Sometimes, in spite of the obvious expectation of disappointment and frustration, one is compelled to ask a leftie why – really why – they come out with all this shit. Mostly one is confronted with a barrage of the kind of make-it-up-as-you-go-along school debating society codswallop that would only impress a long gone, but much loved, public-school teacher.
Sometimes you can adopt a more subtle angle – asking “how would you feel if XYZ leftablishment sacred narrative were proven false?” You’ll still get the playground crap, and a bunch of dissonance-inspired ad-ipse (if ad-hominem is based on the badness of the opponent, ad-ipse would be argument based on the proponent’s goodness), but hidden among all this diversionary verbal squid-ink you’ll hear some truth. Eventually one of them will simply say, “I cannot believe I could be deceived that way”.
Clearly, the truth referred to is that they believe they could not be deceived – in reality they are deceived about factual and testable things all the time.
How can they be so sure of their unfoolability and yet so wrong? Well, let’s take a fresh look at Milgram. You all know about the Milgram experiment right? If not, stop reading this silly rant and go check it out. I want to concentrate on a less well-known aspect – the predictions made by the psychology industry (a poll of 40 medical psychologists) about the experiment’s result. They said 0.1% would deliver the maximum shock – it turned out to be 65%. You see, participants were vetted for sanity using “standard” methods. Knowing what sanity is (or so they believed, and being psychologists of course they should) they concluded that the participants would think the way the psychologists themselves would think (being to some extent introspectionists), and obviously do the right thing, right? Wrong, apparently. The lesser known conclusion of Milgram is that even psychologists can’t understand the minds of ordinary people, and by extension their own minds. Just like the leftie who genuinely believes he could not be fooled by a completely fictional establishment narrative, the head-shrink thinks he wouldn’t kill a guy because (another) lab-coat told him to.
Did psychology get better after these discoveries? You’d expect a shower of variations of the experiment to really pin down what’s going on.
There were a few but the mainstream of psychology drifted away from this “hard” behaviourism in which participants can be mislead for the benefit of understanding them. Today, in rare cases that experiments are performed at all, participants are given ample warning of the need to substitute their idealised self-image over their real nature, and psychology has been able to drift back to the fantasy of the wisdom and infallability of the sane mind (and still the psychology industry has the convenient prerogative to define “sanity”).
It goes deeper: as a reaction to the the cognitive shame of the Milgram mispredictions, behaviourism itself has given way to a kind of oninistic and solipsistic introspection, in which only-child, public-school and crack-cocaine arrogances merge into a kind of “self-as-God” model in which the supposed “researcher” is ordained with impossibly virtuous characteristics; this is projected onto the “normal” psyche, and everyone who differs is labelled with some syndrome. Boundaries for labelling us with syndromes? Eliminated thanks to the new “spectrums”. On the other hand, negative behaviours too closely resembling the wanton superciliousness of the control freaks who self-select into the field of psychology are denied: try asking one about where “sociopathy” went and watch her spaz out in a tell-tale display of defensive dissonance.
Today the decrepit and long-since ascientific psych industry props itself up as a marketing tool for brain drugs which, as with so much in today’s post-progress society, substitutes arbitrary and unconstructive forced-change: the drugs trigger inert apathy and increased suicide in much the same way that debunked Ancel Keys’ anti-fat establishment pseudo-science triggered a silent holocaust of diabetes and morbid obesity. All we read about are the same shit hypotheses slung, as an adolescent chimpanzee would, at the lovingly conserved stained-glass window of empirical data. Causation? It’s found everywhere yet nowhere, now that the experiment is dead. And the Guardian and co run this stuff because – surprise surprise, it seems to fit their narrative every time (what are the odds of that?)
The next step? Anyone can now be diagnosed with anything. What will UKIP voters be diagnosed with? Or Brexiters? Whatever it is, the beginnings will be guarded by the disclaimer: “obviously the new Hierarchical/Anti-progressive Trobulousity Epidemic (HATE) is a spectrum and we’re not saying everyone who wants the UK to leave the EU is at the severe end, but…”. Well, that’s enough to get a foot in the door. Then, once the narcissistic introspectionists get started, we’ll be learning that we, the ordinary people of this nation, are planning every evil imaginable – Hitler times a thousand – and they will have their pretext to have us all locked up. Not in camps or prisons, but in “hospitals” for our “psychological healing”.
So yeah, maybe the honest truth is that these people could not believe they could be fooled. But, as the story of the brain doctors tells us, this can be bad enough.