Before you can understand why identity politics is counterproductive, you must first understand how self development is supposed to work. For simplicity, I will focus on three of the main archetypes involved in the process: the good mother, the social self, and the individuating self.

The good mother gathers. When she sees one of her children has strayed, she goes out to reclaim the lost child and reintegrates it with the rest of her children. The social self is the aspect of self which identifies with the group. It initially occupies the driver seat of the mind, the privileged position of the self, so that each of us can be socialized properly into this world. The individuating self separates from the group.

Self development is meant to begin after the person has been sufficiently socialized. The social self is supposed to abdicate the privileged position and let the individuating self take the wheel. To aid this transition, the good mother gathers the individuating self, which had previously been marginalized and oppressed by the social self. In this way, the good mother places in the driver’s seat the aspect of self (individuating self) which ultimately rejects her.

However, there is a part of the social self which sees it’s replacement as a death and a part of the good mother which sees her rejection as a death. Pathology occurs when these two parts conspire with each other. What commonly happens is the social self will step down from the privileged position of the self, but instead of allowing itself to be replaced by the individuating self, it will work to put a marginalized identity in the drivers seat. This is often an identity based on race, class, sexuality, or gender.

Once this identity is placed in the privileged position of the self, then the social self, now operating from the shadows, continues to carry out its agenda by pulling the strings of whichever marginalized identity it’s chosen. Further, since the identity occupying the position of the self is a marginalized one, the good mother finds meaning by gathering this marginalized identity while not having to deal with being rejected.

I’ve described this within the setting of one mind, but these patterns obviously play out socially as well. The pathological side of the good mother in one person will not only suppress individuation within, but it will actively discourage it in others by advocating for whichever marginalized identities are popular with the pathological side of the collective social self.

Now, all of this pathology operates in darkness behind devious and elaborate defense mechanisms, so I’m not expecting sudden enlightenment by sharing all of this. It’s the truth though.

And where does God fit into this elaborate framework?

It doesn’t matter. It’s hidden from you.

OP is super interesting mostly because it seems completely novel to me and there are likely some aspects of truth to it.

Is it your own theory or is there a reading list on this stuff?

Also there are probably some more accessible critiques of IP that can be made.

One thing I'd point out is that IDPols is not only LW or concerned with marginalized groups.

It just means ones identity group(s) are the primary basis for their political views.

Christian and White identity are very big parts of American politics.

I agree that it is usually bad.

What's "the good mother"?

To me "identity politics" seems like a framework adopted by politicians to divide and appease their constituent who gladly adopt whatever group because tribalism. We should reject the manipulation and fight for the good of all humans unconditionally.

How many minds can identify this within themselves?

The good mother is 1 of the 3 instincts within a mind or something. an enabler of the social self at times, maybe, for fear that individuation will bring a consequence on the self and onto society. philosoraptor

How can the little fella hide if he's omnipresent? Oh, wait, I get it, it's a philosophical paradox I have to resolve to reach true enlightenment, like "what has 4 legs yet cannot cannot walk?" Damn, these riddles are hard, no enlightenment for me.

Identity. You take average guy, he can't identify.

Sinner, individuate yourself.

Ok sure but you don't usually have Pareto efficient changes to implement anyway.

Almost everything you will do will make some people better off and other people worse off.

Denying this basic truth of life won't help down the line.

I somewhat agree with this but really it should read, almost everything you do will make some people THINK they are better off and other people THINK they are worse iff. Usually the latter because any change whatsoever makes a lot of people think they are worse off.

Well ok but in general if you use taxes for something, not 100% of the people will benefit from that something.

So you will be materially making all taxpayers who don't directly benefit from it worse off, while benefiting some people.

Any use of taxes that you don't directly benefit from is a direct damage to you

I still have no idea what the mother thing is. Can't find anything using google. Someone mentioned it's an instinct. I found some psuedo science stuff that claimed 3 instincts are sex, individual, and social. ?

I'm not sure where taxation and stuff comes into play. Sure some policies will benefit certain people more than others. Bill Gates doesn't have a use for social security or medicare and Bezos could probably get around without any public roads. Most people can't / wouldn't want to exist without these things.

My point was that identity politics seems like a way to divide the electorate into demographics that can be marketed to.

It's going to be like some mixture of Jung, Piaget, and Carlos Castaneda-- or something

That's because you think in terms of "me", not "us". It's a selfish view of the world.

I pay school taxes and I don't have any kids in school. I dunno, education seems like a good thing. I'd be in favor of raising taxes so college was free for everyone. It would make us better.

He said "for the good of all humans", humans include selfish people. We all are to a degree btw. Even if you agree on public schools and public healthcare for example, and many people do, do you agree on the exact allocation of resources between the 2? do all agree? if you spend 20 for schools and 100 for healthcare, some people might consider it worse than 15 vs 105 , or than 25 vs 95, you can't definitionally ever find an allocation that satisfies everyone.

Then there is the matter of the exact total level of taxation even after agreeing on what to spend upon.

So you are literally almost never doing something for *all humans* no matter how much you try even if you remove selfishness from the equation.

Remember that everytime you spend a tax dollar on something, you are affirming that *all other possible allocations of that dollar are morally worse*.

Claiming you fight for *all humans* is an attempt to deny that basic truth.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This is a good summary.

Identities will always be associated with politics, but the danger of identity politics needs to be constantly articulated by leaders within the group. Like opponent processing. We are so far from that now.

Basically. Individuation and repentance are the same process.

For actual progress to occur, the conscious self advocates for the individuating self which is being oppressed by the social self. In order to sabotage this actual progress, the social self projects the task onto the external, socio-political world. Instead of advocating on behalf of the oppressed individuating self, the social self manipulates the conscious self into advocating on behalf of an apparently oppressed social group. This substitution is close enough to keep the conscious self placated and complacent.

Think of the self as a business. The conscious self is the business owner who wrote the business plan many years ago and has trouble remembering the exact details. The social self is the senior manager of the business and the individuating self is the junior manager. The owner mostly trusts that the SM is following the business plan properly, especially since it seems to be in sync with his vague memory of the it. He wants to continue to trust the SM because it would be a big problem if the SM was manipulating him. What would that say about him as an owner if he was so negligent to be fooled in this way?

This situation only gets fixed when the owner decides to face the music, assume his responsibilities, and start saying ‘no’ to the social self.