Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2012-06-24: Dudebro Factory
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40, 41  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Raza



Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...Wait, hold up.

This thread has 38 pages of posts like this?

Kylra wrote:
I'm putting this segment first because of how critical it is.
Dogen wrote:
No. You're misunderstanding pretty much all of my points thus far. Most of the processing of information takes place in "lower levels of the mind?" Cite, cite, cite.

In addition to the many things in Nisbett & Wilson regarding creativity (especially the one about creativity and problem solving), counterattitudinal essays, the lack of awareness of things we do and several other topics in that paper; the cognitive dissonance study where people are paid money to lie about a study being boring; ADHD; intrusive thoughts; Yerkes-Dodson (you don't think they consciously tried to perform better/worse in retreiving/storing memory and such, right?) and heuristics (which is pretty explicitly unconscious) which have been presented thus far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia
Central Auditory Processing Disorder: http://www2.massgeneral.org/pcs/Heal_Lang/Auditory_and_Language_Processing_Disorders.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Aside from working memory, all other memory classes and processes I have read about mostly work at a subconscious level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory

Linking N&W again so you can have it handy because it is a nice collection of these things: http://people.virginia.edu/~tdw/nisbett&wilson.pdf

And lets not forget the iceberg analogy of the conscious/unconscious that you endorsed earlier.

I can get more if you want. Much more. Psychology is littered with this stuff. It's almost what the field is about. I'm not sure why you would rationally think this is up for debate as someone with the formal education in psychology you seem to have unless I am way overestimating what they teach in those things, you just want me to post things for the audience or you just wanted to see if I knew what I was talking about. If you're really not persuaded somehow, I can elaborate on some of these or post dozens more.

If you disagree with this, there is almost no point in any other type of psychology discussion between us on this topic (or most psychology topics even) until this is resolved.
Quote:
So my behavior was sexist simply because it inconvenienced you while you were attempting to fight sexism, and no other perspective on the behavior is worthwhile (such as that, if I'm right, you'll actually be better at it next time)?

You acknowledged prior to this post that my method has some effect, you acknowledge that at the time you posted I was arguing against sexism, and your posts were obviously attempts to tear down my credibility about what I was talking about and have said as much. You know all this yourself, you even told me these things, and yet you accuse me of calling it out because it inconveniences me and avoid putting all these things together logically yourself, even though I pointed this out to you already. Maybe it "just happens" that you changed your mind now that you have a reason that my method may be net ineffective or worse now, despite strongly denying that you were saying that very thing two posts ago, but that is not what you pinned this on, and you'll have to judge yourself on that.
Quote:
Please note that if your position is that you are the sole arbiter of when something is sexist, and that you get to single-handedly decide when something is sexism then we should wrap this up. I try not to waste time with ideologues.

I do not claim to be the sole arbiter, and this is an example of what I mean by "attempt to rationalize away or avoid discussions of right and wrong". Especially since you're (possibly inadvertently) trying to argue a moral right on your side as is. You're trying to claim a moral rightness on your side, but threaten to ignore me if I dare to do so. You are an ideologue whether you want to be or not, it is just a socially acceptable one that you probably do not think about (though really almost no one does). You are doubly unperceptive to realizing this in yourself because it's your own ideology and, as you were saying, it is tied in to your self-identity as a caring and/or good person. Avoiding realizing you are doing this keeps you from the full extent of the inner pain that may happen if it is questioned and the questioner is correct.
Quote:
Sure, and when would that have been? Should I wait until you've finished every conversation about sexism on this forum? Because then I'd just never get to speak my mind, because the topic is (at least so far) unceasing. Or do I merely have to bide my time until you've worn everyone down in a single thread, and only then do I get to use it? What happens if someone comes back after everyone has stopped using a thread and starts using it again, do I then have to stop talking again until you finish with them, too? Does this seem like a poorly thought out position to you? Because it does to me.

It is not poorly thought out because you're simplifying it into straw, like almost everyone does who tries to avoid what I am telling them. There may not be a "100% non-sexist time", and there probably isn't. That doesn't mean there won't be multiple feasible times with "100 sexism units", "5 sexism units" and "50 sexism units". I have said this at least 4 times by now in this thread alone, and at least once in my posts to you specifically.

You are missing pieces in your utilitarian formulation of morality.
Quote:
You're welcome, but you missed the point. The point was that, on the other end of those barbs, is a person who feels attacked. Calling people child-like is insulting. Calling them blind is also insulting. Finding a new way to refer to them as "naive and inexperienced" or "incapable of comprehending the depths of concepts" is no less insulting. You are using insults. That's pretty much the whole point (because it's the basis of my, "you would be more effective if you stopped insulting people" argument). The hypocrisy of calling people out for ableist language when you also use it was just a bonus.

If you read and understood what I have been writing, you should realize that calling me a hypocrite here is incorrect and reducing my position to straw on your part. I have never claimed perfection, and in fact have claimed that I am imperfect. I also will not claim any ableist thing I do that I accuse others of is not ableist. If I were to just claim it as not ableist, I would not be able to fix the ableism problem, which would be more ableist. Ignoring it or rebranding it "not ableism" to make myself feel fuzzy inside and make the hurt go away is ableist.

If I must "insult" people to end oppression, I will do so. I value ending the oppression of women over whatever reason you might value not insulting people for. If you want to know why people must "insult" people to end sexism, we must talk feminism as well because that is also a sociological and philosophical discussion, not just a general psychological theory in a vacuum one.
Quote:
I didn't use Yerkes-Dodson to support that part. Yerkes-Dodson was to support that pissing people off will make them less likely to remember your arguments later. The support for the above was that when people feel threatened they become defensive and will throw themselves into spiting you, even if it hurts them.

They don't need to remember my actual arguments in any way they can raise to a conscious level very well. The argument they have is between things that were inside themselves already.

Ironically, trying to spite me when I call out sexism will generally only prove my point that much harder. That would be doing exactly what I said they do.
Quote:
No. That's simply misunderstanding the evidence. You have to first get a thought to be intrusive before they need to engage in thought suppression. Do you know how to make a thought intrusive? Think of all the thoughts you have in a day. How many of them come back into your mind unbidden, apparently of their own free will? A tiny fraction, if any.

Actually it's at least a majority of them that come up unbidden, in the end anyway. That we intentionally "call up" our thoughts is mostly an illusion. This is related to if not a part of the introspective illusion you cited. If a thought comes to you, it's likely to be because that's what lower processes of the mind gave to your conscious mind. See the studies by Nisbett & Wilson and especially the creativity/problem solving study by Maiar already cited. Also more generally everything in that top segment. Here's a link to N&W for convenience: http://people.virginia.edu/~tdw/nisbett&wilson.pdf
Quote:
You and I are talking about some serious stuff, but none of it runs through my mind when I close the laptop. I walk away and leave it, and it often doesn't occur to me again until I get home. So I don't engage in thought suppression, because there's nothing to suppress. You also seem to be misunderstanding what it is that makes something dissonant.

You are not everyone. It's plausible you have not had to worry about wanting to suppress anything yet though.
Quote:
It isn't that we are asked to lie about a study being fun, it's that we agreed to lie, and for a sum of money that doesn't give us an excuse for why we were willing to lie. Both the people offered $1 and those offered $20 lied about the study, but only the ones paid $1 were affected by dissonance, and as a result their belief about how fun the experiment was changed to make sense of the incongruity between their earlier belief and their later behavior. Now, you might be able to invoke dissonance, but given the complexity of the issue, I'm extremely skeptical that you could control which beliefs changed in order to harmonize with their behavior - and it's entirely possible that in this instance their belief in equality would be the one to change to be in harmony with their behavior.

It could in theory, but it hasn't really happened yet. In theory the belief in equality, however poorly realized, is too strongly ingrained into people for that to be the one that gives. This was a worry I had at one point though. After going through this dozens/hundreds of times I'm not particularly worried anymore. My general theory statement reply summary to this is "it's hard to be outside of the status quo on either side", which is sociologically and psychologically a true statement. The most typical conflict is between "self interest" and "empathizing with people I am hurting" in some manner, and being outside of the status quo works against "self-interest" just as it does against empathy. "True sexists" are pretty rare in my experience. If you would like to know how I am measuring this to be able to argue it, we must talk feminism as well because that is more of a sociological and philosophical discussion, not a psychological one.
Quote:
Then you're doing it wrong. Not only do I disagree with you, but so do other people who fight sexism. Not being good at starting a difficult conversation or overcoming objections without resorting to insults is not the same as those strategies not working overall.

Again, you cited situations for those other people who fight sexism that were drastically different. They're also usually dealing with things far more on the surface than I am. In addition, this time I will explicitly call this out as a logical fallacy of argument ad populum since it seems you may not be getting that. Saying "everyone else does it this way" does not make it the best way. It might be the best most people can do, especially when constrained by organizational rules and such, or the best that most people know about, but that does make it the best for everything or everyone.
Quote:
That would only work if I found your arguments persuasive. As it is, because there doesn't seem to be any rational support for them, they appear more like disjointed ideas that you're trying to force to come together into some semblance of a system. Thus, not only don't they recur or intrude on my mind, I actually have to go back and search them out just to remind myself of your occasionally tortured logic. If "not being logical" is a pattern you're trying to encourage me to use, it doesn't seem to be working.

As of your last post, you are on that track yet again. You would recognize you were doing this if you weren't being illogical in the manner I describe and could counter this type of introspective illusion, so I can respect that you sincerely think you are being logical and you mean no malice by it.
Quote:
Unfortunately for you, but fortunate for the rest of us, it doesn't matter if you classify them as insults.

Then this is a label difference only and there's no need to argue it further. You think there is never a reason to insult people, I think being able to end sexism is worth it. You will not be able to end sexism without insulting people, so it is your moral choice, and one you are currently making against ending sexism, whether you know it or not. If you want to know why insulting (to use your word) people to end sexism is required, we will need to talk about feminism as well, because not only is it a psychological question, but it involves sociological and philosophical topics as well.
Quote:
No. You don't seem to understand what causes dissonance. I covered this above.

I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you mean, I just find it anti-persuasive.
Quote:
No. Thought suppression has nothing to do with this discussion except in so far as it's an example of how conscious processes affect unconscious processes. If you thought you were dealing with thought suppression why didn't you bring it up until I mentioned it?

I have been dealing with the other side of that thought suppression study, just maybe not in the formal language you may be used to. What I am focusing on is that those thoughts crop up in the first place. Where do they come from and why do they keep coming back? It is not a lack of conscious ability to suppress per se, but a normal and typical manifestation of lower levels of the mind. I am creating those "unwanted" thoughts that are hard to suppress. You even acknowledge that this is my goal, and thus relevant to the topic, in another segment of your post here, but fail to apply that here for some reason. "Thus, not only don't they recur or intrude on my mind,"
Quote:
Again, my point was that conscious attention to beliefs and attitudes is the simplest, which is to say the most direct, and thus effective, way of changing beliefs.

This is logically incorrect. Again, "simple" and "direct" are not equivalent to "more effective". I don't know how to make this more clear because it is just that simply and obviously logically incorrect. Coincidentally, this looks a lot like the hospital example I saw in that heuristics study you presented tangentially.

As an analogy to help:

I can grab a candy bar from a store and walk out which is both more direct and simpler than paying for it, but it's hardly overall "more effective" at promoting why I got the candy bar in the first place, which is sensory enjoyment, because I could get thrown in jail for it or face fines that make it harder to acquire candy bars without facing legal penalties.
Quote:
If you want to claim subconscious influences are more effective that's a very long row to hoe. Why? Because you'd first have to prove that you can implant something subconscious and control how it influences someone else's beliefs, which assumes that you can control exactly, and without fail, how they will interpret your message. If you fail to control for the differences between your own intention and their interpretation then you can't control what you think you're implanting. You might just be reinforcing sexist ideas.

I cannot control exactly. This is a "net gain" equation, not a "perfection" one. This is essentially a veiled false dichotomy on your part, that I must accomplish the platonic ideal of what I do or not do it. To understand what it is I am measuring for that equation, we must talk about philosophy, because that is a philosophical question. It seems you should probably understand it though since you seem to have at least a vague understanding of Utilitarianism.

I have made this point at least once before in the thread, though I think it was to Adyon and/or mouse, not you.
Quote:
Really? Oddly, this concern doesn't bother me in the least. Probably because my position is based largely in logic, not psychology, and because I don't really foresee you having the ability to totally discredit psychology in the course of one conversation. If you had that capacity, you'd be making more rational support for your own positions.

It would not be a logical discrediting, it would be an emotional/unconscious one based on the very things we are talking about. I am not at all worried about anyone here logically discrediting psychology, because if that were going to be a problem, that would already be the case.
Quote:
You don't have to use sub/unconscious. Unless you're planning to explicitly define the academic tradition from which you plan to further define the two concepts and how they differ, for the purposes of nearly all conversation they're essentially interchangeable.

Whether it is potentially directly accessible by the conscious or not. For most purposes they are interchangeable though, yes, but we may be going where they are at least somewhat relevant. For instance, emotions are (in theory) directly accessible by the conscious at least in part. Heuristics not so much.
Quote:
Yes. Which is why trying to implant subconscious ideas is just as likely to make someone more sexist than less. Not just because of what they believe, though, but because you can't control how they interpret your message, and it may mean something different to them than it does to you.

There are sociological factors involved here which I described above.
Quote:
This isn't really an answer. For one thing, you haven't actually shown that you can do anything to people subconsciously. Now, I know that you can, but I also know the limits of it. My position, based on my knowledge, is that the best way to do what you want is through conscious reflection. I dare say that should be exceedingly obvious, but apparently it isn't. Now, that is why my references have been about conscious decision making, memory recall, and resistance to conscious interactions. If you want to make a claim about affecting the unconscious, you'll have to first prove that you can do so reliably and get the effect you intend.

It's done every second of every day. Advertising is predicated on shifting the unconscious, most obviously the familiarity heuristic. Even just which words I use will influence people. (See: priming and familiarity heuristic among other things) It's probably going to be pointless to try to say more here unless you acknowledge the first segment.

Conscious reflection would probably be the best way if people could do it. I cite here again introspective illusion. Throwing highly advanced psychology stuff at people doesn't often work either because that too is part of the psychological aspect all these oppressive systemic problems. People in general think they can't understand it. They may even be right in a sense because of introspective illusion keeping them from thinking they can. Almost everyone can understand emotions and such though, barring certain atypical conditions that may complicate things.
Quote:
Yes, I'm aware. I just disagree with your very rigid judgment of everyone's behavior as being overly simplistic.

I know that you think that and perceive that about my arguments.

P.S. You made me realize how useful a conceptual focus on "introspective illusion" is for my discussions about this. If nothing else this time has been useful because of that. It's something more concrete linguistically than "I can't explicitly logic it into people." The realization that my schema of that is that concept should help greatly in my future efforts.


How are we not running out of internet at this point?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1150
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raza wrote:
How are we not running out of internet at this point?

http://www.endoftheinternet.com/
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's part of my dastardly plot to use up ALL THE INTERNETS.

MUAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10431
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kylra wrote:
Dogen wrote:
These things aren't just subconscious, they're totally non-conscious (we have no direct effect on them at all, just through other processes).

This is where I think a divide that slightly re-purposes the words subconscious vs unconscious is useful. Non-conscious works too though if that's more official terminology. It's not really referenced often in the stuff I read. The things the conscious has no direct effect on are still useful for a model of the mind though in that they have strong effects on the conscious even though the conscious does not directly affect them and you can't really introspect them.

That's fine. In psychology subconscious defines information that exists just outside the realm of consciousness, but which can be brought to mind readily. Memories, for instance, are subconscious. It can also refer to information that is at the edge of awareness, or that one is only very vaguely aware of. Unconscious is used to refer to processes that occur entirely outside of our ability to perceive them. This is where your heuristics and cognitive biases are found. It's only used for cognitive, emotional and motivational processes, though, not physiological.

So there you go. Use them wisely.

Quote:
Quote:
Talking about physiological processes at this point would be a distraction, I think, because differences in physiology aren't necessarily relevant to our discussion. What's relevant is the mental processes of people with normal physiology. So, I apologize if that came across as weird... I'm just, as always, trying to keep us on point and not let this wander too much.

Those things show how various parts of even physiologically typical brains work. Autism for instance says a good bit about sensory filtration and how empathy as a whole process works. Similar for all the rest. You can learn a lot about how even the neurotypical mind works just by learning clinical psychology. You should really rethink considering it irrelevant to how neurotypical minds work, especially since several of them are "one end of X spectrum most of which is 'typical'" like ADHD and at least some form(s) of clinical depression.

Technically, all disorders fall on a spectrum. Most people have "sub-clinical" maladaptive behavior - the same sorts of symptoms that people with diagnosable disorders have, just to a lesser degree or extent. In any event, I have no problems with the physiology. I just don't find it relevant to a discussion of this type, since "learn[ing] about how even the neurotypical mind works" also is not relevant. Empathy and sensory information are relevant, but I don't think how they function necessarily is. Have we disagreed over how one empathizes?

Quote:
That you did it and undermined my credibility while I was in the middle of a discussion against sexism is what's up here. Your words, at least at the time, were an extremely obviously attempt to do that. I don't know how you can deny that busting out "hey you're doing this wrong and I have a formal psychology schooling" is not an attempt to degrade credibility.

This is... weird. Is that how you remember it going? Here's how it started:
Dogen, on page 9, wrote:
Kylra, you know not everyone here is against you, right? I mean, a considerable number of us actually agree with you, or most of what you're saying. You just can't seem to tell us apart... and attack everyone.

Then on page 25 I said that I assumed you didn't have licensure, and in your next response you said you hadn't had formal education. Me mentioning my own education didn't come about until page 32!. How time flies.

Anyway, if you think the way I went about this was "extremely obviously" an attempt to undermine your efforts to fight sexism then, again, you just don't know me. If you choose to interpret the things I said in the harshest, most negative available tenor then that's your prerogative. You'll just be wrong about another thing.

Quote:
Also check the bolded, if you're trying to be "fully logical" anyway. I personally don't mind much since I'm pretty sure that "feel" there is what most of our words have been about anyway, but I thought I'd point it out since you're claiming the logical/empirically evidenced high ground.

Who said I was trying to be "fully logical?" I'm simply trying to maintain logic, in addition to whatever else comes up. Being logical doesn't preclude me from having feelings. We even discussed this already, back on page 30, with regard to how I try to keep my barbs "less pointed and emotional" when I'm having an intellectual discussion, because insults and intellectualism don't mix.

Quote:
My position is fallible, and people do teach me things related to it now and then, but before this post you avoided any real discussion of "what is sexism" so I could actually try to explain it some and maybe then you could argue with it. At least we're finally getting around to at least the prologue of that though.

We've actually been discussing your claim that I acted sexist for like 15 pages. Smile Anyway, as I said above, I don't care if you think I'm sexist, because I don't think you know me well enough to draw conclusions about me - you certainly misread my tone - and I have no reason (yet) to put much weight on your opinion of me. I'm secure in my position on sexism, and my willingness to examine my own behavior. You're just wrong on this, though if you want to keep arguing it that's fine... but you should probably try to figure out my actual tone, intent, and the actual sequence of events first.

Quote:
Also, again, your intent does not negate problems you cause. "My intent excuses it" is also very often "Introspection Illusion: The Statement", so be careful about that. See also this: http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/intent-its-fucking-magic/

Sure, intent doesn't remove the effect, but it's still relevant. This should not be controversial. We judge intent all the time - both at the societal level (laws and such) and the personal level ("I'm sorry I broke your lamp, it was an accident" is morally different from, "Fuck you! *smashes lamp*"). So, while a good intent doesn't remove the effect, in many cases it lessens the emotional hurt of the effect (in terms of utility, it can reduce the consequences), where a bad intent increases it (increases the consequences).

Quote:
You could have waited until AFTER I was done arguing with Lich Mong and Ashland and then it would have been more net anti-sexist. Your utilitiarian morality would, supposedly, recommend that you take the action of waiting until later, and we could have had this same discussion along the psychology front. So why didn't you?

It would have required me to be able to foretell the future. Also, we're actively disagreeing on whether my actions had or will have any negative impact (I still hold that your ability to fight sexism will be improved by adopting my method). It seems like putting the cart before the horse to decide that my actions were sexist if we haven't even decided if I'm making you better or not yet.

Quote:
You have a very weak version of Utilitarianism that is impractical if you're making intent the basis of right/wrong action. Lets split that from good/bad person for at least this discussion too, because that distinction may end up relevant. Let me know which you're trying to argue here.

No, that's pretty much straight up utilitarianism. John Stuart Mills, in A System of Logic, wrote, "intention to produce the effect, is one thing; the effect produced in consequence of the intention, is another thing; the two together constitute the action." Of course, no one makes intention the entire basis of right and wrong - including me. You just made that up. Smile

Quote:
Quote:
You don't have to claim perfection to be a hypocrite. You just have to do what you claim is wrong. Which you've done, by calling people child-like and blind. Sooo...

No, I'd be a hypocrite if I were applying harsher standards to other people. That's what being a hypocrite is.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but...
Apple Dictionary:
hypocrisy |hiˈpškrisē|
noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
Webster:
Hypocrisy \Hy*poc"ri*sy\
The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.

Out of curiosity, is English not your first language? I certainly have leniency for this type of misunderstanding for second languages... although I do wonder why you didn't look it up after it was clear we were disagreeing on the definition.

Quote:
To put it simply, the general problem here is that people generally think they are a good person and can do no wrong things because that would contradict their "good person" self-identity. Thus saying they have done anything wrong when they do something wrong is an "insult" and something that should not be done to change people's minds in your reasoning. I'd like to know how you get around that.

That's an entirely different type of insult. Moral indignation is not the same as being angry. Telling me I'm wrong can produce either, depending on how you do it. If you just tell me you think I'm wrong, I'll be indignant until you prove it. If you tell me I'm a child-like idiot, then I'll be angry. I'm specifically talking about the things you say that are intended to make people angry. Those are the things that reduce your effectiveness.

Quote:
Quote:
You don't prove points harder. They either have proof or they don't. The turgidity of them is irrelevant. Very Happy Seriously, though, arguing that spiting you during a debate is evidence of anything is pointless. The purpose of debate is to spite your opponent, preferably by pointing out the errors in their logic or the falseness of their premises. So you need to find a new metric for how to decide people are being sexist other than just "they disagree with me."

You forget I am arguing with emotions. Those don't work like logical arguments, and work more like or even just are heuristics/built in features of the brain. If someone is trying to spite me (an emotional reaction) and that is doing exactly what I say, exactly how much are they going to feel they have spited me by doing what I said they do?

I'm sorry, I have no idea what this means. Please rephrase the third sentence. I should point out I'm using a less antagonistic interpretation of "spite" - that is, probably an emotionally neutered one. Are you meaning that when people disagree with you for no reason other than because they want you to be wrong for some reason? Either way, if they spite you effectively - that is, if they can use logic and evidence to prove you wrong and feel good about it - then they're still right. So, while I appreciate the allusion to intention here, I'm not sure where it's going.

Quote:
I knew I should have left in that bit about "the thoughts defined as 'intrusive' are just the ones we don't like/that cause us pain or distress/impair function". I can't remember why I took it out now. Maybe I just forgot to put it back. I do know the term itself has a technical definition that distinguishes it from other thoughts though.

Of course. If unbidden thoughts made us happy we wouldn't consider them intrusive.

Quote:
That's because you're already pretty minimal-sexist from what I can tell of you so far. Of course they generally wouldn't bother you, because you're ok with them. Maybe you'll surprise me and be the first ever person I have ever explained this to without the listener just breaking away or getting mad first. You're not that far from where I am, and you're probably a contender for top 5 closest to me in these forums as far as I can tell.

If we're so close, how come you didn't get me a birthday present? My birthday was Thursday. Anyway, this doesn't really help. I'm trying to figure out how you think you can create intrusive thoughts that have a specific effect. It doesn't help if no one admits to having any intrusive thoughts. I guess we could start a poll. You've talked to a lot of people on the forum, right? I could start a thread with a poll question, "If you have discussed sexism with Kylra, have you at any time after had a thought that you couldn't push out of your mind?" Then see how people respond.

Quote:
Lack of empathy is the part of the status quo that is sexist here. For support, here is a study that shows people see women as objects: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-see-sexy-pictures-of-women-as-objects-not-people.html

Not only have I seen that study, I'm 99% sure that I linked it on these forums within the last 90 days. Maybe in the other forum feminism thread. Not sure. Anyway, your previous claim that belief in equality is too strongly engrained in people to be overridden... do you have any way to support that? I ask because I grew up in the Deep South, where people seemed pretty happy with their inequality (well, the white people did, anyway).

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, I believe Samsally posted it in the feminism thread. I get the two of us confused. She's a feminist artist from North Dakota and I'm a sexist man who interrupts conversations to tear down women. You can see the confusion.

Quote:
Remember that workshop video you linked? They're helping people's empathy along by providing perspectives people lack. Empathy is both an unconscious function that accounts for things like "yawns are contagious" (this research involves primates generally, but the research partially involves humans as well: http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/empathy/faq.html) as well as proposed mirror neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron) that allow people to simulate the mental states of others. Since people do not have inherent knowledge of other people's mental states though, you have to teach what emotions come from what actions on the person. Analogy, for example, despite its imperfections works great for this because you can transfer an idea of an emotional state to a different action/event. For instance, you can analogize the pain of being dismissed from being a woman to the pain of being dismissed for having a mental disability.

Okay (though I would say the racism workshop was actually helping people understand different perspectives, and that empathy was a possible but not necessary side effect of that understanding [though people who are trying to understand other people, and are thus more likely to be empathetic, are the ones that go to workshops, merely understanding someone's point of view doesn't ensure you empathize - you could understand it and not care]), but we're talking about cognitive dissonance.

Quote:
You will not see any hard studies to fully prove out what I am doing. The experiment to do so would be nearly uncontrollable because it deals with people's specific personal experiences. You could probably get close, but not quite. At least, not in a way I can conceive of yet based on my current knowledge of psychology and neurology. If any field gives hard and specific evidence first, my guess would be on neurology.

I'm not sure how this is different from the research I've cited, or my references to therapy, or the links to people who fight sexism. All of those things are related to this discussion, and all of them provide circumstantial evidence that there are better methods at changing behavior. Personally, though therapy isn't a perfect analogy, I think it's the most relevant because it's often done one-on-one, and it only works if the person you're working with is open to you. That there is a power dynamic at play, though, seems less relevant, because if the power dynamic were the major factor then therapy would have some effect even if the client weren't open, but it doesn't. The main factor is whether the client is willing to listen and work with you.

Quote:
You have explicitly stated a couple times an insistence on keeping the discussion to psychology only though. Since you apparently are not bothered by that anymore, I will drop it.

I have not done this.

Quote:
Either way on the fallacy, I am not an organization, I am not doing a therapy session. If we were talking about in the situations of those organizations, who might find it hard to get funding because they piss off more people than they can afford, I would be persuaded if I wasn't already in agreement in those kinds of circumstances.

Hmm... well, first, two of my sources weren't organizations. They were people talking about how they do what they do, or how someone else did it to them to teach them about sexism. Second, though, what do you mean you're "already in agreement in those kinds of circumstances?"

Quote:
Aside from that, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a rebuttal of what I am saying. I'm pretty sure I never said they were surface-level only, only that they have many circumstantial advantages and constraints that I typically do not have in situations like this.

You said, "They're also usually dealing with things far more on the surface than I am." If you didn't intend that to mean that they only deal with surface-level issues, then what did you intend for it to mean?

Quote:
Quote:
Sigh. This is like saying, "No I'm not, you are!" Anyone can accuse anyone of introspective illusion. For one thing neither of us is immune to it. You are certainly suffering under introspective illusions, because it's not a "problem" that afflicts people (like making an irrational argument), and it can't (to our knowledge) be fixed. You (and everyone else) simply have no access to unconscious processes.

You can fix bits of it. You won't fix "the entirety of introspective illusion" but you can fix "introspective illusion for [specific issue]" by giving them new outside perspectives to think through to fill in that gaps. This is why I suppose that I still have introspective illusion holes, just not the particular ones that have been pointed out to me that I have learned to "introspect" better on, i.e. with less bias that I do not recognize and can account for to counteract. Perhaps wording it as "the introspective holes on [specific issue] are filled" is too strong a wording, but more can be done than throwing your hands in the air and giving up any hope of being less biased in your actions and introspection.

Many cognitive biases are difficult if not impossible to change, and we are actually wired to believe them. That's not the same as saying they can't be changed, because like the bias blind spot, awareness of the introspection illusion can cause people to recognize their own biases. However, this effect is often fleeting, and people will still tend to rely on biased thinking (of any kind) unless they're specifically aware of it. For instance, I've been trying to train myself not to fall prey to the fundamental attribution error for about a decade. Whenever I catch myself making an error of attribution I remind myself of it and review why it's biased. So, now I'm in the habit of catching myself making the errors... but I still make them, and I have no way of knowing how often I make them but don't catch them (re:availability heuristic).

Quote:
You should define what you mean by "no access to unconscious processes", unless you have decided to take up my subconscious vs unconscious distinction. That the conscious mind doesn't have access to most is at least arguable, but all? There are things like hooks into memory storage and recall and the ability to interrupt immediate reward impulses for longer term rewards (see: ADHD).

Impulsive behavior isn't unconscious. The impulse is, but behavior by definition is conscious as long as you're aware of it. Beware of arguing for determinism. Otherwise, see my definitions at the tippy top!

Quote:
How do you change someone whose self-identity is that they are a "good person" and they find some bit of sexism they perpetuate as a good thing but this is something they think is bad but do not recognize it as such (i.e. Sexism)?

We've already determined that anything that might contradict someone's self-identity is an insult, and you do not think insulting is ever the best way.

I've already told you how I do it. I talk them through it, without doing anything to add insult to injury (that is, minimizing the emotional arousal). People recognize that you can be a good person and still do a bad thing. The important thing is a willingness to recognize their behavior and work on it - the essence of character. Hence, while it may be insulting in the sense of hurtful, it's not insulting in the sense of belittling.

Quote:
You do realize even that moderate feminism pisses a lot of people off and is really "insulting" to them, right? For one example, many people have a lot of self-identity tied up in gender binaries and enforced heterosexuality via religious conventions.

Sure. That's why not adding unnecessary emotional arousal is important.

Quote:
Quote:
That's fine. But it doesn't mean you understand cognitive dissonance, or what makes something dissonant.

Right back at ya.

From that paper about teaching in the next segment:
Quote:
Confronting the Candidate with Dissonance. Dissonance theory suggests that if we engage teacher candidates in activities that arouse dissonance-beliefs might change (Festinger, 1957). One of the sources of dissonance identified by Festinger is "past experience" colliding with new cognitions.

Yes. I've already agreed that dissonance works. I've claimed that you don't know how to make something dissonant in a way that effects a specific change.

Quote:
Quote:
Fair enough. Thought suppression formally accepted as relevant! So now the problem is that normal, healthy people don't have a problem banishing most intrusive thoughts. Things come unbidden into our minds on occasion - angry thoughts about hurting people when they make us angry, for instance - but most people have no trouble getting rid of them. They only become problematic for people when they have difficulty banishing them and they become repetitious. So, you need to show that you can cause someone to have an intrusive thought that is hard to suppress. Show me that, if you would be so kind.

Do you have a cite for when they are deep seated issues that people are bringing to the surface? I will not dispute that people can dismiss most unwanted thoughts that are relatively trivial easily. Thoughts related to deeper issues left unexamined can be an issue, which is what a lot of people go to therapy for.

No. You don't get to ask me for more evidence when you didn't even try to respond to my request for evidence. You've done precious little supporting of your own arguments, and half of it has been using papers and articles I gave you.

Of course, I also didn't make any arguments about what happens when you challenge deep-seated beliefs that I need to support, so you asked me to support a claim I never made. What I claimed was that you, specifically, lack the knowledge of how to craft an intrusive thought and control how it effects someone.

Quote:
I was much more annoyed about having to answer that exact thing multiple times actually. If people make a claim I don't agree with that I might be swayed with evidence, then I can always just ask for a cite, which doesn't bother me much at all unless it's a formal fixed work of some sort for general distribution.

Repeated exposure leads to improved recall. I figure if I kept pointing out how sparse your evidence is that eventually you'd be reminded of my demand for evidence every time you made a new claim. Anyway, I generally ask for evidence, because it's the only way to know if something is true. I don't trust my own intuition, and, as we have learned from the introspection illusion, I don't put much weight on yours either.

Quote:
Quote:
In actuality, it's a complex question, because not all beliefs are the same (beliefs about the events of your own life are different from beliefs about what is the capital of North Dakota, or beliefs about what is happening inside someone else's head, for example). Anyway, the direct influence of beliefs is at least something that can be demonstrated empirically (whether it's implanting false memories, or training new teachers). Thus, the effectiveness of exposing and working on beliefs openly is something that can be measured. Can you say the same about your method?

I knew about the false-memory study, but what I am doing is actually supported by that second link. To quote:
Quote:
Confronting the Candidate with Dissonance. Dissonance theory suggests that if we engage teacher candidates in activities that arouse dissonance-beliefs might change (Festinger, 1957). One of the sources of dissonance identified by Festinger is "past experience" colliding with new cognitions. It is this source that is perhaps most relevant to teacher education. Of course, there are other standard responses to dissonance-one of which is to discredit its source. Some of the harsh things that are said or felt about teacher educators might well be understood as responses to dissonance.

Calling people unable to perceive or supporting sexism and such is part of this kind of technique. In addition, form the same paper, this is the kind of belief I am working against:
Quote:
Another line of research that supports this view is that of Markman (1989) in the area of language development. She argues that "very young children are capable of forming object categories that are so stable, available, habitual, and familiar that they achieve special status. These basic categories resist change. It is possible that some of the basic "concepts" that all children acquire having to do with justice, learning, and even teaching are learned early and as "basic concepts," in Markman's terms, are difficult to change. In my work with first- and second-year teachers at the University of Delaware, I have collected a number of "autobiographies" in which these teachers tell of their first awareness of teaching as a possible career. It is interesting to note how many speak of "loving to teach" at age 6. Here is a story that reflects many others: "When I returned home from first grade, I would go to my bedroom and line up all my dolls as pupils. Then, I would teach them a lesson. I loved being a teacher, and it was especially enjoyable because my dolls were so well behaved."

Right. Now kindly show me that 1) you know how to make thoughts dissonant, and 2) that you can control for the various typical responses to dissonance. I'm not at all convinced that telling people they support sexism is, in itself, dissonant. I could be wrong, and I'm less concerned with the first point than the second - that you have any way of controlling how they respond. Especially since the typical response I've observed has been, "you don't know what you're talking about."

Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, if your counterargument is that you can't control the effects of your method, explain to me how it's effective? I'm now asking you to show me that you have any control at all over what gets implanted and how it influences a person. Feel free to reference any field of thought at all. I promise to keep up.

From the abstract of the intrusive thought paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22082381
Quote:
A person who is asked to think aloud while trying not to think about a white bear will typically mention the bear once a minute.

I'm not even telling them not to think about the "bear" of sexism. Maybe I should start telling people to not think about sexism though. Hmmm... In either case, that I can implant it doesn't seem like it should be under debate unless you have something additional to present. If you think I am implanting something different than what I am saying, I'd like to know why you think that. They might still just decide to be angry about it or whatever, but that doesn't mean that what I wanted them to think about wasn't what got in their mind.

I still don't actually think you're causing cognitive dissonance, but that's okay, because I'm willing to assume you are. But in order to be effective you'd have to be able to show that this dissonance generally leads to the result you want (which, I assume, is altered behavior). Nothing in the white bear study helps you there.

Quote:
Quote:
Good. So neither of us is worried about psychology actually being discredited in any rational way. So why did you bring it up?

Because you were trying to push to the end of empirical data to "win". You were the one that started this roll. I'm just glad it's over now so we can discuss things that are far more interesting.

I was trying to get you to substantiate your claims - pretty much any of your claims - which you've been very resistant to doing. I don't mind a lack of empirical data (as I said), I just want you to find something that supports your claims. Use inductive arguments, but cite inductive evidence. You will never convince me based purely on the basis of your conviction that you're right.

Quote:
Quote:
Are you planning to start a massive advertising campaign in order to get the type of exposure you need for that type of change to take effect? Because if not, I thought we might discuss how you plan to effect people on a subconscious level one-on-one. Explain, for instance, how you can use priming to change people's minds.

It seeds the concepts in for when they read future Sinfest comics for one. I don't even know where to reallly begin, aside from just listing a few examples, without preparing myself for a lecture that makes what we've gone through so far seem like a high school essay. I think it's in the process of being covered in other segments though.

This is another one of those "we can't talk about this because of X" things. Reasons you can't talk about things:
1. They're from another field
2. I don't understand something else related to the thing, and can't understand the thing until we talk about the things related to the thing
3. "It would take too long," she says on page 38.

I assume this is just you trying to avoid talking about things until you've had a chance to try and research them.

Anyway, priming is difficult to control, because it's based on the cognitive map of the person you're priming. Some things are easy, for instance, "palm" primes "tree" and "hand" (and possibly a bunch of other things, like "Sunday") Some things are not. What does "feminism" prime? Is it the same for everyone? If someone associates negative stereotypes with feminism, then you're going to prime those stereotypes. You'd have to know how to affect their cognitive map in order to use priming to change, rather than reflect it. This study may interest you, because it talks about subconscious priming to affect impression formation, such as priming someone to want a third person to like them. It's problematic, however, because (as the paper points out) a person's motivation influences how they process and respond to information. So, if you piss someone off, they're motivated to fight back, which changes how the information you send them is received (and thus, how it primes them). This one found that people are more likely to assimilate more mild exemplars, while more extreme ones were more likely to cause people to contrast comparisons (i.e. they might identify in what ways they're different from your theory, rather than the ways in which they are like it).

Quote:
Quote:
You are giving entirely too much weight to introspective illusion. To go back to an earlier part of this discussion, most therapy is predicated on the effectiveness of learning through direct examination and reflection (as well as being guided by a therapist, obviously)... and it works for a great many things.

When someone goes to therapy for their own pain, they can directly examine that. You cannot directly observe someone else's pain. The other person can tell you they are in pain, maybe they have typical reactions to pain, but none of this is you actually seeing pain, and this is where introspective illusion comes in. People deny others the ability to rely on introspection, and per their own introspection come to the conclusion there is no pain (or at least far less) in the other person. This is why activating empathy as described above is critical.

And yet, therapy exists on the notion that despite this we can sit down and talk about our problems and overcome them. Without calling each other disgusting, or child-like, or blind.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10431
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just realized I tucked heuristics and cognitive biases in the unconscious. Many heuristics are unconscious, but the sort we're talking about some people describe as subconscious, since we can be aware of them. It's a clunky definition, though, since we're not aware of the process, but the effect (the bias). So I generally refer to them as unconscious, but for the sake of clarity, I thought I'd expand. There was a little more Internet left.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
I just realized I tucked heuristics and cognitive biases in the unconscious. Many heuristics are unconscious, but the sort we're talking about some people describe as subconscious, since we can be aware of them. It's a clunky definition, though, since we're not aware of the process, but the effect (the bias). So I generally refer to them as unconscious, but for the sake of clarity, I thought I'd expand. There was a little more Internet left.

You posted this a couple posts back so it seemed like you disagreed with categorizing them this way:
Dogen wrote:
You don't have to use sub/unconscious. Unless you're planning to explicitly define the academic tradition from which you plan to further define the two concepts and how they differ, for the purposes of nearly all conversation they're essentially interchangeable.

So that's what my questioning you over that is about from my end.

I'm going to have to delay responding to the wall post later so I can go over what you posted with regards to priming to make sure I know/understand it. Might take a day or two to get around to giving it a proper read though.

E: And I'll do this bit now too to allay it:
Dogen wrote:
I assume this is just you trying to avoid talking about things until you've had a chance to try and research them.

I've doublechecked a few things (with no filler to avoid I might add) but I haven't sought anything new for this specific discussion. I'm sure you'd like me to actually know about the things you present before discussing them though and meant this about the things I presented.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10431
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, normally I would expect you to know what you're talking about before you propose to explain how something works. That's how I do it, anyway. I've found the other way around looks too much like flailing.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've found the other way around more often looks like the start of education. Hard to learn things sometimes if you don't put yourself out there to possibly be wrong about them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10431
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really? Because I just think, "What do I want to learn?" and then go learn it. And then argue about it on the internet.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tidan



Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 36
Location: Malta

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I propose another soda break at page 40...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ookamo



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 191

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Soda Schmoda. This has gone so long that the bus driver needs to be swapped out.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tidan



Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 36
Location: Malta

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Double Scottish Whisky then Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Really? Because I just think, "What do I want to learn?" and then go learn it. And then argue about it on the internet.

Sometimes people learn things they don't want to learn initially or didn't know they needed to learn.

It's hard to think "What do I need to learn?" if you don't know what that is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Technically, all disorders fall on a spectrum. Most people have "sub-clinical" maladaptive behavior - the same sorts of symptoms that people with diagnosable disorders have, just to a lesser degree or extent. In any event, I have no problems with the physiology. I just don't find it relevant to a discussion of this type, since "learn[ing] about how even the neurotypical mind works" also is not relevant. Empathy and sensory information are relevant, but I don't think how they function necessarily is. Have we disagreed over how one empathizes?

We haven't even really discussed empathy until this post. I was presenting empathy as evidence for one of my claims though! You should be happy. Smile

For any siginificant change of our core disagreement, I'm pretty sure one of us is going to come out of this learning something new that is a/the critical part to our disagreement here, so I find it correct to say that "learning about how the mind works" is relevant here.
Quote:
Then on page 25 I said that I assumed you didn't have licensure, and in your next response you said you hadn't had formal education. Me mentioning my own education didn't come about until page 32!. How time flies.

You've mentioned your education in another thread (I happened to see it before starting discussion in this thread too), and other people have even indirectly mentioned your knowledge in this area, so it is relevant even though it had not been stated by you in this discussion until page 32. You seemed better than this kind of a jab to try to eke out a minor technicality win if I didn't catch it so I'm kind of disappointed.
Quote:
Anyway, if you think the way I went about this was "extremely obviously" an attempt to undermine your efforts to fight sexism then, again, you just don't know me. If you choose to interpret the things I said in the harshest, most negative available tenor then that's your prerogative. You'll just be wrong about another thing.

You definitely did not act optimally if you are trying to not impede anti-sexism work. If you had just said "Yeah, I could have started this at a better time than in the middle of when you were yelling at Ashland and Lich Mong and I'll see about doing that at a better time or in a better way next time" everything would be grand and I wouldn't have to spend a bunch of words dealing with your logical inconsisitencies on the matter. People screw up, but the important thing is to learn and do better rather than get bogged down by exactly how bad the action was. You can't really do that if you don't think there's a problem though. Like in your attempts to catch yourself making a fundamental attribution error, you wouldn't be able to do that if you didn't think it was a problem.
Quote:
Who said I was trying to be "fully logical?" I'm simply trying to maintain logic, in addition to whatever else comes up. Being logical doesn't preclude me from having feelings. We even discussed this already, back on page 30, with regard to how I try to keep my barbs "less pointed and emotional" when I'm having an intellectual discussion, because insults and intellectualism don't mix.

Logical may have been the wrong word choice, but you're the one who is/was clamoring for ultimate empiricism in order to do whatever it is you were trying to do with that. Feelings about a correct path are not, strictly speaking anyway, empirical in the sense we're using "empirical".
Quote:
We've actually been discussing your claim that I acted sexist for like 15 pages. Smile Anyway, as I said above, I don't care if you think I'm sexist, because I don't think you know me well enough to draw conclusions about me - you certainly misread my tone - and I have no reason (yet) to put much weight on your opinion of me. I'm secure in my position on sexism, and my willingness to examine my own behavior. You're just wrong on this, though if you want to keep arguing it that's fine... but you should probably try to figure out my actual tone, intent, and the actual sequence of events first.

I don't think I have complained about your tone (though I have complained about what I see as unrealistic expectations for what I must do for you unless you want to include that into "tone" for some reason). I even invited you to start insulting me if you wanted. I have also agreed that your stated intent is your intent, so I'm not sure what you think you're trying to do here. I don't even disagree with your willingness to examine your own behavior, just your capability to carry out that intent and willingness to efficiently and effectively examine it on your own.
Quote:
Sure, intent doesn't remove the effect, but it's still relevant. This should not be controversial. We judge intent all the time - both at the societal level (laws and such) and the personal level ("I'm sorry I broke your lamp, it was an accident" is morally different from, "Fuck you! *smashes lamp*"). So, while a good intent doesn't remove the effect, in many cases it lessens the emotional hurt of the effect (in terms of utility, it can reduce the consequences), where a bad intent increases it (increases the consequences).

Intent does not actually change any consequences of an action. It might change how you judge a person, but an action? In your first example, was smashing the lamp a good thing?

Also, to analogize to what I am dealing with, what if someone stated that they will continue accidentally breaking lamps as it may happen because they don't care about breaking lamps, and that this happens at least once per day?

What about the same situation, except they don't realize they are breaking lamps every day, but can possibly be made to realize it even through them being emotionally hostile to and getting angry because of your accusations that they are breaking lamps because they are doing no such thing as far as they can tell?
Quote:
It would have required me to be able to foretell the future. Also, we're actively disagreeing on whether my actions had or will have any negative impact (I still hold that your ability to fight sexism will be improved by adopting my method). It seems like putting the cart before the horse to decide that my actions were sexist if we haven't even decided if I'm making you better or not yet.

You had to fortell the future that you are right in your argument with me in order to make the claim that your action there was justified by that. Or even if you are right, that I would be swayed. It's lucky for you that something is coming out of this though, even if I am not swayed, isn't it?

You can still "make what I do better" without disrupting me when I am in the middle of doing what I am. You could still have a higher net anti-sexism outcome if you had waited for at least a less disruptive time. Thus by utility you would have to wait, yes? You did not quite address why this isn't the case. You likely would have the same intent either way as well, so any net change from intent is not there. If anything your intent may have been an even more positive intent from waiting so it would be further net anti-sexist to wait when factoring in intent.
Quote:
No, that's pretty much straight up utilitarianism. John Stuart Mills, in A System of Logic, wrote, "intention to produce the effect, is one thing; the effect produced in consequence of the intention, is another thing; the two together constitute the action." Of course, no one makes intention the entire basis of right and wrong - including me. You just made that up. Smile

I was going off of classic utilitarianism as defined here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
One of the facets is:
Quote:
Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences).

That's really needlessly semantical now that we're getting into what you believe rather than the label for it, so just see the question regarding whether continuing to break lamps on accident is "good" or "okay".
Quote:
I can't believe I'm doing this, but...
Apple Dictionary:
hypocrisy

And that does not apply. Overcoming your bad actions is a critical part of the system of ethics I use for determining character, and you have not recognized the significance of that yet, instead trying to attack me on a straw reduction of my beliefs that is easier for you to dismiss. The main moral emphasis for judging character is not on the action itself per se, at least not when done out of ignorance, but in the action taken to stop that prior action in the future once pointed out. Supposedly you hold an at least similar view according to a statement of yours in a later segment. I've already explained about the qualia analogy, and as someone that uses utilitarian principles, you should easily recognize that kind of ethical calculation quandry as well. If you do not for whatever reason, I can elaborate some, but if you do push that as you're trying to, that makes EVERYONE at least a minimal hypocrite about most things, which I'm guessing is not your intent. If that's the sense you're trying to say that in though, then sure.

If you're just trying to make a semantics argument instead of an actual ethical argument, just say so and put it aside. If you think it's very important to try to use that word to stick me with a negative value judgement, then good job, you've already done it.
Quote:
Out of curiosity, is English not your first language? I certainly have leniency for this type of misunderstanding for second languages... although I do wonder why you didn't look it up after it was clear we were disagreeing on the definition.

English is my first language. However, going to a regular dictionary and interpreting that as literally in one direction as you possibly can for this is probably going to end up imprecise for this kind of discussion. Also, even aside from English being a living language, words are not constrained to singular meanings even within the same person.

In addition as a more general statement, part of feminism and other activisms is changing the meanings of words because their current meanings and usages support oppression. Not just in definition, but also in value connotations. The disagreement over definition may sometimes be a large part of the argument, as is the case with "sexism". Defining out the ability to easily speak against oppression is one tool of patriarchy et al, and one that is often used against feminism, anti-racism and so on.
Quote:
That's an entirely different type of insult. Moral indignation is not the same as being angry. Telling me I'm wrong can produce either, depending on how you do it. If you just tell me you think I'm wrong, I'll be indignant until you prove it. If you tell me I'm a child-like idiot, then I'll be angry. I'm specifically talking about the things you say that are intended to make people angry. Those are the things that reduce your effectiveness.

What is intended to make people angry? Calling someone unperceptive about specific issues is not intended to make them angry neither is naive. It probably will, but it is not necessary, not ideal, and not what I'd rather have happen. I'd rather people just recognize what they are doing and stop that. That is my intent. Considering that I alone am privileged to any kind of direct knowledge of my intent, and behavior is not proof of my intent, you have a very steep hill to climb here if you're going to pin it as my primary intention to make people angry.

You also previously said that the words "blind" and "child" were not really the issue, it was the entire concept of calling people unperceptive, etc:
Dogen wrote:
You're welcome, but you missed the point. The point was that, on the other end of those barbs, is a person who feels attacked. Calling people child-like is insulting. Calling them blind is also insulting. Finding a new way to refer to them as "naive and inexperienced" or "incapable of comprehending the depths of concepts" is no less insulting. You are using insults. That's pretty much the whole point (because it's the basis of my, "you would be more effective if you stopped insulting people" argument).

Your "incapable" there is an addition of your own though. If that is one of the common misinterpretations of things I have said and you think I mean a natural limitation that they cannot ever gain more understanding than they have now, then that is not the case.

If you're saying here that I can call people wrong, but not say why they end up wrong, then what do you expect me to do? Naivete and unperceptiveness with regards to sexism and morality being reinforced by emotional defenses are major factors in patriarchy/white supremacy/etc.

Also, please point out where I have called anyone in this thread an idiot. I try not to use it as a pejorative, and last people have checked me that are looking for it, I was very successful at that.
Quote:
I'm sorry, I have no idea what this means. Please rephrase the third sentence. I should point out I'm using a less antagonistic interpretation of "spite" - that is, probably an emotionally neutered one. Are you meaning that when people disagree with you for no reason other than because they want you to be wrong for some reason? Either way, if they spite you effectively - that is, if they can use logic and evidence to prove you wrong and feel good about it - then they're still right. So, while I appreciate the allusion to intention here, I'm not sure where it's going.

I'm not sure how you would logically spite me considering that you'll have to spite both what I want and what I think of you/your actions. Both routes are equally valid logically and contradict each other.

This is more like what I meant: http://boingboing.net/2012/07/09/amateur-game-invites-player-to.html

I wouldn't classify what you're doing right now as spite. At least, it doesn't seem like it yet anyway. You're displaying some annoying ignorance of or avoidance of recogizing contextual differences, but hardly enough to qualify as "spite".
Quote:
If we're so close, how come you didn't get me a birthday present? My birthday was Thursday. Anyway, this doesn't really help. I'm trying to figure out how you think you can create intrusive thoughts that have a specific effect. It doesn't help if no one admits to having any intrusive thoughts. I guess we could start a poll. You've talked to a lot of people on the forum, right? I could start a thread with a poll question, "If you have discussed sexism with Kylra, have you at any time after had a thought that you couldn't push out of your mind?" Then see how people respond.

I meant close as far as what is considered sexist, not emotionally.

You hopefully know as well as I do that a self-report poll like that would be very flawed as any kind of proof because of some of the very things we're discussing, so that's a pretty hollow threat to me.
Quote:
Not only have I seen that study, I'm 99% sure that I linked it on these forums within the last 90 days. Maybe in the other forum feminism thread. Not sure. Anyway, your previous claim that belief in equality is too strongly engrained in people to be overridden... do you have any way to support that? I ask because I grew up in the Deep South, where people seemed pretty happy with their inequality (well, the white people did, anyway).

As a note, I never said belief in equality was entirely unable to be overridden.

They're happy with their inequality, but the majority of them still believe in some kind of equality, and think things are equal. This is why I call out "lack of perception". Look at the numbers for white people in this Gallup poll under "In general, do you think that blacks have as good a chance as white people in your community to get any kind of job for which they are qualified, or don't you think they have as good a chance?". Even in 1978 it was 67%: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1687/Race-Relations.aspx
Quote:
EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, I believe Samsally posted it in the feminism thread. I get the two of us confused. She's a feminist artist from North Dakota and I'm a sexist man who interrupts conversations to tear down women. You can see the confusion.

Your action did not tear down women in the direct sense you probably mean it here, it got in the way of something that you say will work, however inefficiently (unless you've actually rescinded that, it's getting hard to tell again).
Quote:
Okay (though I would say the racism workshop was actually helping people understand different perspectives, and that empathy was a possible but not necessary side effect of that understanding [though people who are trying to understand other people, and are thus more likely to be empathetic, are the ones that go to workshops, merely understanding someone's point of view doesn't ensure you empathize - you could understand it and not care]), but we're talking about cognitive dissonance.

I'd argue that you don't really understand if you can't empathize, but that's a needless semantical nitpick if I pressed it right now. Just putting this here for reference if it becomes relevant later.

Do you think that being able to empathize with the harm actions someone currently considers good cause would NOT produce dissonance somehow? If so, I'm going to have to ask you to cite how this particular contradiction is exempt from dissonance theory.
Quote:
I'm not sure how this is different from the research I've cited, or my references to therapy, or the links to people who fight sexism. All of those things are related to this discussion, and all of them provide circumstantial evidence that there are better methods at changing behavior. Personally, though therapy isn't a perfect analogy, I think it's the most relevant because it's often done one-on-one, and it only works if the person you're working with is open to you. That there is a power dynamic at play, though, seems less relevant, because if the power dynamic were the major factor then therapy would have some effect even if the client weren't open, but it doesn't. The main factor is whether the client is willing to listen and work with you.

I have not disagreed that in the circumstances they practice those methods are generally better or that that may be all that is politically feasible.

Do you think the power dynamic has no effect on how open a client may be? How about HIPAA regulations? Certifications from reputable organizations?

Therapy, as roughly defined by a setting and having a psychologist or counselor guide someone's introspection, is probably the most contextually relevant analogy, I agree, but it is still a flawed analogy in the ways I have been describing.
Quote:
Quote:
You have explicitly stated a couple times an insistence on keeping the discussion to psychology only though. Since you apparently are not bothered by that anymore, I will drop it.

I have not done this.

It was when you were trying to avoid the morality discussion we're having by not wanting to talk about sexism/what is being measured. I've already searched up two things I recalled enough of the wording of, but I don't recall enough of the wording for a specific statement about this to find it readily, and we're already doing the discussion now anyway.
Quote:
Hmm... well, first, two of my sources weren't organizations. They were people talking about how they do what they do, or how someone else did it to them to teach them about sexism. Second, though, what do you mean you're "already in agreement in those kinds of circumstances?"

See other segments where we're going over how the circumstances are different, which seems to be what your disagreement on this front centers around.
Quote:
You said, "They're also usually dealing with things far more on the surface than I am." If you didn't intend that to mean that they only deal with surface-level issues, then what did you intend for it to mean?

Should we just generally move towards unit-based adjectives? Lets say 1-15 is surface and 100 is deepest. They're dealing more with 30 or 40 because the people are presenting with problems such as in your workshop video or know something they are doing needs fixing but they're not really sure what and are generally not dealing with the more radical changes required to end sexism like the end of the gender binary. I am dealing more with 70 or 80 because I am dealing with people who do not conceive of it as a problem consciously and am working on those much more basic concepts. These units are arbitrary, but hopefully you get the idea.
Quote:
Many cognitive biases are difficult if not impossible to change, and we are actually wired to believe them. That's not the same as saying they can't be changed, because like the bias blind spot, awareness of the introspection illusion can cause people to recognize their own biases. However, this effect is often fleeting, and people will still tend to rely on biased thinking (of any kind) unless they're specifically aware of it. For instance, I've been trying to train myself not to fall prey to the fundamental attribution error for about a decade. Whenever I catch myself making an error of attribution I remind myself of it and review why it's biased. So, now I'm in the habit of catching myself making the errors... but I still make them, and I have no way of knowing how often I make them but don't catch them (re:availability heuristic).

Exactly. I have said something similar before already too. Glad we got to the same page on that. One thing down!

Keep this in mind because it might be relevant pretty soon.
Quote:
I've already told you how I do it. I talk them through it, without doing anything to add insult to injury (that is, minimizing the emotional arousal). People recognize that you can be a good person and still do a bad thing. The important thing is a willingness to recognize their behavior and work on it - the essence of character. Hence, while it may be insulting in the sense of hurtful, it's not insulting in the sense of belittling.

Sure. That's why not adding unnecessary emotional arousal is important.

How do you walk someone through something like "You do not understand how women fear for their safety at parties and currently cannot perceive it and you never will be able to do so fully" without any "belitting" as you define it?
Quote:
Of course, I also didn't make any arguments about what happens when you challenge deep-seated beliefs that I need to support, so you asked me to support a claim I never made. What I claimed was that you, specifically, lack the knowledge of how to craft an intrusive thought and control how it effects someone.

To convince me of that you're going to have to negate some significant portion of my knowledge, so I was giving you a potential more focused area with which to do just that. It seems like we end up agreeing way too much for that to be a likely thing to happen though. That statement was for your benefit to potentially make it easier for you to tear my argument down. You don't HAVE to do it, it was just a suggestion for a possible weak point. If you can change my mind I want you to do it. Then, not only do I get the joy of learning something new, I supposedly become even righter than before.
Quote:
Repeated exposure leads to improved recall. I figure if I kept pointing out how sparse your evidence is that eventually you'd be reminded of my demand for evidence every time you made a new claim. Anyway, I generally ask for evidence, because it's the only way to know if something is true. I don't trust my own intuition, and, as we have learned from the introspection illusion, I don't put much weight on yours either.

I was trying to get you to substantiate your claims - pretty much any of your claims - which you've been very resistant to doing. I don't mind a lack of empirical data (as I said), I just want you to find something that supports your claims. Use inductive arguments, but cite inductive evidence. You will never convince me based purely on the basis of your conviction that you're right.

This is made very difficult by the fact that I am/was a difficult time figuring out what you're differing with me on other than "Kylra is wrong" and that you are the one asking me to explain my theory. Point out what differs and I will try to elaborate, but otherwise I do not really have any place to go but a ground floor on up lecture or starting in random spots or somesuch. If I were interrogating your theory (which I have in a few places), I would provide where I think we differ for you to counter or elaborate on. I generally only want to put in the effort to dig up cites if there's a dispute, it seems like a critical difference in understanding, or I don't think the person I am talking to would understand from just a summary. I could in theory cite a hundred articles/studies, write a textbook for you and spend hundreds of hours making sure it is copy-edited perfectly right from the start, but this is an internet forum for Sinfest, not a complete associate's degree program in "How to Feminism" as Adyon greatly put it.
Quote:
Right. Now kindly show me that 1) you know how to make thoughts dissonant, and 2) that you can control for the various typical responses to dissonance. I'm not at all convinced that telling people they support sexism is, in itself, dissonant. I could be wrong, and I'm less concerned with the first point than the second - that you have any way of controlling how they respond. Especially since the typical response I've observed has been, "you don't know what you're talking about."

You seen me agree with the same theory behind this you cite here, so "do I know how" should probably not be the question to ask. The real question along that line is "do I have the ability" unless you're going to disagree with the things you cite. That you're going to find little to no empirical evidence collected for you to peruse. I could post some minor probable examples of evidence of this from the forums, but I can only guess from the things posted so far based on previous patterns. In theory though the answer to that is also "yes, everyone can and does all the time and usually without meaning to" but individually on a lesser scale than things like "the advertising industry" or "major political party's propaganda machine".

Telling people they support sexism does not necessarily provoke dissonance. It is just one thing that possibly can depending on the person's beliefs and patterns of thought. You need at least two cognitions to have dissonance, not one, so saying "telling people they support sexism is not, in itself, dissonant" is almost tautologically true in nature. The second cognition in this case is one provided by the listener/reader themselves. It is potentially given longer term force by activating another internal cognition dissonant with the first internal cognition. If you don't recognize that two active cognitions are required to produce dissonance (which it seems you may not from the way you're wording this), we should seek to establish that one way or the other first before continuing. In fact, if you disagree with it taking at least two active cognitions that contradict, we probably need to stop everything else until that is sorted out.

Moderate feminists get told the same stuff I get told all the time too. See Ashland for one fairly typical example. I expect people to call me "too emotional", "overreacting", "man-hater", "don't know what I'm talking about" and so on regardless of how nice/mean I am. You're an exception in this regard for the bit I am after you about because you haven't very many of the typical responses to even nicely worded feminism that contradict people's viewpoints. You are still going to have to come up with something better than "people try to dismiss or get mad at you" to convince me of anything because that is a terrible metric (see that paper regarding training teachers as well). The argument about getting the right kind of "hurt" to use your word in your post is plausibly a useful discussion, but making people's initial negative response a measurement is just not going to work, especially when we're talking about people who do not acknowledge there is a problem with their actions.
Quote:
I still don't actually think you're causing cognitive dissonance, but that's okay, because I'm willing to assume you are. But in order to be effective you'd have to be able to show that this dissonance generally leads to the result you want (which, I assume, is altered behavior). Nothing in the white bear study helps you there.

For this much we can probably cite the workshops and so on if you want something more empirical and will allow it. It's not perfect, but it's probably the closest you'll get to empirical data to support this.

Theoryside, people who exhibit temporally immediate hedonistic apathy towards oppression already have no motivation to do other than what they do now. If that wins out, they're still immediately hedonistically apathetic, and being outside the status quo nets immediate to near immediate social punishments, which will generally keep them from making the status quo worse.

People who are ostensibly for ending the oppression of women but "don't really get it" have "end the oppression of women" as a part of their self-identity, as well as their "good person" self-identity which usually runs very deep, so that is also unlikely to be the thing that gives out compared to some specific category of action. There's several different general branches of this I can go through that each have various twists, such as "funfeminists", biotruthers, and the Mansplaining Male Feminist. Most of the differences that direction are more of "how to approach" manuals than the theory behind this though, but if you think it would be useful for you to understand what I am saying, I can elaborate on one or two.
Quote:
This is another one of those "we can't talk about this because of X" things.

We are actually going over it at a more general theory level in other segments where there could be some problems as far as I can tell. If those doesn't suffice then I'm sure we'll wind our way back to this more specifically.
Quote:
Anyway, priming is difficult to control, because it's based on the cognitive map of the person you're priming. Some things are easy, for instance, "palm" primes "tree" and "hand" (and possibly a bunch of other things, like "Sunday") Some things are not. What does "feminism" prime? Is it the same for everyone? If someone associates negative stereotypes with feminism, then you're going to prime those stereotypes. You'd have to know how to affect their cognitive map in order to use priming to change, rather than reflect it. This study may interest you, because it talks about subconscious priming to affect impression formation, such as priming someone to want a third person to like them. It's problematic, however, because (as the paper points out) a person's motivation influences how they process and respond to information. So, if you piss someone off, they're motivated to fight back, which changes how the information you send them is received (and thus, how it primes them). This one found that people are more likely to assimilate more mild exemplars, while more extreme ones were more likely to cause people to contrast comparisons (i.e. they might identify in what ways they're different from your theory, rather than the ways in which they are like it).

I am not priming "feminism" per se, but a trait of perception that people are not accomplishing, as well as myself as a person-exemplar. For an example in porn which started this, the objectification of women and it's negative effects on real women. As far as for priming by itself goes, the "feminism" discussion is "filler" to retain engagement, although it's still useful for other purposes not related to priming such as rote teaching the audience if not the listener. Priming need not be done in the clinically eliminative way as done in research as when it is used in "the field" so to speak, and defining it only as it is done in research is extremely narrow for something that is in concept done just about any time you say or do anything in the presence anyone that they can hear/read/see/etc. Even pictures sitting around can prime things, they just aren't very useful for research because of how complicated they are in symbol quantity and interaction. From the first study there is one thing I want to note that is very relevant to theory for my side of this argument:
Quote:
Importantly, there was nothing in our data to suggest that no-goal participants had formed an impression before receiving the instructions to report one. This difference between impression-goal and no-goal conditons is critical to our hypothesis, because it suggests that the "default" (represented in the present study by the no-goal condition) is to abstain from forming an impression until given instructions to do so.

Although the study is related to other persons, it would suggest the potential for a similar default and manner of activation regarding the self, even if that is complicated by other factors. Getting people to form impressions of their harmful actions as it relates to women is a big part of the goal here.

Regarding the second study the contrasting effect is desirable. People already have self-judgements of being not-sexist or how terrible feminists are, and providing myself as an exemplar will slide at least one of those how I want for person-judgements. This is part of the concept behind the Overton Window, where public opinion ranges from, essentially, accepted without question to unthinkable on either side of an issue. Not that I am deliberately saying things I do not think are true or I consider morally wrong though. It just happens that feminism is largely in the "radical" or "unthinkable" categories for the vast majority of people. Even moderate feminism is barely inside if it isn't outside of the window of "acceptable". See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

For the trait-priming regarding perceptiveness with regards to harm to women and empathizing, those are shown to always be assimilated and will in theory also affect future judgements of those how I want.

Regarding "pissing people off" I will not be persuaded until you can explain how to get the information I want to get across to people to them without pissing people off. Keep in mind the ethical content is part of the information.

Both of those filled in a number of holes in my understanding of priming though, thanks. It gives me some ideas for other things to sharpen that aren't quite a part of the discussion we're having.

I also found this is one of the cites in the first study you have cited that seems worth mentioning: http://osil.psy.ua.edu:16080/~Rosanna/Soc_Inf/week9/PFC.pdf
Quote:
There is general consensus that a person who believes one way but acts another way will only experience dissonance only if he or she believes the action was freely chosen.

While according to the study that mostly only applies to only to people with a higher measured Preference for Consistency, this and preference for consistency is possibly something interesting to note for this discussion.
Quote:
And yet, therapy exists on the notion that despite this we can sit down and talk about our problems and overcome them. Without calling each other disgusting, or child-like, or blind.

And again that is generally when both parties agree to it and so on, which is circumstantially very different from the Official Sinfest Internet Forums and its included posters. I am also really starting to get the impression you don't fully understand what I am saying with the qualia analogy and why, nor why I actually think people are that naive aside from just a subjective "my feelings". We might be getting there in other segments though.


Last edited by Kylra on Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 16637
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kylra wrote:
How do you walk someone through something like "You do not understand how women fear for their safety at parties and currently cannot perceive it and you never will be able to do so fully" without any "belitting" as you define it?


well, i'm not a psychologist or nothing, but how about not starting with the concept that they are too stupid and/or lacking in empathy to get what you are talking about anyway, no matter how long you beat them over the head with it?

especially because, for all you know, you are entirely wrong about that last part (tell me how a man who gets slipped a roofie and ass-raped at a party won't understand how people could fear for their safety at one).

if you start out by telling people you are trying to 'convert' that they will never actually be able to do it, why should they waste their time listening to you?[/quote]
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40, 41  Next
Page 39 of 41

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group