This is a short diary but I want to put this out there and hear what others think.
 
I keep looking at the polls and all I can think of is "Identifying with the aggressor." For those who aren't into psych stuff this term was created by Anna Freud to describes a defense mechanism that describes the behavior of some victims of abuse. Often, when a person is chronically abused or witnesses abuse, rather than accepting the status of victim, they "identify with the abuser" so that they feel strong. They ally themselves psychologically with "the strong one."
 This is very common, as admitting to having been victimized is very difficult and often causes shame and guilt.

So, with that in mind, back to politics.

Here is a link about defense mechanisms

(Disclaimer: I am NOT a Scientologist, I think it's a repressive, fraudulent cult. Disliking some aspects of modern psychiatry does NOT mean I have any love for Scientology.)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...

I don't normally read the health blogs very much, but seeing this story made me click, though I know I probably shouldn't have for how pissed off I became after reading it.

Suicide is a very personal issue for me. I've had suicidal friends, and I would be lying to say it hasn't crossed my mind at times. I'm also a part of something where one of the most influential people involved at one point (it could be argued that he co-created visual kei) died of a tragic accident that people to this day hastily write off as intentional suicide.

And it it my opinion that the psychiatric response to suicide and narrative of what it means to be suicidal is thoroughly inadequate. . .

Yes this election is about many specific issues, but the more I watch media coverage,political ads, townhalls and forums, the more I'm convinced this election will be a litmus test on what sort of intellectual capacity we have collectively as a people.

I have spent the past hours pondering Meteor Blades' FP diary on U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Diane M. Zierhoffer, a licensed psychologist who had ordered the torture of a juvenile detainee at GITMO.

My first inclination was to start yelling, "No!  We don't do that!"   Then, I was just sick to my stomach.  The headache followed.  Now, I am so depressed that I don't know what I want to say, but feel I must say something.

I suppose I must start with a common chant among we past, and present, academic Psychologists with the protest, "I'm not that kind of Psychologist."

Sometimes I know what I want to say, and I just cannot get it out.

So if I sometimes say something that leaves you going

"HUH"

chances are it is me.

I wanted to write a diary about how race is a two edged sword, as is religion and I guess I was not sure how to write it. I will try again later. I know this is not a full "diary" now and I apologize. But will try when I am more "With it"

I thought when I wrote it, it was clear but I trust everyone's judgement more on this one.

<One brief bit after the break>

Of the many criticisms that can be leveled at two terms of the Bush administration, a comparatively mild one is that its major actors were guilty, as a group, of poor decision making.  Nevertheless, I will spend this diary describing how a psychological phenomenon called groupthink seems to aptly describe how the administration behaves.  Almost amusingly so, in my opinion, if it weren't so catastrophic.  

The problem with "evolutionary psychology stories" is that any idiot can tell you a story about "why humans think this way," stamp the label "evolutionary psychology" on their own explanation, an viola!  It looks as though the person just said something scientifically valid.  

My guess is that when we hear someone offer an explanation to us in terms of evolutionary psychology, we think to ourselves something along these lines: "Fair enough.  After all, 'evolution' is a valid part of biology, and 'psychology' is a science, so 'evolutionary psychology' must be just as sciencey as they are, right?  I mean, there are departments of 'evolutionary psychology' at universities, right?  Furthermore, the person offering me an explanation told me a story about our evolutionary ancestors, and how could it not be true that the way we think comes in part from forces of natural selection operating on our ancestors?"

Update 8/6/08, 8:15pm EST by LithiumCola: several commenters are taking me to be attacking the entire sub-discipline of evolutionary psychology.  That is not my intent.  I am attacking bad arguments from pop-evolutionary-psychology.  My apologies for the bad writing on my part.

Now I need to be honest here about a few things. I call myself a Jewish agnostic. I am culturally Jewish but I am a "strong agnostic" so I do not fit into the following article. Also I am a gay man. I know the gay/lesbian/Bi/transgender community all will be impacted by this potentially, however for sake of discussion and to save on time/fingers I will just use the word "gay" not to be exclusive but to be able to let my fingers have some rest. However I felt the need to bring it to the attention of everyone as I think it very much attacks the fundamentalist Christian position on gay "agenda" (snark).

For those of you that want to read the actual article, it is from an APA publication which is not in the free public domain so I cannot direct you to a copy of it to review and read. However the study was published in the June issue of the Journal of Family Psychology. Co-authors are Eric Clausell of the University of Illinois, Kate Kuvalanka of Miami University of Ohio, and Abbie Goldberg of Clark University. You can Google the name of the journal or just go to www.apa.org for more information on the APA or the journals.

<More after the break>

As someone who has been without health coverage for over 4 years, I'm pretty aware that access to our health care system sucks.   I'm all for using garlic to try and knock out systemic or localized infections, liberal usage of a neti pot to knock out sinus infections, but sometimes having access to a modern health care system would be a good thing.

Here's an interesting statistic I wasn't familiar with...The World Health Organization ranks the United States health care system as 37th in the world. 37th!!!  Another interesting stat is that Morocco came in 8 ahead of us, Morocco ranked 29th. Morocco....you know, that not-so-large country on the northern portion of Africa, Morocco? Yeah, them.

This diary's title is a tribute to neurologist Oliver Sacks, whose book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat chronicles ways in which brain damage can affect our perceptions in odd ways. But our brains can also lead us astray when they are working normally, in everyday life. A case in point is the now-infamous New Yorker cover that features false views of Barack and Michelle Obama taken by their fiercest opponents.

Some of you here might know of me/my ideology, others not. In any event this diary has been a long time in formulation so I hope it makes some sense. People have been asking me for my thoughts on this topic and so I hope it does make some iota of sense.

I have given the issue a lot of thought.

What makes a conservative "different" from a "progressive" To me there is not one answer that could cover every and all situation since of course not all progressives nor are all conservatives the same. But I do think there might be an overarching theme, something that might cover the chasm of what separates the two groups.

Sure, some on the progressive side will say "Conservatives are evil, evil I tell you" that is how they differ from us... well those on the right will answer with "Progressives? They’re anti-American evil-doers" and be done with it. Case closed. Or is it? I do not think so. Even if everyone on one side thought everyone on the other was evil there has to be a reason for it.

<More after the break>

I just returned from a trip during which I had the treat of reading The Political Mind, Why You Can't Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain by George Lakoff. For a while now, I've been wondering how the right is using psychological manipulation to influence the public. Lakoff's book is not only hopeful and enlightening; it illuminates the very questions I've been kicking around and argues that the Right has used cultural narratives and familial paternalistic structures to not only get out their message but to change brains.

Yesterday, George W. Bush took a time out from his grueling schedule of insulting world leaders and playing Xbox to hold a press conference about the economy.

As is typical with a Bush press conference, is was a unicorn pony ride through fields of candy corn.  Follow me over the jump, to revel in wonder and merriment.

For those of you new to this:

Questions from the press are italicized for your pleasure.
Bush's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life.
My responses are in plain text, which I'm sure means something profound.

The title of this diary sums up succinctly what George 'Herbert Hoover II' Bush said today.

And John McCain ought to be mercilessly slammed for 'embracing' Bush the way he has.

Per AP, here are some wonderful nuggets from Bush this morning :

( CONTINUED BELOW )

It's easy to get bored of political writing. It usually takes the form of airbrushed policy hackwork that you could as easily read on a FAQ or on Wikipedia, or someplace else where you don't have to endure subscription nags or the pretext of topicality. Happily, "Obama, Shaman" by Michael Knox Beran is just the opposite: a piece of unintentional art whose hypotheses reveal so much about the psyche of the author that the subject itself practically vanishes. This isn't about Obama the man. It's about Obama the idea, and why the author is terrified of the Left. Beran conveys the conservative nightmare with surprising, perhaps unintentional expressiveness.

No, it's not spam. It's an important issue. I bought this book at an Office Max the other day--I'm not going to plug it here by name, but it's on a very interesting topic.

According to author (and just about every feminist I've read for the past thirty years), women are often marginalized in the workplace, at meetings, at decision making forums. That's due to sexism, but this author claims that it's also due, in part, to the fact that American women have been socialized into adopting a "weak" communications style.

What does she mean by that?

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

The day was delightful.  The water was superb.  The sun was full and bright.  A few billowy, puffy clouds floated through the sky.  They were white, cumulus, fluffy fellows, the type that excite many a child as they gaze into the heavens.  In parks, on lawns, little ones were likely looking up and pointing.  "Look," they might say,  "It is a horse, a donkey, or perchance a unicorn."  It was a day for whimsy.  

Think of this as a neurophysiological analysis of the winning Obama strategy.

Amidst all the excitement about FISA and refinements of the Obama position on withdrawal from Iraq, I think people are missing the essence of the Obama strategy.  

This is particularly true in the online world where people actually care about issues and policy.

Obama's single minded goal on his course to the White House is simple:  stay cool, stay boring, say nothing, do nothing, threaten nothing.

His goal, it seems clear, is to become an empty vessel, a mirror on to which people can project their own fantasies about who an American president is, what he should look like, how he should sound.   You can't be that mirror, that empty vessel, if you say things that enable others to define you as "controversial" or "flip flopping" and if you become perceived that way.  You've got to keep people's limbic systems (the fight or flight response system) quiet, so that they can hear your discourse, keep in mind their aspirations for a better America, and accept you as a President.