Are all political theories influenced by psychological accounts of the nature of man?
395862
How else? All political theories are about the governance of human beings. You must have a psychological account of mans nature, regardless of psychological perspective, if you want a theory supported by facts and having predictive power.
876318
Someone's been reading Ursula K. Le Guin.   Interesting stuff...have a look at Left Hand of Darkness if you haven't already read it.\n\nDo you mean gender, a sociological construct, or sex, a physical one?  If you mean gender, well, get a big pitcher and some pizza and several good friends, because it's a long discussion in the making.
446458
I'm a psychologist and I can tell you that a majority of Freud's work revolved around sex and gender. Particularly relating to the first 6 years of live.Most of his views were very misogynistic and have been disputed hotly by female psychoanalyst however, many of his believes seem to hold water.I recommend you study him up on the net, there are many good resources.
347056
No, Freud's theory on the oedipus complex was based on him studying himself, not others. So it was faulty research started by a myth.   Additionally it has been proven wrong by numerous other psychologists such as Albert Bandura (social leaning theory) B.F. Skinner (behaviorism) and Erikson (psychosocial development).  When trying to figure out why boys mimic their fathers, read Bandura (its not because they love their mothers)
1113432
Politics and Morality are both relative terms.\nUnfortunately for us, they both happen to be totally unrelated to each other !
1054387
This could be a little too difficult to spell out the whole history. Can I thus recommend you a book which I found very useful, which was actually a text I had to use during one of my honours degree modules.\n\nThe book is A History of Modern Psychology, by C. James Goodwin. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
564768
mostly psycological. It could even be natural if you are attracted towards women. Its ok .
777108
i think, yes. a person's like or dislikes can also be explained psychologically, his feelings can be viewed through brain activity, heart beat rate, etc. science is very wide, almost all things can be explained through science. we just have to look for the right branch or study that deals with it.
1062657
Throughout history, predominantly, philosophy and religion have speculated the most into the phenomenon of love. In the last century, the science of psychology has written a great deal on the subject. Recently, however, the sciences of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology, neuroscience, and biology have begun to take centre stage in discussion as to the nature and function of love.\n\nBiological models of sex tend to see it as a mammalian drive, just like hunger or thirst. Psychology sees love as more of a social and cultural phenomenon. Psychologist Robert Sternberg explains that love has three different components. Intimacy is a form where two people can share secrets and various details of their personal life. Intimacy is usually shown in friendships and romantic love affairs. Commitment on the other hand is the expectation that the relationship is going to last forever. This factor of love is shown in empty love (ex. when two people stay together for the sake of their children). The last and most common form of love is simply sex, or passion. Passionate love is shown in infatuation love, as well as romantic love. There are probably elements of truth in both views — certainly love is influenced by hormones (such as oxytocin) and pheromones, and how people think and behave in love is influenced by one’s conceptions of love. Hence, from time immemorial, science, from naturalistic poetry to MRI neurochemistry, has debated the nature of love.
945549
I would argue that socialism IS human nature. \n\nI, personally, believe that testosterone is the evil of the world... it is the underlining virus/cause behind every single bad thing that has happened between societies, cultures and nations throughout the history of the world.\n\nThink about it... a male will stand and argue against increasing the minimum wage with the argument that ppl need to make themself more competitive.... why does he feel this way? Testosterone has invaded his body making him competitive by nature... but what makes testosterone so evil is that it actually makes these males believe they are right and everyone else is wrong... it controls their minds... consuming them with feelings of superiority and a sense to acquire as much power as they can... to dominate... to WIN... and once again, all the while, everybody else that believes all PEOPLE are equal and it doesn't matter who wins or loses, etc... that we all have souls and just because you are born with money, the janitor that works 8 hours a day is equal to you.... we are wrong in the testosterone consumed mind.\n\nHonestly, I am sick to death of having to pay for testosterone failures, war, crimes, prisons, social errors, etc... We, the women, don't commit the rapes, fill the prisons, pedophilia acts, theft, murders, start wars, etc... YET it is a man's world that I have to put up with and PAY FOR.\n\nI know I am off on a tangent but this was actually on my mind because I noticed yesterday on television (my dish is down) that every network had a sport showing on it... was either golf or football. I ended up watching PBS all day. It got me to thinking that it is high-time we, the women, stop appeasing these testosterone beasts. We go to their games, their male crap stuff, yet ask them to.. say go shopping or participate in some female type thing... oh heck no...\n\nIt is high-time, the women stop letting the fathers of the world idolize their male children and demand of them to get to know their daughters and to treat them equally. We, as mothers, love our children no matter what sex they are. We love our sons and our daughters. A male will become his son's best friend in the world, name him after himself and proudly announce... this is MY SON!! Yet the testosterone in his brain blocks him from getting to know his daughter... not even attempting to take her places, etc... (I've just noticed this in society too many times)
342238
Yes, this is true to some extent.  However there must be some basic level of human decency and political ethics that underlies all human transactions.  Building from this foundation, we create a framework for dialog and tolerance.\n\nChief in this basic level is the absolute provision to "live and let live".  As long as some action or belief of mine does not impact your ability to live your life as you choose, you may protest but you may not threaten or use violence.
54641
No. Not solely both. The question is a false dichotomy with an intentionally limited number of theoretical causes, where anyone choosing only one or both of the choices given would have no induspitable idea why there was an earthquake that spawned a tsunami that killed 100s of thousands in south Asia. Or why vesuvius erupted and covered the people of Pompeii in deadly ash. Or why, if it existed, Atlantis sank. \n\nI hate to break this to some people, but the only difference between man and the rest of nature is our capacity to understand our potential impact, which does not by default prove that every other lifeform on Earth acts in the best interest of nature. We are nature. All that we have created stems from us, and from nature we were born. To separate us from nature and say that much of what we do is inherently against its design, is to create a distinction based solely on a projection of nature as infallible and perfect in its effort to create balance, even to correct itself, predicated on some concept, I suppose, of a Gaia of Eden, or somewhere, whom governs benevolently. For all anyone knows, no amount of prayer, no amount of better environmental stewardship can stop the occurence of some disasters. \n\nI do not oppose better environmental behavior. I generally agree with strict regulations to aid the environment. But I certainly think there are more theories of equal or greater rationality than the choices presented. Some of them might absolve human kind of blame for somethings. Should we not include the possibilities that we are human not only in the sense of being more responsible, but in the sense that there is a limit to what we can do and have done?
153470
You know, you really should do your own homework.  But I'll give you some starters: \n\nNormative: social norms shape human behaviors, as such, it approaches the policitical science from a "top-down" point of view.  The dominant social norms will determine the political environments during that time period.\n\nBehavioral: individual behaviors directly determine the outcome of political activities.  This is a "bottom-up" approach, where people's actions/reactions will dictate who gets to be the government and the direction of the government
323849
Yes and no.  Yes in that you can take basic psychological ideas(fight or flight, survival instincts, mother/child ideas, primitive responses, fear, anger, love etc...) that apply to humanity and then place them upon a culture superficially to analyze but you have to be careful of context. But you cannot place specific ideas of behavior, religion, rituals, tradition etc., upon different cultures because not only is that imperialism(and assumes your culture is the definition of what culture or normal/acceptable behaviors are) and just plain rude and out of line but inappropriately imposing.  Because each culture is so drastically different with different traditions and rituals that it wouldn't make sense to impose one philosophy upon another: ie...Christianity upon native peoples around the world, Euro-centric upon natives or Africans etc...It is inappropriate and arrogant to assume one idea makes sense for all people.  It's an ideal unrealisitic notion. \nAlso you have to consider economic and cultural systems in place that affect the way people relate as a whole society.  Japan from what I've learned is a group mentality society versus America is an individual mentality society.  They tend to think of the group and the affects upon the group first, and we tend to think effects upon the individual first.  Both have pros and cons.  \nAnd Japan does have a religious or rather spiritual foundation, Buddhism.  It's a brilliant and gentle philosophy that permeates much of their culture subtly but unlike religious dogma, is not obvious and in your face, reminding people of it's existence on a daily basis; There is no guilt by religion.  Because that contradicts the very nature of Buddhism, unlike other religions. Yet I know that shame is a much used idea to encourage modesty and humility amongst Japanese people.   \nSome cultures base their manners, traditions and overall culture upon ideas and history and not just religion or desires for conquest or expansion like many western cultures have.
796651
You are kind of right. Our beliefs and personality are determined in where are we raised, what kind of parents we have, the political climate of our region. The culture and religion has shape the way we feel and think about social issues. This leads to action which therefore determines how our life will be like. I was raised in a pretty nothern blue state. My parens are Democrats and I grew up in a hispanic neighborhood so there was a lot of Democratic support. I also think that being Hispanic and Catholic has shaped the way I look at life which may determined how I act. So in an indirect way, our family and region determines our actions which will lead to how we control our lives.
766240
Political Science (the science of politics) must take into consideration the population that politics serve.  In a nation where there is, even a large minority of people who believe in one theology or the other, polititions must at least appear to hear them (or lose).   In the United States Christianity in various forms has formed the values of many, many people (even those who do not go to any church).  Therefore, the science of politics, demands that we at least listen to those voices, and perhaps even afford those voices some power, in order to maintain our own.
460869
"Social Psychology, as the writer conceives it, studies the psychic planes and currents that come into existence among men in consequence of their association." That is, it must confine itself to the "uniformities in feeling, belief, or volition -- and hence in action -- which are due to the interaction of human beings." Here we find a certain field of human experience cut off from the rest, because men and women influence each other within that field. There result certain uniformities from this interaction and this makes the subject matter of the science of social psychology. In the same manner one might investigate the psychology of mountain tribes because they are subject to the influence of high altitudes and rugged landscape. Sociality is for Professor Ross no fundamental feature of human consciousness, no determining form of its structure.\n\nCitation: George Herbert Mead. "Social Psychology as Counterpart to Physiological Psychology", Psychological Bulletin 6 (1909): 401- 408.\n\n\nPERSONALITY TRAITS: THEIR CLASSIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT [1]\nBy Floyd H. Allport & Gordon W. Allport (1921)\nFirst Published in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 16, 6-40. \n\n\nA QUARTER CENTURY OF PSYCHOLOGY IN AMERICA: 1878-1903.\nBy Edward Franklin Buchner\nUniversity of Alabama.\n\nFirst published in American Journal of Psychology, 14, 666-680.[*]