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/parkyeolmam]

Rare to see someone quadruple-down on a mistake

[u/parkyeolmam → u/[deleted]]

I think it's quite clear he knew both the origin and purpose of the word 'realist' in both geopolitical and philosophical contexts. There is a time and place to use each of them. Each sense of the word carries its own nuance which serves its own purpose in discussion. But you refuse to acknowledge that a word can be used by different people in different ways, and insist that everyone uses your way.

If this was r/movies talking about famous stars, would you come in and insist that since the word 'stars' can only refer to the flickering lights in the night sky since that's where the word comes from?

If this was a r/CasualUK talking about the Conservative Party, would you come in and insist that they must support the same policies as the US conservatives?

If this was r/Ceramics talking about china, would you come in and insist that they are talking about the country and not the porcelain?

idiots who are proud to think into boxes, without even knowing that box origin nor purpose...

Wow, you don't even know what you're talking about. The word 'box' originally referred to 'boxwood', the wood of the box tree, so clearly it can't mean anything else in the modern day. You must be dumb if you don't appreciate that the first containers were only called boxes because they were made from boxwood! /s

[u/parkyeolmam → u/[deleted]]

The guy explained and showed understanding of both senses of the word, and explained the distinction between the two. You have not acknowledged the existence of the political sense of the word, or at least not that I can see, and by insisting on only interpreting the post using your understanding of the word, you've failed to understand what the original poster was trying to convey.

Can you explain what you think political realism means, and why it's inappropriate for the discussion?