Comment by wuschel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wuschel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Interesting read, especially now that long term deficient political activities show their symptoms in the form of Brexit, Ukraine, etc.

Basically, look out for these clinical features of the hubris syndrome when it comes to people in positions of leadership and power:

1/ sees the world as a place for self-glorification through the use of power

2/ has a tendency to take action primarily to enhance personal image

3/ shows disproportionate concern for image and presentation

4/ exhibits messianic zeal and exaltation in speech

5/ conflates self with nation or organisation

6/ uses the royal ‘we’ in conversations

7/ shows excessive self-confidence

8/ manifestly has contempt for others

9/ shows accountability only to a higher court (history or God)

10/ displays the unshakable belief that he will be vindicated in that court

11/ loses contact with reality

12/ resorts to restlessness and impulsive actions

13/ allows moral rectitude to obviate consideration of practicality, cost or outcome, and

14/ displays incompetence with disregard for the nuts and bolts of policy-making.

Don’t vote for them. Remove them from power.

Complete drivel to compare the invasion of Ukraine to brexit

Do you not see the consistent psychology behind:

* Make America Great Again - we've been cheated by the globalists

* Make Britain Great Again - we've been cheated by the EU

* Make Russia Great Again - we've been cheated by the West

* Make Germany Great Again - we've been cheated by the Jews

?

You would have to contextualise a slogan like Make America Great Again to give it a negative connotation; on its face it is objectively normatively positive.

The Brexit slogan was Take back control. Again, normatively positive.

Same for Black Lives Matter.

The psychology behind successful political slogans is that people are generally in favour of positive things.

> The psychology behind successful political slogans is that people are generally in favour of positive things.

Are there any examples of negative political slogans? "Don't vote for us, we're losers"?

I don't think it's very informative to point out that these slogans are positive. What's more informative is that the messaging came with an idea of an insidious enemy, and of betrayal, and a desire to return to a former, previously great, and deserved status.

For what it's worth, I don't think "Black Lives Matter" had those same connotations.

> For what it's worth, I don't think "Black Lives Matter" had those same connotations.

Really? The impression I had[0] was that this slogan was a cry for equality in the eyes of a police force which acted as though black lives did not matter — the mistreatment being very much insidious, very much a betrayal of “protect and serve”, and while I wouldn’t call the BLM slogan itself it a “return to a former, previously great” status, it is clearly a desire to have a deserved status (of having one’s life matter).

[0] caveat: I’m caucasian British, the closest I got to this was having an American partner a few years ago

The purpose of the slogan was to preempt class war with race war. History has and will continue to confirm this.

Your interpretation is correct. Unfortunately, as with everything else to do with Black and progressive activism in the US, the right wing has been very successful at bad faith redefinition of terms.

When Mario Cuomo ran against Ed Koch his slogan was “Vote for Cuomo, not the homo.”

Mussolini’s party slogan was “Believe, obey, fight.” I don’t know if that’s negative but it doesn’t feel positive.

I dont see the connection between self-determination and invading another sovereign country?

You're absolutely right that there is an enormous difference in the policies implemented by the various governments, I'm just saying that the policies were partially driven by a common psychology.

Pathologizing your political opponents is a two way street[0]. Your opponent might be insane, yes, but it can also be all too easily deployed to dismiss your political opponents and a lost opportunity to learn something, if not in the substance of what they're claiming, then at least about the causes. Even assuming that the various conspiracy theories peddled by both the Left and the Right are bogus (and they are), the fact remains that their exists widespread, politically useful grievance that makes them attractive to many people. If you just say "oh, they're all just mentally ill", you haven't learned anything, even if the grievance is simply a manifestation of envy and ressentiment. Even if they are all mentally ill, you haven't learned why they're all insane. Maybe you don't care, and that's fine, but someone has to care because unlike the occasional neighborhood eccentric, these things are political gunpowder. So first we debate, and only later do we embark on something like psychoanalysis.

W.r.t. Putin, I think that flippantly accusing him of mental illness is lazy and shows a lack of political imagination. That's only a conclusion you reach after you've exhausted all other options. Historically, Americans have been notoriously bad at understanding Russian political motives and the Russian political mind. If you contextualize what's happening in the geopolitical context, it's unclear, at least to me, that what Putin is doing is through-and-through insane. All evil is insane in the final analysis, but in the immediate sense, there may be a method to the madness. If you don't know the aim, and you don't know the constraints, you can't really understand the means. I'm not interested in cocktail party conjecturing or the pretense of knowledge.

[0] https://americanmind.org/salvo/woke-ideology-is-a-psychologi...

For what it's worth, I generally agree with what you're saying here (and I vouched for your comment, because I thought it was an insightful contribution to the discussion).

I should clarify, though, that the "psychology" I am talking about applies more to the supporters of these political movements than to the politicians who lead them. It's completely possible for an intelligent manipulator to spout some narrative that appeals to the public's psychology, without them believing it themselves.

Your point still stands, though, that it's not enough to simply say "the leader is a liar, and their supporters are mad", because that reductionist framing is more likely to shut down any attempts at further understanding than to open the door to learning that there might be legitimate grievances that are leading to this "madness".

As for Putin, I think he is dangerously sane, but that's not to say that a psychoanalysis wouldn't reveal a helpful understanding of his motivations and weaknesses. For example, it seems that he spent his early life believing in (and working for) the greatness of his country which was destined to conquer the world (as if it were a game of chess played out across a world map), only to watch helplessly as that was all ripped away from him by the West. That could be psychologically devastating and create a trauma that has stayed with him for his whole life. I could well imagine that from his perspective, if he doesn't take back control of Ukraine, his whole life has been for nothing.

If the politician makes a decision in his interest but to the detriment of his people, one could very well make they connection. A simple example is distraction from critical domestic problems the political party/politician is not able,ready or willing to solve by focusing on international politics.

Can anyone explain what’s wrong with using the royal “we” in conversations?

I think he is talking about him/her referring to his/her self (singular), using "we".

Yes I understand that, but what is wrong with that?

Wework for example. Adam Neumann was always about "we".

So what it means at a basic level is speaking on behalf of a group that is united against the opposing "I", basically a team or gang versus an individual.

The Orders are composed of persons all hung up on authority, security and control; i.e., they are blinded by the Aneristic Illusion. They do not know that they belong to Orders of Discordia. But we know.
- The Military Order of THE KNIGHTS OF THE FIVE SIDED TEMPLE. This is for all the soldiers and bureaucrats of the world.
- The Political Order of THE PARTY FOR WAR ON EVIL. This is reserved for lawmakers, censors, and like ilk.
- The Academic Order of THE HEMLOCK FELLOWSHIP. They commonly inhabit schools and universities, and dominate many of them.
- The Social Order of THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS. This is mostly a grass-roots version of the more professional military, political, academic and sacred Orders.
- The Sacred Order of THE DEFAMATION LEAGUE. Not much is known about the D.L., but they are very ancient and quite possibly were founded by Greyface himself. It is known that they now have absolute domination over all organized churches in the world. It is also believed that they have been costuming cabbages and passing them off as human beings.
A person belonging to one or more Order is just as likely to carry a flag of the counter-establishment as the flag of the establishment-- just as long as it is a flag.

Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton.

If, like me, you had no idea what this was…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Discordia

It seems to me that government needs more checks and balances so people can recall their candidates if they misrepresented themselves or their intentions.

We can recall our leaders. (At least in the US we can.)

Of course, you have to get enough people to agree with you that the leader should be recalled. You can't recall him/her because you want to recall him/her. You can only recall a leader if we want to recall him/her.

A number of these seem to nicely summarize a number of social media influencers.

Sounds like most US politicians. Especially Republicans

It's pretty much all politicians. Not only American politicians.

“Yes we can”

Pretty sure that’s the royal “we”

There's a difference between wanting people in the country to work together for a shared goal, and literally referring to yourself with the pronoun "we".

> "All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president."

https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-rules-trump-can-be-sue...

That’s what just a whatsboutism

I feel my original statement stands pretty well.

>most US politicians

Plus as another commenter mentioned, a call to action for a group is a bit different than using the royal we to refer to a person or position. I'm sure there are numerous examples from both parties we could post here but that would get us nowhere

I'd prefer it if people could find common ground in the realization that both parties are trash

Reply on news.ycombinator.com