The failure of the Left and what the Far-Right gets right.

[Augustus]

Correction: It is what persuades the masses.

It's what persuades us all. We are not rational animals. All of us.

We do not think objectively once emotions are involved.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

It's what persuades us all. We are not rational animals. All of us.

We do not think objectively once emotions are involved.

Way to generalize everyone.

Pretty sure that is a logical fallacy if we bothered to bring those into this.

 

[Augustus]

Way to generalize everyone.

Pretty sure that is a logical fallacy if we bothered to bring those into this.

We all share the same genetic make up. Our species evolved with certain characteristics, and this is the result of them.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

We all share the same genetic make up. Our species evolved with certain characteristics, and this is the result of them.

Yeah because all of your brains work in the exact same ways with no genetic variation.....

Oh come on! I usually get to praise non-religious people for their aptitude for understanding science.

 

[Augustus]

Yeah because all of your brains work in the exact same ways with no genetic variation.....

Oh come on! I usually get to praise non-religious people for their aptitude for understanding science.

Facepalm all you like, it just a sign of cognitive dissonance

There is plenty of scientific evidence that supports this view. It was noted by Greek rhetoriticians. It is well known by people whose jobs depend on persuasion (sales, advertising, PR, etc.).

The ability to reach people on an emotional level was why Trump and Obama won and Hillary and Romney lost. See also Bush jnr, Bill, Reagan.

This doesn't mean we have no rationality, or that we are never persuaded by fact, just that emotion is far more powerful.

Once we are emotionally attached to an issue than a whole raft of cognitive functions are activated to protect that belief. Trying to persuade emotions with facts rarely works. This is because emotions influence how we interpret all later information, which is especially true in politics (and religion) as it relates to matters of identity.

Some people are better at controlling their thought and overriding their emotions, but it is impossible to do this all of the time, and most people are not interested in trying.

It's emotion that attaches Rationalists to the myth of their own rationality, and why we see the flaws of others far more clearly than we see the flaws in ourselves.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

Facepalm all you like, it just a sign of cognitive dissonance

There is plenty of scientific evidence that supports this view. It was noted by Greek rhetoriticians. It is well known by people whose jobs depend on persuasion (sales, advertising, PR, etc.).

The ability to reach people on an emotional level was why Trump and Obama won and Hillary and Romney lost. See also Bush jnr, Bill, Reagan.

This doesn't mean we have no rationality, or that we are never persuaded by fact, just that emotion is far more powerful.

Once we are emotionally attached to an issue than a whole raft of cognitive functions are activated to protect that belief. Trying to persuade emotions with facts rarely works. This is because emotions influence how we interpret all later information, which is especially true in politics (and religion) as it relates to matters of identity.

Some people are better at controlling their thought and overriding their emotions, but it is impossible to do this all of the time, and most people are not interested in trying.

It's emotion that attaches Rationalists to the myth of their own rationality, and why we see the flaws of others far more clearly than we see the flaws in ourselves.

Did the ancient Greek rhetoricians live in an age where psychology was a legitimate scientific field or where people everyone had some level of education? Did their methods work on philosophers like Socrates?

Oh because Hillary used logic reason and not rhetoric. And btw she won the popular vote, so your point if it ever where there is null.

Bring me some evidence for your claims and then I will believe them.

 

[Laika]

Honestly, I do think the left and the center have failed to address certain key things that are more to the fore in far-right ideologies.

Far-right ideologies, especially ethnic nationalist, tribalist, radical traditionalist, national anarchist, folkish religion (especially folkish Paganism, since Christianity is fast in decline in the West and even among the far-right), etc. tend to take a mythic view of humanity and the world at large. This appeals to the part of humanity that loves myth, symbols, grand archetypes, etc. They have a vision of returning to a wonderful, simpler past based around community, tradition and cohesive culture. They stand in opposition to out of control capitalism which is ravaging our species, other species and the planet itself. They are against the alienation of the modern world, which has wrecked the family unit (over 100 years ago or so, most of us were living more rural lives with both our immediate and extended family), resulted in mental illness (depression and other psychological afflictions are at epidemic levels) and turned us into dog eat dog slaves that spend our lives working menial jobs we hate for a pittance and then we die lonely and unfulfilled on an existential level. They recognize these things as problems and propose solutions to them. They view the modern world as degraded and decadent. They view our general malaise and the coming catastrophes in spiritual terms, primarily. They also have a Heroic view of man. This provides emotional satisfaction. They embrace the irrational and the Jungian. Their views on their enemies may be simplistic and even disgusting, but their ideologies are effective. There's a reason why they go on the upswing when the left has become decrepit and cannot capture the spirit of the age.

The left, on the other hand, tends to take a purely rationalist approach, viewing humans as resources or automatons of a sort. (I'm generalizing, of course, because you have genetic determinists on the right and am mainly thinking of Marxism with that.) There isn't room or much talk about the mythic aspect of humans and how important it is to our psychological well-being as a species. Most things are viewed in terms of class, and in empirical terms. Then you have the so-called "SJWs", who are mostly white middle to upper-class and college educated and most people simply cannot relate to that demographic, from poor inner city people to hicks in the sticks. (Even in my relatively progressive city, we have luxury condos right across the street from homeless shelters. These people are living in another world entirely and are seemingly oblivious to it.)

How can the left capture the mystical side of existence and provide a narrative that both satisfies our atavistic, Jungian aspects while remaining true to the cause of justice? Is it even possible? I don't know. But I'm finding it rather boring and unfulfilling lately. Lately, I just want to go off into the woods and worship the Gods, leaving this depraved and decaying world behind.

Marxists can do this btw. We're just not well known for it.

God-Building - Wikipedia

 

[Augustus]

Did the ancient Greek rhetoricians live in an age where psychology was a legitimate scientific field or where people everyone had some level of education? Did their methods work on philosophers like Socrates?

Oh because Hillary used logic reason and not rhetoric. And btw she won the popular vote, so your point if it ever where there is null.

Bring me some evidence for your claims and then I will believe them.

Well Aristotle discussed ethos, pathos and logos and noted the power of the the first 2 of these. Rhetoric was studied by the elite, and generally used also on the elite.

Also, the field of psychology supports what I am saying (see for example Festinger, Kahneman and Tversky, Trivers and others in the fields of heuristics and biases and evolutionary psychology). Which psychologists support your view of cognition?

When modern science supports what people identified 2000 years ago, I consider that a pretty good test of reliability. Not to mention that it also matches with what professionals dealing with persuasion know, and also personal experience.

Think about how many times in your life you have been swayed by emotion and how many times it must have happened without you even being aware of it.

Our brain didn't evolve to be rational or dispassionate, it evolved to help keep us alive. It hasn't yet evolved further to meet the environment that we now live in.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

Well Aristotle discussed ethos, pathos and logos and noted the power of the the first 2 of these. Rhetoric was studied by the elite, and generally used also on the elite.

Also, the field of psychology supports what I am saying (see for example Festinger, Kahneman and Tversky, Trivers and others in the fields of heuristics and biases and evolutionary psychology). Which psychologists support your view of cognition?

When modern science supports what people identified 2000 years ago, I consider that a pretty good test of reliability. Not to mention that it also matches with what professionals dealing with persuasion know, and also personal experience.

Think about how many times in your life you have been swayed by emotion and how many times it must have happened without you even being aware of it.

Our brain didn't evolve to be rational or dispassionate, it evolved to help keep us alive. It hasn't yet evolved further to meet the environment that we now live in.

Speaking of rhetoric I am tired of it. Citations please.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Speaking of rhetoric I am tired of it. Citations please.

Ask any competent sales person or politician.
Admittedly you may need to wash afterwards.

 

[Augustus]

Speaking of rhetoric I am tired of it. Citations please.

Like I said, you can read the works of Leon Festinger, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Robert Trivers and others in the fields of heuristics and biases and evolutionary psychology.

You can read about cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, affect heuristic, priming, framing, halo effect or countless other things.

You don't have to take my word for it, but if you are genuinely interested in this subject you might enjoy reading their works

 

[Electus de Lumine]

Like I said, you can read the works of Leon Festinger, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Robert Trivers and others in the fields of heuristics and biases and evolutionary psychology.

You can read about cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, affect heuristic, priming, framing, halo effect or countless other things.

You don't have to take my word for it, but if you are genuinely interested in this subject you might enjoy reading their works

Citation please.

 

[Kirran]

You are right.

The modern centre left has no identity other than a vague Humanistic multiculturalism, 'social justice' and 'let people be themselves'. This is why they get sucked into identity politics and political correctness because they lack an ideological focus.

One thing Rationalists never seem to get is that humans are not rational: never have been, never will be. The unwritten assumption on the centre left was that Humanity was on an unstoppable path of progress towards rational Humanism free of myth and superstition. That their values were universal, and those who disagreed only did so out of fear, ignorance or because they were easily fooled. They find it hard to believe that any rational, educated person could ever honestly disagree with them.

They find it hard to accept that history is currently proving them to be wrong.

Unless they can find a new ideology that connects with people in the emotional level, then they are not going to fare well electorally. People now say we live in the 'post-fact era', but facts were never really that important in the first place. The Greeks knew that over 2000 years ago, people need to stop kidding themselves that we have become significantly more rational since then.

I suppose that's part of the same of the decline of the Labour movement. It provided more of that narrative.

 

[Augustus]

Citation please.

If you are interested, start with Kahneman - Thinking fast and slow it is an excellent overview of heuristics and biases.

In the meantime here are few random articles relating to relevant "irrational" aspects of cognition to start you off.

Edge.org

Atran, S. & Ginges, J. (2013). Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science, 336, 855-857.

http://nuovoeutile.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/BIASED-ASSIMILATION-AND-ATTITUDE-POLARIZATION.pdf



What are you basing your opinions on btw? Why do you have faith in your own rationality and ability to consider things free of emotion and bias?

And to get back to the OP, why do you have faith that mass political movements can be effective simply by appealing to facts and cold reason without recourse to emotion?

 

[Augustus]

I suppose that's part of the same of the decline of the Labour movement. It provided more of that narrative.

John Gray (who is always worth reading) was pretty scathing in his criticism:

The party Corbyn has created is not easily defined. Aside from the anti-Semitism that is a strand of its make-up, it has no coherent ideology. The legacy of Marxism is notable for its absence. There is no analysis of changing class structures or any systematic critique of the present condition of capitalism. Such policies as have been floated have been plucked from a blue sky, without any attempt to connect them with earthbound facts. The consensus-seeking values of core Labour voters are dismissed as symptoms of backwardness. As for the concerns about job security and immigration that produced large majorities in favour of Brexit in what used to be safe Labour areas, the Corbynite view seems to be that these are retrograde attitudes that only show how badly working people need re-education.

Corbyn’s refusal to specify any upper limit to immigration at the last party conference in Liverpool illustrated his detachment from electoral realities. But far from being a debilitating weakness – as it would be if Labour were still a conventional political party – this rejection of realistic thinking is the principal source of his strength in the new kind of party he has created. From being a broad-based institution that defended the interests of working people, Labour has morphed into a vehicle for an alienated fringe of the middle class that finds psychological comfort in belonging in an anti-capitalist protest movement. While a dwindling rump of trade union barons continues to act as power-broker, Labour’s northern fortresses are crumbling.

The defining feature of Corbynite Labour is not an anachronistic utopian socialism, but a very modern kind of liberal narcissism. Looking two or three general elections ahead, the party could well reach a membership of over a million even as it struggled to elect a hundred MPs. The party’s role would then be one of permanent opposition, without the privileges that go with being an alternative government.

 

[Kirran]

John Gray (who is always worth reading) was pretty scathing in his criticism:

The party Corbyn has created is not easily defined. Aside from the anti-Semitism that is a strand of its make-up, it has no coherent ideology. The legacy of Marxism is notable for its absence. There is no analysis of changing class structures or any systematic critique of the present condition of capitalism. Such policies as have been floated have been plucked from a blue sky, without any attempt to connect them with earthbound facts. The consensus-seeking values of core Labour voters are dismissed as symptoms of backwardness. As for the concerns about job security and immigration that produced large majorities in favour of Brexit in what used to be safe Labour areas, the Corbynite view seems to be that these are retrograde attitudes that only show how badly working people need re-education.

Corbyn’s refusal to specify any upper limit to immigration at the last party conference in Liverpool illustrated his detachment from electoral realities. But far from being a debilitating weakness – as it would be if Labour were still a conventional political party – this rejection of realistic thinking is the principal source of his strength in the new kind of party he has created. From being a broad-based institution that defended the interests of working people, Labour has morphed into a vehicle for an alienated fringe of the middle class that finds psychological comfort in belonging in an anti-capitalist protest movement. While a dwindling rump of trade union barons continues to act as power-broker, Labour’s northern fortresses are crumbling.

The defining feature of Corbynite Labour is not an anachronistic utopian socialism, but a very modern kind of liberal narcissism. Looking two or three general elections ahead, the party could well reach a membership of over a million even as it struggled to elect a hundred MPs. The party’s role would then be one of permanent opposition, without the privileges that go with being an alternative government.

Scathing indeed. I can't say I agree!

 

[Mister Emu]

As what many would call a far right winger, let me bring some perspective.

This appeals to the part of humanity that loves myth, symbols, grand archetypes, etc. They have a vision of returning to a wonderful, simpler past based around community, tradition and cohesive culture.

I don't see it as a return to the past so much as a respect for the values of the past and their continued application to the present and the future. There is a false sense that the complexities of the now demand a rejection of the things that brought us to this present and bound us as a people.

They view the modern world as degraded and decadent. They view our general malaise and the coming catastrophes in spiritual terms, primarily.

Again, it isn't modernity that is degradatious, but our reactions to it. I also reject that it is primarily in metaphysical terms that the issues are seen; these catastrophes that are happening and on the horizon are also very practical and materially real as well. That realness is one of the reasons that opposition to the left is growing.

They also have a Heroic view of man. This provides emotional satisfaction.

We have a view that recognizes the heroic potential of man. This provides ideals to strive for.

They embrace the irrational and the Jungian.

The left, on the other hand, tends to take a purely rationalist approach

Ahahaha, one of the greatest issues of the left is that in the real world the complete opposite is happening. The left writ large, in the western world, has rejected rationalism. It upholds post modernism and rejection of overarching narratives like logic and rationality. Lived experience and anecdote, the personal story, are of greater importance than statistical analysis of data. If you have a disagreement on immigration, it isn't that you have a separate view of what entrance policies work best for the nation, its people, and the world; you are a bigot who doesn't love brown people enough.

viewing humans as resources or automatons of a sort.

That isn't a rational view though.

 

[idav]

Ahahaha, one of the greatest issues of the left is that in the real world the complete opposite is happening. The left writ large, in the western world, has rejected rationalism. It upholds post modernism and rejection of overarching narratives like logic and rationality. Lived experience and anecdote, the personal story, are of greater importance than statistical analysis of data. If you have a disagreement on immigration, it isn't that you have a separate view of what entrance policies work best for the nation, its people, and the world; you are a bigot who doesn't love brown people enough.

Neither side is really lacking logic. However plenty of times logic an be based on false premises which the right like to do much more often.

Lived experiences don't trump fact. People just have the ability to just see things their way when ignorance isn't realized.

Its when someone bans entry from six countries then proceeds to blame religion that I start wondering about the bigot word.

 

[suncowiam]

You are right.

The modern centre left has no identity other than a vague Humanistic multiculturalism, 'social justice' and 'let people be themselves'. This is why they get sucked into identity politics and political correctness because they lack an ideological focus.

One thing Rationalists never seem to get is that humans are not rational: never have been, never will be. The unwritten assumption on the centre left was that Humanity was on an unstoppable path of progress towards rational Humanism free of myth and superstition. That their values were universal, and those who disagreed only did so out of fear, ignorance or because they were easily fooled. They find it hard to believe that any rational, educated person could ever honestly disagree with them.

They find it hard to accept that history is currently proving them to be wrong.

Unless they can find a new ideology that connects with people in the emotional level, then they are not going to fare well electorally. People now say we live in the 'post-fact era', but facts were never really that important in the first place. The Greeks knew that over 2000 years ago, people need to stop kidding themselves that we have become significantly more rational since then.

Because it is what persuades people. That is a fact.

What you're referring to is ignorance. Plain and simple. What you and others here are arguing for is a justification of ignorance. Just because a group is successful in passing such ignorance does not justify other groups to do the same. That is wrong and continues to propagate more irrationality and ignorance.

We continue to learn that race does not matter, sex does not matter and soon that sexual orientation does not matter. The only thing that alt-right can utilize in their goals is ignorance and emotions. Don't be fooled to think this is actually winning the American public. Goals aren't reach in one linear line. It comes in rises, declines and swings, but the overall goal is to ensure that it continues to rise more than it does decline.

Emotions hold a place in the survival of a species, but it is the intelligence that advances the species. Let's not succumb to our emotions only.

 

[suncowiam]

*

Since when can working families not also fight for human rights???

*

Since when... Never. I misspoke. It should have been AND/OR, but really that's besides the point of my original comment.