ISIS...Islamic State Victims

Had to google it and only very vaguely.

But I'm not asking for a bloody lecture on him now
 
Actually that response is also quite interesting :lol: (if you did but realise it) as it peels off into another related field about how people with right wing ideas don't seek understanding, whereas people to whom left wing philosophy is more appealing are more enquiring types.

This has been tested in America recently between Republicans and Democrats as I recall (not that I'd necessarily separate that sample field left and right myself) but the results were that Republicans had a greater propensity towards simple violent solutions, more becoming of a primative behaviour. If they were confronted with something they didn't like their instinct was to attack it. The same study also found that they had lower IQ's (as I recall the headline reported that as 'smaller brains'). Having said that, the same study also showed that they tended to be more successful in life and especially business, which they largely attributed to this pathological tendancy towards aggressive ruthlessness and not always acting inclusively

Milgram touched on aspects of this of course with regards to how people were prepared to administer pain in the face of an authority telling them to do so. I believe the experiments were banned eventually as they started to shed some light on some behavioural groups which were both controversial and embarassing. I've never found confirmation of its single most embarassing finding, but am assured by a significant academic that it exists, but was air brushed. You should find however that people from Munich were amongst the most prepared to follow orders and administer pain. Australians and South Africans scored highly too. Strangely enough (actually worryingly) in the USA, it was the nursing profession that scored highest I think on the first round, albeit the correlation there was that academics scored lowest and were the most likely to question the teacher and refuse the instruction

You might like to start reading up on it a bit, as it could start to explain obedience conformation, and how things like authoritarian religions can instruct people to behave violently due to anthroprogenic conditioning. Then again, you'd probably conform with another typology who doesn't seek explanation (as you've already started to demonstrate)
 
The first part is complete rubbish of course. As you say, using republicans and democrats is hardly left/right in the first place.

Success in business is far from just ruthlessness. That's a myth perpetuated by those who have absolutely no experience of that environment. The biggest element I've noticed is the ability to weigh up a whole host of factors and come to a balanced decision. That takes a great degree of intelligence.

the idea that a successful businessman or woman can build a working profitable business by not "working inclusively" is absolutely laughable. Clueless. Ever heard of managing a team with your prosperity depending on it? Ever heard of networking? Ever heard of reputation?


furthermore there is right wing and right wing. Totally different. The authoritarian right is much closer to it's fellow travellers on the authoritarian left than it is to libertarians of course and there are a whole host of crossovers between those two parties in the us which would entirely muddle the picture
 
Last edited:
Strangely enough, the study (and i can't for the life of me remember who was behind it now other than an American university) concluded the opposite to you, in that democrats/ left wingers tended to enter the public services because they could handle multiple complexity with all sorts of potential outcome scenarios better than Republicans/ right wingers, who were more single goal focused and task driven.

The problem with Milgram which I think has clouded things, is that a number of teams subsequently replicated the experiment and this has caused quite a degree of confusion as different findings found their way into the academic literature. Keeping track on their respective credibility has been difficult. The one thing that everyone seemed to agree on though is that humans were much more prepared to administer the top level shock (450 volts) than many had thought possible. Various academics had put the predicted figure at between 1% and 0.1% composed of the obediently stupid, and a sadistic fringe. In some places the conformity rate were as high 85% I believe, and scores of over 50% were routinely recorded
 
my reading of that Warb is that it might be suggesting that Clive is a really thick aggressive dong and all us "lefties" are right smart b@stards

sounds about right:lol:
 
In truth, I only read a BBC summary of the paper, and no academic paper would have concluded quite so bluntly as the way it was presented and hoped to retain any credibility, but then the BBC needed to sex it up to get people reading their little piece.

I've got a recollection that it was published near the last US election and ran a headline that Republicans had smaller brains than Democrats. Now I obviously haven't read the full paper (nor do I intend doing so either - provided I could even find it) but it did leave open the explanation to my mind at least, is that people with (lets call it smaller brains for now) could be more readily persuaded to identify themselves as Republicans in response to being presented with more accessible explanations and solutions. It seemed logical to me anyway, in so far as political allegiance comes later on the time line of personal development. You aren't born with a political allegiance after all

As regards Clive's position on this, I think he was advocating feeding ISIS to pigs not so long ago, so maybe we should mark him up as someone who would be frustrated that in a Milgram experiment he'd only be allowed to adminsiter 450 volts when perhaps he'd happily add another a zero to the maximum loading (purely for a laugh you understand).

It's why I smiled when his default reaction on being asked about his familiarity with Milgram was

"I'm not asking for a bloody lecture on him now"

It's quite interesting in that Clive's original appraisal of going into Iraq (only slightly diluted with the benefit experience) was very much one of obedient conformity with authority. That there were clear violent associations with the action only sought to remind me of Milgram. It was the more questioning people on the left who looked at the evidence and were open to saying "hang about...... none of this story that we're being sold here about WMD, 45 mins, mobile germ warfare factories, a clear and present danger, the link between Saddam and AQ etc hangs together".

Some people (the obedient conformers) would accept it though because that's how they react to authority. Here's one of the ironies, it's often these people who most champion liberatarianism and reject authority, and yet groups like the Tea party or the Conservatives are some of the biggest conformers in society.

Those who were more given to questioning things didn't fall for it quite so easily. If Milgram is right, it has nothing to do with right or left, those designations came much later to describe the sympton, and they're not particularly helpful as they misdiagnose the whole thing by applying labels which are little more than a distraction. It's an anthroprogenic condition first and foremost, concerning how we react to violence to some extent (albeit violence is used as a controlling deviant behaviour that logic says we should reject in this experiment), but more importantly, how we react to authority and instruction

Once you start to view radical Islam (or any extremist conformity) through this prism, you do start to get a slightly different persepctive regarding some of the dynamics at play.

I think it can also roll out into areas of group conformity too, which I'm sure other experiments have demonstrated runs at a little over 50%. That is to say people will reject something which they believe to be correct, and adopt an incorrect conclusion if they can see that a critical mass of other people have done likewise. Once an idea or stricture starts to gain traction in a community thus, you can see how society can then evolve very dangerously. Milgram was of course looking for explanations as to why so many Germans embraced and conformed with nazism rather than rejecting it. I don't think it requires a huge leap to see the same dynamics at play with Islamification

Whether Milgram would conclude that Clive is a "dong" however, I don't know.
 
Last edited:
For about te third time on this thread you have put words in my mouth. I made quite clear the reasons for going into Iraq which were none of the above.

this thread is one long line of rebuttals of statements I never made.

Also would you apply the lower iq test to races or regions too? And hang hat in that as a generalisation?
 
clivex said:
Also would you apply the lower iq test to races or regions too? And hang hat in that as a generalisation?
Click to expand...

i've found that us up North are really thick and so only get a small amount of resource wasted on us..they have got to look after the smart south

so i do think politicians do think its regional:)

i think Warb is on to something though..i'm starting to understand you so much better now:)
 
Last edited:
Which side of the political equation took us into Iraq ec? And as an aside, which is currently the most bellicose country in Western Europe when tackling radical Islam? Which wing is that government from?
 
EC1 said:
i've found that us up North are really thick and so only get a small amount of resource wasted on us..they have got to look after the smart south

so i do think politicians do think its regional:)

i think Warb is on to something though..i'm starting to understand you so much better now:)
Click to expand...

would you like to see the government spending figures per head by region?
 
Warbler. Which leading us politician is the most stridently isolationist and anti intervention? And consistently so?
 
clivex said:
Which side of the political equation took us into Iraq ec? And as an aside, which is currently the most bellicose country in Western Europe when tackling radical Islam? Which wing is that government from?
Click to expand...
LOL, yes !
I look forward to reading a response to these two uncomfortable facts............... facts that don't quite sit well with the inference that aggression is the territory of right-wing "conformers".
 
icebreaker said:
LOL, yes !
I look forward to reading a response to these two uncomfortable facts............... facts that don't quite sit well with the inference that aggression is the territory of right-wing "conformers".
Click to expand...

there are always exceptions..i wonder if the word rarely needs an outing on this thread too:)

i think Warb has got pair of you now desperate to prove those findings wrong...he will be smiling i'm sure
 
I would suggest you answer the questions first and then ask whether they are "rare exceptions" .

Also knee jerk pacifism is just as bad as knee jerk war mongering. No one will deny that there are plenty of stupid republicans who resort to the gun first time (I'm reading a bio of JFK at the moment as it happens.. And he had to stand up to them during te Cuban missile crisis) but think 1939. And on a ridiculous level think of idiot brand and isis
 
if i don't answer the questions...have you got ways of making me talk?:)

i don't really believe that stuff..its just amused me a bit you taking it seriously what W has posted.

i luv u really u no

but not as much as Ice does obviously:)
 
Last edited:
Not taking it seriously at all.. How could I take warbler seriously. It would be ridiculous
 
icebreaker said:
LOL, yes !
I look forward to reading a response to these two uncomfortable facts............... facts that don't quite sit well with the inference that aggression is the territory of right-wing "conformers".
Click to expand...

No explanation necessary. In fact I'm massively disappointed you can't answer that yourself. Unless you believe that Labour and Tony Blair are left wing? Oh surely not? please don't tell me you've fallen for that conforming behaviour as well - I despair.

OK, if you want to view the world through the very narrow UK political spectrum, don't forget that the conservatives were chomping at the bit to advertise their credentials. The question they should be asked (and Cameron fell flat on his face when he tried to make some capital out of this) was at which point did they oppose Iraq? They didn't. In fact they were trying to out war, the war. Labour were saying that we might have to go to war etc and the Conservatives main argument was that we weren't doing so fast enough, and that we should be doing so according to the Bush doctrine and saying yahoo sucks to the UN (something which the French and the Germans in particular refused to support) which invited the American rebuke that the French in particular, were "old Europe" (a less than concealed suggestion that they were irrelevant). Was it Dominc Jospain (or someone like that) who completely laid bare Colin Powells lies at the UN.

Also, if you want evidence of the fact that they don't learn, remind me who led an ill advised lurch into Libya (Sarkozy & Cameron?) whilst Bush (ironically) Obama, Blair and Brown all worked to bring them in from the cold (with an infinitely better outcome than we currently have)

From a UK perspective again, let's not lose sight of the fact that we'd be embroiled in Syria now if calamity Cameron and mad Hague had their way. It was Miliband, who indicated one way and then voted the other, that prevented it - yes?. Personally though, I'm not sure that applying tribal labels necessarily helps here. As i said, the labels came much later. If you want to understand the dynamics of conformity better, you'd be better stripping away the labels first and then look at how society has subsequently applied them, or how people conform

I don't accept Clive's explanation as regards his reasons for going to Iraq though. As I recall at the time, he was very happy parrotting Tony Blair and George Bush lines. He didn't show any independent thought or critical faculties. He never once raised any cautionary notes about a lack of exit strategy (that only came much later when he realised what an almighty mess had been created). In other words, all his of reasons were classic symptoms of conformity with authority

The lower IQ test thing has been done by country, race, and region using all sorts of methods for decades Clive. If you look in 'google scholar' you'll find loads of literature on it. Milgram is of course a different experiment, albeit they can start to overlap. Milgram conducted about 80 experiments I think, albeit the experiement has been replicated by other practioners before it was deemed unethical. Again, things like race, profession, politics, geography have all been tested. It was some of these findings that have been hidden as the results were apparently very embarrassing, and although I'm aware of the single most embarassing finding, I've never found any documented evidence that confirms it. I have no reason to doubt that the person who told me knows these things, and they didn't tell me in the context that it was anythingother than embarrassing for the researchers, but I'd be more comfortable about repeating it, if I could find it documented as a research finding
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
No explanation necessary. In fact I'm massively disappointed you can't answer that yourself. Unless you believe that Labour and Tony Blair are left wing? Oh surely not? please don't tell me you've fallen for that conforming behaviour as well - I despair.
Click to expand...
Okay, then.
So could you explain how the second example fits in with the theory -- the example of Hollande and the French socialist party?
Or will you say that they are not left wing also?
 
I've got a feeling actually, that blue collar Republicans were found to be more conforming than communists. Personally I'd be inclined to question where the researchers sourced their communists from in 1960's America? I can only assume they were academic Trots associated with the New England universities, in which case according to Milgram, their reluctance to conform and follow authority probably owes something to their academic prowess and quite probably not coming from lowly Stalinist ranks
 
icebreaker said:
Okay, then.
So could you explain how the second example fits in with the theory -- the example of Hollande and the French socialist party?
Or will you say that they are not left wing also?
Click to expand...

I'm more inclined to ask what they've done, other than vote to attack Syria? something which they haven't though after the American democrats declined to join and the UK conservatives cocked up the vote with Labour changing sides. A vast majority of France's more virulent moves came under Sarkozy. Personally I've got a theory that they were stung by the anti-French sentiment that gripped America

Their involvement in Libya was a Sarkozy decision. If you're looking at things such as banning the burqa, that was also a Sarkozy decision. I think you could point to Chirac's decision to keep them out of Iraq in 2003, but if you want a counter example of how conforming behaviours can be viewed through attaching political labels in Europe, then Spain is a fair call. In 2003 under Jose Maria Aznar (last seen on the board of Newscorp) Spain was an active member of the coalition. In 2004 Aznar lost to his Socialist opponent Zapatero and Spain withdrew. I've got a feeling that Belgium did the same? I recall Fox News making some flippant comment about choclate

I don't think Milgram is about saying that one group will conform and the other won't though. What he's trying to understand is the extent to which people will conform to authority and patterns within. Clearly it won't be a perfect linear transitional gradation. What you'll have is a scatter plot with hot and cold clusters, but still capable of being modelled on a linear regression. You will always get data within the sample though that defies expectation.

Let me try and illustrate it this way

One of the conclusions was that people who you might call broadly left leaning, were more questioning of the authority figure (in the Milgram experiment it was an instructor in a lab coat). People from the left leaning side either didn't conform, or withdrew from the experiment with greater frequency or at an earlier stage than those right leaning. Right leaning libertarians (despite what they might like to think of themselves as being) were much more inclined to conform. The instructor had to repeat the instruction three times regardless of any questions or clarification being sought by the subject. If they refused to continue and obey the instruction, the experiment was terminated, with the instructor noting the point of exit

Therefor a typical result might look something like this

left = 15 refusals at commencement
right = 5 refusal at commencement

left = 30 refusals at halfway
right = 10 refusals at halfway

left = 5 people continued to comform up to 450 volts and full duration
right = 20 people continued to conform up to 450 volts and full duration
Clive = 1 person continued to conform throughout and begged to be allowed access to the national grid

Within the spread you will always find conformers and dissenters across any spectrum you choose to sample, but some will exhibit a greater tendancy to conform that others. It probably explains why nurses proved particularly willing to conform, as they're conditioned to be subserviants and obey authority (particularly from people in lab coats!). That they were administering potentially lethal electric shocks to patients didn't seem to deter them!!! (implications for the care quality commission?)

The implications of this kind of behaviour, are of course far reaching. Now substitue lab coat for Iman

As i said (and this experiment took place about 20 years after the war) 85% of people from Munich, conformed up to full duration and 450 volts
 
Last edited:
Back
Top