I'm defining normal by generic universal terms, ie usable across civilizations in the world today, while you're defining it limited to "within liberal democracy" parameters
Hypothetically speaking if liberal democracy regimes did some arbitrary bullshit, like mandated everyone chop off their pinky fingers at birth, that would become normal from our POV, it would only seem strange when travelling abroad that the majority of the world doesn't live like that, that we aren't special or more advanced for doing it
The point is that our definitions of politics are so arbitrary and insane that they aren't useable outside the Western limited hangout
Western establishment left Opensociety's media rag had articles arguing that every single party in Russia for example, even the Soviets themselves, were "right wing"
Notions of right and left have been muddled througout Russian history. The Soviet Communists professed left-wing slogans, but practised right-wing ideologies, embracing a neo-feudalist and unfree order. Russia’s politicians continue that duality today. For Poel Karp, what Russia desperately needs is a return to the original values of the political left.
One of the big issues with this discussion is defining "normal" brains.
The approach I took was based on what I imagine to be the average of human beings across cultures (ie neutral/objective) and from earlier times, ie pre 1960's, comparing to now.
This opens two questions: are liberals the "different" ones? Or are conservatives the "different" ones? And how do we even define these two labels? "Conservative" is a broad camp for my purposes. Anyone defined as enemy (which includes many heterodox and classical liberal folk) and "muh fascist" could be in there. The ACP could also be there.
Now the thing is I've become quite convinced that an average party leader in China for example has a similar neurology to a right-wing American, despite the "Communist" label.
So if we accept that axiom, we have to ask why we assume that American liberalism is the default, especially given that every metric of well being has declined since that era, our civil society is so bad (and monopolized by NGO's) we can't even have a massive war with Iran with serious protests or riots.
ChatGPT summary (since it's my mine I'll add my own comments):
Summary
The text argues that Western political psychology contains a hidden assumption of “liberal primacy,” where liberal viewpoints are treated as the default healthy state and opposing views are framed as psychological abnormalities.
It questions whether political psychology research may unintentionally or intentionally pathologize conservatives while overlooking possible biases in how ideological differences are studied and interpreted.
The author discusses neuroscience research on political beliefs, including studies involving the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), emotional regulation, and partisan reactions, arguing that findings are often oversimplified into “fearful conservatives” versus “rational liberals.”
The text challenges the “amygdala-conservatism” narrative, suggesting that brain differences associated with ideology may be more complex and potentially linked to specific progressive cultural attitudes rather than broad economic or political beliefs.
Specifically Western progressive only. And by progressives I mean militant ideological enforcers. Someone with heterodox views with a few liberal positions isn't "pure progressive" by this definition.
It highlights research on emotional expression and argues that conservatives may display greater emotional regulation, interpreting this as evidence of cognitive control rather than emotional deficiency.
The author uses studies of neurological differences in conditions such as pedophilia to argue that abnormal brain function can have negative effects, and questions whether some areas of neuroscience research receive insufficient attention due to political sensitivities.
Didn't elaborate on this, but more closely related behavior would be "Cute Aggression", a relatively common (and mostly benign) expression of difficulty regulating emotional reactions
The text examines MKUltra and related Cold War programs, arguing that their goals may have been broader than creating “Manchurian candidate” assassins and may have included attempts to influence, control, or reshape human behavior.
It discusses CIA experiments involving drugs, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, and psychological manipulation, emphasizing historical examples of government secrecy, compartmentalization, and experimentation without consent.
The author argues that democratic governments may face unique challenges in managing dissent because they cannot openly suppress opposition, suggesting that psychological influence and narrative management could become tools of state power.
The text analyzes figures such as Ken Kesey, arguing that experiences connected to psychedelic experimentation influenced countercultural movements and debates about psychiatry, autonomy, and social institutions.
Note, an important element was the fact that Kesey himself was one of the experimentees of MKUltra and was given drugs by his handler. He also (falsely IMO) believed that the experiments unintentionally "freed his mind".
The core thesis of the work is that his mind wasn't freed, he was pacified, turned into someone unable to resist or challenge true expressions of state power, and diverted attention to more trivial targets. Sort of like how some ACP folks critique that Gloria Steinem redirected many socialist groups to talk about patriarchy/etc, not class war.
It critiques the long-term effects of anti-institutional movements inspired by works like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, claiming that some reforms may have harmed both mentally ill individuals and communities.
The author connects modern political psychology research on “MAGA minorities” and authoritarianism studies to a broader concern that psychological frameworks may increasingly be applied to analyze or deconstruct political dissent across different demographic groups.
The text concludes by calling for a broader philosophical framework that resists what it views as excessive ideological control by intellectual institutions and instead prioritizes civil society, reform, and individual autonomy.
Ok but you're overlooking something
I'm defining normal by generic universal terms, ie usable across civilizations in the world today, while you're defining it limited to "within liberal democracy" parameters
Hypothetically speaking if liberal democracy regimes did some arbitrary bullshit, like mandated everyone chop off their pinky fingers at birth, that would become normal from our POV, it would only seem strange when travelling abroad that the majority of the world doesn't live like that, that we aren't special or more advanced for doing it
The point is that our definitions of politics are so arbitrary and insane that they aren't useable outside the Western limited hangout
Western establishment left Opensociety's media rag had articles arguing that every single party in Russia for example, even the Soviets themselves, were "right wing"
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/russian-politics-right-confusion/
One of the big issues with this discussion is defining "normal" brains.
The approach I took was based on what I imagine to be the average of human beings across cultures (ie neutral/objective) and from earlier times, ie pre 1960's, comparing to now.
This opens two questions: are liberals the "different" ones? Or are conservatives the "different" ones? And how do we even define these two labels? "Conservative" is a broad camp for my purposes. Anyone defined as enemy (which includes many heterodox and classical liberal folk) and "muh fascist" could be in there. The ACP could also be there.
Now the thing is I've become quite convinced that an average party leader in China for example has a similar neurology to a right-wing American, despite the "Communist" label.
So if we accept that axiom, we have to ask why we assume that American liberalism is the default, especially given that every metric of well being has declined since that era, our civil society is so bad (and monopolized by NGO's) we can't even have a massive war with Iran with serious protests or riots.
ChatGPT summary (since it's my mine I'll add my own comments):
Summary
Specifically Western progressive only. And by progressives I mean militant ideological enforcers. Someone with heterodox views with a few liberal positions isn't "pure progressive" by this definition.
Didn't elaborate on this, but more closely related behavior would be "Cute Aggression", a relatively common (and mostly benign) expression of difficulty regulating emotional reactions
Note, an important element was the fact that Kesey himself was one of the experimentees of MKUltra and was given drugs by his handler. He also (falsely IMO) believed that the experiments unintentionally "freed his mind".
The core thesis of the work is that his mind wasn't freed, he was pacified, turned into someone unable to resist or challenge true expressions of state power, and diverted attention to more trivial targets. Sort of like how some ACP folks critique that Gloria Steinem redirected many socialist groups to talk about patriarchy/etc, not class war.
Hey sorry I missed your comment I've been sporadic with posting. That's wild. Lemmy also seems to have many insane people
I mean you clearly care enough to make a passive aggressive comment in support of the banning, lol