This thread is so bogus, I dont know where to begin..
Modern psychological research is based on IQ testing (method)? What the, where the, how? You mean the highly scientific studies of the mensa society? Post some of your proof on this one..
I'm interested in disecting it.
The only reference on those matters I have, really is Adam Curtis Century of the self (and that thats my only reference there isnt good), which basically states, that early psychological tests where highly subjective.
On evolutionary psychology - afaik the entire field is somewhat sketchy, because they are using a Darwin term to popularize their findings - without having understood anything that Darwin wrote. The prerequisite for natural selection from Darwins point of view is, that you can chill on an island without any foes to your species anywhere, thats one - and then survival of the fittest is not survival of the "strongest", but of the finch, that actually learns how to use a thorn of a cactus to pull larva. Everything I've read in the evolutionary psychology field, simply negates that - and rather presents itself as a self help outlet that teaches humans how do ideally become "successful alphas". I mean, you could just as well accept scientologys teachings, they are not far off. If I'm grossly misrepresenting the "field", again - please provide reading material, I'm actually interested. Also, in social sciences they have something akin to a validity problem. They found out themselves (many of their landmark studies werent reproducible with the same outcome).
Only centrist is good. Far left, far right is always bad. First - left and right is a concept to grossly simplify I dont know - political standings? It in itself means nothing. It vastly changes over time. (Just mentioning the american work camps for japanese during world war two here for no reason. We dont have those any more, in the entire western world.) I myself hold viewpoints from both spectrums at certain times, and any politically interested person will find themselves doing so over time. In Germany we currently have a debate about climate change, where the actual "probable" solutions are spread all over the spectrum and coupled with slogans, an notions that then drive certain political positions. If I only go with left or right there, I'd be an idiot that chooses emotionality of the argument ("but are you with the poorer people (yes)") over the argument itself. When you are interested in political solutions, you are constantly surfing the entire spectrum of whats out there. Some stuff is taboo for me (racism, mainly) but thats about it. The conservative party in germany picked a "we have to get out of nuclear power" stance just a couple of years back, just because they thought it to be popular, when the elections came around shortly after Fukushima was on everyones mind (and necessary). That position for years on end, was something only the far left wings of the green party would utter - and then, suddenly mainstream. Wait, how did that happen? Well, thats actually politics, and seperating believes into left and right is childsplay.
Because it changes.
Also, please tend to remember, that in Europe we have 5 or more parties in parliament all the time, so the seperation in just left and right looses at least some of its rallying power.
Now an argument for extremist believes. Humanity is a buch of idiots, prone to follow old believes, and leader types who most often are idiots as well. The allegory you usually bring, is one with fishermen. So someone detects where a swarm of fish is situated, then you have 90% of idiots imitating behavior because he was successful, 50% of them doing so for decades, because "it be tradition", and no one ever thinking - whats the point of all this. Then you have a far out there extremist actually saiying - eff this, I'll look around for other spots - and if they are successfull, the circle continues. And if they are not - they'll die being slightly socially unadjusted individuals. No progress comes from being centrist. Literally - none.
Liberals usually are the ones who recognize that most, but then - their views, as a result also are kind of out there.
Marx.
We have statues of Marx in Europe. He did coin a few concepts, that are still useful in the theoretical understanding of capitalism - today, he then pledged class warfair - which got him his bad name. To do that he pitched collectivism against a ruling class, in a way that some say HAD to end in disaster, and to their point, it pretty much did. Those werent "fair" societies. Regardless, what he wrote - is still taught in universities - and in the political sphere here in germany, he has become more of a symbol of a boogeyman, that people talk about - while thinking about the regime in east germany, which failed. (Because the americans brought the other part of germany democracy and capitalism, and the economic miracle, and a large product selection, and airbridges (Rosinenbomber)..
Lets just say - everyone liked the notion of germany being their anker point in another continent at that time..
).
The statue, btw? A gift of the chinese.
(It actually was.)
Socialism.
In Europe that actually was a form of collectivism, that was and still is somewhat politically accepted. Thats what the social democrats (our big center left party for the better part of 70 years) derive the social from. What does colectivism mean in this case? Mostly unionization. Meaning, workers and entire occupational groups set minimal standards for their work - by themselves, no managers needed. Now the model that Europe was run by for centuries now, isnt that - but rather something called "social market economy". Which is the concept, that once the members of an occupational group have set their minimal standards, they actually get into talks with management, where they quarrel about whats economically viable. It also means, that there is actually a market economy as the main thing out there to regulate supply and demand. And thirdly, that there are social nets, that people in rough times can fall into, that prevent them from becoming homeless out of the gate, or to be engulfed in debt, because of a health problem they developed. Those are costs that we collectivized - so thats stuff that everyone pays for. Same with kindergardens, public swimming pools/halls, streets, police, and so on and so forth... Thats mostly what we think about, when someone mentions socialism. Not Stalin, Lenin, communists, and the FSB..
But then, I freaking carefully picked my words here - because every political term in this field is so emotionally loaded, that people will dismiss entire sets of ideas, only because of a word you used. Its dumb.
Interestingly, we currently have a big societal debate, because the speaker of the "young social democrats" (in party academy for the next generation political material) just publicly announced, that maybe we should think about making certain private enterprices state owned again, and only share the profits between the workers themselves. Which didn't go over very well with the rest of the political spectrum.
But yes, we still talk about that stuff.
