{N.B. Alan Sokal was the perpetrator of a famous academic hoax (the 1996 “Sokal affair”) when his entirely fabricated, jargon-laden, and heavily footnoted research paper “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” was published by Duke University Press’s “Social Text,” the editors of which took Sokal’s paper seriously. To my knowledge, I am the first to use “Sokal” as a verb. [Alan Sokal - Wikipedia]}
Patrick Fagan, formerly Lead Psychologist for Cambridge Analytica, has written opinion pieces for The Spectator, The Critic, and other publications. 1 He has a distinctly right-wing perspective; for instance, he wrote last month about the “Hellish” dangers of proposed “vaccine passports” (“Passport to Your Soul”) which, he predicted, will be used to identify and to repress (or reprogram) political dissidents. He has also opined in print about the “Lockdown Lobotomy” and about how “Face Masks Make You Stupid” (that latter no doubt explaining the mental incompetence of surgeons, dentists, and other masked medical professionals, not to mention Zorro and the Lone Ranger).
A year ago, in a fascinating article at The Spectator World (September 2020), Mr. Fagan pursued the question “Is Liberalism Really a Mental Illness?” After a certain amount of jocular banter about how both sides (Left and Right) commonly accuse the other of being insane, Fagan gets down to business dissecting the pathology that is modern Liberalism.
[NB: I am here taking Fagan’s article and his research citations at face value, but I am aware that his article may be a spoof. Not wanting to be Sokal-ed, I suggest we proceed with caution.]
Fagan begins by conceding that “Evidence is plentiful that pathology can exist on both sides of the political spectrum. However,” he continues, “there is also evidence that liberalism may be associated with its own unique disorders.” What is the evidence? Fagan is happy to provide it:
Firstly, the modern self-identified strain of ‘liberalism’ is explicitly correlated with mental illness. Studies of the mentally ill have found that they tend to vote less conservative and more liberal (Howard and Anthony, 1977; Kelly, 2014). More recently, Kirkegaard (2020) analyzed the General Social Survey data and found that extreme liberals had a 150 percent increase in the rate of mental illness compared to moderates. Conservatives — even extreme conservatives — were 17 percent and 24 percent less likely than moderates, respectively, to have been diagnosed with mental illness. Meanwhile, Pew Research Center’s March 2020 American Trends Panel Survey similarly showed that 38 percent of ‘very liberal’ whites have been told by a doctor that they have a mental health condition (compared to 20 percent of moderates and 15 percent of the ‘very conservative’).
[Professor Arguendo, reading over my shoulder, objects that those last numbers may only reflect the fact that liberals are more likely than conservatives to consult with a doctor regarding emotional or mental distress.]
Fagan presents additional evidence:
More broadly, conservatives tend to be happier (Napier and Tost, 2008), healthier (Subramanian and Perkins, 2009), and — you guessed it — more attractive (Peterson and Palmer, 2017). Believing, as they do, that they have personal responsibility for their lives, they also tend to live longer (Kondrichin and Lester, 1998; Smith and Dorling, 1996). Studies suggest that liberals, meanwhile, are more likely to drink alcohol (Yakovlev and Guessford, 2013), take drugs (Nour, Evans and Carhart-Harris, 2017), and be promiscuous (Hatemi, Crabtree and McDermott, 2017). These unhealthy behaviors perhaps share a common neurobiological root with liberal political beliefs.
Have researchers been able to identify causative or contributing factors, either environmental or biological, for this illness (Liberalism, that is)? Fagan’s anecdotal explanation triggers my Sokal alarm:
“A disorder called the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) sheds some light. Miller and colleagues (2001) reported on a 63-year-old patient who was conservative before developing bvFTD. She then became ‘politically opinionated’ about her anti-conservative political beliefs, to the point of confronting strangers; she started dressing in a more casual manner; and she developed an interest in animal rights; altering her preference for collecting jewelry to collecting stuffed animals. As if these qualities weren’t suggestive enough of many antifa types, the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration lists the following among the symptoms of the disorder: rude and offensive comments, inappropriate sexual behavior, neglect of personal hygiene, binge eating, repeating words or phrases, clapping (it remains silent on the emoji ‘clap’ which has become so ubiquitous), rereading the same book over and over again, questionable financial decisions (see $150k liberal arts degrees; not to mention the left’s blind addiction to government borrowing), frequent and abrupt mood changes (see 2015-2020), and, perhaps most crucially of all, blaming others for the consequences of socially unacceptable behavior.”
Let us move on to Fagan’s summary of “pathological liberalism,” reminding ourselves yet again that this may all be a hoax:
Overall, there seem to be three main traits which define what one might call ‘pathological liberalism’, all of which may have a core of reduced threat sensitivity. The first is an extreme openness to new things and tolerance of ambiguity. Liberalism is indeed associated with the personality trait ‘openness to experience’: that is, adventurous and tolerant of new ideas and change (e.g., Schoen and Schumann, 2007; Vecchione et al., 2011).
On this point, Fagan bends over backwards to be fair:
Looking at personality more broadly, conservatism tends to be associated with preferences for stability, order and structure, while liberalism tends to be associated with curiosity, creativity, and novelty-seeking. It is also — credit where it’s due — associated with thinking deeply and rejecting simple solutions (Jost et al., 2003; Carney, Jost and Gosling, 2008; Jost, Federico and Napier, 2009; Caparos et al., 2015). Indeed, liberals tend to have more gray matter in the part of the brain that deals with processing signals for potential change (Amodio et al., 2007; Kanai et al., 2011; Schreiber et al., 2013). Liberals are more likely to prefer abstract art (Wilson, Ausman and Mathews, 1973) and have messy workspaces (Carney, Jost and Gosling, 2008).
Fagan continues:
The second determinant of pathological liberalism is extreme emotionality and empathy. Liberals tend to be more empathetic (Hirsh et al., 2010), and more agreeable in general (Schoen and Schumann, 2007; Vecchione et al., 2011); they are also more likely to reject group loyalty (see Haidt, 2012) and, as discussed, are less prejudiced towards ‘out-groups’. From a neurobiological perspective, political liberalism has been linked to activity in the part of the brain that deals with interpersonal trust (Belfi, Koscik and Tranel, 2015). Bringing this all together, a study of Twitter users found that those following Republicans used more words emphasizing group membership (such as in-group identity, national identity, and religion), while those following Democrats used more emotional language (e.g., feelings, anxiety, positive emotions, and expletives; Sylwester and Purver, 2015). Many researchers have explored the concept of pathological altruism (Oakley et al., 2011), in which charitable giving actually does more harm than good (by, for example, fostering dependence and undermining organic economic development. One illustration comes from the donation of second-hand clothing to countries like Kenya, which has all but killed the once-thriving garment industry there). When liberal altruism becomes pathological, it can also be at the subject’s own expense. For example, a survey by the American National Election Studies in 2018 asked respondents to rate how warm they felt towards their own race compared to others. All groups were biased in favor of their own except for one: white liberals, who feel warmer to others than to their own people. In other words, in contrast to all other groups, white liberals put others above themselves.
[Professor Arguendo: This last finding contradicts conservatives' claim that they, unlike liberals, do not even see race, although they could probably pick Martin Luther King Jr. or Rev. Al Sharpton out of a lineup if need be.]
Continuing his analysis, Fagan confirms that the stereotype of the self-hating liberal is entirely accurate: “This prostration before other groups introduces the third trait that defines pathological liberalism: low self-esteem. Die-hard liberals seem to live in a world of self-loathing: they believe they are born dirty thanks to new varieties of ‘original sin’; and they never recognize the good things their history has contributed, instead campaigning to actively ‘dismantle’ their own culture. Their protests are invariably forms of self-abuse or self-abasement, like lying in front of traffic or getting on their knees.” 2 One is tempted to scream at Fagan, a la John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" But perhaps he is; the jury remains out.
Fagan persists:
A function of low self-esteem is also believing that one has little control over one’s life. Research has indicated that having an external ‘locus of control’ (i.e., believing that your fate is determined by powerful people and forces) is typically linked to a leftist ideology (e.g., Levenson and Miller, 1976). In surely one of the great reversals of history, a 2019 Cato Institute survey found that just 33 percent of people identifying as ‘very liberal’ agreed that ‘[their] life is determined by [their] own actions’, compared to 52 percent of those who are very conservative. It in turn makes sense that those who feel less in control of their own destiny would support ‘free’ healthcare, ‘free’ education, more welfare, and more regulation. As Edmund Burke said, ‘Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.’
Predictably, Fagan brings Marxism into the analysis (you knew he would get to it eventually):
This external locus of control has recently manifested itself in victimhood culture — the Marxist belief that one is a perpetual victim of omnipotent but invisible power structures, from which only the same Marxist authorities can rescue such victim groups. What is less well known is a recent paper which found that those who exhibit these ‘virtuous victimhood’ behaviors were more likely to have ‘dark’ personality traits, including narcissism (Ok et al., 2020). 3 Twenge, Zhang and Im (2004) explain the contradiction between low self-esteem and narcissism in terms of locus of control; the pathological liberal likely believes that, when something good happens in their life, it was their achievement; when something bad happens, they are the victim of oppression. Pride is the vice with the strongest correlation with narcissism (Veselka, Giammarco and Vernon, 2014). This narcissistic culture of pride is another defining trait of pathological liberalism — even manifesting in parades to celebrate pride. A ‘born this way’ mindset which embraces unhealthy lifestyle groups like the obese can only lead to disaster.
Again—Fagan’s article may be a parody, a put-on, a send-up; but even if it is, I think it’s brilliant—which I would think, of course, being a self-hating liberal. If nothing else, Fagan gives liberals an opportunity to see ourselves as others see us; there is always value in that.
Is liberalism really a mental illness? - The Spectator World
1 For those of you who don’t recall, Cambridge Analytica was a British political consulting firm which specialized in data mining and data analysis. It had its fifteen minutes of fame in the years 2013—2016, due to its allegedly dicey involvement in elections in various countries, including Great Britain and America. CA had links to Britain’s Conservative Party and to American right-wing billionaire Robert Mercer; the company may or may not have engaged in Russia-related hanky panky. It’s out of business now, so what difference, at this point, does it make? I don’t really care; do you?
2 Professor Arguendo interjects: “Conservatives tend to be more traditionally religious than liberals. Traditional religious believers engage in ritualistic self-abasing behaviors: such as bowing, genuflecting, kneeling, kissing inanimate objects, putting ashes on their forehead, publicly confessing their unworthiness, etc. It is religious conservatives, not secular liberals, who promote Original Sin as the cause of human venality; liberals are the optimists about human nature.”
3 An exasperated Professor Arguendo would like to remind everyone that contemporary conservatives loudly and persistently claim victimhood at the hands of, among others, the Liberal Elite, Cancel Culture, the fake-news Lamestream Media (aka "Enemies of the People"), the Thought Police, the Deep State, the Pizza-gate pedophiles, the CDC, your local Health Department, and all the other clandestine forces operating to undermine the American Way of Life.
Posted by: |