Sign in to follow this  
Guest psych_murse

Conflating Patriotism, Party Loyalty, and Faith

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Vort, you're wasting your breath.

One pitfall of the mental health worker is that they're used to seeing the unhealthy thought patterns and behaviors of others.  They often don't turn that microscope on themselves.

I had a very interesting conversation last week with my daughter-in-law. She got her degree as a schoolteacher, but for interest, and probably to fulfill some requirement for her degree, she took a class in psychology. She has maintained an interest in psychology ever since. She recently read one of Sigmund Freud's books, on dreams or sexuality or possibly taboos. (An English translation; she's fluent in Spanish, but doesn't speak or read German.) We were discussing it, and she voiced amazement at how smart Freud was, not at all the pervy madman some today make him out to be. I told her that was my opinion, as well. A lot of Freud's models have been shown deficient or have been discarded for other reasons, but Freud himself was highly intelligent and seemed to have the attitude of a true scientist (though the "scientific method" as we conceive it today was not really as well-established at the turn of the last century). Freud was a man investigating virgin territory, and it seems to me he gave it the best shot he knew how.

BF Skinner comes to mind as a true scientist in the field of psychology. He ignored the non-falsifiable idea of "free will" and instead investigated the human mind as an object that responds to its environment. However much you may disagree with some of his foundational ideas, he had a profound effect on the field of psychology, largely for the good, I think.

I have had some discussions with a couple of psychologists (one in my ward, another that I knew professionally) about sort of the metaphysics of psychology. I honor all who seek to do good in the world, but from what I can tell, there really aren't many (or any) scientists left in psychology. The two I talked with hardly form a representative sample, but I also studied with several during an internship at the Hershey Medical Center back in the early 1990s, when I studied under some of the most brilliant medical scientists I have ever met. (It was mostly about cardiac implants, but we did a unit on psychology, as well.) My impression is that psychology is a field that appears to be completely at the mercy of its own internal politics. You literally cannot even voice a dissenting idea about e.g. the appropriateness of homosexuality or the possibility of exercising so-called conversion therapy without running the very real risk of being drummed out of the brotherhood.

It seems to me that psychology as a science has more or less ceased to exist, and that psychology as a practice has become so unremittingly cynical that I question how much good it can possibly do. Undoubtedly, it has done tremendous harm in some areas. Perhaps it has done some good in others. On the balance, is it a net negative or positive? I don't know, but I'm not optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, psych_murse said:
28 minutes ago, Vort said:

How so? You were in fact making assumptions galore, so we pointed out that fact to you. It materially affected what you were saying. How is this dirty pool?

You ask a question.

Surely you can see how useless a non-response like this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

This is the sort of thing I'm not in the mood to put up with. 

So... help me out here.  What exactly were you expecting or needing from this thread?

 

Quote

There is a lot of ignorance here for such "informed" people accusing me of bias.

Well... first you accuse us of bias, then when we turned around and showed you your bias you cry foul.  That's not usually how discussions work.  Usually, you make assertions, we challenge those assertions, then you defend your assertions.  It's usually a pretty straight-forward process (which this thread was) until Godwin's Law or Shark Jumping gets invoked (which it hasn't... yet :) ).

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

It's hard to have a discussion when you are this vastly outnumbered and limited on time.

So, PM me.  I'm a Trump Supporter.  We can do a 1-on-1.

If you want a sounding board that won't challenge your assertions as much as I will, try @Just_A_Guy - that is, if he's open to PM.  He's a lawyer with a very good head on his shoulders and a good and faithful spirit in his soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, psych_murse said:

You ask a question.

Here is a sample answer.

This is the sort of thing I'm not in the mood to put up with.  There is a lot of ignorance here for such "informed" people accusing me of bias.

You mean that when you make a statement that indicates how much you disapprove of someone's position, they should have the patience to simply listen and encourage you?

That would be great, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

You mean that when you make a statement that indicates how much you disapprove of someone's position, they should have the patience to simply listen and encourage you?

That would be great, wouldn't it?

Is that a psych nurse's specialty?  To just listen to patients ramble on about their reality?  I have almost zero knowledge on psych nurses jobs... but there has got to be a time when you start telling the patient to consider their reality might be skewed, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, psych_murse said:

reply to an overwhelming number of replies. 

What is one or two replies to me on your parts is actually six or seven on mine. 

It's hard to have a discussion when you are this vastly outnumbered

The vast majority of the posts were @psych_murse against vort and Anatess.

I made one post in the middle that she did NOT respond to.  Jane was as polite as anyone can be in such a debate.  And JAG was on her side.

I think she did the math wrong. "Vastly Outnumbered". Nice excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The vast majority of the posts were @psych_murse against vort and Anatess.

I made one post in the middle that she did NOT respond to.  Jane was as polite as anyone can be in such a debate.  And JAG was on her side.

I think she did the math wrong. "Vastly Outnumbered". Nice excuse.

He stated he is a male. And he was a new person responding to dissenting opinions from four other people. I think the math is just fine. I agree with what he said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For whatever reason, I went through a phase where I'd go join this or that antimormon forum and go plant my flag, just to see how long I would last.  (The phase lasted the bigger part of a decade.)  I found it thrilling to be able to trade shots, even though I was outnumbered at least five to one, sometimes thirty to one.

I was a weirdo.  The average person doesn't find it pleasant, and the average person tends to reflexively take a step back and start talking about the process of discussion.

So hang in there @psych_murse.  You can't control the pace of a thread, but you can control your own behavior in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am one of those that the Forum many times sees as liberal, so I don't quite fit into the view postulated overall in the OP, BUT...I think in general that there are MANY saints today that consider their political affiliation more a part of their belief system than their actual religion.

There are many conflate conservative or Republican ideals as being the gospel, rather than matching them up.

I see this as being something that affects many in the US.

In some places in Europe I also see the Saints as trending towards more conservative parties, but normally they are gospel and religion first, party second.  I generally see the opposite (that does not mean EVERYONE, nor ALL the saints are like this, but I see this as a common trend among active Saints in the US) in the United States.  (there are still those in other nations that also have this difficulty though, where they conflate political party or conservative ideals as being the same as the gospel rather than simply looking to see if a candidate might have similar morals to what the gospel teaches).

However, Donald Trump does not really epitomize the Republican party, or at least did not in 2016.  His moral character was very problematic for many Republicans, including those who are Saints and are in the church.  I think there has been a struggle among them to support him, with many who do support him seeing him more as a necessary evil (and is there really such a thing as a necessary evil?) that is the lesser of two evils to choose from.

Ironically, in some areas outside of the US (and Western Europe) many of the Saints I meet tend to actually lean more liberal than their average makeup in their nation.  Normally, it is not on morality issues (as that seems to be pretty uniform in values among ACTIVE members of the church) but more on economic and social issues.  Even Saints in Europe that lean conservative in many instances would be considered FAR LEFT in the United States when talking about their Economic or social issues. 

Still, as time has gone on, I've seen Trump gain more support among the Saints who are Republicans, both those that put party first, and those that simply align that way because of moral issues (abortion, chastity, etc) rather than that they necessarily agree with them on every social or economic issue. 

I am liberal in relation to what many say on these forums, but in truth, I am actually an independent and don't really support any party.  I vote more along the lines of the individual who is running and the candidates available.  In relation to those outside the church, ironically again, most would probably say I lean conservative in my political leanings.

I am one that didn't really support Trump when he first ran, and currently do not see supporting him this time around either.  I didn't vote for Clinton last time either.  I suppose one could say I didn't help or hurt Trump in that manner.   I'm not sure who I'll vote for this time around.  I liked what Bernie Sanders was going for in general (and the idea that because he was so far along the edge that most likely his own party wouldn't support most of his ideas, so he'd mostly be there to play nice in the sandbox without getting a ton of stuff pushed along most likely), but as he's out of the running, I have no idea who I'll vote for yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 5:21 AM, JohnsonJones said:

However, Donald Trump does not really epitomize the Republican party, or at least did not in 2016.     

That's EXACTLY why he won.  The Republicans have lost their way.  Ross Perot was the shot over the bow of the Party after the failures of Bush Sr.  The TEA Party and Ron Paul tried to reform it, they failed, largely due to the fact that they were not able to put enough people in positions of power that can dislodge the GOP-E that occupied the top echelons of the party.  They needed exactly the persona of Donald J. Trump - speaks the people's language, instinctively conservative but not tied to label affiliations, impervious to political machinations and media attacks, executive who knows how to set goals and achieve them, with the ideology of Ross Perot on the economy, Ron Paul on war, and the TEA Party on taxes and regulations who is not bogged down by fights over who gets to use what bathroom.  Being a Meme Lord is a bonus - you won't believe how many people started to believe he IS the guy they need when he uttered these three words... "Only Rosie O'Donnell".

 

On 6/20/2020 at 5:21 AM, JohnsonJones said:

His moral character was very problematic for many Republicans, including those who are Saints and are in the church.  I think there has been a struggle among them to support him, with many who do support him seeing him more as a necessary evil (and is there really such a thing as a necessary evil?) that is the lesser of two evils to choose from.

There's no such thing as a necessary evil.  There is such a thing as Every Human Being is Flawed.  You pick the flaw you can live with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Grunt said:

If moral character is the key decision point in your voting, then who do you vote for?

Last election I think I actually went with the Green party candidate.  I thought about the Libertarian candidate, but went Green instead.  I may not have agreed with all the political opinions of Jill Stein, but I think she was probably the one that was more caring and good overall.  Gary Johnson was not a bad choice either, but a few things as his time of Governor (which I won't go into myself overall) did not impress me in how he acted in some situations.  I think Gary Johnson appeared to be more religious than Jill Stein (by a good amount), but I don't agree with the idea of private prisons, and his record on debt is not so great (Trump's record is not so great currently either...I'm one of those that think we should have a budget that doesn't increase debt, but I may be unusual in that).

PS: I would note many may consider my vote as a throwaway as she wasn't even on the ballot (everywhere) and was a write-in in many areas.  However, I thought she was a better candidate to vote for of those who actually had made the ballots in many places.  I suppose I could have written in one of the church leaders too, but I went with someone who was actually running at the time.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
18 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I would note many may consider my vote as a throwaway

I voted for Johnson in 2016 and I freely admit my vote was a temper tantrum/protest/throw away vote. It's such a pet peeve of mine when third party voters try to claim the moral high ground. Not saying you are, just what I've noticed. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I voted for Johnson in 2016 and I freely admit my vote was a temper tantrum/protest/throw away vote. 

As was my vote for Johnson, which today I'm ashamed for. Maybe not exactly ashamed, but embarrassed. I don't think I betrayed my moral foundations by voting for Johnson. I just did a stupid thing. And ultimately a stupid thing of no consequence at all, except maybe to myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Vort said:

As was my vote for Johnson, which today I'm ashamed for. Maybe not exactly ashamed, but embarrassed. I don't think I betrayed my moral foundations by voting for Johnson. I just did a stupid thing. And ultimately a stupid thing of no consequence at all, except maybe to myself.

Eh, don't worry about it. Like you said, in the end no one cares who @Vort and @MormonGator vote for. It's really not a big deal. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Eh, don't worry about it. Like you said, in the end no one cares who @Vort and @MormonGator vote for. It's really not a big deal. 

Or really at who @JohnsonJones votes for either.  I think Florida votes actually count more in the General Presidential election than many though @MormonGator so, there may be those who care more about your vote than the rest of us.  Florida is seen as a swing state after all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think Florida votes actually count more in the General Presidential election than many though @MormonGator so, there may be those who care more about your vote than the rest of us.  Florida is seen as a swing state after all.  

Good, than maybe I can irritate both Biden and Trump voters in 2020 by voting for Jo Jorgensen!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Good, than maybe I can irritate both Biden and Trump voters in 2020 by voting for Jo Jorgensen!  

C'mon we all know you're voting for Gloria la Riva, candidate for the party of Socialism and Liberation. You were the one pushing for her to get ballot access in Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

C'mon we all know you're voting for Gloria la Riva, candidate for the party of Socialism and Liberation.

Dude, you are the one who knows her name. I'm not really into politics-you know me, I'm really stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Dude, you are the one who knows her name. I'm not really into politics-you know me, I'm really stupid. 

Nah I had to look her up in a list of third party candidates...and she was pretty far down. If she breaks a thousand votes I'll be impressed😃.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Nah I had to look her up in a list of third party candidates...and she was pretty far down. If she breaks a thousand votes I'll be impressed😃.

That's a thousand votes more than you pal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
30 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Hey only 999 more, I might just vote for myself this time around. I'll be 35 so I'm eligible.

You and I should run. You can be president, I'll be vice president. Then, I can sit around playing video games all day while you do the heavy lifting. @Godless already said he'd be the campaign manager. @Just_A_Guy, we'll appoint you to the supreme court.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this