The "national workers first!" phenomenon

For anything not related to psychology
psyt
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:15 pm

The "national workers first!" phenomenon

Post by psyt »

I have used the term "national" not to refer just to the British reality, but to a topic that is used in many Countries by some politicians in case of economic recession.
They exploit this topic to foment social conflicts and to earn votes, relying on emotiveness and irrational thought that people usually show in unfavourable circumstances.
No doubt that the resulting atmosphere does not foster a personal sense of security. On the contrary, it may be a fertil soil for sadness and depression at first, and then for a worsening of the general quality of life.
However, the absurdity of the mentioned topic is evident: e.g., what if, other than dismissing foreign workers, foreign firms with a national seat (that give work to both natives and immigrants) were also closed down? As a further example, what if only national planes were caught? And what if they were allowed to fly only over the national territory and land only at national airports? Which results would be there for the economy, following such a policy?
whitian
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Hardy's Dorset

Post by whitian »

Ha! I'll bite.

Fine, all the above, but I get the impression that you think the majority of people take political spin seriously, with which I would generally argue to the contrary, and once nationalist tendencies begin to significantly affect lives, people generally get quite annoyed and kick up a stink until things get put back as they were. Also, if what you write mostly relates to life in Britian, it's important to offer thought to the fact that while British people might be insular, the government isn't so much insular, and would have little interest in implementing statutes that make commerce impossible or severly limit freedom (a lack of money worldwide will take care of that by itself).

Basically I think people aren't stupid and the government wouldn't know where to start.
psyt
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:15 pm

Post by psyt »

whitian wrote:Ha! I'll bite.

Fine, all the above, but I get the impression that you think the majority of people take political spin seriously,
I was not referring to any majority, but simply to "people". I agree with you that people often do not take political spin seriously, especially when voting.
What about the "Crowd Psychology"? And the "in-group versus out-group" matter?
with which I would generally argue to the contrary, and once nationalist tendencies begin to significantly affect lives, people generally get quite annoyed and kick up a stink until things get put back as they were. Also, if what you write mostly relates to life in Britian,
I was explicitly referring to "many Countries", as you can read, since the issue does not concern a sole Country.
it's important to offer thought to the fact that while British people might be insular, the government isn't so much insular, and would have little interest in implementing statutes that make commerce impossible or severly limit freedom (a lack of money worldwide will take care of that by itself).

Basically I think people aren't stupid and the government wouldn't know where to start.
I trust that.
Anyway, I was referring to "some politicians" that would not necessarily be part of any government.
whitian
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Hardy's Dorset

Post by whitian »

ah, excuse me for assuming a majority of people rather than people, I think I added majority as a redundant noun, but what about in-groups and out-groups, do these exist as we currently understand them at political and/or worldwide levels of analysis, and does crowd psychology apply inside a voting booth?

I think I assumed you were referring to life in Britain because of the nature of the topic being discussed - As yet I have little awareness of the european continent putting National Workers first by way of legislation, in the same way that cases have passed through the unions here in this country. However, I think my point is valid, because although it takes many countries to define one country, just as it takes an out-group to define an in-group, the policy used by one country to promote or discourage Nationalist priority says nothing about what direction another country is persuing (these differences are most evident between western countries and those in the far East). So while you may refer to life in many countries, the aims of the respective countries may or may not relate to the aims of other nations.

"some politicians" sounds interesting, I am not savvy on the current pressure groups and lobbyists, but would like to know more specifically what people you might think are politically very infuential.

Having typed my first post I found a conflict, i.e. insular nation of people in Britain, with a non-insular government, and I pinned the wish to put the nation first on the government's list of jobs to do, but actually if a change was desired by a country to put national workers first, I begin to think that it is the nation's people, rather than its government, that would drive such change. So the question is: would British people prefer to put National workers first (I'm guessing yes, um... for the majority), and if yes, would they be prepared to draw the line there, or extend the philosophy to other areas of society in the way you described in your first post.

Where to draw the line is an ontological question, and the answer is as dynamic as the problem.
psyt
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:15 pm

Post by psyt »

whitian wrote:ah, excuse me for assuming a majority of people rather than people, I think I added majority as a redundant noun,
My reference to "people" concerned Crowd Psychology, that applies to all people.
but what about in-groups and out-groups, do these exist as we currently understand them at political and/or worldwide levels of analysis,
They concern every group of breathing human beings, I guess... Consider the disputes among political parties, for example, or among the inhabitants of distinct villages (or Countries in case of war), as another example.
and does crowd psychology apply inside a voting booth?
I was generally referring to "unfavourable circumstances" and any situation of emergency, and in particular to the current challenging economic recession, that may be considered at least an unfavourable circumstance to which politicians must find a solution.
I think I assumed you were referring to life in Britain because of the nature of the topic being discussed
Yet I started off with "I have used the term "national" not to refer just to the British reality, but..."
- As yet I have little awareness of the european continent putting National Workers first by way of legislation,
Not necessarily by way of legislation, but no doubt in some party electioneering, especially during the period of political elections.
in the same way that cases have passed through the unions here in this country. However, I think my point is valid, because although it takes many countries to define one country, just as it takes an out-group to define an in-group, the policy used by one country to promote or discourage Nationalist priority says nothing about what direction another country is persuing (these differences are most evident between western countries and those in the far East). So while you may refer to life in many countries, the aims of the respective countries may or may not relate to the aims of other nations.
The aims being pursued by Countries are of course an interesting issue to investigate. Anyway my intentions were to debate the main subject as a supranational one, and as Psychologists are a supranational community, I thought they are certainly able to discuss it in a fertile way.
"some politicians" sounds interesting, I am not savvy on the current pressure groups and lobbyists, but would like to know more specifically what people you might think are politically very infuential.
In general, maybe some party heads are not so influential, but no doubt that their main worry is always to succeed in convincing their electors.
Here you have some ideas:
1. Austria
2. UK
3. France
4. Italy
5. Malaysia
6. People comments
7. France
8. Germany
9. UK
10. Germany
11. Austria
Having typed my first post I found a conflict, i.e. insular nation of people in Britain, with a non-insular government, and I pinned the wish to put the nation first on the government's list of jobs to do, but actually if a change was desired by a country to put national workers first, I begin to think that it is the nation's people, rather than its government, that would drive such change.
This is another intersting issue to clear up: who leads who?
So the question is: would British people prefer to put National workers first (I'm guessing yes, um... for the majority), and if yes, would they be prepared to draw the line there, or extend the philosophy to other areas of society in the way you described in your first post.
As all Countries refer to their own citizens when talking about "national workers", from a supranational point of view the question might be formulated as follows:
"would National people prefer to put National workers first (I'm guessing yes, um... for the majority)..."?
It is also important to consider the moment (i.e. the social, political and economic situation) in which such a question would be formulated, and the underlying reasons.
Where to draw the line is an ontological question, and the answer is as dynamic as the problem.
Definitely.
Last edited by psyt on Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:23 pm, edited 4 times in total.
whitian
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Hardy's Dorset

Post by whitian »

psyt wrote:
whitian wrote:
Where to draw the line is an ontological question, and the answer is as dynamic as the problem.
Definitely.
Fertile stuff indeed...! :wink:
psyt
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:15 pm

Post by psyt »

whitian wrote:
psyt wrote:
whitian wrote: Definitely.
Fertile stuff indeed...! :wink:
Oh no, I had just finished my time.
You might wish to give further explananation about your ontological point of view, if you like it.
whitian
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Hardy's Dorset

Post by whitian »

psyt wrote:I have used the term "national" not to refer just to the British reality, but to a topic that is used in many Countries by some politicians in case of economic recession.
“not to refer just to the British reality” is a little hard to read, but still, sorry I missed it.
psyt wrote:They exploit this topic to foment social conflicts and to earn votes, relying on emotiveness and irrational thought that people usually show in unfavourable circumstances.
Yes, political spin, however I do not believe people are any more irrational in unfavourable circumstances, they merely use more predictable heuristics, nonetheless with full self-awareness of those heuristics. Furthermore, the default mode for human thinking by most cognitive science standpoints is irrationality before rationality.
psyt wrote:No doubt that the resulting atmosphere does not foster a personal sense of security. On the contrary, it may be a fertil soil for sadness and depression at first, and then for a worsening of the general quality of life.
The resultant atmosphere does not exist, I find it hard to reflect on things that don’t exist. However, having managed a jobcentre+ & NHS cognitive therapy community based back to work program I can appreciate that a quality of worklife is very important to maintaining a positive outlook to life. ‘Fertile soil for sadness and depression’ has to take the award for most rubbish literary use of the word fertile - you asked for English tips, you're getting them!
psyt wrote:However, the absurdity of the mentioned topic is evident:
I agree.
psyt wrote:e.g., what if, other than dismissing foreign workers, foreign firms with a national seat (that give work to both natives and immigrants) were also closed down? As a further example, what if only national planes were caught? And what if they were allowed to fly only over the national territory and land only at national airports? Which results would be there for the economy, following such a policy?
This extrapolative line of questioning is a little unreasonable.
psyt wrote:I was not referring to any majority, but simply to "people". I agree with you that people often do not take political spin seriously, especially when voting. What about the "Crowd Psychology"? And the "in-group versus out-group" matter?
Referring simply to ‘people’ prevents you from usefully assigning them to groups or crowds of opinion. Crowd psychology applies to definable crowds.
psyt wrote:I was explicitly referring to "many Countries", as you can read, since the issue does not concern a sole Country.
Each country is different. This is due to a magical potion called culture… There is no international polarisation of national worker first – In the Americas, it’s pretty much the same as it always has been, in Europe, these kinds of issues would normally be put before the internationally coordinated European Courts, which can take years.
psyt wrote:I trust that.
Indeed I would argue that almost all of the ‘phemonema’ you have so far described has been generated not by a wish to put national workers first, but in order to preserve the low number of local jobs that currently exist during a economic recession.
psyt wrote:My reference to "people" concerned Crowd Psychology, that applies to all people.
Crowd psychology was never actually mentioned, and underlining the word 'all' is annoying because the psychology of crowds certainly does not apply to all people, unless they’re in a functional crowd!
psyt wrote:They concern every group of breathing human beings, I guess... Consider the disputes among political parties, for example, or among the inhabitants of distinct villages (or Countries in case of war), as another example.
Poignant writing indeed, but it’s all a bit vague. I asked whether in and out groups apply as we currently understand them at political or worldwide levels. Mentioning a party, a village, and a war-torn country does not satisfy the dynamics required to define in-groups and out-groups at political and worldwide levels. In and out groups are defined by their dynamics, not their geographical location.
psyt wrote:I was generally referring to "unfavourable circumstances" and any situation of emergency, and in particular to the current challenging economic recession, that may be considered at least an unfavourable circumstance to which politicians must find a solution.
This makes no sense, I thought you were talking about the national workers first phenomenon.
psyt wrote:Not necessarily by way of legislation, but no doubt in some party electioneering, especially during the period of political elections.
Electioneering? Oh no, well I guess it’s all said and done then isn’t it…
psyt wrote:The aims being pursued by Countries are of course an interesting issue to investigate. Anyway my intentions were to debate the main subject as a supranational one, and as Psychologists are a supranational community, I thought they are certainly able to discuss it in a fertile way.
Psychologists often discuss psychology in a fertile way, beyond that it’s anybody's guess
psyt wrote:In general, maybe some party heads are not so influential, but no doubt that their main worry is always to succeed in convincing their electors.
Back to electioneering again (spin). And all the references relate to media renditions of pre-exisiting misinterpretations of wanting to preserve jobs, but framing it as locking foreigners out.
psyt wrote:This is another intersting issue to clear up: who leads who?
People elect a government to lead a country for a finite period, with multiple checks and feedbacks to ensure the ultimate wellbeing of the nation...?
psyt wrote:As all Countries refer to their own citizens when talking about "national workers", from a supranational point of view the question might be formulated as follows:
"would National people prefer to put National workers first (I'm guessing yes, um... for the majority)..."?
Or put yet another way (via cancelling out of the word national), would people prefer to put themselves first (I'm guessing yes, um... for the majority)..."? Your reformulation does not work supranationally, it becomes confusingly recursive and falls apart.
psyt wrote:It is also important to consider the moment (i.e. the social, political and economic situation) in which such a question would be formulated, and the underlying reasons.
Yes one might find a different answer each time they ask.
psyt wrote:Definitely.
Why did you write definitely? Do you know what I was talking about?
psyt wrote:You might wish to give further explananation about your ontological point of view, if you like it.
Sure, but briefly,Ontology pertains to reality, and its nature. Categories, are a part of ontology, and indeed psychology: What makes a category, and how do categories overlap and relate, and how many categories are needed for any given entity? In this thread, we talk about bio socio psycho political categories, and only heaven knows what other categories will be introduced as we go along. Too many categories are being brought in to bolster the notion that the topic of the thread is a real and present danger to our way of life as we know it. I do not believe that the phenomenon exists as you have presented it here in this thread, and if you were ever to convince me that a ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ ‘did’ need to be ‘found’, it would be impossible at present, due to excessive categorisation/addition of new topics into the discussion.

Without wanting to hurt feelings, the point of all my posts has been that the phenomenon is not worth worrying about even if it was a real and coherent phenomenon.
Last edited by whitian on Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
psyt
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:15 pm

Post by psyt »

I am sorry to have disturbed you with my posts. It was not my intention.
Anyway, I would like to point out that you are not under any obligation to reply to anyone's posts, especially if they disturb you.
Please feel free to avoid further wasting time from 2009 on and to use your time in a better way.
User avatar
Gilly
Moderator
Posts: 1862
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Doodling on Paint somewhere...

Post by Gilly »

Image
whitian
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Hardy's Dorset

That's it?

Post by whitian »

psyt wrote:I am sorry to have disturbed you with my posts. It was not my intention.
Anyway, I would like to point out that you are not under any obligation to reply to anyone's posts, especially if they disturb you.
Please feel free to avoid further wasting time from 2009 on and to use your time in a better way.
I think my points are at the very least relevant, and didn't expect you to concede so early on in what would potentially be an interesting discussion. I give clues as to how this might happen, particularly defining concepts to be discussed, and explaining our personal approaches to understanding those concepts. Also, being supranational in nature does not distance us from our native cultures.
Last edited by whitian on Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
psyt
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:15 pm

Post by psyt »

Now I understand: you are a Dr Gilly's patient...
whitian
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Hardy's Dorset

Post by whitian »

psyt wrote:Now I understand: you are a Dr Gilly's patient...
Care to explain what this is about?
Last edited by whitian on Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gilly
Moderator
Posts: 1862
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:30 pm
Location: Doodling on Paint somewhere...

Post by Gilly »

psyt wrote:Now I understand: you are a Dr Gilly's patient...
huh?
whitian
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Hardy's Dorset

Post by whitian »

Bit more effort, please, Gilly!

Anyway, psyt is appears to be saying the person in your picture is a patient and that I'm just like that person. I can't say I feel entirely comfortable with the picture. Think about it for a second, would it be ok to go around at work making faces like that and going hunh?!? It could be intrepreted as a spastic diplegia joke or something similar, you get the idea, it's just not cool.
Last edited by whitian on Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply