US culture is an incubator of ‘extrinsic values’. Nobody embodies them like the Republican frontrunner

Many explanations are proposed for the continued rise of Donald Trump, and the steadfastness of his support, even as the outrages and criminal charges pile up. Some of these explanations are powerful. But there is one I have seen mentioned nowhere, which could, I believe, be the most important: Trump is king of the extrinsics.

Some psychologists believe our values tend to cluster around certain poles, described as “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”. People with a strong set of intrinsic values are inclined towards empathy, intimacy and self-acceptance. They tend to be open to challenge and change, interested in universal rights and equality, and protective of other people and the living world.

People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community. People with a strong set of extrinsic values are more likely to suffer from frustration, dissatisfaction, stress, anxiety, anger and compulsive behaviour.

  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    This article is absolute gold. It’s the same I try to tell people here in Germany with the AFD voters. The article nails it…

    It will never stop when we keep going at it by trying to change people by telling them constantly how bad and stupid they supposedly are.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      He paints a caricature of the left (apologies, I think his euphemism is city folk) from the very start that’s equally as unhelpful, so you’ll pardon me if I doubt the author’s objectivity despite his attempt to tell us he’s been in “both” environments.

      The whole article is “folks in the country have or think they have good reason to hate you.” It lambasts the “city” side for its stereotypes of trump voters and misconceptions about rural lifestyle, while entirely forgiving trump voters for theirs.

      Then he stereotypes and maligns the reader who doesn’t feel inclined to go along:

      Already some of you have gotten angry, feeling this gut-level revulsion at any attempt to excuse or even understand these people. After all, they’re hardly people, right? Aren’t they just a mass of ignorant, rageful, crude, cursing, spitting subhumans?

      Can’t it just be that I’d prefer an article that explains one “side” without excusing one side and leveling fresh accusations at the other? Did the author write a companion piece someplace to explain to Trump voters why “city folks” find Trump (and Trumpism) repugnant? Is racism and bigotry something we just get to cutely handwave away as the author does? (He’s not the only one with experience in both sorts of environments.) Should we be expected to?

      May as well tag @PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world since they linked the article.

      Edit: Euphamism/Euphemism - I blame that it was about 3AM. 😁

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        You feel people should not be forgiven to vote for right wing / conservative / etc. parties. What exactly does that mean to not “forgive” them? What is the consequence you wish to see from that?

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          You feel people should not be forgiven to vote for right wing / conservative / etc. parties.

          Can you quote the part where I’ve said such a thing?

          Edit: You not only mischaracterized my comment, you ignored every single point I made about the article in order to do so.