[INFJ] - This will make you rage | Page 41 | INFJ Forum

[INFJ] This will make you rage

Deleted member 16771 said:
Lol.

It's interesting that you mentioned the parallel to the Bush Era before.

Up until now, there were a lot of SNA (social network analysis) studies which concluded that political polarisation in the US was disproportionately a right-wing phenomenon, and its 'dog whistles' were obvious and well-defined. It's interesting to see the left now undergoing the same kind of transformation, with its own 'dog whistles' and no-compromise positions.
Click to expand...

I used to be radical left, now I'm about to be radical right. And my positions haven't changed! Lol!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hithere, Reason, BritNi and 1 other person
Wyote said:
I used to be radical left, now I'm about to be radical right. And my positions haven't changed! Lol!
Click to expand...
Lmao


P.S. Holy shit St. Louis' murder rate in 2017 was 66 in 100,000.

In fact look at all the American cities in this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate


For the richest country on Earth, these figures are honestly staggering. It's worse than medieval, worse than active warzones, worse than even the worst periods of US western expansion in the 19th century.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daustus and Wyote
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted member 16771
BritNi said:
@Deleted member 16771
Why do you hate America?

=P
Click to expand...
Lol

i) Trump keeps threatening the integrity of NATO. Only the other day he threatened to pull American troops from Germany. He's threatened to leave completely before now, and is undermining the global geopolitical system constantly.

ii) Domestic instability within the US reduces both its capacity to project soft power, and its practical ability to respond to emerging international situations. China has already branded it as a 'failed state' in a bid to undermine its global authority.

iii) Russian tanks on the borders of Europe, &c. &c.

iv) Do I need to mention how crucial the US is to the global economy?


Your country is the linchpin of all systems of international order, be they financial, military, political or whatever else. Even a partial American collapse is a gigantic problem. The whole world depends upon you and your bloody juvenile democracy, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote and acd
hithere said:
I've been trying to become a little smarter about this but I'm only getting more confused.
Why does everything have to be so polarizing and divided among party lines?
The majority of Americans are mostly decent people and we all want everyone to feel safe and have equal opportunity. So, we might not agree on how to go about that.
But what's all the shaming about?
There's so much damage being done, relationships being hurt.
Why is that necessary?
You know what is necessary for change? Cooperation. Willingness to find common ground.
And yes, this is me venting. Admittedly, a selfish post.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a selfish post, hi.

Just on your question about polarisation, I should say that social balance theory (Fritz Heider, then Harary and Cartwright) predicts that the only two 'balanced, stable' possible states within social networks are unitary utopias and antagonistic, bipolar states.

The process of polarisation is generally automatic and based upon relationship 'triads' between two people and an 'object' (which can either be another person or an idea). The classic example is a married couple and a friend.

When everybody likes each other, the triad is 'balanced'.

However, when the married couple fall out and divorce, the triad is put into an 'imbalanced' state where the friend is effectively forced to choose between the ex-spouses.

Social balance theory is based upon 'consistency theory' in psychology (the most well-known example of which is the concept of 'cognitive dissonance'), the idea being that the friend would find it too stressful to maintain relations with both ex-spouses if they do not like each other.

In this case, the divorce can have a cascade effect throughout the entire social network as people are effectively forced to choose sides based upon their preexisting affiliations.

Political polarisation works the same way, except triadic elements can be replaced with 'ideas', &c.

The theory predicts (and the mathematics on this are solid - this was Harary and Cartwright's improvement, who brought graph theory in from mathematics) that the longer a social network exists, the more elements/people are polarised in order to 'balance' the network and reduce the overall level of cognitive dissonance within the system as a whole. People have less stressful lives when they associate only with their allies, and think and do things which their allies approve of. By contrast, maintaining a network of contacts with a lot of imbalanced triads represents a level of stress that most people are not able to live with.

The fallacy people make when thinking about polarisation is that it must primarily be about erroneous thinking in one side or another, or that it's mostly about 'politics'. The reality of polarisation is that it's a social phenomenon which human beings are adapted to make use of in order to reduce congnitive stress upon themselves. It's mostly about interpersonal alliances and pre-existing loyalties.

In evolutionary terms, it may even be adaptive, promoting a process of creative destruction and a cycle of splitting networks and destroying the less adapted half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daustus, pzl2lxie81mc, hithere and 1 other person
Deleted member 16771 said:
a cycle of splitting networks and destroying the less adapted half.
Click to expand...

Aw shit, here we go again
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Daustus, pzl2lxie81mc, hithere and 1 other person
Deleted member 16771 said:
Lmao


P.S. Holy shit St. Louis' murder rate in 2017 was 66 in 100,000.

In fact look at all the American cities in this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate


For the richest country on Earth, these figures are honestly staggering. It's worse than medieval, worse than active warzones, worse than even the worst periods of US western expansion in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
That's why we call it Misery, not Missouri. My mom and her family come from there, my grandma grew up in the poor side of town there. Very very racially tense place, after Ferguson lots of shops in the loop actually closed up because of racial tensions/ fights that kept breaking out. Lots of rich haughty white people there who if you walk by them you can hear some fucked up shit theyre saying in casual conversation.

We visited shortly after Ferguson and my grandma wanted to go driving around her old neighborhood which now has no white people there. All the black folks had eyes on our Prius and she pulled up and asked some guys for directions, they looked really tense. It was funny because my grandma was completely oblivious to the tension and I'm like "grandma I don't think we should be here" lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reason and Deleted member 16771
Deleted member 16771 said:
I don't think it's a selfish post, hi.

Just on your question about polarisation, I should say that social balance theory (Fritz Heider, then Harary and Cartwright) predicts that the only two 'balanced, stable' possible states within social networks are unitary utopias and antagonistic, bipolar states.

The process of polarisation is generally automatic and based upon relationship 'triads' between two people and an 'object' (which can either be another person or an idea). The classic example is a married couple and a friend.

When everybody likes each other, the triad is 'balanced'.

However, when the married couple fall out and divorce, the triad is put into an 'imbalanced' state where the friend is effectively forced to choose between the ex-spouses.

Social balance theory is based upon 'consistency theory' in psychology (the most well-known example of which is the concept of 'cognitive dissonance'), the idea being that the friend would find it too stressful to maintain relations with both ex-spouses if they do not like each other.

In this case, the divorce can have a cascade effect throughout the entire social network as people are effectively forced to choose sides based upon their preexisting affiliations.

Political polarisation works the same way, except triadic elements can be replaced with 'ideas', &c.

The theory predicts (and the mathematics on this are solid - this was Harary and Cartwright's improvement, who brought graph theory in from mathematics) that the longer a social network exists, the more elements/people are polarised in order to 'balance' the network and reduce the overall level of cognitive dissonance within the system as a whole. People have less stressful lives when they associate only with their allies, and think and do things which their allies approve of. By contrast, maintaining a network of contacts with a lot of imbalanced triads represents a level of stress that most people are not able to live with.

The fallacy people make when thinking about polarisation is that it must primarily be about erroneous thinking in one side or another, or that it's mostly about 'politics'. The reality of polarisation is that it's a social phenomenon which human beings are adapted to make use of in order to reduce congnitive stress upon themselves. It's mostly about interpersonal alliances and pre-existing loyalties.

In evolutionary terms, it may even be adaptive, promoting a process of creative destruction and a cycle of splitting networks and destroying the less adapted half.
Click to expand...

You've got a really clear way of explaining things :).

Anyway, sgn me up for that unitary utopia.

But seriously, people will always have differences of opinion and different approaches. I think that's a good thing. It means we're thinking people.
But maybe if we all agree to commit to a higher ideal of harmony, (or it can be another higher overarching ideal) we won't have to endure cognitive dissonance.
We can listen to other people's opinions respectfully. Maybe even argue and yell about it if you feel strongly enough. But if you are both committed to an overarching ideal you can then give the other guy a hug when you're done yelling and call him a friend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pzl2lxie81mc and Deleted member 16771
BritNi said:
Or... Have social service work as a prerequisite for becoming a police officer. If they have practice in the field, they may show more compassion.

Who knows? More education and experience should be required, for sure. 21 weeks of "training" is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Most won't get hired here without at least a 2-yr in Criminal Justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BritNi, Reason and Deleted member 16771
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back