Psychology Today pens collectivist drivel about why Ron sd media truth isn't treason

[sailingaway]

It doesn't fit their tidy 'organization' so it must be studied further....

but essentially they are 'radical individualists' in a way he makes sound like juvenile rebellion.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201012/wikileaks-and-the-tea-party-0

[Anti Federalist]

It doesn't fit their tidy 'organization' so it must be studied further....

but essentially they are 'radical individualists' in a way he makes sound like juvenile rebellion.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201012/wikileaks-and-the-tea-party-0

Only a shrink could be so monumentally dense as to not understand the parallels between Paul and Assange. :rolleyes:

[tremendoustie]

For many years our frontier offered escape to those faced with the onerous and unacceptable task of working things out with others, compromising on common interests, learning to tolerate differences.

Oh, I'm quite happy to work things out with others, compromise, and tolerate differences, as I'm sure Ron is.

Perhaps Ken means that the frontier offered escape to those faced with violent control freaks looking to jam their will down their neighbor's throats on threat of jail or death. You know, people intolerant to the point of violence.

I wonder if they also had to contend with sanctimonious a-holes characterizing their objections to having their livelihood extorted from them as some sort of psychological deficiency. That would make the frontier appealing indeed.

[nate895]

The whole discipline known as "Psychology" is bogus. There is a problem in philosophy called "The problem of other minds," which basically states that there is a problem in knowing about other people's thoughts or even whether their minds exist at all. Psychologist presume to tell us they have resolved this problem in such a way as to be able to know other people's thoughts and feelings without them expressing those thoughts. That's impossible, so I discount pretty much anything psychologists have to say.

[coastie]

Only a shrink could be so monumentally dense as to not understand the parallels between Paul and Assange. :rolleyes:


No shit....reminds me of my current psychology teacher....yikes. She told the class at the begining of the semester, that if any body even thinks their fellow student is "on something" (high) in class, to not say anything to her, step outside and call the campus police..."because it's obvious they have a problem that the cops need to deal with...":eek:
And this little gem " I totally agree with (enter name of the recent psych "bible" that labels constitutionalists, etc as having a mental disorder)...they have serious issues if they think the .gov would ever do bad things to it's own citicenz, any one who thinks that is a little crazy, we are the beacon of honesty and freedom...":eek::mad::mad::mad::eek:

This was before CableGate, I should print up a couple and slip them in her bag, so much for the "beacon of honesty", sheesh.

[tremendoustie]

The whole discipline known as "Psychology" is bogus. There is a problem in philosophy called "The problem of other minds," which basically states that there is a problem in knowing about other people's thoughts or even whether their minds exist at all. Psychologist presume to tell us they have resolved this problem in such a way as to be able to know other people's thoughts and feelings without them expressing those thoughts. That's impossible, so I discount pretty much anything psychologists have to say.

There's such a thing as behavioral psychology -- or psychology strictly based on other forms of observable information, including reports from the subject themselves.

I don't think it's all BS ... but this guy's full of it.

[nate895]

There's such a thing as behavioral psychology -- or psychology strictly based on other forms of observable information, including reports from the subject themselves.

I don't think it's all BS ... but this guy's full of it.

That does have some theoretical plausibility (at least from my philosophical point-of-view), but the psychology they expose the majority of the uninformed public to is this BS where they call anyone that opposes the Marxist agenda mentally deranged in some manner, and those people's only crime is not voting for more government power.

[Anti Federalist]

And this little gem:

" I totally agree with (enter name of the recent psych "bible" that labels constitutionalists, etc as having a mental disorder)...they have serious issues if they think the .gov would ever do bad things to it's own citicenz, any one who thinks that is a little crazy, we are the beacon of honesty and freedom."



When cognitive dissonance is finally overcome by doublethink.

She loves Big Brother.

Find another class and another teacher.:mad:

[coastie]

When cognitive dissonance is finally overcome by doublethink.

She loves Big Brother.

Find another class and another teacher.:mad:

Finals are next week, I've just kept my mouth shut, and thats been the hardest thing I've ever had to do, but I'm stayin far the hell of her radar:cool:

[mczerone]

Response to Mr. Eisold:


Ron Paul and Julian Assange: Strange Bedfellows

In an unexpected convergence, the logic behind WikiLeaks is coming to resemble the ideology of the Tea Party movement. They are both anti-establishment, of course, and seem to relish rebellion and defiance. But Assange's hero is Daniel Ellsberg, which grounds him in the far left attacks on the military-industrial complex of the 60's, while Paul seems to want to allow business as much leeway as it wants as well as freedom from taxation.


I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between free markets and fascism. Paul is also a strong voice against the military industrial complex, and only wants to give "business" the leeway to do what it can to please consumers.


But, then, Assange in a video interview for Time spoke about the importance of states rights. He expressed the view that the central authority of the federal government oppressed individual states, a position repeatedly espoused by the tea party. (See Time Video)

And Ron Paul was quoted as saying on Twitter: "Re: Wikileaks - In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble." (See "The Lede," New York Times)

It seems to be a profound antipathy to any idea of organized, collective responsibility. No government should stand in the way of an individual exercising his rights to act in his own interests.

You're over-reaching with your diagnosis. It's not an antipathy to any "collective responsibility." It is a rejection of forced collectivization. Assange is the head of a corporation - a voluntary collective with internal rules. The second sentence is again a vast over-reach, especially for Constitutionalists like Paul, who see a proper role for government in limiting a person's right to act in his self-interest to only those actions that don't directly harm others.


Such a radical individualism is not surprising in the United States, where groups and individuals have frequently practiced different forms of withdrawal and secession to protect their freedoms. For many years our frontier offered escape to those faced with the onerous and unacceptable task of working things out with others, compromising on common interests, learning to tolerate differences.

What a flawed view of the frontier. Many moved to escape the intolerance of differences, the heavy hand of gov't that wouldn't even think of compromising to find common interests. And even then, those that moved for the reasons he cites would have had a hard time finding work or commerce amongst groups of people that, on their own, developed a system of society without collective coercion.


I'm not sure where Asssange gets his version of this attitude. Australia, of course, was also a former British colony, and its immense distance from the mother country nurtured a spirit of independence. He seems also to have been influenced by anarchist theory. The new ideology of the internet, with its naïve belief that "information wants to be free," may also play a part.

BOOGABOOGA - Anarchism! Assange must be a "bad guy" if he's been influenced by anarchist theory, right? right!? And nice job asserting that it's naive to think that information, a non-scarce, non-rivalrous resource "wants to be free". It's not like you can control how I spread my knowledge. Oh wait - you can if you believe that the "organized collective" of government gets to control how each individual acts beyond prohibiting force. I submit that it is you, Mr. Eisold, who is naive about the nature of information, and about the nature of freedom/anarchy/collective governance.


Moreover, both Paul and Assange appeal to that side of all of us that resents external control, especially when it restricts the full expression of any ideal we espouse.

Sure. But you still miss the point of what the "resentment" is aimed at. It's not a blanket resentment out of petulance, it's a resentment of assumed power. It's a resentment of illegitimate control. Of tyranny and the ruling class that thinks it gets to keep secrets from us mundanes.


Seeing the parallels at first is jarring to common sense and the familiar categories that organize our political opinions. It doesn't seem to make sense. We have to work at finding the connections.

Yes, when you have been deluded into simple "left-right" thinking, it's hard to make sense of people who don't conform. Ever stop to think why your political opinions have been organized the way that they are? Why you have to work at making sense of people that don't follow the leader? The connections aren't hard to find - Assange and Paul believe in freedom. And where there is govt tyranny, they believe in exposing and limiting it. It's not that hard to work out, unless your first reaction to meeting someone new is: "Is this person a Donkey or an Elephant? Is this person on my side of the aisle, or the other side?"

What an appropriate article for Psychology Today. Not because it was useful in pinning down the ideology of either Paul or Assange or why they hold it, but because it gives a glimpse into the psychology of the Author. He seems to have this dissociative disorder that manifests as placing all his responsibility economically and politically into some other group, from which he derives some satisfaction as being part of some collective "team". He only knows success or failure based on how he can contribute to his team or on how well his team does against the other teams out there. When he comes across individuals who haven't bought into this team concept, it causes great mental difficulties and takes a great deal of time and effort for him to reconcile how these people fit into his framework. He must dismiss them as being some rogue "individualists" that fit better into "wild west" times than any society he recognizes today. But whatever they are, they must not be recognized as individuals. They must be grouped, collectivized - even if the defining characteristic of the collective is the resentment of collectives. Whew. That's better, now Assange and Paul can be grouped, even if the group definition isn't correct, its at least some label that can be used to marginalize them from those people I recognize as being able to work things out with others, compromise on common interests, and learn to tolerate differences. Tolerate no differences!


ETA: P.S. notice that one of his tags for the article is "big trouble". I wonder what he thinks that is supposed to mean. Are Assange and Paul "big trouble" to him?

[Mach]

This guy is ok, I've read his stuff in the past, he sticks to more of a scientific point of view......

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/what-i-have-learned-barry-goldwater



Extremism in the pursuit of the truth is no vice.

Moderation in the face of political correctness is no virtue.



I think these could be important credos for Scientific Fundamentalism.

And when Goldwater won the Presidential election on the strength of his acceptance speech and his message, President Goldwater.... Wait... what? He got what? What do you mean...? Daisy girl? A landslide? Who the hell is “El B. J.”? I thought that was Bill Clinton’s nickname in Mexico!

------

This guy is sick (the bad kind), skim through this article (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-is-he-thinking/201003/we-need-have-empathy-tea-partiers) and then check out the comments. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-is-he-thinking/201003/we-need-have-empathy-tea-partiers/comments) :D You can comment without signing up.

[libertyjam]

When cognitive dissonance is finally overcome by doublethink.

She loves Big Brother.

Find another class and another teacher.:mad:

This^

And tell her she is the beacon of delusion and hypocrisy.

[rprprs]

Only a shrink could be so monumentally dense as to not understand the parallels between Paul and Assange. :rolleyes:

Indeed. The parallels are natural and blatantly obvious.
So much so, that I don't even understand the purpose or point of that article. I kept looking for a link to page 2 in order to find some meat in that trivial exercise in self indulgence.