Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments

["William McConochie" <tstmastr(at)rio.com>]

Hi All:
    This discussion touches on an interesting question in psychological
research:  to what extent is human behavior a function of individual person
traits, e.g. personality, knowledge, political worldview, religious
orientation and intelligence, and to what extent is it a function of the
environment in which the individual is behaving?
    Many writers from many disciplines are of the opinion re: U.S. politics
that what drives legislative decisions is largely, and perhaps primarily, a
function of the "environment", which dictates that accepting lobbyist
contributions from special interest groups is necessary to raise sufficient
funds to get reelected.
    To the extent that this is the case, there would seem to be room for a
new type of political party whose candidates are funded exclusively by party
member dues, with corresponding loyalty only to the party platform.  This
platform could be periodically redefined by sophisticated polls of the
public and party members to find out what the citizens what from their
government, "the common good".
    From my research studies, the common good thus defined is likely to be
very reasonable, pro-social, sensitive to the environment, reducing
militarism, etc.  90% of many groups I've studied want government that
serves them as members of the community overall, versus as members of
special interest groups.
    For additional details see Publications,
Politicalpsychologyresearch.com.
    Consider also opinions of experts in many other disciplines that
dovetail closely with these psychological research findings in Global
Survival;  The Challenge and its Implications for Thinking and Acting,
Laszlo and Seidel, Eds, SelectBooks, 2006.
    I'm always doing studies over the Internet to explore these issues
further, currently on these topics:  Humiliation; Social Activism; Liberal
and Conservative psychological traits; and a new topic, coming up, Executive
Ethics.  If interested, contact me.  Your students can get credit for
filling out questionnaires online, confidentially.  You receive their names
as participants and research project findings for educational purposes.
    Best regards, Bill McConochie, Political Psychology Research, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Gohlke" <fredgohlke(at)verizon.net>
To: <wddm@world-wide-democracy.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments


> Good Morning, Lata
>
> You are doing an excellent job of helping me demonstrate the way I
> adjust my opinions as I gain additional information.  When you denigrate
> the idea of living our ordinary lives in peace and security you put my
> original impression that you are 'uncommonly thoughtful' to a severe test.
>
>
> re: "When I talk about "democratic deficit" I talk about the fact
>      that citizens have no meaningful ways of impacting
>      governmental decisions, every four years they get to chose
>      the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right."
>
> That is a well-stated description.  I like the idea of calling our
> present-day politicians puppets.  We'll do well to devise a method that
> replaces them with our best people.
>
>
> re: "... to say that representative politicians possess some
>      higher gift of decision making as a form of expertise...
>      does not seem plausible."
>
> Your conclusion is pre-ordained by your phrasing.  There is a huge
> difference between 'representative politicians' and political
> representatives.
>
> Who could deny that 'representative politicians' elected, as you say, as
> puppets of vested interests, have no 'gift of decision making'?
> Certainly not me.  But that is not the same thing as selecting political
> representatives who demonstrate their ability to make decisions in the
> people's interest.
>
>
> re: "There is one thing I don't understand in your line of
>      argument and I might as well ask you out right. I can
>      understand you saying that it's wrong for you to impose your
>      will on others because you lack the knowledge. But you can
>      be briefed and you have just as much ability to understand
>      what the experts tell you as a politician does. So to just
>      say they are somehow superior to yourself in terms of their
>      capacity to assimilate expert advice just seems like a cop
>      out."
>
> The issue is not whether I have as much ability to understand what the
> experts say as a politician, it is whether I have as much ability to do
> so as some other citizen.  I probably have greater ability than most
> politicians, but I don't even come close to having the ability of some
> of my peers.
>
>
> re: "However, what really surprises me is the inconsistency. You
>      don't apply that principle evenly. You say it's wrong for us
>      to make binding decisions over others but we should find
>      good people to make them for us! So, to me it sounds like
>      you wouldn't mind living in a dictatorship where you don't
>      have a say, as long as the dictator does a good job of
>      deciding everything on our behalf and allows us to 'live our
>      ordinary lives in peace and security'."
>
> Like your opening paragraph, this assertion is nothing short of absurd.
>
>
> re: "Let me ask you, what makes you think we have the expertise
>      to pick good people of competence and integrity... and that
>      we have the right to impose our chosen candidate on others?
>      Is that not making a binding decision over others?"
>
> Your phrasing distorts your question:
>
> * if we select good people because of their competence and integrity, we
> are not imposing them.
>
> * We are not 'imposing our chosen candidate on others', 'others' chose
> the candidate.
>
> * We are not 'making a binding decision over others', 'others' are
> making the binding decision for themselves.
>
>
> re: "What makes you think you have adequate knowledge to be able
>      to make that decision?"
>
> Nowhere have I said or implied that I "have adequate knowledge to be
> able to make that decision?".  Quite the contrary!  Everything I've
> suggested is predicated on finding, among ourselves, the people who have
> the requisite ability.
>
>
>
> Society is dynamic.  The needs of the people vary, in nature and in
> intensity.  The only ones who know what those needs are, and how best to
> meet them, are the people, themselves.
>
> Not everyone wants to participate in the political process, and even
> fewer have a sensible grasp of the circumstances that face us.  On top
> of that, our interest in political matters waxes and wanes throughout
> our lives.  Even so, at all times, there are many people distributed
> among us with the ability and energy to represent our interests.  We
> don't know who they are, or where they are, so we need a means of
> finding them and raising them to positions of leadership.
>
> Fred Gohlke