How Political Personality Can Alter Perceptions; For Both Objective Reality And Personal Values.
In a Facebook Discussion Group (focused on literature and philosophy),
someone posted this:
In reply, ,
Susan Francki wrote:
"Rubbish…
Some Children are born in dire circumstances, poverty & parental abuse through no fault of their own.
They never had a chance…"
In reply to Susan,
Gary Goodchild wrote:
"there is lots examples off people climbing out of gutter/ poverty ect"
In reply to Gary,
Susan wrote:
"I’m well aware of that fact!"
Confused,
Gary wrote back, saying:
"(but) you said (it was) Rubbish"
To help clear up Gary's confusion,
I offer this:
They said "rubbish" because the OP is incorrect.
The OP is incorrect because it's a "Black and White" fallacy.
It's broad-stroke claim that presumes to tell us something that is:
a.) absolutely true
for
b.) literally all humans.
[Further clarification]
This conversation (the OP and related comments) are a great example of how politically left-vs-conservative personalities
alter perceptions about what Stoicism teaches.
OP never said what their political leanings are.
Neither did Gary.
But they both accidentally did.
Mind you, I am NOT advocating for far-left lensing either.
These are opposite handicaps.
Far-left-ists tend to make excuses that diminish their personal accountability, and thus hinder their outcomes.
In this way, they sabotage themselves. And as a result, increase the collective burdens on a society's resources.
Far-right tend to make excuses that demonize and "stack the deck" against the most vulnerable people in a society.
In this way, they too sabotage entire societies and countless individuals.
The politically "Conservative" personality-lens
will uphold a narrative about the human condition
which delegitimizes calls for sweeping social reform
on the basis that anyone-and-everyone who fails to "find a way" to live a fully healthy and long life where all their needs are met, ...
"only had themselves to blame".
It is literally victim-blaming.
Ultimately,
it excuses the Conservative-personality from having a healthy measure of compassion.
That way, their EGO doesn't feel ugly due to their lack of compassion.
It's a post-hoc rationalization;
disguised as a "philosophy".
It excuses someone for not feeling a 'call to action' to help remedy social injustice.
It justifies both willful-inaction and political/legislative harmful interference
when it comes to:
efforts to remedy societal and local/personal suffering;
for people who need more help (and less harm) than they're getting.
It takes and WARPS the Stoic concept of "personal accountability" and "attitude matters".
It warps and distorts those good concepts ... into the unfair exaggeration of "each-and-every individual has sole responsibility and sole power over what their life will be like".
It's also completely factually wrong.
So then it's not even a matter of "opinion".
A person's attitude (about whatever they are going through) ... DOES has a very real effect.
Personality accountability is a virtue.
That virtue does have effect.
It CAN make someone's struggles (eventually) less-bad by increasing their resilience and giving them a better CHANCE at overcoming SOME obstacles.
But the larger reality is:
Some people are born into circumstance that cannot be overcome.
Even people who are born into circumstance which CAN be overcome ...
still have to rely partly on:
factors outside of their control.
Also,
some people are born into suffering that "toughing up" can't compensate for.
Although, the hyper-Conservative lensing-effect is further amplified when a fundamentalist religious' narrative is added to a person's psyche.
I can't usually tell when that is happening; unless a post-maker mentions "God".
But it does further skew perspective, in such a way that extra-excuses the Conservative-personality from having compassion and supporting actions that lead to social reform.
Because then suffering and injustice become "wonderful opportunities" to show how pious a sufferer is, and to "trust in God" who (allegedly) never lets anyone suffer more than they can endure, and protects and blesses the faithful.
Per such a religious narrative, anyone who FAILS to endure and prosper ... has "revealed" that they lacked adequate moral-character; such that they
brought all long-term bad-health and bad-circumstance upon themselves;' by not earning the blessings of God ...
by not being "spiritual" enough.
This is how that religious culture created horrible stigmas about mental illness.
It's also the justification they used for interfering with needed research-and-remedy for mental illness;
by writing off every form of prolonged suffering and social-disadvantage
(including all forms of mental-health crisis)
... as "spiritual sickness" ("wrong-think")
that people "brought upon themselves" and which required "spiritual remedy" (assured only by "right-think").
someone posted this:
In reply, ,
Susan Francki wrote:
"Rubbish…
Some Children are born in dire circumstances, poverty & parental abuse through no fault of their own.
They never had a chance…"
In reply to Susan,
Gary Goodchild wrote:
"there is lots examples off people climbing out of gutter/ poverty ect"
In reply to Gary,
Susan wrote:
"I’m well aware of that fact!"
Confused,
Gary wrote back, saying:
"(but) you said (it was) Rubbish"
To help clear up Gary's confusion,
I offer this:
They said "rubbish" because the OP is incorrect.
The OP is incorrect because it's a "Black and White" fallacy.
It's broad-stroke claim that presumes to tell us something that is:
a.) absolutely true
for
b.) literally all humans.
[Further clarification]
This conversation (the OP and related comments) are a great example of how politically left-vs-conservative personalities
alter perceptions about what Stoicism teaches.
OP never said what their political leanings are.
Neither did Gary.
But they both accidentally did.
Mind you, I am NOT advocating for far-left lensing either.
These are opposite handicaps.
Far-left-ists tend to make excuses that diminish their personal accountability, and thus hinder their outcomes.
In this way, they sabotage themselves. And as a result, increase the collective burdens on a society's resources.
Far-right tend to make excuses that demonize and "stack the deck" against the most vulnerable people in a society.
In this way, they too sabotage entire societies and countless individuals.
The politically "Conservative" personality-lens
will uphold a narrative about the human condition
which delegitimizes calls for sweeping social reform
on the basis that anyone-and-everyone who fails to "find a way" to live a fully healthy and long life where all their needs are met, ...
"only had themselves to blame".
It is literally victim-blaming.
Ultimately,
it excuses the Conservative-personality from having a healthy measure of compassion.
That way, their EGO doesn't feel ugly due to their lack of compassion.
It's a post-hoc rationalization;
disguised as a "philosophy".
It excuses someone for not feeling a 'call to action' to help remedy social injustice.
It justifies both willful-inaction and political/legislative harmful interference
when it comes to:
efforts to remedy societal and local/personal suffering;
for people who need more help (and less harm) than they're getting.
It takes and WARPS the Stoic concept of "personal accountability" and "attitude matters".
It warps and distorts those good concepts ... into the unfair exaggeration of "each-and-every individual has sole responsibility and sole power over what their life will be like".
It's also completely factually wrong.
So then it's not even a matter of "opinion".
A person's attitude (about whatever they are going through) ... DOES has a very real effect.
Personality accountability is a virtue.
That virtue does have effect.
It CAN make someone's struggles (eventually) less-bad by increasing their resilience and giving them a better CHANCE at overcoming SOME obstacles.
But the larger reality is:
Some people are born into circumstance that cannot be overcome.
Even people who are born into circumstance which CAN be overcome ...
still have to rely partly on:
factors outside of their control.
Also,
some people are born into suffering that "toughing up" can't compensate for.
Although, the hyper-Conservative lensing-effect is further amplified when a fundamentalist religious' narrative is added to a person's psyche.
I can't usually tell when that is happening; unless a post-maker mentions "God".
But it does further skew perspective, in such a way that extra-excuses the Conservative-personality from having compassion and supporting actions that lead to social reform.
Because then suffering and injustice become "wonderful opportunities" to show how pious a sufferer is, and to "trust in God" who (allegedly) never lets anyone suffer more than they can endure, and protects and blesses the faithful.
Per such a religious narrative, anyone who FAILS to endure and prosper ... has "revealed" that they lacked adequate moral-character; such that they
brought all long-term bad-health and bad-circumstance upon themselves;' by not earning the blessings of God ...
by not being "spiritual" enough.
This is how that religious culture created horrible stigmas about mental illness.
It's also the justification they used for interfering with needed research-and-remedy for mental illness;
by writing off every form of prolonged suffering and social-disadvantage
(including all forms of mental-health crisis)
... as "spiritual sickness" ("wrong-think")
that people "brought upon themselves" and which required "spiritual remedy" (assured only by "right-think").
Comments
Post a Comment