The only problem I have with this is the language used. Most people equate "woke", "liberal" and "leftist" identifications when the latter doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the former two. I understand they all frequently get blended together in casual speak though which is pretty careless because it invalidates non-cultural leftism.
Discrediting woke types shouldn't discredit socialism, Marxism, MMT, anti-war and other non-cultural beliefs of the left which have much more practical use and successful track records. The "woke" cultural left unfortunately gives the real left a bad name.
Among ideologues, these go together. Sure, one could break down the main political dimension into various theoretically supported dimensions, and speak of economic socialism vs. free marketism, nationalism vs. internationalism, and so on, but it doesn't matter in this context.
Marxists have higher ratio of autism than social democrats in ssc survey. Maybe this can give a clue about mental differences in between leftist groups.
I'm not so sure about that. It looks to me like countries like Poland and Czechia, that suffered under socialism for decades, are recovering rather rapidly. On the other hand, I don't see how countries like Sweden will ever recover from the demographic effects of their antiracist policies.
I guess that depends of your definition of wokeness. Mass Third World immigration in the West it's a big thing since at least the 60's and it's supported or accepted by all mainstream parties. An argument could be made that they all are and always have been woke but that would mean Reagan and Thatcher were woke.
Perhaps you could clarify your views on climate change. You made a tweet denying the negative impact of global warming for Denmark/Nordic countries and suggested global warming is a good thing. This is a form of climate change denial. This is likely the tweet Lonnqvist read.
He's reading RationalWiki lies, not my obscure tweets. The effect of global warming obviously depends on the location and whether it is too cold or already too warm for human flourishing. Nordic countries, Russia, Alaska etc. are too cold for farming, Africa, Singapore, central America etc. are too warm.
It sounds like the journalist and her publication were reasonably fair to you. Maybe you should pitch some additional clickbaity ideas to her, where she can put you against this Finish researcher. Whenever a publication platforms you, you should take advantage of it.
This professor is Swedish, perhaps Swedish-Finn. The journalist is a man, Karl Koli, unless the last name is written first and Koli is a female name. I don't know.
It seems unlikely that the counter hypothesis would explain all of the differences between whites and non-whites on the item asking if a health care provider has ever stated one possessed a mental illness. What other mechanisms do you think might be posited as having some explanatory contribution?
There is presumably an inherent genetic selection of losers (broadly speaking) into leftism as because this is a "underdog is actually good" ideology, but it seems fairly weak.
I doubt the world is becoming more leftist. Developments of the last 50 years can be used to suggest the opposite. There was an Islamic revolution in Iran. Soviet Union collapsed and Russia has a traditionalist government in nowadays.Taliban took over Afghanistan. In many countries (India, Hungary, United Kingdom, Italy, Turkey, etc.) the ruling party is conservative. AFD is growing in Germany. In America, majority of white men (most successful group) are conservative. This has economic and social impacts. For example 70 percent of America’s top executives are affiliated with the Republican Party.
I should also add that in the Gallup poll you cited liberal values have been on an increasing trend since 2000 while conservative views have pretty much remained stable. So even though last year there was a slight change the long term trends remain. The other article you sent is really interesting actually, thank your for linking it! I think there has always been a trend for richer people to be either moderates or republicans. In my opinion this is due to higher levels of conscientiousness and work ethic. But also once you get to the top there is a selection bias and you kind of feel like there was no luck involved thus leading to the classical conservative “if I can do it anyone can” motif. Anyway even though the increase in republicans leaning executives is interesting it still doesn’t deny the point that liberalism has increased
The non-Trumpist wing of the GOP is non-ideological and fixated on keeping their wealth. They love mass immigration, despite the fact that the atomization and displacement it creates is profoundly unconservative. Warmongering and censorship are now primarily the domain of the Dems, even Bill Kristol has left the GOP. Negrolatry (which might be considered "conservative" i in a 90% black country) and LGBT are now hegemonic within both parties, with the exception of the war about trans under age 18. Radical feminism is still busy doing its main work of destroying of the family. That's also not very conservative.
I think much of the world has liberalized on at least some metrics. It is true that there has been a recent rise in populism, but over the past 50 years liberalism has taken over. Sure there are. few exceptions, but in general even more conservative countries have tamed a bit. Also the U.K version of conservatism is a lot different than Americas, they promote free health care and many other things. But we can also look at the world values survey and observe that the U.K and much of Europe are becoming more aligned with leftist ideas. In the next 10-20 years I imagine that some populist groups will take over but fail miserably like most reactionary movements. Then there will be a backlash towards radical conservative movements and then it will be liberals back in control again... it’s a constant cycle. Eventually liberals will fail... then a new group will take control... etc.
Hi, is it significant that in the last chart, mental health improves (for European-descent) down to conservative and then rises again for very conservative?
It's from Jost. Ultimate cope theory. Luckily, one can just quote the 2012 piece against it as "already deboonked".
"In arguing that system justification explains the ideological happiness gap, Napier and Jost (2008) presented findings from three studies. Their Study 1 found the gap to be related to a measure of ‘‘rationalization of inequality’’ (p. 566), but this mea- sure consisted of six items reflecting legitimate ideological dis- agreements about equity vs. equality and what should be done about unequal outcomes (e.g., ‘‘This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are’’). We showed that a preference for equity (rather than equality) is positively associated with personal agency, and personal agency can ac- count for its role as a mediator of the happiness gap. Their Study 2 found the happiness gap to be related to a one-item measure they called ‘‘meritocracy’’ but which would usually be called per- sonal agency. Their Study 3 found that liberals but not conserva- tives were increasingly unhappy as the Gini index, a measure of inequality in household income, increased. However, we showed that the index and time are confounded. Social and historical changes in the US (e.g., in religious vs. secular attitudes and marital status) are more viable explanations for liberals’ small decreases in happiness in recent decades. These studies do not lead to the conclusion that conservatives are happier because of a propensity to rationalize social injustice."
The only problem I have with this is the language used. Most people equate "woke", "liberal" and "leftist" identifications when the latter doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the former two. I understand they all frequently get blended together in casual speak though which is pretty careless because it invalidates non-cultural leftism.
Discrediting woke types shouldn't discredit socialism, Marxism, MMT, anti-war and other non-cultural beliefs of the left which have much more practical use and successful track records. The "woke" cultural left unfortunately gives the real left a bad name.
Among ideologues, these go together. Sure, one could break down the main political dimension into various theoretically supported dimensions, and speak of economic socialism vs. free marketism, nationalism vs. internationalism, and so on, but it doesn't matter in this context.
Marxists have higher ratio of autism than social democrats in ssc survey. Maybe this can give a clue about mental differences in between leftist groups.
https://georgefrancis.substack.com/p/autism-libertarianism-and-the-political-fringe
They're all bad. Marxism certainly does not have a succesful track records.
Socialism and marxism are far worse than wokeness given that they led to mass murder and economic misery everywhere they were tried.
I'm not so sure about that. It looks to me like countries like Poland and Czechia, that suffered under socialism for decades, are recovering rather rapidly. On the other hand, I don't see how countries like Sweden will ever recover from the demographic effects of their antiracist policies.
I guess that depends of your definition of wokeness. Mass Third World immigration in the West it's a big thing since at least the 60's and it's supported or accepted by all mainstream parties. An argument could be made that they all are and always have been woke but that would mean Reagan and Thatcher were woke.
Yes! Wokeness Drags the Left Off a Cliff!
https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/ohio-police-fatally-shoot-pregnant
Perhaps you could clarify your views on climate change. You made a tweet denying the negative impact of global warming for Denmark/Nordic countries and suggested global warming is a good thing. This is a form of climate change denial. This is likely the tweet Lonnqvist read.
He's reading RationalWiki lies, not my obscure tweets. The effect of global warming obviously depends on the location and whether it is too cold or already too warm for human flourishing. Nordic countries, Russia, Alaska etc. are too cold for farming, Africa, Singapore, central America etc. are too warm.
It sounds like the journalist and her publication were reasonably fair to you. Maybe you should pitch some additional clickbaity ideas to her, where she can put you against this Finish researcher. Whenever a publication platforms you, you should take advantage of it.
This professor is Swedish, perhaps Swedish-Finn. The journalist is a man, Karl Koli, unless the last name is written first and Koli is a female name. I don't know.
Are they looking for a new editor, or will MQ be shutting down?
It seems unlikely that the counter hypothesis would explain all of the differences between whites and non-whites on the item asking if a health care provider has ever stated one possessed a mental illness. What other mechanisms do you think might be posited as having some explanatory contribution?
There is presumably an inherent genetic selection of losers (broadly speaking) into leftism as because this is a "underdog is actually good" ideology, but it seems fairly weak.
I doubt the world is becoming more leftist. Developments of the last 50 years can be used to suggest the opposite. There was an Islamic revolution in Iran. Soviet Union collapsed and Russia has a traditionalist government in nowadays.Taliban took over Afghanistan. In many countries (India, Hungary, United Kingdom, Italy, Turkey, etc.) the ruling party is conservative. AFD is growing in Germany. In America, majority of white men (most successful group) are conservative. This has economic and social impacts. For example 70 percent of America’s top executives are affiliated with the Republican Party.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/08/top-business-execs-more-polarized-than-nation-as-whole/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/506765/social-conservatism-highest-decade.aspx
I should also add that in the Gallup poll you cited liberal values have been on an increasing trend since 2000 while conservative views have pretty much remained stable. So even though last year there was a slight change the long term trends remain. The other article you sent is really interesting actually, thank your for linking it! I think there has always been a trend for richer people to be either moderates or republicans. In my opinion this is due to higher levels of conscientiousness and work ethic. But also once you get to the top there is a selection bias and you kind of feel like there was no luck involved thus leading to the classical conservative “if I can do it anyone can” motif. Anyway even though the increase in republicans leaning executives is interesting it still doesn’t deny the point that liberalism has increased
The non-Trumpist wing of the GOP is non-ideological and fixated on keeping their wealth. They love mass immigration, despite the fact that the atomization and displacement it creates is profoundly unconservative. Warmongering and censorship are now primarily the domain of the Dems, even Bill Kristol has left the GOP. Negrolatry (which might be considered "conservative" i in a 90% black country) and LGBT are now hegemonic within both parties, with the exception of the war about trans under age 18. Radical feminism is still busy doing its main work of destroying of the family. That's also not very conservative.
I think much of the world has liberalized on at least some metrics. It is true that there has been a recent rise in populism, but over the past 50 years liberalism has taken over. Sure there are. few exceptions, but in general even more conservative countries have tamed a bit. Also the U.K version of conservatism is a lot different than Americas, they promote free health care and many other things. But we can also look at the world values survey and observe that the U.K and much of Europe are becoming more aligned with leftist ideas. In the next 10-20 years I imagine that some populist groups will take over but fail miserably like most reactionary movements. Then there will be a backlash towards radical conservative movements and then it will be liberals back in control again... it’s a constant cycle. Eventually liberals will fail... then a new group will take control... etc.
Hi, is it significant that in the last chart, mental health improves (for European-descent) down to conservative and then rises again for very conservative?
Look at the confidence intervals. The differences aren't *statistically* significant.
That stated, I would tend to guess that extremists might tend to have mental health difficulties for two reasons:
1. Having a loose screw to begin with makes it easier to come to extreme political positions.
2. Being an extremist makes you socially isolated, because normal people have trouble relating to you.
People with mental ptoblems are more extreme in both directions.
It's from Jost. Ultimate cope theory. Luckily, one can just quote the 2012 piece against it as "already deboonked".
"In arguing that system justification explains the ideological happiness gap, Napier and Jost (2008) presented findings from three studies. Their Study 1 found the gap to be related to a measure of ‘‘rationalization of inequality’’ (p. 566), but this mea- sure consisted of six items reflecting legitimate ideological dis- agreements about equity vs. equality and what should be done about unequal outcomes (e.g., ‘‘This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are’’). We showed that a preference for equity (rather than equality) is positively associated with personal agency, and personal agency can ac- count for its role as a mediator of the happiness gap. Their Study 2 found the happiness gap to be related to a one-item measure they called ‘‘meritocracy’’ but which would usually be called per- sonal agency. Their Study 3 found that liberals but not conserva- tives were increasingly unhappy as the Gini index, a measure of inequality in household income, increased. However, we showed that the index and time are confounded. Social and historical changes in the US (e.g., in religious vs. secular attitudes and marital status) are more viable explanations for liberals’ small decreases in happiness in recent decades. These studies do not lead to the conclusion that conservatives are happier because of a propensity to rationalize social injustice."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009265661100170X