It's been a looooong time since I've posted on 2+2, but I value the intelligence of the community a bit over other social media. I'm building out a YT channel that commentates on group psychology, myth, and politics.

I'll start by sharing my most recent video-

Crisis Compulsion in Organizations and Odysseus's Voyage

About me: I have a masters from Columbia in organizational psychology, 5 years of conference work in group relations, and about 7 years working in the field of wilderness therapy. My YT channel applies theories from group psychology to current cultural phenomenons, with a special bent towards using myth as a metaphorical framework when applicable.

Subs and shares are super appreciated. I don't really want to whore myself out on social media, and thus I'm hoping to grow this thing organically with intelligent people that enjoy thought provoking topics, even if they disagree with my interpretations.

I hope folks enjoy!

-B

subbed!

Nice, thx!

This video highlights a real conversation I had with a previous good friend and mentor. More than being on one side of the aisle, I see it as a plea for rationality. There are examples of this kind of BS on both sides, and it's a problem IMO. I see myself as a centrist...I'm not a republican or a democrat, and feel pretty disturbed by antics on both sides.

This is What Far Left Sounds Like

Subs and shares are super appreciated--I'm trying to grow this organically, which is grueling work. If you strongly disagree with the content, by all means light me up in the comments section. I believe respectful debate is the way forward.

I disagree with how you’re pitting reason against intuition. In math and science, reason or logic is used to develop intuition. But everything begins and ends with intuition. I agree with your larger point that mobs lack wisdom. That seems like a highly intuitive result to me.

Thanks for watching and commenting. The point I was trying to make is that both are important. I was turned off by this guy's assertions that reason didn't have a place in the conversation.

I'm really interesting in stuff like this.

I'm well on the left but frequently make 'a plea' for rationality (or reasonableness as I tend to call it)

Extraordinary some other posters on the left will explicitly defend being unreasonable and even attack any attempt at being reasonable. To some it is a deliberate stance justified on the basis that the other side isn't reasonable.

this 2nd video is interesting. I get both perspectives. I gotta side with the space cadet, though, some concepts are ineffable.

OP, I think you'll evolve, or devolve as you perceive things now, and arrive at a point of diminished need for understanding.

you provide your credentials on psychology one minute, as if the human brain is understood, then end the video with all sorts of acknowledgement that scientific understanding is incomplete and you really cannot know and must remain humble. Twas ever thus. Mankind has pondered this stuff for millennia. Do not wanna harsh your buzz, but there's no new discovery, insight into life's complexity around the corner, just more of the same.

Talk about cynicism.

mandelbrot reality wtmf? I'm in over my head now

maybe so. point me to it. what am I missing?

I'm pessimistic, sue me. We're a speck of dust in the cosmos. You are here. It's incomprehensible. Who you are is incomprehensible. Logic doesn't have the answers.

This is just an elective activity to pass the time.

I'd rather be golfing or cleaning my garage listening to sports talk radio.

see you guys in a couple weeks. I'm taking a break from this stuff.

Three months into the quarantine and you still have not cleaned your garage? WTF?

Interesting thoughts. I come from a very left-leaning personal history, probably still have some classical liberal ideology. I wouldn't argue with the idea that there are other ways of knowing than scientific inquiry; but the human potential to inaccurately intuit is important to acknowledge. What I see often is people who pick and choose when to apply reason when it suits their own confirmation bias, and justify unhelpful irrational thinking based on some higher calling or deeper knowing.

Anyone read Jeremy Narby's stuff? The Cosmic Serpent talks about this iirc.

Video: Masculinity and Mythology -- The Congolese Epic of Mwindo

This video applies the mythopoetic lens, a la Robert Bly (Iron John) or Robert A. Johnson (He).

Comments, thoughts, welcome.


Subs, shares, likes, etc., are all super appreciated. I'm pretty clueless about how to build up a channel, so I need all the help I can get...

https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/...utube-channel/

is it true that people rather be incorrect and part of the group than the opposite?

Had a little whiskey, so firing from the hip here...

I'd hope no one has tried to establish this as a universal law or anything--I can envision times where this is the case and times when not. There are different models to try and explain behavior of groups, here are some concepts that seem applicable:

Hierarchy of needs perspective: Group membership means higher odds of survival, mating, and access to resources from an evolutionary/instinctive Maslow standpoint. William Glasser names love and belonging as one of the 4-5 core basic human needs. Although today being cast out of a political party in the US doesn't mean death typically, there is still a strong aversion built into us to avoid losing face in front of our groups. In a situation where differing from the fashionable group opinion means a significant loss of status or access to resources controlled by the group (ie when groupthink is activated), then the reward structure can favor repression of certain viewpoints. Inversely, professing adherence to certain viewpoints (maybe loudly, on social media) can increase those things.
Humans want to experience themselves as genuine, but this is typically not felt to be as pressing a need as belonging, access to mates, survival, etc. Of course, some people demonstrate the ability to put ideology ahead of some needs traditionally thought of as primary. Folks who do a hunger strike, or speak out against the group at great cost, etc.

Group unconscious perspective: Wilfred Bion was a brilliant psychologist who talked a lot about the idea of the group unconscious. In essence, he hypothesized that the best explainer of certain phenomena is the concept of a group psyche that has a powerful mind of its own. Under this lens, behavior of individuals in a group context can be said to serve some purpose for the group, and the factor of the individual's free will is somewhat diminished. Bion also identified three primary unconscious group drives - fight/flight, pairing, and dependence. Don't need to get stuck in the weeds here, but if a group is manifesting the fight response in a given situation, then members are going to be recruited by the group psyche to behave in ways that provoke or continue a fight. In US politics right now, we can see plenty of examples where this might be the case, and individuals are clearly in the wrong on a given issue (based on facts presented) but dig their heels in and just fight all the harder. Of course, these individuals are not under the impression they are wrong, either, they see the other person as the villain, their group as the good guys, and whatever concessions they need to make to fight the bad guys seem justified.

Self-concept perspective: Nathaniel Branden was a psychologist who talked a lot about self-esteem. People with low self-esteem (read: almost everyone) look for external validation as the basic source of self-worth. Experiencing oneself as wrong is more or less intolerable when your sense of identity and self-love is perceived to be at stake. When these people have the option between acknowledging a mistake or creating an elaborate, fantastical narrative that maybe-sorta supports their original argument (and thus preserves their fragile identity), they choose the latter. Their model is not I'm a learning growing human who makes mistakes and that's okay, it's more like If I lose an argument, that means I'm a loser.

Drama Triangle (emerging roles): Karpman brought a tool from acting over into the world of psychology in the 60's, and it's used often in systems work today--The Drama Triangle. The idea is that three primary roles emerge in unhealthy systems. You have the persecutor, the victim, and the rescuer. The persecutor scapegoats the victim, the victim sings the "poor me" song which absolves them of responsibility, and the rescuer gets value from coming in to save the poor little victim from the big mean persecutor. This is happening all over the place right now in politics if you look for it. Each role becomes extremely invested in acting out their part, and also keeping the others in their parts as well--each person in their role is gaining some unconscious value from it, and the system can't exist without all three parts. The importance of the roles can override rationality...So if I feel like I am a victim and see you as a persecutor, I will interpret any argument you put forth through that lens, and find ways to project trickery and malice onto you. I'm not wrong, you're just twisting the facts and manipulating me.

There are a ton more ways to think about it, but that's what I got on a Saturday after a big glass of Buffalo Trace.

Video: Greatness Versus Fairness

Why do the conservative and progressive narratives seem so intractable and incompatible at times? What is the core conflict? My belief is that conservatives (those on the right) tend to push for greatness in a culture, and that progressives (liberals, or those on the left) tend to push for fairness. Both of these are important drives to keep a) in the conversation, and b) in balance with the other.

I do believe that they often conflict, and perhaps as a culture we are and have been experiencing a period where both sides are more or less pushing for abolishing of the other.

Subs are super duper appreciated. Comments, even if you strongly disagree, are also awesome. I think we all grow through debate.

Slight non-sequitur for content, but still in the realm of relational psychology:

Stop Being Nice.

Conservatives hate greatness. Like Fauci is unquestionably a great scientist but to conservatives he’s an elitist and shouldn’t be listened to more than any idiot on the street. On countless subjects they think expertise, intelligence etc are irrelevant.

If you are arguing that conservatives unconsciously sabotage greatness or end up finding themselves positioned against it, I think that's valid. But I also believe the caricature conservative attitude prioritizes the idea of greatness, a la Ayn Rand. This is the ol "Pull yourselves up by the bootstraps." "Hard work equals success" credo

I think it's also fair to say that liberal policies often interfere with fairness. But again, the caricature liberal mind, in my eyes, emphasizes fairness as a core value.

Also, I don't think anyone is unquestionably great. That type of wording implies projective identification and closed-mindedness, imho.

My point is that it isn’t unconscious. The key word in “Make America Great Again” isn’t great, it’s again. For many that meant a return to a world where they don’t have to compete with women or minorities that are more intelligent and hard working than they are. A big issue last election was Trump lying to a bunch of workers who’s skills aren’t valued by the market anymore (coal miners) and telling them that they don’t have to learn any new, marketable skills. The problem with the current American conservative movement isn’t that they are like the heroes in an Ayn Rams novel. It’s that they are like the villains.

I don’t want to quibble over the word greatness. The established medical hierarchy tells us that Faucci is an authority and it’s the right who wants us to rip that down. That happens over and over again with the right and I think they are the ones that want to destroy hierarchies, largely because they never tell them what they want to hear.

Eh, "Make America Great Again" clearly supports the idea that greatness is fundamentally valued imo. I mean, they changed the new slogan to "Keep America Great".

I think it's helpful to separate objective truth from personal narrative. I don't know if I agree completely with your framing about coal miners, but I'll play along. In that context, couldn't you argue that Trump appealed to coal miners by sliding them the narrative that they are still relevant and part of the plan for America's greatness? (Of course I don't think it's that simple, my whole point is that right wingers tend to value their idea of greatness, lefties tend to emphasize their idea of fairness.)

Citing Fauci's credentials is an appeal to authority, there are plenty of decorated morons--I'm not saying he's one, I just am not qualified to judge and don't consider that a valid argument by itself. And anyways, it's about the narrative. Let's say Fauci is great. Do people on the right think that? Doubtful that anyone far right and anti-Fauci would admit "Fauci is brilliant" on any conscious level. But if your point is that right wingers get tied up on bullshit and end up moving against greatness at an unconscious level, I wouldn't push back.

I think your dead wrong about the right wanting to break down hierarchies more than the left. That claim doesn't really fit with anything I am seeing. I'm open to contrary evidence, but "defund the police", establishing an autonomous zone without formal leaders, and acts to destroy the Portland courthouse are just a few examples that come from the left and point to anger towards the structure. I see Fox, meanwhile, stirring up fear in viewers by implying that structured society is on the brink of collapsing into socialist mayhem.

Subbed for the Buffalo Trace.