Trump Consciousness

There is no correllation between pro-psi / anti-psi positions in science and reactionary / conservative / progressive positions in politics. Pro-psi people can have any position on the political spectrum, anti-psi people as well.
You don't cite a source for this claim, making me think it is an opinion. This is why a study would be useful, so that you or I could point to it and write something like, "In the X study conducted in 2020, 2,500 study participants took a survey regarding their beliefs and political positions. They were then sent follow-up surveys to verify their answers and to clarify their positions. The results showed that n participants identified themselves as liberal, n participants identified as conservative, and n participants were unaffiliated. Of those who identified as liberal, n participants expressed beliefs consistent with skepticism that psi is a genuine phenomenon. Among conservative participants, n were also skeptical of psi phenomena. The difference between the two figures is x, a difference that is statistically significant/statistically insignificant with a p value of n."

Until you have a study like that available, your opinion has no more weight or validity than anyone else's.
 
Of those who identified as liberal, n participants expressed beliefs consistent with skepticism that psi is a genuine phenomenon. Among conservative participants, n were also skeptical of psi phenomena. The difference between the two figures is x
Wouldn't that make x=0 or maybe that got a bit garbled?

Do you have a link to the study?

David
 
That’s why I much prefer to clearly state what I stand for, rather than label myself using subjective terms. Anti-war is quite obvious in its meaning, where right wing or left wing are open to much more interpretation. I think we ought to learn to be more careful in our use of language.
Calling yourself "anti-war" is like saying you are "anti-death" or "anti-tsunami". At some level, everyone is anti-war, including all of the people who participate in it, even the instigators of war. It would have been hard to find people who weren't anti-war during WWII, and yet many participated actively in the war.

In the same way, a logical conundrum is presented when identifying oneself as "anti death penalty". What does that mean in the context of a serial killer? Is the serial killer not exacting a death penalty from each of his victims? If he is killed while engaged in an act of murder, is that a "death penalty"? Is there anything wrong with killing a serial killer to prevent further murders? How does opposition to a death penalty work in the context of abortion, which is also a "death penalty" for babies? I have seen many opponents of the death penalty support abortion rights, which to me is contradictory. Going further, as a vegan, I look at all meat as essentially the same. It is muscle tissue, whether it comes from a cow, pig, lion, or human. In other words, cannibalism isn't much different in my eyes than eating a cow. I do not, however, run around describing non-vegans as cannibals, nor do I think of them that way.

The outcry against war in the context of the US strike against Iran's Soleimani is strange in the same way. First, Iran has done everything in their power to provoke war with the US for the past forty years. The US has been remarkable in its restraint. There comes a time when the casualties suffered while "not at war" resemble the casualties that would be suffered if engaged in open war. At that point, there is little benefit to pretending that acts of war are mere skirmishes that do not amount to war. Iran provoked our response, which was mild in consideration of the provocation. Iranian forces directed by Soleimani killed over 600 US soldiers. Our missile killed Soleimani and four others. Their funeral for Soleimani killed thirty-two people. Iran actually killed more civilians in their mourning than the US did in the attack. In this case, if being "anti-war" means allowing the Iranians to continue killing with impunity, the meaning of that term has been reduced to the same level of nonsense as support for abortion while simultaneously holding an anti-death penalty position.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you read the article.

David
You are mistaken.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I just read the article a second time, to try and understand why you thought I didn't read it the first time I commented on it. I do not see why you would think that. My position is unchanged. The author seems to be saying that Soleimani was a clumsy, incompetent man. Killing him was less important than Trump would like to think it was because Soleimani was such an incompetent. The effect of the assassination may start some conversations in Iran, but those were happening anyway, so Trump may as well not have bothered. That is what I get out of that article.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't that make x=0 or maybe that got a bit garbled?

Do you have a link to the study?

David
There isn't such a study that I know of. What I was doing was showing what a properly grounded statement of correlation would look like if Steve had one available to cite. It is a study I might be interested in doing myself if time allows. He had stated "There is no correlation..." but cited no source. Therefore, how could he know there wasn't correlation between the things compared? As written, his statement appears to be justified by his own opinion only, with no cited research or any other objective evidence. He may be right but without checking, the practice of making a statement such as the one he made is not the best way to make an argument. Note that when I discussed the question, I pointed out that a study would have to be done to know the answer, because that is true. My impressions, Steve's, yours, or anyone else's can form the basis for a research question, but not the justification for a conclusion.
 
You don't cite a source for this claim, making me think it is an opinion.
This statement is a result of my informal yet many-years-long observations of psi community and psi debates (as well as many other communities and debates concerning similar science-centered social conflicts (as I call them). And yes, this is not a strict formal scientific study.

But so is your observation, Andy. Do you have a scientific study to back your claims? I think not (if you do, a link would be precious).

Yet, unlike you, Andy, I - dare I be so prideful and boastful? ;) - much more open to the perspectives that differ from my own (without necessarily either agreeeing with them or liking them), and thus much less biased in my assessment.

So, according to my long-term informal assessment, "Left-wing" / "progressive" positions are at least as common - if not somewhat more common - among psi proponents as the "Right-wing" / "conservative" ones. It is true not only for parapsychology, but for other consciousness-related controversies as well, such as near-death studies, transpersonal psychology, energy medicine, antipsychiatry and critical psychiatry, and immaterialism in general. The same is true for anomalistics in the widest sense, such as ufology and cryptozoology. The exception, however, is the intelligent design (ID) debate, since most - but still not all - ID proponents are politically "Right-wing" / "conservative".

In this aspect mind-related controversies differ from the ones concerning "classic", not mind-related natural science, such as critique of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and modern environmentalism in general, where most contrarians are indeed "Right-wing" / "conservative". Again, there is also an exception - there are at least no less "Left-wing" / "progressive" critics of GMOs than "Right-wing" / "conservative" ones.

Some controversies are especially socially dangerous for the one who dare to study them in a non-hostile way, let alone defend contrarian positions. Two examples are the critique of safety and efficiacy of some vaccines, and doubt about a dominant HIV-AIDS causation theory. Treating each of them in any way, except a demonstratively pro-mainstream and aggressively anti-contrarian one, can easily lead anyone to treatment that may be desribed a a modern, and thus less physical - yet no less mentally tormenting and damaging - equivalent of public flogging, branding, tarring and feathering, followed by a life-long banishment. People who commit thought-crimes of such gravity essentially become socially dead for professional and academic circles in which they worked previously (as well as "respectable" society in general). In these controversies, contrarians may, again, be of any political persuation; it matters little, since after their intellectual "coming out" they will be exiled so far away from the mainstream that the very "Left-wing" / "progressive" vs. "Right-wing" / "conservative" dichotomy will start losing sense to them.
 
On the soul level there is no difference at all. What we are talking about when it comes to nations could be likened to our assigned teams. If you are a member of the Denver Broncos team but go out of your way to play against them whenever you are on the field, then you aren't helping your team. After the game is over, you can all go out for pizza and enjoy each other's company but on the field you are a liability to your team. In the same way, when you go on the field to play against the Chargers, you either play against them to win or you get off the field. We all have our roles and we learn from them. Rejecting our roles to play for the other side rarely does us any credit.
Ok. Sports. It’s all a big game. As I suspected: pretty shallow.
 
Speaking of spiritual worldviews, I’ve always found the teachings of Christ, Mohammed, Buddha etc to be anti-capitalist, almost communist in their grounding?
 
Speaking of spiritual worldviews, I’ve always found the teachings of Christ, Mohammed, Buddha etc to be anti-capitalist, almost communist in their grounding?
I wouldn't put those three together. I also wouldn't describe Jesus and Buddha's teaching as "Communist" or "Capitalist". My impression is that what we know of about their statements during their lifetimes does not touch on economics or styles of government. In the case of Islam, I have much less knowledge but doubt it would resemble Communism either, considering Mohammed's "conquer and rule" style of government. Actually, now that I've written that, it does sound like the first step of a Communist government but from there it can go in multiple directions.
 
I wouldn't put those three together. I also wouldn't describe Jesus and Buddha's teaching as "Communist" or "Capitalist". My impression is that what we know of about their statements during their lifetimes does not touch on economics or styles of government. In the case of Islam, I have much less knowledge but doubt it would resemble Communism either, considering Mohammed's "conquer and rule" style of government. Actually, now that I've written that, it does sound like the first step of a Communist government but from there it can go in multiple directions.
C’mon. Social justice and care for the poor were JC’s stock in trade.

https://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2010/12/jesus-god-tax-christ-health
 
And how exactly does Communism relate to that?
Redistribution of wealth and opportunity?

But I did say ‘almost communist’ so it’s starting to feel like you’re trying to split hairs. If you want I’ll concede that those tenets are more central to the left wing, liberal, socialist agenda rather than communism... Not sure how that helps your position though.
 
Redistribution of wealth and opportunity?

But I did say ‘almost communist’ so it’s starting to feel like you’re trying to split hairs. If you want I’ll concede that those tenets are more central to the left wing, liberal, socialist agenda rather than communism... Not sure how that helps your position though.
Okay, if you are talking about the lie promulgated by Communists that they will care for the poor and improve justice for all, then I'll accept those things are connected to Communism. Not that Communism ever achieves those things or even tries very hard to do it but that they promise it. The lie of it is what separates Communism from Jesus.
 
Top