Y/n

If the prince is how to stay in power, think of rfr as how to lose it.

>it argues that the left and right are partly heritable
It should say it argues that political leanings are heritable, and these leanings are left and right

I think predisposed might be the best book, our political nature might seem odd to some and is the most speculative but I am open to such a thing

alright, im putting those on my list as well

im largely interested in just understanding somewhat complex economics and politics (what im noticing is, the more i read, the more right-winged i become, but for legitimate reasons), but understanding the psychology behind it is very interesting too

pic related is books ive already read on the subject

*havent read rfr

ill probably read that one next. thanks

>complex economics and politics
Wealth, Poverty and Politics by Thomas Sowell

Ive been looking a lot at his book, "A Conflict of Visions", but its like 10 bucks more expensive than the other ones, so i havent bought it yet. but he's got a bunch of books, so im not quite sure which ones are the best. but im writing down that one too, thanks

>the more i read, the more right-winged i become, but for legitimate reasons
I am left and the more I read the more alienated I become from most (leftist) political ideologies, especially communism and anarchism. I have become more centrist and more supportive of the status-quo, even if I am a radical by heart. I think that anarchism and communism do not propose realistic alternatives and as I prefer a scientific basis theory just doesn't do it for me.

You could look into "the origin of wealth" it is a book on complexity economics. The book is apolitical as far as that is possible. It changed how I view economics. I would suggest to also look into behavioural economics.

dude im 100% convinced now that communism and socialism and ESPECIALLY anarchism is total bullshit

how come 100% of the well-off countries in the world are NOT communist, but capitalist? the only way to make a country wealthy is by incentivizing every citizen to produce their own wealth. you need property-rights and equality under the law to achieve this. if some dude invents something in korea (communism) or somalia (anarchy), someone is ust going to steal his shit, be it the government or a private individual. in capitalism, that doesnt happen. ergo the country produces things the most efficiently. the only way to "restrain big capitalism" is by empowering some other entity even more than coca cola and wallmart, thereby creating an even bigger monopoly on power than can possibly exist in capitalism. and whenever a position has essentially unlimited power and isnt accountable to anyone, it almost immediately becomes corrupt . communism just.... doesnt work. at all. that is, it doesnt work for the benefit of the people. it only works for the benefit of SOME people. capitalism is flawed, but its by far the best system we've got

but anyway... ill absoutely check out that book. ty

It's a fun, interesting, and quick read. The anecdotes that are paired with the rules were my favorite part.

PS: i used to be 100% liberal "omg we have to stop evil big business", just like you were, im presuming. but then i started reading, and i immediately became libertarian. the same thing seems to happen to most people who actually read political theory

that's some rosy tainted glasses vision of reality you've got there

>empowering some other entity even more than coca cola and wallmart

already exists, base and superstructure, nations are just vassaled vessels and the stakeholders are stashed out of sight, lurk more.

socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor

nothing i said implies i disagree with that. we've got plenty of hillary clintons. im not talking about in-depth analyzing flawed capitalist structures, just highlighting the fact that in no way is communism theoretically feasible. (nor is anarchy, but do we even need to argue about that?)

You guys will be full AnCaps soon.

fuck no dude, centralization of power is essential. we need a state, i.e. a monopoly on violence. otherwise, youre just left with somalia

the only key is that the government needs to be pluralistic. there needs to be an underlying tug of war within governmental interests, meaning the governmental participants need to keep each other in check

Not in my case
Complexity economics proposes that economies cannot function without some restrictions, which in complexity theory slang would be called negative feedback

Here's something of the book that I keep as a reference though it is not necessarily related to what I just said, has to do with network theory, might look up the more relevant stuff if I feel like it

In that case, you might stop at Minarchism (minimal government to enforce a basic set of rules: theft, assault, murder).

im looking at the origin of wealth, but there appears to be two versions. do you know which one is "the right one", or if theyre both the same?

The Origin of Wealth : The Radical Remaking of Economics and What It Means for Business and Society

The Origin of Wealth : Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics

Same author: Eric D. Beinhocker
I have this one:
>The Origin of Wealth : Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics
I suggest looking at the dates to see which is the most recent one just to be sure
Hope you find it worthwile, and it is always a good idea to read some reviews if you do not accidentaly download it but buy it

the one with that title generally seems to be way cheaper over here in europe, so thats fucking sweet.

as far as i can gather, they were both released in 2007. im thinking maybe it just had different subtitles for europe and the US. if so, no problem. im probably buying it tonight. cheers.

Politics really has a lot more to do with Economics, than Psychology.
While individuals may have agency, societies are organised, and structured systems, that operate in semi-routine, and often quite predictable ways, and as Marx put it, "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.", in other words, the peronsalit of the individual politician/CEO/warlord is a hell of a lot less important than the circumstances handed to them, because they just don't have limitless options.

For Economics:
Economics: The User's Guide - Ha-Joon Chang
The Wealth of Nations
Das Kapital
The General Theory of Money, Interest, and Employement
Economics - Samuelson
Predictably Irrational (also a lot of psychology in this one)

For "classic" political texts:
Republic - Plato
Politics - Aristotle
The Prince - Machiavelli
Leviathan - Hobbes
Treatise on the Two Systems of Governance - Locke
The Social Contract - Roussea
What is Property - Proudhon
Socialism: Utopian & Scientific - Engles
The State & Revolution - Lenin
(I'm aware of my Left-Wing bias here, and make no attempt to hide it, if you want right-wing Veeky Forums I'm sure there will be plenty of other people posting it in this thread)

For Historical Context/other:
A People's History of the World
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
Farm to Factory - Robert C. Allen
Why Nations Fail
The Dictator's Handbook

yea dude im almost reading more about economics now than politics. you can only get so far in comprehending politics without having an idea about how modern economic institutions actually function. if you look at youll see that probably most of the books ive read so far are more about economics than politics

and yes i immediately recognize your left-wing bias, especially with han-joon chang, who i started reading, but it didnt really seem to make sense to me. im not opposed to reading more left-oriented theory, or keynesian economics. cant understanding anything without hearing both sides. however, im a bit avert to reading all of that super-old shit. machiavelli & hayek wasnt so bad, but ive tried reading leviathan & wealth of nations before, but... well.. i think im largely gonna stick to contemporary stuff. im particularly interested in the last 5 books you mentioned, with the historical context. ill probably check those out first, but ive written down every book you mentioned. cheers

>Politics really has a lot more to do with Economics, than Psychology.
I don't want to trash other perspectives, but I'm going to argue with this. I think this view is wrong because economics itself has a lot to do with psychology.
First I present behavioral economics, and second I have some studies:
>The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper-Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of SelfInterest Over Economic Redistribution
>From the Bedroom to the Budget Deficit: Mate Competition Changes Men’s Attitudes Toward Economic Redistribution
These are just two studies and could turn out to be false, so more important is my mention of behavioral economics.
Overall I do definitely not agree with your premise that politics has nothing to do with psychology.

Otherwise good contribution to the thread. If you have any contemporary leftwing books I could be interested, so please do share if you know.

First of all, thank you for your politeness in spite of your disagreement, that's rare here.
I am familiar with Behavioural Economics. I actually recommended one book from that school in my original post. (Predictably Irrational), the relationship between Economics, and Psychology is an interesting question, but I contend it's not really relevant to discussing their respective relation to Politics.
Also, I never said that Psychology has nothing to do with Politics, I merely pointed out that you have to be in an extraordinarily powerful position for your individual decisions to matter at all, and that even those people who do climb that high have their options severely limited by existing circumstances, such that you can really only change the world if it's already changing, for larger, mostly economic, (or environmental) reasons.

And yes, I'd be happy to recommend some contemporary Left-Wing books:
1)Contending Economic Theories - Richard Wolff (A comparison piece between Marxian Economics, Keynesian Economics, and the Neo-Classical School, authored by a Harvard Professor of Economics who describes himself as the Institutions "token Marxist")
2)A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism - David Harvey
3)The Face of Imperialism - Michael Parenti
4)Who Rules the World - Noam Chomsky
5)Elementary Principles of Philosophy - Georges Politzer

Honestly, basically anything by David Harvey, Richard Wolff, Michael Parenti, Harpal Braar, Chomsky, or Zizek is pretty good.

Are there any manuals of this type for scientists? I noticed that while a lot of the advice in this book is applicable to almost every profession, many more tips seem like they wouldn't work very well in certain trades and vocations. For example, trying to appear as though you don't work very hard would look bad in the early stages of a PhD in the natural sciences, and the insinuation that cheating and lying is OK probably would be counterproductive, given the extreme shame that accompanies research falsification.

if you want actual empirical examinations of politics, either spend 5 years learning actual economics (& the math that comes with it), or get into behavioral psychology

>if you want actual empirical examinations of politics
I don't. That's why I want a guide/conduct manual. I want an expert's opinion to be based on empirical evidence, but an exhaustive study on the actual proofs and theory of why certain guidelines are best practice aren't my top priority. If someone asked you on some good tips for being a tennis player, would you suggest that they spend six years studying Newtonian mechanics?

Not that economics isn't interesting; my parents are both economists and we have a lot of very interesting conversations about how difficult it can be to predict human behavior, but between lab work and coding, I don't really have time for a detailed study of economics.

I think Peter Schiff's "How An Economy Grows and Why it Crashes" is the ultimate "economy 101". its written in a very easily understandable way, without feeling like it panders at all. its kindof hard to explain, but the whole book is sort of a big metaphor. i would definitely check that one out. its a really quick read.

A Conflict of Visions is an excellent book and I would consider it Sowell's finest. I cite it quite a bit in my own Economics papers. I really consider his thesis of constrained and unconstrained world views to be monumental in political theory.

No.

That sounds like a nice book but I asked for a conduct manual for scientists. OP posted a manual for successfully acquiring and holding onto power that was written with businessmen, lawyers, and politicians in mind. So I said something to the effect of "this book is nice, but it's geared towards the wrong audience, anything like that for natural scientists?"
I think you may have misinterpreted my initial request. I'm not looking for a general book on economics, I've already read several of those and also took a few economics classes in college. The perspective of the economist is definitely useful but reading another economics book is not really going to be the most useful things for my career.

dude, fucking sweet that i just ordered it. im excited to read it now

so.... for natural science... im not sure what you are asking for exactly. a book about how to apply the empirical method in general? a book about how hard science is conducted? a 101 on collecting political research data?

>anarchism is total bullshit

have you read michael albert?

No, sorry, I guess I should have said "a book on how to be successful, from a Machiavellan perspective, but for researchers and engineers instead of politicians/businessmen/lawyers.

Historian Peter Turchin might be worth checking out, he deals with why nations expand and why they collapse
He is not your typical historian as he uses a model and data to back up his claims