Re:What collective narcissism does to society
by coldtea on Saturday November 06, 2021 @01:43PM
(#29132200)
>In particular given the example of Portuguese people who have antagonistic reactions to Germany in the EU. Seems to me the pretty straightforward explanation is material/political. There is conflict of interest within an institution for power, and if anything the psychological narcissism is at best an epiphenomenon. It doesn't seem irrational.
That's the problem with such "science" (using the term loosely, this is not physics, but "soft" science, that is, bogus ideology with questionaire-and-stats-as-evaluated-by-the-researcher-based "validation").
They start from it being "irrational", based on whatever status quo ideas (in the general society or among their peers or funding sources) they take as given, and in their "results" take for granted what they should have proven. It's easy to see the markers for "psychological narcissim" when all you allow for is that, and not other causes. It's even easier to overblow them.
E.g. "tension between say Portugal and Germany 'must' be psychological narcissism", because they don't see (or want to hide under the rag) the political and material antagonisms. More often than not, they don't have a clue about them anyway - being politically naive, and isolated and uniformed about both the political, legislative, etc, manifestations, and the material circumstances of such antagonisms.
(Not that the antagonistic populations have theoritically studied those material and political antagonisms. But they can feel their results, and can follow certain changes in policy and their effects on them and their country -they have skin in the game, so to speak. Changes and effects that some PhD researcher in "social sciences" in some universy in a remote country has no clue whatsover, unless they've specifically gone and searched for them).
That's the problem with such "science" (using the term loosely, this is not physics, but "soft" science, that is, bogus ideology with questionaire-and-stats-as-evaluated-by-the-researcher-based "validation").
They start from it being "irrational", based on whatever status quo ideas (in the general society or among their peers or funding sources) they take as given, and in their "results" take for granted what they should have proven. It's easy to see the markers for "psychological narcissim" when all you allow for is that, and not other causes. It's even easier to overblow them.
E.g. "tension between say Portugal and Germany 'must' be psychological narcissism", because they don't see (or want to hide under the rag) the political and material antagonisms. More often than not, they don't have a clue about them anyway - being politically naive, and isolated and uniformed about both the political, legislative, etc, manifestations, and the material circumstances of such antagonisms.
(Not that the antagonistic populations have theoritically studied those material and political antagonisms. But they can feel their results, and can follow certain changes in policy and their effects on them and their country -they have skin in the game, so to speak. Changes and effects that some PhD researcher in "social sciences" in some universy in a remote country has no clue whatsover, unless they've specifically gone and searched for them).