Embedded Files
LISTEN TO 10 MIN NOTEBOOKLM AI PODCAST EXCERPTS FROM GEOPOLITICS AND COGNITION
TRANSCRIPT TO 10 MIN NOTEBOOKLM AI PODCAST EXCERPTS FROM GEOPOLITICS AND COGNITION
Okay. So today, we're gonna dig into something kinda wild, like, the connection between, you know, geopolitics and how our brains work. Yeah. It's it's one of those things you don't think about a lot. I mean, geopolitics, it's like global power struggles.
Right? Exactly. Like big picture stuff. But this research paper we're looking at, it goes deep on how our individual psychology plays into all of that. It's really kinda revolutionary in a way, you know, because it argues that every society at its core has this tension, people who feel empowered and those who, well, don't.
And this isn't just some abstract psychobabble, this power dynamic. It shapes literally everything. It's true. And what I found so fascinating was how the paper links this idea of empowerment to our views on authority. Like, it really makes you question, do you feel in control of your own life?
Or is it, like, dictated by systems outside of you? Something to think about, Big time. And that's something we'll be unpacking throughout this whole deep dive. Looking forward to it. But first, let's break down what we even mean by empowerment and, disempowerment.
So the paper talks about 2 ways people gain power. The first one's kinda obvious, absolute empowerment. Right. Like, leveling yourself up. Personal growth, creativity, you're expanding your own abilities.
Exactly. But then there's this other thing, relative empowerment. This one's a bit more, A little more slippery. Yeah. For sure.
It's not about creating power for yourself, but more, like, diminishing the power of others. And sometimes that involves, you know, manipulation or control. You get kind of dark. And here's where it gets really interesting. The author actually lists a bunch of institutions that often leave people feeling powerless.
Uh-oh. Here we go. Schools, the military, even governments and big corporations, like, places most of us interact with every day. Right. And to be fair to the author, they're not saying these institutions are inherently BAD.
It's more about how they're structured often with a pretty rigid hierarchy. Like a pyramid. Right. Someone's always gonna be at the bottom. Exactly.
So the question becomes, where do you feel like you fall on that spectrum? Do you generally feel empowered to make your own choices, shape your own destiny, or does it sometimes feel like someone else is calling the shots? Again, something to think about. Absolutely. And it's a great bridge to the next big thing in the paper, the authoritarian dynamic.
I mean, we hear that term all the time these days. But the author breaks it down in a way that just clicked for me. Starts with this concept of normative threats. Yeah. Basically, anything that disrupts the way things are can be seen as a threat, especially by people who, lean toward authoritarianism.
Mhmm. It's all about maintaining order and control. And that fear of chaos of things spinning out of control, that's what fuels those authoritarian tendencies. Right? Totally.
And the author even boils it down to this really simple equation. Intolerance equals authoritarianism multiplied by threat. So the more someone leans towards authoritarianism and the bigger the threat they're feeling, the less tolerance they have for anything outside their worldview. Exactly. And it kinda makes sense if you think about it from, like, an evolutionary perspective when we feel safe and secure we're more open to new ideas, different ways of life.
But when that sense of security is threatened, we instinctively become more cautious, maybe even a little less tolerant to protect ourselves. And the author uses a really powerful example to illustrate this, terrorism. Like, think about it. Terrorism thrives on creating fear and uncertainty. And when we're afraid, it's easy to be drawn to anyone who promises to restore order and security even if it means giving up some of our freedom.
It's like a trade off, but one that can be easily exploited. For sure. It's complex. But for everyone listening, think about how you react to uncertainty. Do you find yourself craving strong leaders, strict rules when things feel chaotic?
Or are you more comfortable with ambiguity, with change? Because how we as individuals respond to that uncertainty, it really does ripple outward. It's true. We're all part of this, and it makes you wonder, like, could understanding our own brains how we react to these feelings of threat be the key to building a more peaceful and tolerant world? It's a big question.
It is. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. We've got a lot more to uncover in this research, especially when it comes to how we think, how we process information, and how that all feeds into these larger societal patterns. It all connects, doesn't it? Typically does.
It's funny. Right? You'd think that people draw into authoritarianism. Like, they just don't be the, you know, the complexities of the world and all that. But this research, it throws you for a loop on that.
Oh, really? How so? So get this. The author argues that authoritarians might not be less intelligent. They might actually value intelligence more than, you know, us more freedom loving folks.
Wait. What? How does that work? Seems kinda backwards, doesn't it? Like, how can you value intelligence but still fall into those, like, rigid authoritarian ways of thinking?
It's all in how we define intelligence, I think. See, the research makes this distinction between intelligence meaning your ability to solve problems someone puts in front of you versus understanding, which is more about, like, grasping the why behind things and then coming up with creative solution solutions that actually fit the situation. So it's like you can know all the grammar rules of a language perfectly, but that doesn't mean you can tell a good story. Right. Exactly.
Spot on. And what the researcher is suggesting is that for some people, intelligence is more about conformity. Knowing the right answers, sticking to the rules, not rocking the boat too much. Makes you think about our education system, doesn't it? Like, do we emphasize just memorizing stuff and specializing in one tiny area?
Or are we actually teaching people how to think critically, how to challenge the status quo? It's a huge e question. Mhmm. Because if we wanna break free from these rigid power structures, if we're serious about a more equitable, just world channel, we need critical thinkers. Yeah.
People who can, you know, see things from different angles. Totally. And that actually brings us to what might seem like a completely different topic, but it's all connected, I swear. The researcher makes this bold claim. They think a lot of the conflict and violence we see both personally and globally, it comes down to shame.
It's a big claim Yeah. Right. For sure. But before everyone listening freaks out, it's not like, oh, if you feel ashamed, you're gonna become violent. There's way more to it than that.
Okay. So it's more complicated than just feeling ashamed. What are these other, like, ingredients that the researcher says contribute to violence? So they lay out 3 main preconditions. The first one is this deep seated sense of personal inadequacy.
And a lot of times, it's hidden, you know, masked by this need to act tough to project strength and confidence. So it's like that classic overcompensation thing. We see it all the time. Right? People who are deeply insecure trying to hide it behind, like, arrogance or aggression.
Makes you wonder how much of what we perceive as strength is actually just like a cover up for a fragile ego. A 100%. And this ties directly into the second precondition. Yeah. Not having healthy ways to, like, regain that sense of self worth or status.
If someone feels inadequate, 80 believes that violence is the only way to prove themselves, to claw their way back to some level of respect. We we could see where that might lead. Right. It becomes like this, a last resort, a desperate attempt to get some control back in a world that feels like it's spinning out of control. Exactly.
And this loops back to our whole conversation on disempowerment. Right? When people feel trapped, like they've got zero agency, they're way more likely to lash out. And that brings us to the 3rd precondition. This one's maybe the most unsettling.
The inability to feel empathy or guilt or even fear for others. And this is where that whole understanding thing we talked about, that ability to connect with other people's experiences, it becomes absolutely essential. Without empathy, without being able to see the world through someone else's eyes, even a little bit. Mhmm. It's just too easy to dehumanize them, to justify violence as, like, unnecessary evil.
So bringing all back to geopolitics and power, are you saying that violence on a personal level and a global scale could often stem from this, like, toxic cocktail of shame, inadequacy, and a lack of empathy? Yeah. It's kinda dark, isn't it? It is. But I think It is kinda dark, but it's also, like, a call to action, isn't it, to be more aware of those tendencies, not just in ourselves, but in the systems we create.
Yeah. If we can understand where this darkness comes from, maybe we can actually, like, shine a light on it and start to change things. Totally. And remember that whole intelligence versus understanding thing? The author's big takeaway is that understanding both in ourselves and, you know, extending it to others, that might be the key to breaking these cycles of shame and violence.
So it's not enough to be smart. You have to be wise. Yeah. Like, book smarts versus, like, life smarts. You know?
For sure. And a big part of that is cultivating empathy and compassion. Right? Really trying to see where other people are coming from even when you totally disagree. A 100%.
And that actually connects to something else the author talks about. Yep. There's difference between, like, coping and thriving. Coping is just getting by, going through the motions. But thriving, that's about engaging with the world in this really courageous, compassionate way even when it's hard.
Man, it makes you think about what we could accomplish if we actually prioritize that, you know. Not just in our own little bubbles, but globally. Like, what if instead of just focusing on, I don't know, economic growth or military power, we actually put just as much energy into building a world where everyone feels seen and heard and valued. No. That would be something.
Right. It's a nice thought at least. This whole conversation has really been eye opening, I gotta say. I mean, we've gone from geopolitics to the deepest parts of the human mind. And it's clear that those things are way more connected than I think we realize.
It's all connected. The more we understand those connections, the better chance we have of, you know, actually making a difference, building a world that's more just, more equitable, more peaceful. Well said. Couldn't agree more. And on that note, we'll leave you all to ponder that.
Thanks for joining us for this deep dive into the complexities of geopolitics, power, and the human mind. It's been real. Absolutely. Until next time. Stay curious, everybody.
XXXXXXXXXXX
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c5528aee-7425-4efa-9051-fc82845f915b
NOTEBOOKLM AI REVIEW OF EXPERTS FROM GEOPOLITICS AND COGNITION.COM
Summary
The excerpts from "Geopolitics and Cognition" argue that societal hierarchies and geopolitical trends are influenced by individual psychology. The author, Doctor Andringa, proposes a theory that contrasts authoritarian and libertarian mindsets. Authoritarians, he contends, are characterized by a shallow understanding of the world, a dependence on external authority, and a fear of complexity, leading to intolerance of diversity and a susceptibility to manipulation through fear. In contrast, libertarians are characterized by a deeper understanding, a preference for autonomy, and a capacity for critical thinking, allowing them to embrace diversity and complexity. The text explores how these contrasting mindsets influence morality, political behavior, and even violence, with authoritarians being more prone to violence due to a perceived lack of agency and a fear of shame.
What are the key psychological and cognitive differences between authoritarians and libertarians, and how do these differences influence their views on the world, authority, and social control?
Differences Between Authoritarians and Libertarians
The sources describe the key psychological and cognitive differences between authoritarians and libertarians and how these differences affect their worldviews, perspectives on authority, and approaches to social control.
Attitudes Towards a Complex World
At the core, authoritarians and libertarians hold contrasting views on complexity:
●
Authoritarians: They demonstrate an aversion to a complex world and seek to simplify it. Facing increased complexity, authoritarians experience fear and exhibit intolerance towards diversity as a means of reducing complexity1.
●
Libertarians: Conversely, libertarians can tolerate and even appreciate a certain level of complexity. They respond to increased complexity with heightened interest and enhanced cognitive engagement, seeking to master the complexity rather than eliminate it1.
This fundamental difference in attitude towards complexity stems from distinct cognitive modes:
●
Authoritarians: They predominantly operate in a "coping mode" of thought, prioritizing control and certainty. This left-hemisphere-dominant mode relies on external authorities, such as social norms, ideologies, and hierarchies, to provide structure and simplify the world234.
●
Libertarians: They favor a "pervasive optimization mode," marked by exploration, understanding, and adaptation. This right-hemisphere-dominant mode values autonomy and seeks to understand and work with the world's inherent dynamics to achieve global optimization56.
Views on Authority and Social Control
These contrasting cognitive modes shape their perspectives on authority and social control:
●
Authoritarians: Dependent on external authorities for a sense of security and order, authoritarians readily submit to established hierarchies and social norms78. They perceive challenges to these authorities as threats to their well-being, leading to intolerance and a desire to suppress dissent910. Authoritarians may support thought policing, seeking to eliminate ideas that challenge established norms or authorities to maintain a sense of control and order1112.
●
Libertarians: Valuing autonomy and independent thought, libertarians are less reliant on external authorities. They see social norms and hierarchies as human constructs, subject to scrutiny and adaptation8. They favor dialogue and engagement with diverse perspectives, even those challenging established norms. Libertarians advocate for individual liberty and self-expression, emphasizing personal responsibility and a nuanced understanding of the consequences of actions13.
Cognitive Capacity and Openness to Experience
The sources suggest a correlation between cognitive capacity, openness to experience, and these contrasting worldviews:
●
Authoritarians: The sources propose that authoritarianism is heavily influenced by cognitive incapacity, particularly an inability to cope with social complexity14. This, coupled with lower openness to experience, can lead individuals to cling to established norms and authorities for guidance and support14.
●
Libertarians: Characterized by greater cognitive capacity and openness to experience, libertarians can navigate complexity and engage with novel situations more effectively1516. They demonstrate a greater willingness to challenge the status quo, leading to personal growth and societal development.
Shame and Violence
The sources also examine the role of shame in driving violence, particularly among individuals with a limited understanding of the world:
●
Authoritarians: Due to their reliance on external validation and a "coping mode" of thought, authoritarians are particularly vulnerable to shame when confronted with their perceived inadequacy1718. The sources posit that violence, in these cases, becomes a desperate attempt to mask this shame and reclaim a sense of control and pride19.
●
Libertarians: While not explicitly addressed in the context of violence, the sources suggest that libertarians, with their focus on personal responsibility and understanding, might be less likely to resort to violence as a means of coping with shame.
The sources present a complex interplay of psychological and cognitive factors that differentiate authoritarians and libertarians. These differences have profound implications for how these individuals perceive the world, interact with authority, and approach social control, ultimately shaping their values and behaviors within a society.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
How does the text relate the concept of "pathological normality" to authoritarianism and societal control?
Pathological Normality: Adaptation to a Dysfunctional System
The sources connect the idea of "pathological normality" to authoritarianism and societal control by illustrating how individuals can adapt to and even perpetuate unhealthy or dysfunctional systems. This adaptation, while seemingly "normal" within the context of the flawed system, masks underlying problems and prevents meaningful change.
The sources highlight several key aspects of this relationship:
●
Definition and Description: The sources define "pathological normality" as a state where individuals become so accustomed to a deeply unhealthy or undesirable situation that they no longer recognize it as problematic. They perceive the pathological as normal and desirable, perpetuating the very structures that hinder their well-being. This concept aligns with Erich Fromm's observation that individuals who conform to a profoundly abnormal society exhibit a form of mental sickness, mistaking their adaptation for health.1
●
Role of Disempowerment: The sources argue that pathological normality thrives in environments characterized by pervasive disempowerment. Individuals subjected to child abuse, regimented education, suppression of curiosity, and exposure to negative role models may internalize a sense of helplessness and dependence on external authorities.2 This dependence can make them susceptible to accepting and perpetuating harmful norms.
●
Connection to Authoritarianism: The sources establish a strong link between pathological normality and authoritarianism. Individuals exhibiting pathological normality readily conform to authority figures and established social norms, even when those norms are detrimental to their well-being or violate their personal sense of morality. This aligns with the description of authoritarians as individuals who prioritize obedience and conformity over independent thought and action, often exhibiting a fear of complexity and change.123
●
Societal Control Mechanisms: The sources suggest that those in power can exploit pathological normality to maintain societal control. By perpetuating conditions that foster disempowerment, fear, and dependence, authorities can create a population that accepts and even defends the status quo, regardless of its inherent flaws.456 This can be achieved through various means, including manipulating societal fears through propaganda and controlling access to information.78
●
Examples:
○
The sources cite the example of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official responsible for the deportation of Jews to concentration camps. Eichmann defended his actions as mere obedience to orders, showcasing how pathological normality within a totalitarian regime can normalize even the most horrific atrocities.910
○
The sources also point to the potential for thought policing as a mechanism of societal control. By suppressing dissenting voices and uncomfortable truths, authorities can reinforce pathological normality and prevent individuals from questioning the established order.111213
The sources present a concerning picture of how "pathological normality" can take root in individuals and societies, hindering personal growth and enabling the perpetuation of harmful systems. This concept underscores the importance of critical thinking, individual empowerment, and challenging the status quo, even when it seems "normal."
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the key differences between authoritarianism and libertarianism according to the text?
Key Differences Between Authoritarianism and Libertarianism
The sources outline several key differences between authoritarianism and libertarianism, focusing on their contrasting cognitive modes, attitudes towards authority, and approaches to social complexity.
●
Cognitive Modes: The sources posit that authoritarians and libertarians utilize distinct cognitive modes:
○
Authoritarians predominantly operate in a "coping mode" of thought, characterized by a need for control and certainty. This left-hemisphere-dominant mode relies heavily on external authorities, such as established social norms, ideologies, and hierarchical structures, to simplify the world and provide a sense of security1234. This reliance on external validation makes them less likely to question the status quo or engage in independent thought, particularly when facing situations perceived as threatening or exceeding their coping capacity5678.
○
Libertarians, on the other hand, favor a "pervasive optimization mode" driven by exploration, understanding, and adaptation91011. This right-hemisphere-dominant mode values autonomy and seeks to understand the world's complexities, working with its inherent dynamics rather than seeking to impose rigid control21112. This allows them to navigate novel situations, embrace diverse perspectives, and adapt their behavior based on a nuanced understanding of the consequences of their actions131415.
●
Attitudes Towards Authority: These differing cognitive modes shape contrasting attitudes towards authority:
○
Authoritarians readily submit to established hierarchies and view challenges to these authorities as threats to their well-being81617. They rely on external authorities to define what is "good" and "bad," adhering to established norms and rules even when those norms might be detrimental to their personal growth or violate a broader sense of morality1819202122. This can manifest as a willingness to engage in thought policing, suppressing dissenting voices or uncomfortable truths to maintain a sense of order and control8232425.
○
Libertarians, valuing autonomy and individual judgment, are less reliant on external authorities for validation or guidance9132627. They see social norms and hierarchies as human constructs, subject to scrutiny, adaptation, and even rejection when necessary1228. They favor dialogue, engage with diverse perspectives, and emphasize personal responsibility in navigating the complexities of the world11.
●
Approaches to Social Complexity: Authoritarians and libertarians differ significantly in their approaches to social complexity:
○
Authoritarians exhibit an aversion to complexity, experiencing fear and seeking to simplify the world around them29. Facing increased complexity, they may resort to intolerance and a desire to suppress diversity as a means of reducing uncertainty and reasserting a sense of control673031. They may support policies that enforce conformity, limit individual expression, and maintain clear boundaries between "in-groups" and "out-groups"632.
○
Libertarians demonstrate a greater capacity for tolerating and even appreciating complexity29. Rather than seeking to eliminate it, they engage with complexity through exploration, learning, and adaptation715. They view diversity as a source of strength and value individual expression, advocating for a society that allows for a broader range of perspectives and experiences.
The sources ultimately present a nuanced perspective on authoritarianism and libertarianism, recognizing that these constructs exist on a spectrum rather than as absolute categories. Individuals may exhibit both authoritarian and libertarian tendencies depending on the context, their personal experiences, and the perceived level of threat or complexity in their environment. However, understanding the core differences in their cognitive modes, attitudes towards authority, and approaches to social complexity provides valuable insights into their divergent worldviews and how these differences shape their interactions within a society.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the key differences between the "coping" and "pervasive optimization" modes of thought?
Contrasting Cognitive Modes: Coping vs. Pervasive Optimization
The sources contrast two distinct modes of thought: the "coping mode" and the "pervasive optimization mode." These modes reflect different cognitive approaches to navigating the complexities of the world, shaping individuals' attitudes towards authority, and influencing their responses to challenges and opportunities.
Coping Mode: Seeking Control and Certainty
The "coping mode," primarily associated with the left hemisphere of the brain, prioritizes control and certainty. This mode aims to simplify the world by adhering to established structures and minimizing perceived threats12.
●
Driven by a Need for Security: Individuals operating in this mode are motivated by a need for security and predictability. They seek to maintain a sense of order in their lives and may experience anxiety or fear when confronted with situations that challenge their perceived control13.
●
Reliance on External Authority: This mode heavily relies on external authorities such as social norms, ideologies, and hierarchical structures to define their understanding of the world and dictate their behavior24. They may readily submit to these authorities, even when those authorities might not have their best interests at heart56.
●
Limited Tolerance for Complexity: The coping mode thrives in closed systems with clear boundaries and predictable outcomes. Individuals operating in this mode may exhibit a low tolerance for complexity, diversity, and ambiguity, perceiving these factors as threats to their sense of order and control78. They may seek to reduce complexity by suppressing dissenting voices, adhering rigidly to established norms, and avoiding situations that require adaptation or improvisation8910.
Pervasive Optimization Mode: Embracing Exploration and Adaptation
The "pervasive optimization mode," linked to the right hemisphere of the brain, prioritizes exploration, understanding, and adaptation11. This mode thrives on engaging with the complexities of the world, seeking to understand its inherent dynamics and work with them to achieve broader goals1112.
●
Driven by Curiosity and Growth: Individuals operating in this mode are motivated by curiosity, a desire for growth, and a willingness to engage with novel experiences and perspectives. They find satisfaction in understanding how things work and seek to continually expand their knowledge and capabilities1113.
●
Emphasis on Personal Agency: This mode values personal agency and autonomy. Individuals operating in this mode trust their judgment, make decisions based on their understanding of the situation, and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions1415. They may challenge established norms when those norms conflict with their values or understanding of the world1516.
●
Embracing Complexity and Diversity: The pervasive optimization mode flourishes in open systems characterized by dynamism, interconnectedness, and continual evolution. Individuals operating in this mode embrace complexity and diversity as sources of learning and growth. They are comfortable with ambiguity, adapt readily to changing circumstances, and seek to understand the interconnectedness of systems rather than seeking to simplify them15.
In Summary: The "coping" and "pervasive optimization" modes represent fundamentally different ways of thinking and interacting with the world. While the coping mode seeks to maintain control and certainty through simplification and adherence to external authorities, the pervasive optimization mode embraces exploration, adaptation, and a deeper understanding of complex systems. As our previous analysis of authoritarianism and libertarianism suggests, individuals predominantly operating in the coping mode may exhibit stronger authoritarian tendencies, while those favoring the pervasive optimization mode may lean towards libertarianism. However, it's essential to remember that these modes exist on a spectrum, and individuals can exhibit characteristics of both depending on the context and their personal experiences.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the three preconditions for violence according to the text?
Three Preconditions for Violence
The sources describe three preconditions that, when met, can lead individuals to engage in violence, particularly those with a "shallow understanding" of the world, aligning with the "coping mode" of thought discussed previously:
1.
Overwhelming Shame of Agentic Inadequacy: The sources, particularly drawing on the work of James Gilligan, emphasize the role of shame, specifically the shame associated with perceived agentic inadequacy, as a primary driver of violence12. Individuals who lack a nuanced understanding of the world may struggle to cope with complex situations and achieve their goals, leading to feelings of inadequacy and shame, especially when these struggles are publicly visible34. This type of shame cuts to the core of their sense of self-efficacy, triggering a desperate need to protect their ego and reassert a sense of control, even through violence.
2.
Perceived Lack of Non-Violent Alternatives: When individuals feel trapped in their shame and see no other way to preserve their self-esteem or escape the situation, they are more likely to resort to violence5. They perceive violence as the only remaining option to ward off feelings of humiliation, disrespect, or the disintegration of their identity, particularly their sense of masculinity and control67. The sources highlight that this perception of limited alternatives is often rooted in their shallow understanding, preventing them from recognizing or accessing non-violent solutions.
3.
Absence of Inhibiting Emotions: The sources suggest that individuals are more susceptible to violence when they lack the emotional capacities, such as love, guilt, and fear, that typically inhibit violent impulses8. The overwhelming shame associated with agentic inadequacy can overshadow these inhibiting emotions, making it difficult for individuals to empathize with others or recognize the consequences of their actions910. This emotional deficit, combined with the perceived lack of alternatives, creates a dangerous pathway for violence as a means of self-preservation and a desperate attempt to escape the crippling effects of shame.
The sources emphasize that these preconditions for violence are particularly relevant to individuals operating predominantly in the "coping mode" of thought. Their reliance on external validation, need for control, and fear of complexity make them more susceptible to experiencing the shame of agentic inadequacy and perceiving limited alternatives, particularly when facing challenges that expose their limited understanding of the world.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the three preconditions for violence according to the text?
Three Preconditions for Violence: A Closer Look
The sources, particularly drawing on the work of James Gilligan, outline three preconditions for violence, specifically focusing on individuals with a limited understanding of the world who operate predominantly in the "coping mode" of thought:
1.
Shame of Agentic Inadequacy: The most crucial precondition for violence, according to the sources, is an overwhelming sense of shame stemming from perceived agentic inadequacy.12 This inadequacy arises from a "shallow and narrow basis of understanding" that leaves individuals ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of the world.1 Their limited understanding often leads to unintended consequences and an inability to effectively cope with challenges, resulting in feelings of shame, especially when these struggles are publicly visible.12 The sources emphasize that this shame is not merely about making mistakes but about a deep-seated fear of being exposed as fundamentally incapable of shaping one's life and circumstances. This fear is deeply intertwined with the "coping mode" of thought, as individuals operating in this mode rely heavily on external validation and maintaining a sense of control. When their coping mechanisms fail, and their perceived inadequacy is exposed, it triggers a profound sense of shame that can drive them to violence in an attempt to regain control and protect their fragile sense of self.
2.
Lack of Non-Violent Alternatives: The second precondition for violence emerges when individuals, consumed by shame and a sense of powerlessness, perceive a lack of non-violent alternatives for preserving their self-esteem or escaping their situation.3 Their "shallow understanding" blinds them to potential solutions, leaving them feeling trapped and desperate.34 Violence, in their limited view, becomes the only viable option to avoid further humiliation, defend their sense of self, and reassert control over their circumstances. This perceived absence of alternatives is further exacerbated by the authoritarian tendency to rely on external authority for guidance and validation. Lacking the internal resources and self-awareness to explore other possibilities, they remain fixated on violence as the only solution to their perceived crisis.
3.
Suppression of Inhibiting Emotions: The final precondition for violence involves the suppression of inhibiting emotions—love, guilt, and fear—that typically serve as internal restraints against aggression.5 The overwhelming shame of perceived inadequacy can eclipse these emotions, making it difficult for individuals to empathize with others or fully grasp the consequences of their actions.6 Their focus narrows to self-preservation, fueled by a desperate need to alleviate their shame and salvage their wounded ego, even at the expense of others. This lack of empathy and remorse, combined with the perceived absence of alternatives, creates a dangerous emotional landscape where violence can flourish as a seemingly justifiable response to their internal turmoil.
The sources highlight that these preconditions are interconnected and often feed into each other, creating a vicious cycle that can culminate in violence. The shame of agentic inadequacy, amplified by a lack of alternative solutions and the suppression of inhibiting emotions, forms a potent recipe for aggression. This analysis underscores the importance of addressing not only the outward manifestations of violence but also the underlying psychological and cognitive factors that contribute to its development.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
How does the text describe the relationship between intelligence and understanding?
Intelligence Does Not Equal Understanding: A Look at Authoritarianism
The sources do not directly equate intelligence with understanding. However, they do establish a clear distinction between the two concepts, highlighting that intelligence, particularly as traditionally measured, does not necessarily translate into a nuanced understanding of the world.
While the sources do not suggest that authoritarians are inherently less intelligent, they emphasize that authoritarians often lack a deep, interconnected understanding of the world, despite potentially possessing average or even above-average intelligence.
Here's a breakdown of how the sources differentiate between intelligence and understanding:
●
Intelligence as Measured by IQ: The sources, particularly in their discussion of authoritarianism, critique the traditional emphasis on IQ as a measure of intelligence. They argue that IQ tests primarily assess an individual's ability to conform to expected patterns and provide pre-determined "correct" answers, reflecting a form of "intellectual compliance." This type of intelligence, often favored within hierarchical systems, does not necessarily translate into a nuanced understanding of complex, real-world situations.
●
Understanding as Pervasive and Interconnected: In contrast to the narrow scope of IQ-based intelligence, the sources define understanding as a more profound and interconnected grasp of how the world works. This understanding extends beyond simply knowing facts and figures to encompass an appreciation for the complexities, interdependencies, and dynamic nature of systems. It involves critical thinking, the ability to synthesize information from diverse sources, and a willingness to adapt one's perspectives based on new knowledge and experiences.
●
Authoritarianism as Intelligence Without Understanding: The sources argue that authoritarians often exhibit a form of "intelligence without understanding." They may excel in structured environments that reward conformity and adherence to established rules. However, their "shallow understanding" leaves them ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of an ever-changing world. They may cling to rigid beliefs, struggle to adapt to new information, and resort to simplistic solutions, even when those solutions prove inadequate or counterproductive.
●
The Importance of Openness to Experience: Expanding on the concept of understanding, the sources emphasize the role of openness to experience, a personality trait associated with curiosity, intellectual curiosity, and a willingness to engage with diverse perspectives. Individuals high in openness to experience are more likely to develop a nuanced understanding of the world because they actively seek out new information, challenge their assumptions, and embrace the inherent complexity of life.
In essence, the sources posit that true understanding requires more than just intelligence as conventionally defined. It necessitates a shift from rote memorization and rule-following to a more engaged, inquisitive, and adaptable approach to navigating the world. This distinction aligns with the contrast between the "coping" and "pervasive optimization" modes of thought, with the latter embodying a deeper and more interconnected understanding of complex systems.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the main differences between "cognition for disorder" and "cognition for order"?
Cognition for Disorder vs. Cognition for Order: Navigating a Complex World
The sources introduce the concepts of "cognition for disorder" and "cognition for order" to explain two distinct approaches to navigating the world's inherent complexity. These contrasting modes of cognition reflect different ways of perceiving, processing, and responding to challenges, shaping our understanding and interactions with the world around us.
Cognition for Disorder (Exploration and Possibilities)
●
Embracing Complexity: This mode of cognition thrives on exploration and discovery, readily engaging with the uncertain, the unknown, and the unpredictable. It involves a willingness to step outside of rigid structures and comfortable routines to explore new possibilities and discover hidden patterns within seemingly chaotic systems.1
●
Playful and Participatory: The sources characterize "cognition for disorder" as inherently playful and participatory. It involves actively engaging with the environment, experimenting with different approaches, and learning through trial and error. This playful exploration allows individuals to develop a more intuitive and embodied understanding of complex systems, uncovering their underlying dynamics and revealing potential opportunities.1
●
Open-Ended Development: This type of cognition aligns with the concept of "open-ended development" – a continuous process of exploration, consolidation, and testing that gradually expands an individual's capabilities and understanding.1 By embracing disorder and uncertainty, individuals utilizing this mode of cognition continually refine their knowledge and skills, adapting to the ever-changing nature of the world.
Cognition for Order (Certainty and Control)
●
Seeking Stability and Predictability: In contrast to the explorative nature of "cognition for disorder," "cognition for order" prioritizes stability, predictability, and control. Individuals operating in this mode seek to reduce complexity by imposing order on their surroundings, often through the application of established rules, structures, and hierarchies.1
●
Problem-Solving Focused: The sources associate "cognition for order" with a more problem-solving oriented approach, drawing on existing knowledge and familiar strategies to address challenges within a defined set of parameters.1 This mode of cognition excels in situations where efficiency and accuracy are paramount, relying on proven methods to achieve desired outcomes.
●
Maintaining Agency Through Control: The sources suggest that a key motivation behind "cognition for order" is the need to maintain a sense of agency, particularly in the face of a complex and potentially overwhelming world. By establishing control over their environment and limiting uncertainty, individuals operating in this mode seek to protect their sense of self-efficacy and avoid feelings of inadequacy or helplessness.12
Navigating the Two Modes
The sources do not present these two modes of cognition as mutually exclusive. Instead, they suggest that individuals possess the capacity for both, drawing on each mode depending on the specific context and their personal inclinations. However, the sources, particularly in their discussion of authoritarianism, highlight the potential pitfalls of over-reliance on "cognition for order." When individuals become fixated on control and rigidly adhere to established structures, they risk stifling creativity, limiting their ability to adapt to change, and overlooking the potential benefits of embracing complexity.
The interplay between these two modes of cognition mirrors the dynamic tension between order and disorder that characterizes the world we inhabit. While a degree of order is essential for stability and progress, an overemphasis on control can stifle innovation and growth. Embracing a balance between these two modes, fostering both exploration and consolidation, allows individuals to navigate complexity more effectively, unlocking new possibilities and shaping a more nuanced understanding of the world and their place within it.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the key differences between authoritarianism and libertarianism in terms of moral values?
Moral Values at the Core: Authoritarianism vs. Libertarianism
The sources offer a nuanced perspective on the contrasting moral values of authoritarianism and libertarianism. Rather than simply presenting these ideologies as opposing viewpoints on a political spectrum, they frame the differences in terms of divergent psychological and cognitive patterns, particularly in how individuals perceive and respond to the complexity of the world.
The Authoritarian Moral Compass: Order, Conformity, and Control
At the heart of the authoritarian worldview lies a deep-seated need for order, conformity, and control. This need stems from a "shallow and narrow basis of understanding" that leaves individuals feeling overwhelmed by the complexities of the world. To manage this perceived complexity, authoritarians gravitate towards:
●
External Authority and Social Norms: Lacking confidence in their own judgment, authoritarians rely heavily on external authorities—parents, leaders, religious figures, societal norms—to dictate right and wrong and guide their behavior. These external sources provide a sense of stability and certainty in an otherwise chaotic world.
●
Uniformity and In-Group Loyalty: Authoritarians place a high value on uniformity and sameness, seeing diversity and nonconformity as threats to their carefully constructed sense of order. They prioritize loyalty to the in-group—those who share their values and beliefs—and often exhibit suspicion or hostility towards those perceived as different or outside the norm.
●
Suppression of Dissent and Deviance: To maintain their sense of control and order, authoritarians often support the suppression of dissenting voices and behaviors that challenge the established order. This can manifest as intolerance towards opposing viewpoints, a willingness to censor information that contradicts their beliefs, and a tendency to demonize or ostracize those who deviate from the norm.
Three Additional Moral Virtues:
Adding to the complexity of their moral framework, authoritarians often embrace three additional moral virtues, as described in the sources:
●
Ingroup/Loyalty: This virtue prioritizes loyalty and obedience to the in-group, often at the expense of those perceived as outsiders.
●
Authority/Respect: This virtue emphasizes respect for authority figures and adherence to established hierarchies, even when those authorities engage in questionable actions.
●
Purity/Sanctity: This virtue emphasizes moral purity and righteousness, often leading to the condemnation of behaviors perceived as impure or taboo, even if those behaviors cause no harm to others.
The sources suggest that authoritarians struggle to grasp that these additional virtues can be effectively addressed through the core libertarian values of preventing harm and respecting individual autonomy. This limited understanding contributes to their rigid moral framework and their tendency to perceive threats where none exist.
The Libertarian Moral Compass: Individual Autonomy, Harm Reduction, and Understanding
In stark contrast to the authoritarian's emphasis on control and conformity, libertarians prioritize:
●
Individual Autonomy and Freedom: Libertarians hold individual freedom and self-determination as paramount values. They believe that individuals should have the right to make their own choices, even if those choices deviate from societal norms, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
●
Harm Reduction and Responsibility: Rather than relying on external authorities to dictate morality, libertarians focus on minimizing harm to others. They believe that individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness and fulfillment, provided they do so responsibly and without causing harm.
●
Critical Thinking and Openness: Libertarians value critical thinking, open inquiry, and a willingness to engage with diverse perspectives. They are less likely to blindly accept dogma or authority and more inclined to question assumptions, seek evidence, and adapt their beliefs based on new information and experiences.
This emphasis on understanding aligns with the "pervasive optimization" mode of thought discussed in the sources. By embracing complexity and seeking to understand the interconnectedness of systems, libertarians strive to create a world where individuals can thrive while minimizing harm to themselves and others.
Moral Values and the Potential for Violence:
The contrasting moral values of authoritarianism and libertarianism play a significant role in the sources' exploration of violence. The authoritarian tendency to perceive threats in diversity, combined with their reliance on control and suppression, can create a fertile ground for aggression. When their rigid worldview is challenged or their sense of control is threatened, individuals operating from this mindset may resort to violence as a way to reassert dominance, punish deviance, and restore their sense of order.
In contrast, the libertarian focus on individual autonomy, harm reduction, and understanding fosters a more peaceful and tolerant approach to navigating differences. By embracing complexity and respecting individual rights, libertarianism offers a framework for coexistence that values dialogue, empathy, and the pursuit of shared solutions.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
How does the excerpt explain the connection between shame and violence?
Shame, Violence, and the Fragile Authoritarian Ego
The excerpt explores the connection between shame and violence, particularly within the context of authoritarianism, framing it as a consequence of a shallow understanding of the world, a reliance on external validation, and a desperate need to protect a fragile sense of self-worth.
Here's how the sources articulate this connection:
1. Shame as a Public Exposure of Inadequacy:
The sources present shame as an intensely painful emotion rooted in the fear of having one's perceived inadequacies exposed to public scrutiny. This fear is particularly acute for authoritarians, who rely heavily on external validation and social conformity to maintain their sense of self-worth. When their carefully constructed facade of competence and control crumbles, they experience shame as an existential threat to their identity.
2. The Authoritarian Dynamic and the Drive for Control:
As we discussed, the "authoritarian dynamic," as described by Stenner, posits that intolerance increases in direct proportion to an individual's authoritarian tendencies and the perceived level of threat. For authoritarians, a "normative threat"—anything that challenges their worldview or disrupts their sense of order—can trigger intense fear and insecurity.
This dynamic sheds light on the connection between shame and violence. When authoritarians experience shame as a result of their perceived inadequacy, they may lash out violently as a way to:
●
Reassert Control: Violence becomes a tool for re-establishing a sense of dominance and control in situations where their authority or competence has been challenged.
●
Punish Deviance: Authoritarians may direct violence towards those they perceive as responsible for their shame, whether individuals who directly challenge them or those seen as representing a threat to their worldview.
●
Suppression of Shame: By silencing dissent and eliminating sources of perceived disorder, they attempt to suppress the shame that threatens their fragile ego.
3. The Destructive Pursuit of Pride:
The sources suggest that a key motivator for violence, particularly among those with authoritarian tendencies, is the desire to replace shame with pride. Pride, in this context, is understood as the satisfaction derived from successful coping and the affirmation of one's self-worth through external validation. However, when this pursuit of pride becomes intertwined with a need to dominate, control, and maintain a narrow and rigid worldview, it can manifest in destructive and violent ways.
4. Gilligan's Insights into Shame and Violence:
The excerpt draws heavily on the work of James Gilligan, a psychiatrist specializing in violence, to illuminate the psychological underpinnings of this connection. Gilligan argues that shame is a primary motivator for violence, particularly among men, who are often socialized to equate self-worth with power, control, and a narrow definition of masculinity.
Gilligan highlights three preconditions that, when present, significantly increase the likelihood of shame leading to violence:
●
Overwhelming Shame: The individual must experience shame as intensely painful and threatening to their sense of self.
●
Lack of Non-Violent Alternatives: The individual perceives no other way to alleviate their shame or restore their self-worth.
●
Absence of Inhibiting Emotions: They lack empathy, guilt, or fear, which would normally prevent them from harming others.
In Conclusion:
The excerpt paints a bleak picture of the interplay between shame, violence, and authoritarianism. It suggests that when individuals are unable to cope with complexity, rely on external validation, and cling to a fragile sense of self-worth, shame can become a dangerous catalyst for aggression and brutality. The sources imply that by fostering greater understanding, promoting empathy, and valuing individual autonomy, we can create a society that mitigates these destructive tendencies and fosters a more peaceful and compassionate world.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What is the connection between the "coping mode" of thought and the "pervasive optimization mode"?
Navigating a Complex World: Comparing the "Coping Mode" and "Pervasive Optimization Mode"
The sources introduce two distinct modes of thought, "coping mode" and "pervasive optimization mode," which reflect how individuals perceive and engage with the world's complexities. These modes are not presented as rigid categories, but rather as fluid states that individuals may shift between depending on their sense of agency, understanding of the situation, and perceived level of threat.
The "Coping Mode": Seeking Control in a Threatening World
The "coping mode" is characterized by a focus on maintaining or regaining control, particularly in situations perceived as threatening or exceeding one's capacity to cope. This mode aligns with the authoritarian mindset we discussed, where individuals:
●
Prioritize Certainty and Order: Driven by a need to simplify and control their environment, those in the coping mode favor predictable outcomes and rigid structures over ambiguity and change. They seek solace in rules, hierarchies, and established norms that provide a sense of security and stability in an otherwise unpredictable world.12
●
Rely on External Authority: Lacking confidence in their own judgment, they turn to external authorities—experts, leaders, or societal norms—for guidance and direction. These external sources of validation provide a sense of safety and alleviate the anxiety of independent decision-making.34
●
Exhibit a Narrow Focus: The coping mode often leads to a narrow and detail-oriented perspective, as individuals focus on managing immediate threats and maintaining a sense of order within their limited sphere of influence. This narrow focus can limit creativity, problem-solving abilities, and the capacity to appreciate the broader context of situations.56
●
Default to Familiar Solutions: When confronted with challenges, individuals operating from the coping mode tend to rely on familiar solutions and established protocols, even when those solutions may be inadequate or counterproductive. This rigidity stems from a fear of uncertainty and a reluctance to venture beyond the perceived safety of the known.6
The Downside of the Coping Mode: While the coping mode can be beneficial for managing immediate threats and ensuring survival, an overreliance on this mode can be detrimental to personal growth and societal well-being.
As we explored in our discussion of shame and violence, the coping mode's emphasis on control and suppression, coupled with a limited capacity to understand complexity, can create a breeding ground for fear, intolerance, and aggression.78
The "Pervasive Optimization Mode": Embracing Complexity, Seeking Understanding
In contrast to the coping mode's emphasis on control, the "pervasive optimization mode" reflects a more expansive and adaptive approach to navigating the complexities of the world. Individuals operating from this mode:
●
Embrace Complexity and Change: Rather than seeking to simplify and control their environment, they are comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty, and the ever-changing nature of reality. They view challenges as opportunities for growth and learning, fostering a sense of curiosity and a willingness to engage with the unknown.910
●
Value Understanding Over Control: Driven by a desire to comprehend the interconnectedness of systems and the dynamics of human behavior, they prioritize deep understanding over the illusion of control. They recognize that true agency arises from working with the world's inherent complexity rather than trying to impose their will upon it.1112
●
Prioritize Co-creation and Collaboration: Recognizing that they are part of a larger web of relationships, they embrace collaboration and seek to co-create solutions that benefit both themselves and the systems they inhabit. This collaborative spirit fosters empathy, promotes a sense of shared responsibility, and opens up possibilities for mutually beneficial outcomes.1013
●
Think Systemically and Long-Term: The pervasive optimization mode fosters a more holistic and long-term perspective. Rather than focusing solely on immediate needs and outcomes, individuals consider the broader consequences of their actions and strive to create sustainable solutions that promote both individual and collective well-being.12
The Benefits of Pervasive Optimization: The sources suggest that the pervasive optimization mode is essential for personal growth, fostering harmonious relationships, and creating a more just and equitable society.
By embracing complexity, valuing understanding, and prioritizing co-creation, we can move beyond the fear-driven limitations of the coping mode and unlock our full potential as creative, compassionate, and interconnected beings.1214
A Dynamic Interplay: Shifting Between Modes
It's important to note that these modes of thought are not mutually exclusive. Even the most staunch authoritarian may tap into the pervasive optimization mode during moments of play, creativity, or connection with loved ones. Conversely, even the most dedicated libertarian may revert to coping mechanisms when confronted with extreme stress, trauma, or situations that exceed their capacity to comprehend.15
The key takeaway from the sources is that cultivating the capacity to recognize these modes within ourselves and others, understanding the factors that trigger shifts between them, and consciously choosing to engage with the world from a place of curiosity, compassion, and a desire for understanding can lead to a more fulfilling life and a more harmonious world.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What does the text argue is the root cause of violence?
The Roots of Violence: Shallow Understanding and the Fragile Ego
The text posits that the root cause of violence is a toxic interplay of shallow understanding and feelings of personal inadequacy, particularly within the context of an authoritarian mindset. This argument builds upon our previous exploration of the "coping mode" of thought and the authoritarian dynamic.
1. The Perils of Shallow Understanding:
The sources emphasize that a limited or superficial understanding of the world creates a sense of vulnerability and fear. When individuals lack the cognitive capacity to grasp complexity, they struggle to navigate challenges, anticipate consequences, or comprehend the perspectives of others. This lack of understanding breeds insecurity and a sense that the world is a chaotic and threatening place.
●
The Authoritarian Response to Complexity: As we've discussed, authoritarians, often characterized by a "coping mode" of thinking, respond to this perceived chaos by seeking to simplify, control, and impose order on their environment. This drive for control stems from a deep-seated fear of the unknown and a desperate need to maintain a sense of predictability and security.
2. Agentic Inadequacy and the Wounded Ego:
Central to the text's argument is the concept of "agentic inadequacy," a state in which individuals feel profoundly ill-equipped to effectively navigate the challenges of life and exert control over their own destiny. This perceived inadequacy strikes at the core of their self-worth, triggering intense feelings of shame and humiliation.
●
Shame as a Catalyst for Violence: Drawing on the work of James Gilligan, the sources highlight shame as a powerful motivator for violence. When individuals with a shallow understanding of the world experience shame as a result of their perceived inadequacy, they may resort to violence as a means of:
○
Masking Vulnerability: Violence becomes a desperate attempt to project an image of strength and control, concealing their underlying sense of weakness and insecurity.
○
Reclaiming a Sense of Power: By dominating or harming others, they seek to reassert their agency and experience a fleeting sense of power in situations where they feel powerless.
○
Silencing Critics and Suppressing Shame: Violence becomes a tool for eliminating threats to their fragile ego, whether those threats come in the form of direct challenges to their authority or simply represent a different way of seeing the world.
3. The Cycle of Violence and the Illusion of Control:
The text suggests that violence, rooted in shallow understanding and a need to compensate for feelings of inadequacy, often creates a vicious cycle.
●
Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain: While violence may provide a temporary sense of control or alleviate immediate shame, it ultimately exacerbates the underlying problems.
●
Erosion of Trust and Escalation of Conflict: Acts of violence erode trust, fuel resentment, and increase the likelihood of retaliatory violence, perpetuating a destructive cycle of aggression and fear.
●
Reinforcement of Shallow Understanding: By resorting to violence, individuals may avoid confronting their own cognitive limitations and fail to develop the understanding and empathy needed to break free from this destructive pattern.
In Conclusion:
The sources present a compelling argument for the interconnectedness of shallow understanding, feelings of inadequacy, and the potential for violence. By emphasizing the importance of fostering critical thinking, promoting empathy, and addressing the root causes of shame and insecurity, the text suggests that we can create a society that mitigates these destructive tendencies and fosters a more peaceful and just world.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the three preconditions that must be met for someone to be susceptible to committing violence, according to Gilligan?
Here are the three preconditions for violence, according to Gilligan:
●
Overwhelming Shame: The individual must be experiencing intense feelings of shame, humiliation, or inadequacy. This shame is often triggered by seemingly trivial events that highlight their perceived inability to cope with life's challenges or maintain a sense of control123. This aligns with our earlier discussion of the "coping mode" of thought and the authoritarian dynamic, where individuals with a shallow understanding of the world struggle to navigate complexity and feel threatened by anything that challenges their sense of order and control. This shame cuts to the core of their self-worth, creating a desperate need to reassert their agency and silence any reminders of their perceived inadequacy.
●
Lack of Non-Violent Coping Mechanisms: The individual perceives a lack of non-violent options to address their feelings of shame and inadequacy4. They feel incapable of restoring their self-esteem through socially acceptable means, such as achievement, status, or positive relationships. This sense of hopelessness and lack of agency leaves them feeling trapped and desperate, making violence seem like the only viable option for reclaiming a sense of power and control.
●
Absence of Inhibiting Emotions: The individual lacks the emotional capacity for empathy, guilt, or fear that would normally prevent them from inflicting harm on others56. This emotional deficit stems from their overwhelming shame, which consumes their capacity for love, compassion, and remorse. They become so fixated on alleviating their own suffering and preserving their fragile ego that they become blind to the pain and suffering of others. Violence becomes a self-preservation tactic, a way to protect their shattered self-image at any cost.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the two main modes of thought, according to the text, and what are their respective strengths and weaknesses?
Two Modes of Thought: Navigating a Complex World
The sources contrast two primary modes of thought: the "coping mode" and the "pervasive optimization mode." These modes represent distinct approaches to perceiving and engaging with the world, particularly when confronted with complexity, uncertainty, and the limits of personal agency.
1. The "Coping Mode": Strengths and Weaknesses
The "coping mode," closely aligned with an authoritarian mindset, prioritizes control, order, and predictability as a means of navigating a world perceived as inherently threatening and chaotic.
Strengths of the Coping Mode:
●
Managing Immediate Threats: In situations where survival is paramount or when facing immediate danger, the coping mode's emphasis on swift action and adherence to established protocols can be crucial for mitigating harm and ensuring safety.
●
Creating a Sense of Stability: By clinging to rules, hierarchies, and familiar routines, individuals operating from the coping mode can create a sense of order and stability in their lives, which can be comforting in times of uncertainty and change.
●
Facilitating Group Cohesion: In social contexts where conformity and obedience to authority are highly valued, the coping mode can foster a sense of belonging and group identity. This shared sense of purpose can be a source of strength and support, particularly when facing external threats.
Weaknesses of the Coping Mode:
●
Intolerance and Suppression of Diversity: The coping mode's emphasis on maintaining control often manifests as an intolerance for anything perceived as different, disruptive, or challenging to the established order. This intolerance can lead to the suppression of dissenting voices, the marginalization of minority groups, and a resistance to new ideas and perspectives.123
●
Limited Problem-Solving Capacity: The rigid adherence to established norms and familiar solutions can hinder creative problem-solving and limit an individual's ability to adapt to novel situations.4 The coping mode prioritizes the known and predictable over the exploration of new possibilities, often leading to the perpetuation of ineffective or even harmful approaches.
●
Shallow Understanding and Unintended Consequences: The sources argue that the coping mode often stems from a "shallow understanding of the world," a limited capacity to grasp complexity, anticipate long-term consequences, or appreciate the interconnectedness of systems.567 This lack of understanding can lead individuals to make decisions that ultimately exacerbate the very problems they are trying to solve.
●
Escalation of Conflict and Violence: As we explored in our conversation, the coping mode, coupled with feelings of inadequacy and a fragile ego, can create a breeding ground for violence.89 When individuals feel threatened, lack the capacity for empathy, and see no other way to assert their agency, they may resort to aggression and domination as a means of silencing critics, masking their vulnerability, and reclaiming a sense of control.1011
2. The "Pervasive Optimization Mode": Strengths and Weaknesses
The "pervasive optimization mode," aligned with a more libertarian mindset, embraces complexity, seeks deep understanding, and prioritizes co-creation as a means of navigating the world and fostering both individual and collective well-being.
Strengths of the Pervasive Optimization Mode:
●
Embracing Complexity and Change: Individuals operating from the pervasive optimization mode are comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty, and the ever-evolving nature of reality.1213 They see change not as a threat, but as an inherent part of life and an opportunity for growth, learning, and adaptation.
●
Seeking Deep Understanding: Driven by curiosity and a desire to make sense of the world, they prioritize understanding over control.1314 This deep understanding allows them to anticipate consequences, identify patterns, and develop creative solutions that work with the world's inherent complexity rather than against it.
●
Fostering Collaboration and Co-creation: Recognizing that they are part of a larger web of relationships, they value collaboration, empathy, and the co-creation of solutions that benefit both themselves and the systems they inhabit.1516 This approach fosters a sense of shared responsibility, promotes mutual understanding, and opens up possibilities for win-win outcomes.
●
Thinking Systemically and Long-Term: The pervasive optimization mode encourages individuals to think systemically, considering the long-term consequences of their actions and the ripple effects of their choices.1617 This broader perspective allows them to make decisions that promote sustainability, interconnectedness, and the well-being of future generations.
Weaknesses of the Pervasive Optimization Mode:
●
Vulnerability to Exploitation: The sources do not explicitly address potential weaknesses of the pervasive optimization mode. However, it's worth noting that individuals who prioritize collaboration, empathy, and understanding may be more vulnerable to exploitation by those operating from a more self-serving or manipulative stance.
●
Challenges in Implementing Complex Solutions: Developing nuanced, systemic solutions to complex problems often requires time, patience, and a willingness to navigate ambiguity and uncertainty. This can be challenging in situations that demand immediate action or when working within systems that prioritize efficiency and short-term gains over long-term sustainability.
A Dynamic Interplay: Shifting Between Modes
It's important to remember that these modes of thought are not mutually exclusive or fixed personality traits. Individuals can and do shift between these modes depending on the context, their emotional state, and the perceived level of threat or safety they experience.
The key, as suggested by our conversation, is to cultivate the self-awareness to recognize these modes within ourselves, understand the triggers that evoke shifts between them, and make conscious choices about how we engage with the world. By nurturing our capacity for critical thinking, empathy, and deep understanding, we can move beyond the fear-driven limitations of the coping mode and harness the creative, compassionate potential of the pervasive optimization mode.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
Explain the connection between shame and violence, according to the author.
Shame: The Catalyst for Violence Driven by a Need to Preserve a Fragile Ego
The sources, particularly the work of James Gilligan, posit a powerful connection between shame and violence. This connection hinges on the idea that violence is not typically an act of aggression but rather a desperate attempt to protect a fragile ego and mask deep-seated feelings of inadequacy.
Shame, in this context, is defined as the excruciating realization that one's perceived "agentic inadequacy"—the inability to effectively navigate the world and produce desired outcomes—has been exposed, leaving the individual feeling humiliated, powerless, and fundamentally flawed.1 This shame cuts to the core of their self-worth and ignites a primal urge to silence the pain and reassert a sense of control.1
This explanation aligns with our previous discussion of the "coping mode" of thought, which is often employed by individuals with a "shallow understanding of the world"—those who struggle to grasp complexity, anticipate consequences, or adapt to change.23 When these individuals confront situations that expose their limitations, their coping mechanisms—which are primarily designed to maintain a sense of order and control—fail.45 This failure triggers intense shame, as their perceived inadequacy is laid bare for both themselves and others to see.15
To escape this unbearable shame, individuals may resort to violence as a means of:
●
Reasserting a Sense of Agency: By dominating or harming others, they attempt to reclaim a sense of power and control, momentarily masking their feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy.6
●
Silencing Reminders of Inadequacy: Violence becomes a way to eliminate or silence those who have witnessed their shame, thereby attempting to erase the memory of their perceived failure.7
●
Preserving a Masculine Identity: Gilligan specifically highlights the role of shame in male violence, suggesting that acts of aggression are often driven by a need to uphold a sense of masculinity, particularly in cultures that equate manhood with dominance, control, and the suppression of vulnerability.7
Gilligan emphasizes that this shame-driven violence is most likely to occur when these three preconditions converge:18910
1.
Overwhelming Shame: The individual is flooded with intense shame that threatens to shatter their sense of self.
2.
Lack of Non-Violent Coping Mechanisms: They see no other way to alleviate their shame or restore their sense of worth through socially acceptable means.
3.
Absence of Inhibiting Emotions: They lack the capacity for empathy, guilt, or fear that would normally prevent them from harming others.
It's important to note that Gilligan, based on his experience working with violent criminals, observes that violence often erupts in response to seemingly "trivial events."1112 This paradox, he argues, underscores the profound disconnect between the individual's perception of their own inadequacy and the reality of the situation. The triggering event itself may appear insignificant to others, but to the individual experiencing overwhelming shame, it represents a profound and unbearable confirmation of their deepest fears—that they are fundamentally flawed and incapable of navigating the world effectively.511
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the two modes of cognition that the author proposes?
Two Modes of Cognition: Navigating Order and Possibilities
The sources propose two fundamental modes of cognition that shape how individuals perceive, interpret, and engage with the world, particularly in the face of complexity and uncertainty: "cognition for order" and "cognition for disorder." These modes reflect distinct cognitive processes and priorities, influencing an individual's capacity for adaptation, creativity, and social interaction.
1. Cognition for Order: Seeking Certainty and Control
Cognition for order, also referred to as "control cognition" or "cognition for certainty," prioritizes the establishment and maintenance of order, predictability, and control as a means of navigating a world perceived as inherently complex and potentially threatening.1 This mode aligns closely with the "coping mode" of thought discussed previously, which is often associated with authoritarian tendencies and a reliance on external authorities to define acceptable behavior and impose a sense of order.123
Key Characteristics of Cognition for Order:
●
Preference for the Known and Predictable: Individuals operating primarily in this mode gravitate towards familiar routines, established hierarchies, and clear-cut rules that provide a sense of stability and minimize uncertainty.1
●
Focus on Problem-Solving within Defined Boundaries: They excel at addressing challenges within well-defined contexts, where solutions can be derived from established protocols or by adhering to the dictates of external authorities.14
●
Narrow Focus and Linear Thinking: This mode favors a more focused, linear approach to problem-solving, breaking down complex issues into smaller, more manageable parts and seeking solutions that restore a sense of order and control.25
Strengths of Cognition for Order:
●
Effective in Situations Demanding Swift, Decisive Action: When facing immediate threats or when operating within systems that prioritize efficiency and adherence to established procedures, cognition for order can facilitate rapid response and the implementation of proven solutions.1
●
Creating a Sense of Security and Stability: By adhering to established norms and seeking to maintain control, individuals can create a sense of psychological safety and stability, which can be comforting in times of stress or uncertainty.1
Weaknesses of Cognition for Order:
●
Resistance to Change and Innovation: The emphasis on maintaining the status quo can lead to a resistance to new ideas, alternative perspectives, and innovative solutions that challenge existing structures or introduce uncertainty.6
●
Potential for Rigidity and Intolerance: The prioritization of order and control can manifest as an intolerance for ambiguity, diversity, and those who deviate from established norms. This rigidity can stifle creativity, limit adaptability, and create conflict within diverse social groups.7
2. Cognition for Disorder: Embracing Complexity and Possibilities
Cognition for disorder, also known as "explorative cognition" or "cognition for possibilities," thrives on engaging with the world's inherent complexity and embracing uncertainty as a catalyst for learning, growth, and the emergence of novel solutions.1 This mode aligns with the "pervasive optimization mode" of thought, which is often associated with libertarian tendencies, a drive for deep understanding, and a willingness to challenge conventional thinking.128
Key Characteristics of Cognition for Disorder:
●
Openness to New Experiences and Perspectives: Individuals comfortable with this mode actively seek out novel experiences, diverse perspectives, and unfamiliar situations as opportunities for expanding their understanding and challenging their assumptions.15
●
Curiosity-Driven Exploration and Playful Experimentation: They are driven by a deep curiosity to understand how things work, readily engaging in playful experimentation, and embracing trial-and-error as a means of uncovering hidden patterns and connections.19
●
Holistic Thinking and System Awareness: This mode fosters a more holistic, interconnected understanding of the world, recognizing the interdependence of systems and seeking solutions that harmonize with, rather than attempt to control, the web of relationships.1011
Strengths of Cognition for Disorder:
●
Fostering Innovation and Creative Problem-Solving: By embracing complexity and challenging assumptions, individuals can uncover novel solutions, adapt to changing circumstances, and drive innovation within their respective fields.1
●
Cultivating Adaptability and Resilience: The willingness to navigate uncertainty and learn from mistakes builds resilience and equips individuals with the cognitive flexibility to thrive in a constantly evolving world.9
●
Promoting Collaboration and Co-creation: Recognizing the interconnectedness of systems and the value of diverse perspectives, individuals operating from this mode are more likely to engage in collaborative problem-solving, seeking solutions that benefit the collective good rather than prioritizing individual gain.12
Weaknesses of Cognition for Disorder:
●
Potential for Overwhelm and Indecision: In situations that demand swift, decisive action, the tendency to explore multiple perspectives and consider a wide range of possibilities could lead to analysis paralysis or hinder the implementation of time-sensitive solutions.
●
Challenges in Communicating Complex Ideas: The nuanced, interconnected understanding fostered by this mode can make it challenging to communicate ideas effectively within systems that prioritize linear thinking, reductionist approaches, or established hierarchies.
A Dynamic Interplay: Balancing Order and Possibilities
It's crucial to recognize that these modes of cognition are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they represent two ends of a cognitive spectrum, and individuals can and do shift between these modes depending on the context, their emotional state, and the specific demands of the situation.2 The key, as highlighted throughout the sources and our conversation, is to cultivate the self-awareness to recognize these modes within ourselves, understand the triggers that evoke shifts between them, and make conscious choices about which mode is most appropriate for navigating the complexities of a given moment.
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
What are the four characteristics of a hierarchical society, according to the author?
Characteristics of Hierarchical Societies: Understanding the Dynamics of Disempowerment
While the sources don't explicitly list "four characteristics" of hierarchical societies, they provide a rich and nuanced exploration of how these societies emerge, the psychological underpinnings that sustain them, and their impact on both individuals and geopolitical dynamics. Based on a close reading of the provided excerpts, the following characteristics can be distilled:
1.
Pervasive Disempowerment: At the heart of hierarchical societies lies a systemic and often insidious process of disempowerment, where individuals are conditioned to relinquish their autonomy, suppress their individuality, and depend on external authorities for guidance, validation, and a sense of security. This disempowerment is often perpetuated through:
○
Suppression of Self-Development: Hierarchical structures often thrive by limiting opportunities for individuals to cultivate their unique talents, explore their passions, or develop the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge the status quo.12
○
Centralized or Group Authority: Power is concentrated in the hands of a select few, who dictate norms, enforce conformity, and control the flow of information. This centralization of authority creates a power imbalance that reinforces dependence and discourages independent thought.23
○
Pathological Dependence on Suppressive Structures: Individuals within these societies often develop a deep, often unconscious, reliance on the very systems that limit their potential. They accept these systems as "normal" and even defend them, fearing the chaos and uncertainty they believe would result from their dismantling.3
2.
Stratified Levels of Empowerment: Hierarchical societies, by definition, are structured as pyramids, with a distinctly stratified distribution of power. This stratification results in:
○
An Elite at the Apex: This "most empowered class" (often referred to as the "aristocracy") wields disproportionate influence over the direction of the society, shaping norms, controlling resources, and setting the agenda for those lower down the hierarchy.45
○
Intermediately Empowered Classes: These individuals occupy various rungs between the elite and the masses. They may benefit, to varying degrees, from the existing power structure, often by aligning themselves with the elite and enforcing the norms that maintain the hierarchy.4
○
The Least Empowered at the Base: This segment of the population bears the brunt of the disempowerment inherent in these societies. They are often denied access to resources, opportunities, and the decision-making processes that shape their lives.4
3.
Suppression of Diversity and Independent Thought: Hierarchical societies often view diversity—of thought, expression, and lived experience—as a threat to their stability. This fear of diversity manifests in:
○
Uniformity and Conformity: Individuals are often pressured, both subtly and overtly, to conform to established norms, whether in their beliefs, behaviors, or aspirations. This emphasis on uniformity serves to minimize dissent, reduce complexity, and maintain the predictability that hierarchical structures rely upon.356
○
Dependent Thought: Individuals are discouraged from developing their capacity for critical thinking, questioning authority, or forging their own path. They are instead conditioned to accept information passively, rely on external sources for validation, and prioritize obedience over independent judgment.378
○
Intolerance as a Response to Normative Threats: Any perceived challenge to the established norms, values, or authorities of the hierarchical structure is often met with resistance, fear, and even hostility. This intolerance serves to protect the power dynamics at play and maintain the illusion of stability and order.6910
4.
Manipulation of Morality as a Tool of Control: Hierarchical societies often exploit individuals' innate desire to be perceived as "good" or "moral" to maintain control and reinforce existing power structures. This manipulation of morality can manifest in:
○
Conflation of Obedience with Morality: Individuals, particularly those conditioned for dependent thought, are often led to believe that following orders, adhering to established norms, and unquestioningly supporting authority are inherently moral acts, regardless of the consequences. This conflation of obedience with morality serves to silence dissent and maintain compliance within hierarchical systems.111121314
○
Double Standards and In-Group Bias: Hierarchical structures often operate with a double standard when it comes to morality, applying different rules and expectations to those within their inner circle compared to those deemed "outsiders." This in-group bias fosters a sense of superiority among those in power and justifies the unequal treatment of those lower down the hierarchy.6
○
Propaganda and Thought Policing: Hierarchical societies often utilize propaganda to control the flow of information, shape public perception, and demonize those who challenge the status quo. This can extend to outright thought policing, where dissenting voices are silenced, uncomfortable truths are suppressed, and individuals are discouraged from expressing any views that deviate from the accepted narrative.1516
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
From the source material which I have uploaded to you please list 30 take away key points with a brief explanation supporting each of the key point
30 Key Points from "Excerpts from Geopolitics and Cognition"
The provided excerpts offer a complex exploration of the interplay between individual psychology, societal structures, and geopolitical dynamics. This analysis will highlight 30 key takeaways, prioritizing insights that deepen an understanding of the text's core concepts.
Empowerment and Disempowerment:
1.
Self-Empowerment as Active Development: True empowerment arises from active self-development, characterized by curiosity, exploration, and a willingness to embrace challenges as opportunities for growth.1234
2.
Disempowerment as External Control: Disempowerment occurs when external forces suppress individuality, limit experiences, and foster dependence on authorities for direction and validation.25
3.
Hierarchical Societies and Pervasive Disempowerment: Hierarchical social structures are inherently reliant on disempowerment. They maintain stability by concentrating power at the top and discouraging independent thought and action among the majority.5678
The Authoritarian Dynamic:
4.
Authoritarianism as Dependent Thought: Authoritarians exhibit a "dependent" mode of thought, characterized by a reliance on external authorities for guidance, a preference for clear rules and structures, and a fear of complexity and change.291011
5.
Libertarianism as Independent Thought: Libertarians demonstrate an "independent" mode of thought, valuing autonomy, embracing diversity, and seeking to understand the complexities of the world through personal exploration and critical thinking.791012
6.
Normative Threats and Intolerance: Authoritarians are particularly susceptible to what Stenner calls "normative threats," which are any perceived challenges to the established order, values, or authorities they rely on for a sense of security. These threats trigger fear and intolerance.131415
7.
Cognitive Incapacity and Complexity Avoidance: The sources suggest that authoritarianism is closely linked to a difficulty in processing complexity and an inclination to simplify the world through adherence to established norms and authorities.161718
Morality and Social Control:
8.
Conflicting Moral Frameworks: Authoritarians and libertarians often operate from fundamentally different moral frameworks, leading to misunderstandings and conflicts.19202122
9.
Authoritarian Morality and the Suppression of Diversity: For authoritarians, morality is often intertwined with maintaining order, conformity, and adherence to established norms. They may view diversity and nonconformity as threats to this order.15192324
10.
Libertarian Morality and Individual Freedom: Libertarians typically prioritize individual freedom and autonomy, believing that individuals should be free to make their own choices as long as they do not harm others.2225
11.
Manipulation of Morality for Geopolitical Ends: The sources posit that powerful actors can exploit the authoritarian dynamic and differing moral frameworks to manipulate populations, often by instilling fear and emphasizing threats to security.2627
12.
Terrorism as a Tool of Control: The excerpts suggest that terrorism can be a calculated strategy used by those in power to instill fear, bolster their authority, and justify increased control over a population.2829
Thought Policing and the Suppression of Dissent:
13.
Authoritarian Thought Policing: The sources argue that authoritarians, particularly when facing perceived threats, are prone to engage in thought policing, suppressing dissenting views and information that challenges their worldview.3031
14.
Discomfort with Authority-Defying Thoughts: Even those with libertarian leanings may experience an instinctive aversion to ideas that challenge established authorities or disrupt their sense of order and security.3132
15.
Propaganda and Self-Censorship in Media: The excerpts critique mainstream media, suggesting it often reinforces authoritarian narratives, engages in self-censorship to protect powerful interests, and prioritizes uniformity of thought over critical analysis.33
16.
The "Conspiracy Theory" Label as Thought Control: The text highlights the dismissive use of the term "conspiracy theory" as a way to shut down critical thinking, discourage examination of uncomfortable truths, and protect established narratives.3234
Intelligence vs. Understanding:
17.
Intelligence as Compliance, Understanding as Agency: The excerpts differentiate between "intelligence" as the ability to excel within defined systems (often measured by IQ) and "understanding" as the capacity for critical thinking, adaptability, and nuanced comprehension of complex systems.353637
18.
Authoritarianism as Intelligence Without Understanding: The text argues that authoritarians may possess intelligence but lack the deeper understanding necessary to navigate complex situations independently, critically evaluate information, and foresee the long-term consequences of their actions.3839
19.
Education for Compliance vs. Education for Understanding: The sources advocate for an educational approach that prioritizes critical thinking, independent judgment, and a holistic understanding of the world over rote memorization and specialization.4041
The Two Modes of Being:
20.
Coping Mode: Protection of Agency: This mode, associated with the left hemisphere of the brain, focuses on maintaining control, reducing complexity, and ensuring personal security, often by adhering to established structures and authorities.424344
21.
Pervasive Optimization Mode: Co-creation and Thriving: This mode, linked to the right hemisphere, emphasizes exploration, creativity, and a harmonious engagement with the complexities of the world. It prioritizes long-term thriving over short-term control.4546
22.
The Importance of Both Modes: Both modes of being are essential for navigating the world. However, an overreliance on the coping mode can limit growth, while cultivating the pervasive optimization mode allows for greater autonomy, adaptability, and fulfillment.474849
Shame, Violence, and the State:
23.
Shame as the Root of Violence: Drawing on the work of James Gilligan, the excerpts suggest that shame, particularly the shame of perceived inadequacy, can be a significant driver of violence.5051
24.
Violence as a Means to Restore Pride: In this context, violence becomes a desperate attempt to mask vulnerability, assert dominance, and reclaim a sense of pride and control.525354
25.
The Shameful Roots of the State: The text extends this analysis to the state itself, arguing that it often operates from a place of perceived inadequacy, resorting to violence and control as a means to maintain order and project strength.55
Additional Insights:
26.
The Illusion of Normality: The concept of "pathological normality" highlights how individuals can become so accustomed to dysfunctional or even harmful systems that they perceive them as normal and acceptable, failing to recognize the possibility of healthier alternatives.565758
27.
The Power of Curiosity and Play: The text emphasizes the crucial role of curiosity and play in fostering self-empowerment, driving exploration, and expanding an individual's understanding of the world.459
28.
Eastern vs. Western Approaches to Autonomy: The excerpts briefly contrast Western notions of individualism, which often emphasize radical autonomy, with Eastern perspectives that emphasize a more integrated and relational understanding of individual agency within a larger social and cosmic order.6061
29.
Open-Ended Development and Intrinsic Motivation: The concept of "open-ended development" highlights the importance of fostering intrinsic motivation (driven by curiosity, enjoyment, and a sense of purpose) as opposed to relying on external rewards or punishments to drive learning and growth.6263
30.
The Brain's Energy Expenditure and Two Modes of Thinking: The text suggests that the significant energy expenditure of the human brain may be linked to the interplay between these two distinct modes of thinking: coping and pervasive optimization.6465
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
From the source material which I have uploaded to you please list 30 take away key points, FOR HOW TO RAISE A FULLY EMPOWED BABY GIRL, with a brief explanation supporting each of the key point
Raising an Empowered Baby Girl: Insights from the Sources
While the sources you've provided focus on broader societal structures and the psychology of authoritarianism versus libertarianism, they offer limited direct guidance on raising a child. However, by extrapolating from the text's core principles, we can glean valuable insights into fostering self-empowerment, critical thinking, and a sense of agency in a young girl.
Important Note: The following points are derived by applying the broader concepts from the sources to the context of child-rearing. It's crucial to remember that child development is a complex field with a wealth of research and expert perspectives. These insights should be considered as starting points for further exploration and should be balanced with information from credible sources on child psychology and development.
Fostering Self-Empowerment:
1.
Encourage Curiosity and Exploration: From infancy, create a stimulating environment that encourages your daughter to explore, experiment, and engage her senses.123
2.
Prioritize Play-Based Learning: Embrace play as a primary mode of learning. Provide opportunities for unstructured, child-led play that allows her to discover her interests, develop creativity, and build confidence through experimentation.24567
3.
Celebrate Mistakes as Learning Opportunities: Create a safe space for your daughter to take risks without fear of harsh judgment. Frame mistakes as valuable learning experiences and encourage a growth mindset.189
4.
Nurture a Love for the Natural World: Provide regular opportunities for your daughter to connect with nature. Encourage her to observe, explore, and appreciate the complexities and beauty of the natural world.41011
5.
Support Her Developing Autonomy: As she grows, provide her with age-appropriate choices and encourage her to make decisions independently. Resist the urge to overcontrol or dictate her every move.812131415
Cultivating Independent Thought:
6.
Model Critical Thinking: Engage in open and honest discussions with your daughter about the world around you. Demonstrate how to question assumptions, consider different perspectives, and evaluate information critically.16171819...
7.
Expose Her to Diverse Perspectives: Introduce her to a wide range of people, cultures, and ideas. Encourage her to challenge stereotypes, embrace differences, and form her own opinions.10162223...
8.
Limit Exposure to Propaganda: Be mindful of the media she consumes, particularly from sources that promote fear, division, or simplistic narratives. Encourage critical engagement with media messages.4252627
9.
Value Understanding over Rote Memorization: Prioritize learning experiences that emphasize deep understanding, critical thinking, and problem-solving over rote memorization or narrow specialization.17282930...
10.
Encourage Healthy Skepticism of Authority: Teach her to respect authority figures but also to question them when necessary. Emphasize that blind obedience is not a virtue, and critical thinking is essential.26333435...
Building a Strong Sense of Agency:
11.
Emphasize Her Ability to Make a Difference: Nurture her belief in her own agency by highlighting the impact of her actions, no matter how small. Encourage her to identify problems and brainstorm solutions.818193940
12.
Support Her Passions and Interests: Encourage her to pursue her passions, whether they align with traditional gender roles or not. Provide her with the resources and encouragement she needs to excel in areas that excite her.9414243
13.
Teach Her to Advocate for Herself and Others: Equip her with the skills and confidence to speak up for herself, express her needs, and advocate for what she believes in.14444546
14.
Role-Model Assertiveness and Boundary-Setting: Demonstrate healthy assertiveness and boundary-setting in your own interactions. This will provide her with a powerful model for navigating relationships and advocating for her needs.464748
15.
Celebrate Her Uniqueness and Strengths: Help her recognize and appreciate her unique qualities, talents, and strengths. Foster a positive self-image that is not contingent on external validation or societal expectations.11164149
Creating a Supportive and Empowering Environment:
16.
Provide a Safe and Secure Home: Ensure she feels safe, loved, and supported unconditionally. A secure attachment with caregivers is foundational for healthy emotional and social development.12475051
17.
Encourage Open Communication: Create an environment where she feels comfortable expressing her thoughts and feelings without fear of judgment or rejection.252535455
18.
Be a Patient and Understanding Listener: Listen attentively when she shares her experiences and perspectives. Validate her feelings, even when you don't agree with her views.2652535556
19.
Challenge Gender Stereotypes: Be mindful of the messages she receives about gender roles and expectations. Encourage her to question limitations imposed by societal norms and to pursue her interests freely.39575859
20.
Surround Her with Positive Role Models: Expose her to positive role models, both male and female, who embody the values of self-empowerment, critical thinking, and compassionate action.4395859
Nurturing Emotional Intelligence and Resilience:
21.
Help Her Develop Emotional Literacy: Teach her to identify, understand, and express her emotions in healthy ways. Equip her with the vocabulary to articulate her feelings and navigate social situations with greater awareness.4260616263
22.
Validate Her Feelings: Acknowledge and validate her feelings, even when they seem irrational or out of proportion. Help her understand that all emotions are valid and provide a safe space for her to process them.636465
23.
Teach Healthy Coping Mechanisms: Provide her with a toolbox of healthy coping mechanisms for managing stress, frustration, and challenging emotions. Encourage her to seek support when needed.418216667
24.
Build Her Resilience: Help her develop resilience by teaching her to view challenges as opportunities for growth. Encourage a problem-solving mindset and celebrate her ability to overcome obstacles.89606869
25.
Foster a Growth Mindset: Emphasize that intelligence and abilities are not fixed but can be developed through effort and perseverance. Encourage her to embrace challenges, learn from setbacks, and persist in pursuing her goals.9687071
Promoting Social Responsibility and Ethical Action:
26.
Cultivate Empathy and Compassion: Encourage her to consider the perspectives and feelings of others. Engage in discussions about fairness, justice, and social responsibility.143627273
27.
Discuss Ethical Dilemmas: Engage her in age-appropriate conversations about ethical dilemmas. This will help her develop her moral compass and learn to make responsible choices.4373747576
28.
Encourage Helping Behavior: Provide opportunities for her to contribute to her community or support causes she cares about. This will foster a sense of purpose and social responsibility.2447778
29.
Model Ethical Behavior: Be a positive role model by demonstrating honesty, integrity, and compassion in your own actions.4557980
30.
Celebrate Her Efforts to Make a Positive Impact: Recognize and celebrate her efforts to make a positive difference in the world, no matter how small they may seem. This will reinforce her sense of agency and empower her to continue making ethical choices.2447780
copy_all
thumb_up
thumb_down
keep_pinSave to note
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
EXPERTS FROM GEOPOLITICS and Cognition.com. 1 Introduction. This section provides a concise introduction to the website. A more complete, but very concise overview of the to be or not to be in control of your life. Self empowered individuals control their own destiny and make the most of their lives and environments.
In contrast disempowered individuals allow their destiny to be shaped by others. This entails not only that they are ineffective in shaping their lives and environments, they are also likely to be exploited and to suffer from mental problems as indicative of their inadequacy. Their general inadequacy also a constant source of problems for others. There are 2 ways of empowering yourself. Absolute empowerment.
This entails that you actively empower yourself through self development and constructive and creative efforts of some sort. The result is that you become more competent in all aspects of life. Some forms of education and coaching catalyze empowering, but it is essentially something you do: yourself. Relative empowerment. This entails that you empower yourself by disempowering others.
This typically involves stultifying the development of others or by actively destroying the fruits of creativity and other efforts. The others become less competent to shape their own life and as such you end up as relatively more empowered. Forced schooling, the military, most of government and big business, charities and think tanks, organized religions, PR agencies, mainstream media, and many other well known institutes are efficient instruments of disempowerment. If your consider this list of instruments of disempowerment shocking or otherwise problematic, realize that they all involve hierarchy and therefore stable power relations that can only exist if a need for them is maintained. If all power relations including global power relations are defined by a balance between self empowerment and disempowerment.
Of course pervasive disempowerment has geopolitical consequences. More or less pervasive disempowerment leads to hierarchical societies in which some elite, which is not necessarily highly self empowered and capable to manage their own lives, controls even less empowered masses. The more layers in the hierarchy, the more levels of disempowerment. Stable societal hierarchies are indicative of pervasive disempowerment. How many layers of hierarchy exists between you and the people who control geopolitical developments?
Per definition, hierarchical societies have a most empowered class at the top, the least empowered classes at the bottom, and intermediately empowered classes in the middle. Since aristocracy is defined as the highest class in certain societies, typically comprising people of noble birth, whatever this noble birth is supposed to mean. July 16, 2014, 139 pm. Geopolitics and cognition file:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft /desktop/compositebooks. 5 of 122.
Holding hereditary titles and offices it makes sense to refer to the top of the social hierarchy as the aristocracy. When this top is able to shape the society without being controlled and curtailed by the rest of society we have Aristocracy as state form, aristocracy is Greek for rule by the best. When the aristocracy only appears noble but is actually highly corrupt, one might speak of a corruptocracy. Rule by the corrupt. Corruptocracy leads to the most pervasive exploitation of society and the most pervasive disempowerment of its lower classes.
The most unequal societies are characterized by this phenomenon, but it is not exclusive to highly unequal societies. Pervasive disempowerment is apparent in the form of hierarchical societies in which a majority of disempowered members show a pathological dependence on the very structures that suppress their self development, curtail and direct their thoughts and behavior, and create and maintain their problems. It will be argued that these societies are characterized by centralized or group authority, suppression of diversity, and dependent thought, which are all characteristic of modern globalization. In contrast, pervasive self empowerment leads to egalitarian and sustainable societies characterized by individual authority. Expression of diversity, and independent thought, which can be referred to as, cognitive, localization.
In note that the four lower cells combine an authority type with a type of society and a mindset that supports it. This table summarizes the reason why the domain name involves both cognition and geopolitics: the individual affects the global and vice versa. This table is a very short summary of the section Cognition for Geopolitics. Reinerine sehr high eneroies corresponds to the concepts of authoritarianism and libertarianism in political psychology. It seems that his deep psychology, which we only recently approached scientifically, has been known, implicitly or explicitly, and used throughout history by the aristocracy to keep themselves in power by disempowering the rest of society.
The dynamics of that process is by and large determined by the manipulation of our sense of morality, what people think is good or bad behavior. People in a very large majority tend to choose behavior that they think is moral, and they oppose any individual or group that is considered to act amorally. Authoritarians end. Especially fearful authoritarians have almost opposite moral values as libertarians. This is depicted in the next.
This table reflects 2 stable moral states, or attractors. 1 dominated by the libertarian mode of being and 1 dominated by the fearful authoritarian mode of being, 1 free and democratic and 1 oppressive and Centralized. The upper echelons of the aristocracy have probably known about this dynamic one and used it to keep societies in either the oppressive mode or in a free and democratic mode near the tipping point, a true democracy rule by the people has no role for aristocracy. The transition from one domain into another is known as regime change. And it we look at the history of the 20th century is it clear that most countries experienced this change 1 or more per century?
In fact every one might expect such a change within a lifetime. However, while this allowed aristocracy to remain at the top of a long succession of societies and state forms, the aristocracy's efforts to prevent the commoners from self empowerment looks more like a prolonged retreat than a perpetual victory over the commoners: more and more people empower themselves and this is changing our societies profoundly. In fact it might well lead to a gradual, probably bumpy, change in geopolitical structures and more and more effective explorations of high quality freedom and true democracy. In fact we might venture into realms of human empowerment and self development that exceed anything in human history. If we dare to face societal and political corruption and educate ourselves out of dependence on corrupt authority, humanity has a bright future with literally endless possibilities.
Nevertheless the gloom and doom scenario is also realistic since it has many witting and many more unwitting proponents. But it will be averted if we empower ourselves enough to effectively control and curtail centralized authorities, or, even better, to abolish the need for external authority altogether. This ideal may seem as ideal for true libertarians it is positively alarming for true authoritarians who cannot envision a life with authorities, that makes then authoritarians. And it motivates them in stronger than libertarians. 1 gaining power and remaining in power must require considerable skill since the position of top dog has many advantages and therefore competition prone disempowerment skills of all would be competitors.
1.1 self empowerment and disempowerment. This subsection contrasts self empowerment and disempowerment. A later section on s sent 2 m empowerment goes in. Oeee ee ee ee ee ee. Development and Empowerment of the Masses.
You can open the door, but if the animal is too terrified to leave the only environment it knows, it will not take the freedom you allow it. So freedom is never given, it is essentially taken, and often without a door conveniently opened. The same holds for empowerment it can only be developed by taking matters in one's own hand. It requires the self acquisition of experience and confidence and it demands ample interaction with a wide range of known and unknown aspects of the world. July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopdesktopcompositebooks A safe home situation to return to after success or failure and support during the process of learning to take matters in one's own hand is very important.
It is also important to be challenged to select your own decisions and to follow your developing conscience, to be stimulated to learn to understand the world, and be helped to develop a sound judgment. So a stimulating context is important. But in the end it is still you that have to experience all these facets and you have to synthesize all these experiences into a coherent and reliable understanding of the world. The result of self empowerment is that you and your environment are structurally thriving. Disempowerment.
Disempowerment is something that is done to others. Disempowerment it is typically aimed at removing the factors that facilitate empowerment. These include corrupting the safety of the home situation, reducing the breadth and usefulness of experiences, ensuring that people are not or minimally exposed to positive role models, and exposing them to false role models punishing people for independence, individuality, and explorations beyond the norm, forced and uniform education slash training, instead of curiosity guided and learner adapted. Education, representative democracy, which boils down to giving control away, etcetera, etcetera. Whatever form disempowerment takes, it leads invariably to you and your environment dwindle, perish, or otherwise.
Struggle. Empowering yourself. Except for extreme social suppression there is nothing but ourselves that keeps us trapped traps in situations. We subtly or profoundly undesirable or even outright exploitative, we can educate ourselves out of pretty much all dependence and any societal trap. There is nothing in humanity that prevents it from aspiring and realizing self empowerment well exceeding the average corrupt aristocrat.
In fact uncurtailed curiosity and openness to experience will do just that, and it is an innate ability, and if not suppressed a strong one. Dependence was never a natural end state of mammalian development, as long as an animal is not utterly curtails its development and keeps it dependent. Self empowerment is not uniquely human it is a deep biological drive that can be suppressed for some time, but that will always resurface. The aristocracy, both as a group and as mindset, were simply the first to discover that they could use their own self empowerment to disempower other by promoting pathological, deeply unfair, and highly unequal societies. Self empowerment is essentially driven by curiosity and playful interaction with the real world in the safety, Typically provided by secure and loving home situations, with home in the sense of where you feel at home.
Positive and diverse exploratory and playful childhood experiences are highly beneficial and adverse childhood. Experiences are highly effective in preventing or curtailing self empowerment. Stimulating self empowerment. Methods examples section. Safe explorative secure attachment, widely aimed playful exploration of disempowering others.
Section. Power v s wisdom. Because self empowerment is generally hindered by adverse childhood experiences, it is quite logical to expect child abuse to be associated with strongly hierarchical organizations such as the clergy, intelligence agencies and the military, the political elite, and the aristocracy. And evidence involving all of these groups in child abuse is not difficult to find, in fact child abuse networks have been reported on extensively. Animals, including humans, adapt to what they consider normality.
This entails that they in principle can adapt to a deeply unhealthy and undesirable situations as long as they consider it normal. Individuals who are so adapted to a pathologically situation that they cannot even envision the non pathological situation can be called pathologically seenrerreyeayeayeiwe normal. Rekern kennennenos. Self empowerment is not only hindered by adverse childhood experiences, preventing curiosity, play, and exploration, regimented education and ideologies, and bad role models or the absence of good role models have similar results and work complementary. This can be achieved via for example child abuse, fostering bad drug crime infested neighborhoods, perpetual fear and frustration, poverty and other forms of structurally, unfulfilled needs, boring living environments, no contact with nature, economic depressions, forced education, and fundamentalist religions.
Tool. Lock in problem solving. Mode. Suppress curiosity and undirect learning. Uncouple from nature.
Suppress playful Interaction with the real world. Instill fear and anxiety. Lifelong frustration. Unfulfilled needs. Resource problems.
Social problems. Bad leaders. Who is us? The us in the title of this section includes to the reader as well. The reader may ask him or herself how to respond to the information and ideas in this site or ask oneself to what?
Degree 1 wants to take responsibility for the geopolitical situation. This site is targeted to people who prefer to gradually increase their control over one's own affairs, priorities, and destiny over a life of constant or increasing supervision and guidance. This site is therefore aimed at people who want to take some non negligible responsibility for their own and others' situations. This sight is not targeted at people who recognize themselves as typical authoritarians dependent thought, authoritarians with no intention to develop towards more libertarian modes of thought. Quite a bit of the content of this site is easily interpreted as highly derogatory towards people actually the large majority in our Western societies who did not, yet, have had the chance to develop beyond the level of dependent thought to independent thought independent thought libertarians.
Sorry for that. The intention is not derogatory, but factual and scientific. No one can be blamed for being authoritarian. But some blame might be in order if authoritarians adhere to and support authorities that abuse their trust and loyalty at the detriment of others and, quite likely, oneself. If you are being tricked by a con man it makes sense to blame yourself of your own gullibility.
Only blaming the con man for exploiting your gullibility while not learning from the experience is a open invitation to be abused again. What is this site? This site is a open source research project addressing the many strong links between geopolitics and cognition. It is about wisdom and foolishness, about empowerment and self enslavement, about good and evil, and about the mindsets and strategies of the empowered and the disempowered. It is a open source research project in the sense that it is open for everyone to read, to follow its development, to contribute to, and above all to learn from and empower yourself.
13 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopdesktopcompositebooks. 14 of 122. Improve formulations, correct factual errors, add missing insights, or even to add fields of expertise that have not yet been addressed and that supports, extents or otherwise improves the scientific basis, the explanatory power, or the way its content can be applied. As research project it is constantly striving to become better, more comprehensive, and more consistent with a broader knowledge base. This website is not primarily an attempt at the normal experiment driven and deductive way of science, but as an integrative inductive effort.
As such it synthesizes a wealth of experimental and observational evidence into a relatively small number of basic principles, such as authority, agency, empowerment, world complexity, the role of fear and confidence, and personal development. At the same time, more and more parts of it will become gradually stable, purged of suboptimal of simply wrong ideas and, more strongly supported by theory, quantitative research, and case studies. As research project it consists of well validated and peer reviewed results by others in combination with not yet peer reviewed ideas, interpretations, and hypotheses. It is up to the reader to decide how to deal with the information. Taking all of it at face value is foolish, and the same holds for dismissing it all.
Doubting everything is unwieldily. According to Aristotle, tt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. But is it truth? No, it isn't. If you at face value adopt the information on this site as your own beliefs, you miss a key point of it.
It would be authoritarian dogma instead of libertarian truth. In the real world truth is never fixed or dogmatic. In the contrary it is elusive, always developing, domain dependent, changing in the light of new information, and always just out of reach. This sight is a current best effort to explain the intimate relation between personal development and geopolitical developments. No more, no less.
In general is important to separate 2 types of truth. Closed domain beliefs can often buoy not always be proven formally true or false. Typically the concept of truth as used in logic and mathematics depends on a formal framework defined by postulates that e e false in general, but can be made to appear truthful in a closed domain. For example the notion that the state will take care of you in only valid in the context of a functioning state, and that is not guaranteed as history has shown abundantly. Open domain truth and beliefs.
Open domain beliefs cannot be proven as true with formal means because the state space cannot be closed. In an open domain it is only possible to test beliefs and to try to find the conditions in which predictions accurately predict the test outcome. But even then beliefs can never be proven to be fully correct or final. Yet many beliefs always seem to lead to predictable results. For example the belief that gravity will work is tested with every step and is highly reliable.
Yet there exists no formal proof. Open world. Developing a belief basis. It is a key task of science to ever improve its belief base by disproving false or suboptimal beliefs and adopting more reliable and more productive beliefs and more useful concepts. But this process should of course not be limited to science it is just as important for everyone who aims to become evermore in charge of one's own destiny, which is assumed here.
Developing a reality tested behalf base is therefore a key task in life. It is possible to effectively close one's belief system by adopting some sort of ideology and limiting oneself to whatever the ideology affords and allows. This basically entails that one adopts the designers and controllers of the ideology as de facto authorities that define the bounds of allowed thought processes. This artificially closed world then allows closed world approached. These may be of some service to test the internal consistency of the ideology, but it is ultimately not productive for use in an open world.
2.4 Are you pathologically normal? This site addresses many important, unpalatable, corrupt, and sometimes shocking socio political trends and psychological realities without much qualms. Many of these uncomfortable realities are hardly ever described in full in the mainstream media, so they will be new for many. The existence of ignored corruption, abuse, and depravity is a real problem of our time and will be addressed elsewhere. But much worse is the near complete adaptation to these and other profoundly pathological aspects of our societies.
This adaptation can explain both why the corruption exists and why it is ignored. So a question you can pose to yourself is how normal you consider the profoundly abnormal and even pathological aspects of your society? And how well are you adapted to it? Do you accept whatever seems normal as normal and desirable and do you support its perpetuation? Or are you at the other side of the spectrum and do you secretly or overtly mistrust or question everything that is normal, simply because it is normal?
Probably you are somewhere in the middle by having a nagging feeling that many things that are normal and unquestioned are not as good as they should be. This sight assumes that very little in our societies in truly healthy and optimal and much is pathological and deeply suboptimal. £3 so pathological and suboptimal in fact that many do not even know what healthy and optimal is anymore and might not even know in what direction health and optimality can be found. One of the most damning and precise descriptions of pathological normality is given by Aldous Huxley in Brave. 16 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm.
Geopolitics and cognition file:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopdesktopcompositebooks Pathological normality. Our increasing mental sickness may find expression in neurotic symptoms. These symptoms are conspicuous and extremely distressing. But let us beware, says Doctor. Fromm, of defining mental hygiene as the prevention of symptoms.
Symptoms as such are not our enemy, but our friend, where there are symptoms there is conflict, and conflict always indicates that the forces of life which strive for integration and happiness are still fighting. The really hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence. Because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does. They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word, they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society.
Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted, still cherish the illusion of individuality, but in fact they have been to a great extent de individualized. Their conformity is developing into something like uniformity. But uniformity and freedom are incompatible. Uniformity and mental health are incompatible 24.
Man is not made to be an automaton, and if he becomes 1, the basis for mental health is destroyed. Emphasis added. In the course of evolution nature has gone to endless trouble to see that every individual is unlike every other individual. We reproduce our kind by bringing the father's genes into contact with the mothers. These hereditary factors may be combined in an almost infinite number of ways.
Physically and mentally, each one of us is unique. Any culture which, in the interests of efficiency or in the name of some political or religious dogma, seeks to standardize the human individual, commits an outrage against man's biological nature. The last paragraph of the quote shows that people like Aldous Huxley, and Frome, were intimately familiar with. Very useful description of pathological normality that can be contrasted to healthy normality as it's healthy. Opposite.
Pathological normality, so defined, is characteristic of the most disempowered individuals. These individual should have symptoms of conflict, but they do not because of a complete stultification of self empowerment. There is no personality left to rebel and no idea what to rebel for. There is no individuality and no agency to rebel. And the result is indeed an automaton with very little understanding of, or interest in, its role in a wider societal machine.
This is the state of mind of the population that is coveted by those who shape and maintain a dictatorship, the pathologically normal do anything they consider normal. And they can accept the most unethical as normal. So they are the obedient unquestioning subjects for a dictatorship. 17 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/compositebooks. They do not even realize they are part of a dictatorship, because they have no idea what their full potential might be.
Do you have an idea of what your full potential is, or might have been? Eein Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann was the bureaucrat responsible for the Endloschen, and she describe him as an example of the banality of evil. She could also have used the term pathological normality. Throughout the trial, Eichmann tried to clarify, mostly without success, this second point in his plea of not guilty in the sense of the indictment. The indictment implied not only that he had acted on purpose, which he did not deny, but out of base motives and in full knowledge of the criminal nature of his deeds.
As for the base motives, he was perfectly sure that he was not what he called an inerer, Schwenhund, a dirty bastard in the depths of his heart and as for his conscience, he remembered perfectly well that he would have had a bad conscience only if he had not done what he had been ordered to do to ship millions of men, women, and children to their death with great zeal and the most meticulous care. This, admittedly, was hard to take. Half a dozen psychiatrists had certified him as normal more normal, at any rate, than I am after having examined him, one of them was said to have exclaimed, while another had found that his whole psychological outlook, his attitude toward his wife and children, mother and father, brothers, sisters, and friends, was not only normal but most desirable and finally the mister who had paid regular visits to him in prison after the Supreme Court had finished hearing his appeal reassured everybody by declaring Eichmann to be a man with very positive ideas. Emphasis added. Eichmann never thought he was evil on the contrary he had been obedient and loyal to his masters and had tried to be as normal and moral as one should be?
Should you? 2.5 Is it science? This subsection addresses the theoretical or speculative aspects of the content of this site. Cognitive Geopolitical Theory The new Oxford dictionary defines a theory as a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. This site develops a theory of human behavior that is based on general principles derived mainly from political psychology, the notion of authoritarianism, brain research, the strengths of our 2 brain hemispheres, moral psychology, emotion, autonomy.
One truly novel contribution, as far is as known, is the introduction of the term authority as psychological key term. What the site sets out to explain is are both age old systems of self empowerment and disempowerment as well as geopolitical tendencies. Ideally this site succeeds in formulating a theory of human behavior on all spatial and temporal scales, fully derived from first principles, that can be proven or dispiroven with observations derived from domains unrelated to the domains that gave rise to the theory in the first place. This is the ideal. The actual situation is more messy and interconnected.
The geopolitical interests of the editor have always informed the search for suitable psychological constructs. And this sight is an effort to come up with the best possible theory able to connect basic psychology to the full diversity of large scale, in time and place, human behavior. Disproving many ill conceived aspects of the theory and improving their formulation was part of this process. It is never an effort to disprove the theory as a whole. That would be self defeating.
Disproving the 18 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm Geopolitics and cognition file:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/desktop/compositebooks. Whole of the theory is left as an exercise for the reader. It will be possible to constructively disprove many aspects of it and in doing so help to improve the formulation of the theory. Is this a conspiracy theory site? Cabal, conspiracy, intrigue, machination.
If you come up with a secret plan to do something, especially with evil or mischievous intent, it's called a plot, a plot to seize control of the company. If you get other people or groups involved in your plot, it's called a conspiracy, a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Cabal usually applies to a small group of political conspirators, a cabal of right wing extremists, while machination suggests deceit. And cunning in devising a plot intended to harm someone, the machinations of the would be assassins. An Intrigue involves more complicated scheming or maneuvering than a plot and often employs underhanded methods in an attempt to gain one's own ends, she had a passion for intrigue, particularly where romance was involved.
Source: New Oxford American Dictionary Very little of this site relies on secrets or people plotting in secrecy. In fact most of its basis relies on published and peer reviewed scientific results, perfectly open sources, or officially disclosed information. This site addresses a number of policies and strategies that are often not at all secrets, but that are simply not widely shared and typically under addressed in the media. However, many of the topics of this website are highly unpalatable for those who prefer to not to think critically about their authorities, it addresses many topics typically avoided, trivialized, ignored, or even outright lied about in the mainstream media. In fact much of the website is easily dismissed as conspiracy theory.
Please, call this a conspiracy theory site and ignore its contents if you feel so inclined. This will prevent your worldview from being influenced and defiled by scientific and other facts and critical thoughts. This is the comfortable thing to do. Calling this a crazy conspiracy theory provides you with an excuse not to think about any of its topics, and at the same time you can dismiss its contributors a crackpots or, at the very least, highly misguided individuals. Calling something a conspiracy theory and using that as an excuse to dismiss, ignore, or trivialize the content is however highly self derogatory.
It shows that you allow your thought processes to constrained by emotions, namely the unpleasantness of being confronted with a worldview you cannot cope well with. This gives a very strong feeling of disempowerment, to which the mind reacts with an initial lack of interest in the subject matter, the crazy conspiracy theory meme, and revulsion towards the bringer of the message, calling something a conspiracy theory in a derogatory fashion and dismissing for the rest perfectly sane and well reasoning purveyors of it as a conspiracy theorist or conspiracy crackpot is highly self disempowering. It might surprise you, but especially highly rational people, with a dominant left hemisphere, are prone to this type of emotion based dismissal. Rationality and logic are only defined in an open world. Highly rational people highly prefer a closed world in which they can apply their knowledge and domain skills successfully, over an open world in which they cannot Being confronted with a world view that is essentially unsuitable for the application of one's knowledge and skills invalidates much of the basis of self confidence and self esteem.
More about this in the section on uncomfortable truths. Is this an intrigue theory site? If this site does not address conspiracy theories is there an another derogatory term that approaches what it sets out to do? Intrigue theory would be an adequate term. Intrigues involve more complicated scheming or maneuvering than typical plots or conspiracies.
And there is no need to keep them secret as long as they are complicated and intractable enough to dupe all but a few. Intrigues require cunning on one side and ignorance or 19 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm. Geopolitics and cognition file:colontripleforward/c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/compositebooks. Foolishness, I. E, lack of a good sense or judgment, on the other side to work.
Pathological normality covers the required ignorance and foolishness. So an intrigue theory is not so derogatory towards the persons who formulate or believe in it it is derogatory towards anyone ignorant or foolish enough not to understand its insidiousness while everything one needs to know is hidden in plain sight. This is typical what the word occult means beyond the range of ordinary knowledge or experience, communicated only to the initiated. So one might expect that many aspects of this. Side touch on the occult.
2.6 Who is responsible for this site? This site is developed and maintained by doctor T Geard Andringa in collaboration with an odd assembly of friends. Doctor Andringa is associate professor in sensory cognition at artificial intelligence and cognitive engineering, Alice, of the University of Groningen. This is Andringa's hobby project, that is not specifically endorsed nor supported by the University of Groningen. As hobby project it becomes more and more intertwined with Andringa's research on fundamental cognitive science and sensory cognition.
The reason for that is that geo political responses seems, just as audition, to rely quite strongly on subcortical, brain stem, processing that determines safety. In fact the first stages of auditory. 3 Authoritarianism. This section is on authoritarianism. Authoritarians feel essentially dependent on authority.
Rely on authority to keep it within manageable bounds. This need for authority scales therefore inversely with the scope of inadequacy to create, maintain, or influence living environments, the more pervasive the inadequacy and the greater the need for authority. Conversely, the better individuals cope with and maintain their own living environment the less they need authorities. Within the domain of political psychology the group is known as authoritarians and the second as libertarians. Mmrreeeeaa.
Weiterrane. Control, and sameness, via common standards, especially in conditions where the things that make us 1 end. The same common authority, and shared values appear to be under threat. This section studies the consequences and causes of authoritarian behavior and a number of fundamental. Especially, the fearful authoritarian and the libertarian.
3.1 Authoritarians versus Libertarians. 20 of 1 22 July 16th 2014, 139 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:d Participants who consistently choose qualities from the left column were treated as highly authoritarian and those who choose consistently from the right column were treated as highly libertarian. Note that all questions match the 2 key aspects of human autonomy as outlined in the previous section. The first question addresses who is supposed to be responsible, parents or the children themselves. The authoritarian children are treated as subservient agents while the libertarian children are treated as self deciding agents.
The second question Addresses who decides on the outcome and conduction of behavior, the rules or their own conscience. The third. How to limit behavior, according to proper social expectations or by good sense and sound judgment. The fourth. What to trust, I.
E, use as basis of behavior elders, or other authorities, or the own thought processes. And finally. What to value more: orderliness and hygiene versus learning to understand all aspects of the world. In the libertarian case the child itself is taught responsibility and should learn the qualities that allow it to act responsibly. In the authoritarian case the ideal child is raised to be predictable and subject to established social rules.
In the libertarian case the child may be as unpredictable and as different as it wants to be, as long as it has the good sense to act responsibly. So the difference between authoritarianism and libertarianism is very much a difference between the primacy of the norms and authorities in the environment and the primacy of individual judgment. For the ideal authoritarian child, all behavior will be severely constrained by the norms of the social environment while the ideal libertarian child is only limited by its own sound judgment and a well developed conscience. Likewise, an authoritarian child will not be exposed to a broad diversity of behavioral options from which it has to choose independently and for which it needs a broad range of skills. Quite on the contrary, the authoritarian child will be explicitly limited to good and proper behavior and will be corrected, lovingly and with the best of intentions, when it steps over social norms or explores beyond what is considered good and proper.
The libertarian child in contrast will be allowed to self generate an ever increasing range of behavioral. 21 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:colontripleforward/c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/compositebooks. Options from which it will be coached to choose the sound ones. Indeed, the authoritarian child is trained, the libertarian child is educated link. As a consequence a driving emotion of authoritarians is the fear of doing things in a wrong way or to apply the rules inadvertently.
In contrast the libertarian is driven by interest in novelty and diversity since that will deepen and broaden understanding and the discovery of ways to improve the world. Note that Stenner's list addresses the whole of the education of children, not only the official schooling part. Children with a vocational education can still turn out as libertarians if their parents, their character and intelligence, and the rest of the social environment helps to teach them how to cope with the holes between the pockets of competence learned at school. The probability for that is of course lower, appropriately or whether one has learned the tools to become gradually more and more competent in coping with the full diversity of life, anywhere and at any time. In many less extreme situations overt behavior of authoritarians and libertarians may be indistinguishable like the authoritarian, the libertarian may obey its parents, have good manners, be neat and clean, respect elders, and follow the rules.
However, the authoritarian did not develop a good sense and sound judgment, is not particularly interested in, or knowledgeable about, how and why things happen, and does not think for himself as much as the libertarian. The authoritarian never learned to understand why and how things happen and will prefer rules and regulations over improvisation and exploration in all aspects of life and work. Empowered, but the authoritarian derives its empowerment essentially from some sort of external authority. Typically a hierarchy. Any attack, challenge, act of ridicule, and even simply ignoring this authority is profound.
Attack on the everything that gives certainty to the authoritarian. So compared to the libertarian, the authoritarian exhibits minimal self empowerment. Setting up the conditions in which everyone ends up as authoritarian is the 3.2 normative threats. Social norms and not a deep understanding of society form the eternal and unquestionable basis of authoritarian behavior consequently authoritarians cannot respond flexibly to changing social norms. In fact they respond highly fearful to what Stenner calls normative threats, 2,005, p 17.
I refer to these critical catalysts as normative threats or a threat to the normative order. By the normative order I simply mean some system of oneness and sameness that makes us in us. Some demarcation of people, authorities, institutions, values, and norms that for some folks at some point defines who we are, and what we believe in. Normative threads are then threads to this. Oneness and sameness.
In diverse and complex modern societies, the things that make us 1 and the same are common authority and shared values. The conditions most threatening to oneness and sameness, then, are questioned or questionable authorities and values, that is, disrespect for leaders, or leaders unworthy of respect, and lack of conformity to or consensus in group values, norms, and beliefs. Original emphasis. Stenner defines normative threads as changes to oneness adherence to norms and sameness how divers. The group is in coping behavior.
For authoritarians these are the central indicators of the adequacy of their coping behaviors and to determine who is good and who is bad. Together they form the well from which all purposeful behavior they are capable of stems from. And when this well cannot generate rich enough behavior to control their environment, they feel trapped in it. So a normative challenge is, for an authoritarian, a direct attack to their ability to cope and therefore their ability to feel in control. The authoritarian dynamic.
Stenner calls this the authoritarian dynamic which she describes as 22 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopdesktopcompositebooks Intolerance equals authoritarianism x threat. The stronger the authoritarian tendencies and the stronger the threat level, the stronger the intolerance to differences. This entails that the authoritarian will show quite predictable behavior in times of fear, s, he will be intolerant to influences that make the world more difficult to cope with and will do everything to reduce the world's complexity to manageable levels or simply to prevent it from increasing. This of course leads naturally to the assignment of other people into in groups, who do not raise or threaten to raise complexity levels beyond coping capacity, and out groups, who do. In practice this entails that the authoritarian has 2 sets of moral standards, for normal situations norm, compliance for safety and suppression of diversity and, in times of fear, intolerance of diversity.
The true libertarian has a single set of moral values that can be summarized as one is free in one's activities as long as these do not harm others or hinder their activities. This totals to 3 sets of morals. Another direct and geopolitical consequence of this is the origin of terrorism. For the typical authoritarian, normal behavior of others especially of those who are either more libertarians or who adhere to a different set of perceived, cultural norms might already be fear inducing because it might lead to a more complex society. The root cause of terrorism.
The more pronounced the cognitive incapacity of the authoritarians and the more an atmosphere of fear is created, the stronger the existential fear of the authoritarian becomes of loosing a sense of personal adequacy and the more the authoritarian turns to authorities to reestablish a sense of personal adequacy. Terrorism aimed at the own population is probably the most effective way to bolster authorities, even deeply corrupt ones. Eee when p hipnun a a. You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far. Removed from any political game.
The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This use of terrorism for this purpose is called a strategy of tension. And there are clear signs that it is still executed in the U. S.
Probably it is a global default strategy. This site assumes that terrorism can only be understood in terms of state actors, intelligence agencies such as MI6 and the CIA, and non state actors, example groups of investors who benefit from particular geopolitical developments. Probably there is no real difference between the 2. The groups who eventually execute the terror, or who either claim credit for it or are blamed for it, are simply, authoritarian, tools in the hands of skilled manipulators. 3.3 Authoritarian Conscience Conscience.
An inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior Source New Oxford Dictionary For libertarians, a break on initiating or continuing behavior that might hinder or harm others. As a direct consequence the authoritarian does not have a strongly developed conscience, in the eyes of a libertarian, but relies on social norms to judge whether behavior is appropriate or not. Adherence to social norms is qualitatively different from a conscience because the last form relies on individual autonomy and understanding, so that behavior can be tuned flexibly to specific and novel situations. While authoritarians and libertarians can, and often will, agree on the applicability of social norms and judicial laws, for the authoritarians they form. 23 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm NTS and getting slash microsonesre equals plus gie, c slash docume, geopolitics and conition, unquestionable origins of their behavior to be adhered to strictly, because if they don't, they have nothing to fall.
Back to, And chaos looms. For the libertarian social norms and laws are fully understood, man made, and therefore malleable and to be applied skillfully and flexibly. For a true libertarian an adapted, more suitable, or even improvised norm that once consistent with higher and more abstract notions of freedom, self expression, social responsibility, equality, or fairness is fine, while for libertarians norms and laws arise as human social constructs, and are as such mundane. For the authoritarian the origin of norms and laws are inaccessible, their scope eternal, even if they change over time, their character profound, and on the whole of a religious quality that one should not argue with, adapt to the situation, nor question. Social norms, whether or not explicit as regulations, procedures, and laws, are extremely important for authoritarians because they form the basis of their behavior and the essence of their ability to cope.
But norms have a very special quality. Authoritarians group those that adhere to their norms as us and those that do not as them. At the same time, for authoritarians, adherence to the norms means good because it keeps life. Manageable and violation means bad behavior because it challenges their coping capacity. While libertarians, in many cases, might agree with qualifications in terms of good and bad, they will rely on their own conscience and not on mere norm adherence or norm violation to decide whether something is good or bad.
It was this norm following that made Eichmann the monster he didn't think he was himself. His pathological normality was in his own eyes just normal obedience and therefore moral. Of course he remembered perfectly. Well that he would have had a bad conscience only if he had not done what he had been ordered to do. That this was to ship millions of men, women, and children to their death with great zeal and the most meticulous care Was beside the point.
It was the proper norm following obedience and therefore moral. It was also deeply immoral. From a libertarian in the same situation for whom cooperation and prevention of harm are virtues, while blind, Obedience is a sin. Note that after the fact and in low fear conditions in the case of Eichmann after the war authoritarians end. Libertarians tend to agree on the immorality of certain acts.
However that is not an indication of a similar conscience. Although the new Oxford dictionary defines a conscience as an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior, simply having a feeling of the rightness or wrongness of some sort of behavior that harms others is a very weak form of a conscience. Eichmann might have had these feelings as well some of the time. A much stronger and meaningful form conscience is actually stopping yourself from engaging in such behavior, especially when peer pressure is strong and when you might face the consequences of your non compliance. This is the moment in which you really prove you tend to act authoritarian or libertarian.
Authoritarians will interpret the non compliance of the libertarian as immoral, while the libertarians will judge the willingness of authoritarians to harm out groups as immoral. Consequently, authoritarians and libertarians might easily and fundamentally disagree on what is good and bad. And because they reach conclusions in qualitatively different ways, they might never understand each other it is this phenomenon that is relied on by geopolitical Operatives in Coups CIA coups follow a predictable script that relies on this lack of mutual understanding. 3.43 Sets of Morals An understanding of the origin and structure of morals is of central importance to understand the psychology of geopolitics because it determines what type of behavior people prefer and is acceptable for them. Morals p a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
Hereto. Behavior showing high moral standards. Within the context of authoritarians and libertarians the structure of morals is quite simple. 24 of 122 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/desktop/compositebooks. The authoritarians prefer any type of behavior and any thoughts of themselves and especially of others.
That keeps them feeling adequate. The fearful authoritarian prefers is more extreme in its moral judgment and behavioral preferences, it considers the reduction of societal complexity to within personal coping capacity its utmost priority. As such it is highly suspicious of any behavior, thought pattern, emotions, or ideologies that might lead to more or sustained complexity. It loves all efforts, irrespective its consequences, that is believed to bring world complexity back to within coping capacity. E libertarians consider it immoral to pose any unnecessary limits on the behavior of anyone they consider self expression and self development of the highest priority.
These are the moral values that shape geopolitics. In a some more detail, using Stenner's definition. Authoritarianism is an individual predisposition concerned with the appropriate balance between group authority and uniformity, on the one hand, and individual authority and diversity, on the other as basis Stenner. 2005 hashtag Stenner 2005ve The Moral Values That Shape Geopolitae. Note the almost perfectly anti symmetry in between the fearful authoritarian, who is pushed beyond coping capacity, and the libertarian.
The differences from perfect symmetry are indicated in bold: these obscure the clear opposites in moral preference. Link with the authoritarian dynamic. The authoritarian dynamic entails that the behavior of the authoritarian majority of modern civilizations can be manipulated by simply introducing believable threats that activate fear. All of a sudden this majority turns into a social control force that is highly motivated to curtail particular types of behavior. Authorities that control societal fears are therefore extremely powerful.
Controlling and fine tuning societal fear, of communism, terrorism, Islam, homosexuality, environmental pollution, climate change, economic collapse, etc, might be the most powerful social control mechanism in existence. And given the fact that the aristocracy has always been in the business of being in charge, especially in the military, they are likely to have discovered this long ago. In fact they might have used this dynamic for millennia to transit societies between closed, dictatorial, static, and militarist forms of state to an open, democratic, developing, and economically successful forms of state. 3.5 Relation with Hade's Moral Theory. 25 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopdesktopcompositebooks Jonathan Haid is a psychologist studying morality and emotion.
And he has analyzed the key difference between. As follows. Suppose that 2 American friends are traveling together in Italy. They go to see Michelangelo's David, and when they finally come face to face with the statue, they both freeze dead in their tracks. The first guy we'll call him Adam is transfixed by the beauty of the perfect human form.
The second guy we'll call him Bill is transfixed by embarrassment, at staring at the thing they're in. The center. So here's my question for you: which one of these 2 guys was more likely to have voted? For George Bush, which for Al Gore? I don't need a show of hands because we all have the same political stereotypes.
We all know that it's Bill. And in this case, the stereotype corresponds to reality. It really is a fact that liberals are much higher than conservatives on a major personality trait called openness to experience. People who are high in openness to experience just crave novelty, variety, diversity, new ideas, travel. People low on it like things that are familiar, that are safe and dependable.
Note for later reference that the liberal is interested in the whole of the statue, while the conservative has a moral issue with a part of the statue. This is suggestive of the breadth of focus of the 2 hemispheres of the brain. Crimes against morality Most of the population is authoritarian and this part of the population is not very sensitive to abstract and individualized applications of the harm slash care and fairness slash reciprocity virtues when they can clearly see that it violates any of the other virtues. For example, those who seem ruled by carnal passions, lust, gluttony, greed, and anger, are seen as debased, impure, and less than human, while those who live so that the soul is in charge of the body, chaste, spiritually minded, pious, are seen as elevated and sanctified. From this point of view, a philosophy that says if it feels good, do it is the philosophy of the devil.
This type of reasoning underlies both the 10 year probation all alcohol in US and the current war on drugs that started during Nixon. While the responsible use of alcohol and drugs, especially when fully legalized, is an example of a victimless activity, it is also an example of if it s feels good do it and therefore in violation of the puritysanctity moral value. The prohibition in the US, 1922 to 1933, was an enormous stimulant for illegal activities associated with drug running that stimulated both crime and police activities and made many people. Rich 5. Simply prohibiting something may lead to new forms of crime.
And a few years of prohibition lead to a new generation of wealthy gangsters who corrupted police forces and politicians alike. The same holds, very predictably for the current war on drugs waged since 1973. In fact the use of these 2 sets of morals, in combination with the fact that libertarians and authoritarians do not understand each other's sets of morals, allows for very powerful social control systems though policing. 3.6 Cognitive, in, capacity. Stenner's work shows a consistent and strong relation between what she calls cognitive incapacity and authoritarianism.
I have repeatedly found that authoritarianism is heavily, indeed primarily, determined by cognitive incapacity, along with lack of openness to experience any variable that even remotely reflects. Cognitive incapacity invariably proves a significant determinant of authoritarianism, whether that involves lack of verbal ability, years of education, possession of a college degree, political, knowledge, or sophistication slash complexity of writing. Stenner 2,009 oll. So cognitive incapacity, to deal 1 s social environment, in combination with reduced openness of experience, might be driving factors in developing an authoritarian disposition. Openness to experience is one of the big five dimensions of personality and involves active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity.
People who are close to experience tend to be conventional and traditional in their outlook and behavior, prefer familiar routines to new experiences, and generally have a narrower range of interests. The combination of a narrow or vocational education and a 28 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File: forward slash c colon forward slash documents and settings slash Microsoft slash Desktop slash CompositeBook s. Resistance to experiencing novelty and, as a consequence, learning leads to individuals who are abnormal intelligence, but who have not learned to cope with many common situations that are judged as, too, complex. That but may not offer any challenge for a libertarian. Stenner, 2,009, observes that this sets authoritarians apart from conservatives who prefer the current status quo over change.
Status quo conservatism seems to be largely about the rigidity associated with aging. Whereas age, the principal determinant of status quo conservatism, reduces one's ability to cope with change. Uncertainty, and instability, I e, difference over time, things not being closed or settled, cognitive. Incapacity, the principal determinant of authoritarianism, reduces one's ability to deal with complexity, I. E, difference across space, things not being simple, emphasis added, fear of a complex world.
After which she concludes, Stenner 2,009, that authoritarians are simple minded avoiders of complexity more than closed minded avoiders of change. These complexity avoiders are cognitively limited to begin with. But it is not only cognitive limitations that determine the difference between libertarians and authoritarians, the evidence shows consistently that their fears are aroused and their thinking deteriorates still further in the face of threats to oneness and sameness. These fears, Stenner 2,009, and cognitive decline then magnify authoritarian demands for limits on racial diversity, political dissent and moral deviance. But it still seems to me that authoritarians are not endeavoring to avoid complex thinking so much as a complex world.
Note, most important, that normative threat only invites this kind of fear, cognitive unraveling, and outbursts of intolerance among authoritarians. Whereas in fact these very same conditions, I. E, the public dissension and criticism of leaders that are the hallmarks of a healthy democracy, induce only greater tranquility, sharper cognition, and more vigilant defense of tolerance among libertarians. Emphasis added. So it is not complexity, but a complex world that is threatening to authoritarians.
There is no reason to believe that. Authoritarians are less intelligent. Generally they are more close to experience, but this is a personality trait that is unrelated to intelligence. What really characterizes them is that they have not learned more sophisticated and effective approaches to daily societal problems within the scope of their interests and vocation they exhibit normal intelligence and normal competence. Like everyone who is faced with challenges beyond coping capacity, they are going to be afraid about their future and motivated to realize a more favorable situation.
Unlike libertarians, authoritarians do this by reducing environmental complexity towards any well supported social norm or ideology. To summarize: E where libertarians see a challenge authoritarians perceive a threat. E where libertarians see diversity and self expression authoritarians see moral decline. E where libertarians are interested and learning authoritarians are fearful and protective. E where libertarians propose dialogue authoritarians propose suppression of dissent.
Strength of emotions. Note that the difference between the strength of the emotion in the previous list. Libertarians experience mild. Feelings such as being challenged, self expression, interest, and an urge to for a dialogue. Authoritarians experience a threat, a moral decline, fear, protection, and an urge to suppress dissent, which is indicative of stronger feeling.
That is an important observation that is indicative that fearful authoritarians are fairly close to losing control over their lives. This makes of course perfect sense since they never learned to understand the world they are part or in any serious manner. The just learned the norm of appropriate behavior. But, because of these easily activated emotions authoritarians are easy to motivate. Just activate their fears, 4 29 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm.
Geopolitics and cognition file:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopdesktopcompositebooks. Example by terrorism or by confronting them with their inadequate understanding of the world, and they become highly motivated to do something. What that something is does not need to be causally connected to. Whatever instilled the fearful mode. Going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq as a consequence of the 911.
Fear mongering was a perfect example of this. Authoritarians, especially in a fearful mode, believe their authorities and are perfectly willing to kill or destroy millions of lives to give them the illusion of doing something that is supposed to reduce their strong negative emotions. They will also trade in their freedoms for an illusion of security. So instead of being guided by rationality, as libertarians are, authoritarians are in the deepest guided by the emotion of the fear to lose control. This entails that they are often in a cognition for control mode 2 modes of being that prefers predictable closed world solutions.
Libertarians on the other hand value exploration and understanding high. 3.7 thought policing. The 3 additional moral virtues of authoritarians and their inability to understand that these can be covered by the first two, libertarian, values entails that authoritarians and especially fearful authoritarians may have problems with the contents of thoughts of others and may find it quite acceptable to prevent or forbid particular thoughts in themselves and others, they function as thought vigilantes. The reasoning behind this support for thought policing is that the authoritarian, in times of adversity, focuses on everything that can return the complexity of the world within manageable bounds. Any seed of increased, or perpetuated, complexity, as perceived by the fearful authoritarian, is to be detected, controlled, and suppressed.
This leads to a number of characteristic and predictable consequences. Deriding uncomfortable thoughts. Probably the most visible and prevalent form of thought policing is the suppression of uncomfortable, typically authority defying thoughts or other normative threats. Even fairly strong libertarians tend to response with a default aversive reaction towards uncomfortable opinions. The first reaction might be ignoring the opinion, but a second much stronger reaction is one of revulsion and disgust, namely an active distancing from all uncomfortable thoughts.
People's reaction to the suggestion that the official account of what happened on the on September 11, 2001 is absurd and that bin Laden might not be the most direct activation of the you should ridicule it because it is a conspiracy theory meme. The reasoning behind this is something like, the consensus is always correct and those who doubt. The consensus have a minority opinion that, in our democratic society must be wrong. Or, alternatively, our authorities do not lie to us, because if they do they couldn't be my authorities anymore and I need them so much to feel adequate. So let's not even allow in me and in others.
Thoughts that challenge the authoritativeness of authorities. These reactions aim to protect personal adequacy and is indicative of a deep and existential process. However the associated sense of revulsion towards people who harbor authority challenging thoughts prevents the spreading of perfectly reliable information that can greatly enhance one's future's sense of adequacy. A not unimportant side effect of this is that truly independent thinkers are often viewed with suspicion and they should be careful, I. E, self censor, when they ventilate their opinions too.
Authoritarians. Propaganda and self censorship in the media. The owners or controllers of the media only have to ensure that they employ, intelligent, people with strong authoritarian tendencies and they have an army of communicators who will, in times of 30 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft /desktopcompositebooks. 31 of 122. Adversity, always protect their authorities, whatever these are.
This entails that they, as individually felt responsibility, forget their normal journalistic responsibilities and fall back to suppression of free thought by ignoring any information that might put their authorities into a bad light, self censorship, and instead focus on all types of information that lead to more uniform thought. Propaganda. Even a cursory analysis of corporate and state owned media suggests very little truly libertarian tendencies in the media, it is the party line everywhere. Although it is packaged in critical discourse of the authorities of out groups it characteristically lacks intelligent analysis independent of any external authority. For authority independent analyzes one needs to be at the uncontrolled out group membership suppression.
The authoritarian may judge self generated fear in response to personal coping inadequacy as a measure of the intentions of other people. This entails that individuals or groups who, even for some completely innocuous reason, instill fear in an authoritarian society might be judged as terrorists. The Obama approved the NDAA 2012 that allows terrorism suspects to be incarcerated indefinitely, without any form of process, or the Nazi extermination activities of Jews, but also of gypsies. Homosexuals, the handicapped, and other deviants, and the draconian Stalinist suppression of free thought are all based in this type of authoritarian logic. Socialization in education.
Something similar occurs in schools. Authoritarian teachers define and understand their role according to authoritarian child rearing qualities. Apart from the fact that they might not even be able to help to learn their students to think for themselves and to follow their own conscience, they see a role for themselves to socialize their students, I e, make the students behave in a way that is acceptable to their society by suppressing their ability for free thought. So instead of learning children the skills to make their own decisions, they train children to behave within the bounds of ordered society. This training has nothing to do with the concept of education.
Wars on victimless crimes. Authoritarians have no difficulty in punishing victimless crimes against morality such as recreational drug use or nonstandard, but fully consensual, sexual practices. The distaste they feel is based on some violation of their morals and it is enough to incarcerate moral violators for years. So these victimless crimes are not completely victimless, the victims are the authoritarians through their increased feeling of inadequacy to deal with the situation. Libertarians tend to be baffled by this kind of reasoning and authoritarians do not understand the real reason of their intolerance to particular behaviors.
More than 85% of the incarcerated 1 percent of the US population is s a for a victimless crooneee on on OEEPNEMATSAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAAEEAA For a moral crime, encroaching bureaucracy. Bureaucracy results inevitably from efforts by superiors who interpret an open world as too complex to handle which it is true for them and as such they consider complexity reduction the first priority of the organization. This leads to human organizations that are fully described in rational and formal terms but lack the commitment, understanding, compassion, and autonomy to address the social demands that justify the existence of the organization. Bureaucracy is a pathological state of human organization, characterized by intelligence without understanding. July 16, 2014, 139 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File: c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopcompositebooks.
Spying on the population. Since the general population is a source of initiative, self empowerment and diversity, authoritarians, And their leaders find it important to assemble as much information about the population as possible. The better the model of each and any individual, the more effective any source of diversity and change can be suppressed, coerced, blackmailed, or removed. Western societies and in particular the US have developed this to the extreme. The Sentient World Simulation does exactly this.
Nnacussme sika ntir wien sire. 3.8 Intelligence versus Understanding Intelligence is unrelated to the difference between authoritarians and libertarians. In Stenner's words, authoritarians are not endeavoring to avoid complex thinking so much as a complex world Stenner 2,009 oll Authoritarians are just as intelligent as libertarians, and might value intelligence even higher than libertarians do. This is not because libertarians value intelligence less, but because they value understanding and creativity higher. Intelligence.
The authoritarian preference for intelligence is unsurprising because intelligence as measured by an IQ test, reflects one's ability to reliably produce expected and desired answers in response to problems formulated by others, as acting authorities. IQ measures therefore intellectual compliance and conformity, which are typical authoritarian values. So it is to be expected that authoritarians judge a high IQ as successful intellectual compliance as highly desirable. However in complex times of change and uncertainty authoritarians judge behavioral compliance obedience, even if it defies logic as even more desirable. And they do not seem to.
Be aware of this. Understanding. Where intelligence leads to particular context deprived standard solutions, understanding leads to situationally adapted, context aware, unique solutions that are always in flux because they are in continual pursuit of optimal id. With mere intelligence one can improve a bad situation to a standard situation, which may or may not be optimal, but mere intelligence is equally able to reduce excellence to the same standard situation. With understanding it is possible to track optimal ID because it allows for a continual broadly shared autonomous optimization process.
Without understanding one cannot see nor evaluate the opportunities for long term Optimization, which entails that the creative diversity necessary to pursue optimal idea is interpreted as unnecessary and unwanted complexity. Authoritarianism as intelligence without understanding. Authoritarians live, conform table child rearing qualities, in a world of which they understand many aspects only. Shallily, they know the rules, protocols, and norms of normal behavior they adhere to ideologies and religions. They know many examples of how to respond to particular situations, and know what to say and who to obey, but they have no pervasive understanding of why and how things happen and how the world is interconnected.
In addition they are definitely unable to think and decide for themselves, follow their own conscience, and accept the responsibility for their own actions. Authoritarians obey their authorities and these are therefore responsible for their actions. Basically they only take responsibility of their own actions if they do not obey their authorities. This entails that authoritarians cannot oversee the long, or even mid term consequences of their own end others' behavior and they offload the responsibility for that to authorities. And if these have no idea about the long term consequences or even if they have opposing goals than their stated goals, the authoritarian neither cares about nor understands the consequences of his behavior.
Our current educational system, which favors IQ and specialization over pervasive understanding, is conducive for the development of authoritarians. In fact it seems that Einstein was referring to the authoritarian disposition. 32 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:C:documentsandsettingsmicrosoft slash Desktop slash CompositeBook s 33 of 122 when he described the goals of education. The development of general ability for independent thinking and judgment should always be placed for most, not the acquisition of special knowledge. Otherwise he with his specialized knowledge, more closely resembles a well trained dog than a harmoniously developed person.
Albert Einstein. 1954. The well trained dog resemblance is a direct reference to intelligence as intellectual compliance resulting from specialist education without the benefits of the pervasive understanding that allows for independent thinking and judgment. The well trained dog comparison is an effective analogy of authoritarians who exhibit desired behavior while neither understanding the larger context nor the consequences of their compliance. On top of that, it is also the ideal personality type for the organizational ideal they envision.
4 Attitudes to the world Attitude A settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior. This section addresses how individual psychology influences one's attitudes towards the world and its constituents. In essence it is about 2 quite different modes of being that differ in intellectual development and their attitude towards authority. This becomes apparent in the form of different degrees of self empowerment and a ees, disempowerment, and eventually in whether individuals and societies structurally thrive or dwindle. A short outline of these two modes of being follows below.
Much more background and details follows in the sub sections. Dependent thought. Also authoritarian thought or shallow understanding. The least developed mode of being can be called authoritarian or dependent thinking and can be interpreted as a shallow understanding of reality that leads to a strong and generally subconscious urge to reduce the complexity of the world through an acceptance of and adherence to external authority and intolerance to and suppression of diversity. Because authoritarians feel forced to exhibit a particular type of behavior they are not, fully, deciding on their own behavior.
A large majority of the populations is characterized by this mode of being. In fact everyone starts in this mode of being during childhood, and as long as you do not learn to develop the quality of your own thought processes far enough so that you can rely on your own judgment most of the time you remain in this mode of thought for the rest of life. Maslow call this deficiency cognition because this mode of though is characterized by problem solving, where the problem is indicative of a deficiency of some sort, otherwise it is a problem that can be ignored without consequences. All forms of deficiency cognition are targeted optimization, problem solving, independent thought, also libertarian thought or deep understanding. The more developed mode of being can be called libertarian or independent thinking and can be interpreted as a deeper and more pervasive understanding of reality in combination with an individual urge and ability to use the innate dynamics of the world to co create shared benefits.
Essentially, libertarians can decide on their own goals without any reference to of influence of external authority. Only a minority of the population of our Western societies is characterized by this. July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm. Geopolitics and cognition file:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoft slash Desktop slash CompositeBook s. 34 of 122.
Mode of Being This mode of thought is the result of well developed critical thinking capacity that is continuously used to dispel erroneous beliefs and to adopt more empowering beliefs. The result is a more realistic truthful and empowering understanding of the world and one's role in it. This gradually erodes the need for external authorities that determine the content of your thoughts and beliefs. Maslow calls this being cognition because it is a form of cognition that optimizes the quality of our being in this world in the absence of pressing problem. Being cognition is for pervasive optimization lifetime development.
The gradual transition from dependent to independent thought is a multiyear, or multi decade, irreversible process, with the possible exception of extreme events, such as torture and brain trauma, it is impossible to unlearn your understanding of the world. So the axis authoritarianism libertarianism one's a measure of general understanding. The deeper and more pervasive one's understanding of the reality, the more libertarian the attitude towards the Word, and the shallower and fragmented one's understanding of the world the more authoritarian. The attitude Each individual will combine both authoritarian tendencies in response to adversity and libertarian tendencies in response to opportunities. The authoritarian attitude is prevalent in situations that are interpreted as too complex to cope with comfortably and authorities of some sort should come to the rescue and essentially there.
Directions followed. The libertarian attitude is prevalent in all situations with incomfortable coping capacity. Depending on their level of understanding of the world some people will exhibit more frequent authoritarian tendencies and others more frequent libertarian tendencies. To sharpen the contrast between the two modes of being we typically oppose their stereotypes and compare them in terms of stereotypes. The table below reflects the main differences, more on this in the rest of this section.
2 Attitudes Towards A Complex World. SN WEERRR DNREREEEENNTRORTO ERMEERANNE BANIE OEE OEE EEE EEEEPERURE SEN this subsection the root cause of these differences is sought in to attitudes towards a complex world. Structure precludes diversity and development. Too much disorder precludes stability and predictability. Put differently, moderately increasing disorder allows for more diversity and development but allows less control.
In moderation, disorder may lead to novelty in excess it leads to chaos. In contrast, increasing order fosters uniformity, predictability, and control, but in excess it leads to stagnation and lifelessness. Note that the moment a novel structure has been discovered in a previously disordered or chaotic state, some order and meaning, is imposed on it and the complex system becomes a little more tractable and accessible to agent influence. With this discovery the edge of chaos has been pushed towards higher complexity. This process may push development along the open ended development spiral in accordance with Vygotsky's July 16, 2014, 139 pm.
Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/desktop/compositebooks. DICT and Zan. 2 modes of cognition. We can call the form of cognition that allows us to discover novel structure cognition for disorder, cognition 4 possibilities, or explorative cognition. Whatever it is called, its essential nature is participatory: structures in apparent, chaos are only discovered through some form of participation in the system.
During exploration and play, the properties of these structures are revealed and the structures of interest become gradually more familiar and predictable. This allows their properties to be generalized, abstracted, and integrated with existing knowledge, and in doing so made useful for in the widest possible range of environments and, individual, challenges. In situations where errors are costly, or even deadly, we need a complementary form of cognition, a form that more aptly is called cognition for order, cognition for certainty, or control cognition. Both are essential forms of cognition and together they allow for a gradual proven and reliable extension of the limits of agent capability towards ever more complex situations and ever larger temporal and spatial scopes. This continual progression of exploration, consolidation, and testing is another formulation of open ended development.
Recall that the reaction to an e e complex world is the key difference between authoritarians and libertarians, see Kogmov G J Acity. This suggests that the complexity of our world is a deciding factor in determining whether someone is authoritarian or libertarian. Authoritarians tend to abhor a complex world and feel an urge to reduce its complexity, while libertarians can deal comfortably with some additional complexity. The authoritarian reaction to increased complexity is with fear and intolerance of diversity. Reducing complexity, while the libertarian reacts with increased interest and sharper cognition, mastering complexity.
This suggests that explorative cognition and control cognition, in particular with authoritarians, are activated depending on whether the environment is appraised as safe or unsafe. This table is encapsulates many, but not all or even a majority, of the differences between individuals in a authoritarian mode, in which behavior is dominated by the left hemisphere and the libertarian mode in which behavior is dominated by the right hemisphere. The switch occurs as function of perceived world complexity. Fear is part of this because we become apprehensive in situations we think are beyond our control. Without self confidence or with low self esteem it is easier to slip in a left hemisphericauthoritarian mode.
Conversely, self confidence and self esteem stimulate right hemisphericlibertarian thought patterns. Authoritarians have no real conscience, requirements for activating a break on behavior that might harm others is simply not part of left hemispheric approaches. Western or left hemispheric societies McGilchrist argues that in the last 2 or 3 millennia, our Western societies have become characterized by an ever growing dominance of the left hemispheric worldview that favors a narrow focus over the broader picture. Specialists over generalists, fragmentation over unification, knowledge and intelligence over experience and wisdom, technical objects over living entities, control over growth and flourishing, and dependence over autonomy. In his book, called The Master and His Emissary McGillchrist argues that the right hemisphere, with its 39 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm.
Geopolitics and cognition File:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/desktop/compositebooks. Holistic perspective and more intimate relation with the body is the master that tasks its emissary, the left hemisphere, with focused assignments. However, in our increasingly culturally defined world, where linguistically transmitted shared knowledge has become more important than individually acquired Tacit knowledge, left hemispheric strengths seem to have become more beneficial for most of us than right. Hemispheric strengths McGilchrist makes very strong case for this interpretation. This sight tries to do so as well by coupling especially the left hemispheric modes of thought to many of the characteristics of Western power play.
References. E. McGilchrist, Iain. 2010 The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. New Haven, CAHN, Yale University Press.
Http:w w w dot incgillchrist.com/temaha/biblio/bibliography_themasterandhisemissary. Pdf. 4.3 in and external authority. Bluntwo, o o o ach equals o a e t seven gs, Oz Jawan m p u q a e, in 0 ach e t j p o equals a e w w copyright There is a key difference between the 2 hemispheres: they require quite different conditions to function optimally. The right hemisphere assumes autonomous participation in an open, dynamic, and infinite world of nested dynamical systems that form dynamically stable and continually evolving entities.
In this mode of being, truth is defined as accordance with reality and is to be tested by acting out in the world, right hemispheric knowledge and experiences are essentially subjective. As such this mode of being is particularly effective in situations where new 2095 and where novel and creative solutions are appropriate. In contrast, the left hemisphere assumes a closed, static, and finite world in which entities are symbolic, discrete, and abstract and in which one is an objective observer instead of a participant. In this mode of being, truth is defined as the result of consistent reasoning and consensually agreed on linguistically shared and presented facts. This mode of being is particularly effective in situations in which problems have to be solved or addressed in a detached, rational, standardized, and communicable way.
Scientific communication is a typical example of this. Because of this more narrow focus, left hemispheric strategies essentially depend on processes that create end. Authorities defined as processes or agents that create, maintain, and influence the conditions in which agents exist fulfill this role. Adequate left hemispheric strategies, we propose, are only possible if either an internal authority, I. E, the right hemisphere, or external authorities ensure that conditions are maintained in which left hemispheric strategies are effective.
In particular we propose that the authoritarian mode of being corresponds to a left hemispheric dominance in combination with the need for external authorities to create and maintain the conditions in which a dominant left hemisphere can function adequately. Libertarianism corresponds to a right hemispheric dominance that is able to provide the proper conditions for left hemispheric functioning. This entails that the authoritarian agent, as the name suggests, is essentially dependent on external authorities, while the libertarian agent, again as the name suggests, is free from external authorities because the agent is able to self maintain the conditions in which both modes of cognition contribute adequately. To put it bluntly, we argue that authoritarianism in adults is a sign of arrested development that limits individual. 40 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopdesktopcompositebook s dominated inner loop in which one learns to master the body through playful interaction with the world.
The second loop is left hemisphere controlled because one learns from external authorities and through abstracted, linguistically conveyed knowledge about the structures of the world. However the purpose of this phase is to learn how to make the mind a useful instrument. If this process succeeds, it allows one to effectively produce intended results in both culturally defined and natural worlds. As such it is a basis for confidence, further exploration, and gradually increasing autonomy through the ability to co create ever more extended, both in place and in time, environments in which one can self maintain the condition for adequate functioning. This describes the 3rd preconditioned loop.
Authoritarians do not want to lose control. However, when an agent is unable to make the mind into a reliable instrument, the individual is frequently confronted with the inability to produce intended results. And because the left hemisphere is dominant in this phase, one response in the complexity reducing control mode favored by authoritarians, it is interesting that power is defined as the ability to produce intended results Russell 1938 ta.we summarized Sternberg's 19,938 definition of wisdom as the ability to produce. Broadly beneficial intended results while taking the full consequences of behavior into account this suggests defining raw power as the ability to produce intended results without underscore necessarily taking the full consequences of behavior into account. It's is therefore not at all surprising that typical centralized authoritarian organizations such as bureaucracies, governments, large corporations, and the military are always associated with power and standardization.
Libertarians focus on pervasive optimization. True libertarians do not need the control over the environment provided by these centralist structures and they are, because they made their mind into a reliable tool, not obsessed with reaching intended results, they can do that more often than not. In contrast they are more interested in understanding the full consequences of behavior. This requires a participatory approach in which one learns to discover and predict the innate dynamics of the social, cultural, and natural world without necessarily controlling or curtailing its diversity. On the contrary, working with the inherent dynamics of the world is a way to stabilize it, or not to disturb it.
Co creation We refer to this creative process of moving with the dynamics of the social and natural world as co creation, and the ability to co create as a defining characteristic of success in open ended development. References E. Fredriksen, Barbara L. And Christine Brannigan. 2,005 Positive emotions broadened the scope of attention, and thought action repertoires.
Cognition and emotion 19, 3, March 313 to 332. Doi 10.1080zero26993044100-0238. Easternberg, Robert J. 1998. A Balanced Theory of Wisdom.
Review of General Psychology 2, 4. 347 to 365. 4.4. Agency, autonomy, motivation, appraisal. Section under construction.
The concepts of agency, autonomy, motivation, appraisal, of the environment, and mind states are all intimately connected and are best understood in context of each other. This section addresses the first four of 41 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/desktop/compositebooks. Agency Agency is the ability to be a source of self selected and self initiated activities, behavior. But to initiate an activity the agent must first to be motivated to do so. And to be motivated entails that the agent has somehow appraised the environment in terms of behaviors afforded or necessitated.
And to select and execute these behaviors to realize the intended outcome, the agent needs facilitating mind states that match real world dynamics. This sequence entails that the concepts of agency, motivation, appraisal, of the environment, and mind states are intimately connected. Autonomy In the context of agency, the term self empowerment refers to all activities that give an agent more control over its own destiny, I. E, the autonomy in the sense of being free from external control and able to shape and co create its environment. Self empowerment therefore leads to a change of the both the perceived and the actual locus of causality from the environment, or agent therein, to the agent itself and from realizing small scale intended outcomes to realizing large scale intended outcomes.
Note that this is a richer definition of autonomy than is usual in Western societies. Erica Fox Brindley, who studies the intellectual and cultural history of early China, 500 BC to 200 AD, wrote a book on individualism in early China, for a summary see Brindley, 2011, which provides a rich description of the roles of agency, autonomy, and authority as the right hemisphere might understand these. She writes for example I Brindley. Earlier Chinese forms of individualism do not generally focus on the radical autonomy of the individual, but rather on the holistic integration of the empowered individual with forces and authorities in his or her surroundings, family, society, and cosmos. For early Chinese thinkers, there is no such thing as unfettered autonomy or freedom of will, in line with Kantian notions of the self.
While such concepts are considered problematic even in some Western traditions they nonetheless constitute a core strand of thought that continues to inform contemporary concepts of individualism. In contrast to such conceptualizations, there exists a relative and relational sort of autonomy in early Chinese contexts, a type of autonomy that grants individuals the freedom to make decisions for themselves and to shape the course of their own lives to the fullest degree that they can end, should all from within a complicated and rich system of interrelationships. This type of autonomy, in other words, grants authority to the individual to fulfill his or her potential as an integrated individual. The goal of such an individual is to achieve authoritativeness as a person while at the same time conforming to certain types of authority stemming from his or her larger environment. Motivation.
Individual or some external authority or influence originates the behavior. It is a measure of autonomy and agency. Motivation is simply the urge to do or to continue with something or the reasons to have this urge. The more autonomous the behavior, the more the urge is endorsed by the whole self and is experienced as action for which intrajected, identified and intrinsic reasons to act. According to Ryan Ryan 1989 high external reasons were those where behavior is explained by reference to external authority, fear of punishment, or rule compliance.
Intrajected reasons are framed in terms of internal, esteem based pressures to act, such as avoidance of guilt and shame or concerns about self and other approval. These are typically situation enforced motivations with the aim to prevent a worse outcome associated with doing nothing. Identifications were captured by reasons involving acting from one's own values or goals, and typically took the form of I want through this. 42 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoft /desktopcompositebooks. 43 of 122.
Identification The locus of causality shifts more and more to the agent. Intrinsic reasons for action occur whenever the behavior is done simply for its inherent enjoyment or for fun. Sys ee c insysakee. External or internal perceived locus of causality, and exogenous and endogenous motivation that open ended development. In this subsection we will more directly address the intimate relation between open ended development, intrinsic motivation, and acting out in the world.
In their review paper on extrinsic and intrinsic motivations and their that support one 5 feelings of competence, autonomy, and relatedness are the basis for 1 maintaining intrinsic motivation. They define relatedness as the basic need to feel connected, competence as the basic need to be effective, and autonomy as the basic need to feel agentic. According to Ryan and Desi we need these three basic. Human needs to be fulfilled in the classroom as one is exposed to new ideas and exercises new skills. Quadrant 1 expresses autonomy and agency and extends 1's behavioral repertoire.
In the consolidation, quadrant 1 develops in the absence of environmental pressures new relations between oneself and the environment and one relates and combines hitherto unrelated knowledge and experiences. In doing so 1 generalizes, stabilizes, and consolidates knowledge and relations, whether mental, social, or otherwise. The consolidated knowledge, social, relations, and skills, no longer new and unpredictable, become more and more suitable for general utility and in particular problem solving, a left hemispheric activity. This corresponds to the problem solving quadrant in which the agent can prove its increased competence and test and fine tune its extended behavioral repertoire. Successful real world problem solving leads to confidence, which is a basis for further exploration, consolidation, and testing.
This open ended development loop is depicted in Figure Figure open ended development loop. The words in brackets originate from Ryan and Decetwo 1000. The loop depends essentially on the reward signals associated with exploration, experiencing novelty, consolidation, discovering and fostering relations, and successful problem solving. The reward signals associated with this loop, 47 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm. Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopdesktopcompositebooks.
The continuation of the open ended development loop depends crucially on the success rate of the in the real world problem solving ability. Failure to come up with a suitable solution leads to reduced confidence and eventually frustration. Perkins and Hill 1985 provides strong support that boredom is associated with frustration. And since the lower left quadrant is associated with boredom, low agency, and the need for guidance, it makes sense to situate persistent failure and the ensuing low confidence and reduced urge to explore in this quadrant. Persistent failure not only disrupts the open ended development loop, it is also a strong demotivation to engage in any agentic activity and especially activities that are not habitual, because habits are activated by the environment, and therefore rely on some measure of agency.
Learned helplessness. This description is reminiscent of the phenomenon of learned helplessness that was discovered when dogs exposed to inescapable and unavoidable electric shocks in one situation later failed to learn to escape shock in e A different situation where escape was possible Mayer 19761 Learned helplessness depends on the uncontrollability of the aversive stimulus, which may entail that the agent learns that its activities do no longer produce intended outcomes. If so the agent does not unlearn its behavior, it simply no longer activates it because of its expected futility. Interestingly, in rats learned helplessness occurs only when one crucial condition is satisfied, the response used in the test for learned helplessness must be difficult, and not something the rat does very readily. Which, indeed, suggests that learned helplessness occurs only with activities that are agentic.
This is the reason why the lower left describes its effect as deactivating behaviors. The description of the lower left quadrant as deactivating behaviors is of course useful for behaviors that are not productive or harmful. The catch of learned helplessness is that it it may extend to any self initiated behavior. If so it is the most pervasive form of Vertebrate species devote between 2% and 8% of basal metabolism to the brain. In primates, however, the percentage is much higher in humans it rises to 20 dash 25 percent dot.
The waking brain is always active, although specific. Focused attention tasks temporarily suppress part of this global activity Gussard, APPE A, KESS 2001 IEEE CA. The question is how this energy expenditure is justified by the contributions of the brain. MEEMOAHHA GDi PPG MEEAGL PIGS MPL PISMASEAOOSAAEOSOSTEAA CHARD San. Suggests that we might have 2 quite different modes of thinking and even two reasons or justifications to think in the first place.
In fact the question why we think seems to be answered differently, dependent on which hemisphere gives the answer. The left hemisphere might call the purpose of thought successful coping or protecting agency while the right hemisphere might see its purpose as pervasive optimization and thriving. Both modes of thought are important, the coping mode particularly in times of adversity and the pervasive optimization mode the rest of the time. A key difference between authoritarians and libertarians is that authoritarians due to their shallow understanding of the world have only limited success with the pervasive optimization mode that prevents them from cocreating an environment in which all their basic needs are structurally fulfilled. As such they rely heavily.
48 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm Geopolitics and cognition file:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/desktop/compositebooks. On the coping mode of thought to ensure safety and need satisfaction. Yet as one's proven understanding of the world develops, one can rely more and more on the pervasive optimization mode. Libertarians are able to use both modes of thought effectively, but will, due to their ability to understand most normal situations, and therefore to flexibly and often effortlessly cope with, favor the pervasive optimization mode of though. Everyone uses both modes of thought.
Even the strongest authoritarian, someone with a very shallow understanding of the world, predominantly uses the pervasive optimization mode during play and among friends and family. Conversely also strong libertarian can end up in situations that they do not understand and in which they gladly submit to external authorities or fall back to more primitive strategies in which they are temporarily less or unconcerned with the full consequence of their behavior as long as immediate or pressing goals are achieved. In more detail this leads to the following descriptions: Coping mode of though: protection of agency. The first, left hemispheric, mode of thought aims to maintain or regain sort of control over one's current situation, or the protection of one's own agency in general. It is typically important and highly beneficial in situations in which one or a few aspects of life, such as physical safety, are the pressing problems to be solved or otherwise mitigated, even if this goes at the cost of other aspects of that are not currently critical.
This is a situation that favors certainty over improvisation. In this authoritarianleft hemispheric mode individuals think. They think thoughts that help to bring or keep the situation within the bounds maintained by some external authority. 7. The coping mode of thought is essentially a form of thought suitable for a closedspecific environment in which entities can be defined objectively and in which one relies on structures maintained and created by others, in a social historical context of which the left hemisphere might not have access to.
This entails that thinkers in this mode use concepts and contexts that are either defined consensually or defined by some authority. Because of this stabilizing role of external authority the central entities of thought are invariant and of a symbolic, abstract, generalized, and individualized, nature. So in this mode of thought one does not, really, has the freedom to change the entities slash symbols and rules that define the specific environment. As such autonomy in this mode of thought is characterized by successful manipulation of the given, authority maintained and therefore supposedly invariant, structures in the environment, which makes it a form of autonomy that essentially relies on external authorities. The success criterion for this mode of thought is successful coping: it should result in increased or restored personal or ingroup adequacy.
As such it leads to ways to make the living environment more suitable for the available competence, typically by suppressing or purging irrelevant diversity, and to solutions that rely on the specifics of a particulate environment, society, clique, specialism, or ideological ingroup. It is the mode of thought for a specialist or engineer in search of the application of hisher knowledge and for any agent complying with the demands of a hierarchical organization Within the boundaries of the particular environment or context this mode of thought, if executed well, leads to highly effective and possibly even locally, perfect solutions. However the probability that these solutions can be generalized to a wider context then The context in which they were created is very small. It is this mode of thought that allows scientists and engineers to make the fallacious conclusion that because something is safe in the in the confines of the lab, it must be safe in the world. Pervasive Optimization Mode of Thought The second mode of thought becomes prevalent when control is not an issue, when the situation is safe, and when basic needs are satisfied, which allows a shift from control to pervasive optimization.
49 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm. Geopolitics and cognition file:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/desktop/compositebooks. 50 of 122. In this libertarian slash right hemispheric mode individuals think because it allows them to shape themselves and the world they live in for the better, thinking is to self guide the global optimization benefits of co creation. In this case the individual is authoritative.
This is the mode of thought that allows one ideally to optimize the whole, in the context of everything else. It is therefore a mode of thought suitable for an open world and as such it is also essentially participatory sinceen. Open world is fundamentally dynamic due to the absence, or at least ineffectiveness, of control slash coping strategies for open worlds. This entails a need for continual interaction participation to respond to the inherent dynamics of an open world. In this mode of thought the entities are not symbolic, invariant, and context.
Independent, but individualized, in constant flux and development, and essentially context dependent. This mode of thought allows one to deal with a variable and developing world of which the dynamics is neither fully known nor fully controllable or predictable, but to be discovered and adapted to through participation, example play and creativity. The participatory nature of this mode of thought indicates already a higher level of autonomy than the coping mode of thought since one not only has the option to manipulate system dynamics, but one also has the option to adapt to the specifics of the system's dynamics to influence its nature and character. The more one understands the dynamics of a region of the open world, the better one can predict, influence, and stabilize the region and the more authoritative the agent is. The success criterion of this mode of thought is pervasive optimization through the co creation of a region of the world in which the inherent dynamic of different entities complement, strengthen, and stabilize each other.
This leads to unique, dynamically stable, and therefore always changing and developing, environments to which the agent continually adapts. Because each state of an open world is both unique and developing, this mode of thought relies on ever more general knowledge that is however rapidly adaptable to the particulars of the situation. This is the mode of though of the experienced generalist and in general agents that understand how to work with the inherent dynamics. It is also the mode of thought that characterizes wise people. Summary of why we think.
Modes of cognition we addressed the need to be discover novel structures and the need to apply knowledge to. Exploit known structure. In the section 2 brain hernospheres we listed McGillchrist's synthesis of the strengths of the hemispheres. The summary below is a more structured summary of these two modes of cognate. 4.10 The roots of violence.
Individual, on the level of small social groups, or on a societal level. Here we focus on the level of the individual, and especially individuals with a narrow and shallow understanding. When challenged at or beyond coping capacity, the strong authoritarian will respond with control slash coping. By Stenner, Intolerance equals authoritarianism x threat, of not being able to cope and being inadequate. However in its extreme the authoritarian dynamic does not lead to just intolerance but to open violence, for which we might propose a reformulation as: propensity for violence equals shallow understanding x feelings of personal inadequacy.
In this formulation violence towards others results from a shallow and narrow basis of understanding that confronts the individual either with the unintended consequences of its own actions, such as an in part self created mess, and or with an ill understood world. If the resulting situation is visibly and therefore shamefully indicative of personal inadequacy, it is a public indication of the failure of the coping motive, though, which is dominant in these situation and generally dominant in authoritarians. Since the very purpose of the coping mode of thought is the protection of agentic adequacy, a failure to do so is a sign of complete agentic inadequacy, something existential that should therefore be prevented at all costs. So the danger of a public display of agentic inadequacy may lead to the strongest possible motivation to protect a veneer of adequacy in the form of a very strong urge to stop, remove, or destroy all sources of diversity that one might expect to contribute to exceeding coping capacity and that as such contributes to the display of personal inadequacy. This makes violence, but also other atrocities, like rape, a viable option to satisfy the existential need of agentic adequacy.
This section investigates the ideas that self perceived agentic inadequacy is a root cause of violence. Shame as the root of violence. This interpretation of perceived agentic inadequacy as the root cause of violence is supported by James Gilligan. Gg. 52 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm Geopolitic and cognition file:c:documentsandsettingsmicrosoftdesktopcompositebooks.
53 of 122. Gilligan was the director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School and a long term prison. Toward the self. Shame is a necessary but not a sufficient cause of violence, just as the tubercle. Bacillus is necessary but not sufficient for the development of tuberculosis.
Several preconditions have to be met before shame can lead to the full pathogenesis of violent behavior. The pathogenic, or violence inducing, effects of shame can be stimulated, inhibited, or redirected, both by the presence or absence of other feelings, such as guilt or innocence, and by the specific social and psychological circumstances in which shame is experienced. The new Oxford dictionary defines shame as a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior. In the light of the role of the coping mode of thought to protect, agentic agency shame can be formulated as shame the realization that others may or have become aware of your utter agentic inadequacy, at ultimate resulting from a shallow understanding of the situation. Shame is associated with the public failure of the coping mode of thought.
Gilligan continues as follows: The different forms of violence, whether toward individuals or entire populations, are motivated, caused, by the feeling of shame. The purpose of violence is to diminish the intensity of shame and replace it as far as possible with its opposite, pride, thus preventing the individual from being overwhelmed by the feeling of shame. Violence toward others, such as homicide, is an attempt to replace shame with pride. It is important to add that men who feel ashamed are not likely to become seriously violent toward others and inflict lethal or life threatening, mutilating or disabling injuries on others unless several preconditions are met. The new Oxford dictionary defines pride as a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one s own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.
This suggest that pride can be defined as the emotion associated with the successes of the coping mode of thought. This allows the formulation of pride as pride. A feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from successful coping, either resulting from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired. Note that the coping mode of thought that lets one achieve clearly defined and attributable objectives, instead of the diffuse and often not attributable achievements of the pervasive optimization mode. In addition pride is, at least in part, associated with things that are widely admired.
This again suggests a role of external authority. This all suggests that activating a sense of pride counteracts a sense of shame and that pride and shame function. As evaluators of the success of coping mode of thought. Because a main strategy of the coping mode of thought is controlling or suppression all sources of difficult to cope with diversity inflicting lethal or life threatening. Mutilating or disabling injuries on others activate a sense of pride.
The first precondition is probably the most carefully guarded secret held by violent men, which it took me years of working with them to recognize, precisely because they guard it so fiercely. This is a secret that many of them would rather die than reveal, I put it that extremely because many of them, in fact, do die in order not to reveal it. They try so hard to conceal this secret precisely because it is so deeply shameful to them, and of course shame further motivates the need to conceal. The secret is that they feel ashamed deeply ashamed, chronically ashamed, acutely ashamed, acutely ashamed, over matters that July 16, 2014, 1:39 pm Geopolitics and cognition file:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/desktop/compositebooks are so trivial that their very triviality makes it even more shameful to feel ashamed about them, so that they are ashamed even to reveal what shames them. This vivid description of being ashamed over seemingly trivial things, I.
E, things that seem trivial for those with a sufficiently developed understanding, describes an almost pervasive lack, relative to others, of understanding. The resulting publicly visible agentic inadequacy is indeed shameful. According to Gilligan, violent men try to conceal their continual shame of continual deep felt agentic inadequacy, I. E, their lack of understanding as if it were a secret. However an alternative interpretation is that many of our true motivations, like maintaining agentic adequacy, are a driving force of thought and not an outcome of thought.
As driving force these motivations are only accessible with sufficiently well developed self observation capacities, which is, one might surmise, lacking in the most violent men. And why are they so ashamed of feeling ashamed? Because nothing is more shameful than to feel ashamed. Often violent men will hide this secret behind a defensive mask of bravado, arrogance, machismo, self satisfaction, insouciance, or studied indifference. Many violent men would rather die than let you know what is distressing them, or even that anything is distressing them.
Behind the mask of coup, or self assurance that many violent men clamp onto their faces with a desperation, born of the certain knowledge that they would lose face if they ever let it slip is a person who feels vulnerable not just to loss of face but to the total loss of honor, prestige, respect, and status the disintegration of identity, especially their adult, masculine, heterosexual identity, their selfhood, personhood, rationality, and sanity. The phrase because nothing is more shameful than to feel ashamed can now be translated into because nothing feels more inadequate than being inadequate at the most trivial things in the eyes of others. So pretending to be in control of the situation, bravado, arrogance, machismo, self satisfaction, insouciance, or studied indifference, is a viable coping strategy. The assertion that men do not kill for no reason is often truer the more unprovoked the killing appears to be. A man only kills another when he is, as he sees it, fighting to save himself, his own Self when he feels he is in danger of experiencing what I referred to earlier as the death of the self.
Unless he engages in violence. Murderers see themselves as literally having no other choice, to them. It's him or me, or her or me. This is what I mean when I say that the degree of shame that a man needs to be experiencing in order to become homicidal is so intense and so painful that it threatens to overwhelm him and bring about the death of the self, cause him to lose his mind, his soul, or his sacred honor, all of which are merely different ways of expressing the same thought. Gilligan seems to refer directly to the protection agency, I.
E, the capacity to be a source of self decide and self initiated behavior, when he refers to fighting to save himself, he is in danger of experiencing the death of the self, having no other choice, it's him or me, threatens to overwhelm him, bring about the death of the self, cause him to lose his mind, his soul, or his sacred honor. Indeed these are all ways of expressing the same type of left hemispheric thoughts. And it must be left hemispheric thoughts since they address, the ultimate, pressing problems. This should not be confused with the triviality of the incident that provokes or precipitates a man's shame, which is a completely different matter. In fact, it is well known to anyone who reads the newspapers that people often seem to become seriously violent, even homicidal, over what are patently trivial events.
Paradoxically it is the very triviality of those precipitants that makes them overwhelmingly shameful. So the root problem that gives rise to violence is a severe coping difficulty to deal with the situation, and the triviality of the provoking incident that activated the violence is the ultimate proof of the coping incapacity. There is nothing paradoxical about this. 54 of 1 22 July 16, 2014, 1:30 9 pm Geopolitics and Cognition File:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft slash desktop slash composite book s. 55 of 122.
The second precondition for violence is met when these men perceive themselves as having no non violent means of warding off or diminishing their feelings of shame or low self esteem such as socially rewarded economic or cultural achievement, or high social status, position and prestige. Violence is a last resort, a strategy they will use only when no other alternatives appear possible. But that should hardly be surprising after all, the costs and risks of engaging in violent behavior are extremely high. The shameful roots of state. Note that this second precondition is valid only for individuals.
It is much less valid for those protected by a hierarchy. In addition hierarchy is direct consequence of the need for external authority characteristic of the left hemisphere which uses suppression of diversity, to maintain the conditions within the hierarchy can operate adequately, as main strategy. So here we have a possible cognitive shameful justification of the state as having a monopoly on violence. The state, whatever this concept actually means, acquires this monopoly not because any of its subjects has a right to violence. No individual has it, so neither individuals nor groups can mandate it to the state.
But what can? Mandated to the state is the right to maintain and shape one's living environment, e I, give one's agency away. And if one does that from the sense of personal inadequacy to shape the own living environment characteristic of the authoritarian, one creates a state with the explicit purpose maintain the condition that makes the authoritarian supporters feel adequate. To paraphrase Gilligan in the previous paragraph: The precondition for violence is met when these men that constitute the state perceive themselves as having no nonviolent means of warding off or diminishing their violence not a last resort, but a first resort, indeed a monopoly on violence to be used whenever nonviolent means exceed the competence of the state. And as a sideline Gilligan provides also a list of incentives associated with participation in the state hierarchy.
Socially rewarded economic or cultural achievement, or high social status, position, and prestige. Interesting. The third precondition for engaging in violent behavior is that the person lacks the emotional capacities or the feelings that normally inhibit the violent impulses that are stimulated by shame. The most important are love and guilt toward others, and fear for the self. What is most startling about the most violent people is how incapable they are, at least at the time they commit their violence, of feeling love, guilt, or fear.
The psychology of shame explains this. The person who is overwhelmed by feelings of shame is by definition experiencing a psychically life threatening lack of love, and someone in that condition has no love left over for anyone else. With respect to guilt, being assaulted, or punished, or humiliated, the conditions that increase the feeling of shame, decreases the degree of guilt. That is why penance, or self punishment, alleviates the feeling of sinfulness. Guilt, as Freud saw, motivates the need for punishment, since punishment relieves guilt feelings.
That is also why the more harshly we punish criminals, or children, the more violent they become, the punishment increases their feelings of shame and simultaneously decreases their capacities for feelings of love for others, and of guilt toward others. Freud commented that no one feels as guilty as the saints, to which I would add that no one feels as innocent as the criminals their lack of guilt feelings, even over the most atrocious of crimes, is one of their most prominent characteristics. But, of course, that would have to be true, for if they had the capacity to feel guilty over hurting other people, they would not have the emotional capacity to hurt them. With respect to fear, as we have seen, when the psyche is in danger, and overwhelmed by feelings of shame, one will readily sacrifice one's body in order to rescue one's psyche, one's self respect. That is why so called psychopaths or sociopaths or antisocial personalities have always been described as July 16, 2014, 139 pm.
Geopolitics and cognition file:c:documentsandsettings/microsoft/desktop/desktop/compositebooks. Notably lacking in the capacity to experience fear. A central precondition for committing violence, then, is the presence of overwhelming shame in the absence of feelings of either love or guilt the shame stimulates rage, and violent impulses, toward the person in whose eyes one feels shamed, and the feelings that would normally inhibit the expression of those feelings and the acting out of those impulses, such as love and or guilt, are absent. These preconditions explain what would otherwise seem to be 2 anomalies. The first is that we all experience feelings of shame in one of its many forms, feelings of inferiority, rejection, embarrassment, etcetera, and yet not everyone becomes violent.
Most people do not commit any acts of significant violence in their entire lives, despite the fact that shame is experienced throughout the life cycle. The theory I am presenting here suggests that most people have nonviolent means available to them to protect or restore their wounded self esteem, or else the circumstances in which they find themselves are such that violent behavior would not succeed in accomplishing what they needed. And, finally, because most people possess capacities for guilt and empathy with others that will not permit them to engage in lethal violence except under extremely unlikely circumstances. The second anomaly is that even the most violent people on earth, the most intractably, frequently, and recurrently assaultive or homicidal criminals or maniacs, are not violent most of the time. There, violence occurs in brief, acute crises, so that even though we have no trouble in identifying them as very dangerous people, most of the time even they hurt no one.
It only happens when an incident occurs that intensifies their feelings of being humiliated, disrespected, or dishonored to the point that it threatens the coherence of the self, or when they find themselves in a specific situation from which they feel they cannot withdraw nonviolently except by losing face to a catastrophic degree. I did not enter the world of the prisons knowing this. I had been taught none of it. I reached these conclusions, against much resistance, otherwise unexplained, after the violent men with whom I worked, year after year, had presented me with so much cumulative evidence that these were the only terms in which I could understand them or make any sense of their paradoxical, and anomalous behavior. 4.11 Summary of attitudes towards the world Ego Ego.
Summary of political attitudes towards the world.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse