Interesting Psych article from 2003

Remember, scandium, this article is from 2003. The guy doesn't have the benifit of three years of hindsight. I posted it to give a possible explaination, not neccesssarily the only one, as to what may be happening. The example doesn't apply to the middle east only.

[Skybird]

One could argue about details, but the general message makes sense. "Shame and guilt" are no new view at things, however.

Skybird,

One could argue about details, but the general message makes sense. "Shame and guilt" are no new view at things, however.

This is from 2003. And as I reminded scandium the author didn't have the benefit of three years hindsight.

The argument seems susinct a plausable. Please,if you can contribute more do so.

Please keep it short and to the point b/c if it's worth a damn you donnot have to ge into any minucia.

[Skybird]

No need to shake your rattle here, waste gate. I am not interested enough in this theme as if I would care to write another one of my infamous long essays. But it's not the first time I have red about this perspective at societies.

I also cannot remember that our paths ever have crossed before, but let me tell you the basis of having red your recent postings here that you do not know me and thus I assure you there is much lesser reason to challenge me on your views than you might think. just like in the other thread you just had missed that I was pulling your and Subman's legs

I also cannot remember that our paths ever have crossed before, but let me tell you the basis of having red your recent postings here that you do not know me and thus I assure you there is much lesser reason to challenge me on your views than you might think. just like in the other thread you just had missed that I was pulling your and Subman's legs

If I misinerprted your meaning Skybird, I apoligize. I used to work for Boeing and have had contact with other Deutchers. Often it is hard to read through the language and understand the meaning of what is being said by both sides.

I meant no disrespect. I was only attempting to make my position known to everyone, in the event anyone was unsure.

Thank you for your attention
waste gate

[Skybird]

Written language communication always holds risks of misunderstandings that would not take place when talking vis-a-vis. However, as far as I'm concerned, nothing serious had happend. I just felt that we maybe were set for a debate that simply is not needed.

Written language communication always holds risks of misunderstandings that would not take place when talking vis-a-vis. However, as far as I'm concerned, nothing serious had happend. I just felt that we maybe were set for a debate that simply is not needed.

Cool.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Remember, scandium, this article is from 2003. The guy doesn't have the benifit of three years of hindsight. I posted it to give a possible explaination, not neccesssarily the only one, as to what may be happening. The example doesn't apply to the middle east only.

That only proves that he's one of the delusional neo-conservatives who bought into, hook, line and sinker, their disproven (by facts) "dominoe theory of democracy" in the ME; this was one of the prive motives (long before WMD ever became center stage) of the Iraq war that was pimped by such true-believers as Wolfowitz and Perle, who theorized that if you liberated Iraq, at gun point, the grateful Iraqis would forget the sectarian animosity that only Saddam's police state kept in check, forget the fact that 2 decads ago the US played both sides in the 8 year Iran-Iraq war, forget that only a decade ago the U.S. crushed and humiliated the Iraqi army in the Persian Gulf War, forget that in the aftermath the U.S. encouraged an uprising then merely watched next door in Kuwait while Saddam ruthlessly crushed it, forget the decade of sanctions imposed upon all Iraqis for Saddam's transgressions, and in their "shock and awe" greet their liberators with flowers and candy anyway. And then from that shining example all of the ME dictatorships and theocracies would fall like dominoes to be replaced by Jefforsonian democracy.

By the way I didn't need 3 years of hindsight to know the democracy dominoe theory was bunk or to predict that "Shock and Awe" could have anything other than nasty long term implications given the history and the method. And the same goes for the author's simplistic and ethnocentric "Muslim shame" theory he dreamt up to explain why the dominoe democracy theory would take hold in the ME when it hasn't.

I certainly did not post this to change anyones mind. It only gives another point of view. I'm sorry if you can't see it. Fighting your battle doesn't cut it with many rational people. I think you have to do more than attack the author.

Please do not forget Rwanda, Sudan and Darfur. Please, shall we mention Bosnia. The U.S. had no economic stake in that fight.

It was faught under the auspices of NATO which by their own admission did not want/nor were they capable of fighting that war.
I Europe/UN can't deal with their own proplems why bring NATO into it? I'll tell ya why. The guilt theory the author submits.

If you have another theory please submit it. But try to keep it simple and on point w/o all the blabber wich marks the stance of a......... well you know.

Thank you for your attention
wast gate

[scandium]

Originally Posted by waste gate

If you have another theory please submit it. But try to keep it simple and on point w/o all the blabber wich marks the stance of a......... well you know.

Thank you for your attention
wast gate

Therein lies the problem: there is no simple one size fits all theory to explain global events. And the bunk that author wrote wasn't even a theory, it was an agenda with a nice neat little theory dreamt up to support it. If you have any real interest in sociology, then I recommend the primer 'Capitalism and Modern Social Theory' by Giddens, who is an actual expert on social theory rather than your author's field of clinical psychology (they are very different fields). As the primer runs about 250 pages I recommend you pick it up on Amazon because I won't be doing any summaries of it here.

By the way, as a warning: if you decide to venture into this realm you will find it one of many conflicting, unproven theories and no clear cut answers; but it does provide a worthwhile perspective all the same.

By the way, as a warning: if you decide to venture into this realm you will find it one of many conflicting, unproven theories and no clear cut answers; but it does provide a worthwhile perspective all the same.

I guess you mean like Darwins theory.

P.S. You don't have to warn me. I'm a big boy and have seen your ilk in the past. I fear you not!!!

So please stop threatening me.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I guess you mean like Darwins theory.

Darwin's theory of evolution was meant to explain the biological, not the social. "Social Darwinism" was a term that was coined later and, as far as social theory goes, it is more of a descriptive term than anything else.

Darwin's theory of evolution was meant to explain the biological, not the social. "Social Darwinism" was a term that was coined later and, as far as social theory goes, it is more of a descriptive term than anything else.

I see you are coming around to reality. Keep going life makes sense over here!!