The squabbles and conflicts we have in alliance server is really realism 101.

Cracks me up everytime I frame our wars in realist terms.

Good Luck EDge

Same squabbles since the game's existence, just different people. Should be an easy moral for any poli-sci major to pull out of that one.

im sure its just 1% of the population in alliance controlling all the decisions too :)

I majored in International Studies (Security track) and Political Science, with a minor in Human Rights.

It's the "humanitarians" that always give me a chuckle.

TAN SMELLS LIKE TINKLE

I am the 99% of alliance server :-(

must be running a lot of countries then...

I was international studies and philosophy in undergrad.

I took a lot of IR. Hated it. Philosophy is more rooted in reality than IR.

Majoring in Environmental Governance but taking an IR class and writing a paper for it atm on western involvement in Somalia.. pain in the ass. But yeah, earth reflects a lot of realism in the clan-clan dynamics of the game.

I loved it. Wish I could go back and take more courses, especially the higher level and more focused ones. Although it would be nice to go back and take some beginner level political science courses - it's easy to forget those early thinkers you learn about in those courses.

You definitely never took the same philo classes I took because they were pie-in-the-sky crap. With that said, the IR classes weren't much different. All the mumbo jumbo about this is how rationale actors are supposed to act yada yada yada...no, they act for what is in their own interest. Basically you could hand the kids a few Malcom Gladwell books, Machiavelli's the Prince, CIA world factbook, and then a few studies on the world's economic future (aka energy conduits, etc) and that class could rightfully predict outcomes on par with State Dept or most foreign government's FSOs.

Nah, trumper. You are thinking of introductions to IR and basic political science. Also, there are many competing theories on how to predict state behavior. For instance, are state actions driven by mainly security considerations, strategic considerations, or just power accumulation? It's probably a combination of all three, but some will put more weight on one thing over another.

sovietologist
... rusologist since then though

boardwithanailinitologist
ftw

And then you break it down to security based on perceived (vs realistic) geopolitical realities subject-oriented predictive realities toward economic, energy, social, religious or other blah blah. Yes, I've been there and done that, got the cereal box prize (shoot, I think i'm even technically certified in 2nd track diplomacy amusingly enough). Along the way I realized the reality is that a group of kids could accurately predict future state actions as well as a bunch of academic ir folks. Of course the IR folks would then want to do a whole study regarding this (and they have in some cases) as is the military with their current public participation simulations.

My point was simply that the advanced doesn't trump the basic understanding of situations in IR despite belief to the contrary. I digress. The brains behind the scenes were convinced the white fox (aka Shevardnadze) would easily hold power in Georgia while simultaneously playing the East vs the West (more the US vs Russia and sometimes tossing in EU/China/Turkey/etc). They were wrong. The politics of the pipeline didn't play out as they expected and neither did Russia's eventual decision to launch 'peacekeepers' in the region.

What is more ironic is that they keep saying they're bringing something new to the game too!

\o/

Your overly verbose reply assumes that those educated about the political system are all in conformity OR that, even so, they are always right. If you look at actual science, this isn't the case with many things, although with science it's different, because there are actual scientific laws.

The laws of international politics aren't universal (not even human right!) like scientific laws, so how could they predict everything with complete accuracy (once again, assuming everyone is in complete conformity)?

Here is an example: Predicting the outcome of the uprising in Syria. SOME political theorists believe it will be successful, whilst others believe it won't be. All we can do is make predictions based on currently available - and contested - models.

Anyway, you're confusing "rationale actors" with "realist" theory. Both are not the same. And even realist theory is broken down into different parts, as I mentioned in my above post in competing theories.

Are realist states acting only in the interests of state security and strategic interests? Well, this is probably the most reasonable case, but then it begs the question of US aid to Israel - it is NOT in America's strategic interest to keep funding a country that foments anger amongst its other regional allies. But then you get into the argument about whether or not it IS in America's best interests. Which is the correct answer? It's hard to predict. And that is why political theory is so stratified. That is why you have a hundred different think tanks instead of one.

A layman could posit a theory about something - a layman could posit a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it has much credence in academia though. And it doesn't mean it's applicable to the real world.

Anyway, I don't know why you bash philosophy, which I think was the original point of your post. It definitely has a place in academia and general human though. It lays the foundations for lots of things, although I wouldn't say you could get a decent job from it. :P

You act as if the two (rational actor and real politik) are mutually exclusive in practice and they're not. In fact in my example the US clearly used both. Moving to your Israeli example there are plenty of real politik reasons to support the regime.

Academic credence does not determine the applicability of a given theory, the testing and data behind said theory determines it. It's a social construct that academia has created to try to serve as an intellectual gatekeeper. For a large part, it works. But by no means is it a prerequisite, especially in an age where information is widely shared.

You could argue my disdain for political philosophy all day long. And I did that in many a political philosophy class, but it won't change my opinion so it's probably not worth the time.

Unfortunately, this is indeed pretty true. But by and by, the average layman, without the proper direction and understanding of political machinations, is going to comprehend the workings of international (and domestic) politics a lot less.