Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 101

Thread: Authoritarians and Politics

  1. #1
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    908 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Authoritarians and Politics

    A few years ago, I ran across an interesting essay on Authoritarians, by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor at the University of Manitoba.

    I'm interested in politics and political systems (everyone wants to know the future and everyone wants to rule the world; I just add Efficient Optimizer to that list), and I had read a number of books on the subject of politics and economics and war, but I had never read anything as illuminating as Altemeyer's essay on people whom he calls "Authoritarians".

    The whole thing is available for free here: https://theauthoritarians.org/Downlo...oritarians.pdf

    but the part that got my attention was when he, as a teacher, created the Global Change Game and let his students play it. He split the students into two groups; one with high Authoritarian leanings, and one with low Authoritarian leanings. Here is an excerpt from his essay in which he describes the results.

    .................................................. ..........................................

    Unauthoritarians and Authoritarians: Worlds of Difference

    By now you must be developing a feel for what high RWAs think and do, and also an impression of low RWAs. Do you think you know each group well enough to predict what they’d do if they ran the world? One night in October, 1994 I let a group of low RWA university students determine the future of the planet (you didn’t know humble researchers could do this, did you!). Then the next night I gave high RWAs their kick at the can.

    The setting involved a rather sophisticated simulation of the earth’s future called the Global Change Game, which is played on a big map of the world by 50-70 participants who have been split into various regions such as North America, Africa, India and China. The players are divided up according to current populations, so a lot more students hunker down in India than in North America. The game was designed to raise environmental awareness, and before the exercise begins players study upon their region’s resources, prospects, and environmental issues.

    Then the facilitators who service the simulation call for some member, any member of each region, to assume the role of team leader by simply standing up. Once the “Elites” in the world have risen to the task they are taken aside and given control of their region’s bank account. They can use this to buy factories, hospitals, armies, and so on from the game bank, and they can travel the world making deals with other Elites. They also discover they can discretely put some of their region’s wealth into their own pockets, to vie for a prize to be given out at the end of the simulation to the World’s Richest Person. Then the game begins, and the world goes wherever the players take it for the next forty years which, because time flies in a simulation, takes about two and a half hours.

    The Low RWA Game

    By carefully organizing sign-up booklets, I was able to get 67 low RWA students to play the game together on October 18th . (They had no idea they had been funneled into this run of the experiment according to their RWA scale scores; indeed they had probably never heard of right-wing authoritarianism.) Seven men and three women made themselves Elites. As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim Elite called for a summit on the “Island Paradise of Tasmania.” All the Elites attended and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization was thus immediately created by mutual consent.

    Regions set to work on their individual problems. Swords were converted to ploughshares as the number of armies in the world dropped. No wars or threats of wars occurred during the simulation. [At one point the North American Elite suggested starting a war to his fellow region-aires (two women and one guy), but they told him to go fly a kite--or words to that effect.]

    An hour into the game the facilitators announced a (scheduled) crisis in the earth’s ozone layer. All the Elites met in Tasmania and contributed enough money to buy new technology to replenish the ozone layer.

    Other examples of international cooperation occurred, but the problems of the Third World mounted in Africa and India. Europe gave some aid but North America refused to help. Africa eventually lost 300 million people to starvation and disease, and India 100 million.

    Populations had grown and by the time forty years had passed the earth held 8.7 billion people, but the players were able to provide food, health facilities, and jobs for almost all of them. They did so by demilitarizing, by making a lot of trades that benefited both parties, by developing sustainable economic programs, and because the 32 Elites diverted only small amounts of the treasury into their own pockets. (The North American Elite hoarded the most.)

    One cannot blow off four hundred million deaths, but this was actually a highly successful run of the game, compared to most. No doubt the homogeneity of the players, in terms of their RWA scores and related attitudes, played a role. Low RWAs do not typically see the world as “Us versus Them.” They are more interested in cooperation than most people are, and they are often genuinely concerned about the environment. Within their regional groups, and in the interactions of the Elites, these first-year students would have usually found themselves “on the same page”--and writ large on that page was, “Let’s Work Together and Clean Up This Mess.” The game’s facilitators said they had never seen as much international cooperation in previous runs of the simulation. With the exception of the richest region, North America, the lows saw themselves as interdependent and all riding on the same merry-go-round.

    The High RWA Game

    The next night 68 high RWAs showed up for their ride, just as ignorant of how they had been funneled into this run of the experiment as the low RWA students had been the night before. The game proceeded as usual. Background material was read, Elites (all males) nominated themselves, and the Elites were briefed. Then the “wedgies” started. As soon as the game began, the Elite from the Middle East announced the price of oil had just doubled. A little later the former Soviet Union (known as the Confederation of Independent States in 1994) bought a lot of armies and invaded North America. The latter had insufficient conventional forces to defend itself, and so retaliated with nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust ensued which killed everyone on earth--7.4 billion people--and almost all other forms of life which had the misfortune of co-habitating the same planet as a species with nukes.

    When this happens in the Global Change Game, the facilitators turn out all the lights and explain what a nuclear war would produce. Then the players are given a second chance to determine the future, turning back the clock to two years before the hounds of war were loosed. The former Soviet Union however rebuilt its armies and invaded China this time, killing 400 million people. The Middle East Elite then called for a “United Nations” meeting to discuss handling future crises, but no agreements were reached.

    At this point the ozone-layer crisis occurred but--perhaps because of the recent failure of the United Nations meeting--no one called for a summit. Only Europe took steps to reduce its harmful gas emissions, so the crisis got worse. Poverty was spreading unchecked in the underdeveloped regions, which could not control their population growth. Instead of dealing with the social and economic problems “back home,” Elites began jockeying among themselves for power and protection, forming military alliances to confront other budding alliances. Threats raced around the room and the Confederation of Independent States warned it was ready to start another nuclear war. Partly because their Elites had used their meager resources to buy into alliances, Africa and Asia were on the point of collapse. An Elite called for a United Nations meeting to deal with the crises--take your pick--and nobody came.

    By the time forty years had passed the world was divided into armed camps threatening each other with another nuclear destruction. One billion, seven hundred thousand people had died of starvation and disease. Throw in the 400 million who died in the Soviet-China war and casualties reached 2.1 billion. Throw in the 7.4 billion who died in the nuclear holocaust, and the high RWAs managed to kill 9.5 billion people in their world--although we, like some battlefield news releases, are counting some of the corpses twice.

    The authoritarian world ended in disaster for many reasons. One was likely the character of their Elites, who put more than twice as much money in their own pockets as the low RWA Elites had. (The Middle East Elite ended up the World’s Richest Man; part of his wealth came from money he had conned from Third World Elites as payment for joining his alliance.) But more importantly, the high RWAs proved incredibly ethnocentric. There they were, in a big room full of people just like themselves, and they all turned their backs on each other and paid attention only to their own group. They too were all reading from the same page, but writ large on their page was, “Care About Your Own; We Are NOT All In This Together.”

    The high RWAs also suffered because, while they say on surveys that they care about the environment, when push comes to shove they usually push and shove for the bucks. That is, they didn’t care much about the long-term environmental consequences of their economic acts. For example a facilitator told Latin America that converting much of the region’s forests to a single species of tree would make the ecosystem vulnerable. But the players decided to do it anyway because the tree’s lumber was very profitable just then. And the highs proved quite inflexible when it came to birth control. Advised that “just letting things go” would cause the populations in underdeveloped areas to explode, the authoritarians just let things go.

    Now the Global Change Game is not the world stage, university students are not world leaders, and starting a nuclear holocaust in a gymnasium is not the same thing as launching real missiles from Siberia and North Dakota. So the students’ behavior on those two successive nights in 1994 provides little basis for drawing conclusions about the future of the planet. But some of what happened in this experiment rang true to me. I especially thought, “I’ve seen this show before” as I sat on the sidelines and watched the high RWAs create their very own October crisis.

  2. #2
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,079
    Mentioned
    847 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Can we have a summary? Seems vaguely interesting but tl;dr

  3. #3
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    908 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    Can we have a summary? Seems vaguely interesting but tl;dr
    Authoritarians will wreck the world and non-authoritarians will try to fix it. It is basically what you've seen for the past forty years in US politics.

    Bush attacks the Middle East, Clinton makes trade deals, Bush II attacks the Middle East and Afghanistan, Obama tries to make trade and nuclear disarmament deals, Trump attacks the Middle East.

    It's a lot like the US deficit. Republican president lowers taxes on the rich while raising defense spending and reducing welfare benefits thus blowing up the deficit, Democrat does the opposite and gets a budget surplus, rinse, repeat.

    Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House roof as a symbol of his administration's efforts to reduce Global Warming, Reagan had them removed, citing "government over-regulation".

    It's pretty clear, I'd say.

    But I really do recommend reading the original reference.
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 01-05-2020 at 10:11 PM.

  4. #4
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,791
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Authoritarians will wreck the world and non-authoritarians will try to fix it. It is basically what you've seen for the past forty years in US politics.

    Bush attacks the Middle East, Clinton makes trade deals, Bush II attacks the Middle East and Afghanistan, Obama tries to make trade and nuclear disarmament deals, Trump attacks the Middle East.

    It's a lot like the US deficit. Republican president lowers taxes on the rich while raising defense spending and reducing welfare benefits thus blowing up the deficit, Democrat does the opposite and gets a budget surplus, rinse, repeat.

    Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House roof as a symbol of his administration's efforts to reduce Global Warming, Reagan had them removed, citing "government over-regulation".

    It's pretty clear, I'd say.

    But I really do recommend reading the original reference.
    I find it amusing how badly the US has been blowing it's global lead through shitty politics. Just 20 years ago the US far above most of the world just about every metric, and know you can really start to see it's relative decline. Education's shit, infrastructure's crumbling, shitty healthcare, innovation's gone down the tubes, renewable energy is not being embraced as fast as it should, etc. The petro dollar and America's naval control over global trade gave it major economic advantages that allowed it get away with having piss poor leadership. When US global hegemony unravels it will have cascading effects and people are going to be in for rude awakening.

  5. #5
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    1,194
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Authoritarians will wreck the world and non-authoritarians will try to fix it. It is basically what you've seen for the past forty years in US politics.

    Bush attacks the Middle East, Clinton makes trade deals, Bush II attacks the Middle East and Afghanistan, Obama tries to make trade and nuclear disarmament deals, Trump attacks the Middle East.

    It's a lot like the US deficit. Republican president lowers taxes on the rich while raising defense spending and reducing welfare benefits thus blowing up the deficit, Democrat does the opposite and gets a budget surplus, rinse, repeat.

    Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House roof as a symbol of his administration's efforts to reduce Global Warming, Reagan had them removed, citing "government over-regulation".

    It's pretty clear, I'd say.

    But I really do recommend reading the original reference.
    Strange, I was interested by how people with RWA didn’t seem to much help others. While of course their game played out in average a lot better, my impression from your post was that they worked together due to self-interest rather than much altruistic motivation.

    I feel that “self-interested” is a relatively low bar to set, even if the alternative is active aggression. In politics we need a little better than that. The Obamas and Clintons of the world have been fucking normal people over too (and if you don’t agree, lemme know and I’ll duke it out with you), and even if it isn’t quite as bad as when a Bush starts a war in the Middle East, they don’t have to be the alternative.

  6. #6
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    908 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Strange, I was interested by how people with RWA didn’t seem to much help others. While of course their game played out in average a lot better, my impression from your post was that they worked together due to self-interest rather than much altruistic motivation.

    I feel that “self-interested” is a relatively low bar to set, even if the alternative is active aggression. In politics we need a little better than that. The Obamas and Clintons of the world have been fucking normal people over too (and if you don’t agree, lemme know and I’ll duke it out with you), and even if it isn’t quite as bad as when a Bush starts a war in the Middle East, they don’t have to be the alternative.
    Freelance, the real world is more complicated than the Global Change game, and isn’t cleanly separated into Authoritarian and non-Authoritarian ranks of nearly-equal class status college students. In the real world, people of different economic classes war with each other, and can form mutually self-interested groups across political and national boundaries.

    The politicians in the US all represent the ruling class, and as such, have been screwing the middle class pretty consistently ever since the oil-and extraction industry-funded Republicans destroyed the unions, which were where the Democrats got most of their campaign money. Now, the Democrats get their money from the parasitic Finance industry, and the Middle class is left without any say in the economy at all. The economic decline of the Middle class is a direct consequence of this.

    But Altemeyer’s essay does illustrate the fact that Authoritarians will destroy the planet in the interest of their group. I’m absolutely certain that this kind of behavior has been selected for by evolution as being advantageous in certain situations, but those situations didn’t take into account the ability to end life on this planet.

    I wonder if this is why we don’t see any other civilizations in the galaxy? They have all hit this Great Filter.
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 01-06-2020 at 11:44 AM.

  7. #7
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    1,194
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    The real world is more complicated than the Global Change game, and isn’t cleanly separated into Authoritarian and non-Authoritarian ranks of college students. In the real world, people of different economic classes war with each other, and can form mutually self-interested groups across political and national boundaries.

    But Altemeyer’s essay does illustrate the fact that Authoritarians will destroy the planet in the interest of their group. I’m absolutely certain that this kind of behavior has been selected for by evolution as being advantageous in certain situations, but those situations didn’t take into account the ability to end life on this planet.

    I wonder if this is why we don’t see any other civilizations in the galaxy? They have all hit this Great Filter.
    edit: to be clear, in my previous post I was referring to the way you described Republicans causing issues and Democrats fixing them. I was annoyed because I felt reality wasn’t that simple. The problems the Democrats “solve” are rarely bread-and-butter issues (what difference does it really make to me if the budget is balanced?), and that their policies inadvertently result in less mass dying than the Republicans’ doesn’t really inspire me to love them.

    You’re into sci-fi, aren’t you? I’ve read some (mostly Asimov (I read the entire Foundation series, at least most of the robot series, and various short stories), Arthur C. Clarke, and Herbert’s Dune series) but I’m not a sci-fi buff at all. My impression, though, is most sci-fi relating to interplanetary or interstellar travel relies on the invention of faster-than-light technology. Given the enormous advances in technology we’ve seen in the past two hundred years, I think a lot of people, especially the types who really like sci-fi, think that anything will be possible after enough time; that technological advancements are inevitable and will eventually let people do anything they put their mind to. But I wonder if the real reason we don’t see aliens is because FTL travel is simply impossible.

    Already we’re reaching physical limits for electronics parts; that is, no matter how efficient a CPU can be, there’s still a physical limit to how small it can possibly be made. There are obviously ideas about how to get around this problem, but it’s interesting to consider that there might be real limits on technological advancement, and that we might be about to hit them.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 01-06-2020 at 12:03 PM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sounds like a big circlejerk of left wing politicians legitimizng their own (flawed) views by pseudoscience and giving other democrat like "liberals" the justification to adhere to their flawed believes while not being able to defend it on a rational basis.

    Most the left wing does today is based on pure lies, one of the biggest is egalitarism and western universalism.
    It shows itself by the very same notion that tried to colonize the world by hard means which now tries by soft means to turn black people into whites, middle-eastern people into westerners.
    This kind of cultural imperialism is mostly based on economic greed and wishful thinking, years of being guilt tripped for being superior (which in communism is the biggest sin, because its the worst form of inequality).

    We will never turn minorities into people like us because they are empirically proven a lot more aggressive, a lot less smart and function completely different.
    Ethnocentrism is the only legitimate kind of view and that's exactly why we all are racist, because racism helps you to feel empathy for the genetic makeup that is similar to your own and thus heightens your genetic fitness and chance for survival.

    Helping a genetic makeup that is so screwed and dangerous like the majority of Africans and people of African descent will lessen your chance of survival significantly.
    Authoritarianism is not good, it's a beta value i don't adhere to, but Racism and Ethnocentrism certainly is.

    People are becoming sicker and sicker, having a lot of mental health issues, because from birth on they get told, teached and indoctrinated that their most natural feeling, the love for the people who are wholesome for them selves and the disgust, hate and antipathy to people who are not is some kind of flaw.
    I'm not even right wing, and i am glad that we see what the 68s had with Baader, Ensslin and all of those who did not have to fight authoritarians by violent means, we have a giftet youth who emancipates themselves from the dogmas of their parents generation and questions the unquestionable.

    The smartest young people are becoming more and more racist and there is nothing anybody is able to do against it, because it's the only way forward, to a prosperous future and the survival of everything that was ever worthwile. When the white Race dies, everything of value will die.
    Africans will never make it, we had socrates and plato thousands of years ago, so don't tell me that time will fix them, evolution would fix them, but there has to be a lot of dying for this to take effect, the juice is not worth the squeeze.

    Nearly every kind of cultural and scientific achievement has been made by whites, letting the white race die will kill the potential this genetic mixture has carried. It is not permissible under any circumstances.

  9. #9
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,079
    Mentioned
    847 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    The thread was about authoritarians and political strategy but it seems this racist outpouring was waiting for the earliest possible opening. Could have made a thread? Anyway, as for the liberal/conservative stuff you opened with, there is more leeway for racist expression for conservatives, I guess, with policies unfriendly towards immigrants or the disadvantaged, and more leeway for anti-racist posturing for liberals. But I think making a demarcation between racist conservatives and anti-racist liberals is a mistake.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This thread did carry the Notion that "Right Wing Autoritarians" would certaintly ruin the world when ruling.
    I stepped out of the created circumstances and gave a real life example on why it is clearly left wing authoritarians who do it right now.

    When there is a post, disguised as science that holds the bottom line, the narrative that people with certain views would lead to misery, i think it is competely on topic to step out of the Frame that was given by the "scientist" who tries to transport his views in such a way and to ponder some real facts and arguments on why a big part of what is defined and understood nowadays as right wing authoritarianism is a requirement not to ruin the world irreversibly.

    For the other part, the US democrats play a lot on identity politics and minority issues, while the conservatives are at least trying to be racist in a positive way. But yes, both are racist, but healthy and positive racism is mostly tried by the conservatives from what i observed.
    Democrats are mostly anti-white which is a pretty stupid kind of racism and does not fulfill the evolutionary purpose of this notion, in the contrary, it is a freudian defense mechanism (reaction forming) used on a completely healthy feeling which turns it even more unhealthy than not feeling it at all.
    Last edited by Itsme; 01-06-2020 at 02:10 PM.

  11. #11
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    908 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    This thread has derailed from my original intent, and it is largely my fault for mentioning political parties, which I knew at the time was strictly inaccurate but seemed expedient when replying to @ashlesha. My bad.

    I think it would be constructive to read the original source material and discuss the nature of Authoritarianism as a set of beliefs. It might even be an intrinsic characteristic of some subset of humanity, rather than a learned or inherited belief system.

  12. #12
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,079
    Mentioned
    847 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    The existence of authoritarians is so absurd to me. These clowns must assume the rules would be in their favor.

  13. #13
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,503
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    The existence of authoritarians is so absurd to me. These clowns must assume the rules would be in their favor.
    Perhaps it's useful in complicated natural environments
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  14. #14
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,098
    Mentioned
    656 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Freelance, the real world is more complicated than the Global Change game, and isn’t cleanly separated into Authoritarian and non-Authoritarian ranks of nearly-equal class status college students. In the real world, people of different economic classes war with each other, and can form mutually self-interested groups across political and national boundaries.

    The politicians in the US all represent the ruling class, and as such, have been screwing the middle class pretty consistently ever since the oil-and extraction industry-funded Republicans destroyed the unions, which were where the Democrats got most of their campaign money. Now, the Democrats get their money from the parasitic Finance industry, and the Middle class is left without any say in the economy at all. The economic decline of the Middle class is a direct consequence of this.

    But Altemeyer’s essay does illustrate the fact that Authoritarians will destroy the planet in the interest of their group. I’m absolutely certain that this kind of behavior has been selected for by evolution as being advantageous in certain situations, but those situations didn’t take into account the ability to end life on this planet.

    I wonder if this is why we don’t see any other civilizations in the galaxy? They have all hit this Great Filter.
    I see it as a lot less black and white and we need to talk about real world interaction between groups rather than some experiment. Authoritarians engage in social conflict for their group which form for reasons usually related to geography, ethnicity and culture. The Russians and Chinese did not engage in social conflict within their society and against other societies because they were Authoritarian. The Authoritarians got power because they were willing to engage in social conflict. Authoritarians probably have the tendency see things was winning/losing/zero sum, which rationalizes the conflict but sometimes this is the enviroment which people live in. The west was very good for a period of time at sending their authoritarians to other parts of the world in order to use them and their lives to subjugate other groups, while largely being non-authoritarian with their own group. The British were especially good at this, however the authoritarians in the west eventually still got into conflict.

    Historically non-authoritarian modes of coexistence is not possible without sending your authoritarians on wars of conquest and subjugation. However doing so today is difficult and there is little political will or profit to this, the authoritarians stay home and engage in social conflict domestically which of course create social instability. Also without authoritarians fighting these social conflicts and fighting to win, it is largely impossible to overcome authoritarians of a more advanced society.

    I think it's also important to differentiate between forms of authoritarianism, as inverted totalitarianism which is rooted in very different ideas vs say Fascism or communism. This study is largely right wing authoritarianism which is of a fundamentally different character than LWA.

  15. #15
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15,079
    Mentioned
    847 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Perhaps it's useful in complicated natural environments
    Complicated in what way? I'm not trying to challenge you, just not sure what you mean. I think our environment is currently complicated?

  16. #16
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,503
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    Complicated in what way? I'm not trying to challenge you, just not sure what you mean. I think our environment is currently complicated?
    No now it's extremely uncomplicated! I mean environments where there's a real risk of starving to death or being killed either by other humans or animals.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  17. #17
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,657
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Probably would have been less prone to idiotic objections if they had done 4 games with people with different combinations of low/high rwa and an lwa scale.

  18. #18
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    873
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry @Adam Strange for the tangent, but I have to address this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Itsme View Post
    Sounds like a big circlejerk of left wing politicians legitimizng their own (flawed) views by pseudoscience and giving other democrat like "liberals" the justification to adhere to their flawed believes while not being able to defend it on a rational basis.

    Most the left wing does today is based on pure lies, one of the biggest is egalitarism and western universalism.
    It shows itself by the very same notion that tried to colonize the world by hard means which now tries by soft means to turn black people into whites, middle-eastern people into westerners.
    This kind of cultural imperialism is mostly based on economic greed and wishful thinking, years of being guilt tripped for being superior (which in communism is the biggest sin, because its the worst form of inequality).

    We will never turn minorities into people like us because they are empirically proven a lot more aggressive, a lot less smart and function completely different.
    Ethnocentrism is the only legitimate kind of view and that's exactly why we all are racist, because racism helps you to feel empathy for the genetic makeup that is similar to your own and thus heightens your genetic fitness and chance for survival.

    Helping a genetic makeup that is so screwed and dangerous like the majority of Africans and people of African descent will lessen your chance of survival significantly.
    Authoritarianism is not good, it's a beta value i don't adhere to, but Racism and Ethnocentrism certainly is.

    People are becoming sicker and sicker, having a lot of mental health issues, because from birth on they get told, teached and indoctrinated that their most natural feeling, the love for the people who are wholesome for them selves and the disgust, hate and antipathy to people who are not is some kind of flaw.
    I'm not even right wing, and i am glad that we see what the 68s had with Baader, Ensslin and all of those who did not have to fight authoritarians by violent means, we have a giftet youth who emancipates themselves from the dogmas of their parents generation and questions the unquestionable.

    The smartest young people are becoming more and more racist and there is nothing anybody is able to do against it, because it's the only way forward, to a prosperous future and the survival of everything that was ever worthwile. When the white Race dies, everything of value will die.
    Africans will never make it, we had socrates and plato thousands of years ago, so don't tell me that time will fix them, evolution would fix them, but there has to be a lot of dying for this to take effect, the juice is not worth the squeeze.

    Nearly every kind of cultural and scientific achievement has been made by whites, letting the white race die will kill the potential this genetic mixture has carried. It is not permissible under any circumstances.
    You’re proof positive that Te, and all cognitive functions by extension, is only as effective as the quality of the information it metabolizes > garbage in = garbage out. No matter how “smart” you think you are, if you consume the wrong data or not enough data, you will end up looking rather incompetent. At first, I was prepared to viciously rip you apart but then I decided to de-construct my anger/righteous indignation (at what I find to be your ignorance and gall), and underneath that, I found sadness, disappointment, and pity, for you.

    I pity you because your cognitive deficits prohibit you from seeing how tragic a figure you actually are. Took a gander through your post history and you talk about having endured all sorts of psychological trauma and abuse, in and out youth homes and psyche wards, and how you might have been dead or even a killer had you not received interventions by certain support structures. I deeply sympathize with that type of experience and would admire you for surviving and becoming a better (read: considerate, compassionate, empathetic) person, but, unfortunately, you’ve decided to not pursue the latter.

    What is so frustrating and devastating to me is that your own empathy blindness prohibits you from seeing the parallel between your experience and how an entire continent and its people were robbed of their potential and plundered for centuries by European, white supremacist oppression, forcing Africans into artificial, long lasting, generational poverty because their lands and resources were exploited and completely depleted to the benefit of the Europeans.

    You have the unmitigated gall to call Africans “dangerous” when Europeans would not be where they are today if not for wanton destroying, conquering, looting, pillaging, extorting, raping, slaughtering, enslaving and subjugating there way to preeminence. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent on earth, which means that both the lowest and highest IQs exist there–but studies have shown that environment is the most significant contributor to IQ, and that generations of undernourishment and poverty negatively impacted it. The majority of Africans haven’t been privy to the type of structured interventions that helped “save” your life, and oddly enough they are still capable of being engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians and scholars--funny that if they are somehow innately inferior.

    And you want to pat yourself on the back simply because Europeans got lucky? Lol Sheer luck and opportunity comprise the bulk of white people's success. In every group, there will always be a few innovators who think outside the box and do things that catapults the whole group forward. As people began leaving Africa, they kept encountering environments and circumstances, over thousands of years, that forced them to adapt and innovate. Cue "Guns, Germs and Steel" and voila--world conquerors.

    But answer this, what have YOU done? People like you love to say “we” and “us” and take ownership over accomplishments you had no part of. I don’t have to rely on the successes of my people because I am a success, myself. Just because Mozart and Edison were great, doesn’t mean you are. It’s sad when people must rely on others in order to find worth and feel good about themselves.

    I’ve seen you frequently speak to your “intelligence” but besides falling short in your primary form of intelligence (Te/accumulating facts/forming logical rationales/and knowing what the fuck you are talking about), you woefully lack another intelligence of vital importance > empathy.

    A pity.

  19. #19
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,098
    Mentioned
    656 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    No now it's extremely uncomplicated! I mean environments where there's a real risk of starving to death or being killed either by other humans or animals.
    I would say our current enviroment is complicated, just a different way. There is a reason why authoritarians are so prevalent among-st western political bodies.

    Multicultural society and globalization inherently create complex socio-economic situations which although isn't necessarily immediately existential, racial and ethnic struggle mask class struggle and social conflict, which are always creating tension in society.

    The rise of the right wing in the last 50 years isn't really a surprise.

    My view is that America exported right wing authoritarianism and kept those forces in power in proxy nation states thru it's foreign policy and programs which kept progressive(often leftist authoritarian) revolutions from succeeding. This occurred essentially everywhere in the world and has since America lost China and Cuba to Maoist revolutions.

    At the same time non authoritarians working hand in hand authoritarian implemented policies which kept western society functioning and cooperating. This however ended more or less in 2008. In my opinion, there is currently no stable cooperative structure to fuel the status quo and generate the demand necessary for growth. This is the reason so much cash is just being sat on.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Minotaur

    The ethnocentric focus of RWA kept their eyes targeted against foreign powers while non-authoritarians tried to keep things going but it also required the continued exporting of RWA to foreign states. The US is losing it's capacity to export authoritarianism while maintaining the status quo, largely due to failed adventures in the Middle East, and with the target currently Iran, that is likely to continue. Also the demise of the finance mechanism and political will to engage in such activity has invested many RWA to domestic conflict over social values.

    It's almost inevitable in the short term the RWA will win in western society because LWA is largely asleep and untapped to resist RWA in a virtually inevitable and potentially existential conflict. This might not be violent but it will be determined by demographic changes(which might occur thru normal aging). Wide spread social oppression may certain occur like what occurred in Franco's Spain.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    3,465
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Authoritarians will wreck the world and non-authoritarians will try to fix it. It is basically what you've seen for the past forty years in US politics.

    Bush attacks the Middle East, Clinton makes trade deals, Bush II attacks the Middle East and Afghanistan, Obama tries to make trade and nuclear disarmament deals, Trump attacks the Middle East.

    It's a lot like the US deficit. Republican president lowers taxes on the rich while raising defense spending and reducing welfare benefits thus blowing up the deficit, Democrat does the opposite and gets a budget surplus, rinse, repeat.

    Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House roof as a symbol of his administration's efforts to reduce Global Warming, Reagan had them removed, citing "government over-regulation".

    It's pretty clear, I'd say.

    But I really do recommend reading the original reference.
    That sounds more like Good Cop, Bad Cop to me. If Obama were fundamentally different, he'd change the entire system.

  21. #21
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,791
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    RWAs, destroying the planet so that they can make the libs cry.

  22. #22
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,382
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Resurrecting this in light of recent events.

    https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-d...est/a-54271477

  23. #23
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Álfheimr
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    679
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Resurrecting this in light of recent events.

    https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-d...est/a-54271477
    What a pussy. Should have sent the army on day 1. Trump is some kind of useless boot-licking corporate schmuck.

  24. #24
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,416
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it's fair to say that the Bushes and Trump are authoritarian while Obama and Clinton were not. Out of all those presidents I probably liked Clinton the most myself, but the only real authoritarian there is Trump.


  25. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 7w6 sx/so
    Posts
    829
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    A few years ago, I ran across an interesting essay on Authoritarians, by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor at the University of Manitoba.

    I'm interested in politics and political systems (everyone wants to know the future and everyone wants to rule the world; I just add Efficient Optimizer to that list), and I had read a number of books on the subject of politics and economics and war, but I had never read anything as illuminating as Altemeyer's essay on people whom he calls "Authoritarians".

    The whole thing is available for free here: https://theauthoritarians.org/Downlo...oritarians.pdf

    but the part that got my attention was when he, as a teacher, created the Global Change Game and let his students play it. He split the students into two groups; one with high Authoritarian leanings, and one with low Authoritarian leanings. Here is an excerpt from his essay in which he describes the results.

    .................................................. ..........................................

    Unauthoritarians and Authoritarians: Worlds of Difference

    By now you must be developing a feel for what high RWAs think and do, and also an impression of low RWAs. Do you think you know each group well enough to predict what they’d do if they ran the world? One night in October, 1994 I let a group of low RWA university students determine the future of the planet (you didn’t know humble researchers could do this, did you!). Then the next night I gave high RWAs their kick at the can.

    The setting involved a rather sophisticated simulation of the earth’s future called the Global Change Game, which is played on a big map of the world by 50-70 participants who have been split into various regions such as North America, Africa, India and China. The players are divided up according to current populations, so a lot more students hunker down in India than in North America. The game was designed to raise environmental awareness, and before the exercise begins players study upon their region’s resources, prospects, and environmental issues.

    Then the facilitators who service the simulation call for some member, any member of each region, to assume the role of team leader by simply standing up. Once the “Elites” in the world have risen to the task they are taken aside and given control of their region’s bank account. They can use this to buy factories, hospitals, armies, and so on from the game bank, and they can travel the world making deals with other Elites. They also discover they can discretely put some of their region’s wealth into their own pockets, to vie for a prize to be given out at the end of the simulation to the World’s Richest Person. Then the game begins, and the world goes wherever the players take it for the next forty years which, because time flies in a simulation, takes about two and a half hours.

    The Low RWA Game

    By carefully organizing sign-up booklets, I was able to get 67 low RWA students to play the game together on October 18th . (They had no idea they had been funneled into this run of the experiment according to their RWA scale scores; indeed they had probably never heard of right-wing authoritarianism.) Seven men and three women made themselves Elites. As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim Elite called for a summit on the “Island Paradise of Tasmania.” All the Elites attended and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization was thus immediately created by mutual consent.

    Regions set to work on their individual problems. Swords were converted to ploughshares as the number of armies in the world dropped. No wars or threats of wars occurred during the simulation. [At one point the North American Elite suggested starting a war to his fellow region-aires (two women and one guy), but they told him to go fly a kite--or words to that effect.]

    An hour into the game the facilitators announced a (scheduled) crisis in the earth’s ozone layer. All the Elites met in Tasmania and contributed enough money to buy new technology to replenish the ozone layer.

    Other examples of international cooperation occurred, but the problems of the Third World mounted in Africa and India. Europe gave some aid but North America refused to help. Africa eventually lost 300 million people to starvation and disease, and India 100 million.

    Populations had grown and by the time forty years had passed the earth held 8.7 billion people, but the players were able to provide food, health facilities, and jobs for almost all of them. They did so by demilitarizing, by making a lot of trades that benefited both parties, by developing sustainable economic programs, and because the 32 Elites diverted only small amounts of the treasury into their own pockets. (The North American Elite hoarded the most.)

    One cannot blow off four hundred million deaths, but this was actually a highly successful run of the game, compared to most. No doubt the homogeneity of the players, in terms of their RWA scores and related attitudes, played a role. Low RWAs do not typically see the world as “Us versus Them.” They are more interested in cooperation than most people are, and they are often genuinely concerned about the environment. Within their regional groups, and in the interactions of the Elites, these first-year students would have usually found themselves “on the same page”--and writ large on that page was, “Let’s Work Together and Clean Up This Mess.” The game’s facilitators said they had never seen as much international cooperation in previous runs of the simulation. With the exception of the richest region, North America, the lows saw themselves as interdependent and all riding on the same merry-go-round.

    The High RWA Game

    The next night 68 high RWAs showed up for their ride, just as ignorant of how they had been funneled into this run of the experiment as the low RWA students had been the night before. The game proceeded as usual. Background material was read, Elites (all males) nominated themselves, and the Elites were briefed. Then the “wedgies” started. As soon as the game began, the Elite from the Middle East announced the price of oil had just doubled. A little later the former Soviet Union (known as the Confederation of Independent States in 1994) bought a lot of armies and invaded North America. The latter had insufficient conventional forces to defend itself, and so retaliated with nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust ensued which killed everyone on earth--7.4 billion people--and almost all other forms of life which had the misfortune of co-habitating the same planet as a species with nukes.

    When this happens in the Global Change Game, the facilitators turn out all the lights and explain what a nuclear war would produce. Then the players are given a second chance to determine the future, turning back the clock to two years before the hounds of war were loosed. The former Soviet Union however rebuilt its armies and invaded China this time, killing 400 million people. The Middle East Elite then called for a “United Nations” meeting to discuss handling future crises, but no agreements were reached.

    At this point the ozone-layer crisis occurred but--perhaps because of the recent failure of the United Nations meeting--no one called for a summit. Only Europe took steps to reduce its harmful gas emissions, so the crisis got worse. Poverty was spreading unchecked in the underdeveloped regions, which could not control their population growth. Instead of dealing with the social and economic problems “back home,” Elites began jockeying among themselves for power and protection, forming military alliances to confront other budding alliances. Threats raced around the room and the Confederation of Independent States warned it was ready to start another nuclear war. Partly because their Elites had used their meager resources to buy into alliances, Africa and Asia were on the point of collapse. An Elite called for a United Nations meeting to deal with the crises--take your pick--and nobody came.

    By the time forty years had passed the world was divided into armed camps threatening each other with another nuclear destruction. One billion, seven hundred thousand people had died of starvation and disease. Throw in the 400 million who died in the Soviet-China war and casualties reached 2.1 billion. Throw in the 7.4 billion who died in the nuclear holocaust, and the high RWAs managed to kill 9.5 billion people in their world--although we, like some battlefield news releases, are counting some of the corpses twice.

    The authoritarian world ended in disaster for many reasons. One was likely the character of their Elites, who put more than twice as much money in their own pockets as the low RWA Elites had. (The Middle East Elite ended up the World’s Richest Man; part of his wealth came from money he had conned from Third World Elites as payment for joining his alliance.) But more importantly, the high RWAs proved incredibly ethnocentric. There they were, in a big room full of people just like themselves, and they all turned their backs on each other and paid attention only to their own group. They too were all reading from the same page, but writ large on their page was, “Care About Your Own; We Are NOT All In This Together.”

    The high RWAs also suffered because, while they say on surveys that they care about the environment, when push comes to shove they usually push and shove for the bucks. That is, they didn’t care much about the long-term environmental consequences of their economic acts. For example a facilitator told Latin America that converting much of the region’s forests to a single species of tree would make the ecosystem vulnerable. But the players decided to do it anyway because the tree’s lumber was very profitable just then. And the highs proved quite inflexible when it came to birth control. Advised that “just letting things go” would cause the populations in underdeveloped areas to explode, the authoritarians just let things go.

    Now the Global Change Game is not the world stage, university students are not world leaders, and starting a nuclear holocaust in a gymnasium is not the same thing as launching real missiles from Siberia and North Dakota. So the students’ behavior on those two successive nights in 1994 provides little basis for drawing conclusions about the future of the planet. But some of what happened in this experiment rang true to me. I especially thought, “I’ve seen this show before” as I sat on the sidelines and watched the high RWAs create their very own October crisis.
    interesting
    ENTj-Ni sx/so

  26. #26
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Álfheimr
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    679
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Sorry @Adam Strange
    What is so frustrating and devastating to me is that your own empathy blindness prohibits you from seeing the parallel between your experience and how an entire continent and its people were robbed of their potential and plundered for centuries by European, white supremacist oppression, forcing Africans into artificial, long lasting, generational poverty because their lands and resources were exploited and completely depleted to the benefit of the Europeans.

    You have the unmitigated gall to call Africans “dangerous” when Europeans would not be where they are today if not for wanton destroying, conquering, looting, pillaging, extorting, raping, slaughtering, enslaving and subjugating there way to preeminence. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent on earth, which means that both the lowest and highest IQs exist there–but studies have shown that environment is the most significant contributor to IQ, and that generations of undernourishment and poverty negatively impacted it. The majority of Africans haven’t been privy to the type of structured interventions that helped “save” your life, and oddly enough they are still capable of being engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians and scholars--funny that if they are somehow innately inferior.

    And you want to pat yourself on the back simply because Europeans got lucky? Lol Sheer luck and opportunity comprise the bulk of white people's success. In every group, there will always be a few innovators who think outside the box and do things that catapults the whole group forward. As people began leaving Africa, they kept encountering environments and circumstances, over thousands of years, that forced them to adapt and innovate. Cue "Guns, Germs and Steel" and voila--world conquerors.
    This is absolute feeler garbage with 0 knowledge of actual world history, no understanding of geopolitics, global trade or power dynamics.
    Just western propaganda you sucked up due to your upbringing. I swear, western European countries and commonwealth nations are full of well meaning, but ultimately misinformed softies who haven't felt true oppression in centuries. Arrogant moral puritans.

    Meanwhile ppl like me who's ancestors had 0 to do with the slave trade, who's ancestors have been occupied and enslaved for 158 years by Muslim Ottomans (the USA is less than 250 years old), taken as slaves to be used & abused, we who had to suffer through Russian, Mongol, German, Ottoman invasions, fucking communism and all that shit.. I have to just sit idly by and allow ourselves to be lectured by privileged western retards about the nature of our race, the folly of our civilizations and the color of our skin! Well fuck you man! Fuck off.. the EU needs to go fuck off as well.

    Tired of this shit all over the place.. "you are cis a white male!', "white supremacy!", "you are at fault for everything!", "how DARE you hold nonwhites to the same standard and apply the law!?" Fuck you people!

    And fuck all of you who liked this retard's post. You know who you are.
    Last edited by shotgunfingers; Yesterday at 10:33 AM.

  27. #27
    💐🌷🌹🌻🌼🌸🥀👑🥀🌸🌼🌻🌹🌷💐 Nymphaeales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    The Sun
    TIM
    EDGy MEMe
    Posts
    599
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are we really going to start with the argument of "more of my people were killed" on a socionika forum. I find this incredibly insensitive and not really something to turn into a competition imo. One genocide/killing being more "severe" in numbers doesn't make the other "lesser" since there are/were still people suffering and dying in the end. I think it's a terrible mistake and misunderstanding to do so since it devalues the actual pain and suffering that real human beings went through. I understand that there is a lot of hurt that gets carried with racial politics, but do we need to act like little kids and start tallying up the deaths of our ancestors as if it's some game?

    Just my thoughts on that.

    I think the point with the "you are a white man/woman/person" and lumping all white people together mindset is that the ideals (eurocentric beauty standards for example) have spread all around the world for the most part, even if certain countries didn't partake in the slave trade or genocides of other people. So white people and white passing people all get lumped together even if their ancestors didn't have anything to do with slave trade. Essentially what I'm saying is, these "white" people still benefit from these standards in one way or another, whether they realize it or not.

  28. #28
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Alonzo: like I wrote a little while ago on my social science blog: "For millions of years the Earth has been a battlefield of territorial drives, and the winner takes all. Learn to live with it."

    To put it differently: there is, in itself, nothing morally wrong with what some white Europeans did in centuries past. Your comment is nothing more than a mere social construct that probably serves your own interests. You cannot fight racism, which is a mechanism based on invalid social constructs, by replacing those social constructs with other invalid social constructs. (ETA: invalid in an epistemological way, for even an untrue social construct can be effective in accomplishing certain goals and as such be evolutionary valid).

    So how do we arrive at valid insights about current day racism and how to overcome it? We do by creating a historiographic understanding of history first. And you do that by leaving out value judgments about that history, for these are necessarily projections of current cultural norms onto historical events.

    17th century white Europeans didn't feel they did anything wrong when they bought slaves in Africa. Neither did some 17th century African tribes feel they did anything wrong when they sold Africans from other tribes to white Europeans. Neither did the Arabs that held millions of Europeans as slaves. Norms were different in those days.

    Todays norms are pretending that we live in a world of social equality, which is obviously not the case, and the historic reasons for that are obvious. Today's cultural norms should be applied to today only. But in which way?

    Your very selective reframing of history is reducing all white people, and the history of white people, to a stereotype, very much how like some white people reduce all black people (or people of other skin colors) to stereotypes, or how some Chinese people reduce all non-Chinese to stereotypes by calling them barbarians, etc.etc.. Your framing will not lead to an end to racism, it is creating a new one in its place, or besides it. Counterattacks such as yours will only have the effect of institutional racism going underground, become more subtly and skillfully camouflaged, and will set back disenfranchised people even more then they already are. Because even for the most co-operative low RWA Delta in the world, Earth is still a battlefield of territorial drives, and the winners take all. Make no mistake about it: low RWA and high RWA, in the end they are both biological strategies, and situational circumstances will determine which one works best in any scenario. In the original post by Adam Strange I already perceive what I consider to be a bias by the researcher.

    One thing I have learned long, long ago: if someone does something wrong, disapprove of the behavior, do not disapprove of the person. If you express your disapproval of the person instead of their behavior, your relationship with that person will break down, and nothing will be accomplished after that. This doesn't just apply to problems with racism, but to all social interaction. Unless, of course, you are seeking to eradicate your perceived opponents and take their place. Earth has been a battlefield of territorial drives for millions of years, and the winner takes all.
    Last edited by consentingadult; Yesterday at 01:46 PM.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  29. #29
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Álfheimr
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    679
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nymphaeales View Post
    Are we really going to start with the argument of "more of my people were killed" on a socionika forum. I find this incredibly insensitive and not really something to turn into a competition imo. One genocide/killing being more "severe" in numbers doesn't make the other "lesser" since there are/were still people suffering and dying in the end. I think it's a terrible mistake and misunderstanding to do so since it devalues the actual pain and suffering that real human beings went through. I understand that there is a lot of hurt that gets carried with racial politics, but do we need to act like little kids and start tallying up the deaths of our ancestors as if it's some game?

    Just my thoughts on that.

    I think the point with the "you are a white man/woman/person" and lumping all white people together mindset is that the ideals (eurocentric beauty standards for example) have spread all around the world for the most part, even if certain countries didn't partake in the slave trade or genocides of other people. So white people and white passing people all get lumped together even if their ancestors didn't have anything to do with slave trade. Essentially what I'm saying is, these "white" people still benefit from these standards in one way or another, whether they realize it or not.
    I'm tired of being lumped in with "white people". Come to Eastern Europe, see how the post communist block is, work here for pennies while food & gas is more expensive than in London. Then tell me we had it good, we have it good and were "lucky". No, this place is a historical meat-grinder, between a rock and hard place.

    I understand that ppl will not differentiate between "whites", but they will come to understand that Central & Eastern Europeans (Russia included) will not apologize nor bend the knee to anyone offline or online anywhere at any time. Since 2015 I believe we have made that abundantly clear. There are many historical reasons why.
    Last edited by shotgunfingers; Yesterday at 11:34 AM.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just for whole context, this thread had been splitted back then, to follow the full discussion you can follow the quote here which was my response to Alonzos post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Itsme View Post
    I'm not sure about what kind of information you are talking about.
    A lot of information is not permitted by the current ideology of egalitarianism and western universalism.
    I will throw some informations in, to proof that my points are indeed supported by scientific evidence and not a reaction to trauma as you are trying to spin it.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91886912000840

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/313911.php
    (low oxytocin, low empathy)
    https://time.com/49399/oxytocin-racism-study/

    Oxytocin which leads to empathy makes you racist against outsiders.
    So yes, racists are a lot nicer than non-racists and it completely makes sense because when empathy and altruism is based in raising the genetic fitness it would make absolutely no sense for it to apply to people who are not closely related to your own genetic makeup.

    And also, when you look up the official FBI statistics, you will easily see that black people, while making up only 13 percent of the US population, commit more than 50% of crime. Including homicides and murders.

    So i don't see why me having a better upbringing would have made my worldview any different. It is based on facts and not any kind of dysfunctional reaction to my own hardships.
    But i guess resorting to this ad hominen response is a lot easier than actually refuting my theories and the facts that lead me to them.

    Now to the personal attacks.
    I am very empathetic, but mostly to my own, i would not hurt a person for no reason but i am able to set healthy boundaries and it hurts me - because i am very empathetic - to see how white people suffer under the violence and terror of the so called minorities, how the women in my country get raped, how innocent children in Rotherham and other English towns get forced into prostitution while even the authorities turn a blind eye to it because they are "afraid to appear racist"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8219971.html

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bar-court.html

    I just place a lot of more weight on how people around me are, how we can make the world a better place than on keeping up overdue tradition, dogmas and taboos like "racism is bad" while every kind of evidence and objective fact suggests that racism is in fact an extremely important mechanism of the psyche to tell us who is good for us and who is not.
    And it's not even that uncommon for young people to question authorities, to challenge the status quo your generation is just extremely shocked because its now your gods that get slaughtered, but it's not that uncommon, the new cultural revolution is overdue since also the 68ers had a lot of mistakes in their reforms which have been just as important and necessary as ours, even though now there is a lot more at stakes than back then.

    Africans abused each-other long time before the Europeans came there, the Europeans just have been better at this. I don't justify it, but i say it was a necessary evil to not fall behind in geopolitical power games and not to become slaves themselves.
    Society back then has been very cruel, and the imperialism and pedagogic back were in fact great mistakes, not to participate in them at this times would have been a bad idea too (referring to the imperialism).

    Europeans as they are are at least not dangerous to me, they are a lot saver than Arabs and Blacks so i am completely cool with Europeans being dangerous and becoming more dangerous again, its long overdue.

    And no, Africa is about the dumbest place on earth, which shows with their inability to establish any kind of functioning system.
    They really do not function at our level in general.

    Attachment 15762

    https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php

    To the inheritable debate:

    No, absolutely no, IQ is inheritable to up to 80%, if it wasn't show me all those great African philosophers and scientists, I'm waiting.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

    Also, why do Asians become high achievers when migrating to other countries and blacks and Arabs don't manage to use their chances?
    Why are jews so powerful even though they have been persecuted for thousands of years?
    https://slate.com/technology/2007/11...sh-values.html

    So and now, Mr.Empathy, please imagine what happens when demographics go on like they do right now, when Islamic Arabs get more and more common, when the 13% who now already do 50% of crime in the US keep giving more and more birth and become a bigger voting block, how will this turn out for white people?
    How will this turn out for the world in general?

    All of these people have their loyalty to the tribe, they are racist, they are In-Group Out-Group.
    They do rape English girls and "kuffar" women without feeling any guilt or remorse, they take turns on them and know that nobody will snitch on them, stick together in court and get set free.

    It is us vs. them, it is whites against blacks and Arabs, when we are lucky it will be whites, Slavs and Asians against blacks and Arabs, but we have to start to throw out all of this self-disarming behavior because they will certainty not 'forgive' us until they really are equal, which they will never be.
    Last edited by Itsme; Yesterday at 12:08 PM.

  31. #31
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,817
    Mentioned
    269 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunfingers View Post
    I'm tired of being lumped in with "white people". Come to Eastern Europe, see how the post communist block is, work here for pennies while food & gas is more expensive than in London. Then tell me we had it good, we have it good and were "lucky". No, this place is a historical meat-grinder, between a rock and hard place.

    I understand that ppl will not differentiate between "whites", but they will come to understand that Central & Eastern Europeans (Russia included) will not apologize nor bend the knee to anyone offline or online anywhere at any time. Since 2015 I believe we have made that abundantly clear. There are many historical reasons why.
    Ok cracka face

  32. #32
    shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Álfheimr
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    679
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Ok cracka face
    .. :> lel

  33. #33
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,382
    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunfingers View Post
    I'm tired of being lumped in with "white people". Come to Eastern Europe, see how the post communist block is, work here for pennies while food & gas is more expensive than in London. Then tell me we had it good, we have it good and were "lucky". No, this place is a historical meat-grinder, between a rock and hard place.

    I understand that ppl will not differentiate between "whites", but they will come to understand that Central & Eastern Europeans (Russia included) will not apologize nor bend the knee to anyone offline or online anywhere at any time. Since 2015 I believe we have made that abundantly clear. There are many historical reasons why.
    When people talks about 'White people', they're normally referring Western Europeans or Americans. Everyone knows that the Eastern bloc countries are poor, and virtually no one holds them responsible for imperialism or the Atlantic slave trade.
    Last edited by xerxe; Yesterday at 04:42 PM.

  34. #34
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    AYOYOYO
    TIM
    WOLOLO
    Posts
    1,767
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've said this before in the chat, but basically this paper's definition of "authoritarian" is misleading. They only call someone "authoritarian" if they use their authority in an antisocial way. If a ruling group has consensus but behaves coercively towards smaller and less powerful groups, they don't count that as authoritarian because it's eusocial, even though it's coercion by a higher authority.

    So when you read the word "authoritarian," your brain hears all the connotations of "autocrat," when in reality they're simply referring to authorities that recklessly break the status quo of the ruling party. If anything, their "authoritarians" are closer to maverick reformers, doing whatever they believe is best for the world even against direct disapproval of the ruling party.

    It's a ring of status-quo geezers using word-sophistry to convince you they're the real vanguard of "freedom."

  35. #35
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946so/sp SEI-Fe ELVF
    Posts
    6,299
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    @Alonzo: like I wrote a little while ago on my social science blog: "For millions of years the Earth has been a battlefield of territorial drives, and the winner takes all. Learn to live with it."
    The problem is some of us don't want to live this way, and if enough of the people who insist the world can only be this uber competition where we screw each other over in the fight to be top dog would start to understand it's only one mode of behavior available to us (that we have a choice), then the world would become less this way. It's frustrating when you can see we could build more of a utopia out of this place, but we can't because our great stupid need to self-sabotage overrides everything. We have enough for everyone still (just barely), we still have a chance, and we are screwing it up royally as a global "collective."

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    I've said this before in the chat, but basically this paper's definition of "authoritarian" is misleading. They only call someone "authoritarian" if they use their authority in an antisocial way. If a ruling group has consensus but behaves coercively towards smaller and less powerful groups, they don't count that as authoritarian because it's eusocial, even though it's coercion by a higher authority.

    So when you read the word "authoritarian," your brain hears all the connotations of "autocrat," when in reality they're simply referring to authorities that recklessly break the status quo of the ruling party. If anything, their "authoritarians" are closer to maverick reformers, doing whatever they believe is best for the world even against direct disapproval of the ruling party.

    It's a ring of status-quo geezers using word-sophistry to convince you they're the real vanguard of "freedom."
    IOW, they are only talking about RWAs (it's not all encompassing--it's a study with limited scope which should be evaluated by that limited scope rather than treating it as though it is all-encompassing). They're looking at the right-wing dictator style, which shouldn't be assumed to account for all of it. LWA is like the Borg in Star Trek in which the collective overrides the individual. The collective has mass conformity, it stresses the diversity of the species it assimilated, but it merges it all into one thing that all are forced to conform to (and in doing such it destroys the very diversity it claims to cherish as without individuals and individual freedom there is no diversity).
    Last edited by inumbra; Yesterday at 05:12 PM.

  36. #36
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    The problem is some of us don't want to live this way, and if enough of the people who insist the world can only be this uber competition where we screw each other over in the fight to be top dog would start to understand it's only one mode of behavior available to us (that we have a choice), then the world would become less this way. It's frustrating when you can see we could build more of a utopia out of this place, but we can't because our great stupid need to self-sabotage overrides everything. We have enough for everyone still (just barely), we still have a chance, and we are screwing it up royally as a global "collective."
    I agree to a certain extent, but I am saying something different, because even in what you are saying, there is an implicit moral bias, preconceived concepts about what is right and wrong, that even you seem to take for granted: from an evolutionary POV, even people who advocate a non-competitive mode of living, are in fact, applying a competitive agenda. Even people who advocate non-violent ways of living, even pacifists, are trying to get the upper hand in life, whatever their rationalizations. To say it figuratively: in a world organized according to the principles of EIIs, it is the SLEs that get the short end of the stick.

    In the larger scheme of things, there is no such thing as right or wrong. The fact alone that High RWA people exist, proves that these people serve some biological evolutionary purpose. If they didn't, they wouldn't be there. And why is a Low RWA world where there is no competition and everyone has food on their plates, by implicit definition a better world than a High RWA world where 50% of the worlds capital is owned by a mere 1% of the worlds population?

    People talk about being WOKE nowadays. GTFOOF, 99.999% of the world's population is vast asleep.
    Last edited by consentingadult; Yesterday at 06:01 PM.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  37. #37
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946so/sp SEI-Fe ELVF
    Posts
    6,299
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    I agree to a certain extent, but I am saying something different, because even in what you are saying, there is an implicit moral bias, preconceived concepts about what is right and wrong, that even you seem to take for granted: from an evolutionary POV, even people who advocate a non-competitive mode of living, are in fact, applying a competitive agenda. Even people who advocate non-violent ways of living, even pacifists, are trying to get the upper hand in life, whatever their rationalizations. To say it figuratively: in a world organized according to the principles of EIIs, it is the SLEs that get the short end of the stick.
    Gosh you come off as condescending (maybe try looking at the log in your own eye more). It's not a hidden bias. It's that I believe the competitive model actually doesn't work, and yes, is morally wrong because it lifts up the few and screws over the many. So yes, I want my view to win over the dog-eat-dog model because that model is stupid. I don't care about couching it in evolutionary terms in this context because doing so is more of the "excuse" about why we must only create dystopia.

    In the larger scheme of things, there is no such thing as right or wrong. The fact alone that High RWA people exist, proves that these people serve some biological evolutionary purpose. If they didn't, they wouldn't be there. And why is a Low RWA world where there is no competition and everyone has food on their plates, by implicit definition a better world than a High RWA world where 50% of the worlds capital is owned by a mere 1% of the worlds population?

    People talk about being WOKE nowadays. GTFOOF, 99.999% of the world's population is vast asleep.
    I don't care about your need to say everything is relative so we should carry on being useless. And great equivocation on the word "woke," which certainly doesn't refer to being "enlightened."

    Anyway a world in which the most people suffer the least in my view is always the morally superior world, though I would factor animals in as well. It's because suffering is actually real. I have suffered enough to understand why I wish it on no one.

    PS: Obviously this isn't worded precisely enough, as if I asked a genie for this world we'd all be in comas or something - you can't suffer when you're not conscious, etc.
    Last edited by inumbra; Yesterday at 06:19 PM.

  38. #38
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,571
    Mentioned
    99 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
    Gosh you come off as condescending (maybe try looking at the log in your own eye more). It's not a hidden bias. It's that I believe the competitive model actually doesn't work, and yes, is morally wrong because it lifts up the few and screws over the many. So yes, I want my view to win over the dog-eat-dog model because that model is stupid. I don't care about couching it in evolutionary terms in this context because doing so is more of the "excuse" about why we must only create dystopia.

    I don't care about your need to say everything is relative so we should carry on being useless. And great equivocation on the word "woke," which certainly doesn't refer to being "enlightened."

    Anyway a world in which the most people suffer the least in my view is always the morally superior world, though I would factor animals in as well. It's because suffering is actually real. I have suffered enough to understand why I wish it on no one.

    PS: Obviously this isn't worded precisely enough, as if I asked a genie for this world we'd all be in comas or something - you can't suffer when you're not conscious, etc.
    I never said strive for change is useless, I in effect said that strive for change based on unreal social constructs is useless. Think of Rousseau, who taught us that there is no such thing as the Right of the Strongest, there is, in nature, only the Might of the Strongest. Right, in the sense of Law, is a human construct, a set of rules, norms and values that we agree upon through negotiations, preferably in such a way that each and everyone of gets an equal piece of the pie. Right does not descend down from heaven, neither is it given in nature. But this is not how most people think. Instead, they see themselves and their outlook on life as the center of the Universe and they think: "my position is right and the others' position is wrong, and the only way of making this a better world is if we do things my way." I repeat: 99.999% of the worlds population has this attitude, even the most enlightened or woke liberal humanist person. Best of all: Socionics proves this.

    And this is exactly why the world will never change, and remains locked into the endless cycle of Samsara. Because every change just comes down to moving around the pawns a bit. Human kind will not escape this cycle of samsara, it is only individual people that can escape the cycle. But those who really do, pay a price: they set themselves apart from the rest of humanity.

    This relativism of mine is, contrary to what you think, not a problem, it is THE only way out. My way out is saying: my way is not the right way, neither is yours. Or: yours is totally different than mine, but just as good or bad. Lets negotiate on how to organize society. But like I said, it is not going to happen, the world is locked into Samsara. Human kind usually chooses Might over Right.

    ETA: I would like to add one more thing: if you buy a chocolate bar in a supermarket, do you ask yourself if there perhaps is anyone in the world who has suffered in order for you to be able to buy this bar for only 50 cents? I can assure you: I do. Now I rest my case.
    Last edited by consentingadult; Yesterday at 07:20 PM.
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  39. #39
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,817
    Mentioned
    269 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult View Post
    ETA: I would like to add one more thing: if you buy a chocolate bar in a supermarket, do you ask yourself if there perhaps is anyone in the world who has suffered in order for you to be able to buy this bar for only 50 cents? I can assure you: I do. Now I rest my case.
    Fucking leftist. I’d only buy myself a vanillabar.

  40. #40
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    3,817
    Mentioned
    269 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Most ppl into politics are essentially authoritarian deep down IMO in terms of the concept of it regardless of values

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •