Clio's Psyche #7



Another case of it's-not-actually-trauma, inflicted trauma by Al Franken
6 posts by 3 authors

q_pdRZwNOoPWY8TjtQ3aQP7KPm_dQOd837je3Y1CPIAzIIpF8wxtLELeeFbVHlIR21svs0YJmJG1gokT80aDRqx0LSVD5Iwqngj7rVjLscSuA6zZjOXGESkxp81oE9rHRBKuKYlw


add tags
Assign

Set as duplicate

No action needed
J-BRhi_XmJ8O0VdSVjqBgCZUlvMFkFCB1jmzENLqtIW7dyTIWJfqrhJR-j8bsv5Lc9lo2x4i2fYJFk-TYiLo_SYuFt9H6gv9izD35As7Soh1XLnZMqMgwZ9eYDl2clyJLB2cmjPD
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
emjs6aoVSq_7xvIrEjr8ktp5VSOHHw-9CKNOedKhDX5BDwnpHMhh0ORQ4UW85Gzkcroxp0noGFT1tAytrUf5oDmkNm44fSVqsAvH7RW7EAmxi18nPTVzMCE0GvcsXwwEGGjDhNC7
12/6/17
Another case of it's-not-actually-trauma, inflicted trauma by Al Franken.  

The former staffer said she mostly kept the encounter to herself, not even telling her boss at the time. But she started to talk more openly about it to close friends after the “Access Hollywood” video was aired in October 2016. In the now infamous tape, Donald Trump is recorded saying his fame gives him carte blanche to grab women’s genitals.
“When it really started impacting me in more of a ‘I’m really angry about about this’ way was last fall when the Trump tape came out,” the former aide said. “Hearing Donald Trump say essentially the same thing that Al Franken said to me, which was ‘It’s my right as an entertainer,’ that was a real trigger,” she continued.
The former staffer says she was particularly shaken after seeing Franken on TV responding to the Trump tape last year. Franken dismissed Trump’s excuse that he was just engaging in “locker room talk” and joked that maybe Trump worked out with Roger Ailes, the now deceased Fox News chairman who was forced to resign in 2016 amid allegations he sexually harassed several Fox employees.
“It was a moment in time where I told a number of my friends about my experience with Franken because I saw him on the news being asked about the Trump tape and I felt like it was really hypocritical,” the former staffer said. “It’s a power dynamic and the fact that Donald Trump could say that was not much different from the fact that Al Franken could say it.”
Franken took pains to separate himself from Trump earlier this year before he was accused of sexual harassment, saying just because the two were “both in a branch of show business” is no reason to lump them in the same category politically.

Click here to Reply
re2-pAu-oB-trA_RgKvkHIk8aKk4_ulY0vx-OFfEpIcgbbTBsAFIMPpkImzLPAqmV1F0MnRWOST4nM7IbHXY3dnS1tDsIRdF0C_bxjQqBRpsZ_0aj10VIxo2fdQVMi4g8wFhLG5H
Trevor Pederson
iGwG-cHvDR0ADT5HqwPifXab7wxJlBekePBRhn9cHUBtehr57f-d2TlVQ5aEnb9lB_EfrXL_g5yw5avVM5Xwz6PVsDgFrowzEtG4Mwry_xIgGXm4oMDNn6_8I7YrauS-hdKsyiWt
12/6/17
You're over-reaching in defensiveness Patrick.

Where is the claim of trauma here? She's saying that she's angered by his hypocrisy:

“He was between me and the door and he was coming at me to kiss me. It was very quick and I think my brain had to work really hard to be like ‘Wait, what is happening?’ But I knew whatever was happening was not right and I ducked,” the aide said in an interview. “I was really startled by it and I just sort of booked it towards the door and he said, ‘It’s my right as an entertainer.’”

“When it really started impacting me in more of a ‘I’m really angry about about this’ way was last fall when the Trump tape came out,” the former aide said.

“It was a moment in time where I told a number of my friends about my experience with Franken because I saw him on the news being asked about the Trump tape and I felt like it was really hypocritical,” the former staffer said. “It’s a power dynamic and the fact that Donald Trump could say that was not much different from the fact that Al Franken could say it.”

- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

V0wiaaEJqY-p4jKARjwOdlglwkNz_t2c8uN_pXfPVTPM93Jtbz2YuocF8ESand9N-sv3ElC7tjrr8yBqeXbvIThGjVspfzMmXrHKj3iMLbE7oMXjrmhutGJ7nudOlo1HR_85xaveMark as complete
hyo8Gg3LpON0SXXqAsdxYazSLu0DVQIsulVvrixRwe9P1qYuSCtKrTqjylhkqxqMAMnS59qtLsqwBVy2RrQfVjZZVqGDF83V1TMEMJDVeZNWteL3fZ9lNPXMIftLNFSoB5a1rLTC
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
5yOf2M96tRQhtocNW4tJpJz4i-4fykcSdYN6pTN70DLWMjAb6YTuHRNIQfNHT-5Ujcl8TzK_f58hBjhRTKjY4un2bnpaqb8Gq4-iDmZsQRZ_3uDKs4XOTK3fHT-ZbXp_ZHn0AGgd
12/7/17
"Clio's Psyche" needs to have members who encounter claims against Franken, hear how women felt when they were made to feel like props for the powerful, hear of his repeated sexual sadism, and who rejoice when women who've kept it stifled for years feel they're empowered to finally say something. (This was my first reaction with Weinstein as well.) This can't be a boys-club enclave for holdouts. We're supposed to be ahead in progressive attitude and psychological reach, not defensive rearguard. If we're disgusted at what is happening to Al Franken, if our first reaction isn't to deeply involve ourselves in the situations of those he predated upon (every person he accosted describes, first, their initial shock and mortification [she does say she got angry later, as you say Trevor, but do psychologists have anything to say about the full experience of an attack really only manifesting in full at a later date?... strikes me that this is essentially what Van der Kolk is all about, and so why aren't we working with her story that way? why aren't we there?], and then a later experience years on when once again they find themselves deeply humiliated by his ongoing presumptions), we need to reflect more and consider what we ourselves might be guilty of obscuring.

Would how we are reacting in aggregate enable or retard further victims from coming out? Would they sense we'd rather prefer they keep quiet? Not make quite such a big deal out of it? Would they wonder if we're being self-protective... of note, it's now being revealed that Matt Lauer repeatedly waylaid stories that involved spousal cheating. There's a "Clio's Psyche" article in involving ourselves in what Al Franken has been doing for years. The childhood experiences that gave birth to his sexual sadism. Would any of us be inclined to want to write it? That's where we should be. If not, we're rearguard. Arrive late to a story... which surely isn't psychohistorical anyway; not about a concern for the why? about society at all, and then only in hopes of taking it over so it can be managed so it doesn't alarm and surprise us as much in the future.

Trevor, your reaction has been to call his accusers oversensitive, and you've now called me overreaching... this as half a Democratic senate realizes that there are perhaps hundreds more stories that'll come out amongst Al's thousands of hugs, and that their dear Al is not just a hapless happy hugger but a Trumpian predator of those he can presume upon; those who'll feel fear and know they'll know "repercussions" if they speak up against him.  Brian's was to suggest I've been triggered into losing my sane composure [Brian, if democrats can't automatically find themselves in the full position of the victims, really relate to them, then there will be a fauxness to their populism, and to some extent they'll be revealed as monsters too, even if only historically... it's scary when every protector is gone from the universe, and everyone has some unconscious agenda to displace revenge against incurred childhood abusers upon some ensured subsequent category of people], and also this: "Unless anything more serious comes to light than what has come to light so far, they will not find grounds for removing him from office.  But apparently if you had your druthers, he’d be out on the street. What is this about?"

I sensed Franken's sadism instantly, what he was doing, and knew there were many victims, and that he had made many people feel small and used -- a shame they'd have to suffer from for years, which might indeed have been part of the subconscious plan. I know the childhood causes. I know there is no such thing as evil, just repercussions of child abuse. I know that the clear-headiness I ultimately seek (in appreciating how after a mass-sacrifice-enabled golden age era has passed a society can only further genuine growth by also ensuring a large class of victims and thus designates/votes in the sorts of people who'll ensure it, and so coming to see it ONLY as vile, that is, not as something that IS hugely vile but also a product of a certain kind of childrearing and the sense of punishment that genuine growth arouses, can mean not reading how the next era that follows is worse -- "pure" fascist state of good folk) can only be guaranteed by people who I recognize as able to function sanely. Sane people will react to the experiences these and other women went through, with horror, with an inclination NOT to protect the abuser. Of these, I would reason with them, and tell them that the predators themselves could only have done this if they themselves were victimized as children: that this is one of the likely things that happens to a person after they've known abuse. They don't just stifle and hopefully gain equilibrium later through people finally believing them. They can grow into monsters. That's why it's so right to see people agreeing finally with the victims (a category of people -- believers of victims, that is -- you'll only really find in a profound way amongst democrats, with republicans really being a victim-ensuring entity [they will protect certain vulnerable people, but only if it's known to be part of a movement which'll produce multitudes more of them -- i.e., rightwing populism]).

It didn't happen in the 80s when Frederick Crews et al. helped manage the child abuse scandals so they seemed erroneous, a witchhunt and a crime against probably innocent parents. But many more are finally not projecting their parents (imagos?) into those categorized as empowered predators and seeking to gain love by agreeing not to fully see their crimes and indeed to blame the accusers (representatives of their own childhood selves).

And thus #metoo.

- - - - -

The second woman, who said she was groped at a fundraiser, told HuffPost it took place in the fall of 2008 at the Loft Literary Center in Minneapolis. She was excited about attending the event and meeting someone she wanted to support.
“I had never attended anything like that,” she said.
She and her friends found Franken and introduced themselves to him.
“I shook his hand, and he put his arm around my waist and held it there,” the second woman said. “Then he moved it lower and cupped my butt.”
“I was completely mortified,” she added.
In order to escape the situation, the woman excused herself to go to the bathroom. At that point, she said, Franken leaned in and suggested that he accompany her. She grabbed her friend and fled to the bathroom without him.
- - - - -
As Kemplin, then 27, posed for a photo with him, she said, he put his arm around her and grabbed her breast, holding onto her for up to 10 seconds.
“I remember clenching up and how you just feel yourself flushed,” she told CNN. “And I remember thinking — is he going to move his hand? Was it an accident? Was he going to move his hand? He never moved his hand.”
“Looking back at the picture, Kemplin said she recalls feeling frozen and numb: ‘I did not process it in those split seconds.’ ”
Now, many years later, Kemplin said that “I just feel so sorry for that young girl in that picture.”
“You’re immediately put on the spot. What are you going to do? What are you going to do? Your mind goes a mile a minute. Who was I going to tell?” the 41-year-old told CNN, saying she was too embarrassed to tell the other soldiers.
On Thursday, Kemplin told CNN that when she saw Tweeden’s story, she “felt like the rug was pulled out from underneath me.”
Kemplin said she later contacted Tweeden and decided to speak out, too.
- - - - -
The picture was striking. The military airplane. The sleeping woman. The outstretched hands. The mischievous smile. The Look what I’m getting away withimpishness directed at the camera.
On Thursday, Leeann Tweeden, a radio host and former model, came forwardwith the accusation that Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had kissed her against her will during a 2006 United Service Organizations trip to Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In a story posted to the website of Los Angeles’s KABC station, Tweeden shared her experience with Franken. She also shared that photo. “I couldn’t believe it,” she wrote. “He groped me, without my consent, while I was asleep.”
I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated.
How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?
I told my husband everything that happened and showed him the picture.
I wanted to shout my story to the world with a megaphone to anyone who would listen, but even as angry as I was, I was worried about the potential backlash and damage going public might have on my career as a broadcaster.
But that was then, this is now. I’m no longer afraid.
- - - - -
The second woman, who said she was groped at a fundraiser, told HuffPost it took place in the fall of 2008 at the Loft Literary Center in Minneapolis. She was excited about attending the event and meeting someone she wanted to support.“I had never attended anything like that,” she said.
She and her friends found Franken and introduced themselves to him.
“I shook his hand, and he put his arm around my waist and held it there,” the second woman said. “Then he moved it lower and cupped my butt.”
“I was completely mortified,” she added.
In order to escape the situation, the woman excused herself to go to the bathroom. At that point, she said, Franken leaned in and suggested that he accompany her. She grabbed her friend and fled to the bathroom without him.
- show quoted text -
GRZd2Vrw93i4nlo5x2uDQ4PRb9YGN5V4rkSys2NqCKd1xxSmTU0IpNRsS7-yQuh-8tA35Q61Gua_6oG5dCFasgabDzY4jLNSP2ecm2d0WDUuEL_EK5eOVsOZhGs7BsZU45AkF5IH
Trevor Pederson
v0_APWVzULP8L9rkQxdfM_fRUKfywejFdWYNrdjZ49rv_1PVjDnmdrnZ1UvqQY9U4VjhHbKLICIbLA3Wxl6kqbv46DggxtEyNfjML1Ads_5Z5mpz5L5BvT4MeKtLvqDwuH8wVFIb
12/7/17
I'd like to ask who on this list didn't feel it was a good thing when Roger Aisles or Weinstein, et al, were taken down? Please give your opinion.

That was monstrous sexual sadism in my opinion.

I think it's very different with Franken. I'm willing to give him a chance despite him being inappropriate, and if he can't show some self-control, like Weiner, he shouldn't be allowed back in.

I have already pointed out Patrick, that you should consider becoming a therapist yourself and see what is real. I'm giving my opinion of what I've seen come up and what I haven't seen come up in the clinic. The question is whether I'm a reactionary, am conservative in attitude, unable to see whats really there or lying and covering it up for some agenda. Then there is the question of whether you might be mistaken.  Again, don't listen to me, see for yourself. But don't bellyache that this list serv doesn't have members who echo your unsubstantiated claims.

Go do the hard work and write the papers or books that will change people's minds.

There are many lies in politics and I smell a rat,

Trevor
- show quoted text -
1XMOSPG5_zg_oaQJWNuHflxmygh4tvdt0NaUARbBEYgS1OZVlCche_fK5wUApbZJmQxBaZPN5t445BvNN9CPXPoOptZG-YQJi2Xys7Q0fpo7HZP9KOP3GTp_qsDaF-lBnLKYHXFuMark as complete
VWD6EZiq4ZhHUUeRWlCXt2wCDk_eEVJUDavgFaV22NqjxvoD22BcVkHex_kmWogF4-oD-DnZTh3mT-Rcp88ctOaMNlz7WO9jbjWSNtFuzSqEorDz_592H5hUeL5On0b00gRn31GE
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
uDEM4tKol2OedtMf6X6m50WPPQGsAvxk2ecLuavMCk8PRTW8BpMdk9foJlrJRJB-BO808M_hwj3VLxuagUeEqP4fFtW3yFQZQPUsHVtI7dUgFprgZD6Y5_X-3ujpdc5rjvK2YITP
12/11/17
Al Franken, Eli Weisel, Garrison Keillor, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Woody Allen, Dustin Hoffman... are all more interesting to me than Weinstein. No one is made uncomfortable hearing of Weinstein being taken down, but with the others, yes. Weinstein isn't themselves, but the others--

Al Franken was a way in which a lot of people could give licence to their inner bully, but because it was directed against Republicans it was allowed to pass notice. This article by Salena Zito gets at that. I hypothesized a resignation speech by him (and here's cnn video of how one of his accusers responded to his classless resignation speech, where he seemed to want to blame them, and further ignored how he had made them "profoundly uncomfortable"... this Trevor, I SAW) where he would fully admit that he intended to degrade women in compromised positions vis-a-vis himself, and there I mentioned he would also draw people's consideration that a person who could do that could still end up proving solid on issues like abortion rights (mind you, I seem to remember Socarides saying that some predators alleviate guilt that way). Truly, even there I was being soft on him... as I hoped I alluded to in that article from "Outline" magazine, which pointed out how populists sometimes have this uncomfortable habit of ending up forgetting about women's issues they were formerly so strong on as they champion the working people. I felt that in the end he would end up finding means to indulge in revenge against women (i.e. his mother), a la what developed with the Bernie Bros. and their peculiar hatred of Hillary Clinton. I was scared of him; of how he would ultimately end up serving the American people.

I personally would love it I had some people on this list admit just how jubilant they are to find this #metoo movement occurring and for criminal physical assault not to be watered down into harassment or improper conduct, not, that is, simply appreciative, but alarmed at it getting out of control, and worried at women probably having misremembered things. I personally see signs here of psychohistorical evolution, where abuses that were once felt necessary for a society to obtain equilibrium are no longer as much required. As I've argued earlier, out of people like that, we can start talking widely about the societal damage incurred by mass difficulties during the preoedipal period, and getting a listen... how do so many people become this way, people we want to like, really?

There are many means to do good in this world, Trevor, and I don't personally believe that tough love (bellyache? do the hard work?) is one of them. Being amongst the ones who believe Franken is a serial predator shouldn't mean finding oneself defined as fundamentally ignorant of the ways of people. If that's what a career in counselling can do for you, offer this kind of leverage, presume this kind of level of ignorance... shame people and get away with it, it makes one want to do a Foucault on the profession. You can for instance hope to sway people who are themselves therapists. You surely should suss out venues to see if they're sincere in wanting your voice more broadly heard, or just hoping you'll find yourself corrected... as Brian assumed the hearings onto Franken's behaviour would have done to the field of accusers "aligned" against him. DeMausian psychohistory has very little play in the publishing world. Charles W. Socarides has very little sway as well... outside of venues that are simply rancid. I get my thoughts out the way I am able to now. With #metoo I'm seeing the possibility of venues opening up to me. It'll be amongst liberals who are horrified at what their fellow liberals have turned into, and who are ready to take in voices they previously hadn't felt sufficient prompting to really focus on and deeply consider: they already had buttressing that worked for them, so alien thoughts had to remain alien.

Do people at Clio like my ideas? If so, I could try and publish something at this journal. I am proud of what I sent to JOP, but I'm not sure that venue wants my work just now (and if they do, they have a funny way of showing it.) I'm not doing this though if I'm mostly just an annoyance... someone who's tolerated, to demonstrate the openness of the Clio's Psyche project. It's hard work to be where I am right now, to insist on fighting this kind of fight, and I expect a venue that appreciates that.

If someone knows of another venue that might be interested in publishing work from me, please contact me at pmcevoyhalston@gmail.com. I don't expect to be published, but I do expect a reader who if s/he has to reject, is in profound sympathy with my voice.     
- show quoted text -
TtPKxD4cT46QXiGZ1HOflWOIlUDoZDYlICGtNv5iamIgKfksJe_3_dyYzYNXVoU0hxzETy1bEDXWXVP90PFxqgdkNNr1QrghKAbFOjCJomcvIvbR91p_mQhIHkuHZ6r18-OM5_ga
bdagostino2687
GQzdXSGRHVvVrDHYV7vjIRgf4o_dn5xjP_1fx-mIr8435s-DWbGM3JxIe5JpCm0Dw5QH-nBfxhn-4HYUC-TCqeqapxqSot0BMrcyp7Ll9nGN8OrhiAqVzFVVoHwfoXah24aBU35S
12/11/17
I am not shy about speaking up on this list when I feel I have something worthwhile to say, but I don’t feel the need to say something just because someone else thinks I should.  We have aired dissenting viewpoints on this topic.  Reasonable people can disagree, especially about something as complex as this.  I don’t understand what the problem is, but in any case I’m ready to move on unless I think of something important about this topic worth saying that hasn’t already been said.

Brian

917-628-8253

    
-----------------------------


Fwd: IPA 2018 Call For Conference Proposals
2 posts by 2 authors

JFOVyktgFcx_vzUvmd0ji2Kb3sIn2tbokJL-kKj9xlvmDxds-rYiJW3V317yRScVt_-9xvBaKfkaExdCUnWwYKRSKqYBgqGdlmnGlOk4s7NmyPf7EawbuNOZp2Z-TT1qAXOz8_SH


add tags
Assign

Set as duplicate

No action needed
BpdOXVQgRaee6yMZ9dZTIshkJzfcpAeRZZx5VCbxQeIYLxPICvooRQUMJpUq6vKjpMUHF61fc-uVRFkbJbC_ILNrVJ2iadt-sTYmhd99T5JAO6EpXUCl4-T48ogWSFOnVJJe62xl
Denis O'Keefe
5Gd_enpa6S-z0HzhHrmXespV8_gQ0JxDTCn3eSvn9_MS2sfa3iMI1dEPtoMf6Ge5eVy_07Cfm9gxTvT3r61k4HwlDBS_MeFgehd6TKxeuDzprNzcYkZNaNTpPFMP1h1O3fMEUHKv
12/12/17

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: International Psychohistorical Association <dokeefe.ipa@outlook.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:22 PM
Subject: IPA 2018 Call For Conference Proposals
To: Djo212@nyu.edu








xn8yFmAqGnQ8KGVC3hOL92d6xCqXIWQ9Aui8cDhh0HbypBtmUuEWGGBs3P4f-CWtcWzoD_g4_KUStWfrKnctEsbN5I53xJejHeAc8A23jeSg2DIkvat2C1Uu0QKfIdDVW4vzrB2W




CALL FOR PROPOSALS
41st ANNUAL CONFERENCE of the
INTERNATIONAL PSyCHOHISORICAL ASSOCIATION
Co-sponsored by:
The New York University Silver School of Social Work
The Object Relations Institute
Conference Theme: The Self in Psychology, History and Culture
Sub-theme: Retrospective on the Work and Career of Robert J. Lifton

Dear Colleague,
The International Psychohistorical Association is currently accepting papers for its 2018 annual conference to be held May 30- June 1 at New York University.    
Interested scholars are invited to submit your proposed presentation title, abstract of 75 words and a brief biography for possible inclusion in the IPA 2018 program.  Papers are expected to focus primarily on the intersection of psychology and history. Students are encouraged to submit proposals for student panels.

Due date for proposals: January 31, 2018
Please submit paper proposals to IPA President and conference chair Ken Fuchsman at kfuchsman@gmail.com.

Keynote and Plenary speakers are listed below.





RLYvq8GTJP-p0NJhwCb28ORblY97js4WoSswXxeYd7zZimUmkKCmAANnJELLhd2hQXuNUwHXLu5kMJ05J4Ixte8zeScSHwsxf-P4Y91W58AL-ky4kDsfY-cap3_IInbeRe5ml2vg
Key Note Speakers:
Carol Gilligan (New York University Professor of Humanities and Applied Psychology, author of In A Different Voice and other notable works)  

James Gilligan (New York University, author of Violence: Reflections on A  National Epidemic and other significant books).


ZPT0tfUgQ5Mlb7m6HpL0qYAdR1LpgrUEG8GuTB2G9LD2P8gejcft9Y5LW6PkMyrKWSe1H62v1ys68Oj6NFqu8vcz5nufEK69fjtEtplnPqzL5AudF1VuZsAVZ2wf55_c__lB0Dgs
Plenary Speaker:
Daniel Shaw, LCSW (Private practice in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy;  author of Traumatic Narcissism: Relational Systems of Subjugation).



hebzH8HxhNOB6QNtH5dF1DxarvGJ-Oj2go_TTYc_-bzC8o9quA41QKA1HdlHh9ztAB2YRLj3JIN_wk_BbAN4rLw5gDZm0_JqdMhgE5qQIafU-SjPHQrMI-UmO2hw8i4Ge02WpQzy
Plenary Speaker:
Bandy Lee (Assistant Clinical Professor Yale Medical School, Co-Founder Yale University’s Violence and Health Group, and editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump).


R1b2Ho5_eisGU4fR55edh4GWcyz44OuPZtSKbgzO5RD3fBoz4tSYeuzb4AO5a4ZlX3efK28646NYhrmbAf4sFDItusNZhUhgq0MyzRGtJ-XngA__sY67O32ggYyUHxhVKXHVU7NC
Plenary Speaker:
Brian D’Agostino (author of The Middle Class Fights Back, and past President, International Psychohistorical Association).



B9Wlf_Bh_pb-niUuxIWFcFPBb5IFfWh4XxSq_3NeBLbgZS3csSORdu-sSTYhVRKMO7gTtma3233J5NF32nU6jsPuY-nYLmMqL_6ImstDkixSt76TtJ8l-OK_4-67zuOrqRNjoWl_
Plenary Speaker:
George Makari (Director of the Institute for the History of Psychiatry at Cornell-Weill Medical Center and author of Revolution in Mind: The Creation of Psychoanalysis and Soul Machine: The Invention of the Modern Mind).








HL3W3MA_JjioSynsMRe6me1KdZeEhnh1Kaf85WRIe6KOtGEWO4poJNiK2-7pCJu__q4Ge2MnwstUK6Fs2MLhGgsoc-6EHH9RkQ9BAhk5yTGwV0IvEcxjL7gLy1Sa7968NKBLWajI



3yO2BiNrHVS9ZfXbUid8Uar1MwUtUuZ4yQbbJgFypMscdmh3VUBRcv0k4THURglbAYwifJ6Mh6lToU_mZ67hpDSkl_qHwNPgSWvcPY7fdAJRC1KxdAvYBHIK9fEvRhenBsOOU3t4



xnvZZOdhrOFIXlxsTNu76fIz1SWeQRcc1X2DHDDnis9_Gxq8FZMDhTIGNjyzFgiWfdW2Y5D0Nnc8tHmNEHvdu7jlicACXqZW8FBswJgkk-qU8gUfn9FeqKFCIxZgnKU_7hEkmvaY





Copyright © 2017 International Psychohistorical Association, All rights reserved.
For more information visit www.psychohistory.us

Our mailing address is:
International Psychohistorical Association
142A Main St.
Highland Falls, NY  10928


Want to change how you receive these emails?

mail Marketing Powered by MailChimp
FhgCeOp57d9WdQMuOo_B9PuHkTetJaR8XZm1OBjApi0VzfOtKWsham2G1C61EAAt-ekQtxodQs2Fkq-v0MY5z-acQRHYqHa0nXggKwK-P56pwDRjtpomkZH9ksTyAEZBw8mukVCy

Click here to Reply
gqyzIco47smzfbMyUWSiMDl6yG9aowEleF1ZZNFuFF9-ivgsDDKoKpGIeGHfUrfkXuD1l-HMDfmTv443d429jQ_Uz5EHvQVIYoCfZU2ejBlqP0Kf9hzSWFayzOaf4mF3BLIAJfMH
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
_4z7Xgh3Kr0U0O0VqTJMTP0ztPckOIcRnfVdkuHBsZeLwo5hsyXej8ax4CRIG_TCTAgq5JXkpckZluYeCc1RzKcoKJRQLUWz-Bq_iSXU8tgVfZrTfKkUFRD5l8tUPcDWfd5vDD2E
12/13/17
Reading a bit of Daniel Shaw's work (his book), there seems to be confusion as to why exactly he would believe Trump must be understood as swaying a whole nation into becoming sadists. He is arguing that children come to agree with their unloved parents' (he can reference the existence of monstrous mothers -- on his facebook page, he insists on there being "many" of them for instance -- but through what portions of the book I was able to read, it has to be drawn out of him... not his preference) perception of them as bad when they don't fulfill their emotional requirements of them, that they develop inner persecutors and inner protectors that lord over their psyche, watching over their "sinning" in this direction, but doesn't conceive that this "badness" associated with attending to one's own needs, one's own growth, could eventually lead to them USING "leaders" like Trump to execute punishment against people understood as behaving counter to their own parents' requirements for children, that is, as behaving seemingly self-centeredly, selfishly, smugly, only because they exist in the realm of "badness" they themselves had been cowed away from much exploring. He refers to leaders like Trump forcing their will on a populace. If enough children are of the kind he alludes to, they already have inner persecutors forcing their wills on their own behaviour, and these drive them to see individual growth as a sinful, as a bad, thing. Trump, in pursuing his purpose of shaping society so that it ultimately feels guilt-free in persecuting and destroying whole groups of people who well represent what their early child selves conceived as parent-not-approved, seems more an executor of perpetrators already installed in people's psyches.

His theories, in my early reading of his work, strongly seem to suggest the problem rests in the people, not with (charismatic, hypnotizing... both terms he uses) leaders. This matters. For if it's a collective populace's overall childhoods that are the problem, there are a multiple million number of "Trumps" that could be called into servicing this, probably now, unaddressable problem, and we're wasting our time in trying to show him up... or more accurately, pursuing some end actually apart from the purported one of educating the American public. If this is the case, the only time our work in unmasking him will prove "effective" is if he fails to carry out a regressing populace's needs to destroy their split-off "bad selves." Time would seem better put into making sure that we ourselves are free of necessary illusions, to confront our own need to find sacrifices for our own dis-ease at societal growth, and so be sure to function through this period as strategically astute as possible.

He's written (on his Facebook page) that the problem is the billions of dollars put into demonizing liberals, as the reason liberals like Obama and Hillary Clinton accrue any sense of legitimately being seen as deeply flawed. I don't know why he doesn't connect that the reason liberals are hated isn't owing to billionaire rightwingers' media influence, or evil Putinists', or Trump's ostensibly inherent hypnotizing charisma, but for the sheer fact that, objectively, they're not people who can readily be cowed by angry parental representatives... that is, because they very ably, very noticeably, intrinsically represent their own "bad selves," whose destruction will surely bring an end to parental abandonment and perhaps the acquirement of their appreciation and love. Liberals are always for the children, consevatives are always for the persecuting parent. That's the dynamic even when "speaking for the children" has to come about in very modulated form.

He denies on his Facebook page that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were mostly adored by the press; given an easy ride. He refers to a Salon article which emphasizes just how negative the press was against Hillary (it was absolutely so in 2008 when she was running against Obama... reporters could barely look at her in the eye, but vastly less so against Sanders... though still some, yes). He points to the billions of dollars put forth to demonize them by the rightwing and Russia. Yet, as incomparably healthy as both Hillary Clinton and Obama are compared to Trump... compared to all Republicans, Hillary Clinton is justifiably becoming seen as psychically needing America over the last few decades to produce a class of victims whose pain would find no address... she wasn't tortured into labelling the women accusing her husband as scum of the earth; she may even have known he had sexually predated upon them when she tried to manipulate them into being politically docile, and thus served akin to Weinstein's assistants/enablers; she wasn't tortured into believing in being "tough on crime," but felt the ostensible righteousness of it. Legitimate criticism of her really should have emerged -- then -- from all of us, even as I still believe we should have voted for her. She represents that part of ourselves that participated in making these last few decades a period of significant growth of the professional class, but also one that depressed and stigmatized millions of the less fortunate. I've argued before that there was no other way -- that this doesn't show us up as evil, as someone like Chris Hedges would argue it does. But it's sane to recognize it. Societal growth equals people sinning... has been historically our greatest affliction. And Obama... good lord. I don't know if we've projected onto him, or if we've kind of just decided not to look at him and just consider him a shield at our side that hedges all self-accusers safely to the side, but here mostly certainly is someone we couldn't bare to denature and address in simple good faith. We have to examine that. It's different than even it was with the Kennedy's, because we felt ourselves reflected in him... something genuinely promising. With Obama, we don't identify with him. We efface him; make him and his family convenient equipage, accompanying external tools of the psyche... or so it strikes me.     
- show quoted text -
---------------------------


when consent is retroactively withdrawn
9 posts by 3 authors

Cl4Wya0afaOG6iqOgm4hs5N2Eol2-rZFgNbBxx41GHEVHkJKuBIA0_nkgWKTWs4kvxcaGmDfqL99YqzlkkNS-g4igqiN5ruOjAfe_slQCSsYUL-29gGSM9QqtU4Hpp5l6JYZFNi4


add tags
Assign

Set as duplicate

No action needed
4qcf1bhZ5FsXyU3G09_9z2SfUR9KcVR8o-KthXjSY0yvPYN4iTmGd05pRoD7UP6yheUf3hVfkKXOZ2IHCMcmxU0r1WxG4PirmohMgtd7lPwGF0yWq5Opz4qN7hzy8CLAhBbdjR0T
Trevor Pederson
oUQmv0Eo1AF0w9iPoO3bEvbjy5s0RP3cgyZu3w3pgiTmEghXFQSRVLH3He94ENZv8jxb1FwtIbdvTtR4tJS4SedQueIFw5P13xX7v9V9dfK7iUVHlwMPW-WHknHD6_AlNssKaVHi
12/16/17
there might be some people who agree with this, but its going to start to hurt the cause

Click here to Reply
Lw8T-Mp29NZ07DOcl3-IKJJ00uVITxjzATPL_DdBGAKYsgKAb5eVUWTCf-NhSQXVFPSFnD6SPP1JXhiP_NxKb_IqQPgblx3XuOh2kYreW_lannZKILzMCdRWyNL0QIf2OEGk_yJG
Judith Logue
wAu1j960EPRJCW8JHCnPd4gTlWZXSza-CsONgI3iQoNoj3OJKekosjsgcJpwawIccurZHPzYMf2NABy5vbrA98Tj1I75mYP_W0IvYKHTT5cKpwKHK3_SmKbM0U9wZAe6KG4-B_bO
12/16/17
How will telling individual experiences and a “personal truth” hurt “the cause?”

To me, truth - in all its varieties - IS “the cause.”

Judy

Judith Logue, PhD

On Dec 16, 2017, at 12:58 AM, Trevor Pederson <trevor.pederson@gmail.com> wrote:

there might be some people who agree with this, but its going to start to hurt the cause

--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
mAQ2ByCD1BXMx-nTmy_FgQkYlp-uWOTURcISWJ6Jd5rJJBO950cQhv7jWzuEqFgrAH1Ddll8-l5AgzdOCcSiOknBX5H6nHsYrskIQYo3x-XwAPqlJ0eH18i3IRJcF7DeJAquLMroMark as complete
1qui8jtCSPSf9g08Vak9TtxMGxDjXQ-rSF5fcXPsygMUiEHftbXqGDS5FTAeD-wD5adj3rHc4Ig9CfSSomxzaOrKi_PgNMjb07f-7SqyWyNt6tavPlmQLyjNNby37sEzQgpDoaPl
Trevor Pederson
Zb43gH8v-SkauRBtobeX7uo08h30SdIqLKopmMgGwgx2YisLC7aohmONO7CadKr3jbrGlh_YQam4_-WYxcNFOjrrB_qEUoDUZS_IzROh5yOlnedsLUFni8MWLxZIuOWFCMScDK3c
12/16/17
Hi Judy

It's hurtful because consent is the goal.

Lauer would be fired for the unequal power dynamic at many companies even though there was consent. However, outside of working at a company with a woman, many egoistic people  are trying to make money, have status symbols, and impress other with their accomplishments. Many hope to impress younger "trophy brides" or partners that have less than them in some ways but who have youth, beauty, or something else.

The power inequality is recognized with therapist and patient and in many other situations and, again, in many companies in which the power dynamic isn't forcing any personal intimacy. I wholly agree with this, but outside of this, when so many egoists are going to be asked to be mindful of power inequality and taking advantage of others, I don't see them changing.

Instead, I see them putting it back on women, and saying that if your can still be a victim, even with consent, then we better protect you from the dangers of the world. Maybe you should have your own dorms and go back to having curfews on college campuses even though the men don't have them.

Even though my situation with Matt was consensual, I ultimately felt like a victim because of the power dynamic.

Even looking back now, at 41, I can’t envision a scenario under these conditions where I could not have succumbed to his advances.

I didn’t know what to do. He was obviously flirting. But I’d never seen anything like that from Matt before. As a 24-year-old production assistant, I had no idea how to interpret that. I could truly embarrass myself if I said something like, “Where are you going with this?”

I have worked with many men who have patterns like this with woman and there is psychopathology involved. Lauer isn't healthy and I am not on his side at all. However,  I don't think many egoists will understand how she couldn't stand up for herself, her values, and how she isn't a "nasty woman" who slept with a man who she knew was married.

You say the truth is the cause, and I am saying that differences in psychology informs what truth people are capable of seeing.

I don't think the writer is being dishonest, but I do think there are many who won't be able to see her truth, many who will be defensive, and many who feel this as a further attack on their manhood.

I'm surprised that you don't have a sense for this,

Trevor

  






- show quoted text -
LiTDTLKYu-LDu7DDRuIkUEsGcMrcVtXUt_L0lREq-MsUZf4BiTdlV82bm8LHmyCrd8Fd5ODypPP9bnZzu_ALqKT9l8aMK5m6xH712PoUAAnzyH4WjaqaOgeZq78cGUEK96GeX12RMark as complete
7Dl57KIcRGphwm-vrW7TBpugNPXji6SZiEQQrAIsGww4XslXbL07Zvo8CBopFfdtbAC4LcjbqwSeBsOdFnQnxREHj98W3a-zqzI0L9AO8OzDPAFuB5k5owCy4NJOuDB6tx5SbM8D
Judith Logue
vUzUx4B8tb1OdLuKyfUxnx9hGVLPtFiFZUDXolnY0RLYX9xu9e_1KQ4fId1u7WZlgSiUw-LK3DaHZ5gMAb9Vxg5UX1AwVqbKvJsqYJ7cYuDh9a8U9KkWABEed9x0e7ph6i5NFX3k
12/16/17
yup!
Judy
- show quoted text -
xMpFpkunYlAHWWMc60TFtwwA1zFzZqrcZBzBgqRAbPAP4FLeZqOfQWkluYwXk9NNQt6vCGaNSxA27tQUJ8e1b-mjEe7Te_WXm7cBoqpSmdFYjna50kHPsSaOnPqk6MpjDQmgfve0Mark as complete
7c8vC0eKLGmyfHD-IUpY16XWDGMRs0dfD79P3EOvHzAx2P7uj7i5zlOCuOvfCUcx5nK4-UlnnfC9pV9kxa44ueMq56NpnNZvFEkQ9KsR7ogYV-K0USF0nvo4HdkwCaOsXjMmqu_c
mfbrttn
AUtT1s2h4eN6AZfPnFoh3uoaMwv2OmppsnMc_FJH5Y5tgAHD07wh16ap0mzmNvBF5EqZhEBXdl7WWcwT-Ll-zIo_Lyw8ZUhnwxpl-huNiYKaUluSL6xdoatTVmyMNrsD_yFJgqhG
12/16/17
Trevor,
I'm still looking for your next book, and/or the book that makes these powerful concepts accessible to the "general reading public" as they say.
Best wishes as always,
Mike Britton
- show quoted text -
Bbut4SPl5g7dqSM2YLc22WDHLpSe8PW_M3Oxedt4K3yBK1Dd11efGuybvnZgldB14GQrEEqKSQembYYo-ANCxtKQovXhH02d2WEnxV7TVZ6TwjQug_ioqKLFIiB5yLOTpEVclmbwMark as complete
ic_gs3yf_SMxUPe9sH6k-AMIuoYgiD6T5ytY6bJ3JazbwOkvcQPJcTAzshPf0P9LHA6BesM4TfrVaZHUUCJjm2v0KduGMCRXfE0QjVVur_q1BCJrxPB_kVtKrYSuPY8LR7Xwhwcj
mfbrttn
lHkxX3T5aj5h6FmRPXHtekR9iDcBOXgMo0Fl7rjX9H2NLCceILi5ZxkziaEaV9tG0pC-8f2M_mK_K4nzedGDV-zcnxkYfpV5IkKRX06bPVe4InKJnTprbZrn3kcLiTH4vxmKx0fV
12/16/17
PS.  This is not a comment on the discussion the two of you are having, just a comment on the group of concepts of which egoists is one that Trevor is so articulate about.
Michael
- show quoted text -
2a50iMLoGO1AygD1fKA-G_3N0BqtRYfje-9XeRYHRTPYGA2wueCSAl1nanXMLLVDeEi4XdUXwh396A7VkyqIkA81D4Zg_6oVMlStFk2o-zdw0PwUaSh5pzBA0Jcvy1f3xMZqTesNMark as complete
RAJUuxT50CSekAkCQG29bYfVi9Jlzm0NwlA9yxsFjoOlLFgHhWGRQtTZTHhn-E7faJiKrmIvsdQCEU-ie0mNO04zSWfwai6xhvCwpDw7V0i8CsUKh6AQNuTHQZqgDXZcaCD3TOkJ
Trevor Pederson
wfwyFikSF4c9P-OrSqZgfbKMp0guKyzq70V47SXkJ2HXuBY7Tp8elIYmc_el_xaoEdjas8KcUz9XleR-wfQmOdqDuW4K5uYI0YRwPugDfIQe7PZB5oJtiZz4CrjCM27JEljkZURW
12/16/17
Thanks for compliment Mike.

I'm getting close to finishing the edits on the next book, and I can say that I'm giving a lot clinical examples in it. This should be helpful for many readers.

But, I doubt that I've become wise enough to speak in a way that would capture the ears of the public- hopefully I'll still grow.

cheers,
Trevor
- show quoted text -
l0L-SRdtYEMWCf1YgXRW8dhRshKU95DLQaPlcqn1bbAnWGXdRWr_nMg1jdWsBZ-4WFFhE44umf10aTQoCwwIyC8tEFGBPyHzLcUVOQX7y2sJpDLT-81Gdm2jWAMcmCJJtqRkZGmYMark as complete
FaSewDs_CSAVCqaeAY6zhvWF0RPplYG6GUzseorP-MtbnVV6jWKuqHtfniVMQ5GyiqiPR3AHMIaV1D8ujWVNs51hQ82FE_NM4MdNaGHbt8M5btZFVLD0tykqBKH5oIXJUleYU47g
mfbrttn
lvQaqbtuzqsAP9TTZR0DkKN-LwB5R-Gf6kdGHsKT2J-Dh_qaSFozIIx1tvqX2MhepjcXfoson5TXbEF8D37Z-uy8zDvuzStWIIdn6W3ZEForJVLvW87almbEnrsmkq9NX7r--0Z8
12/16/17
Great!  I'm excited!
- show quoted text -
SBjq46GmgrnvH_O8Qv3Es-p0Fh5R8ZDWYg-te6W9yM9KC1YFzg55Pf52b4mHXn4c7XX8BdnrY0gQgd-kCDuWjkhrVJAyvNk8ijUvVgHpDpfXqzZ835baENa23gykGhtPazyw2yYgMark as complete
Dwl-J1xnl8akdyvooP319fk15jE1lxuMAWkRHCRA8cQhLSYRwHQGkZ1GSA8zAXOouncYLj3nhOIAlQIYZUcQAZyIAqenn1YUreP0zk2DhMZyYdtJ4r2fz_-5CGExaTGttgNKMDZB
Trevor Pederson
FOV6l65ujG94FVatekTzn00I4KcXCR7EyXZQDsfyXVadmzNpFhig9B1Dcqj_sx8URxQvoh_PBjqinE-rrTpB4a_S7JJBXL5CoJgyKZ42XNb95thLCROldY4z8YAJsDHUv0aFsKsW
12/19/17
Today’s Fox News story

Ex-'Today' assistant who admitted to Matt Lauer affair called 'whore,' 'homewrecker'
The former production assistant who revealed she engaged in a sexual relationship with "Today" host Matt Lauer in 2000 is being called a "whore" and a "homewrecker."
Addie Collins Zinone divulged shocking new details about her torrid affair with the now-disgraced talk show host in an explosive interview with Megyn Kelly on Monday.
While Zinone was initially praised for opening about her experience with Lauer, the former "Today" staffer is now facing backlash online for coming forward. She was 24 and he was in his 40s and married when they began their affair.
"Stop playing the victim! You are NOT a victim!! You are a whore! Plain and simple," one person wrote on Twitter.
Another shared, "Addie Zinone just wanted some 5 minute attention... her affair with Matt Laurer was 100% consensual and she honestly should have never brought it up. She made the choice to be a homewrecker and gives a bad name to the real /#MeToo people."
"THERES A PHRASE FOR WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WOMAN, ITS (sic) CALLED TRYING TO SLEEP TO THE TOP, THIS IS SO FREAKING REDICULOUS (sic), ID (sic) EVEN BET SHE CAME ON TO HIM!!!"
Zinone told Kelly about the negative comments she was already receiving since revealing her affair with Lauer.
"I understand that people are going to paint me as a homewrecker, as a slut and a whore and those are things I have been called. It was suggested yesterday to me that 'Please please go get hit by a bus,'" Zinone told Kelly.
Their alleged affair lasted about a month and, even though Zinone felt that Lauer steered her into the uncomfortable situation, she said she takes full responsibility for her actions, calling them a "massive mistake" that has continued to haunt her.
"These are very hard things to talk about," she admitted. "My family is shattered by this. They are afraid for me. This all trickles down to a lot of people that are affected, so having these conversations is really important, but also there's a lot of shame attached to what I did."
Zinone said she struggled with hiding her story for 17 years and was fearful of opening up to the world about her shame.
You can find Sasha Savitsky on Twitter @ SashaFB.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
- show quoted text -
--------------------------------


the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
25 posts by 9 authors

hMp3L2m4DzQBubSsXvhqmvPDrwG85EJgOpTNqUjcwniIbUwqS50MGBMQ9AXpz7X4fkD-WzW5Z0spva_LpJqrAi0r-CCw1KiiW7bObKbbo2bDywzbwEZk5UmxheNCD_whAiT_B3U1


add tags
Assign

Set as duplicate

No action needed
NGlgp5gSPWYFsfvlwvmE7-Cnm78nGCuwlZIcki5xhiRn8gTM3a7jTpztM7qVUPaFAr-GWXnn9G0EDBxZrC2V1EuOHMDXD8Mam14_SHrWu5FXtHH6kIR230zzhvc6USiSLNFB1Yq1
bdagostino2687
Bhn5cIMTbhUzeOxEfOlz2_3UZoXdY_XOrhMTDPG2b-WIoMY1T_AePZZFRi-nEeEPMQHqMdOsiQd-XalOOilw94rC9bwBSCj5WwO4sTkPg9NocI9WQj6OyKGSr2zu24WyYHVZiwKM
Jan 12
There has of course been an unprecedented outpouring of verbiage and commentary about Trump’s racist immigration comments yesterday.  One of the best analyses and discussions I have heard was Lawrence O’Donnell’s on MSNBC.  The following link takes you to his ten minute setup, but be sure to stay connected because after a brief commercial you get a really outstanding panel discussion.

The other really outstanding piece is a 20 minute segment (including panel discussion) from Joe Scarborough, also on MSNBC:

These items raise of number of larger issues.  First, it would appear that Stephen Miller and other hard liners of Bannon’s ilk are running the show in the White House and derailing any effort at bipartisan compromise on immigration.  Second, it would appear that, notwithstanding their efforts to control the president, Trump is as out of control as ever and saying things that are not only destroying his own political career but destroying the Republican Party and doing long lasting damage to US relations with the rest of the world.  Third, this state of affairs is so dysfunctional that the pundits in the Scarborough panel found themselves having to resort to essentially psychohistorical explanations.  Not well informed explanations, to be sure, since this is entirely new terrain for these folks, but they realize that they are confronting a phenomenon that requires new conceptual tools.

Brian

917-628-8253


Click here to Reply
yN1Oyg3tlcGBqHQi2eIzFLFE99zMTs7nmN0aOMrW_xdsJzyyT64HGJVjZp6xaCDSJ65uofHrCR2Dq0k1rec1GTMck95NdilQF1VDsyH1JLW8p8patYr13NpfyUvqNaxQ62KKsN6h
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
EDxhvgz4L20pftWUvVeZDqdLPXwZ3tsHdx1Nr-nC0DGglqL0Igm8GeUO17xswS8AGWKDsd8HJ6k33cR_k5gBeBCT8uyVhXkVOYk9Ef6hhZRBZfsLFmd5BewPLaz-FOhzKyr6r1q4
Jan 13
Where is the evidence that this is hurting Trump's political career? The response I read at New York Magazine is that Trump is essentializing countries that are poor and war-torn -- ostensibly entirely owing to our own foreign policy towards them -- as actually owing to something intrinsic about them. This is the discussion the Right wants, that the people want, for it prompts people to start exploring whether or not there is something essentially foul about the people in "shithole" countries, and this is no longer debate territory where the Left holds all the cards, and is in fact territory people are eager to use to buttress their own sense of European "fineness" and to demonstrate masculine rejection of ostensibly manipulative ideological positions that they now want to believe have long kept them tamed.

Previously, if you wanted to demonstrate any virtue at all, you would demonstrate yourself anti-racist, anti-homophobic, and for every country out there whose poor were shown as people of great dignity... if you weren't like that, you weren't modern, and everyone in keeping up with the latest music hits and Apple tech wanted to be that. Believing yourself like that, you were all welcome to count yourself a friend of Steve Jobs; to be with it. The Left is fooling itself into thinking that this is the way people still want to see themselves, for they're not sure they can be persuasive if they have to get in the muck and fight out for a dignified status of people from these places, afresh. They're worried -- with their own blatantly obvious powerful new interest in the habits, ways... in the intrinsic nature of everything Dutch, Swedish, Scandinavian these days -- that they'll show in the debate a lack of heart over the issue. They're worried that they might expose, to themselves, the absolutely intolerable fact that they're for some strange reason not as interested in demonstrating themselves akin to, say, the lost boys of Ethiopia as they were even just a couple of years ago. In the debate, they'll show lack of heart, and the Right will pounce on this as a demonstration that they've always being hypocritical in their positions (which before, they actually weren't), while the Right rejoices in the Left being emasculated by coming to know that every protection they've put in place to ensure that there was no take on the peoples from "shithole" countries that wasn't actually flattering to them that wasn't stigmatized, have completely lost their power, as "Steven Pinker"-ish thinking comes in and completes supplants it. They'll rejoice in the supplanting, of decades of closed thinking on the issue in respectable circles being eradicated in an instant, and they'll rejoice in having used the over-confidence of the Left to make a sloppy mistake that will be used to greatly wound them... "Spotlight's" "Garabedian manoeuvre: now an excuse for all the facts in and of themselves to be reintroduced to the public.

I think he wins on this. If we insist he's losing, it might be because we have to believe this or face revealing to ourselves our own developing sympathy for his position. Can't do this, so we pretend to ourselves we are ourselves as we were a few years back. What the Left never did is demonstrate that they were able to allow dignity for people who'd traditionally been denigrated, without romanticizing them, without making it so that in evaluating them, there wasn't a level they weren't allowed to be dropped into -- every single one of them would be more highly dignified than any troll of the American right, heaps above them, in fact, was always the first order of business.
- show quoted text -
WV-GE7HTedheta5pMBeku21BkTUEkuwuW-hs44wPyfBVGC5cdbnW51nSE3tny71Vp_IRA5vbVlRnBIVTkDysfH1Jg2ljIBltXlASrOJ51-xDRhOjG1urL7HXXyzNosLvBiVjpFwEMark as complete
LJhqS7TIDsjrRHXwZUspebJKsdrsR8iwpYLjdM2BA0_ETrHr2meR0nwy8U1ugeoNkb3NS-asLFtQnd-WQ2v8bpGnmP5TjgLj0Bggyvaj3wj08nwEZ3T2W19JJfU6X6Mf05JO5oPa
Barney
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/ot8UcMDMC7JIsloPCnRa9pQ-Q3wxVEIMeM5valJPJyEQ5GuXZKr0RHj_XIjsRaQcH9tBdgpLhEiSYHC6yogWp34XUNLWzNRALBjgtYSy9zVhgOj_ULOMncjIme4OE0ZKuVT4YM_j
Jan 13
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Dear Cliofolk,

As a reporter who has traveled and written about many of the darker-skinned "shithole" countries in question, I believe almost all of them are essentially beautiful, mysterious, and often grand nations. The shitholes are those in a position to steal the nation's wealth, usually by creating chaos and fear so that the most gullible are duped by "nationalist" propaganda into following the tyrants.

The true shitholes are in the minds of the Trumpists and their ilk, who exist throughout the world in powerful positions for the purposes of greed, luxury, and self-aggrandizement.

Interestingly, the most Trump-like  dictator I've known (and I've got to know quite a few) was Francois Duvalier of Haiti, who rose to power by preaching "negritude", the black species of racial supremacy, and blamed the Americans and the light-skinned Haitians for the plight and poverty of the underclasses.

Trump is going almost precisely by the Duvalier book. And so is the brilliant Vladislav Surkov, the Putin right-hand man who has orchestrated the chaos in the USA .

He and the Russian intelligence teams spotted Trump early on when he was in Russia begging for money. They recognized a self-centered, sadistic pervert who failed at almost every enterprise he took on, knew a useful fool when he saw one, and now can claim, as Surkov has done, to have put their fool into the White House.

It is probably the most successful espionage caper in modern history, and astoundingly you seldom if ever read a word about Surkov in mainstream or even backstream media.

The "shithole" hub-bub is merely another chaos tactic, which the excellent psychologists associated with Putin understand better tnan alomst anyone.

Face it: Trump is Putin's "passed pawn queen" (as they say in Russia, which means in chess an almost certain victory).

Trump is a Russian-made traitor, and he probably doesn't even know it.

- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/lLj_RT0TOn7GFuW8DQhr1YydhzW2kDX05p1TJTcZd53YAH8OHqjTXJbB4tkkkkbIJMc5zlYol1291vP14C7DQgLk9hLTSbSUwxuxh36Zsy5bmzbbrDpXzHaADM1xttZ5KItsNjWZMark as complete
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Jy9W4uMuCW1MBCwWsywLuXI9XoviOhGDeRNsXILCbQSoFQxL4Q7SnFNqE2CAgirSShfPsXbxzzKv1J5Bo4weZ5UbuzBv9OGzA2liXYnD2p-8-90qpxizTRkfOSA7ZEeGWDlhf2Ux
Barney
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/siQf8XRevO2XpFJDb1mK7nyIzQBlShDJNAoh1h6ZBPYpfTRUdDU1_wSne9y--2-KKifJe8f3McfbzLFuwvXgchP-rT0LxnpV_5M5WWdLvxnbnjJIWxByFUSbyGOV9XJyqzjJyyli
Jan 13
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
A bit more about Surkov from Wikipedia:

In an editorial for the London Review of Books quoted by Curtis, Peter Pomerantsev describes Putin's Russia thus:
In contemporary Russia, unlike the old USSR or present-day North Korea, the stage is constantly changing: the country is a dictatorship in the morning, a democracy at lunch, an oligarchy by suppertime, while, backstage, oil companies are expropriated, journalists killed, billions siphoned away. Surkov is at the centre of the show, sponsoring nationalist skinheads one moment, backing human rights groups the next. It's a strategy of power based on keeping any opposition there may be constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it's indefinable.
— Peter Pomerantsev, in "Putin's Rasputin", London Review of Books issue of 20 October 2011 [8]
Curtis claims that Trump used a similar strategy to become president of the United States, and hints that Trump's Surkovian origins caused Putin to express his admiration for Trump in Russian media.[89][90]

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Patrick McEvoy-Halston <pmcevoyhalston@gmail.com> wrote:
- show quoted text -
--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/W3peP0TDyIt7zH4znObU0ayMl72f4lydCQR1A-ZpyEsQVpyJxDdvCrGG0t6zQttQBq3AkGtUH2i6BOCzIGJH6KaKob1c4zO4PJ52RqfavZBPhhxJQ4tmcfhef_lF7fK7mb7xE0uDMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/0fdUIz4E55zPwC7KfHDhPXYbAzh8bCfURSlUwNlNzYKFvwUP7-TxV1De8gSJ-EJBCNXfXmGoeeVUubAwxngMJyxfCz3C-wH4rsw6jmujSQGA7iVBZLkNXkd067D2WAsvTb7wFrQU
bdagostino2687
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/Z0AquHthKcqmy1LtTWXZkNsMCVlXDoARRDIm0Qx2sAhRa5yYkXLUweqs4CAE5IR-yDw771yckORNilMBTqwaHfVzAdTBTh8cr-mc7HROyCUQUwFMEQBXOC3usWuWZlfJhar4OxYQ
Jan 13
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Patrick, one major form of evidence is opinion polling data on Trump’s approval and disapproval ratings.  His approval rating has remained steady in the low thirties, but his disapproval rating has spiked to around 60%.  Both of these measures are among the worst if not the very worst for any American president since such data have been collected.  Trump’s “base” probably represents 30% or less of the electorate.  He didn’t win the popular vote in 2016, and probably would have lost the electoral college as well if not for Russian intervention (e.g. well documented pro-Trump campaigns on US social media) and James Comey’s decision to reopen an FBI investigation into Clinton’s email practices on the eve of the election.  (Unlike Putin, I don’t think Comey was engaged in deliberate political manipulation, but the damage was done anyway).  

In summary, except for these special circumstances, which have nothing to do with the electorate, Trump would not be president today and we would not be having this conversation.  Note also that Hillary Clinton was one of the weakest candidates that the Democrats have put up in many years.  Had the choice been between Biden and Trump, Biden probably would have won by a landslide.  Not only are our institutions not really democratic (in the sense of one person, one vote), the electoral college being only one of the more blatant examples, but the electorate can only choose between the alternatives generated by the electoral system, which is a kind of Rube-Goldberg machine.  Nor have I even touched on the elephant in the room, namely, domination of the electoral system by the rich.  So much for simplistic, psychologically reductionist explanations that attribute Trump’s election to mass psychology.   

Brian

917-628-8253



From: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com [mailto:cliospsyche@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 8:56 AM
To: Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
- show quoted text -
--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/i-C1xlkTlNytKIwIg54GgUYfpHxycKounbHayjXKJ2bIQvxAX_p7pg888tG4_lhzaPuDpFGPByMgkVDZNEPe3dwXN1VeEcNvvPTOty5ttjqE5Jwhbw4WoCq_NkfuPBaDMp1obpgYMark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/k6lpQCjQupZ8a4kc7dv_ivtnaT8xs5B_69TNlzUX1rWBaETBjZOmWQHWYmIeooIsrmhPGvga1CUmlYZHLrlEJrdzJr8n_ye86zjtrXPeyMVOBKb37tImnld_dgJoqNO3DuUiVhVb
Ken Fuchsman
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/O2dPjJyiyBnwXP_1eqHvODuG2v9ilhSWHK_CyTnvSPazWeArUXeI-0wf64V3QxzyI7augxkS3WJlwrZJxO9ocEtnNQCADzVjmvkP2W0MRJJL5rxxE1mbr81oALdswpRoIX8pJTsu
Jan 13
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Patrick,

You are discussing Trump's shithole remarks purely as a domestic political event. They are not. This remark fits in with his dangerous ineptitude in foreign affairs. Trump is unwelcome in Britain, which had been our closest ally for a century. He was condescending to Germany's Angela Merkel, argumentative with Australia's Prime Minister, plays school boy verbal confrontation with North Korea, has now offended most of Africa, and ignores Russia's violations. In less than a year in office he has done more to undermine America's position in the world and national interest than any President in our history. Unlike Theodore Roosevelt, he talks loudly and foolishly and does not know how to use a big stick strategically.

Sent from my iPhone
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/Fd53BfR0JrYkPZAgeeCk6WGRjwUFTXzVpVpIiVIj-Tb27hiLaBS13Rkyp2v9OBNzr6f7IqUd7R8yesfbELQFBv_sw4NHWY3PrnABAQfX73ealKI9UzbYfCGA5DhiIS9anT3MHasvMark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/bFIPJSRzzcx34tJz89MbSgyRHy_CoggG9VbsOtkGA3tryjIVmpvVFnYfbCYy4NhpbzHxpTj48G1TrnLdVHbXPYEwxEkix5b2ACM67BrVwbS7q7h2a6sFFNjoUKqbSVm7nI9q1w2G
Ken Fuchsman
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/dNGvVCWpTc-QK38DKeX0WuCGK8vtUMxAoSZmPwUJdmTHog9O6dNGAs5Ikny4NPgc0Peps5oA5kQE4ghDj2IgH8n-vW7j1eZ-H1cG2XG7cTv1P1LdySaVL0uvUXdXIRfN5xoPKbTu
Jan 13
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
We would not have Donald Trump as President if Hillary Clinton had not blown the election. Still in getting 48.2 percent of the popular vote, she received a higher percentage than did 12 men elected President since the popular vote started being recorded in 1824. I have discussed why Hillary lost and Trump won in the Journal of Psychohistory and Clio's Psyche.

Sent from my iPhone
- show quoted text -
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ulE8bxvTcYLN49HK0hdZ40C3NxkbIx1DJEb0RzcxucQp7sSWsIesTQGcxofEMEe97R_D-qeYnDl0_baeaSFv8yus4xjrj-xmrhRmbmjgELDulpF8015sYH2Hd1eCH_ROmsXGQtSWMark as complete
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/rcO0se4TBxVn214xDlDZmnTkpVXjqSRjY8vOiAa_TlA9bUOYlkMUKJNboBlYgGAN1E9-7N6qv4KkZecOBNoT2W-YYpfrE-2rirP4bYH4UKBPUlAFiAq0ym7ETuyWbL_eemqx3kl7
Judith Logue
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/8JihF3czS7o8UVn8UqPuNKwsmEEri87IIlX15efbipw05DxdR70TlUP7WWpJ1HDc95QZ90oER9X1XxBOUi9B1MZdtk9TJ5DSMMRUtaDtA0OjKew-FW7c5Tf14RxmtXysktJq8RTn
Jan 13
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
right on- may I forward with
permission?
Judy
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/KL0-sdUARFWuiC4QvPlguLOm7THXGbqgpEpYADP-DWxjHrQ1So8lLJuc1HtzAKPSE_Bm6w-HLf9no3LsbOWrVh_Ip2gHm86Hb367iVJGnB-IaeaGsGudNp_eMggejdH54-z3i-AfMark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/YpLWyrWaFitkU3Unvb4UC1XSU5H2buR8wp45rfdEON7uBPOLJN0h7nNQYoQs_e57GrQ4h02hWjoTzV8m4f-PszkYTbG2_xomb6jIeZzjnMxEl7ToVU3uIKOQ3iWBJ4JytuLKXWis
drwargus
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/oIAf_ftMJB5GWkcC5TNviZTdfzdyQwSXFg5dfQQpNu8BNeccyePWGAvAoj-t1_jcgc6Sg5VJYvgMl6HVnYUmQzvk7RHQwBPT32YHqOT1jxoa5sGZgrWcxw08FLSDbePpEC_ymU7t
Jan 13
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Brian, Patrick, et al

Thank you for sharing these interesting articles and opinions. I watched both videos that you recommended Brian, and I think they are both accurate. We all know Trump is who he is, but Patrick is also correct. None of this is hurting Trump. This only strengthens his base, and Patrick is onto something. The Liberals have failed.

Patrick points out:"Previously, if you wanted to demonstrate any virtue at all, you would demonstrate yourself anti-racist, anti-homophobic, and for every country out there whose poor were shown as people of great dignity... if you weren't like that, you weren't modern, and everyone in keeping up with the latest music hits and Apple tech wanted to be that. Believing yourself like that, you were all welcome to count yourself a friend of Steve Jobs; to be with it. The Left is fooling itself into thinking that this is the way people still want to see themselves...."

It was 15 years ago that by accident I came across Lloyd's emotional life of Nations, and I was exposed to this academic group. It has been a great pleasure to interact with this group, but have we forgotten that it's all about Emotions! Emotions drive reasoning, and we seem to forget that. Jonathan Haidt drives this point home well in his book, The Righteous Mind. He points out that we do not use reason to determine morality but rather the reverse: we use our reason to rationalize our already established moral beliefs.  

May I share a story from my office that I think is enlightning. I work with about eight or 10 women. They are good people with varying degrees of education and life experiences. They do not tend to be politically involved and are probably conservative. Nonetheless, you would think that they would be concerned about women's issues. I was surprised at this time last year when not a single one of them was aware of the women's march on Washington to be held the following Sunday. Not one! Furthermore, they are not very sympathetic to the #MeTo movement. And if that is not shocking enough, within a few days of Colin Kaepernick being selected as a man of the year by GQ magazine, They all knew about it. They were quite emotionally upset about it as well. Without even reading the article, they knew it was an immoral idea. And yet they were unaware of Roy Moore! That's right. three weeks before the Alabama election, they were unaware of a misogynist homophobe running for the Senate, but they were all very aware of someone being unpatriotic.

So Brian, although your reasoning is perfect, you can throw it out the window. No Trump supporter will listen to anything you have to say. What's worse, his supporters just dig in deeper. I think that the crux of the matter is that people vote their values, not their self interest. The women in my office are not voting in their self interest when they vote for conservative choices. They are voting their values. I came across a book that explains this quite well I believe. it is as profound as Lloyd's insight in the emotional life of nations. The book is called "everything I have learned about values" by Richard Barrett.  our minds have operating systems. Richard Barrett states "since values are the basic operating system for the human being, the energetic drivers of our aspirations and intentions, you are sitting on the source code of human motivation."  values are not just what we think are important – they are what drive us. Values drive our emotions and our emotions drive our politics. FOXNews speaks to a certain set of values and MSNBC speaks to a different set of values, a different operating system. Patrick is speaking to some of the failures of the liberal operating systems, and we don't like to think about the failure of our values anymore than FOXNews listers like to be told that their values are racist, etc.  So if we really want to analyze and decipher what is going on, we need to understand the multiple different value systems that are operating and overlapping in our society.

Sent from my iPad
Bill Argus
- show quoted text -
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/Pa8NU3JyFPvEeVDLbSNXEdVVJiQ0d5fAc6Xz5q3bPj_RUJTqD8c1FFX6spi6Xr_fJAFAyL_lp_7gEJFjrCU08wf41XAIpjcBbU5zKLYuEjt6ag57MyeYswU2ZTzLyAMbBSsEeDvqMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/M-UFrEZ3C7E-ZfkHOcmM-R9afkKhj3FFL5aeQ9eJKLO66DA4jwna7NQicf5NWF5M2HysBu8Z2ojXVkhZzLSBDjDQhjEnJTd5ls8KDryBhoNXwJD--uPAiag1vz92uiVNBz_lvSuB
bdagostino2687
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/UlZUpE7ns2MKNyLxA1WfGh1lbFCiHFipG4CMHEG5uQLL4T7IQ6E0TBli8SqhijVWVq4ZUb1URjQKYO_TerLDCUXwCTQzAcswnbtz_CBRUgExSVT7cYQAnNn3qQ4zY6wQod4sZHfL
Jan 13
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Bill, I have never taken the view that people are entirely rational actors motivated by self-interest (whatever that means).  To say that people are entirely motivated by emotions is the opposite position and is equally extreme and untenable, in my view.  I am not a reductionist, and for that reason I cannot endorse deMause’s views on political psychology, which, though making some contribution to psychohistory were also reductionist, self-contradictory, and not based on any empirical research that I know of.  I agree with the aphorism, “Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler” (attributed to Einstein by some but in any case a good summary of Occam’s razor).  

This is an forum for the exchange of scholarly ideas.  People are free to express whatever opinions they want, but if you don’t believe that logic and evidence matter, then you have dispensed at the outset with the only criteria that can be brought to bear in adjudicating scholarly disagreements.  Then all you can say to me is “I feel differently than you.”  If that is what you really believe, then so be it.  And I also feel differently than you.    

Brian

917-628-8253

  

From: 'William Argus' via Clio’s Psyche [mailto:cliospsyche@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 3:16 PM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
- show quoted text -
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/4I28vj0x-ZiZuQOxeCwRV3PzHDTOAidLynwFKbpFLbc8vcMsq9eHgN6XhddOUd1ttsFLSfoVLNJWfUOAvqcs75w5dVLTvtJjWXHTmne_Tj_cZCAflP0dDcDyqQzgNrfnPAPdLoEFMark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pVXbs-tpIrn6adwKwkJuBlFL6uJwd6piQxIsQLTPYHn02Y47Uqdd1UMLH_G-vRErv1KdF1cfPxGIAGMjBtKFhl2I99PlQB9Z_pvEat6o-8V_Sohb0AbREHlxjR12g9baOFbdhOrq
bdagostino2687
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/d0dZVCXvpzNieeeTtCw3X21lRyVsuLKhQbBAumL-C_fu-oTKZhvTq4tH9GLVtERV7FBi89MBegJ7-1Dyrn3EooVIVrGjUmYz8xCT2TInVu8M_CZsfZZLcSp1d5h08F6czfVFykuq
Jan 13
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
P.S. In my post on this list, I was not addressing myself to Trump supporters and was not trying to change their opinions.  I think that trying to change ANYONE’S opinions is a waste of time, much less people who are entrenched in their beliefs.  Some of the people who voted for Trump no longer support him, proof that at least some people do process information.  His hard core supporters will very likely go to their graves being Trump supporters, no matter what he says or does.  

So what?  I have a brother who is a hard core Trump supporter, and when I talk to him about politics I have an exchange of ideas with him like I do with anyone else, but view it primarily as an opportunity for me to learn more about how someone with a belief system very different from my own thinks, not as an opportunity to change someone’s opinions.  Sometimes we find common ground in surprising ways and if I change some part of own opinions or if he changes some part of his, fine, but that is not the purpose of the exchange.  The purpose is improved mutual understanding and relationship building, not persuasion.

From: bdagostino2687@gmail.com [mailto:bdagostino2687@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 3:50 PM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
- show quoted text -
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/nZXtOPgThvAPgzw8WtU75b6WBYqBIyYr1E1KWVRA_nq7GI8ANMxzGFPvQx20kSRZd1ArsKBJnQgO5LdoV_v9H_JHrkacfsw0ZQR8qtZFMl1wOwPPlkGverVc0q5vqWqkFY-MOY-uMark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_g8sIWUV6KHJbrWnTCL3WgQKZGtoY5Eks0fiwPfnwy4AZ64oQOMWzuG7XfbdFMQ_k7ixR9VADwbwSHwv3zSrF__fP2w89EqbJfQrOTyUU9QtN-LI-hqFzuNxxSQ23aXuEqUoJqsy
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/4g7PnvbSjvkkIojpUGV5RdHtfCmLCELi7R0LPSYgvEX41CRVxNe-QZSDFjTWVe7dS9-usKpaHBTdzRG7TECIhf7TBAHYaVX14IGFsPMt-sp9mZnQxvNUjU5-4aLg-zYwCHjphyDP
Jan 13
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
I know they're not just domestic, Ken. There is nothing "fit" about Trump at all, not domestically, not in foreign policy. He is catastrophically inept, if ineptitude is measured in terms of what makes a country progressive and prosperous and kind and well-received, but he is not inept if ineptitude is measured in not making a regressing populace feel like they're becoming masculine again, and in not situating the American Left -- the good guys and gals, who've been helping make our country a genuinely better one for decades -- as self-centred people who don't care about their country, who don't even really care about facts, but only about manipulating, quote unquote, good honest Americans into agreeing to pretend to believe in things they really don't, so they can displaced out of positions of power and effectively gotten rid of. As far as how the rest of the world perceives him... I don't know. There's Austria, there's Brexit, there's whomever is contending with Angela Merkel... there are all sorts of Trumps in other countries who want to talk "honest talk" about "shitholes," and they can't be the ones who are pissed off with him. I don't think of him as any kind of strategic genius at all, but I don't think that's my point of concern -- it's whether or not he's behaving in a fashion that fits with what most Americans want, and if he is, he's going to be perceived as genius regardless, inflated, perhaps, for borrowing the power of the Mother Nation, of whom he is, chief son. Your facts are frustrating. They're objectively right... but of course they are, of course they were going to be. Whatever one thinks of Lloyd, perhaps they'll see that there really is something to the fact that the single most important thing about a president is that he serves our fantasy needs, and though there are times when a public is at its most rational, its least fearful of progress, and these will be times where delineating the accomplishments of a President really matters for it will play a big part in determining whether or not s/he remains in, there are times -- like the one we're in now -- where if s/he actually delivered in making America universally prosperous, in being well-respected by remaining CIVILIZED European leaders, the American populace would abandon him/her to be gotten rid of by any effort to do, for the possibility of electing in someone who will better deliver on meeting their regressed emotional needs. We still seem to believe that Trump barely got in, that that's the proper to view our current situation. A grotesque accident based on the fact of an ostensibly weak opposition candidate -- Hillary Clinton. If we'd had Biden, Trump would have been Trumped, is how we're thinking. This is said, despite our awareness that rightwing populism is a problem everywhere, and this alone should make us demonstrate more fear that the American base, the 52 percent that actually voted for Hillary, can be counted on to be the voters they might have been even just a few years ago before all of this was happening in the world. To me this is dubious; I expect that a good number of them will show regression as well, and surprising and depressing us in their eager willingness to cast doubt on progressive stances and support for semi-Trumpish ones, on immigration, on "free speech" in universities, on inward foreign policy vs. interactionist foreign policy, that we know are not about a public demonstrating a moderate stance but about them beginning a maybe wholesale slide to a very rightwing way of seeing the world. The average Democrat voter is counting David Frum a friend, one of them. This is trouble.
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VUsijwMR2tRRPFl1PqTch-MX21bfcSi0wK0zHakDEq-D4MCw2-l6oAF9A4dBz8FNr2y1iSCh1IhIfdUXYs_fjnGZ6fAHN_QL9fpBKCPpaClB3n46Xw884gnIgzDLPB7MwKhBukWBMark as complete
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/vK1dYIhp_ikBPBVHDLwKF2ZhUeK1gefWk8adAFk7rLMKM_eBfyzRwHz34-SyHn5AIyfcrldLR7eOqb1dfmbYFdNRurrrqNkvCWXUDaWEqBTsvHfDIwSRFAn51Y8BzIqA-0RMaWBj
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/6-LpIY1eY7ufG13d8nB8D5bvvh-wPJEze8diBDIlzyiiEl0aONiOHVcgQD5Jyg4YTgVGtZDdkc41IOTdFkTo1lNlfyUQ69RFOsuNIfdntRwrB2RuAD0fslzmabcLhIDKFKsfovvE
Jan 13
And here in this link to an article from a student of Evolutionary Anthropology at UC Davis, from his twitter account, Steven Pinker, proud to be a descendant from an immigrant from a shithole country, is also doing his very best to make clear that, in truth, there really are a lot of shithole peoples out there in the world.  

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 11:28:18 PM UTC-5, bdagostino2687 wrote:
- show quoted text -
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/3U2l6mRl9Vdt-lCSQ4nivXJggfuwdO2Is2Fe4CKNNBje1LaMELd4UDWZ7Qjc0j3j1KW_4j15G6asR99QU2Z31zD9Uadjtvaa9xNv7jcxcV1MWdb4zdMqqHzdpbn9ZzeijoNoMM-EMark as complete
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pSmHavJtfyUHpsfWES6TzHHqBFHdBYUpNYGLzeGlA9o02PHSFTQeXXByTKd05tD8COGpo4EAd5jsOfTMML0hBHA2pv7BeVOwzoPNOTnSIuLTE1ipxnNL5CjAztEzUwRNuXUB9fEm
drwargus
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/LhHBYbQea0r6YJEEMOhcWuHY-PTUDLpDHXFhnSfga8UmpP8ufLhUwN-2FEUz9_GSDiESpyNbg6UuRp8hNqw2lvuo4ODfFeTb4OjHFGLG1TsIiM1ouqr2bYvJ5yV3CooM2O9wT0uw
Jan 13
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Brian,
I have always found your arguments to be logical, well thought out, and presented with evidence. Logic and evidence do matter, especially to the scholarly people in this forum.  But very few scholars and pundits, with all of their evidence and logic, predicted the rise of Trump. Indeed we are all struggling to figure this out. I have a lot of conservative friends who are otherwise very good people and very successful businessman and doctors. But they believe in creationism, deny climate change and economic inequality. They are absolutely immune to facts and logic.  And to your beautiful arguments, as well as mine!!

People are not all rational or emotional. And not everything is caused by spanking. But Jonathan Haidt's point is that people use their reason to justify their morality. This is another form of confirmation bias as people only accept evidence that conforms to their preconceived ideas about the world. Lloyds great insight was that child rearing does establish a person's world views and values. Barrett's point is that these closely held values are not just things that are important to us. These values drive our behavior. Indeed, Brian why do you take this psychohistory work so seriously? Because you care. You care very deeply about knowledge, psychology, and our world. This forum is filled with conscientious people, people that accept climate change and evolution, and see great harm in economic inequality.  However, these facts simply bounce off Trump supporters. Why? It is because of their value system will not allow them to see these facts, so none of our arguments sink in. Furthermore, speaking from experience, these naysayers get even more entrenched in their belief systems after arguing with them.

The only explanation I have is values. People's values limit what they can see. If we are going to reach these people, we need to speak to values that they can understand and relate to. As for more evidence, I give you Kathryn (sp) Schulz Ted talk on being wrong. Three reasons are given for people who disagree with us – bad information, stupidity, and immorality. None of these explain our differences.  My friends are not stupid or immoral, but the information that we give them just bounces off. The information bounces off because we have different values and worldviews, and we use our reason to justify these worldviews, often in an emotional way.

I would also argue that when you and I disagree, the source of that disagreement has to do with disparate values. And we each know which one of us is right, don't we?!!  :-)

Sent from my iPad
Bill Argus
- show quoted text -
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/E2weIunq2o-ZacfK9FCBWF-hBDZfP9yvzMe8uQQH_whr9aZmo5X-JAJklD-bSSYFZW8uURDt09___89fF451SL7DQ1FOUZV5QyjbbV9Z4idKcvC-cc_IWnhd5pHPp_7ZHEj6QI_bMark as complete
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/K8LsTUsmM6v--a4Zh8a_jTSMvoyyRp-AumFJcFRjnnnq1Dehzc6cUwl_Ij9P32aoZtukVOJo0o8Ik5PUm2R6XRdQr1iMSihht3dsDSjyjGqwa7cYaxDrw-1wsD2q88uyouNcbmTM
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oznz8NUudCuocHOZ-BlkLvrdW_Z1-XTJR2wuCheHcdaZhL71-3EQrHMT8v5tjeAt_uWKLvBjt3avJAYyKx_-pdEDQ_NpFUMAAK2UXUIYXMvi5b-bLS2FwQMOytoJZfHA70xmPOi8
Jan 13
- show quoted text -
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UmEfYKF-WAinHJbECcx7Q77lSvghsnChshANMTlTzkwJGhGJWj1A3j3P_ImEu70Uhik0TZRGMrffGq7_n-ygW1462sxDYaHEgtATGPE0FXfzq7xWP5bLbB3HPhiSdmOvdCClmdczMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/t4DYW53WtSDCvalCYkReewyZ_xP178gFWRsgNrHtSfTrmiwkL8FaI7Hs9TVeOLbGpfNJ1TnYeuPnC0HNWNbVD6iipNQYFZ6h_SCbzpjdERWuKOQIlyppKr9oTuBF9ei1EA9-MUAh
drwargus
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/5Q7oeeXDtjkI1gh9nEtwz4mjanJOqY4_X2SomHkmvtW7EgxYx_tfXuwVBjWQqf6v02xG6Wd_jnHD35vK8eMduBXfUXNyFJ1zrZHSt5GTOjFXBnJXR9CwHhy3nO2YkrfvBAJilWsN
Jan 13
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Patrick,
You are right on. Just because Trump's approval rating is 35% doesn't mean another 15% won't find some truth in what Trump says and the Republicans will maintain their majorities. To be sure, even though conservatives don't believe in evolution or climate change, That doesn't mean that they're wrong about everything else. And tens of millions of immigrants cannot be assimilated into Europe and America. It is not clear how all of this will be resolved, but if liberals want to have their say, they will need to come up with better solutions than they have so far. Liberals will have to speak to the values of more than just their own progressives.  If we have learned anything from Trump, it is that his base is larger than we thought.

For example , Most of you know that I am a doctor. I think that I am compassionate and empathetic and I think that basic healthcare is a human right. But there are responsibilities to being a citizen as well. The other day I was called into the operating room to see a 23-year-old woman who weighed over 400 pounds. Conservatives rightly point out that this is ridiculous and there is no way that society should have to take care of this person for the rest of her life.

Sent from my iPad
Bill Argus
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/BAc0HZjTVM9Tk0b3f0IW81vNr2i5FvjFstm0u9nO2Vfgi_YVnOxWcfdJkr0ieKY4DUp9RziMKdDJWgcbg6o2GQ_N-H1h9OZT5hkHHRlaQx68xIU4soZQ-nYP4SSiqoInefI39jXCMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/LKxjSlZcc4T9AZrJWcVDmKbjPsin1eeQtUKOvNdzCnHDTYu5DZbX2kRnGA7ypPUwM80Z4dF8O5SXR6H5wxd5YmUJjtMSRMjZJelpqhN7Y2zTK_Ca1CqdJltujNjMXsP6GYeTkNVB
bdagostino2687
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_7g6klSa5BkFf4_cVQghsELfMBWFz3eHXFFlGHOLryqNH7gXyCmvPjQo1OpGLuwmn5FnkT7EekyFHP7YxGi8MKJjh8bRdWshQ2zq4hlijAjx62nd6ymvLmzOTZoIpABSU7iKfmWF
Jan 14
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Bill,

Misunderstanding is easy and very common in everyday communication, including on this listserv.  In my experience, authentic dialogue (such as we are having) either exposes apparent disagreement as misunderstanding or clarifies what the disagreement is really about.  As a result of our dialogue, it appears I misunderstood what you were saying or trying to say and vice versa.  I do not disagree with anything you have said here, and in fact have said much the same thing in the appendix of my book, in which I built on cognitive linguist George Lackoff’s Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  

In fact, I related Lackoff’s “strict father” and “nurturing parent” types, which he views as the source of the divergent values of liberals and conservatives, to deMause’s concept of psychoclasses, which in my view is one of Lloyd’s most important and enduring contributions to psychohistory.  This appendix, which was published in an earlier form as an article in The Journal of Psychohistory, is available at: http://bdagostino.com/middle-class-fights-back.php).  Glad we clarified this!

Brian

917-628-8253


From: 'William Argus' via Clio’s Psyche [mailto:cliospsyche@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 7:31 PM
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/dQyB7BYJkhEN6TZhrDtHcs11kaJYeV9g4g3JBQol2h2Jl3FUdolLOSrvMjXlHE1-I95MK7dUq6ah80SfjLtVLLInyT2TY9PFuoloBgUT3SJTlnVe0AnEeEZpTwlpieH4pDuEbpjhMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6e8zD4PoSNOoFBlp4fa-pVsgqanaXG-_GSXcmstwK9rD8htY8EpRx4qd-bDQu70QFe0cx2HMeP3wpSuHQ96555F5uXVf9jJYAQf-YwZPULuhthfyBBz3-A3WxzMvNIY8vVOL7FLD
arniedr
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/grG8OU8X5gtUd3C5gcKx8qp1TCPISgxkexTFUpoyiG95oywvbOey2kKJNSnz5IKoBMYRho72qwJB-J8HSOBP1md0oICmSSF_IJ1TMFUDK295b43Z0MLQMkORx9V3-iWSsHNYn_Qv
Jan 15
IPBOOKSIPBOOKS SPECIAL ONE WEEK OFFER FOR PRIZE NOMINATED PSYCHOANALYTIC TITLES AND NYRB ADVERTISED BOOKS


--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/mfd2VGenlLbyMXvuo-2O4Cd8C5ahssvyCHLjJCwusuPs21l1HSN4cbs4w1SyIWVHA9aqlwTCSzkcicicOPnZ7_FcEbMlxz66V7BSw7o9RwUzsdrgeKotcPa8OfaTtKwjuSeU-9m5Mark as complete
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/6zflkipcrn_51fHcT3D7jUJBqJ0nUcvP7JcCbX8qgJ3SidilaIEyyFQiUBkB-3DhMZv3twqgTEDcXeo0rjhKFWBXok_ZMe8zLTbG7daFrtKRDHeebEMHEzZAZUVn3s1Ch5X2uz_N
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/dOFIoEUKRfzVkkGjNBL8TgsOBRfyLBWYyjJ4x5mgn9HricFDBIcHT-LFyBc7RE7e1VwjZ2n0CgX9-_WV6SzbgdS4Bunho_zI9VnZdvLW2AD-COVr0cN7z_usCOHqFxzTNnOxBEBw
Jan 16
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Barney, this bit, "I believe almost all of them are essentially beautiful, mysterious, and often grand nation," would be considered "othering." Someone like Trump might one day despise a nation as a "shithole," but on another admire them for their "proud exotic beauty." Orientalism.  The idea about gullible but intrinsically good coloured people, is also the narrative that sustained/s the idea of the white saviour.
- show quoted text -
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/YVOeV4AjjEO1ob4JXB0rH72NzlVNLI2BXjfLozjZ52KLUSdwKl4aqUsK4SpVk2CEsQJdP4YEpVdEt9Eo9wXI73gzvot7okecQMhxETm0hNLaS1LoZczyWIE7m9D4zJlFSQJvrxr8Mark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/Wvf0L7fy6mKcRdUjewlaLBEpfoA4-49SatgoDGD0B8ZiOc3w1GJQti_xrGidmoM2xdDf47pu8oA_Sr6WyGXg3Gb6BWsDstRl7TIZP_hjcvRnWRN3GUJNBEjDvc_PK8su19qyBYM5
Barney
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/s2hq2SxKGnXgkwLFmabxI1FoZbjFPo5L62hvgtUgQgKxDk7-8YVmE_t5rGuQUWoztxHL3aWca06sJGoColANmGxpmRu_Jn8HrYUqv6TakN7Fp7N-g42M55IX6EjULOUO2E6ZFeJ0
Jan 16
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Dear Patrick,

As you probably know, I believe it makes no difference what pathology festers in Trump. He is simply a tool of people who recognized the pathology, knew that he was a stupid and desperate low life, invested some money in him to keep him afloat, and let him run his course. Whatever he does will be destabilizing to America, which is exactly how the Russians want it. Russians are masters at projection, and so is Trump and Bannon. Chaos is their game and they are masters at it.

Many thanks for the bit.

Barney
- show quoted text -
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/t9aupaCnjvmbgbDRSVDwMXuYh4pzx55w-6HWCw_zGpwSWAbSlED6Q_dPutMMcEtDKZuIVVAni7mBnIfN7wcCY3jmfBQ8IxXh_ZN3co2PrD5Kz-sObblpeJITy8tXNIsw4lDR6fLGMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ReDOMZ3tM5f9wrcrgJJAEUYd4G5n5aeOu9JZyPnL2WVFz7pUs9RH9jO1Qb-uAB7XfSp_RIEu-najPwTrpBchXXW1s0vTzCQWvI2WM9yrTgcMxzgMm6ZEdSn6l3Q4JO15VYJdKoIp
binsightfl1
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4YxQ7sdt-xvOr-XhsU7iFoUHnMRwEL7Ngu9otb8ASqhdl4B6XtSHn_r_c9K5Ww7TcyUazbhA0W5dIwz_FacjlQxGp9GtABSPwcS5PXxzokre6-mBzPDMWW4WknTSEutD3AM4WqxK
Jan 16
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Hi,

I have been reading what everybody has been saying--
in great depth, and I might add-- I think each of you has
distilled important aspects of this negative turn in our
country's travels. (Perhaps the trek could more properly
be called travails).  
For me, what you all have stated (in more comprehensive
and thoughtful ways) can be simplified (at great risk of being
reductionistic and naive) by my view that---
emotion trumps reason.

And, in as much as this is might be true it can explain why
being rational has not worked and simply won't work. It also
begs the question--so if being reasonable makes no sense,
what then can we do? Should we fight fire with fire by being
as regressed and out of control as we have stated the
"The Donald" and his followers are? Shall we invoke the
invectives of hate and project these feelings onto others?
Shall we split off and engage in "othering?"

Paradoxically and unwittingly we have done some of these
things here. Liberals are the "good guys," the "smart ones,"
the ones who are compassionate and in the "right." They,
those "others" are wrong.

Here's where we really get ourselves into trouble--we sincerely
believe that we will win merely because we are good and good
triumphs over those evil, ignorant Trumpites. If that isn't evidence
that emotion trumps reason, what is, except "we" are the ones who
are guided by delusional ideas or our "savior complexes."

Emotion does not guide reason, it trumps reason! It is only when we
get in touch with our irrational sides that we have a chance to utilize
our drive states in a socially acceptable and powerful way. Otherwise
we are merely the "flip" side of the Trumpian id impulses coin. And, as
we know, in the language of the unconscious, opposites lie side by side
in equivalence.

So-- the great philosopher King, Pogo the opposum once said, "we
have seen the enemy and he is us!

Warm Regards,

Burton
- show quoted text -
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QDPq2CFkV9BVy1BSaC1tio6UAHTUTFpko_G_ZwB0_ZilcKlofJ8hHJHygFgsNoJMGJFRkqYO08qfKxj1uhdSJuI-jh9xYOSs4wYTcUiVykf4dkTCaNBKf13NqnFuObk6_UUwolX3Mark as complete
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/pb3B2Wdy_xH9-SGqOLvHHq_LtxMpOqjn3aE9ZFb_BW3YGLRaWhullO3kMn-quSffJHzyWLkWGb7cLkCQJWgm8BQMITSCrVwI4QAXb2mSePE2_xOtXYWlPfCVhS9kRVqAdTykPxqL
bdagostino2687
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/nG4GwZGxnkm3vfP-RJAMxv7K-VoOI4EuhDoUHJBxPpYhTD509MzJ0gEXCVcEnVYLK4NF1_BE7qPKZ6_RmH-iigi8WvFC2rXyA9NZwXmnjMapaqRrJWD4Ib5hvR95fHTLbn2OllyJ
Jan 16
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Speaking of emotion and reason, I also refer members of this group to Dorothea Leicher’s article in the current issue of Psychohistory News (attached).  (This newsletter also contains an article by Ken Fuchsman on a recent book party for The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.)  Part I of Leicher’s article covered much the same ground as Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents, but updated with recent findings from neuroscience and diverse other literature.  It is available at:
http://www.psychohistory.us/archive.php  (scroll down to the Fall 2017 issue).

Page two of the attached newsletter is the conference flyer and call for proposals for the upcoming IPA 2018 conference (May 30 to June 1 at NYU), which will include as featured speakers Drs. James and Carol Gilligan, Bandy Lee (editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump), and more.  If you might be interested in presenting a paper at this conference, please note that the deadline for submitting proposals is February 10 (details in the attached newsletter, page two).  

Finally, I refer interested readers to my article in the current issue of The Journal of Psychohistory, “Militarism, Machismo and the Regulation of Self Interest.”  This is not exactly light reading, but does bring theory and empirical research to bear on a possible psychological/neurological mechanism by which unconscious complexes get displaced onto political symbolic objects.  The article is available on my website at:

Brian

917-628-8253


From: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com [mailto:cliospsyche@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Burton N. Seitler
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 10:47 AM
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Attachments (1)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UdFpLDbXmp07AMqZcc9pYKU10pZI2OlJDxoDa15dTmEq8AUS1w9hLhqHwNAyGOYvNuUKH73ftF3H_fmi0pPPHdzg5nQejh8jnWN_WG8tv93OvVpcoN6-F3Mcbi6E-OaaJ69doLv2
IPA_2018_1_winter.pdf
465 KB   View   Download
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/shAEEO1F24AdIaSvTZ8_2STcROAvNKjbgDF57BBXArbBp0re5hpAANLJFmnal7sdot0FZ-MRXHPr0XEX8urvp1fYBJtO46kvyzt4iXmuin1yCbCX2akziwgDWoO2pUrjfeLJk9C-Mark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jR-11fupoGi3KZGiwBfTw1lvu7XpCN8I0Ocxpl0idsiZweLqPXenCdE2xXMJ8_M_l1AJYjnarlAWGEPt9zcS3BACJmMIrf6oKxm4vs0gswXdLKPoDWxWsib98UkWhGeert7qrU1e
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/IfAePfybo8SHc0NvRBAaYz9b85eV31U83oH9mwKy7PyLaO5s55ldwHJ0y_iLCsBpbpt8AWyfnv1bceD-lv8CZtrno5nmvnifJoQ4sti_u_3NRD2JZyax70W6cdsXxKqNQWbFaGoF
Jan 17
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
My suggestion has been that we be very sure, we're ourselves still operating within the realm of reason. Take the left, the more sane-ish people: Glenn Greenwald argues that everyone against him has made Russian into an opponent, outside of reason, the people against Glenn Greenwald are arguing that Glenn is and has always been a Russian spy. Where's Waldo? See if you can find the sanity. Then there's those articles this year suggesting that though, again, the rightwing of America is insane, the left is losing their marbles as well, suffering from an extreme degree of confirmation bias, making their science dubious: Science Denial Across the Political Divide (Social Psychological and Personality Science). Take that article I linked to which explores how the NewYorker persists in imagining peoples Anthropologists study, vs. the one that is emerging once again -- but this time with a larger community of scientists behind it, scientists who, a few years back, wouldn't have been -- that says, well, actually what we're encountering here are the least emotionally evolved people on the planet, the people who practice in abundance pretty much everything we've all been trying to edit out of how we behave for it being torture and abuse. I've said before that the people who tend to be the most sane, in my judgment, are those who still hold the NewYorker's point of view on the matter, who hold it because they've reached the limits of what this previous generation's best childrearing would permit in terms of lack of a need for projection and a lack of a need for there to be people in society who function to carry everything about oneself that one must discard in order to maintain psychic equilibrium, that is, a need for "poison containers." The people deflating the myth of the noble savage are using superior science, are more accurate, but their intentions are retrograde. The problem for peoples the NewYorker has been diligent in respecting is that they seem to betray in themselves a future traitor: if the peoples they esteem and protect are not as they have been romantically portrayed, and the NewYorker crowd find themselves having to acclimatize themselves to this fact, does this mean they'll have been pinned into a position where they too must now acquiesce to an ostensibly necessary position and start blaming and accusing and denying support to these people/abusers who, regardless, still very much deserve ongoing respect and support? If they're not being strategic but must associate their support of these peoples with their being the noble savage that is an absolute counter to America's deplorables, will they aggressively persist in maintaining their attitude in spite of rising scientific acceptance of the "sick societies" theory and thereby lose scientific respectability because they sense a worse fate, that there is within them another them, a retrograde one, that is trying to gain control of their consciousness, and this one is the troll who cannot see weakness and the adult results of child abuse and simply blame and hate and discard? Are they trying to fight what they suspect might prove true: that they might not be immune to some of the regression that is afflicting the planet, that they might themselves become true trolls, however adapt they'll be at making this invisible to themselves and find justified reasons to hate and attack those who point out their mal-transformation out to them? How many liberal parents do you know who in their attitudes towards today's university students, to their activism and points of view (Woody Allen, safe zones, trigger warnings), seem to be turning against their young?
- show quoted text -
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/XnIwD1zpfeLQp-b-GzEJZRNtLHfJym84Q6ym42VeOmw9n3gjK4_CZqgGd7CoeTv7EtXv16pNJf4wulR5RlyZ23YjsigCMUjdUHhfpewpzEwzXaMbaBI1Balh0mx1J7A7CwtcJOSLMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/C0temGrB2N3G4LJSrN4jQoiaawTAXCBQ8dJe1CfMIbkmh3MWsqIOeWk5v76ZFT6eiIeBhuwQEER4hkLa566rg88ZN3cS5ZO9DeC819XKi8sGoUhEmHItkYY2edAWkmjBXu3gFRup
Alan Mohl
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/JH-Hmdu6RJC4FM-BMM275ihkuUTBigoGMp9-pumtG43YQUQOdNKUbUvR8jun-xrgIUBDSSOKqlO18njXOsi8nk2WGPa0mKR0JXRX5D9ntN2HhNWIeGjFpdATNs8QsgwZhtx0x0ex
Jan 17
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Hello all:
    On CNN, there was a round table discussion concerning Trump. The meeting was held in a city within Wisconsin. The people at the table all voted for Trump. The only thing that mattered to them was  that the economy had improved and they were doing well financially. Thus they feel that Trump is doing a great job. In America, money is our God. Trump's personality defects, his frequent lies ,, his bigotry and his xenophobia are irrelevant. The only thing that counts with his base is the economy.
Allan Mohl
Sent: Tue, Jan 16, 2018 10:46 am
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/mBKe4bjobppgqD38oXHJQSk0l7uOdJ1RXQX09NlF1TL2iEEJbXXn_42Yj_7YxRkbfueEDCdKHCpRLZe-NudV8YpvgymL6lik2-A35RxfYR-qpFdAmId8q6y_tjap97_tANLasSemMark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/Kate_R05168RlQCU-ejFwBC53WgULL3Euf50bI6DP74LhO0u4O9GEdEtqJAC64MyRNZ30OV79-KCpbirozZ7Mb927XwbJFNCIrbIBvSeQsQmHNZVa7sGGB4m8rohMvWM1e-K73qv
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/pUw1rt5ExmmQ0bmmXg9J_sOkSbviaExY9Ydr3Y43RmutxZg07rev-afVi-v-d-06Y1VGgsG-mGoAm083Qehs-5tkq84L9rlWCPU-zbuoifuMHbvgDEK0tdZA4Odi-XVWo9-DOlQs
Jan 17
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
I read your article. The compromised state of the boy you get at -- that they first identify with the mother, but belong thereafter to a culture which denigrates feminized men -- brings to mind Charles Socarides, but for him, if one has, not an authoritarian mother, but a overwhelming one who won't let a boy individuate from her and isn't okay with his exploring his otherness, his masculinity, the social attitudes of the day are neither here nor there: it won't really matter, as regardless of them he'll find some way to repudiate all women or, going Hemingway, become some kind of atrocious he-man. The article pounds heavy on the authoritarian father, but is very light with that first few years of female-mother identification we all experience that is to you so critical. This bit:

This same person also has an internalized image of the father they experienced as a small child—awesome and all powerful, always right, free to do whatever he wants, and getting what he wants by threatening to use force or actually using it.

well, honestly, that could just as easily be the mother, who, after all, spent a hell of a lot more time with him. They seek to break free from her because they bloody well couldn't move their limbs.

Another thought: the reason he-man culture hates the welfare state is because they associate it with maternal tending, which for them, wasn't so much authoritarian as it was physically incestuous. They're triggered by the memories of being used as puppets, and thus strike down a mechanism whereby very genuinely they might receive treatment that would help alleviate the results of their atrocious childhoods. IT IS associated with the "punishment," that is, whose concern wasn't so much the spanking and yelling as it was the envelopment, the physical and emotional crowding of their highly precarious space... all imagined by the mother as "expressions of their profound love." So when they're seeking to strike it down, they're not just identifying with the persecutor, they're rejecting a powerless childhood condition they very much are recalling.

This said, I also agree that they know that in further striking a blow against the welfare state, against means for alleviating the amount of child damage out there, they're pretending to be (or rather, switching into the alter of) the parent (I think always maternal) who scorns the child's weakness (were you doing that when you said that accusers against Al Franken should be made to face a committee, where they would surely be shown to be of little account -- certainly not enough to take down a senator?... that sounded like the kind of machismo, the support of the empowered position and anger at the weakest, that could make a lot of wounded people hoping to gain justice against their own predators, shrink in retreat).

This said, they also scorn the weak because, as deMause argues, they believe that they deserved the mistreatment they received at the hands of their mothers for the very fact of being vulnerable. Because that was the strongest self-concept they had, and their mothers seemed to find them so wrong they would threaten then with apocalyptic abandonment, they had to be sure to never be or associate with the single greatest wrong thing out there: being vulnerable. Being vulnerable is an affront to the move whose love you must, must, must find means to achieve, and so no fidelity with anyone evil enough to demonstrate it.

Anyway, first thoughts. Thanks again for the link.
-----------------------------------


RE: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
15 posts by 5 authors

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/gMShNLQYngh1X0zP5U9nc-IdmjT_i7t5pSPVSrkMajwM5snle5eEfQDCZoOW9OpgJDzytL0wXIB5Yn-2IWeIoyIshd9CF1l7-RY4UmQKd8dgS7WBZKNJJTHKTI09Hdlhqy_9xjIa


add tags
Assign

Set as duplicate

No action needed
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/rJ9FyNYZ_3RpeFIrJ4j7IP4_SReJEH03b3zFeo9NjiClh1CTPohwgR8nhTa9ZShncl2UBvQ5JGEZwx9VMWRTB3clStjn_knVW60CEXdYFxW1KlV2wMcXgmxXPsD-qJLmqumIdpmo
bdagostino2687
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/km8gTNhTMscYgsjVUiXwy3rVW4qpiThuYoKxhO4ISO3M8Ka8ohrIA-ApRs-EfyGtVOzwVnRcdRnNLcln4lu-sma8_GkimCcRctPacjHO0BT93qN9gI8UDRwIBuWpU1vuHTYz6CDn
Jan 18
Burton, Alan, Patrick, and all,

On Burton’s idea (below) that “emotion trumps reason,” there is surely truth in this, but doesn’t this require some qualifications?  Does emotion trump reason equally for all people under all conditions?  If not, what do individual differences look like in this domain and under what conditions, if any, does reason prevail?  I know of two books worth mentioning on these questions.  First, Milton Rokeach’s The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality Systems (1960), which is a classic in the field of political psychology.  Rokeach devised a “dogmatism” construct intended to measure openness to new information and was careful to make this construct independent of political (left-right) ideology.  Rokeach also originated the very helpful two dimensional typology for political ideologies, the two dimensions being how much one values freedom and equality:

                               Low     EQUALITY      High

Low                    Fascism                    Communism                     
FREEDOM
High                 Capitalism         Democratic Socialism

The second book is Victor S. Johnston’s, Why We Feel: The Science of Human Emotions (1999), which deals with the relation between cognition and emotion from the neuroscience and evolutionary perspectives.

As for Alan’s point, I think preoccupation with money applies to a large extent to all voters, not just Trump voters.  Electoral outcomes in capitalist societies largely track the business cycle such that elections held during a booming economy generally favor incumbents while voters during recessionary times generally succumb to a “throw the bums out” mentality.  There is a literature on this in political science; I can’t review this literature off the top of my head, but I believe I just summarized the gist of it.  I also believe it is this phenomenon to which James Carville’s dictum “It’s the economy, stupid” referred.  Had Hillary Clinton heeded Carville’s advice (originally given to her husband’s presidential campaign) instead of working the identity politics angle, she might have defeated Trump.

Patrick, I greatly appreciate your taking the time to read my Journal of Psychohistoryarticle.  You express a lot of ideas about the role of the mother and quality of mothering that merit further thought, exploration, and research.  Somehow we need to move this discussion from the realm of armchair speculation into research.  Melanie Klein did this through clinical observations, Bowlby and the attachment school through experimental research, etc.  My own contribution was to devise a way of measuring personality independently of ideology by using a two-part survey instrument; see http://bdagostino.com/resources/PolPsyc95.pdf  My personality measure was a list of trait adjectives (drawn mostly from Jack Block’s The Q-Sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research), which survey respondents ranked from “most characteristic” of oneself to “least characteristic.”  My measure of ideology was a list of 25 sentences expressing hawk and dove policy preferences and related beliefs, which they evaluated on a Likert scale.  

My prediction (which was borne out strongly by the data) was that self-image would predict militarist beliefs and policy preferences.  I did not know in advance WHICH personality items would predict militarism, and indeed there were many alternative theories about this.  What came out of my data were machismo (for males) and authoritarianism (for both sexes).  This was originally my doctoral dissertation research and was published in a 1995 article in Political Psychology:
http://bdagostino.com/resources/PolPsyc95.pdf  The data, presented in this article, can be interpreted in many ways, but there are many more theories that are not supported by the data.  For example, the pre-oedipal nature of the machismo complex is indicated by the fact that the typical male hawk does not describe himself as “masculine” but rather as “not feminine,” using a total of ten stereotypically masculine and feminine trait adjectives that also appear in the Bem Sex Role Inventory.  This is an important empirical finding and it was new because before my research, to my knowledge, no one had measured personality and ideology separately in the same survey.

Having established this empirical relationship, I then set about to find existing theories that might account for it, which led me to Nancy Chodorow’s classic, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender (1978/1999).  I wrote up my findings on machismo using Chodorow’s theories (and not, say, deMause’s) because my data pointed me to Chodorow’s theories.  However, deMause’s ideas were very relevant to my second factor—authoritarianism—which both Adorno et al and more recently Michael Milburn et al associate with punitive parenting.  And yes, the mother can be the dispenser of punishment as much as the father.  So there are two factors operating here—sex typing (which appears to be rooted in pre-oedipal dynamics) and authoritarianism.  On the latter, you are right that I focused on the oedipal roots and the role of the father, and your point is well taken that punitive mothers can also be implicated in this at the pre-oedipal stage.

Finally, regarding Al Franken, given that the Republicans control the committees in both houses of Congress, I think it is safe to assume that any inquiry into Franken’s misdeeds would have been extremely friendly to his accusers.  We saw this movie before during the Bill Clinton presidency.  There is no way Franken could have prevailed in such a process if his misdeeds were as serious as you (and the Republicans) claim.  But we’ll never know because the Democratic Party establishment acted to push Franken out before the Republicans could mount any such spectacle.   

Brian

917-628-8253


From: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com [mailto:cliospsyche@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident

I read your article. The compromised state of the boy you get at -- that they first identify with the mother, but belong thereafter to a culture which denigrates feminized men -- brings to mind Charles Socarides, but for him, if one has, not an authoritarian mother, but a overwhelming one who won't let a boy individuate from her and isn't okay with his exploring his otherness, his masculinity, the social attitudes of the day are neither here nor there: it won't really matter, as regardless of them he'll find some way to repudiate all women or, going Hemingway, become some kind of atrocious he-man. The article pounds heavy on the authoritarian father, but is very light with that first few years of female-mother identification we all experience that is to you so critical. This bit:

This same person also has an internalized image of the father they experienced as a small child—awesome and all powerful, always right, free to do whatever he wants, and getting what he wants by threatening to use force or actually using it.

well, honestly, that could just as easily be the mother, who, after all, spent a hell of a lot more time with him. They seek to break free from her because they bloody well couldn't move their limbs.

Another thought: the reason he-man culture hates the welfare state is because they associate it with maternal tending, which for them, wasn't so much authoritarian as it was physically incestuous. They're triggered by the memories of being used as puppets, and thus strike down a mechanism whereby very genuinely they might receive treatment that would help alleviate the results of their atrocious childhoods. IT IS associated with the "punishment," that is, whose concern wasn't so much the spanking and yelling as it was the envelopment, the physical and emotional crowding of their highly precarious space... all imagined by the mother as "expressions of their profound love." So when they're seeking to strike it down, they're not just identifying with the persecutor, they're rejecting a powerless childhood condition they very much are recalling.

This said, I also agree that they know that in further striking a blow against the welfare state, against means for alleviating the amount of child damage out there, they're pretending to be (or rather, switching into the alter of) the parent (I think always maternal) who scorns the child's weakness (were you doing that when you said that accusers against Al Franken should be made to face a committee, where they would surely be shown to be of little account -- certainly not enough to take down a senator?... that sounded like the kind of machismo, the support of the empowered position and anger at the weakest, that could make a lot of wounded people hoping to gain justice against their own predators, shrink in retreat).

This said, they also scorn the weak because, as deMause argues, they believe that they deserved the mistreatment they received at the hands of their mothers for the very fact of being vulnerable. Because that was the strongest self-concept they had, and their mothers seemed to find them so wrong they would threaten then with apocalyptic abandonment, they had to be sure to never be or associate with the single greatest wrong thing out there: being vulnerable. Being vulnerable is an affront to the move whose love you must, must, must find means to achieve, and so no fidelity with anyone evil enough to demonstrate it.

Anyway, first thoughts. Thanks again for the link.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 1:06:35 PM UTC-5, bdagostino2687 wrote:

Speaking of emotion and reason, I also refer members of this group to Dorothea Leicher’s article in the current issue of Psychohistory News (attached).  (This newsletter also contains an article by Ken Fuchsman on a recent book party for The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.)  Part I of Leicher’s article covered much the same ground as Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents, but updated with recent findings from neuroscience and diverse other literature.  It is available at: http://www.psychohistory.us/archive.php
(scroll down to the Fall 2017 issue).
Page two of the attached newsletter is the conference flyer and call for proposals for the upcoming IPA 2018 conference (May 30 to June 1 at NYU), which will include as featured speakers Drs. James and Carol Gilligan, Bandy Lee (editor of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump), and more.  If you might be interested in presenting a paper at this conference, please note that the deadline for submitting proposals is February 10 (details in the attached newsletter, page two).  

Finally, I refer interested readers to my article in the current issue of The Journal of Psychohistory, “Militarism, Machismo and the Regulation of Self Interest.”  This is not exactly light reading, but does bring theory and empirical research to bear on a possible psychological/neurological mechanism by which unconscious complexes get displaced onto political symbolic objects.  The article is available on my website at: http://bdagostino.com/resources/Militarism%2C%20Machismo%2C%20and%20the%20Regulation%20of%20Self-Image.pdf
Brian
917-628-8253

From: 'Alan Mohl' via Clio’s Psyche [mailto:cliospsyche@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 2:54 PM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident

Hello all:
    On CNN, there was a round table discussion concerning Trump. The meeting was held in a city within Wisconsin. The people at the table all voted for Trump. The only thing that mattered to them was  that the economy had improved and they were doing well financially. Thus they feel that Trump is doing a great job. In America, money is our God. Trump's personality defects, his frequent lies ,, his bigotry and his xenophobia are irrelevant. The only thing that counts with his base is the economy.
Allan Mohl

From: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com [mailto:cliospsyche@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Burton N. Seitler
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 10:47 AM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
Hi,
I have been reading what everybody has been saying--
in great depth, and I might add-- I think each of you has
distilled important aspects of this negative turn in our
country's travels. (Perhaps the trek could more properly
be called travails).  

For me, what you all have stated (in more comprehensive
and thoughtful ways) can be simplified (at great risk of being
reductionistic and naive) by my view that---
emotion trumps reason.

And, in as much as this is might be true it can explain why
being rational has not worked and simply won't work. It also
begs the question--so if being reasonable makes no sense,
what then can we do? Should we fight fire with fire by being
as regressed and out of control as we have stated the
"The Donald" and his followers are? Shall we invoke the
invectives of hate and project these feelings onto others?
Shall we split off and engage in "othering?"

Paradoxically and unwittingly we have done some of these
things here. Liberals are the "good guys," the "smart ones,"
the ones who are compassionate and in the "right." They,
those "others" are wrong.

Here's where we really get ourselves into trouble--we sincerely
believe that we will win merely because we are good and good
triumphs over those evil, ignorant Trumpites. If that isn't evidence
that emotion trumps reason, what is, except "we" are the ones who
are guided by delusional ideas or our "savior complexes."
Emotion does not guide reason, it trumps reason! It is only when we
get in touch with our irrational sides that we have a chance to utilize
our drive states in a socially acceptable and powerful way. Otherwise
we are merely the "flip" side of the Trumpian id impulses coin. And, as
we know, in the language of the unconscious, opposites lie side by side
in equivalence.

So-- the great philosopher King, Pogo the opposum once said, "we
have seen the enemy and he is us!
Warm Regards,
Burton
Click here to Reply
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/ydoMFk-bm-8K9lGYHKsyIX46OpFdw8GhR-qN_veHsISqGwmNEHqqSirhRbfI882jANkHXbbBYt04f0Ztbp2o_Zplvjt2vYJPCMH7TH2xzsIYPGbShK6Vyv0hWHEgTML3BxGICrCW
bdagostino2687
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/kI2koyLVSH8FW5CSWwAc881ilx7AzwjM2tf3JTL0FtRpwEd2DF55G7b_TSsnp7XgYFQs2FUOHT50yipxoFz5lem_DGIbBLZCxk61MUbpxfD7HB-uTtR5eUzBgh-ayfcVSizAiwDz
Jan 18
P.S. If you’re trying to read my last post on a smart phone, the Rokeach typology might not have displayed properly, so I’m resending it in smaller font, which should work (at least it does on my smart phone):

                            Low   EQUALITY  High

Low                 Fascism             Communism                     
FREEDOM
High             Capitalism     Democratic Socialism

From: bdagostino2687@gmail.com [mailto:bdagostino2687@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 7:14 AM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [cliospsyche] Re: the larger implications of Trump's shithole incident
- show quoted text -
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/7ykLmgdGitdX50gtl6HvLUW7tF-6guJNmA2TptY0mYDcRSvzAU7E_WHYRvvntAjuUBo3Ht5-0MBzvIHREuK7T0ZRlj_2boPogWvRVGTHDtocJBcvKRMhJQBufqTx_KDUD37Xe95SMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/lmSrAwzYR5kkAbaTSuUinCUou99e32whKzyffRk22X7XKN5D8kuXc2cFPf1Kl4Iscq7OcoPgxxyuFn-P7b5CtFlo_U_LFG-eGu0NyQ2CzgrBPLxrF226qO2zqiH6GAchlR8ME_Za
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-WauD6vrecY7udrNtijspkLaaPX5CCoTpjkgQ0C-1LK491BUpK9mLq0XfBVz8v-cBAPUiBFAQpPdde3BRgiqX1oQOhtx234IFjCS8pM82BWe6GygcSXw1YacLDvBgTzNWk3vPlZ7
Jan 18
Brian, the way you refer to Franken is as someone who grabs someone's butt, not as someone engaged in predatory sexual assault. This is the kind of thinking that might shrink a lot of victims from ever bothering reporting crimes, is my judgment. A culture of machismo, that makes light of the victims and shames their defenders... "someone grabbed your butt and suddenly you're all over CNN and bringing down a senator... whilst serving Republican' ends, I might add." And by the way, did you ever get that sense, now that it proved not a once-only, that Franken was engaged in something very serious... that he was in a way akin to Weinstein, that is, someone whose guilt over his serial predations on vulnerable women was dealt with by becoming a foremost crusader of liberal causes?

At this psychohistory conference, I'd be curious to know where people are on #MeToo, which I'm sure will be discussed. Are most people taking Masha Gessen's (and Woody Allen's) argument to heart, that it's become a witch hunt? Or are they with the Naomi Wolfs in the world, who delight in that behaviour that was once blown off and excused are now being understood as the micro aggressions that keep patriarchy intact. Are they people who delight in these ongoing exposés of how what some would call, for example, a bad date, are actually not matter to be normalized, but rather are replete with exercises of shaming and assault... and it's important for us to see it exposed for such since it's the kind of behaviour many of us have witnessed or perhaps ourselves engaged in, within an environment that had previously defused its importance? It's the way we get educated, for it's close to us, not Weinstein-serial-rapist far away. I need to know. Because as I've argued here before, the kind of psychohistory I'm interested in cannot be one that is defending against understanding the profound ongoing influence trauma has had on most of our lives, and how it has almost entirely formed how we've constituted society. We can't be people who maintain our own emotional homeostasis by finding some group of people whose genuine injuries we get to discount, and even make light of.  

I'd still be interested in knowing if there are people on this listserve who are appalled by Woody Allen and encouraged to hear that many people will no longer be watching his films, felt Franken was a sadist, serial predator engaged in sexual assault, believe Aziz Ansari was not just a bad date but a predator. Or does everyone believe this is a witch hunt.
- show quoted text -
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/lKNOgnDBePZJ9590bKO_T0Sp9ZqoCQT-fxJuOXLGQWUpWQjl__vpnt7cMDgGVh-bJ9eaVsWGyihP0Kx9sK6JzWiNbH6cFPFGhHC46NupMHZ8GO7sM3u7rNIxsNFMFH-9va5ugyN0Mark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/nIimk5cceK80ln7XHq1E2_bqOWOrojH1UxF65csp3K0jnVf4GF0gdLOfaXsayhCZ0gpergfDj3Y3uTOXcuof41aTx4B167N0SpTJ-CHEOxvQ4fRULWCHQ_QhB1HJRIF9TBuZNvZH
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/NaNVkI-_fYDJFUH7AsWPQLDJ4MOy_yEpTug-DTscTxCZ4RCnWL0QuO5mTf7rlV4JdLzlGuevxJkTC6LM6_gsfcmpuTSeuBDqjX5dfDO7dwOSOMeR2s1HJKzNpO1NBKKd8PRsspAp
Jan 18
Are we with Naomi Wolf, or with Harold Bloom's wife Jeanne: "Beauty Myth" Writer says Yale Blocked Harassment Claim
- show quoted text -
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rtn1ffC9TPQ3HrPOc6Tve4MKTnFDC07UlTV0Xmod05Der_fCYzKz05ZX36OZL_RWER_6q9zloyaBoeeHs_TDUgbS60L4OFL92KMKa3NJI4fca9xFUZUCXGN2vU04dAu8DVHVBR6pMark as complete
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/ezp9iIaEpg4VFXkD--X3rzKKP96ik9ErLrrDW_zny7a7TdKYpnUAsFBnNE39jA3kU41rsh1p5J4Hd6h-tdHx5Cp89VGO4lRDgFclVIkvej3PuX_58QtMUS3xqdtS4m8s_6fmZSof
bdagostino2687
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Gp0V7dlGlxU8FZZ5ujFv57mdC_hdT1Oohs_MFOEX9JHlA_7XipqPURumtz6YgWq0c-pITAkkYWGKPWJQpnEhlLFQ3bL2zMs2majvstRivI-tYT00n0fkF___bnjRwEr_Miar-joH
Jan 18
Whew!  Do I agree with Patrick or do I still beat my wife?  Tough choice. I'll just have to plead the Fifth Amendment on this. --Brian

- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/NSKBddCQDE5tldwkZnd3etRlTPrBMcu-r2isVq2naHslZXgV6ZiylDD3EhyCbQLtRH_Z7ckpfjCzTJO-PMT4an6rIoCwyXgznHCwNGt3_io8TF98AHUpJv9R0_GL38UKN2PR-f2qMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/sq0bt_-Bbqr5AH_Wn5yBzBT8socRbkvol0WKprRAzCK8LNdXRVk0cqwphHadv-qqyOMw90MFv8WSoOtzc5kLU7c27JcVg0N2aWivbl84tYoL_cuGzUeJMxctc1Sm-8ApZ-xS6m83
Judith Logue
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/vt8R75G-Mz1G08SpdxVKzfcKfciO36fpMW8VoNxAjWq6H49j-wd1ZXTga4vcEa1_jDcJ9RX_66bm-oUiSoTfPiOPMas1r3MyRaRIHV1QN3-pX391zQDJiTm0VoHLM2JWKp0-hjVI
Jan 18
Consexuality?
Patrick and All,

Like world peace, until all genders who are adult and conscious (not inebriated) understand and are able to take responsibility for feeling and saying yes or no about sexual encounters - on a continuum from flirting to aggressive physical contact, this debate will continue. Or know and even have resources to stop predators.

And until men and women protect one another  and write and talk publicly about protctuing each other as a goal — and especially children and disabled people of any age — from drugs, alcohol or anything — from sexually aggressive harms, we will perpetuate the trauma , then I fear  all we will do is blame, accuse and obsess on gerbil wheels as to who did what to whom, who should do what with whom and how to punish.

Frankly, focus on how to raise and sustain healthy sexuality in all people would be time and effort better spent.
As someone who actually and naively believed, not just hoped, people would improve with the insight and sexual liberation of the 60s and 70s, I have to accept we are all more human than otherwise.

Most of us have personal and professional “stories” that can be put in a psychohistorical frame.

But my sense is that not many of us are fortunate enough to have evolved in this area of living and life.
Our leaders reflect our culture and our culture reflects and responds to our leaders.

Progress? Not so much in my 75 years on the planet.  Different yes.  Better?  In some ways yes.  In many, no.

But we sure are able more than ever to communicate, talk, write, film, video and interact in new ways about the subject of sex!
Mother would be interested and analytical and have ideas from her history (1917-2002) but Daddy (1910-1981) would prefer another massive heart attack to talking about sex that is “dirty.” In case you did not know, “Sex without love is dirty!”

Since a young age, learning about all things sexual has fascinated me .
I am not alone.
So, I guess
Whether the present cultural shift is a witch hunt (traumatizing the alleged perps) or help for the traumatized victims, so long as one is a nonpartipatory observer, discussing it makes the obvious plain... and hopefully more good than bad will come from it.

Thanks for thought. - provoking threads as always,
Judy L
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/b0WBT6XKFcsDRe1qURDTcL1y9WAigAOchb85SkaVYVslJwH_leVYQYy-VP7-74hqpy-nwNSG1zX2wLZXMuXPEkj0TGsdZwNmoI1qHwivc3TVUKFidzm-gOddtVd7EHhWzgcGtVUoMark as complete
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/DWbb8UDEqZOOsXb7ITzmBpegquv1o8D7dek9NEuDYj4idkShvPv9BoMrgWWYHQN08e3C-gZM-GazafoM92bxHFIUs5LYVqi5PotKb32lPGPLQ-HIH-LfIU6iWys1ULQy0c4C-vHJ
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/gfeGiccTWeTxbmpkYT-iKQCJ0jOTVrzwwbCB3G7zr-vlwHNrgH-wV1r8TRKhIg5DJKHT-wTTbkIBrET9qUg780iXWbQ20kGoUZCieVkGzt1IgWBNNYcGfPXlJiBoSbXyQQag-_CP
Jan 19
Re: Consexuality?
Thanks for the feedback, Judy. Taking responsibility for saying yes or no is facilitated, I think, when a culture has your back... that is, when a culture helps bulwark you to stand up for what you really want so that a particular situation doesn't recall you to a stance that at some level you know you really don't want to be taking. A culture of "no means yes," or a culture of "no doesn't really apply, once you've agreed to be in a situation," undermines a braver and truer stance people might be prompted to take.

Isn't blaming and accusing very much part of protecting? #MeToo is blaming an awful lot of men -- there's a lot of hate -- but isn't this how it inevitably feels when you've had a chance to release what you'd been forced yourself to contain -- all the self-hate, all the shame -- because a culture told you they were going to totally discount the crime against you? Not just a person but a culture, did perpetuate a crime against you, so that they in some way could rest easy... it is right to be enraged at this. And helpful: it articulates for the rest of us that something was very wrong in how were defining ostensibly innocuous behaviour perpetrated one sex upon the other; it does so in a more convincing way than if we turn quickly to listening to those who prompt us to be above blame and think mutual protection, the evolved, non-blame stuff... for it seems a trick, a quick lure to "maturity," that gives one a queasy feeling that it's being prompted by people who are reluctant to have us really sit for long with the full experiential reality of the degree of crimes that had gone on, and that, once "handled," they are maybe due to be ignored, once again. I think we need a long, long blast of empowering anger. Afterwards, when we've recovered our truer self, it'll be time to admit that those who perpetrate were once perpetrated upon. Crimes repeat, as you say.
- show quoted text -
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/kpY5gbHVbPZ0uYkn46aTAk5dlwMmN2Zj3-uFtAn9DIodQDbAUufHZ_BwxlUmnMrafK0_lJvBqk2mc7EnHOWGseV2pKZA9MLzUf9egxrntCeUV9XjYInZ7lGZvmb2MuCHPz7rTBDqMark as complete
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/K9nZdBkh2AlNTxVM0jk41bgv93L7_qWrz7ECH4NRxQUU1pMHrUH_UgJpOz1vdpRWwGNH5EXtNdl2CysXnziQQ8QT-5xuiEZlZwfRH_RcYsDBjuVVXGQqM6N5_6Lw6z9rJ_RsJXqP
Judith Logue
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Eqgol7jYemARg2iUW3_qg-zmauu2vWJIKTEU670lToSifMf8Le7AQaZiXB-TeHknrU8mB9wNo-Lwi2IMymFVCsM2hShM6fbA43HGZIgrU9Qb4l-80nedpf2jRRo82nLn46k1wrS8
Jan 19
Re: [cliospsyche] Consexuality?
Question, Patrick : Standing up - telling truth to power loud and clear ... is it the same as blaming and accusing?  I have some doubt.

Little girls empowered to stand against and also tell about bad behaviors somehow give off a message to would be predators ... and are less attractive to them.

But seems that too few girls and boys, too, are taught how.
Shame in parents about sexuality is often transmitted - as are healthful and responsible attitudes.

Not so sure blame and accusation fit with my idea of a protective superego or conscience.  More in the realm of a punitive one.

Judy
- show quoted text -
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/dlukuhGhsl8YP63p73hbHLdlcpPvrtmek9WCZAEP7A187qQrOjeY721JEZtNyUURO2r_t776KgIRTWIaYnHD3py8ZdTZAyoE8pTVdiGRksF5KHFYbtJkzlIVxytmR2RG5wXlhdcBMark as complete
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/nsSkOnZUXHlwXxLXWTvpK23ahHtfc0btuFmEZKxDw-J7GraK1g0bUwjAY1OlbWNhL0BZ-Be54oJ_vaPwX4uP7aYbhR7VLIG1PF3rGVeugJuqrZhZuh2ayV7geTZQgc8j1q3YUHSB
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/M64Neea9OQ9XkGQMzID0q8aophvhoj7MedvAs3u6d6U4_aHOwN1BWfi41OR0wUFB-xu7IbVKATnYsB5BQHDj8thvbxPNQzAqkqnwhysCwUbR9pYZVWgfXh34vAnAZ59E5AXs3cZq
Jan 20
Re: [cliospsyche] Consexuality?
Historically, every time there is real progress in the world, the voice blames and accuses what once was normalized but now finally has become a crime. The first abolitionists, the first female-right activists, animal-rights activists, way back in the 18th-century, bringing such good into the world, for the first time, were as I remember, hugely angry, blaming all over the place. Is it, then, absolutely required? I doubt it, but given the history of how progress was brought into the world we need to be careful that in advising/admonishing it to be less blameful we're not actually working with the conservative forces in the world that immediately arise to suppress hopeful movements by suggesting there's something emotionally awry in the protestors themselves. If in our time it's the David Frums who carry the anti-Trump message and the Masha Gessens who carry the ostensible ideal degree of #MeToo, both of whom seem so "decorum" compared to some of the others, this will in my judgment amount to, not a demonstration of how we've evolved passed blame towards change, but towards suppression of the progressive essence of both movements.
- show quoted text -
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/hGlDVMerFAPAWRcwYenjTLowuHmtwQHFE2c280p8hQP-GP1kd9zm_1sqxSMpgtcjpykWkCzUiZvAPVCZe-YT7v369fMZJxq0xBIlr418wJP8itcjlHS13IKSLJPWOKIZCe4fi7dmMark as complete
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/lsQKRckBPyH5IeCE4aODeTwgYX2lc5YNeMLA69xzbPL3sd4tK6Vh9h0Xedd4w-uiFkozGGMS12QEDERiY1nxCPXGrfLcfin3WDoxu0CBB4l2K2uzoF3qmozVCGJjYKb-zO9e45rA
Trevor Pederson
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mwlF2nKZaj7X5HWNxSBSs6AeHbpvQDO9zNsyOsnvVA8g8zUwhG3RcanyziEkOPVWSEW4eQpQrneWKx9zGfHSmvfWgWyAFFlTvtWHyzqQ73y4gJJI8F58_JhRm_hNXUlXQLp7fufy
Jan 20
Re: [cliospsyche] Consexuality?
It's nice to see that you can predict the future, Patrick, and you know your movement is the true, genuine advancement.

What about all the times in history when seemingly progressive movements totally backfired (i.e. the USSR, prohibition, etc.)?

Your model of history is much too simple here, and I've read your film reviews and know that your capable of more than this,

Trevor

- show quoted text -
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_APqbGMXdaYNiEBOqW5ro-cTSyk_sd5wxHYqAe-1jEuL-su7jYA-8SJ7EuyxSy_Np32v8hCwgVbyzRpFIzTX-efEMuHlaTo2O1h3w5PSZDYOWlpZ_8Nzx9RKl8e3SLWyNTKrKOUNMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/R8k1v90e7bgMqRXLH9CMlf5ntXXVXRplIP63EtbLfq84-x0C4ZZOgmU6nihXlIpvmwySnQfDB3QzZZbLl1VNzY0DuGwSGYIakfBke04zrj5lDTkoJmlQw6kFRQzX4Uo3KRglHNZJ
drwargus
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/OLp_lYtu5AXvKNBh2SUvdulL-h6CJMLNYlg8jNAA6k0C8bHOHeK4N_e7UgpD5O2pUFRBKNNupUTGwcbK8zDBS2lMRL--NFDjUKZdeBrERKlHhXAPHFYhgW7k_x4254oc7K1pBB2D
Jan 20
Re: Re: [cliospsyche] Consexuality?
Here is an interview about Trump with a psychoanalyst with Jungian training. I thought that it would be of interest to this group.  A pdf file is attached. Sorry but I couldn't seem to be able to paste it

Bill


- show quoted text -
Attachments (1)
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/F2cLFtSswDOA_7rVOOolo-7EOUPfg9sk7LgSu-8ba1nO1XaLHBn6vzG99WhQwNs5YpGpn2f-WYSacEmL1R4z7ZGS0zLw0KJDyDFWDyDqgqTabzaQl_NwuWcXFj8IVtZsIalNYdVZ
Keep Calm and Carry On - An interview w...out Donald Trump - Chiron Publications_2.pdf
1005 KB   View   Download
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/swtWXFeAJIFBeplrwMZvwC7zd8QNDJkanVrk8MLcX3jm-RN967z8HZSZZ9NIOhdew0Ea9JZF2QACR--jjbngxLQwB-a_8q8997wUvUrwE90_ew61FlrwPCRdTXw9FieWjBrv1sHwMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/tL8UgmVmPN3XV8ANeBw074tqiQxtWz0zvUO5DWz923ohZ-LU8bh3OOoXIjQCCd9ih8LCIPHNEnmnsI1iG9wFiE--xx4h7fzUmCMYr_crcNrGD9-phvAeEFRYK2mbgXMs6llhH6qJ
drwargus
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/DdL6G6Jdns1eJbqW10LJam3t-dxz-8_T2nDuH_NRn_7XMVSSpnASkvwE_hQYeSNNvcAL9mpsiP95u5Fe0IGPMNbmLPsJi2v4WBZIf_Kc7xNTQOITxhzJj58ZBdTBj0l_8ppfT7kE
Jan 20
Re: Re: [cliospsyche] Consexuality?
Here is an interview about Trump with a psychoanalyst with Jungian training. I thought that it would be of interest to this group.  A pdf file is attached. Sorry but I couldn't seem to be able to paste it

Bill


In a message dated 1/20/2018 7:33:35 AM US Eastern Standard Time, pmcevoyhalston@gmail.com writes:

- show quoted text -
Attachments (1)
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/62vCY-eciuayeYVnv4r5QxCg0lIxLvfpFC0muvE9LumLtEqBsA6_iVioGQOyA0mc2X8STcjsi2RoZozm0NTvVR0Mc16IW-zvC61OeAFdJ_GT8Q5BMjxpVKYArfXQynDis-pvYwco
Keep Calm and Carry On - An interview w...out Donald Trump - Chiron Publications_2.pdf
1005 KB   View   Download
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/nbW0zYGTG9VouXTckKKG8Z016I4emmZtbJjDCAHO7N_PB0fmGnI8-MDM1x7asmH2Sbaa5cH0WrUOFEJjgwJkzXxqiJDIz0oih_xkMn2gFZP1eiui0HTqPwF6c1A2HNm1BP7ayc8XMark as complete
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Vo3WIFSM7M5PhZCdMaGJVnX6Y-ACGAYECPzwbQs3aJS05I13lHfSnDN4Tb1qdRkGVaL4b4PYgTAbFoGObH4IdxJ6LtG_ERD6zLVKfcqSwdwz4Jl6LBbBIArXgv-_jfaeI4f33S4s
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/HBSAbZMtbUxpdeJdzO4T4TqMh3xDLlwsdeyk4uoFO_lgODkiHPV9_3CNtwKsCGX5If4HiRXXFc-ASC2yWcgaxbjyPSlSER_1BwVcPAEW7CKYgYfUJsbdNwWGVQJV4jYwdXLugGqF
Jan 20
Re: [cliospsyche] Consexuality?
Thanks for the feedback Trevor. And I really appreciate you letting me know that you've both read and enjoyed my film reviews. I feel greatly encouraged, and that's a measure of my respect for you for certain. (I would be glad to write film reviews and post links to them here on a regular basis, if people don't judge this spam but something they'd like to see me do.)

There are witch hunts. Hays Code coming in and narrowing creativity for a generation. A super-ego, enlarged, and spasmed out of control. Political Correctness did keep a lot of people from expressing themselves honestly, did encourage people to associate with a punitive force so that they could prey on "bad boy" self-representatives that were helplessly categorized and caged as trolls. So isn't progress in shucking this off... finally calling what had passed as simply the progressive voice as really the voice of a suppressive, even perpetrating, parent?

No, it isn't, and the reasons for it are complex but maybe can be boiled down to the fact that of the associates I know who I consider the most emotionally evolved, the ones whom I feel the greatest sense that they want a world where no one is punished and where everyone fully individuates and discovers their true selves, are with the Naomi Wolf side of #MeToo, not the Masha Gessen side. What may pass as society no longer letting itself be cowed by oppressive, dictatorial movements, who view all subjects not akin to themselves with massive suspicious, detecting in each one of them a deep degree of deplore-alism, is known only through feel of their language, their temper, their countenance, as those who are opposed to a movement which is going to make it that much harder for society to maintain its homeostasis by making sure that some huge group of peoples out there will experience pain and humiliation that has no hope for redemption. It's no longer okay to be racist, no longer okay to be homophobic, and now its no longer okay for society to keep themselves from experiencing their own childhood humiliations by making sure that most victims of abuse out there will themselves be targeted for censure if they make "too big a stink" about their experiences. More and more, society isn't looking like it's going to handle all the stuff out of our childhood that society exists in part TO HANDLE, and if it continues, we'll cease to be able to go on normally and "crazy" will fully infiltrate our everyday lives.

The reason political correctness WILL eventually, though not now, be rejected, is that -- and here's the complicated, or remote, part -- DeMause is correct that after about two or three decades after a period of massive sacrifice of lives and hopes, permission can't go on in its unafflicted manner anymore... it can continue, but only compromised. We feel this within political correctness, but when we're rejecting it now, unfortunately, we're not just junking the compromised part of progressivism but progressivism itself. I'm not sure I can demonstrate this just now. But it's my feel... the best young people I know -- and as the NYT has discussed, #MeToo has a generational divide -- are on the Naomi Wolf side, and I'm worried as hell for them. We will succeed in crushing what is actually our greatest threat -- a young generation that will further raise Mother's ire by arguing against Her stance that individuation must be hampered by some means, so more and more people dance off freely into the world rather than remained chained to her -- without any guilt at all, for we'll simply be speaking up against a reckless witch hunt, against activists who hate the common man and woman, trying to make us believe that everything we know to be self-evidently true -- like nature -- are delusions we need to be cured from.

If you look at my posts I've mentioned a number of times that there are a whole hosts of truths that I really regret have been shut down for discussion. But my way too exploring them is to work with people who most profoundly understand how trauma has determined society's course, and these people just happen to be -- I can't deny it -- more on the "gender" side of things than on the "nature." They would seem opposite to me, but the sensitivity of them, the dexterity and care and intricacy of their language, tells me they're not.

I've got work on a bit, so I can't check this over. Hopefully I said here my best response.   
- show quoted text -
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/gWhBMXIVyOOhDuond7oc3Q07kfSQMF8nPfHDbBYvHFpF-KMckfPxA8avWQE9AcStO6DshHJ7g2IjEwkY0MpHzWyL1QGbAr7XQfbbEqr3xPnc58__e9yiCJknZg7uoG4klo1xJYFeMark as complete
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FawxtxTAvV1f0Hty-BCbCkjJC4TVoqgUOcsdOTIZvlZ5VDxxo8HM2X6vyWf3dbNHKQbGue3EjHDDecMPmt_xNSOy68At7IR1Eq5_TrWZFa_kUJs6tKUW6e-HEGF-zOzWZp-3oudy
bdagostino2687
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/4gRAHRNxm8_olaqCYBMRcmIfPEc0J5CewnE2nE-LY_xXiGzFRxixSpdIFp9b4A2daHSau9qAqn1B8-HDP0bk1enyAoLq6qheurUVWH4BO_XBLXB2dhGcqgwSJ3jJRc33M2Hy0VMM
Jan 20
RE: Re: [cliospsyche] Consexuality?
Thank you, Bill, some good insights from Jungian psychology in this interview.  Yes, the Trickster archetype is highly relevant to understanding Trump, and in personality he is more like Mussolini and Stalin than Hitler.  Would that Jung himself had exercised better political judgement in the 1930s.  That gets to Patrick's point about the need to take a stand while history is still being made and our choices can shape the outcomes.  

I also agree that anger (and even blame, in the sense of directing anger at perpetrators) has an important and legitimate place in the progressive movement.  But Aristotle’s caveat applies here: “Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.” (from the The Nicomachean Ethics, quoted in Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence.

Brian

917-628-8253


From: drwargus via Clio’s Psyche [mailto:cliospsyche@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 8:16 AM
To: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [cliospsyche] Consexuality?
- show quoted text -
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/fQGz4dRCDuyqh6gW_8y5eGGNvr4rXFpQWqI8jDDa7lVWGd3S6WQUdCqEy45I3BGu6AhTEwItCzyZkxMND1dhFaQ7PwMBC6izcI8514PW8HUC7GN8rvQhcMwzczqQ05LV8NnR8-9IMark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/xL_11mq1DJLKalmdEzuRTvvRwoWS4mPUW_b0jr2fyds6iFp0xfUXfTN31IT8ohXcs_OYf1ccXZ7r4j9TM1M6jlCdrLmBxCxDQoLjPA-D8BYvCDMjy_f5bweyNruo8n6AqKHua-le
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/r8JqOPtnXFLazUv3utYI2HIKxixcCRyFzxnH1RINgFV5uycbSS1zmcu4PbXOgcmPrSw-Ak3qY9lf9dTm2pAdUM8gbp0Z7hAnhdZ5ixRl2m3dOYn4kaeR6vkeO5GlwNz1ud1gguI9
Jan 20
Re: Re: [cliospsyche] Consexuality?
Brian, I hope you get some really involved explorations of your recent article, especially ones that I think you'd look forward to, where the modelling, the science of it is examined in close detail. It wasn't something I was up for.

But if you don't mind, there was another thing that came to mind about your article, concerning phrasing. Concerning this paragraph:

In societies that assign infant and baby care almost exclusively to females, such as our own, the earliest attachment figure for both boys and girls is a female. By virtue of such infant care arrangements, these societies by definition practice sex stereotyping, and the infant and baby care providers are t9/12hus typically “feminine” females. Having all internal- ized these feminine objects, boys and girls are then subjected to differen- tial gender socialization. Here the developmental trajectory of the sexes diverges, with the “feminine” self-ideal taught to girls and the “mascu- line” ideal taught to boys.

I think most people would this phrasing perfectly fine, perfectly appropriate, but I wish they wouldn't. This is not quite true to your theories, but here would be a possible re-write that I wish there was more open to being accepted:

In societies where the mothers grew up so unloved they need their children to satisfy their own unmet needs and therefore castigated and abandoned them when they attempted to individuate from them, and where the fathers weren't much interested in the children, and even hated them for drawing attention away from them, children end up feeling like parts or components of their mothers, a state that can't be ended outside of dramatic and terrible means. For boys, whether or not the society they were in currently favoured or scorned masculine he-men, whether it was intent to teach them to be like this or not, this means they'd adopt this aggressive "Hemingwayesque" solution regardless, and in sufficient numbers society would immediately thereafter carry this as their norm for proper masculine displays of self and even misleadingly appear as the key agent in ensuring the next generation follows the same course, ostensibly dictating to mothers their role in childrearing, as if there was emotionally any other option for them but to isolate their children all to themselves. Similarly, the men might appear to be allocated a more distant role in childrearing until later, when there was emotionally no capacity to do anything other than that, for the interest in the young children wasn't there, and the mother and her abode, too greatly feared in any case.

-----------------------------


Masculinity and the #MenToo movement
2 posts by 1 author

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/h_UeLwb765uzKH_6lg7TfWAtrBrk_TH3BJisv2LEXGZf780jAkK2MW6btFiXSFN4dZkHm2ZrKbbh-cdpOABnjPCkhrAZNukA2sDI14-O3meEJMx91COb8I4s7hgMx1cDURCYreCJ


add tags
Assign

Set as duplicate

No action needed
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/4kVqGsWySpoZKGR9g2jcYj4kXhVvSRWXbSfoQEEot_bbx50_sQBpWKblxfVcXqEGOF3lQLZx6DIk_d-gCgt4f6Jrm93WIl7yG-PZqwGRaj-RzteLt1nTNQXNFhsaeaCmQL8PlgkX
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/XfzBpnfGun9QX03MhU5IBJxfZmUsizVnMnlIoCuVcAwfe3OZRb-Q0Krf16HKqR_17PaxQMZzdOyASQu4KwQGDr_N6n8msAlBsKwN8QmHmyOokeMFRqX3YXiens2clgnlkM14EXnM
Jan 26
Masculinity and the #MenToo movement: The Cut
Click here to Reply
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/0FR3Z25fntoygmflSMIwzBHcBAb2Qso5LlGrh73XpPN3f95P_6DUDCCE-Z3U0c4wglGDqFhBg1a6XVShVyb6I1FzMHdvUuKBkxaJ_uwQHAfcb0wk-pYo6361kXmoKHG27cK_8qtd
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Lluvz46zkrK3I_2_1HBHeOMuhH-66oayMrEm0_KlX4Lj_KQtkVJKx9LpekC2rGl6Abi89LU31FV3-ODznz5u9HtQAOKEzjDsT-IRXcpoDZmgSkDPP70HdmuDa9oV4ET67D9aaAOv
Jan 26
And also regarding worrisome aspects of contemporary expectations of masculinity, here's my exploration of "bro"-culture in recent films:

I don't think there is any doubt that for some time we will see what we saw happening with the Golden Globes this year concerning the effects of #MeToo. Without doubt, we are going to see women, who, even if they end up bearing characteristics we might later use, in a slightly different climate, against them -- as slightly monstrous, or overbearing, for example -- will pass our current smell test of "strong, empowered women." Without doubt, these will be the films that will win awards, and that everyone will show their eager association with. But how will we know that this means that as a culture, at least we ourselves have done the deep thinking into the matter of how sexual abuse has been tolerated and hidden, how victims have been made out to be guilty ones, to carry, even over much a lifetime, what is properly others' guilt, that for example John Oliver claimed he couldn't actual hear out of Dustin Hoffman's own claims of having done so?
Since it largely won't come from how women are portrayed in film, perhaps what we ought to do is remind ourselves that the #MeToo movement is as much about how everyone deserves to be treated as feminism is. Neither of these movements is about enfranchising women and ignoring any other group, but about making sure that no one alive anymore gets to be waylaid in life by popularly held assumptions of how it is ostensibly okay to treat people that has historically really meant cruelly holding back development and crushing souls.
Thinking along these lines, we might note whether or not there is in the developing film culture also a trend to challenge, not how men seem permitted to treat women, but how for example they seem permitted and encouraged to treat one another... of what is involved in making a man become the best man he can be. Does all that hate that used to be allowed onto women and that we used to justify as something they needed to learn how to handle, or to excuse as just clumsy flirting on men's part that women were oversensitive to, get re-allocated so that it actually inflates the validity of the kinds of treatment that actually has shut down many a man? Does it work to actually enhance male-bro culture, and pass our notice, because it looks or can pass off as evolved because it's now some man, finally this time ostensibly suffering the kind of abuse women have traditionally had to carry, a justified turn of events? And might this re-allocation end up proving temporary, as a culture that isn't as truly with #MeToo as it is pretending, builds the scaffolding for an ostensibly justified reason to revenge against the women that have temporarily resisted their previous uninterrupted and ongoing efforts to make use of them as props in which to dispel their anxieties and thereafter dispatch them.
In "Three Billboards," Sam Rockwell's character, Dixon, becomes a strong patriot to the empowered female avenger, but it comes through his willingly letting a man whom he could otherwise destroy, beat him into a pulp. He is not someone who is mentally broken by the abuse, someone whose intended plans, are actually thwarted thereby as he proved incapable of maintaining the stoic stance through the extreme effects of the torture, but someone whose intentions are fulfilled through them -- a man of will.
In "Moonlight," the young man, Chiron, who is repeatedly bullied through high school, ends up being incarcerated for an act of physical violence -- yes. But this violence was the successful annihilation of the very dominating man who'd been assaulting him -- and who quite frankly, scared us -- and seems a component of his being a pleasing powerhouse later, making it hard at some level to really believe that the bullying was actually not in the end helpful to him: it enabled his being able to make a final triumphant turn against an enduring compromised state of lasting fretfulness and fear.
"Dunkirk:" young men demonstrating that enduring conditions of assault has worth, for it meaning demonstrating that they were willing to endure experiences of apocalyptic terror and helplessness... and therefore anything at all for a country that has to have someone willing to feel all their own compromised emotional states, the intolerable anxieties of suspected catastrophic attack that had come to haunt them. Counting oneself amongst the abused for awhile has worth, for the country will laud you for it -- you'll experience the delight of a thousand trumpets, as a country in chorus cheers you unexpectedly as heroes and chases away any shame you might have been feeling -- and so conversely denying them an assemblage of abused young men is bad, for it means they'll hate you for requiring it to double-back onto them.
"Get Out," a film where conspicuously the main character, Chris Washington, does NOT become the emasculated attendee that represented the fate of the first abductee, but one who after torture, ably dispatches them all, dispatches his crazy user girlfriend, and is back amongst the one person he can count on, his "bro"-friend Rod.
"Logan," a man deteriorated in terms of pain, but never really someone who has to wear the humiliation of being reduced from superhero to limo driver -- it's all a chuckle, as it's means towards an end -- and remains throughout a counter to the really impossible-to-consider fate: being rendered akin to the albino "truffle-digger," who not only is the one who dusts and cooks, and insistently brings up -- that is, nags about -- household concerns the other is ignoring, but who turns turncoat quickly once childhood tortures become applied to him.
"Last Jedi": the pretentious and preening, the full-of-themselves, Finn, newly joined in a pantheon of heroes, who's suspect for perhaps getting off on his new status rather than keeping faith with his common-sort roots, Bo, the cocky guy who thinks his skill means everyone should bend to him, and that because he's special, he can bend rules everyone else has to abide, Hux, the evil young commander who seems to enjoy too much his being in the spotlight, and who doesn't understand that he's just a mere vehicle that a greater power is using, get deflated back into "proper" measure through instances of humiliation/ridicule and torture we are encouraged to take humour in. They ostensibly needed to be taken down a few pegs; it'll be good for them. Is this really a #MeToo film because women in the film gain greater space? Are we sure we should let it pass as bearing our new more evolved sensibilities, and not actually as hosting, with its validating brutally taking down anyone who can be set up as someone whose previous injuries are long past worth considering and who's now just verging on being a pretentious ass, a Trojan Horse of retrograde sympathies?
Some would argue that the very conditions that have served to destroy women -- environments of harassment and abuse -- logically should be understood as doing no less to men. And if films really are no longer for the kind of attitudes that have been applied to women, if we're seeing reform in the portrayal of women built out of deep consideration of the attitudes that previously sustained them, we should be seeing in films an acknowledgement that shaming and humiliation turns men into the kinds of reduced subjects that can make them prey to yet further assaults: that in every way, it's all kinds of bad.
We should not in films find our being drawn away from their fates, find ourselves through being able to identity with some other stronger character in the film successfully defending against what they were rendered into, so even as we ostensibly are only empathizing with and regretting their position they actually function in carrying a dreaded fate we actually enjoy seeing ourselves distinguished from.
We should register the assaults and humiliations the male characters have to endure as evidence as to why we need a therapeutic and caring climate nurtured for them as well. Men who are warm with one another, as heroes: micro-effects of goodwill, building macro-change. Men as those who are willing to do the REALLY unpopular thing, the thing that might make them truly loathed -- acts which are genuinely heroic but bear no signs of traditional bravado, like acknowledging that abuse hasn't tested and bettered you but made you someone who's actually come to enjoy pleasing his predators (a fate that often happens), and that it didn't come out of war, or some venture that leaves your initial status as a man ostensibly incontestable, but elsewhere, maybe some place humiliatingly domestic, making you actually akin to the sad dish-washing albino gorilla in "War for the Planet of the Apes," who, unlike his compatriot in crime, the gargantuan gorilla Red Donkey, is allowed no redemption at the end through "masculine" display of awesome strength and explosive violence.
Men shown breaking ranks in terms of traditional expectations of how men are supposed to comport themselves that leaves them unbearably blatantly exposing our own need for love, our own vulnerability, but not allowed to be categorized for dismissal as pretentious, as not-"I," but rather redeemed, so we are forced, as it is enabled to stand out in broad daylight so we can't turn away, to endure full memory of what had once happened to us too -- a first step towards stepping out from being an advocate for the oppressor, for we're with "him," to avoid our own shame, and if we're not destroyed in forced remembrance of it, we'll have to face up to that fact.
(Note: #MeToo can be subverted, and actually be used to further denigrate the women whose lives are now being somewhat recovered. I'll get to that sometime in another post, as I think the means towards it are already manifesting through certain links the are being made, in popular culture, in film, that'll work to make them seem egotistical -- as those who may know hurts but who don't ostensibly don't know what real pain is -- and pretentious -- those who think society shares their victory when they're earning the same number of millions their male compatriots do -- and ungrateful: Paglia's, "the world women enjoy was built out of the unregistered and unadministered, massive physical sacrifices of working class men." As a hint, it involves all those stories we're now hearing of women from war-afflicted regions risking life and limb for projects they'll never see a cent from, and, à la "Downsizing," the downtrodden male's -- who might himself know himself to have been a predator, and who's now ever-worried his own time might be up -- urgent eager affiliation with them.)
----------------------


BRIAN
4 posts by 3 authors

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/yP0xMN4MvK6tr3TpEFIEqU6wycgRmj_4KwhP4QADJYXplw5h9vkRMWvuNqMxrI27VExD8UIC3BVJaG6GKk0aVEKA56SfNEm09gmg1KRZLo_oGkF2AfeO2qY-t56JrpONFZpsa-v0


add tags
Assign

Set as duplicate

No action needed
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/RsYd-iWmEPYxE2ZFN53Ahqrk5eVEjJDFv64TlZkePLa1skA1TXesIoojpGpSNbCjw9FNUOIrbveRQqULkf-XPfo43JzKBFry-fco0iAvqUy_ZBjcP_RrTtdl0_Du7Oyksm7b0Gzy
arniedr
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xB4N-a8AAW9v0jqPm4BRhy0tTvFeP2LO02Qs9B6kPNPBUebQs1tsKuGpw-3HF335-5LmW6w6TWea--YoPqHnRtzQq4Pf96Qqg19uLEI9dc27DUpBYLg5VPx4_Al7FcMVZ53BwhUy
Jan 25

Arnold Richards
Click here to Reply
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/KHey00Gg4YQb5cEqFdAol-u4MN_Yg-3riYGKf9sfwzcLuUOiw7Y4fECw0h1HJBodebe56p5NMbeXmPtMXKq_Qoisx6qvJiUbzP3rXq0BJlXbwPjfqdWPTz83E0lvmvFTD9nSgrBm
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/CBSCEXQmkmFj9xsNuC8AvloUBqeGn5CxuDPaZPs2KhBvWQ3nSa88iXD92NnX51pabECzGuVcynQdc-J9ZHExRNRtukdKJJLZ1_WT9b8xjlYKQhHTToMQ40sKVj6lOuOnuZkj6MKy
Jan 25
By successfully making psychohistory more sciencey, are we distracting ourselves from other more fundamental problems? Brian's article does not explore the possibility that the key reason men feel troubled by their feeling feminine isn't because it's a highly suspect state to find oneself in in a macho culture, but because what "feeling feminine" really is is having experienced enveloping, incestuous, lengthy contact with isolated and love-denied mothers: it's feeling a victim of abuse by one's mother, a much bigger concern that if society might seem it might shun you because you spent quite a bit of time around your possibly very decent mother, and so felt a bit of a traitor (poor self-reference) to the ideal. It's rather a worse thing to feel an object of incestuous use than to feel like you don't properly fit a preferred social standard, which one would think might not even amount to much at all if you didn't have "authoritarian" parents (not yet discussed at that point in the article) but actually rather splendid ones who gave you plenty of support and love within your own particular "pre-odipal dynamics," and, to me, much more convincingly associated with macro things that involve either denying millions the resources they need to survive or squashing an equally countless number  to death. (For those who read the article, do you experience the same sense I had that "militarism" at first looked like it would be built entirely out of boys feeling compromised owing to society's expectations of macho, a temporary escape from the double-bind through loud declarative displays of pure macho, to be repeated over and over again, but then that it seemed as if it required the additional component of "authoritarian parenting" to seal the deal? Once "authoritarian parenting" gets discussed, one dips back into the article and wonders how it all works if the mother and father involved in socializing the children in "proper" gender dynamics weren't authoritarian ogres but actually sublimely wonderful and kind people, simply doing as society has indoctrinated them into... which seemed nevertheless sufficient to cause huge macro disorders like war.) I remember Masterson saying that the science was in regarding the importance of the mother in the formation of the personality disorders, but considered that the lack of impact of this fact on other researchers "may be [because they are] under the sway of the almost universal tendency to hold on to the positive image of the 'mother.'" Here he echoes deMause's complaint against Clio, by the by.

I do think that some readers might be in for a surprise when they hear Brian account that militarism cannot be reduced to individual psychology ("Militarism only exists in relation to states and large-scale political-economic processes, and cannot be reduced to the psychology of individuals and their psychobiographies in families and small groups"), for it appears the kind of statement that lends weight to the preferred conception of societies being a wholly different beast from individuals -- and that they do all the important "causing" -- only to find that what he actually does mean for us to understand IS ACTUALLY THAT individual psychology determines such grand and lofty things like domestic and foreign policy goals; determines the macro. So militarism not being reduced to individual psychology, doesn't mean aggregate childrearing -- individual psychology -- doesn't mostly determine whether or not your nation functions as a great angry he-man beast, as it pounds other smaller countries to smithereens. And whatever this means, and however that works, somehow "psychology of individuals and their psychobiographies in families and small groups" seems to stand a bit taller after the article, and the "states and large-scale political-economic processes," a bit more pulled back; less stately and "serious."

Helping make this conception bear fruit, might actually be of more use to psychohistory (and to society... and to people) than if Brian succeeds in making the discipline function more as a science. It might indeed help our science: Does this mean that psychohistory reduces all of its subject matter to “psychological motives?” Yes. Only a psyche can have a motive, a group cannot, a factory cannot, a gun cannot. Is psychohistory, then, “history reduced to merely personal motives?” Yes again. All motives are personal, though the “merely” is a denial of their importance. And the charge of “reductionism,” often leveled against psychohistory, is simply misplaced, since it is not a failing but a scientific goal to reduce seemingly complex and disparate processes to simpler and more basic forces and principles. MI other sciences long ago learned that the universe of available “facts” is near infinite; only historians still believe they can learn something just by conti-nuing to pile up more and more narrative “facts.”  

Anyway, that's my go. Anyone else?
- show quoted text -
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/nlO-Bs974kRfunkiNOHTG4n2HsARtR9wdceTnXsYDJqnvnLf315mlMBpzr0SbrlIbRCgEZDaC6dPp-UUdbq4Yf5HrzhL7WxmjWBjUfYpymL64IpouB2-q3FsGjd8x5U0MiqXGbi1Mark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-OoxighdRmW1dAVc0xsyFY4PzM73g5V4o4Z6qNSIanYvUAFSRtKRDgTDWNCKoG1uEWWiFge1WIm6vU-VoCQMUR0LOx5TscHxcDbUGTGvPv5qK8gq8xTJvkPy-6Q_0rpcsq9X5_ws
bdagostino2687
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/oqLmQnMuKw_onWT7LNxfYUtW34jRazibTYRJknDVhcstX1zHD_M_CPiB-bs5XnzIoyoZbOFOVsgpMtk9_eWK1vN4yAvDytU-ogV9y_E_-6QFmPPImkEb2b2aNJHJANbNJO87c79z
Jan 25
RE: [cliospsyche] Re: BRIAN
Arnie, thanks very much for posting my article on International Psychoanalysis.  

Patrick, I have never purported to reduce psychohistory to science (in the sense of measurement, quantitative data, and statistical hypothesis testing).  Like Freud, I believe it is potentially a science, but not ONLY a science.  I am not challenging you and other humanists to abandon the humanities and become scientists; psychohistory has traditionally been and always will be part of the humanities.  It is nothing if not an interdisciplinary enterprise, and that includes neuroscience, Perceptual Control Theory, Terror Management Theory, and much more.  Psychohistory cannot be reduced to any one of these approaches, or to any humanistic approach, given its interdisciplinary (or transdisciplinary?) character.  I adopted perceptual control theory in this article and connected psychoanalytic ideas to a theory of how the brain may be organized, but that doesn’t preclude humanistic approaches, and in fact I also appropriated Nancy Chodorow’s The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender, which comes out of the humanistic tradition.  Why can’t we walk and chew gum?  Why can’t things be “both/and” rather than “either/or”?

I should not have to, and will not, apologize for designing survey research, collecting data, and doing a statistical analysis, especially in an academic discussion group.  Lloyd deMause liked to say that psychohistory is a science, but he never did any of these things or any other kind of systematic, empirical research and limited himself to arm chair speculation, which he equated, by fiat, with “science.”  You also seem to be more comfortable with speculation than with reasoning about data.  So be it.  This group and the field of psychohistory is big enough for all of us!  You raise some interesting and important substantive issues that I don’t have time to respond to right now because I’m juggling a lot of other balls.  But thanks for taking the time to respond, and I plan to comment further when my time permits.  

On the question of whether and in what ways psychohistory can be considered a science,  I also refer members of this group to a pair of articles in Psychohistory Newsthat distilled some of our previous conversations on this listserv: “How Much Does Child Rearing Really Impact History?” (Spring 2015) and “Is Psychohistory a Science?” (Winter 2015); these and other back-issues of the newsletter can be downloaded from: http://www.psychohistory.us/archive.php

Brian

917-628-8253


From: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com [mailto:cliospsyche@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Patrick McEvoy-Halston
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 1:19 PM
To: Clio’s Psyche <cliospsyche@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [cliospsyche] Re: BRIAN
- show quoted text -
--
<><><> 
To post to this group send to: cliospsyche@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fnwhBrHU48Gcrs7PHAb6YzZyFOcN2nJyv4ee4F2MoUtypDdoVY1g3vfv5Zhc0moZRTNvnV1AnkW6uaEvLspqBMhnLmqg3jsvKffEt5pdMObCQJcsigSUFG6hLkuI9uZZJeiDwsb7Mark as complete
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/kwK56CH27y65QYE4Kbw4VobdFLyz6lGDGMYhTjSxfXSYSzmRLcu11zl8e112CRfE9fdBqmJiokqBEHDRK29cetVsjReeUcg6WJYfSztmwif18ZYoaaso0aav37qeXqFHl-qxLRPB
me (Patrick McEvoy-Halston change)
Jan 26
Re: [cliospsyche] Re: BRIAN
"You also seem to be more comfortable with speculation than with reasoning about data."

This is no doubt sincerely meant, but speaking of erroneously reinforcing norms of masculinity, socially reinforced fit self-perception, doesn't this fit type?

What I thought I was doing was pointing out that if what we are studying is the effects of our mothers upon us, we can't just produce scientific studies and presume we'll have an audience that will naturally cowtow to whatever the results so long as they're valid. We need to "speculate" as to whether most of our audience is still lorded over by their predatory terrifying maternal alters, and if this seems likely, work, perhaps through attention to our rhetoric, to nevertheless speak to the courage in a person to resist Her and not find some way to disown the findings if one sensed she wasn't liking the direction the results of studies would seem to portend.

The angry maternal alter, by the way, would have little trouble with your experiments, for it's patriarchal culture and authoritarianism (which in common parlance, common understanding, is currently safely identified with the patriarchal father, with patriarchy, rather the pre-oedipal mother, no matter how much you point out that it could be either mom or dad who was the authoritarian -- an allowance which actually grants nothing) that gets targeted. Changing child-rearing norms, your advice, scares no one, because it makes people seem simply under tutelage of what they were taught. If it was phrased differently, like saying, we need to provide more social support for mothers because, one, they deserve it, and two, because it will mean they are much less likely to end up changing the brain structures of their boys so they carry, not "maternal introjects," but Terrifying Mother altars within them, which will later drive them to want to war against "guilty" vulnerable children in other countries, then we'd of had to contend with some part of ourselves informing us that, no matter the proof of it, "you accept this study and you'll be rejected of my love forever." My sense is that would quail acceptance of the study, with people ostensibly finding all sorts of flaws built in to the study which show it up as fraudulent, even if they're aren't any, or they're minor.

We have to make sure we have the superior scientists we need, before we dig into data, is my sense. (We must test this.) You don't just offer scientific proof to medieval magicians and alchemists; you create the scientists first. Try re-writing this, yes, difficult article in actually a more substantially less of a people-pleasing way -- the suggestion that we need to learn to be more comfortable with androgyny, is another of these that goes down so easy -- and we might have gotten to whether we've got a larger fight on our hands than securing proof.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Review of "the Snowman"