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 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10693
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kylra wrote:
You misunderstand. I am not talking about socially acceptable. I am talking about sexism. The sexist time in this case is a socially acceptable time. That sexism is very often socially acceptable is part of the problem. That's part of what makes it "systemic". If it wasn't socially acceptable it would be torn down FAR more quickly and easily than it is being now.

This is an interesting view point. 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)? Is the clerk at a grocery store or gas station murderous because he sells cigarettes? Is the lady at Starbucks behaving manipulatively because she asks people on diets if they want anything out of the pastry display? Are legislators lawbreakers because they pass laws that other people will break? This perspective seems overly simplistic and one-sided. It's overly simplistic in that it seems to deny the value of any other perspective, and appears to only take into account how you feel about my behavior. It's one-sided in that it appears you get to tell everyone they're being sexist, and if they disagree with you it's because they're sexist or don't understand sexism, and if they argue with your interpretation then their behavior is sexist and they should just shut up and sit down... Are you the arbiter of what is sexism? Again, I don't doubt that you know more than I do about it, but I find this idea that anything that challenges you being labelled as sexist kind of like the behavior of church leaders who try to label as sinful anything that questions their authority. But perhaps this isn't what you mean? Maybe you do take into account other perspectives. For instance, I take a pragmatic, utilitarian view of most things. If the end result of my behavior is positive, then it's probably good. If the end result is that you understand how to argue better, then your efforts weren't wasted and I've actually made you a better debater. The interim stuff - having to waste energy on me instead of fighting sexism - is a deficit that is more than repaid in the enhancements I offer. And in that case, you're the one making fighting sexism harder, by being so resistant to change. Very Happy

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.

Quote:
You could have also waited until after I was done to make your psychology argument here, and it may have not had this bit of sexism in it.

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.

Quote:
If you can think of a better way to present the qualia-like problem I present there that clearly gets the idea across, let me know. I actually struggle with that for several minutes every time I say that, and have not yet found a better way that will not end up with a more "net ableist" result than doing it how I have been.

I'll think about the child one. I get the feeling I can forge that a bit better. Thanks.

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.

Quote:
Quote:
If you approach it combatively, then you're not talking to them you're talking at them, and people just throw up the walls and man the ramparts to defend themselves without giving any deep consideration to what you're saying.

Cite the bolded adequately and you win. Again though, Yerkes-Dodson does not strictly apply as a refutation when I want to alter heuristics and other sub/unconscious functions unless you can show that conscious processing is required. I recognize it's purpose for efficient rote knowledge transfer, but I have already said that when I want to do that I do it at calmer times.

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.

Quote:
You've cited evidence in other segments that even if they try to defend against what I am doing, they will still likely fail to do anything but what I want them to do with regards to difficultly in suppressing thought, cognitive dissonance and introspection illusion, which is in support of my argument against the bolded.

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. 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. 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.

Quote:
I have most often found myself dismissed as too pretentious or unthinkable when I take this route unless I have a preexisting close emotional attachment. That is a far less useful response than anger. These things run very deep, and people generally have little to no logic there. You probably have quite a bit, and people highly involved in social justice often do, but in general? I expect very high amounts of off the cuff rationalization that wants to purport itself as logic.

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.

Quote:
In actuality, you pointing out the problems I have that seem contradictory to what I say serves the purposes of the explaining to you about "what is sexism" and "what is an insult". It gives me a chance to point out patterns of thought that you do not use, which is an important part of this whole social justice deal.

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.

Quote:
Quote:
Hopefully I've made it clear that I'm talking about actual, literal insults now (above).

It's clear. I just do not categorize them as "literal insults" if part of the categorization of such is that I am doing it primarily to make people angry or get them unstable as a debate tactic to make myself look good or similar. I am doing it as a necessary part of pointing out people's seemingly apparent contradiction of belief because that's what my "insults" largely are. This is where we may have to divert more onto "what is sexism" or "what is ableism" or similar for what I am saying to really make sense. We can do things in the realm of disability instead if it will help. For the main thing I would be explaining, there are pros and cons to both sides of you deciding whether to go for a topic of that sort you're more familiar with or less familiar with. I usually find it best to talk in the one that is less familiar, and analogize to one more familiar. In theory this is because of the heuristics we have been talking about.

Unfortunately for you, but fortunate for the rest of us, it doesn't matter if you classify them as insults. The person who feels attacked is the one who gets to do that, and you have no say in how they interpret your intent or your message. If they feel insulted, then they will classify whatever caused that feeling as an insult. Communication is a bi-directional process. Whatever you write is going to be interpreted by the other person and they might interpret it as the exact opposite of what you meant. That's because language has denotative meaning and connotative meaning, and we bring all of our experience with us when we're deciphering what other people mean when they communicate. This image describes a basic communication system, but it doesn't explain that both the transmitter and receiver introduce variations and errors into the message - what you transmit via language isn't the original message but an approximation of it, that the receiver has to then try and reconstruct into the original message. Thus, good communication depends on the willingness of both parties to engage in reflection on their own assumptions about the meanings they ascribed to the message supplied by the other, and to work together to not let the true message get lost in the imperfect medium. This is another reason why getting pissed off doesn't help. Very Happy

Quote:
I was already aware of this specific study. In your study, it is given salience by the study being boring and them being told to lie about it. Similar salience applies for counter-attitudinal essays. If using it for "subconscious salience" is technically a misuse, let me know.

No. You don't seem to understand what causes dissonance. I covered this above.

Quote:
You're technically correct here again. However, the "simplest method" is not always "most effective method", so you cannot argue simplicity as a metric for "more effective" unless you can show equal results between the simple and complex methods.

The difficulty in thought suppression and introspective illusion problems are specifically things I am dealing with here. I am counting on the former to help flush out the latter, so again I am confused about why you present this as evidence against me.

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?

Quote:
I know it is a silly question, but it is seemingly what you said from my perspective, and that's why I brought it up specifically, because you were seemingly asserting something different than what I know. If you can show that beliefs cannot be manipulated unconsciously or subconsciously, then that will at least be persuasive, but may constitute a logical win. I do not dispute here that it can happen in the conscious mind, but only that it must.

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. 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.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, you could demand evidence from me forever and try to declare victory when I run out of sources to cite. However, it wouldn't change my position because my position isn't based on empirical measurements. It's an inductive position, based on the likelihood of getting the response we're both looking for.

Indeed. That is why I am not pushing it because I was pretty sure you knew that, and I don't want to accidentally run psychology into being distrusted by the audience by disrupting that illusion too much. Despite some flaws it may have, it is still very useful and will become much moreso over time.

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.

Quote:
Quote:
All I have to show - and have been showing - is that arousing strong emotion makes people irrational and unwilling to listen, and that people who are employed in fields that actively change minds (including other feminists) agree with me. I don't need to measure empirically to know that as you ratchet up the anxiety that fewer and fewer people are going to be paying attention to the meanings behind your words, that's just recognizing the Yerkes-Dodson exists, and that if we assume a bell-shaped curve in their distribution (meaning most people fall near the average) that as we increase anxiety larger and larger chunks will be pushed toward the "cannot pay any attention at all" end of the curve. I'm simply playing the averages.

Unwilling to listen consciously. I have already asserted that most of the processing of information takes place in lower levels of the mind which you do not seem to disagree with, and you presented evidence of some of my points for me with people finding it difficult to suppress unwanted thoughts and having introspective illusion issues.

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.

Quote:
I consider myself smart, sure. The only way you are going to significantly harm that at this point is to actually take that attribute away from me though. I do not care that much if people call me "dumb" or "stupid" or so on, and you know why? Because those aren't bad things. It tells me much more of what I want to know about what the person insulting me thinks about themselves and other people than it does myself. What people use as insults today says tons about who they are, because they often drip with ableism, sexism, racism (or at least racialism) and classism.

Okay.

Quote:
Seriously, go for it if you want to. It's essentially a thing I do to promote social justice, get people to figure out how I think. I'm probably not going to reveal too many specific events for reasons (not that I won't touch them, but like saying I have ADHD it could undermine things in other people's sub/unconscious), but if you're curious about how I think of some particular thing have at it. I'm actually kind of glad you're curious about that, even if it is partially from actual concern about my mental state.

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.

Quote:
I know that simply believing that I could tell what is rationalization or not won't pin the "charge" of rationalization to someone. Even if I had hard evidence of some sort that wouldn't be enough because they could just make a new one. Really, what I believe is irrelevant in a primary manner to overcoming that. It's what the listener believes that counts.

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.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you deny that people become irrational decision makers when they're highly aroused (which has an entire chapter devoted to it in a very good book)? Or that they become resistant to change when they feel threatened? Because if not, I wonder how you believe you can focus them on anything.

I do not deny that people become irrational decision makers. The "decision" people need to make first is not primarily a conscious one though. People do not generally "choose" to support sexism, they just do it because they don't consciously think about it and it just happens anyway. Conscious thought is not at all required for any action that is theoretically under conscious control.

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.

Quote:
I have made my peace with that. You know what me accepting that it will happen doesn't change though? Whether or not any particular interruption of me when I am trying to take down sexism is in support of sexism or not.

Yes, I'm aware. I just disagree with your very rigid judgment of everyone's behavior as being overly simplistic.
_________________
"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: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


Last edited by Kylra on Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:55 pm; edited 19 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17128
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kylra: i think you've given us a near textbook example of the point poor Dogen has been trying to make:

you perceive his attempt to change your methods of promoting feminism et al. as an attack on your ego (even though he has been very careful not to insult you or any of the other things you have accused him of).

you have responded with pages and pages of defense of your position, in which your complete failure to comprehend or directly consider his points has been the most outstanding feature.
'
and you are very clearly emotional about it.

so: he made an "attack" that prompted a strong emotional response, and you have dug in to defend your position. you may have succeeded in your own mind; to mine, and i suspect many others, your failure is palpable. you very clearly have not been introspecting on any of his arguments, consciously or unconsciously. you simply have not "heard" them. because you are too emotional about it.

and now you will probably deal with this either by ignoring me, or attacking me as somehow defending a sexist agenda - when all i want is for people who argue in favor of feminism (or against racism, or any other sort of position that attempts to dehumanize part of the population) to do it effectively. in other words, to win over more people than they turn off. which, by your performance here, is most definitely not you.

all of which goes to _my_ original criticism of you: i think you see yourself surrounded by horrible situations and people who oppose you because you _expect_ that - you _look_ for that. and if it's not really there, you insist it is any way.

Dogen has never, in all of these arguments, been presenting a sexist position. he is someone with knowledge of and experience in changing people's minds, who is trying to educate someone else in a more effective way of doing that. you are the one who insists on seeing his actions as sexist, because you wear 'the world is sexist" goggles. (i'm assuming they are sort of the opposite of rose-colored).

until you take those glasses off and accept that not everyone is against you, and that some of them may even be able to help you, you are never going to make the change you want in the world.

had your method really worked, Dogen would have gotten you to change your thinking when you got offended that he was criticizing you, to really do some introspection on how well you are actually succeeding. but in the end, all he has done is get you to dig in deeper in your belief that your way is the right way.

rather ironic, actually.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Kylra: i think you've given us a near textbook example of the point poor Dogen has been trying to make:

you perceive his attempt to change your thought process as an attack on your ego (even though he has been very careful not to insult you or any of the other things you have accused him of).

I am aware of the irony that we both think roughly the same thing of each other. I said near the start "this is going to be a battle of whose perception is more correct". That has held true so far. In the end it's probably going to be down to if we can get to the end and through whichever of us is presenting emotional defenses.
Quote:
so: he made an "attack" that prompted a strong emotional response, and you have dug in to defend your position. you may have succeeded in your own mind; to mine, and i suspect many others, your failure is palpable. you very clearly have not been introspecting on any of his arguments, consciously or unconsciously. you simply have not "heard" them. because you are too emotional about it.

I do not think I have succeeded with Dogen, no. If I do, I would guess it would be an obvious shift in Dogen's case with how much there is in this. Similarly if Dogen succeeds with me.
Quote:
Dogen has never, in all of these arguments, been presenting a sexist position.

This is probably at least technically correct in the way you mean it.
Quote:
he is someone with knowledge of and experience in changing people's minds, who is trying to educate someone else in a more effective way of doing that. you are the one who insists on seeing his actions as sexist, because you wear 'the world is sexist" goggles. (i'm assuming they are sort of the opposite of rose-colored).

I am 100% sure at the moment that Dogen intends well in discussing this with me and seriously wants to help if that helps clear things up any for you.
Quote:
had your method really worked, Dogen would have gotten you to change your thinking when you got offended that he was criticizing you, to really do some introspection on how well you are actually succeeding. but in the end, all he has done is get you to dig in deeper in your belief that your way is the right way.

I think we're about to get somewhere, so hold on to your hat if you're wearing one. I think we may have finally stumbled upon a/the key point(s) for both the discussions we're having if we can stick to it all.
Quote:
rather ironic, actually.

It always is when it gets like this. And it's recursively layered irony no less. No matter who is right.


Last edited by Kylra on Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:22 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't believe the Good Feminism Thread turned out to be in the comic subforum. I've got some reading up to do.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bart



Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1572

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's mainly Dogen consistently arguing the same thing and Kylra making increasingly hard to understand "counterarguments". Honestly, it might be due to a lack of knowledge on psychology, but for the life of me I can't understand what exactly she's been arguing for the last 5 pages. (Except for "I'm right")
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Haven't started reading yet so... welp.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willem wrote:
I can't believe the Good Feminism Thread turned out to be in the comic subforum. I've got some reading up to do.

I told you about this thread in the general discussion feminism thread! Smile

It's a good read though. You usually can't really force these things, they just kind of happen.
Bart wrote:
It's mainly Dogen consistently arguing the same thing and Kylra making increasingly hard to understand "counterarguments". Honestly, it might be due to a lack of knowledge on psychology, but for the life of me I can't understand what exactly she's been arguing for the last 5 pages.

That's a decent summary except the quotes around "counterarguments". I'm making much the same counterarguments up until the last couple of posts, but Dogen has also been helping me sharpen the terminology and giving me some of the links I lost a while back from a HD crash and then some. Usually I don't have much use/need for formal terminology because most people don't know it and will be turned off of thinking by it, kind of like overloading people with feminism terminology right off the bat. I'm definitely using "introspective illusion" more in the future though.

If you have any questions about my arguments, I can maybe try to clarify for you if there's something in particular that doesn't make sense.

In an interesting coincidence, this is all still relevant to the comic that started the thread.


Last edited by Kylra on Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:57 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17128
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bart wrote:
It's mainly Dogen consistently arguing the same thing and Kylra making increasingly hard to understand "counterarguments". Honestly, it might be due to a lack of knowledge on psychology, but for the life of me I can't understand what exactly she's been arguing for the last 5 pages. (Except for "I'm right")


you've pretty much got it. the main amusement at this point is the various ways kylra has managed to misunderstand pretty much every important point anyone has made.

honestly, i'd think she was a non-native English speaker because she really seems to be tone-deaf on word usage - except all the guys like you that i know are non-native English speakers seem to not have any problem with stuff like that.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
honestly, i'd think she was a non-native English speaker because she really seems to be tone-deaf on word usage - except all the guys like you that i know are non-native English speakers seem to not have any problem with stuff like that.

I know what most people think they mean. Part of what I am arguing is that the typical cultural definitions of those words is informed by patriarchy et al. Kind of like 1984's Newspeak, except less extreme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hah, I'm slightly too tired to catch up - or even finish one of those huge-ass posts -, but I'm getting the feeling I know exactly which type of debate this is. Smile
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1160
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willem wrote:
Hah, I'm slightly too tired to catch up - or even finish one of those huge-ass posts -, but I'm getting the feeling I know exactly which type of debate this is. Smile

If it helps, the posts were shorter at the beginning. But after awhile you could probably skim 90% of it and get the meaning.

But it is funny how this thread has become a topic of "How to feminism" through the use of everyone debating Kylra's methods.

In all honesty...It is an enjoyable read, reading back through to see everything. It gave me a lot of insight into people actually. If you just take it lightly, it's not as bad as it seems.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kylra



Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adyon wrote:
If it helps, the posts were shorter at the beginning. But after awhile you could probably skim 90% of it and get the meaning.

The last 2 posts of mine and Dogen's each are where we've really been starting up. Everything before that was mostly prologue to sort out word usage and figure out the points where our understandings are different. It seems pretty locked in now, and the big question is if we will make it to the end or not.
Quote:
But it is funny how this thread has become a topic of "How to feminism" through the use of everyone debating Kylra's methods.

It is funny how that works.
Quote:
In all honesty...It is an enjoyable read, reading back through to see everything. It gave me a lot of insight into people actually. If you just take it lightly, it's not as bad as it seems.

You can't take it too lightly though. You have to actually think about how it relates to how you view what is right and wrong and how yourself and other people think or else there's not really a point. It'll probably be difficult not to if you care about these issues at all though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10693
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kylra wrote:
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

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 of them even) until this is resolved.

Haha, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to keep this conversation consistent. I'm concerned about your use of terms at times, and things like "lower levels" is kind of ambiguous (there are, for instance, subconscious processes and physiological processes, such as neurons firing, and those are different and you're not aware of either). It's easier for me to challenge the terms and have you explain them. For instance, you use addiction as a reference here, which is problematic because addiction is something that 1) no one understands fully (though the dopaminergic reward pathways are clearly involved) and 2) falls into a category of physiological processes. At some point all things will come down to specific neurons firing in specific patterns, or the inhibition or excitation of protein functions, organelles, etc. These things aren't just subconscious, they're totally non-conscious (we have no direct effect on them at all, just through other processes). It's important not to devolve every discussion to the point where your only rebuttal is, "well, brain." Because when discussing certain things - like information processing - that's so broad as to be meaningless. 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.

Quote:
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 these 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.

I'm fairly certain I never admitted to trying to "tear you down." If you mean "constructive criticism," though, then okay. I'm not sure the hyperbolic description adds anything. I'm still not seeing how you think I'm supposed to be "putting these things logically together." I saw you doing something that I feel strongly about in a manor I wouldn't recommend. I recommended that you change your method to one that's more effective for fighting sexism. You disagreed, and in the course of disagreeing a 38 (39?)-page thread was spawned. If that's sexist, I think your definition of sexism is so broad as to be effectively meaningless. That you think bringing up more effective ways of doing a thing is in some way equivalent to being against that thing is kind of mind boggling. Because in my mind those are opposites.

Quote:
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.

You certainly seem to be acting as though you're the sole arbiter of what constitutes sexism, divvying out "sexism units" to support a claim that I'm being sexist. What is a sexism unit? Does all behavior have sexism units, even scratching my ear? Who decides what behavior has sexism units and how many? So far, it seems to be you. Just you.

Now, of course I'm making a moral argument. Sexism is, at heart, an arguments about morals. I don't have a problem with you making a moral argument. I have a problem with you defining the argument in terms of how far people disagree with you, as though your position is the goal post by which we're all to be measured. If you assume your position is infallible, then we've got nowhere to go.

Quote:
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.

No, I covered that entire concept in my explanation of my pragmatic approach to fighting sexism. If an action has a net positive result on fighting sexism, it's not sexist. This includes the extent to which sexism is supported by the timing of the action. This is obviously overly simplistic because, for instance, in a discussion of gay rights you might say the raid on the Stonewall that led to the Stonewall riots had a net positive impact on gay rights over time (that is, it was turned from a negative into a positive) but were obviously still homophobic, and in such a case one has to reflect on the intent of the behavior as well as its outcome... but I'm pretty confident my intent is also positive regarding the fighting of sexism. So, from a utilitarian perspective, I'm doing just fine.

Quote:
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.

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...

Quote:
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 one. ... 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.

This is the point under question, that you are assuming to be true in order to argue a different point... that's begging the question. You still haven't proven anything with regard to whether insulting people improves your effectiveness, or supported it with evidence. You've made some vague references to introspective illusion (which is one of those ironic things to toss at other people, because it works against you, too), but still haven't shown anything that supports the idea that pissing people off will make them more receptive to your message. Or that your message is received subconsciously and takes effect there. So... evidence?

Quote:
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.

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."

Quote:
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.

Yes, yes. "Well, brain." All your thoughts are the end result of physiological processes over which you have no awareness or control. Indeed, you have no control over your actions either, since they're also the result of physiological and subconscious mental processes, right? This is reductio ad absurdum. It also totally ignores that "intrusive thoughts" is a term that has a definition that separates it from other types of thoughts. You seem to have a surface-level understanding of the terms I use sometimes, but without a firm understanding of how they fit into the bigger picture.

Quote:
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.

This is irrelevant. My point was that I don't believe that you can implant intrusive thoughts. I used myself as an example, because you've already accused me of sexism, but I've had no experience of any of the things you have said happen to people with whom you discuss sexism.

Quote:
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". "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.

You make a lot of unfounded claims here. You assume, for instance, that people's empathy will override their sexism... but isn't sexism the status quo? Also, your ability to judge the effectiveness of your method was one of the central questions, so it's not very rational here to claim that you're good at using dissonance because you get such good results. You either need to substantiate that or stop saying it.

Also, sociology and psychology are pretty much the same field (though we don't like to admit it), we just look at the same things (behavior) on different scales. Why do you keep bringing up new fields seemingly at random? First you brought up psychology, then you started referring to things as "more philosophical," and since that didn't work you're bringing up sociology. If I tell you I have a minor in sociology (I don't, my minor was philosophy), will you bring up a new field? Cosmology, perhaps? You can either explain a problem or you can't. Don't worry about what field it's in. Have you heard me complain about moving between fiels yet? Smile

Quote:
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.

No, an appeal to popularity is simply saying that something is true because it's popular, which isn't really the case here (fighting sexism isn't popular among the population at large). An ad populum argument is usually about ideas held by lots of people everywhere. What I'm making is an appeal to authority, which is not inherently fallacious. I'm saying that experts in fighting sexism agree with me. Since one of the pieces I linked to was an essay written by a man who had his mind changed by interacting with women he didn't know who challenged his beliefs, I'm going to need you to be specific in the ways the things I cited differ from the situations you encounter. How do you know their attempts to change people only surface-level? Why would someone who is an activist for social change (as one of the authors was/is) pursue only surface-level changes? To me, surface-level means not touching anything beneath the surface, but obviously these people are trying to get people to change the way they think, and to recognize the effects of their behavior. That doesn't seem surface-level to me.

Quote:
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.

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.

I'd also like to point out that it's kind of funny that you're using the introspective illusion to attribute less weight to my introspections than you appear to give to yours. Very Happy

Quote:
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.

Never a reason to insult people? Remember that at the beginning of this discussion I told you I was a big fan of arguing. I've spent entire threads mocking people. Recently, even. My point has always been that you have to use the best tool for the circumstance, and that insulting people whom you'd like to influence to accept your position is counterproductive. If you just want to influence them to be angry, then insults are the best tool.

However, I simply don't believe that we have to discuss feminism to understand why your method is less effective. We don't have to because sexism is not a unique problem in this world, and other people fight similar problems without being abrasive (including professionals who fight sexism for a living). You just refuse to accept that, generally speaking, no one endorses your method. And that isn't because there's no one out there that understands feminism and sexism the way you do, it's because the people out there who understand it as well as or better than you also understand the effects of pissing people off.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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,"

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.

Quote:
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.

True, it's irritating when people make claims without evidence, isn't it? Wink 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?

Quote:
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.

You spend a lot of time talking about what we have to talk about, seemingly as a way of avoiding actually talking about the point. It's the third time you did it in just this post, and the "we first have to talk about sexism" is becoming like a slogan for every point I bring up. We should have it embroidered on shirts, so we can always remember this moment. They could say, "We can't talk about anything unless we first talk about everything else."

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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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 because of introspective illusion. They can understand emotions and such though, barring certain atypical conditions that may complicate things.

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.
_________________
"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: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
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.

"Levels" is likely to be technically accurate in at least some specific contexts. Language, for one example, does not go through just one place in the brain/mind from the ears then to the conscious. It goes from the ears to some kind of sorting/filtering mechanism, then to a language processing section then to other places like various types of memory if it makes it that far. For most intents and purposes it is adequate to just put it into "the unconscious" as a single unordered thing generally though as we've mentioned a few times now.
Quote:
I'm fairly certain I never admitted to trying to "tear you down." If you mean "constructive criticism," though, then okay. I'm not sure the hyperbolic description adds anything. I'm still not seeing how you think I'm supposed to be "putting these things logically together." I saw you doing something that I feel strongly about in a manor I wouldn't recommend. I recommended that you change your method to one that's more effective for fighting sexism. You disagreed, and in the course of disagreeing a 38 (39?)-page thread was spawned. If that's sexist, I think your definition of sexism is so broad as to be effectively meaningless. That you think bringing up more effective ways of doing a thing is in some way equivalent to being against that thing is kind of mind boggling. Because in my mind those are opposites.

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.

Also check the bolded, if you're trying to be "fully logical" anyway. I personally don't mind much since I'm pretty sure part of that "feel" there is what most of our words have been predicated on anyway, but I thought I'd point it out since you're claiming the logical/empirically evidenced high ground.
Quote:
You certainly seem to be acting as though you're the sole arbiter of what constitutes sexism, divvying out "sexism units" to support a claim that I'm being sexist. What is a sexism unit? Does all behavior have sexism units, even scratching my ear? Who decides what behavior has sexism units and how many? So far, it seems to be you. Just you.

Now, of course I'm making a moral argument. Sexism is, at heart, an arguments about morals. I don't have a problem with you making a moral argument. I have a problem with you defining the argument in terms of how far people disagree with you, as though your position is the goal post by which we're all to be measured. If you assume your position is infallible, then we've got nowhere to go.

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.
Quote:
No, I covered that entire concept in my explanation of my pragmatic approach to fighting sexism. If an action has a net positive result on fighting sexism, it's not sexist. This includes the extent to which sexism is supported by the timing of the action. This is obviously overly simplistic because, for instance, in a discussion of gay rights you might say the raid on the Stonewall that led to the Stonewall riots had a net positive impact on gay rights over time (that is, it was turned from a negative into a positive) but were obviously still homophobic, and in such a case one has to reflect on the intent of the behavior as well as its outcome... but I'm pretty confident my intent is also positive regarding the fighting of sexism. So, from a utilitarian perspective, I'm doing just fine.

Things can have both sexist and anti-sexist parts at the same time. That doesn't make the sexist parts not-sexist. If you rape someone and that gets them to realize what feminism is about which ends up preventing two future rapes, you have still raped someone.

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/

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?

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.
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.

You can possibly argue that I fail to apply the same standards sometimes, and I would like to hear it if you catch me doing that, but I do certainly put in the effort, as you can see from me not getting upset about you calling me out on my ableism supporting wording.
Quote:
This is the point under question, that you are assuming to be true in order to argue a different point... that's begging the question. You still haven't proven anything with regard to whether insulting people improves your effectiveness, or supported it with evidence. You've made some vague references to introspective illusion (which is one of those ironic things to toss at other people, because it works against you, too), but still haven't shown anything that supports the idea that pissing people off will make them more receptive to your message. Or that your message is received subconsciously and takes effect there. So... evidence?

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.

I am aware of the irony involved in invoking introspective illusion.

Evidence discussed in other segments.
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?

See above for metric dicussion. We're getting there on explaining how it differs from "people disagree with me".
Quote:
Yes, yes. "Well, brain." All your thoughts are the end result of physiological processes over which you have no awareness or control. Indeed, you have no control over your actions either, since they're also the result of physiological and subconscious mental processes, right? This is reductio ad absurdum. It also totally ignores that "intrusive thoughts" is a term that has a definition that separates it from other types of thoughts. You seem to have a surface-level understanding of the terms I use sometimes, but without a firm understanding of how they fit into the bigger picture.

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.
Quote:
This is irrelevant. My point was that I don't believe that you can implant intrusive thoughts. I used myself as an example, because you've already accused me of sexism, but I've had no experience of any of the things you have said happen to people with whom you discuss sexism.

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 that gets it 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 3 closest to me in these forums as far as I can tell.
Quote:
You make a lot of unfounded claims here. You assume, for instance, that people's empathy will override their sexism... but isn't sexism the status quo? Also, your ability to judge the effectiveness of your method was one of the central questions, so it's not very rational here to claim that you're good at using dissonance because you get such good results. You either need to substantiate that or stop saying it.

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

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.

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.
Quote:
Also, sociology and psychology are pretty much the same field (though we don't like to admit it), we just look at the same things (behavior) on different scales. Why do you keep bringing up new fields seemingly at random? First you brought up psychology, then you started referring to things as "more philosophical," and since that didn't work you're bringing up sociology. If I tell you I have a minor in sociology (I don't, my minor was philosophy), will you bring up a new field? Cosmology, perhaps? You can either explain a problem or you can't. Don't worry about what field it's in. Have you heard me complain about moving between fiels yet? Smile

No, cosmology would be silly. From the way you mention it I'd guess we have the same opinion of it. 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'm aware that sociology and psychology are very similar aside from scale.
Quote:
No, an appeal to popularity is simply saying that something is true because it's popular, which isn't really the case here (fighting sexism isn't popular among the population at large). An ad populum argument is usually about ideas held by lots of people everywhere. What I'm making is an appeal to authority, which is not inherently fallacious. I'm saying that experts in fighting sexism agree with me. Since one of the pieces I linked to was an essay written by a man who had his mind changed by interacting with women he didn't know who challenged his beliefs, I'm going to need you to be specific in the ways the things I cited differ from the situations you encounter. How do you know their attempts to change people only surface-level? Why would someone who is an activist for social change (as one of the authors was/is) pursue only surface-level changes? To me, surface-level means not touching anything beneath the surface, but obviously these people are trying to get people to change the way they think, and to recognize the effects of their behavior. That doesn't seem surface-level to me.

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.

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.
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.

I'd also like to point out that it's kind of funny that you're using the introspective illusion to attribute less weight to my introspections than you appear to give to yours. Very Happy

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 via techniques like cognitive behavioral therapy than throwing your hands in the air and giving up any hope of being less biased in your actions and introspection.

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, Executive Functions).
Quote:
Never a reason to insult people? Remember that at the beginning of this discussion I told you I was a big fan of arguing. I've spent entire threads mocking people. Recently, even. My point has always been that you have to use the best tool for the circumstance, and that insulting people whom you'd like to influence to accept your position is counterproductive. If you just want to influence them to be angry, then insults are the best tool.

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.
Quote:
You just refuse to accept that, generally speaking, no one endorses your method. And that isn't because there's no one out there that understands feminism and sexism the way you do, it's because the people out there who understand it as well as or better than you also understand the effects of pissing people off.

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.
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 your yourself cited in a further segment:
Quote:
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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Quote:
True, it's irritating when people make claims without evidence, isn't it? Wink

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.
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 of false-memory implantation. 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. If dissonance is going to be effective, teacher educators will need to address their own and their program's attributes that make it easy to dismiss what is being taught. Perhaps, for instance, professors should all be successful, experienced classroom teachers so candidates cannot ask derisively, "when was the last time you were in a classroom?"

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."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
You spend a lot of time talking about what we have to talk about, seemingly as a way of avoiding actually talking about the point. It's the third time you did it in just this post, and the "we first have to talk about sexism" is becoming like a slogan for every point I bring up. We should have it embroidered on shirts, so we can always remember this moment. They could say, "We can't talk about anything unless we first talk about everything else."

You're the one trying to criticize what I am measuring while avoiding the discussion of that very thing. I have not avoided your arguments so far. In fact I have even now said "Yes, to use your definition of words, I insult people, because that's how you have to do it" to just get past that semantics argument.
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.

For why it is effective, see the segments regarding empathy and "basic" beliefs above.
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.
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 really 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 right now though.
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 than actually exists) in the other person. This is why activating empathy as described above is critical.


Last edited by Kylra on Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:19 pm; edited 11 times in total
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 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41  Next
Page 38 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