No politician is super human, but power enhances often weak and foolish types.

Stanley Wilkin , that's clear. C.N. Parkinson also came to this conclusion, and in my books "Die Mathematik der Meinungen," I analytically examined the path to it. But what are the neurobiological causes of this irrationality? Civilization in the modern sense hasn't existed long enough for evolution to have been able to respond to it. A mechanism that made sense under the old conditions seems to be backfiring here. Induced addictive behavior would be a plausible explanation.

Gilbert, why look for a neurological cause, but why not see it as within the range of human beings? We meet autocratic types everywhere and perhaps searching amongst diverse medical models for the answer is not useful.

Worth noting, early Sumerian lawcodes would be easily accepted in liberal societies today, but the bigger empires became the more violent their leaders were until the emergence of the Assyrians who were cruelty personified.

Stanley Wilkin , simply accept it? Then we can abolish science, limit ourselves to kowtowing, and accept everything with "ndio bwana."

Obedience to authority, even to the point of being willing to take on a cave bear on the boss's orders, makes perfect sense from a selection perspective. However, a Bronze Age clan chief was certainly of a completely different caliber than the idiots active in politics today. Behavior toward authority that was sensible in prehistoric times is only partially valid today, and since the selection process takes too long, the question arises whether other social restraints need to be put in place than loose "democratic rules." But for that, we should first identify the causes.

By the way: what are lawyers? A group of people who play a complicated game according to an incredible number of rules, none of which apply when necessary.

Sure, it is rational remote controlled madness by people we don't see in the media, who have the wrong paradigm of nihilistic monism as mentioned in my book Book yogapsychologie

Chris Früh , ich bin Naturwissenschaftler, kein Religionsphilosoph. Ich schaue mir gerne auch mal was anderes an, aber mit Ihrem Buch komme ich alleine wegen der Formatierung nicht sehr weit. In der Form ist das für mich schlicht unlesbar.

Gilbert Brands Das ist ein pdf, das man runterladen muss, damit man rein zoomen kann ... das inhaltsverzeichniss ist doch übersichtlich geordnet, oder nicht? Es hat in dem Sinne nichts mit Religion zu tun, da es auch ein Manifest gegen den instituionalisierten blinden Glauben ist, sei er nun religioeser oder politischer, schulmedizinischer oder naturwissenschaftlicher Natur ...

This is a pdf that you have to download so that you can zoom in... The table of contents is clearly arranged, isn't it? It has nothing to do with religion in the sense that it is also a manifesto against the institutionalized blind faith, be it of a religious or political, orthodox or scientific nature...Book yogapsychologie

das Buch kann auch doppelseitig ausgedruckt und wie ein Buch geheftet werden

the book can be printed on both sides and stapled like a book on

GuNa.ch/yogaheft.pdf this ist the printable formatted version:

Druckanleitung (am besten auf A3-Format): Es gibt grundsätzlich zwei Printer-Arten und demnach zwei Print- Vorgänge fürs umformatierte GuNa.ch/yogaheft.pdf: Die meisten billigen Printer bedrucken das Papier (dass im Papierfach ruht) auf der Unterseite und die meisten teuren Printer bedrucken die Blätter auf der Blattoberseite (das kann man festestellen mit markieren einer Papierecke im Papierfach, vor dem Testdrucken :-). Beim z.B. billigen Laserprinter, der die Blätter im Papierfach auf der Unterseite bedruckt: 1. beim ersten Druckvorgang alle Seiten mit umgekehrter Druckreihenfolge in den Printersettings in der Pdf-Software, 2. ganzer Stapel umdrehen, Seitenzahlen bleiben rechts nochmals ins Papierfach; 3. ohne umgekehrte Druckrehenfolge beim zweiten Druckvorgang für die Rückseiten (beim teuren Bürodrucker, der auf die Papieoberseite druckt ganz einfach beides Mal ohne umgekehrte Druckreihenfolge (Stapel umdrehen mit Seitenzahlen auf der gleichen Seite! :-). Dann, wenn man den doppelseitig ausgedruckten Stapel in der Mitte trennt, hat man schon mindestens 2 Hefte (oder 4, oder 6 ... nicht zu viel am Anfang!) mit oben und unten vom Stapel je einem Titelblatt (ganz aussen) und in der Mitte des Stapels liegen die 2 Centerfolds direkt aufeinender. Dann, wenn man dann den Stapel genau in der Mitte bei den 2 Centerfolds “trennt“, d.h. von Hand auseinander nimmt (nicht schneidet, hat jemand so gemacht! :-) und dann diese beiden nun halb so dicken Stapel auf einem dicken Teppich heftet. (Nicht auf dem Parkett! & die Titelseiten vorfalten, damit man weiss, wo man mit dem Werkzeugstapler die Klammern anbringen soll, die man von Hand umbiegt, dann falten/draufsitzten :-) Das Meditationsblatt mit dem 20 Minunten Mantra-Bad, GuNa.ch/t.pdf mittig einlegen und so erhält man nach jeder Druck-Session immer mindestens 2 Hefte (ausser man goofed und kann aus den 2 wenigstens ev. eines ineinander sortieren und so retten. Viel Glück! :-)

Gilbert Brands It seems to me that article has a few quite specific, very far-reaching culture specific assumptions (or subculture specific), that outside that particular group no-one would take especially seriously. When talking about rationality of Russo-Ukraine war, the article misses elephant in the room, that if Russia wants to conquer nearby countries, then from perspective of countries in the region, it's highly rational to support anyone who would slow down that process or cause total war exhaustion of Russia. Similarly, it missed also a point concerning rationality, that in war of defense one don't need to "win" by sending tank columns rolling toward foreign power capitol (neither Vietcong nor Talibans have captured Washington DC), just it had to make the war too costly for intervening force. When thinking about this war in narrow perspective, any war of attrition in which Russia captures only ruins, is also completely irrational when comparing expenditures to loot. (though at this point is very rational for Putin to continue the war, as unless he can present to his loyalist a victory justifying huge, already incurred cost, he may risk being another victim of Russian epidemics of falling of the window)

Oh, I concerning choice between developing country and muscle flexing for Xi, the article makes another quite original claim, as Xi quite openly talks about launching invasion fleet towards Taiwan.

This article makes also odd claim that's this war is convenient for establishment in the West (though to be fair I'd agree with calling those politicians "underachievers" :D). No, this war is a nightmare for them - they had been building their ideology on end of history, on opposing any nationalism, on defunding military, on pushing green project... while this war is completely undermining basis of their ideology which may be harmful for their legitimacy in mid-run.

I'd say that article goes into highly speculative on human psychology, while overlooking basic on multi-agent modeling on border between economics and politology. Like let's say "public choice theory", where politician is highly rational in pursuing his goal of... staying in power, where making good decision for the state is actually only secondary. This should not be mistaken for irrationality.

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak The Ukraine war is merely a starting point for the analysis because it is so present that most of the facts are known or ascertainable. I don't even want to discuss the war itself.

It is also clear that there is no such thing as "common rationality." What is rational for someone is determined by their inner motives. However, assuming a certain motivational framework, one can examine whether the framework fits their actions. Regarding the relationship between motivational framework and actions, one can state the following:

(a) Taking into account developments since 2014 (Maidan), there is nothing to indicate an imperialist war of conquest by Russia/Putin.

(b) Regarding the EU and Great Britain, there is nothing to indicate that this is about defense in the sense you describe. In fact, there are no defense concepts at all.

(c) EU politicians no longer show any signs of rationality in the traditional sense. Their actions on the international stage in no way correspond to the realities in their own countries.

In psychology, this is referred to as cognitive dissonance or obsessive-compulsive disorder, presumably attributable to a severe addiction disorder (dopamine addiction). Ultimately, within this motivational framework, the actions of those affected are absolutely rational from their own perspective, but also absolutely destructive and irrational from the perspective of the majority of society.

This development occurs more or less automatically due to the replacement of positions of authority with pure networks of relationships. The question is whether this can be stopped somewhere before it all ends in catastrophe.

Gilbert Brands "However, assuming a certain motivational framework, one can examine whether the framework fits their actions." Well, by making blatantly wrong assumption concerning facts on the ground and underlying motives, one should quite easily reach conclusion, that within this framework actions appears irrational, right?

"(a) Taking into account developments since 2014 (Maidan), there is nothing to indicate an imperialist war of conquest by Russia/Putin." I never understood why Russian apologetics say such stuff, that's not only factually incorrect, but even official Russian state propaganda contradicts it. Before start of the invasion Russia (Lavrov to be precise) publicly presented long list of demands, including turning big part of central Europe in its vassal state, partially governed by Russia. Even Putin in his famous interview for Carlson expressed quite openly that reason to attack Ukraine is historical one, effectively Putin consider that as land to which he has historical claims as part of Russian empire thus could occupy it whenever he wants. Not even Russian regime buys arguments that you try to use to defend them.

"In psychology, this is referred to as cognitive dissonance or obsessive-compulsive disorder", presumably attributable to a severe addiction disorder (dopamine addiction)" Uhm... Trying to build argumentation by using some professionally sounding medical terms can be good rhetoric trick... but as prerequisite you shouldn't be using interchangeably three medical terms, each meaning something completely different than the rest (not mentioning that one term botched). Moreover, this rhetoric trick may be even less effective when talking with someone who has in affiliation... medical university.

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak One can only ever proceed based on the amount of information one has. I am unaware of your claims about Russia, apart from the claim to Crimea, which, according to some legal opinions, was illegally annexed to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev, even under Soviet law at the time. Looking at the Gulf of Finland at present, from a purely rational perspective, one can rightly conclude that Russia fears being completely cut off at will from all sea access, except in the Arctic Ocean and the Northwest Pacific. The claim might thus be historically justified, but certainly from a neutrally rational perspective.

It is also undeniable that the Minsk negotiations were conducted by the West (and not Russia) with the firm intention of deceiving them (Merkel and Hollande). The subsequent war in the eastern oblasts originated in Kyiv, as has been repeatedly documented by observers who were supposed to protect the Minsk process.

The war could have ended by 2022 if the Istanbul Accords had been adhered to. Russia had already withdrawn its armed forces without coercion, which contradicts your theory of imperialism. Ultimately, it was Boris Johnson who overturned everything, not Russia. We could continue here in other places. There is nothing to suggest that Russia is engaging in violent military imperialism. That's what can be gathered from the media analysis here. However, one must analyze this long-term and multinationally. Anyone who only consumes German state television has already lost (which probably also applies to Polish state television).

When it comes to psychological terms, one must, of course, differentiate. For example, from a distance, the former German Health Minister and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs would probably fall into the category of obsessive-compulsive disorder, while other politicians tend to exhibit cognitive dissonance in dealing with reality. The effects are the same and possibly have the same underlying causes. And precisely these underlying causes are the subject of my article, not any political analyses or quibbling over terms. If you could focus on that...

Gilbert Brands "I am unaware of your claims about Russia"

Indeed, your knowledge appears a bit... selective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2021_Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO

Based on this claim Poland (and other countries of our region) would no longer be allowed to host any training of other NATO countries, no NATO installations and would be banned from owning some weapon systems that Russia has.

The point is that even based on official Russian position, you can't blame Ukrainians, as openly Russian war aims go much beyond Ukraine.

"apart from the claim to Crimea, which, according to some legal opinions, was illegally annexed to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev, even under Soviet law at the time."

That's quite funny take. Just there is a problem - if you start question that, then one could easily go towards questioning legitimacy of whole Soviet Union and any borders it has drawn, thus making Russian rule over non-Russian populations (especially over Caucasus) as equally illegitimate or question Soviet conquests (of let's say ex. Karelia). Would you?

"Looking at the Gulf of Finland at present, from a purely rational perspective, one can rightly conclude that Russia fears being completely cut off at will from all sea access"

Who would have thought that countries watching Russian imperialism invading nearby non-NATO countries, everyone in vicinity would hurriedly join NATO? Shocking.

For extra irony, I don't even see why you picked this self defeating argument. Assuming that Russian aim had been stopping expansion of NATO, then exactly they made quite obvious blunder.

"It is also undeniable that the Minsk negotiations were conducted by the West (and not Russia) with the firm intention of deceiving them (Merkel and Hollande)."

How? West was quite open that it had been against Russian imperialism.

"The subsequent war in the eastern oblasts originated in Kyiv, as has been repeatedly documented by observers who were supposed to protect the Minsk process."

My you show some hard evidence of Ukrainians invading Russia first?

"The war could have ended by 2022 if the Istanbul Accords had been adhered to."

No. Russia was just faking negotiations, while continuing invasion.

"There is nothing to suggest that Russia is engaging in violent military imperialism." That's another odd take - I mean even by Russian own propaganda, they are engaging in highly violent, military invasion aka special military operation where they destroyed spectacular amount of enemy military equipment (often many more times than actually delivered) or leveled numerous cities. The only thing that they would not call it imperialist (though by using term Russian Mir they kind of admit that as well), just point out to some historical claim to that land, though when think about it, they have almost as good claims to let's say former East Germany.

"Anyone who only consumes German state television has already lost (which probably also applies to Polish state television)."

Presumably, I don't watch TV. I think the only one here who watches state TV is you, as you mentioned Russia Today, which is even less constrained by reality. (Fun fact: when wanting to learn the truth Russians also don't take their TV seriously, but go to Telegram channels)

"while other politicians tend to exhibit cognitive dissonance in dealing with reality." By taking that what you just said at face value, it should be a very good news, as it means that they are in process of noticing that ex. their ideology does not really match reality and while feeling some discomfort they should be on a path to grudgingly rethink their position. Just I don't think that it was your intent as you seem to misuse those medical terms.

Dear Marcin Piotr Walkowiak , I've posted a neurobiological theory for discussion here, along with a current situation that anyone can visualize based on various sources of information, as an example to clearly illustrate the theory. You're free to see some details differently.

I have absolutely no interest in having any discussion that belongs in a historical or political sphere, and certainly not with any Polish ideologists who argue with arrogance rather than objectivity. You want to see Russia/Putin as a man- and country-eating monster—please, no problem, but sort it out with your people. You're also welcome to shoulder a rifle, go to Ukraine, and shoot Russians. But you're probably one of those people who don't have to go to war anyway and therefore think it's all great.

Gilbert Brands "I've posted a neurobiological theory for discussion here" I'd say that your "neurobiological theory" did not appear any more convincing than your "geopolitical theory" / "alternative history". While you claimed to be willing to do so, you in now way addressed point that in order to draw conclusions of irrationality you built on failing completely to understand basic history or even still that you don't even understand medical terms that you use. (Even ignoring history as your poor selection of example, your theory still appears to be full of quasi-medical or self-contradictory gibberish that means something else that you assume)

"Russia/Putin as a man- and country-eating monster—please, no problem" Thanks. German establishment, which rationality you doubt, had been in denial between 2014 and 2022 to accept fact that it was quite well known in Eastern Europe (just needed two invasions), you may simply need more than a decade (or maybe you need at least 3 invasions to learn some basic facts going against your belief system).

Gilbert,

The description of Russian behaviour does not fit in with my research, and the only reasonable point you offer is restriction to seaways, but that surely has always been the case until Russian conquered Poland the the Baltic states.

I had thought this refashioning of reality had by now gone out of fashion.

Stanley Wilkin May I remind you that the war in Ukraine is not my primary focus; I'm only interested in the political actions at this particular moment of the war, particularly in the EU and GB. Things aren't any better in your country than in the EU, if you can believe the various reports you see even in the mainstream media.

May I also remind you that a "conquest" of Poland and the Baltic states, as you call it, took place during the partitions of Poland between Prussia, Austria, and Russia and during World War II by the German Empire and the Soviet Union. Neither the Empires nor the German Reich nor the Soviet Union exist anymore. Isn't that something in British history books, too? At least in Polish history books, this seems to be missing, since there, Western Ukraine apparently still belongs to Greater Poland, if one follows the Polish colleague.

Gilbert Brands "Neither the Empires nor the German Reich nor the Soviet Union exist anymore." Indeed. Just Putin is raising claims based on those empires land grabs. Funnily, the more absurd you consider those claims to be, the more you undermining contemporary Russian imperialism.

"At least in Polish history books, this seems to be missing, since there, Western Ukraine apparently still belongs to Greater Poland, if one follows the Polish colleague." Seems it's your another alternative history claim. I'd disappoint you again, no, we don't have such claims in our history books, at least not in this timeline.

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak Despite all the hatred poured out on Russia and Putin in the Western media, I can't find any evidence to support your claims about Putin. The premise here is Western geopolitical imperialism, in the sense that one simply can't leave the many natural resources in the East to the Russians.

Gilbert Brands "Despite all the hatred poured out on Russia and Putin in the Western media, I can't find any evidence to support your claims about Putin." Interesting. So... you can't find evidence how he drowned in blood his rebelled province of Chechenya? Or maybe you can't find evidence how his forces are occupying part of Georgia? Or of Moldova? Or of Ukraine? Or whole Belarus???

I mean Putin quite openly talks about rebuilding empire (Russian Mir) and his zones of influence, his propaganda machine says that quite openly, while you are not even appreciating those efforts.

"Western geopolitical imperialism" Aren't you a bit late to complain about it? Like in '60s, before decolonization, that could have been last time where such claims could have been taken seriously.

Just I'm curious about one thing - for decades it had been fashionable for some odd strain of Western intellectuals to promote some rosy picture of the Soviet Union. Some of them had been that serious that even came to Stalin just before the Purge or came to Pol Pot, which kind of suggest that at least some of them must have really believed that, possibly even until they had been brought in front of firing squad. OK, but at that time it was fashionable in those circles to believe in communism, thus those intellectuals had been denying gulag / the mass graves as some Western propaganda. However right now you seem to continue this odd tradition, except that in recent years Russian propaganda is no longer focused on communism but involves high level of their local imperialism, which is usually hard sell abroad. How it still keeps allure in some circles like yours? Is the rationale expressed by the meme "I support the opposite of the current thing"? Or are you simply repeating state TV / establishment from what had been fashionable just a few years before the war?

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak AI information regarding your claims about the restoration of a Russian empire: "There are no direct, unambiguous quotes from Putin recently in which he explicitly uses the term "rebuilding an empire" or the term "Russian Mir," as suggested in the comment. However, there are repeated statements and actions by Putin that some observers interpret as an effort to expand Russia's influence into the post-Soviet space and beyond." Apparently nothing is known for sure.

Regarding Georgia, etc., I refer to the EU's influence, which led to outright election fraud. Add to that Romania, where the entire presidential election was demonstrably postponed. The alleged Russian influence was fake. In Belarus, the West was rebuffed in its attempt to take over agriculture; in Ukraine, it apparently succeeded, because most of the land belongs to Western agricultural corporations.

With regard to the aforementioned bloodbaths, I refer to the bloodbaths that the US and EU countries have caused in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and which are being deliberately perpetuated in Ukraine by Germany, France, and Great Britain, either now or in recent years, and not by a Mr. Stalin, who has been dead for almost 75 years, or a Mr. Pol Pot, who also seems more in keeping with the bloodbath that the US caused in Vietnam. You have a somewhat strange time horizon.

Gilbert Brands "AI information" Just saying, that when my students are so lazy try to bring AI written homework that usually ends up badly.

""There are no direct, unambiguous quotes from Putin recently in which he explicitly uses the term "rebuilding an empire"" LOL, that's very specific denial... Almost as good argument, as claiming that Germany did not declare war on Poland in September 1939, to build argument - how peaceful German government from that time was, right?

Funnily enough I even gave you term which Russians use for their empire - Russian Mir, you haven't searched for that but used some other term and luckily did not find them using it. LOL.

"some observers interpret as an effort to expand Russia's influence into the post-Soviet" So in plain language even your ai noticed that Russia does it, just tries to keep polite corpo-speak.

"Regarding Georgia, etc.," So which excuse do you use for Russia occupying part of Georgia?

"In Belarus, the West was rebuffed in its attempt to take over agriculture" So which excuse do you use for Russia occupying Belarus?

Wait... we're supposed to want to capture their... potato fields? Setting aside how funny it sounds, aren't you aware of huge swaths of Baltic states which are left unused with no-one interested to cultivate them?

"With regard to the aforementioned bloodbaths" Bloodbaths? It was about bizarre cluster kind of... intellectuals who are able to pay service to some regime when it had been fashionable. So tell me about yourself. Had you been praising Soviets during Cold War? Had you been repeating what your establishment / TV had been saying before the war on making gas deals with Russia and people in Central Europe being too nervous?

Marcin Piotr Walkowiak Aside from the fact that you apparently don't understand that AI can also be a tool, it's still a confusing string of claims – and of course, not a word about Western blessings of humanity with wars, where I forgot about Serbia.

Perhaps you should take a look at your Polish nose. After all, when Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland happily seized the opportunity to grab territory for itself, and it was also Poland that terminated the non-aggression pact with Hitler.

The world isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be. It may be that you have trouble sorting through the shades of gray due to your supposed history in Soviet times, but on the other hand, that was more than 30 years ago.

Gilbert Brands I wonder about one thing. Some of arguments that you have used are really hard to take seriously - like pointing out serious election irregularities in Romania... while seemingly giving slack to Russia / Belarus where even with least favorable interpretation for Romanian establishment the election would be still be much more democratic than any election in the last 2-3 decades in Russia or Belarus.

I've got one hypothesis on what appears to me as your motivated reasoning. You are trying to keep fashionable views in relevant for you intellectual circles... Just you missed the point that in order to play this game you not only have to uncritically repeat what your TV said, but you also have to regularly update your views to be in line with that TV. I mean - it had been popular among German elites even after 2014 to keep blind eye to Russian imperialism, even though already for outsiders it had been looking like spectacular wishful thinking, with invasion of 2022 making those who saw Russian imperialism vindicated. This nonsense in German elites got mostly washed away after a few months of war (not even at start, then there was this bs on red lines which crossing would make Russia go big, which as we know 3 years later, had been an obvious bluff as they were crossed with no problem).

So right now you have problem as you are repeating with flawed arguments positions which are not only wrong, but no longer even fashionable. If you want to have fashionable views, then you should remember to update them regularly. Sure, you may try something even more ambitious and try to be factually correct, but this would be even more painful, as it would require rethinking how some positions had been highly unlikely to work in the first place, while you believed that due to social pressure / fad.

Gilbert Brands "The world isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be." Well, as you called this topic "Political madness: rational or addictive self-destruction?" I'd say that you really shouldn't be projecting your oversimplified thinking on others.