The Steady Drip

Pathological Tendencies in Islam and other religions
This is an excerpt from a more comprehensive article -
Why I think some liberals, fewer conservatives and most Muslims are pathological.
Editors note: The political entities that affect the national consciousness the most are Conservatism, Liberalism, and Islam. This article examines the pathological aspects of all of these paradigms. This a very important article and I encourage all people to read it. Yes, it is long by today’s standards, but the subject matter influences all of us every day. Please give me feedback,

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2014/04/pathological-tendencies-in-islam-and.html

I wouldn’t say Muslims are pathological, it’s more that they simply don’t fit into western society.
However, the ultimate point he’s missing is that ethnicity is the cause of their so-called pathological behavior–not Islam itself.

While I can agree with a lot of what this guy is saying, it seems clear to me that he has his own biases. While presenting himself as an expert on diagnosing the world on the basis of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual.
Look at the following that he says re: Liberals’ Pathology:

  1. Guilt and self-loathing are woven into liberal philosophy and policy
  2. Dependant personality types are drawn to liberalism
  3. Marginalized groups and dysfunctional individuals are drawn to liberalism
  4. Histrionic personality types are drawn to liberalism
  5. Liberal values discourage people from acting in their own self interest
  6. Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives.
    When he goes on to talk about Conservative Pathology, he, essentially, just concludes that Conservatives tend to err on the side of strength, and that liberals tend to err on the side of weakness.
    Personally, I identify as a Liberal. This was not always the case. Until, “Shock and Awe”, when I first began to realize that the neo-cons were such idiots, if not criminal in their policies, and actions, I self identified as an Independent with a liberal bent on some issues. (BTW, that realization has been confirmed, more and more, ever since). My full fledged identification with progressive liberal thinking emerged and is reinforced as a counter-valence to the extremism of the conservative positions.
    e.g., I don’t see how the inadequate invasion of Iraq and the subsequent and persistent mismanagement of that war, which wasted 100’s of billions (trillions?) of dollars and destroyed or disabled so many lives, could be associated with “strength”.
    Re: this author’s 1st example of liberal pathology, where he says: “Guilt and self-loathing are woven into liberal philosophy and policy”
    I can’t think of any liberal/progressive thinking person, that I know who loathes themselves. I don’t view them as feeling guilt, either. Rather, I would say they are more in tune with what is just.
    Also, I don’t view the abdication of some self-interest, to group interest, as a weakness, because self-interest is, more often than not, enhanced by the promotion of group interest. But this author seems to think that this is a pathological stance.
    Re: his statement “Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives.” Uh, yeah, but this is not a pathology, it is simply the truth.
Re: his statement "Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives." Uh, yeah, but this is not a pathology, it is simply the truth.
Conservatives think the same thing in regard to liberals. This guy's just pretending otherwise to claim the moral high ground.
Re: his statement "Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives." Uh, yeah, but this is not a pathology, it is simply the truth.
Conservatives think the same thing in regard to liberals. This guy's just pretending otherwise to claim the moral high ground. It's worse than that. He is not claiming a "moral" high ground. He is claiming, as you would say a "pseudo-scientific" high ground.
It's worse than that. He is not claiming a "moral" high ground. He is claiming, as you would say a "pseudo-scientific" high ground.
Hmm. True. Though it's not like he's unique in this approach. I can recall a number of posts on this board with links to similar analyses of "the conservative mindset" or whatever. Such hooey has likely been being produced for as long as psychology and neuroscience have been around. And it's likely it will continue to be until the inevitable heat death of the universe.
I wouldn't say Muslims are pathological, it's more that they simply don't fit into western society. However, the ultimate point he's missing is that ethnicity is the cause of their so-called pathological behavior--not Islam itself.
You're sure of that, are you? How did you come to that conclusion? How were you able to separate ethnic influences from religious ones? Experts have been trying to do that for millennia without much success. Lois
While I can agree with a lot of what this guy is saying, it seems clear to me that he has his own biases. While presenting himself as an expert on diagnosing the world on the basis of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual. Re: his statement "Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives." Uh, yeah, but this is not a pathology, it is simply the truth.
Everybody thinks his own position is intellectually and ethically superior to the opposition. Who in the world would say his own position is intellectuallly and ethically inferior to others? Lois
While I can agree with a lot of what this guy is saying, it seems clear to me that he has his own biases. While presenting himself as an expert on diagnosing the world on the basis of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual. Look at the following that he says re: Liberals' Pathology: 1. Guilt and self-loathing are woven into liberal philosophy and policy 2. Dependant personality types are drawn to liberalism 3. Marginalized groups and dysfunctional individuals are drawn to liberalism 4. Histrionic personality types are drawn to liberalism 5. Liberal values discourage people from acting in their own self interest 6. Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives. When he goes on to talk about Conservative Pathology, he, essentially, just concludes that Conservatives tend to err on the side of strength, and that liberals tend to err on the side of weakness. Personally, I identify as a Liberal. This was not always the case. Until, "Shock and Awe", when I first began to realize that the neo-cons were such idiots, if not criminal in their policies, and actions, I self identified as an Independent with a liberal bent on some issues. (BTW, that realization has been confirmed, more and more, ever since). My full fledged identification with progressive liberal thinking emerged and is reinforced as a counter-valence to the extremism of the conservative positions. e.g., I don't see how the inadequate invasion of Iraq and the subsequent and persistent mismanagement of that war, which wasted 100's of billions (trillions?) of dollars and destroyed or disabled so many lives, could be associated with "strength". Re: this author's 1st example of liberal pathology, where he says: "Guilt and self-loathing are woven into liberal philosophy and policy" I can't think of any liberal/progressive thinking person, that I know who loathes themselves. I don't view them as feeling guilt, either. Rather, I would say they are more in tune with what is just. Also, I don't view the abdication of some self-interest, to group interest, as a weakness, because self-interest is, more often than not, enhanced by the promotion of group interest. But this author seems to think that this is a pathological stance. Re: his statement "Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives." Uh, yeah, but this is not a pathology, it is simply the truth.
Everybody thinks his own position is intellectually and ethically superior to the opposition. Who in the world would say his own position is intellectuallly and efhically inferior to others? LoisExcept that conservatives are wrong in thinking themselves superior. Their views tend to be simplistic/black-and-white, whereas liberals views tend to be complex/grey. Conservatives views tend to be contradictory, for ex government is bad and must be minimized, except for gay marriage, abortion, etc. And moreover there have been studies done that prove conservatives tend to be low information/intellectually inferior. Now they can still be good people, and there can certainly be morally bad liberals, but in terms of intelligence, conservatives are inferior. Let's be honest, just look at the Republican clown show debates vs Dem/Independent actual debates.
I wouldn't say Muslims are pathological, it's more that they simply don't fit into western society. However, the ultimate point he's missing is that ethnicity is the cause of their so-called pathological behavior--not Islam itself.
How were you able to separate ethnic influences from religious ones? LoisThe problematic behavior of Muslims only occurs with certain groups - namely Arabs, Berbers, Pashtuns and maybe Chechens to a lesser extent. Its not seen with other Muslim majority groups.
Look at the following that he says re: Liberals' Pathology: 1. Guilt and self-loathing are woven into liberal philosophy and policy 2. Dependant personality types are drawn to liberalism 3. Marginalized groups and dysfunctional individuals are drawn to liberalism 4. Histrionic personality types are drawn to liberalism 5. Liberal values discourage people from acting in their own self interest 6. Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives. When he goes on to talk about Conservative Pathology, he, essentially, just concludes that Conservatives tend to err on the side of strength, and that liberals tend to err on the side of weakness.
He's pretty much correct. The current research on political values can be found in greater detail in this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777
I wouldn't say Muslims are pathological, it's more that they simply don't fit into western society. However, the ultimate point he's missing is that ethnicity is the cause of their so-called pathological behavior--not Islam itself.
How were you able to separate ethnic influences from religious ones? LoisThe problematic behavior of Muslims only occurs with certain groups - namely Arabs, Berbers, Pashtuns and maybe Chechens to a lesser extent. Its not seen with other Muslim majority groups. The most viciously bad behaving "Muslims" of all, are Boko Haram. What ethnicity are they? I doubt that it is ethnicity, but rather that really bad versions of Islam tend to emerge in tribalistic societies. Cultures that are chaotic (and/or) which are governed corruptly are ripe for bad versions of Islam to take over. This version of Islam is imperialistic. It is severely doctrinally dictatorial and dominating, but it provides order. As part of its goal to spread, it sometimes promotes chaos in other societies and thus prepare the soil to take over. That probably happens more easily in tribal societies.
Look at the following that he says re: Liberals' Pathology: 1. Guilt and self-loathing are woven into liberal philosophy and policy 2. Dependant personality types are drawn to liberalism 3. Marginalized groups and dysfunctional individuals are drawn to liberalism 4. Histrionic personality types are drawn to liberalism 5. Liberal values discourage people from acting in their own self interest 6. Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives. When he goes on to talk about Conservative Pathology, he, essentially, just concludes that Conservatives tend to err on the side of strength, and that liberals tend to err on the side of weakness.
He's pretty much correct. The current research on political values can be found in greater detail in this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777 I don't really want to read the book. Perhaps you could cite one of the research studies from the book, that would help illustrate your point, that I could look up.

I was looking at a study about correlations of lib v. cons orientations. (My perception that MidA’s tendency to view behavior as almost exclusively genetically based prompted me to look a study involving twins, identical and fraternal, raised together and apart. – Pardon me, MidA, if I mispercieved your stance. --)
Anyway, there does appear to be some genetic determination, as identical twins raised apart have a high correlation on lib v. cons. Of course, there is also pretty good correlation for any raised together. And there is not good correlation for fraternals raised apart, while there is for fraternals raised together… So, clearly, there are also environmental influences.
An unexpected correlation mentioned, was temperature. In hotter climes “concientiousness” (which they said was indicative of more conservative leanings) occurred more. (Perhaps this explains conservatives refusal to admit or address global warming, since the hotter it gets, the more of them there may be.)

The most viciously bad behaving "Muslims" of all, are Boko Haram. What ethnicity are they? I doubt that it is ethnicity, but rather that really bad versions of Islam tend to emerge in tribalistic societies. Cultures that are chaotic (and/or) which are governed corruptly are ripe for bad versions of Islam to take over. This version of Islam is imperialistic. It is severely doctrinally dictatorial and dominating, but it provides order. As part of its goal to spread, it sometimes promotes chaos in other societies and thus prepare the soil to take over. That probably happens more easily in tribal societies.
Possibly, however most tribalistic societies are not that violent. There has to be some reason why "bad versions of Islam" are able to form and easily flourish in some groups, but not others - and the reason can't be anything other than genes.
I was looking at a study about correlations of lib v. cons orientations. (My perception that MidA's tendency to view behavior as almost exclusively genetically based prompted me to look a study involving twins, identical and fraternal, raised together and apart. -- Pardon me, MidA, if I mispercieved your stance. --) Anyway, there does appear to be some genetic determination, as identical twins raised apart have a high correlation on lib v. cons. Of course, there is also pretty good correlation for any raised together. And there is not good correlation for fraternals raised apart, while there is for fraternals raised together.. So, clearly, there are also environmental influences. An unexpected correlation mentioned, was temperature. In hotter climes "concientiousness" (which they said was indicative of more conservative leanings) occurred more. (Perhaps this explains conservatives refusal to admit or address global warming, since the hotter it gets, the more of them there may be.)
The book isn't about the genetic basis of values (it does go into that a little bit) as much as what types of people become liberals and conservatives, and how operate in society.
I don't really want to read the book. Perhaps you could cite one of the research studies from the book, that would help illustrate your point, that I could look up.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2184440 http://www.moralfoundations.org
I wouldn't say Muslims are pathological, it's more that they simply don't fit into western society. However, the ultimate point he's missing is that ethnicity is the cause of their so-called pathological behavior--not Islam itself.
How were you able to separate ethnic influences from religious ones? LoisThe problematic behavior of Muslims only occurs with certain groups - namely Arabs, Berbers, Pashtuns and maybe Chechens to a lesser extent. Its not seen with other Muslim majority groups. Like which ones?
While I can agree with a lot of what this guy is saying, it seems clear to me that he has his own biases. While presenting himself as an expert on diagnosing the world on the basis of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual. Look at the following that he says re: Liberals' Pathology: 1. Guilt and self-loathing are woven into liberal philosophy and policy 2. Dependant personality types are drawn to liberalism 3. Marginalized groups and dysfunctional individuals are drawn to liberalism 4. Histrionic personality types are drawn to liberalism 5. Liberal values discourage people from acting in their own self interest 6. Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives. When he goes on to talk about Conservative Pathology, he, essentially, just concludes that Conservatives tend to err on the side of strength, and that liberals tend to err on the side of weakness. Personally, I identify as a Liberal. This was not always the case. Until, "Shock and Awe", when I first began to realize that the neo-cons were such idiots, if not criminal in their policies, and actions, I self identified as an Independent with a liberal bent on some issues. (BTW, that realization has been confirmed, more and more, ever since). My full fledged identification with progressive liberal thinking emerged and is reinforced as a counter-valence to the extremism of the conservative positions. e.g., I don't see how the inadequate invasion of Iraq and the subsequent and persistent mismanagement of that war, which wasted 100's of billions (trillions?) of dollars and destroyed or disabled so many lives, could be associated with "strength". Re: this author's 1st example of liberal pathology, where he says: "Guilt and self-loathing are woven into liberal philosophy and policy" I can't think of any liberal/progressive thinking person, that I know who loathes themselves. I don't view them as feeling guilt, either. Rather, I would say they are more in tune with what is just. Also, I don't view the abdication of some self-interest, to group interest, as a weakness, because self-interest is, more often than not, enhanced by the promotion of group interest. But this author seems to think that this is a pathological stance. Re: his statement "Liberals think of them selves as intellectually and ethically superior to conservatives." Uh, yeah, but this is not a pathology, it is simply the truth.
Everybody thinks his own position is intellectually and ethically superior to the opposition. Who in the world would say his own position is intellectuallly and efhically inferior to others? LoisExcept that conservatives are wrong in thinking themselves superior. Their views tend to be simplistic/black-and-white, whereas liberals views tend to be complex/grey. Conservatives views tend to be contradictory, for ex government is bad and must be minimized, except for gay marriage, abortion, etc. And moreover there have been studies done that prove conservatives tend to be low information/intellectually inferior. Now they can still be good people, and there can certainly be morally bad liberals, but in terms of intelligence, conservatives are inferior. Let's be honest, just look at the Republican clown show debates vs Dem/Independent actual debates. Well, I agree with you because I'm a liberal, but conservatives see themselves as being on the right side, too. It's all subjective, isn't it? They think liberals see things as simplistic black and white and their own as complex. There is no absolute "right" way of thinking. Who would establsh that ideal?
The most viciously bad behaving "Muslims" of all, are Boko Haram. What ethnicity are they? I doubt that it is ethnicity, but rather that really bad versions of Islam tend to emerge in tribalistic societies. Cultures that are chaotic (and/or) which are governed corruptly are ripe for bad versions of Islam to take over. This version of Islam is imperialistic. It is severely doctrinally dictatorial and dominating, but it provides order. As part of its goal to spread, it sometimes promotes chaos in other societies and thus prepare the soil to take over. That probably happens more easily in tribal societies.
Possibly, however most tribalistic societies are not that violent. There has to be some reason why "bad versions of Islam" are able to form and easily flourish in some groups, but not others - and the reason can't be anything other than genes. Oh contrare, tribalistic societies can be very violent. And certain interpretations of Islam can provide the basis for a very well organized violent, imperialistic culture.