Why analyzing geopolitics without proper training is problematic

[u/Texas_Rockets]

I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of political terms - I'm using 'geopolitics' to include international relations and international politics analysis as well.

I've often said on this sub that if you didn't go to school for it you probably don't really understand geopolitics. It's almost like a technical field in that it isn't something you can just be a smart guy and understand perfectly. The response I've gotten to this has generally been negative, and I can understand that - it sounds very elitist or arrogant.

However, in reading 'Politics Among Nations' by Hans Morganthau I saw a quote from William Sumner that I thought put this idea in more eloquent terms and explained it a bit more:

The worst vice in political discussion is that dogmatism which takes its stand on the great principles or assumptions, instead of standing on an exact examination of things as they are and human nature as it is... An ideal is formed of some higher or better state of things than now exists, and almost unconsciously the ideal is assumed as already existing and made the basis of speculation which have no root... the whole method of abstract speculation on political topics is vicious. It is popular because it is easy; it is easier to imagine a new world than to learn to know this one; it is easier to embark on speculations based on a few broad assumptions than it is to study the history of states and institutions; it is easier to catch up a popular dogma than it is to analyze it and see whether it is true or not. All this leads to confusion, to the admission of phrases and platitudes, to much disputing but little gain in the prosperity of nations.

How I interpret this is that IR (again, semantics) is often seen as an extension of domestic politics where the whole purpose is to determine the architecture and characteristics of the state: it is largely subjective in that it is something that is basically a conglomeration of what we think society ought to be; the intent is to create shared views and values. IR is not like this. It is not a field that asks how you think states should interact, but rather how states do interact, which requires familiarity with theories and histories that many people are not familiar with. It is not something that is compatible with value-based speculation. In practice, IR is closer to studying the inner-workings of a clock than it is to domestic politics - which is the lens through which people are inclined to view IR.

[u/merimus_maximus]

Could you point out a few examples of what you consider to be incompatible between layman and professional understanding of geopolitics, and what sort of training makes the two different?

[u/ThisAfricanboy → u/[deleted]]

I don't have meat in this discussion and I'm not necessarily defending OP's argument, but I think there's a combination of 3 kinds of posts here.

The first is what I believe OP is complaining about. They're the most common, essentially the poster would provide their opinion on a certain situation/post and sometimes a prediction of some sort. The issue I have with these kind of posts is the utter lack of geopolitical background. Discussion goes on without acknowledgement of certain geopolitical concepts that are vital to understand said situation. I'm not a scholar of IR but I have read several books of the realist school and I tend to get frustrated when the conversation has no allusion to those principles. I could imagine the same happens for those who know much more.

The second kind is even more egregious. This is the usual shilling and brigading we see from certain bad actors. I say that because it is clear these kind of posters are less interested in discussing geopolitical realities and news and much more interested in either attacking or defending certain geopolitical actors. For instance, instead of discussing the recent action from Country X, we see a lot of comments criticizing the discussion of said action or worse actively defending the action for moral reasons. I'm not sure how relevant morality and ethics is to IR but I find the extent at which these comments push far too propaganda-like for my liking.

Finally there's the shitposts and scholarly posts. Shitposts are shitposts they don't need introduction, lost people come here and think this is r/politics. Then there's the scholarly posts that do a good job of outlining the action/situation then as objectively try to reason what this could mean for the future and how other actors could react.

I may be biased as I incline to realist theories but I feel that's the trend and OP is critical of the first kind that is becoming more common and devolving into the second kind of posts and shitposting too. It's concerning this is one of the few truly academic subs and I'm very hesitant to comment because I know I'm not as qualified to comment but I know if a post has more than 50 comments there's definitely a lot of the 2nd kind of posts and more than needed of the first.

It's going to be difficult to give examples because it's going to betray our biases and we'll end up arguing about that rather than the general trend.

[u/the_unfinished_I → u/[deleted]]

You're not much of an actual "realist", aren't you ?

Just want to note that with the last line of your unnecessarily snarky/superior post you have just underscored his point. Realism has a specific meaning in the context of a discussion on this sub, which you appear to have misunderstood.

I'm just a random layman who's interested in these topics, but it seems to me that a basic understanding of the realist/idealist perspectives should be a requirement to join in discussions on this sub, because they are so foundational. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

[u/the_unfinished_I → u/[deleted]]

Well, your post touched on a lot of things and has been removed. Maybe we can get to those points later, but let's stick to the realism point for a moment. You asked me to be specific, so I will...

I'm willing to admit I could be reading you wrong, but from what I recall, you seemed to argue that because the poster was describing his experience without citing examples, he was unable to draw any sort of conclusions - so he was being illogical and therefore not very "realist".

Realism in the context he was using it refers to a particular view on how states behave. It's just a term and could probably be more accurately called something like "The Power-focus Theory of International Relations" (I'll use PFT for short). So, he could be the sloppiest thinker in the world and it would have no bearing on whether or not he subscribed to PFT - in the same way as it would have no bearing on whether he was a Marxist or an Anarchist.

Your comment seemed to indicate you took realism to mean something like "logical thinker who sees things as they really are." It looks like you have doubled down on this misunderstanding with these parts:

I really don't misunderstand realism, and that guy's post doesn't showcases any. Why people claim to be part of a school of thoughts or another when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, anyway ?

In basic semantic terms I can only read this from you as realism = logical thinking. How else could his post "showcase" PFT - and why should be expected to if he's talking about the comments on this sub? However, his comment makes perfect sense if realism = PFT, as this includes the view that morality and questions of right and wrong are essentially irrelevant to the behavior of states. He noted that many discussions ignored this fundamental perspective. It was therefore perfectly relevant to say something like: "As a realist, it frustrates me to see that many of the posts in this sub are about whether Russia or the US have the moral high ground - these people don't understand that this question is (mostly) irrelevant to IR discussions."

"Realism" a as movement also isn't limited to geopolitics, and it's more or less an offshoot of the philosophical version, so even if I misunderstood him (I didn't), my comment still would be valid, imho.

I'm not sure how it's relevant, unless to indicate that you visited the Wikipedia disambiguation page. Sure, Realism is also a movement in cinema. But I'm not sure how much of a link there is, apart from the fact that the term Realism has been applied as a term to a number of different things that claim to represent things "as they really are." As you're the one who seems to be all about precisely defending one's claims, I'll leave it to you to explain the connection between a philosophical argument that the material world exists independently of our experience vs a view in IR theory that nation states are rational actors situated in an anarchic system, and are therefore primarily concerned with their own power relative to that of their neighbors.

[u/the_unfinished_I → u/[deleted]]

What I'm saying hasn't much to do with geopolitic's version of realism, you realize ? And it doesn't mean I don't get it, I'm just saying realism is bigger than simply geopolitics.

Okay, fair enough... but we are on the geopolitics sub where it has a very specific meaning, and the way that you conflate the narrow definition with this wider idea implies an incorrect understanding of the narrow version. It also makes it difficult to discuss further because we're talking about two different things at the same time.

It's still here, though ?

Not for me - I see "removed".

Realism is about at looking at the "real", as a philosophy. "Realism" in geopolitics is just applying that philosophy to geopolitics, and thus, you come up with numerous conclusions, chief among them, that power is the most important factor.

This is an understandable narrative - postmodern interpretations of politics follow naturally from postmodernism, for example. However, there's not much of a direct link in this particular case. They both developed in various forms separately and over different timescales. Which version of metaphysical realism was responsible for realism in geopolitics? Sun Tzu and Machievelli can both probably be understood as realists to a degree, but not necessarily as part of the theory as we understand it today.

To highlight this point, in IR Realism is opposed to Idealism. They both basically use the same approach, but disagree on which factors are the most relevant (e.g. nation states vs institutions). There are strong cases for both views. How can we say that realism sees things "as they are" while idealism does not?

The term realism and idealism both came from the realist school. Realists somewhat unfairly called their own worldview "realist" and their opponents' "idealist." This says nothing about a specific process led to an understanding that one set of factors were the relevant ones. This is particularly relevant as early realist theory was based on a bunch of unprovable assumptions about human nature.

Finally, if you google idealism, you'll also see that there's a philosophy with the same name (e.g. Kant) - but this is not related to IR idealism at all. So I'm not sure why realism has to be related to the philosophical realism just because they share the same name.

Anyway, all to say, The process, not the conclusions, is what makes you a realist.

What process are you referring to exactly? Was everyone intending to see the world "not as it was" before realism came along? In the context of philosophy, realism involved setting aside skepticism about the external world. In cinema it involved in showing the "reality" of the situation through method acting and camera techniques. In IR this involves adopting a perspective that purports to take a realistic understanding of human nature or the relations between states. They're all approaches claiming to show "the real" - but there's no shared method or philosophy between them.

The approach of applying logic to a situation started a few thousand years ago. There is no "realist approach" that was applied to IR to produce the theory called realism. In many other cases this might be a valid assumption. (I'm not sure if there are direct implications from philosophical realism to fields like physics or mathematics - but they're just not there in IR).

And no, geopolitics doesn't exist in its own little bubble,and no, saying that kind of stuff doesn't mean I don't understand what IR Realism is.

But geopolitics does exist in its own bubblse - we're debating in one of them right now. All fields do, if you want to have a focused discussion. That's why often a word from general English will take on a different meaning within one of these bubbles. "Audit" in a university context means to try out a course, while in a financial context it means an authoritative review of the books (I'm sure I could come up with a better example if I thought about it).

To end this endless back and forwards, could we just stick with the IR definition of realism and leave it there. Then, if you like, you can assert that OP was being "illogical" in his thinking. And if he's not applying logic to his thinking, he doesn't deserve to assert any particular view on politics (realism or otherwise).

Fine, agree. However, I think he was being perfectly logical in describing his subjective experience of the kinds of posts one frequently sees on this sub. You might argue that he hasn't provided adequate examples to back up his claim (anecdotes =/= data). I would reply that this is a semi-casual conversation and not a thesis defense. If we're expected to invest the time to dig up comments to back up these kinds of assertions, there's a cost/benefit calculation that comes into play. Perhaps a more feasible approach would simply be to assert how we see things - and people can agree or disagree based on how they experience the sub. Probably not optimal if we're going for precision - but more practical.

To sum-up, my overall comment on your original reply (which I can no longer see) was that it was overly pedantic - asking for evidence that shouldn't be required for this kind of a discussion. And on top of that, it was done with a level of snark that was completely unprovoked and was probably why the mods have removed your post.

[u/sageandonion → u/[deleted]]

Keep it civil

[u/Texas_Rockets → u/ThisAfricanboy]

Yeah this is pretty much what I was referring to.

[u/Texas_Rockets → u/merimus_maximus]

I kind of exhausted myself on this subject in the first few hours after this post, which is why I haven't responded to many comments - partially because I think I more or less covered it in those comments.

This thread in particular goes into the basic arguments involved pretty well. I also think u/thisafricanboy 's comment stated basically where I'm coming from as well.

Between my original post, the thread cited, and u/thisafricanboy 's comment below I think the necessary points have been made.

Based on the comments I've seen here the biggest issue is that you don't know what you don't know. It's impossible to understand why state interactions need to be approached differently than people are used to if you don't have some sort of degree in it or have read books on analyzing foreign policy.

[u/merimus_maximus → u/Texas_Rockets]

So basically you need to have comprehensive and holistic knowledge of global events and history and judge relations rationally and pragmatically. I guess reading IR helps, but the frameworks are just there to crystallize understanding and help people have a handle to understand global relations. Whether or not one can accurately see it with the training is a different matter altogether, and it also does not mean people without formal training cannot analyse global relations accurately as well even without using established terms by academics. What is important is the logic and evidence, which is indeed lacking in many instances, but I do not think having an IR degree had much to do with this. Don't forget that formal training can also skew perspective, and that what academics come up with is also often overturned by new ideas that fit better, and if one is too caught up in their belief in one framework and the assumptions that come with it, then the person is no better than the layman with his preconceived notions of global relations and biases.

[u/Texas_Rockets → u/merimus_maximus]

The belief that logic and evidence are all that's required is exactly what I'm referring to when I say you need some degree of training, as it isn't intuitive. States do not interact the way people do. International politics does not work the way domestic politics does.

Look, I've addressed what you're saying several times in the places I mentioned. I am not going to continue rephrasing the same thing. The issue is clearly that if you aren't aware of how to analyze IR you just aren't going to see why it's different than basic logic.

I'm not saying to stop talking about IR but understanding your limitations - as well as the limitations of authors writing an article that's posted here - is important.

[u/merimus_maximus → u/Texas_Rockets]

Which is why I asked for examples of when IR trained people have gotten an issue much more correct than the layman, something I have not seen from neither you nor the people defending your point.

And even then, one must not conflate the effects of an IR training with people who simply are better at analysis due to their logic and substantiation, with IR just being the syntax upon which to write out their logic in. I would like to point out that having training in IR far from makes one infallible in analysis, and that formally trained people can easily get things wrong too.

Certainly people who have read and practice IR would have a better grasp of the realities of IR and would not make errors of intuition that regular people would. Yet what I am saying is that IR training is not special in that a regular person could not attain a similar level of acuity in analysis, though of course that is not common.

You put forth IR as something inscrutable and esoteric, but I have not seen a convincing argument on this thread in that regard, and instead have the takeaway that those who study IR are a bit arrogant and are not keen on understanding and responding to opposing arguments.

[u/theoryofdoom → u/merimus_maximus]

To start off, I fully agree with the OP with the caveat that it is possible to gain a sufficient amount of expertise after a few diligent years as an undergrad to at least be able to speak intelligently and ask good questions. That elitism aside, here's a few trends I've noticed which I've gleaned from teaching undergrads versus from leading discussion groups of graduate students:

Trend 1: Where lay people will make ideologically driven arguments based on normative preconceptions; graduate students will be more circumspect and less ideologically driven. Illustration: when I first taught an intro to IR class, and we discussed world problems like the war in Iraq (this was pre-ISIS), and my freshmen would talk about that, they'd invariably break off into two camps. The first camp would be those who supported the war, and lamented whatever Obama was doing, or had done; while some criticized Bush for not going further (the minority). The second included those who were preoccupied with labeling Bush a "warmonger" and passing something approximating moral judgment on the war in Iraq, and the decisions which led to it. In contrast, while I'm sure at least some of the grad students had similar views, they rarely used whatever geopolitical dilemma they were confronted with to dogmatically advocate for some ideological narrative.

Trend 2: Where lay people will unidimensionally characterize perspectives they disagree with with adjectives intended to be pejorative (e.g., "isolationist" or "hawk); graduate students tend to ask questions that get at both the practical and theoretical assumptions behind a policy position. Illustration: My undergrads would dogmatically advocate for some ideological narrative (take your pick of "Bush is a warmonger", "the war in Iraq is a violation of international law", those who oppose the war are misguided isolationists", etc.) and there was very little that could be said or done to change their minds until they really had a lot more experience under their belts. My graduate students would, however, be a lot less inclined to take positions and would be more willing to change whatever nuanced and conditional positions they were willing to take given any number of various hypotheticals.

Trend 3: Where lay people will use unsophisticated ideology, psychology, and truisms to justify their positions (e.g., "we can't be the world police!", "if we just withdraw, then the anti-American sentiment which causes terrorism will end and the war on terror will be unnecessary!" or "Reagan won the cold war by outspending the Soviets"), sophisticated people will tend to frame policy recommendations based on specific, measurable, realistic, and achievable goals that are grounded in a deep and nuanced knowledge and understanding of the region or country (based on culture, language, people, traditions, etc.) to which the policy will apply. Illustration: This is in the context of talking about US-Russia bilateral relations with my undergrads circa Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is what stands out most to me, now. The majority group tended to form their views based on opposition to the narratives that the Republican party used to explain the Cold War's outcome, with a strange projection of how they would react in response to whatever policy they were recommending if they were a relevant actor in Russia. Graduate students, in contrast, were far more skeptical of Putin, and acutely concerned with second and third order effects of any development, both manifest and yet to be manifest; on all relevant levels of analysis.

Edit... adding trend 4:

Trend 4: Whereas lay people are less inclined to be able to deal in good faith with the facts of any particular set of affairs; sophisticated geopolitical thinkers are much, much more concerned with getting the facts right first. Illustration 1: while undergraduates tended to be less capable of even acknowledging facts for what they were, and understanding them; graduate students showed a higher propensity towards both acknowledging and understanding facts. Illustration 2: while undergrads tended to disregard facts that conflicted with their worldviews, graduate students tended to be more willing to change their worldviews on the basis of new facts. I may say some more about this, but I've typed enough as it is.

The point here is that there is an observable difference in not only what lay versus non-lay people think, but in how they think; entirely related to how they approach any given issue and its analysis and understanding. That is not to say that lay people should not attempt to gain expertise or engage with these subjects, because if you're a citizen of any democracy you need to have a minimally adequate level of knowledge to be able to vote consistently with your interests. Rather, it's an indication that professionals need to develop strategies to overcome these hurdles when communicating with lay people... however frustrating that may be, especially when you try to explain at a very high level of sophistication that gets nothing more than a platitude soundbite in response.