stereotyping fellow browncoats, (or fellow humans IMHO, but that's another matter). I mean, it's bad enough when, as frem said, we're too busy fighting about how to fix the hole in the bottom of the boat to actually do anything about it... it's worse if we start shooting at each other.

Frem,

Oxycontin is an opiate, which means it's an ampetamine receptor agonist, which is going to fuck with a lot of dopamine and serotonin systems, including the one you mentioned, but would also have a profound affect on norepinephrine systems. The key here is that the opiate use causes *instability* in the levels of receptors and available neurotransmitters. That instability would mean a great increase or decrease, and a fluctuation between the two, which is somewhat predictable, but to some extent random.

What happens is that changes in one direction in brain chemistry cause a systematic correction, sort of like a car which is losing its power steering: Rather than come back to center, it swings too far in the other direction.

I liken it to throwing a rock into a pond. The waves ripple back and forth, sometimes reinforcing or negating, but only time will cause them to level off. The common treatment ideas of the psychopharmacological community in this analogy are the same as those of self medicating addicts, in that they both amount to attempting to calm the waters by chucking more rocks into the pond.

Protective behaviors are linked to beta-adrenal receptors. The problem that is being cause here is one of a feedback loop. Two things are driving the adrenal instability:

1) The addiction mechanism. The withdrawal of dependent substances would yield a radically higher cortical release than any real world situation is capable of producing. The cortisol in turn would produce an increased level of norepinphrine, often a quite radical one.

2) Levels of NTs (neurotransmitters) that bottom out cause a response from the hypothalmus to up production of the depleted NTs. This is a norepinephrine based mechanism and would also lead to a radical increase in norep. levels in the brain.

Given this, you can see where this would effect behavior in the manner you described.

Norepinephrine (aka noradrenalin) is the principle binding NT for the beta-1 adrenal receptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenergic_receptor

which triggers aggressive/protective behavior in rats.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5733j5v71507l25/

Footnote: I think that these situations are, when represented in the extreme, temporary and unstable, but chemical profiles alone do not completely explain human behavior. Sure, it's fairly easy to conclude that human depression is a lack of serotonin, and there is very little psychological going on there, in spite of what any depressed person may want to believe. But overall personalities are far more complex than this.

It's a fascinating field of study, but I fear a future in which people are chemically "normalized" to avoid any radical behavior. In fact, I think that you would find such a society becoming rapidly complacent and easy to control.

However, to intentionally chemically radicalize the brain by doing the opposite would also make things very difficult to control, as results would be unpredictable, and the resulting mindsets in both directions would result in unpredictable and illogical behavior. This is not a good recipe for a revolution either.

The ultimate manner in which these systems ultimately effect the brain is to scale up and down the level of activity of particular centers of the brain devoted to particular tasks. This creates an imbalance in how the value of these tasks are weighed in someone's mental judgment, and on the extreme end can result in certain centers in the brain being shut down completely, at least temporarily.

It's also very important to remember that more than one brain center or mental activity *will be* triggered by the same NT system. This is because there are far more types of brain centers than there are types of NTs or NT receptors. For example, an influx of Norep into the brain is going to result in an increased activation of the fear center, there's just no way around this. The resulting activity could be profoundly paranoid.

But again, it's worth noting that the effects we are talking about here are profound. They are not subtle. We're talking about people staying up all night with an AK 47 in their lap because they're afraid to sleep.

We're not talking about "this will result in homophobia." Ideological convictions are not really that strongly held, and are probably not the result of strong chemical imbalances, or even any chemical imbalance. These are much more likely the result of a limited sampling of information that the person making the decisions is basing their opinions on, plus whoever made the most convincing argument to them on the topic and however recently.

Re: your kids, if they're anything like the ones I got, despite what they may say, I'm sure there are many psychological issues from their past; I'm equally sure that there are some substance issues in their past as well. The drug impact on the brain balance is so profound that one dose is enough to cause radical long term effects. It is simply human nature to push everything they can off on personal experience and psychological effects, or onto their inborn nature, than it is to accept the reality of the chaos caused by singular chemical events. I suspect in part this is because the latter often involves accepting some responsibility for the action.

Profound chemical events don't have to be street drugs though. Not only do doctors push psychoactives on everyone for "mental health" but they also do it every time you go to the hospital, often dressed up as "pain killers" or "muscle relaxants." To make matters worse (far worse) These profound chemical events can be caused by drugs which generally are considered to have nothing to do with psychopharmacology, such as broad spectrum antibiotics, general anaesthetics or steroidal hormones. Even diabetes or blood pressure medication can throw things seriously out of whack.

But yes, I'm saying that a one time dose of antibiotics could make someone psychotic or clinically depressed, a reality well worth noting, just for life in general. It's not generally my first suspect, but it can happen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 8:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT: I don't recall you defending everyone, but I certainly accept it's possible, given what I know of you and what I read. Have YOU ever noticed that I have done the same? Even those who abuse me on a consistent basis, I have at one time or another agreed with and/or defended, AS WELL AS speaking up against others on the side considered "mine".

I don't feel the use of AFAF is "demonizing" anyone, but rather calling out a flaw in thought patterns. It's CERTAINLY not demonizing in any way compared to the words used to describe and address me!

By the way, I happen to believe sociopaths and psychopaths are BOTH born and created, just as an afterthought. For me, some are born, as those of us with mental disorders, with a gene causing a "propensity", not a gene which guarantees, and I certainly feel they can be "created", just as borderline and other "personality disorders" (as opposed to "genetic disorders" like bipolarity).

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 9:07 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Submission: Those who go way beyond the norm and submit to those whom they consider “authorities” even when they are dishonest, corrupt, unfair or evil

Like the ACORN goons look toward Obama ?

Quote:
Hostility: People who aggress in cowardly ways, “in the dark”, and who will do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for what they said, which is easy on the internet (i.e., sockpuppets or even just the anonymity of the internet allowing complete lack of self-control). While more aggressively persecuting those with whom they disagree, they go easy on or make allowances for those who agree with them who are themselves hostile, and often join in the attack.

Like the union thugs who put that black vendor into the hospital ?

Or the nut job Democrat supporter who bit off the tip of a man's finger ?

Quote:
Conventionalism: Believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs in which they believe. For example, traditional family structure of father-as-head, mother as subservient to her husband and caretaker of the children, kids as subservient, period, same-sex marriage as evil, as are illegal immigrants, those who don't believe in God, people who smoke dope, etc. There’s more, but those are examples. Any belief in things "unconventional" by their standards is despised.

Now this is the part where I really begin to feel sorry for you. You're literally making up 'stuff' , simply to flesh out your little self reinforcing fantasy about how everyone who doesn't see things YOUR way is wrong.

What a piece of work.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 9:08 AM

Quote:
I don't feel the use of AFAF is "demonizing" anyone, but rather calling out a flaw in thought patterns. It's CERTAINLY not demonizing in any way compared to the words used to describe and address me!

It's not so much "demonizing", but it IS rather dismissive and dehumanizing, I think. It calls to mind the dismissive new-guy-naming conventions during the Viet Nam war era, where you didn't bother to learn the new guy's name until he'd survived a month or so in the boonies. Until then, he was just addressed as "FNG" - Fuckin' New Guy.

It's a way of telling someone they're not worth knowing, not worth learning their name, etc. As such, I find it a bit more demeaning than simply calling them an authoritarian.

And frankly, it seems the only ones who really got upset about being called RWAs (Right-Wing Authoritarians) fell into two groups: Those who AREN'T RWAs, but felt they were being unfairly grouped into such a category simply by dint of being conservative, and those who definitely DO fall into that group, and don't believe it themselves.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 9:19 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Raptor, you're not worth responding to because for every instance to which you point, several equally objectionable instances can be pointed to on the right...like the recent stomping on that woman's head. Ergo: Irrelevant.

Mike, I freely recognize that using AFAF is "dismissive and dehumanizing"...to me that mentality IS something to dismiss, and I see no reason to try to "humanize" those who exhibit the mentality here, as they have done their very best to dehumanize me. It's not tit for tat--if it were, I'd throw the kind of things at them that they throw back at me, which would be a waste of time as well as against what I believe. However, pointing out their illogical thought processes is downright civil in comparison, and either way, it's calling out a mentality when I see it, which I would do to anyone.

I think you're right about the two types here who are offended by it; I can't stop them being offended, but I wanted to make it clear it's not a generalization but a reference to specific people and their specific statements, and to use a different terminology so that those who are NOT RWAs can hopefully understand that I'm not referring to them, given RWA is "right-wing", which they might feel includes them. That's all.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 9:30 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
According to you Nix, and those of your kind who are still stuck in the slave-mentality.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

Says the guy who cheers anyone who claims to be for the Tea Parties, regardless of the actual background, history, plans or statements.

Sheesh.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
I don't feel the use of AFAF is "demonizing" anyone, but rather calling out a flaw in thought patterns. It's CERTAINLY not demonizing in any way compared to the words used to describe and address me!

It's not so much "demonizing", but it IS rather dismissive and dehumanizing, I think. It calls to mind the dismissive new-guy-naming conventions during the Viet Nam war era, where you didn't bother to learn the new guy's name until he'd survived a month or so in the boonies. Until then, he was just addressed as "FNG" - Fuckin' New Guy.

It's a way of telling someone they're not worth knowing, not worth learning their name, etc. As such, I find it a bit more demeaning than simply calling them an authoritarian.

And frankly, it seems the only ones who really got upset about being called RWAs (Right-Wing Authoritarians) fell into two groups: Those who AREN'T RWAs, but felt they were being unfairly grouped into such a category simply by dint of being conservative, and those who definitely DO fall into that group, and don't believe it themselves.

Nah, the targets of this epithet never responded at all I don't think. some of the backlash came from democrats, I think it was most obviously divisive nonsense to people who consider themselves to be in the middle, like me. I never thought it applied to me or was meant to.

BTW, just between us.. oh fuck, if it's just between us I'll tell you in an email.

Quote:
Niki:
I freely recognize that using AFAF is "dismissive and dehumanizing"

That was priceless

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 6:50 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:Raptor, you're not worth responding to because for every instance to which you point, several equally objectionable instances can be pointed to on the right...like the recent stomping on that woman's head. Ergo: Irrelevant.

Well, ya did respond, and tried to tell me why you weren't going to respond, by giving this phony quid pro quo nonsense about for 'every instance' I bring up , you can give several equally objectionable cases.

However, fact is, you have it exactly backwards.

For the several I could give, you can muster up exactly ONE , and that one is marginal, at best. ( There was no 'stomping ' on the woman's head, FYI ) It was mostly her shoulder, and even then, it was more of a holding down,with the foot, and not a kick or a 'stomp'. Of course, me pointing out that finer detail will be hysterically seen by you and others as some sort of condoning or excusing away the actions of the jack wagon who committed the heinous, cowardly act. And while he didn't send the little moveon.org protester to the hospital, ( at least, not for any legitimate injuries ) that still pales in comparison to the instances which the Dems committed on folks who were quite literally going about their business. and not shoving signs into candidate's car windows.

But you're not responding to me, so I guess this isn't a response to you , either.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 8, 2010 7:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I've been accused of being an RWA. The idea is laughable. I bend my knee to noone. Man or woman.

You don't know what RWA means, Wulf. RWAers don't think independently... in fact, they depend on others not only to do their thinking for them, but also to do their discussion for them. RWAs are often angry and violent. They see things as black and white. They fear the world as a whole and see it as "us" versus "them". Because they are violent, they view themselves as "independent".

Sorry to say that you hit all the points.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I saw the video Rappy. I just hope someone does that to you someday.

I'm sure YOU'LL be fine with it!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:37 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I saw the video Rappy. I just hope someone does that to you someday.

I'm sure YOU'LL be fine with it!

I'd like to see them try.

However, if I did anything as ridiculous and idiotic as trying to shove a sign or anything into the window of a passing vehicle, I'd probably deserve such treatment too.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, finally, at least some consistency! Next time some tea-bagging neoliberal get manhandled, I'll remind you of your opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 4:58 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, finally, at least some consistency! Next time some tea-bagging neoliberal get manhandled, I'll remind you of your opinion.

I don't need any reminding. It's MY opinion, and one which you plainly stated was consistent to my own view.

Don't get stuck on stupid.

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 7:36 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

My problem with 'RWA' (or any of its derivations), is not just that it's demeaning, but also that it doesn't really seem to be that accurate. If we're going to insult right wing ppl the least we can do is be on the money. My criticisms:

Quote:
Submission: Those who go way beyond the norm and submit to those whom they consider “authorities” even when they are dishonest, corrupt, unfair or evil

This doesn't chime for me. I don't see right wing folk (in America at least) as servile or submissive to authority. The way they can be 'controlled' comes more from the fact that they have strong emotions that can be manipulated, and stirred up.

Quote:
Hostility: People who aggress in cowardly ways, “in the dark”, and who will do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for what they said, which is easy on the internet (i.e., sockpuppets or even just the anonymity of the internet allowing complete lack of self-control). While more aggressively persecuting those with whom they disagree, they go easy on or make allowances for those who agree with them who are themselves hostile, and often join in the attack.

I think conservatives would say the same about kwicko on this board. My thoughts on this are that conservatives view liberals as 'the problem', and liberals view conservatives as 'the problem'. So when one of our own steps out of line we are forgiving, but when one of the enemy does it we are much less so - because they are the problem!

Quote:
Conventionalism: Believing that everybody should have to follow the norms and customs in which they believe. For example, traditional family structure of father-as-head, mother as subservient to her husband and caretaker of the children, kids as subservient, period, same-sex marriage as evil, as are illegal immigrants, those who don't believe in God, people who smoke dope, etc. There’s more, but those are examples. Any belief in things "unconventional" by their standards is despised.

Again, they're not blind followers, they're emotional followers. They have an emotional connection to convention/tradition: roles of men and women, gays in society etc.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 8:48 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

What is being missed over and over again here is that I'm NOT using RWA specifically because it denotes "right wing", and I'm not using it to refer to anyone of any political party, or generalizing to a political party. Yes, in MY experience, I have run into these qualities more often in people on the right, but I know it exists everywhere, so I am not intending to "insult right wing ppl", I'm calling out a way of thinking of specific people on this board...admittedly here the most aggressive and hostile posters are on the right, but that's not true everywhere and I'm fully aware of it.

When you consider "authority" as their leaders, not the government, etc., yes, in my view there is a submissiveness evident, in that they parrot what their leaders (and there definitely ARE leaders in the Tea Party) say and cannot conceive of anything else; if, for example, Sarah Palin said it, it must be true.

What you need to bear in mind is not all Tea Partiers OR Republicans are AFAFs, and there are people like that in all parties. I'm not using it to denote either party, but specifically people on this board who show an overabundance of AFAF mentality. Also, to be an AFAF, one needs to possess all the qualities of one, and to a degree that is more than the norm. Everyone has one or more of these thought patterns, people in all political spectrum can be authoritarian FOLLOWERS, and I'm using it only to refer to those who post the stereotypical mindset. I also generally only use the term when they have posted something SO indicative of the mindset that it jumps out at me. The most common, and absolutely most stereotyped AFAF here is Wulf, and the things he posts are so obviously authoritarian follower mindset that it's amazing. He's not as aggressive as the other couple, but makes up for it in every other aspect of the stereotype. Whozit, on the other hand, doesn't even deserve to be called an AFAF, as the sum total of him seems to be an obsessive hatred of Keith Olbermann.

Personally, I don't consider conservatives as "the problem". I think there are good points in both ideologies, and neither should have full power. But, again, SOME who call themselves conservatives and/or Tea Partiers on this board ARE the problem, and their inability to partake of any meaningful communication--the way they do it, especially--typifies the mindset, to me.

If you want to say "emotional" followers rather tan "blind" followers, you're certainly free to see it that way, and there is a certain validity in that, in my view. But there's a lot more to it than that...plus emotions DO blind us, and when leaders utilize those emotions to get followers, that is the essence of authoritarianism.

Authoritarian LEADERS play on emotions, are hypocritical in that they don't actually believe in things they espouse, and are power hungry. So playing to emotions like fear, hatred, racism, etc. is a way to control their followers via emotions. Once controlled, their followers will extend this emotional connection to other things their leader(s) are for or against. So I don't think they're purely "emotional followers".

I never expected this discussion to go on this long, I was just trying to explain something. I have no problem with it continuing, I just feel it's kind of self-involved in that it's only about how I feel about a few people here. If it gets expanded, as it seems to be doing, to more generalized debate, that's actually neat, but please understand that for ME, it's only about a few specific people here who show an overabundance of AFAF tendencies, nothing more; no generalization to only right wingers, tho' I freely admit my own experience has shown these tendencies to be more often expressed by the right (ESPECIALLY the religious right!!).

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 1:04 PM

If I was actually opposed to you guys, I would support you 100%, because this is the most moronic idea I think that's been posted, except maybe, okay, but it's up there.

You're arguing for the right to use an epithet, and defend it with total BS pseudo science. to dehumanize and marginalize your own allies, meaning, the people here on FFF.

If you can't see that everyone here is an ally, than your world is likely really small, and shrinking. Just use your heads, rethink this one, and please, don't go off trying to invent a better epithet, just try giving up on being divisive or insulting.

Just a plea for sanity here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:
Hostility: People who aggress in cowardly ways, “in the dark”, and who will do whatever they can to avoid responsibility for what they said, which is easy on the internet (i.e., sockpuppets or even just the anonymity of the internet allowing complete lack of self-control). While more aggressively persecuting those with whom they disagree, they go easy on or make allowances for those who agree with them who are themselves hostile, and often join in the attack.

I think conservatives would say the same about kwicko on this board. My thoughts on this are that conservatives view liberals as 'the problem', and liberals view conservatives as 'the problem'. So when one of our own steps out of line we are forgiving, but when one of the enemy does it we are much less so - because they are the problem!

I don't think I aggress "in the dark", or with sockpuppets, or avoid responsibility for what I've said. I'm pretty upfront about owning what I've said. I'm careful with my words, because I happen to believe words matter. I don't take kindly to people inferring things they *think* I *might* have implied when no such thing was ever said or hinted at by me, and I call them out on it when they do so.

But hell, I've posted just about everything but my physical address here; if anyone has a real problem with me, I'll be happy to post that as well. :)

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 5:02 PM

ELVISCHRIST

Just refer to them as bootlickers or lackeys. Toadeys works. Or jackboots. Henchmen. Rabble-Rousers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't need any reminding.

Oh, trust me Rappy, if past performance is any indication of the future, you'll be the first to whinge about how awful it was.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:02 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT, I don't consider it an epithet, but I respect your right to your opinion and will merely agree to disagree. I will say one last time that, given the wording used about and to me, libs, dems, Obama, etc., being all up in arms about calling out a specific mentality which I believe does exist but which isn't very important is pretty absurd.

Elvis, I would if I thought that's what it indicated. I don't consider them any of those, and those are (a mild form of) what they call me, but definitely what I DO consider "epithets".

Mike; I meant to point out all of what you wrote, my apologies for forgetting to do so. Everything you said is what I would have wrote; you're up front about what you post and from what I know of you, wouldn't resort to sickpuppies to get your licks in. I may decry you sinking to their level, but I don't think the comparison is appropriate, given that the OTHER things they post aside from personal attacks reflect what I believe is AFAF mentality; you do not.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:49 AM

Quote:

Mike; I meant to point out all of what you wrote, my apologies for forgetting to do so. Everything you said is what I would have wrote; you're up front about what you post and from what I know of you, wouldn't resort to sickpuppies to get your licks in. I may decry you sinking to their level, but I don't think the comparison is appropriate, given that the OTHER things they post aside from personal attacks reflect what I believe is AFAF mentality; you do not.

That *almost* sounds like a compliment.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:43 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

It's not a "compliment"...to me that is saying something false to make someone happy, or to like you or something. It's my opinion based on what I've observed. In the sense that, yes, I don't think you stoop to their level in those respects, I guess it's a positive remark. Just callin' 'em as I see 'em.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:29 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
What is being missed over and over again here is that I'm NOT using RWA specifically because it denotes "right wing", and I'm not using it to refer to anyone of any political party, or generalizing to a political party.

I thought you were using a term for certain types of conservative/conservatism, but not all of them. Seriously, you would use RWA to describe some liberals?

Quote:
I'm calling out a way of thinking of specific people on this board...

Okay but I still don't personally agree with the analysis - even in your text book cases such as Wulf. Submissive to authority?

Quote:
Personally, I don't consider conservatives as "the problem".

I do

Or some strains of conservatism, at least. By which I guess I mean there are people on the left that I disagree with just as much, but whose 'wrongness' doesn't concern me as much. I tend to see right wing wrongness as more powerful, and concerning.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:31 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Okay but I still don't personally agree with the analysis - even in your text book cases such as Wulf. Submissive to authority?"

HAH!!!!!

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:41 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

oh my goodness...Wulf is "submissive" to EVERY kind of authority--which he sees as "authority". His "rebellion" is just the authority of the people who are screaming "second amendment solution"..."tree of democracy, blood of..." It's not true rebellion,it's submitting to the emotional "call" of some kind of "purity", return to "traditional values", "taking back America". He submits to their propaganda, submits to their beliefs, submits so hard ands o much he can barely stand UP, certainly not think for himself!

As to liberal AFAF, try Communism. And yes, we have liberals (tho' I don't see any on FFF) who are just as blind followers as what "RWA" denotes.

I agree with your last sentence, I feel much the same way. But I don't see them as THE problem...one of them, currently, no question about that, but not THE problem.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 6:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wulf, to be fully free people need to be free of emotional compulsions and unexamined assumptions. Otherwise they're forced willy-nilly down courses of action like water down a chute. That is a force to be channeled by others for their purposes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:27 PM

CANTTAKESKY

If you look at the body of research in social psychology, from Milgram's obedience experiment to Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment on down, you'll find a pattern. People, as a whole, often act in gullible, irrational, conformist, obedient, and submissive ways. This doesn't apply to just one type of personality or one type of ideology. It applies to most normal, regular people. Regular people like you and me.

Here is a list of some of the most famous ones:
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/10-piercing-insights-into-human-natur
e.php

It is easy to come up with a label for people we perceive as authoritarian or obedient. But more likely than not, we ourselves have those traits too. We just don't see it when we ourselves do obedient, blind-faith, dogmatic, authoritarian stuff. WE tell ourselves we have good and correct reasons for our beliefs and behavior--THEY don't.

So the way I see it, if I invent a label for a certain trait, I would describe it in such a way that I could apply it to myself as well.

Demonization of ANY group of people is a bit dangerous. We are ALL "we." There is no "they."

JMHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:50 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I decided many years ago to square up what I do with what I believe. I don't work for a place whose mission I don't believe, I don't pass by anyone who needs help, I sniff test what I am asked to do.

There may be things I accept - like FACTS on global warming - but I don't blindly accept things just b/c an authority said so. OTOH I don't blindly rebel, either. Either blind path is a road to being manipulated to someone else's ends.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:14 AM

CTTS

Well said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:25 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There may be things I accept - like FACTS on global warming - but I don't blindly accept things just b/c an authority said so.

We all define "facts," and "blind," and "authority" differently.

My point is, we have a tendency, as a people, to cut ourselves more slack for our own submissiveness and rationalize our own obedience more than for others. We simply don't look at ourselves as critically as we do people of a different persuasion.

Let me ask you, Kiki, why do you believe the FACTS of global warming? Is it because so many scientists cite such-and-such data, arrive at these factual conclusions, and you believe those scientists?

You're not blindly accepting them because you've seen the data. Or, unless you are a climate scientist generating raw data yourself, it is more likely you simply believed them when they said this is the data and believed them when they interpreted the data in certain ways. You believe in the self-correcting mechanisms for science, that if one of the were wrong, the others would catch them. You believe so many scientists agreeing on one thing could not be wrong about what the data means.

I am NOT saying the belief and trust is not warranted. I am saying simply that we all have this belief and trust from certain authorities and systems and not others.

----
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
-- Ancient Indian Proverb

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We all define "facts," and "blind," and "authority" differently.

But only some of us are right.

Fact: A big rig is bearing down on you as you're crossing the street. Do you... Deny it's existence? Jump out of the way? Insist that you have just as much a right to be there as the truck?

If you believe in reality... in other words, if your a piori assumption is that our senses mean something more than just a complicated and entertaining dream state... There is a certain irreducible, undeniable quality to reality. We may cook up all kinds of ideas about it, think that it represents some sort of authority figure or another and give it names of gods and goddesses, or rebel against it, but in the end reality will have ITS way.

Of course, if you fully believe that all of this means nothing, then feel free to step in front of the truck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:04 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fact: A big rig is bearing down on you as you're crossing the street. ...There is a certain irreducible, undeniable quality to reality.

Question: Did you see the big rig with your own eyes, or did you hear it from someone you trust? How big is it? How do they know how big it is? How fast is it moving? How do you know THAT? Where will it end up? How do you know? What is the probability that it will miss you? (Just insert "how do you know" after each question from here on.) What will it cost to jump out of the way? What is the ratio between the cost of jumping and the probability that it will hit me? Would the big rig hit me anyway, even if I jump? Is it too late, so I might as well do my last jig before I die?

Direct empirical observations are as close to facts as we get. But then we have to subjectively INTERPRET those observations into larger conclusions. The interpretations are where the debates lie.

The direct readings of the instruments measuring C02 levels are facts. Summarizing all the readings for the day or month or year is an interpretation. Putting those reading in context of recent and ancient history is an interpretation. What we should do with the interpretations are interpretations.

----
Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
-- Richard Feynman, physicist (1918 - 1988 )

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Question: Did you see the big rig with your own eyes, or did you hear it from someone you trust?

Yes, you see it with your own eyes. (Since there is crossover between this thread and Norfolk Island, in the case of carbon dioxide measurement, I can say I've seen it with my own eyes, since we measure it and I have personally witnessed 30 years of values.)

Quote:
How big is it?

It's a big rig. Yanno... tractor trailer with 18 wheels. 35,000 to 80,000 pounds, depending if loaded or not. Big.

Quote:
How fast is it moving?

Typical speeds where you would expect to be crossing a street (ie not freeway) but still bear the weight of a tractor-trailer. And undivided urban route... say 30-50 mph.

Quote:
How do you know THAT?

You don't. But it's unlikely you'll be calculating, since most humans are pretty good at estimating when something is likely to hit them. If that were not the case, we could never catch a ball.

Quote:
Where will it end up? How do you know? What is the probability that it will miss you?

You are standing in the same lane, and the truck is close enough that you judge that if you do NOT move out of the way, the truck won't have time to stop or swerve and it will hit you.

Quote:
What will it cost to jump out of the way?

Nominally, about 50 calories.

This is the only decent point so far... if the traffic is very heavy in all lanes, you could stand a good chance of getting nailed by another vehicle in another lane. (Anyone ever play Frogger?) Let's assume that the chances of getting hit by another vehicle are not as ... er... immediate as getting hit by the truck.

Quote:
The direct readings of the instruments measuring C02 levels are facts. Summarizing all the readings for the day or month or year is an interpretation.

But one which can be realistically made. For example, everyone knows about sampling error (If you oversample one area and undersample another). Easily corrected for.

Quote:
Putting those reading in context of recent and ancient history is an interpretation. What we should do with the interpretations are interpretations.

But you can put those readings in the context of observable fact. If you have the choice to eliminate interpretation, then do so wherever possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:39 AM