NationStates Jolt Archive

Are George W. Bush lovers certifiable? (http://www.ctnow.com/custom/nmm/newhavenadvocate/hce-nha-1123-nh48bushbash48.artnov23,0,1695911.story)

This article says there are some creepy correlations in that regard.

A couple quotes...

"Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be."

...

"Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry," the study says.

Lohse says the trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.

...

Not to get personal here, but honestly MtaE, DK, Corny, and now TRA tend to fit the bill IMO. But, that's all, my own opinion.

Trollz is trollz. I don't know that we need to stoop to their level, though. I understand it's a bit of fun, but with the whining tendency I think it might be more of a set back than anything else. I'd say leave this kind of thing to them.

I'm sure the left has their share of wackos too.

I'm sure the left has their share of wackos too.

I'd be more than happy to read ANY article or other source that would support that claim. Though I won't hold my breath while you try to find one.

I think it would make sense to conduct a similar survey in somewhere like Russia or China to see if the same applies to leaders on the far left.

I think it would make sense to conduct a similar survey in somewhere like Russia or China to see if the same applies to leaders on the far left.

Soviets and PRC... They don't exactly fit in the "Far Left". Unless, of course, you're speaking strictly in an economic sense...

Soviets and PRC... They don't exactly fit in the "Far Left". Unless, of course, you're speaking strictly in an economic sense...

Authoritarian left would make more sense, which is the main reason why China or the former USSR would be better choices. It seems like they're measuring authoritarian tendencies rather than strict political alignment.

The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election

That's hardly what I'd call a representative sample; you'd need multiple states with different political leanings and a lot more than 69 outpatients to really say something conclusive like that.

Authoritarian left would make more sense, which is the main reason why China or the former USSR would be better choices. It seems like they're measuring authoritarian tendencies rather than strict political alignment.

Yeah, I'd go with that one.

But, that begs the question: What's worse? Extreme Authoritarian Right, or Extreme Authoritarian Left?

Yeah, I'd go with that one.

But, that begs the question: What's worse? Extreme Authoritarian Right, or Extreme Authoritarian Left?

Neither. Once you get extreme and authoritarian, there's really no difference between left and right. I guess it depends on your view, though; the Nazis were a lot more methodical than the Soviets and killed a lot of people in a really short time with very brutal methods, but the Soviets used a lot more slave labor and also engineered a famine to attempt genocide against the Ukrainians back in the 30's.

I'm sure the left has their share of wackos too.

Oh, we do - but they tend to be smart wackos.

Neither. Once you get extreme and authoritarian, there's really no difference.

And, in this country (i.e. the US) the GOP has set themselves up as the party who pushes for authoritarian rule.

Oh, we do - but they tend to be smart wackos.

I always wondered which extreme is worse; the dumber ones tend to be more emotional and fanatical, while the smarter ones tend to be colder and more efficient at getting whatever atrocity is underway done.

And, in this country (i.e. the US) the GOP has set themselves up as the party who pushes for authoritarian rule.

Right now, yes. But I don't trust either party as far as I could throw them; I'm only keeping an eye on them because they've got a hell of a lot more power.

Neither. Once you get extreme and authoritarian, there's really no difference between left and right. I guess it depends on your view, though; the Nazis were a lot more methodical than the Soviets and killed a lot of people in a really short time with very brutal methods, but the Soviets used a lot more slave labor and also engineered a famine to attempt genocide against the Ukrainians back in the 30's.

Attempted? I think they did a pretty good job. Two days ago, the Ukrainian parliament accepted the Holodomor as genocide.

Attempted? I think they did a pretty good job. Two days ago, the Ukrainian parliament accepted the Holodomor as genocide.

Oh, it was a genocide, make no doubt about that. And, for that matter, it was a hell of a lot faster than what the Germans did.

I always wondered which extreme is worse; the dumber ones tend to be more emotional and fanatical, while the smarter ones tend to be colder and more efficient at getting whatever atrocity is underway done.

The intelligent extremists are worse.

Intelligent people can argue reasonably for the worst proposals and attempt justifications for the most disgusting of atrocities. They can also outsmart themselves - coming up with arguments so abstract that their absurdity is not obvious. They are also often some of the most arrogant and least intellectually honest people around.

People forget that pretty much every doctrine, however stupid or immoral, has had staunch intellectual adherents. They do so at their own peril.

Edit: But all that aside, the less intelligent ones are infinitely more annoying.

Neither. Once you get extreme and authoritarian, there's really no difference between left and right. I guess it depends on your view, though; the Nazis were a lot more methodical than the Soviets and killed a lot of people in a really short time with very brutal methods, but the Soviets used a lot more slave labor and also engineered a famine to attempt genocide against the Ukrainians back in the 30's.

I wouldn't call the Soviets left-wing or the Nazis right-wing. They were both just off the political spectrum.

Castro is an authoritarian leftist. Pinochet was an authoritarian rightist. Hitler and Stalin were just genocidal.

The intelligent extremists are worse.

Intelligent people can argue reasonably for the worst proposals and attempt justifications for the most disgusting of atrocities. They can also outsmart themselves - coming up with arguments so abstract that their absurdity is not obvious. They are also often some of the most arrogant and least intellectually honest people around.

They're terrifying, to say the least. The cold, clinical, heartless nature of the intellectuals that justify the atrocities carried out by their subordinates is horrifying; if there was any objective symbol of the ability of humans to destroy their own humanity, they're it. They manage to deny and bury what makes them human beings, and the outcome is, for lack of a better term, hellish.

People forget that pretty much every doctrine, however stupid or immoral, has had staunch intellectual adherents. They do so at their own peril.

That's true. It's those intellectuals that give those ideologies the veneer of respectability that can lead to them causing so much damage, and that's why they are so dangerous.

This study seems biased. I would like to see how he arrived to this conclusion.

I wouldn't call the Soviets left-wing or the Nazis right-wing. They were both just off the political spectrum.

Castro is an authoritarian leftist. Pinochet was an authoritarian rightist. Hitler and Stalin were just genocidal.

I think once you've gotten that far out there, things just literally fall apart. Genocide is one of the few concepts that is truly apolitical...

They're terrifying, to say the least. The cold, clinical, heartless nature of the intellectuals that justify the atrocities carried out by their subordinates is horrifying; if there was any objective symbol of the ability of humans to destroy their own humanity, they're it. They manage to deny and bury what makes them human beings, and the outcome is, for lack of a better term, hellish.

The problem comes when the intellectual mediation of morality alienates it into an external duty, a rule to be obeyed, instead of an inseparable part of ourselves, an immediate recognition of the dignity of others.

As soon as that is completed, the intelligent person can question the rule, and reject it.

But the problems of the intelligent are not merely confined to morals. They extend even to the domain over which they are supposed to reign supreme. People forget that an intelligent person is not only smart enough to find the truth, but also to obscure and distort it - even to herself.

The more arrogant an intelligent person is, the less capable she is of recognizing this, and the more errors of this sort will be made.

That's true. It's those intellectuals that give those ideologies the veneer of respectability that can lead to them causing so much damage, and that's why they are so dangerous.

That, and the fact that it should make us look at our own paths of thought more intently, and make sure we are really thinking things through.