Dissociating political identity; Round 2
I was just watching the Republican Party, and more importantly the Conservative Movement in the US fall apart
The House GOP has abandoned Boehner, Boehner isn’t making sense, and the whole thing is in disarray. For me it is quite funny, but on some level it is kind of serious. A high level party member has just shown flat-out dissent and substantive failure to (Heh) stay at work long enough to do work is a problem for the whole party.
Earlier I wrote about Dissociating Political Identity in the wake of the failed UN Treaty due to a substantive contribution via votes by Republican Wingnuts; my question was, how long till a group identity starts to re-identify?
This week, are they re-identifying? Are they dissociating?
Normative-Boob Comment; Derrida’s Deconstruction
Originally Posted by Bropenhauer
I have been reading a lot, though I shouldn’t be because I am doing exams in totally different things, but I have found Deconstruction to be what I have always done—just an academic term. Basically every field that has borrowed the concept of a socially constructed thing, has done some form of deconstruction. Not just deconstructing, but also changing. I would call it the philosophy of context. Continental philosophy needs this method, and it is valuable on many levels.
The linguistic element is often misunderstood. Rather than language, it is about signs and symbols. Language just happens to be the easiest way to practice it. I seriously use this every day of my life, regardless of being a writer. I realize he seems difficult, but if your aren’t drawn to him naturally you probably just do not have the mind for it.
To say, as a poet, a beautiful string of meaningful condensation of words; to look a subject, say as a student of International Political Economy, and see the poetry in the collapse of the entire international economy, is actually a lonely thing. There’s not many who understand the world as such, though it is desperately needed.
Beauty and the Beast
1. The Beast
Knowing how you loved the birds
I fixed them to the trees
so they wouldn’t fly away.
So you would stay.
And you remained silent
and never questioned my bloody palms
or reproached me the birds
because they didn’t sing.
It couldn’t last, of course.
No new birds came and those crucified
were taken by small animals or simply
disappeared from the nails.
I was sure then that you would leave me.
Finally I confessed.
Trembling, I brought you the hammer
and showed my broken fingers.
Leaves and branches in my hair,
the diagrams of Autumn
on the sky.
And you smiled and said it didn’t matter
about the birds
and drank at my tears
like a rare and fragile wine
that they too would not be wasted.
I came to you so carelessly
there were those who thought I had not been warned.
I could only point to the false lovers who carried marks
where you had pressed coins into their palms
and admit I was impatient for your scars.
The rumours followed us as easily
as if you murdered me every night;
hemlock in my evening wine,
a loosened bannister on the stair.
The dull villagers and daft princes
waited still and at distances
for grave news and relentless
until I could only point again
at their jealous eyes and whisper
I had discovered why you handled me
as though I were made of glass.
I know they want to know about our bodies.
Our virginity confuses them
and they are reduced to words and silences.
What shall we allow them to believe?
We are a thousand years old, no histories
and nothing to confess.
Beauty and the Beast
by Jaimes Alsop
We’re always stressed out! Slightly stressed INTJ looks like ENTJ
Ni, Te, Fi, Se
Slightly Stressed INTJ
Te, Ni, Fi, Se (overly logical or particular, likely to dismiss arguments or new data without consideration, etc.)
Fi, Te, Ni, Se (insecure, irrational, etc.)
Very Stressed INTJ
Se, Fi, Te, Ni (destructively spontaneous, etc.)”
It actually feels good to be challenged, but I realize that “slightly stressed” resembles ENTJ in the first 2 functions, or like when someone is put on the spot and forced into extroversion. If I usually score somewhere in between INTJ and ENTJ (usually ENTJ at work) I wonder if it is because I tend to be stressed and dismissive?) I would think would be ideal to be the same all the way through, rather than having some extreme shifts in state. I never thought about that before.
(Note this section of wired is awesome, I love them)
Death by Algorithm: West Point Code Shows Which Terrorists Should Disappear First | Danger Room | Wired.com
Sean Gourley on the mathematics of war | Video on TED.com
(Sigh. Don’t even get me started on symbolic notion of what smart people doing smart things within the military would look like.)
There isn’t much to ask as a debate, but for speculation what do you think about the limits and ethics around behaviour as an algorithm in strategy and security? I did a paper once citing statistical psychology, but never really considered the limits; for example, in diplomacy we (probably know the outcome of political behaviour of how unstable regimes will respond), but do we still give them the due consideration and time to respond? This is especially important for the United Nations.
Can the psychology of humanitarianism be separated from politics?
For the last six months I’ve been working for a Non profit organization, as well as I (had to fight for) an opportunity to volunteer as an intern doing fund development. I recently finished that commitment, but am left feeling that the psychology of non-profits just wasn’t for me. I am still trying to figure it out for myself. I worked mostly with xNFJ’s who were quite weary of traditional leadership, or at least placed morality first before that. I think though, as an institution non profits are the moral concerns divorced from the traditional system, which might eventually need to return to the traditional system in order to be any good. (Otherwise it’s kind of like cheating.)
My sorting thoughts aren’t really important. What do you think though of humanitarianism, as a psychology, which does not confront politics concerning it’s focus?
I think this notion people have of keeping morality and politics separate is naive. I actually think it is indicative of a wider issue THRED HIJACK IMMINENT a lot of people with very individualistic senses of identity have of the complete failure to recognise their own social context. So often you hear successful business people talk about how they started at the bottom and worked their way up to be mega successful through blood, sweat, and tears. And don’t get me wrong, this is true - these individuals have, invariably, worked hard and deserve their success. But I also think they’re often way too willing to forget that they live in a society that is structured in such a way that they could work their way up. Many societies in the world today simply don’t allow for social moement. Similarly, without the public goods that government provide (education, some health benefits, etc), they would not have been able to thrive.
I don’t seek to remove the role of the individual, which is critical. But I do think individuals need to recognise their context.
Back to the actual post, I think that people the feeling of not wanting to compromise is such a triumph of individualism over social context.
This makes me think that rather than an identity or political thing, that it really comes down to social skills. I’ve struggled with this myself working with incredibly intelligent colleagues usually with PhD’s who just didn’t have the social skills to articulate a social awareness of how different groups interact. I find that the Pop-humanitarianism kids tend to be socially unaware of their surroundings, and then the adjustments aren’t really in the right directions. For example, morality that misses the target, or morality that doesn’t compromise to work with the politics on the issue (which includes actually being aware of the politics on the issue).
That comes from the stream of consciousness within the funding sources, usually a morally driven social-adjustment made by a successful business identity whom might not really understand the structure of society around them.
So I remember later, if I reduce the thought, its a lot like “Morality without social skills.” It probably explains a lot more than my escapism idea.
Keeping the Mentally Incompetent from voting
I was intrigued by some of the history of neurodiversity; some of which includes the idea of social parasitism. I have a lot of mental health issues which are a constant, but try not to be a burden in spaces where I might not be as competent to avoid the classical idea of parasite (even a democratic parasite). I guess trying to balance this with the idea of responsibility. So many times my best friend who has some ADHD tells me she shouldn’t even be allowed to vote, but I wonder how much of it is her ability and how much is a lacking desire to undertake the responsibility.
Another thing that strikes me as an interest is the definition of responsibility. Is it this definition off in the distance, all alone. Or is it coupled to our understanding of incompetence? If we forfeit the responsibility or mess it up, are we then incompetent as opposed to being able or unable? I guess that would look quite different too. Saying the able or unable cannot vote; saying the responsible or incompetent cannot vote.
I don’t really know.
I’m reading a lot of organizational psych lately and clearly premeditation (lacking), urgency, and sensation seeking are elements related to impulsiveness. These are pretty neutral things though.
I have been looking at value of what I’m doing, environmental distractions, and having realistic expectations to reinforce as improving my own self efficacy. I always struggle with impulsiveness though, because part of me thinks its not all that bad. I have worked with clients with impulse control disorder in the past, and actually found them to be quite remarkable.
Have any of you turned impulsiveness into a good thing? If so, how?
Some people have a high tolerance before they dissociate their identity from a group. Also following along with the group is, actually pretty usual. In political psychology, I’m interested in, and at what point, a political identity will dissolve and dissociate.
There are a lot of really insane threads of political culture, such as the manifestation of fear, but do you think this example I will post below is enough for some of it to dissolve? Or do you think it will persist among the right wing within the United States?
What do you think it takes to dissociate a political identity?
Republican opposition sinks UN disability rights treaty in US Congress
When we elect a member of a political party from a subdivision into an important part of government, we attribute a lot of diverse reason for that vote. Personally I would say that their character does matter, and it matters to a moderate degree to which I want to be confident they are aware, competent, and efficient. (Heh, I’m kind of a shallow robot.) In taking into consideration of that portion of your choice, which pertains to individuality, then do you expect them to fulfil their elected duty on par with that individuality? Or, by (only substantive production) their rational choice which may disregard identity, individuality, and say political ideology if there is a better option?
On political culture, this is basically peer pressure from societal norms such as party discipline or fulfilling elected duty based off of what is popular at the time.
Explain your positions regarding these elements however you want.
Philosophical question; does lying make you richer or poorer?
I guess also, you could get the same stream of consciousness just by contrasting people-in-power and what (not insane) political economists and economic psychologists are saying. The prisoner’s dilemma animals spirits, the dialectic of the US leadership being rich though the country descends into poverty, economic psychology, consumerism, ect.
nanaellis-deactivated20121229 asked: Did I just talk to you in the Perc forum? What am I reading meme?
Yes. I’m everywhere.
Should I link my other writing to this blog? Or would it be kind of pretentious?
(For The Masterpiece)
I wanted to prove it wrong.
I understand it better now,
and my hatred recedes from
my own failings.
I know both,
That I have been weak,
And that I am still the only one
Who seems to be invincible.
It is a puddle in some somber place
A place in the dark parting.
I didn’t expect to live, even this,
If I had happened to have succeeded.
And due to this part-slavery
My Principate is a sad announcement.
A part of me will be saved far from,
And without, the humans.
Something inside me snapped yesterday.
The me, everyone knew, is gone.
I don’t know what I am now.