Full Version: (Don't) Fight the Power!
It’s taken as the immutable basic law of human nature:
People Act in Accordance with Self-Interest
As is typical with such common sense assertions the exceptions are many and telling.
Perhaps (and only perhaps) it may be more accurately stated: People usually act in their perceived self interest.
At first glance it may seem the first qualification offers the most leeway and opportunity for study, however the “perception problem” is more complex than it seems.
It has been said you “can’t fool all of the people all of the time” but then again consensus is hardly ever the goal, now is it?
The fact is human motivation remains more complex than we give it credit for.
Some research on psychological rationales divide them into three categories.
It is the interaction between the three, with special emphasis on the third that I’d like to discuss.
I’ll try and keep this intro to a minimum, a couple more quotes and on to the questions.
(I know it's Howard Zinn, but here he makes a good point)
Although this may well have wide ranging policy implications, I think I’ll keep the focus domestic here. Most of the data is from the U.S. anyway.
Of particular note are historically disadvantaged groups: Ethnic minorities, Women, Homosexuals, the Elderly, etc. Though it plays a role regardless of group status.
Back when Thurgood Marshall was arguing the Brown v Board case he made a point that segregated schooling was inherently unequal because of the feeling of inferiority it engendered (regardless of the material state of the segregated classrooms.
The doll experiment
It has often been argued after the fact that these studies were on shaky empirical ground. New research may yet vindicate Clark's judgment.
Hopefully the general idea is clear by now so…
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
(Ron Paul supporters fire at will
)
Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
Does the effect of cultural expectations of women limit their own involvement in the political and business arenas?
...and for those who want to take the Implicit Association Test themselves:
Project Implicit
People Act in Accordance with Self-Interest
As is typical with such common sense assertions the exceptions are many and telling.
Perhaps (and only perhaps) it may be more accurately stated: People usually act in their perceived self interest.
At first glance it may seem the first qualification offers the most leeway and opportunity for study, however the “perception problem” is more complex than it seems.
It has been said you “can’t fool all of the people all of the time” but then again consensus is hardly ever the goal, now is it?
The fact is human motivation remains more complex than we give it credit for.
Some research on psychological rationales divide them into three categories.
QUOTE(A Decade of System Justification Theory @ Political Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2004)
Jost and Banaji (1994) distinguished among three different justification tendencies or motives that have the potential to be in conflict or contradiction with one another for members of disadvantaged groups.
The first motive is “ego justification,” and it describes the need to develop and maintain a favorable self-image and to feel valid, justified, and legitimate as an individual actor.
The second is referred to as “group justification,” and this is the primary focus of social identity theory, namely the desire to develop and maintain favorable images of one’s own group and to defend and justify the actions of fellow ingroup members.
The third is “system justification,” and it captures social and psychological needs to imbue the status quo with legitimacy and to see it as good, fair, natural, desirable, and even inevitable.
The first motive is “ego justification,” and it describes the need to develop and maintain a favorable self-image and to feel valid, justified, and legitimate as an individual actor.
The second is referred to as “group justification,” and this is the primary focus of social identity theory, namely the desire to develop and maintain favorable images of one’s own group and to defend and justify the actions of fellow ingroup members.
The third is “system justification,” and it captures social and psychological needs to imbue the status quo with legitimacy and to see it as good, fair, natural, desirable, and even inevitable.
It is the interaction between the three, with special emphasis on the third that I’d like to discuss.
I’ll try and keep this intro to a minimum, a couple more quotes and on to the questions.
QUOTE(Zinn H. (1968). Disobedience and democracy: Nine fallacies on law and order @ (pp. 16–17))
Society’s tendency is to maintain what has been. Rebellion is only an occasional reaction to suffering in human history; we have infinitely more instances of forbearance to exploitation, and submission to authority, than we have examples of revolt. Measure the number of peasant insurrections against the centuries of serfdom in Europe—the millennia of landlordism in the East; match the number of slave revolts in America with the record of those millions who went through their lifetimes of toil without outward protest. What we should be most concerned about is not some natural tendency towards violent uprising, but rather the inclination of people, faced with an overwhelming environment, to submit to it.
(I know it's Howard Zinn, but here he makes a good point)
Although this may well have wide ranging policy implications, I think I’ll keep the focus domestic here. Most of the data is from the U.S. anyway.
Of particular note are historically disadvantaged groups: Ethnic minorities, Women, Homosexuals, the Elderly, etc. Though it plays a role regardless of group status.
QUOTE(A Decade of System Justification Theory)
Their results indicated that on an explicit “feeling thermometer” measure, African American students expressed significantly more favorable (or “warm”) attitudes toward their own group than did European American students. On the implicit (IAT) measure, however, the pattern was reversed: African Americans showed less favorable attitudes toward their own group in comparison with European Americans (see also Livingston, 2002).[…] Results based on 103,316 European American respondents and 17,510 African American respondents indicated that African Americans displayed stronger explicit ingroup favoritism (d = 0.80) than did European Americans (d = 0.59). Implicitly, however, European Americans showed stronger ingroup favoritism (d = 0.83) than did African Americans, who actually showed outgroup favoritism (d = -0.16)[…] In sum, African Americans—a disadvantaged group relative to European Americans—showed strong ingroup favoritism explicitly, but not implicitly. European Americans, by contrast, showed strong ingroup favoritism whether measured explicitly or implicitly.
Back when Thurgood Marshall was arguing the Brown v Board case he made a point that segregated schooling was inherently unequal because of the feeling of inferiority it engendered (regardless of the material state of the segregated classrooms.
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
The Clarks' doll experiments grew out of Mamie's master's degree thesis and yielded 3 papers between 1939 and 1940. They found that Black children often preferred to play with white dolls over black; that, asked to fill in a human figure with the color of their own skin they frequently chose a lighter shade than was accurate, and that they viewed white as good and pretty, but black as bad and ugly.[1] They viewed this as evidence of internalized racism caused by stigmatization.
The doll experiment
It has often been argued after the fact that these studies were on shaky empirical ground. New research may yet vindicate Clark's judgment.
QUOTE(A Decade of System Justification Theory)
According to Major (1994), the oft-noted tendency for women to feel that they deserve lower wages than men do is another (presumably nonconscious) bias that serves to perpetuate and justify inequality.[…] Jost (1997) conducted a replication to see whether women in an explicitly feminist environment (Yale College in the 1990s) would internalize a depressed sense of entitlement. Results indicated that they did: Women “paid themselves” on average 18% less than men did for work that was indistinguishable with regard to quality.
Hopefully the general idea is clear by now so…
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
(Ron Paul supporters fire at will
)Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
Does the effect of cultural expectations of women limit their own involvement in the political and business arenas?
...and for those who want to take the Implicit Association Test themselves:
Project Implicit
This is interesting, complex, and I'm going to have to mull it over.
Let me give my initial impression:
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
(Ron Paul supporters fire at will tongue.gif )
I sometimes wonder if 60-70 percent of all politics is projection. Projection of desires and fears from one's own life onto the political stage.
For instance, I once read a brilliant paper I can't track down now about how women involved in the pro-life movement were often responding to their own disenfranchisement, sharing in male power to exercise patriarchial, federal control over the female body... too liberal of an argument to be true, sure. I think millions of pro-life supporters are genuinely concerned about what we are doing to the unborn, and affirmation inspiration from religious texts.
But partially I think there is some truth to that... I think a large part of the dynamic between pro-life and pro-choice constituencies has to do with varying views on how woman are supposed to be incorporated into the modern household/the surrounding society/the system.
In other words, I think largely, the debate on abortion is framed by seemingly unrelated psychological processes that take place inside the household.
Following that thought, a great deal of the debate over the merits of the free market might have to do with how our children are raised. No one wants to believe that they are where they are because of who and how they were born. They want to believe they were delivered into their relative well-fortune by a fair and just system... that's also ego justification-- I've worked as hard working as anyone else, and I deserve what I have. I don't believe its an accident that "college republicans" as we know them today, was a group created in the post-50s suburban boom. Without the ease of life in the American suburb, and the gentle but subtly competitive way in which the suburbs generally rear children, I don't think we would have college republicans, or for separate but related matters, college liberals. Group justification gets into racial issues that I'll come back to later when I've given this some thought.
I hope that starts answering the questions.
Let me give my initial impression:
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
(Ron Paul supporters fire at will tongue.gif )
I sometimes wonder if 60-70 percent of all politics is projection. Projection of desires and fears from one's own life onto the political stage.
For instance, I once read a brilliant paper I can't track down now about how women involved in the pro-life movement were often responding to their own disenfranchisement, sharing in male power to exercise patriarchial, federal control over the female body... too liberal of an argument to be true, sure. I think millions of pro-life supporters are genuinely concerned about what we are doing to the unborn, and affirmation inspiration from religious texts.
But partially I think there is some truth to that... I think a large part of the dynamic between pro-life and pro-choice constituencies has to do with varying views on how woman are supposed to be incorporated into the modern household/the surrounding society/the system.
In other words, I think largely, the debate on abortion is framed by seemingly unrelated psychological processes that take place inside the household.
Following that thought, a great deal of the debate over the merits of the free market might have to do with how our children are raised. No one wants to believe that they are where they are because of who and how they were born. They want to believe they were delivered into their relative well-fortune by a fair and just system... that's also ego justification-- I've worked as hard working as anyone else, and I deserve what I have. I don't believe its an accident that "college republicans" as we know them today, was a group created in the post-50s suburban boom. Without the ease of life in the American suburb, and the gentle but subtly competitive way in which the suburbs generally rear children, I don't think we would have college republicans, or for separate but related matters, college liberals. Group justification gets into racial issues that I'll come back to later when I've given this some thought.
I hope that starts answering the questions.
Interesting topic, need to think about it a bit. Have thought about it in part because of events like Iraq and various related liked Somalia and the like. Why do people continue to live in a state of perpetual fear where your life continues often at someones whim?
One quick note for consideration. People with family/children are probably less likely to undertake revolution because of the risk to the family. They're easy targets. Rise up and someone shows up and takes your kids or slaughters a family member.
There is always the justification of "it will someday get better." Its one thing to play hero when its just you, but completely another when others must bear the brunt of your choices. Stand up to Saddam or AQ and someone you love dies horribly.
kind of hard to paint your face blue and scream freedom when you know people you love will just end up screaming.
QUOTE
What we should be most concerned about is not some natural tendency towards violent uprising, but rather the inclination of people, faced with an overwhelming environment, to submit to it.
One quick note for consideration. People with family/children are probably less likely to undertake revolution because of the risk to the family. They're easy targets. Rise up and someone shows up and takes your kids or slaughters a family member.
There is always the justification of "it will someday get better." Its one thing to play hero when its just you, but completely another when others must bear the brunt of your choices. Stand up to Saddam or AQ and someone you love dies horribly.
kind of hard to paint your face blue and scream freedom when you know people you love will just end up screaming.
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
I think you're on to something. You say "reform," christopher mentions "revolution." I'd say avoiding revolutions is a good thing. An adaptive feature. However bad things are in the U.S. today, they've been a whole lot worse in most places and at most times in human history. Modern revolutions rarely cause improvement within the lifetime of the revolutionaries. (The American Revolution would be the exception, to be compared with France, Russia, China...)
I guess that's the Burkean conservative in me talking. I wouldn't make that argument against "reform" (which is what you actually asked about). We haven't got a perfect system, so there's always room for reform.
Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
How could it not? And as one of your cites says, on the implicit (IAT) measure, "African Americans... actually showed outgroup favoritism (d = -0.16)."
I'm very curious, though, what the "feeling thermometer" would show for minority groups that have been unusually successful, rather than disadvantaged (i.e., Jews, ethnic Chinese in southeast Asia, etc.). They're often subject to envy that has a component of racial animus. Does that rub off and get internalized? And if not, is their higher group solidarity a cause or an effect of their success?
One other possible confounding factor: Robert Putnam's recent work showing that increased ethnic diversity leads to more distrust, not just of other ethnic groups, but of one's own ethnic group.
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
Yes. Mostly answered above.
Does the effect of cultural expectations of women limit their own involvement in the political and business arenas?
Some women, sure. But if we're talking about the salary differential for women, I think the largest reason for that is that women spend more time away from work raising children, and it's likely that there are biological reasons that women spend more time raising children than men do. I'm having trouble finding the cite I'm looking for, but this NYT piece discusses the trend. Unmarried, childless women in many fields outearn comparable unmarried, childless men. (Perhaps because unmarried, childless men start to fall apart without a woman to take care of them, but that's just conjecture on my part.)
I think you're on to something. You say "reform," christopher mentions "revolution." I'd say avoiding revolutions is a good thing. An adaptive feature. However bad things are in the U.S. today, they've been a whole lot worse in most places and at most times in human history. Modern revolutions rarely cause improvement within the lifetime of the revolutionaries. (The American Revolution would be the exception, to be compared with France, Russia, China...)
I guess that's the Burkean conservative in me talking. I wouldn't make that argument against "reform" (which is what you actually asked about). We haven't got a perfect system, so there's always room for reform.
Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
How could it not? And as one of your cites says, on the implicit (IAT) measure, "African Americans... actually showed outgroup favoritism (d = -0.16)."
I'm very curious, though, what the "feeling thermometer" would show for minority groups that have been unusually successful, rather than disadvantaged (i.e., Jews, ethnic Chinese in southeast Asia, etc.). They're often subject to envy that has a component of racial animus. Does that rub off and get internalized? And if not, is their higher group solidarity a cause or an effect of their success?
One other possible confounding factor: Robert Putnam's recent work showing that increased ethnic diversity leads to more distrust, not just of other ethnic groups, but of one's own ethnic group.
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
Yes. Mostly answered above.
Does the effect of cultural expectations of women limit their own involvement in the political and business arenas?
Some women, sure. But if we're talking about the salary differential for women, I think the largest reason for that is that women spend more time away from work raising children, and it's likely that there are biological reasons that women spend more time raising children than men do. I'm having trouble finding the cite I'm looking for, but this NYT piece discusses the trend. Unmarried, childless women in many fields outearn comparable unmarried, childless men. (Perhaps because unmarried, childless men start to fall apart without a woman to take care of them, but that's just conjecture on my part.)
QUOTE(drewyorktimes)
This is interesting, complex, and I'm going to have to mull it over.
QUOTE(christopher)
Interesting topic, need to think about it a bit.
You're telling me...
I was interested in this topic way back when I read the Washington Post article which formed a center-piece of my: Conservatism's Race Problem thread (which this study's data adds yet more empirical backing to
) but I had to wait for papers to be published (they are available upon request from the Project Implicit) and then try and digest a couple of them.Even so I was pressed to come up with specific questions. I wanted the debate to both include and transcend the race issue, where the starkest contrast lies.
So the wide angle view:
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
christopher saw immediately the foreign policy implications which are hugely important especially in the Arab world were we wonder how women in particular and the politically repressed masses in general could ever support their leadership.
I however am also stuck by how important "system justification" is on the domestic front.
It is one of the key obstacles to things like the equal rights amendment, Title IX, welfare and other moves to "level the playing field."
For many it is a psychological necessity to believe that the "more perfect Union" is well.... more or less perfect.
Now this is more than just a common inference, it's documented fact.
Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
This may well be a pivotal issue in American race relations, the answer is a great big yes.
The fact is despite enormous progress the idea the "black is bad" remains a powerful undercurrent in American culture.
It is an important reason to analyze our racial history in a continuous fashion from the early colonial days to today. Which many great advances (and some none to small reversal) but one that did not stop when the Civil Rights Acts were passed.
QUOTE(Jobius)
I'm very curious, though, what the "feeling thermometer" would show for minority groups that have been unusually successful, rather than disadvantaged (i.e., Jews, ethnic Chinese in southeast Asia, etc.). They're often subject to envy that has a component of racial animus. Does that rub off and get internalized? And if not, is their higher group solidarity a cause or an effect of their success?
It's funny you should mention that. It was not too long ago that "self-hating" Jews were a popular point of discussion.
Apparently even success is no guarantee of esteem. On the part of the Jewish diaspora it was, of course, famously counted against them.
From the study:
QUOTE(A Decade of System Justification Theory @ Political Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2004)
Rudman, Feinberg, and Fairchild (2002) rank-ordered high- and low-status groups in terms of the magnitude of the perceived status gap that separated them. They found that the largest status gaps (rich vs. poor, slim vs. overweight) were accompanied by relatively strong ingroup favoritism on the part of high-status group members (rich, d = 1.73; slim, d = 0.78) and relatively strong outgroup favoritism on the part of low-status group members (poor, d = -1.14; overweight, d = -0.34) on implicit (but not explicit) measures. Smaller status gaps (whites vs. Asians, Christians vs. Jews) were accompanied by strong implicit ingroup favoritism on the part of high-status group members (whites, d = 0.92; Christians, d = 1.22) and relatively weak ingroup favoritism on the part of low-status group members (Asians, d = 0.27; Jews, d = 0.41).
Does the effect of cultural expectations of women limit their own involvement in the political and business arenas?
I've always been suspicious of the "busy mommy" hypothesis, particularly when it comes to politics where wealth and age among likely participants make that substantially less feasible.
The socialization girls received and the cultural information that continues to filter in over a lifetime plays a critical role. In fact (and I'll add substantiation later) it plays the dominant role.
QUOTE(Turnea)
People usually act in their perceived self interest.
QUOTE
The third is “system justification,” and it captures social and psychological needs to imbue the status quo with legitimacy and to see it as good, fair, natural, desirable, and even inevitable.
Just for clarification, are you really arguing that people are motivated to act against their own self-interest by a desire to preserve the "system" as is (often, the very system that "keeps them down")?
If so, use the word "implicitly" often, because no person, black, white, woman or man, would agree that is what they were doing even if they were doing it!
QUOTE
Just for clarification, are you really arguing that people are motivated to act against their own self-interest by a desire to preserve the "system" as is (often, the very system that "keeps them down")?
Reason lends a certain kind of weight to your argument. Practical data, on the other hand, sweeps the bottom out from under it.
Logic dictates that individuals act in their own self-interest. Large social conglomerates, i.e. cities and nations, form as "ley lines", or intersections, of differing individual interests. Conversely, revolution and rebellion, as per your line of thought, are inevitable, as individual needs clash with the systems that formed to serve them.
But then, what of patriotism? What of our Joan of Arcs, our Ghandis? Where do selfless individuals fit into a society motivated by, as you seem to be implying, "self?"
They do not. Because curiously enough, man is unpredictable. He does stupid, beautiful things, that are completely unexplainable by modern sociology.
Like any plausible theorem that holds no practical water, the "man is a social predator" postulate can only take you so far.
QUOTE(BecomingHuman)
Just for clarification, are you really arguing that people are motivated to act against their own self-interest by a desire to preserve the "system" as is (often, the very system that "keeps them down")?
If so, use the word "implicitly" often, because no person, black, white, woman or man, would agree that is what they were doing even if they were doing it!
If so, use the word "implicitly" often, because no person, black, white, woman or man, would agree that is what they were doing even if they were doing it!
Not only am I arguing it, as akalea has noted the data both empirical and historical proves it rather neatly.
The fact is ego justification alone cannot explain human motivation.
Sociology is only recently catching on to this most basic fact of society, that not everybody who cooperates benefits materially from that cooperation even if they fool themselves into thinking they do.
Some have called it "sweet lemons" (as opposed to sour grapes) reasoning and its a powerful psychological force.
Feel free to tell me to start my own thread, turnea, but when nighttimer brought up the Bradley effect in another debate, it reminded me of one of the quotes in your opening post. For those who don't want to follow the link, the Bradley effect is the apparent tendency of some voters to tell a pollster they're going to vote for the black candidate, but then to vote for the white candidate in the privacy of the voting booth. The open, public choosing of candidates in the Iowa caucuses may have helped Barack Obama by effectively reversing the Bradley effect: people felt self-conscious about not supporting an appealing, viable black candidate. But in traditional secret-ballot New Hampshire, the Bradley effect returned.
If that's true, should we expect to see a Bradley effect in South Carolina, even among black voters?
QUOTE(A Decade of System Justification Theory)
Their results indicated that on an explicit “feeling thermometer” measure, African American students expressed significantly more favorable (or “warm”) attitudes toward their own group than did European American students. On the implicit (IAT) measure, however, the pattern was reversed: African Americans showed less favorable attitudes toward their own group in comparison with European Americans (see also Livingston, 2002).[…] Results based on 103,316 European American respondents and 17,510 African American respondents indicated that African Americans displayed stronger explicit ingroup favoritism (d = 0.80) than did European Americans (d = 0.59). Implicitly, however, European Americans showed stronger ingroup favoritism (d = 0.83) than did African Americans, who actually showed outgroup favoritism (d = -0.16)[…] In sum, African Americans—a disadvantaged group relative to European Americans—showed strong ingroup favoritism explicitly, but not implicitly. European Americans, by contrast, showed strong ingroup favoritism whether measured explicitly or implicitly.
If that's true, should we expect to see a Bradley effect in South Carolina, even among black voters?
I love this topic, Turnea. Very interesting. I'll put in my two cents, though I might be misunderstanding the questions so please correct me if I'm getting it wrong.
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
Very. In order for any social "system" to work, it's necessary that the majority of participants accept it as (at least generally) fair. Look at what 'The Jungle' did for the labor industry, how much of an impact Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath had through its passionate depiction of the plight of the poor, and Charles Dickens for that matter....People respond to situations they feel are unfair. On the other hand, they are also perfectly capable of accepting all manner of nasty things if the paradigm of society considers it to be 'fair' or 'just'. So, for instance, a society that accepts child labor without any restraint, as things were in eighteenth century London, doesn’t bat an eye that only seven in one hundred children survive three years in the workhouses. Just a part of life for children without parents that can raise them. Here is an excerpt from the Diary of a Surgeon in the Year 1751-1752 (by John Knyveton):
Nice, eh? We are exactly like those human beings. No biological evolution has taken place in such a short timespan, yet (most of) our societies have evolved considerably. We are the products of our environments. Social acceptance is necessary to continue the status quo. It's what creates the status quo. When a situation is accepted as unfair by enough people, it changes.
Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
Definitely.
I agree with posters so far who indicated that people do act for personal “gain”, but it is society that determines what will be interpreted as “gain”. It isn’t always money. All societies have social positions that vary according to a person’s status in the group. That status largely determines the individual’s personal sense of worth, and that will affect everything in his/her life. But this concept isn't limited to individuals, it can apply to massively large groups of people, and last for decades or more. We think of Stockholm syndrome, for rough instance, as some sort of psychological anomaly to cover semi-unique situations of hostage-taking, but at one time in history this syndrome covered thousands. It was just a normal part of life for women, children, minorities, and slaves many of whom accepted their fates as well as everyone else around them. How does a slave "gain"? By being a good slave. How did a woman "gain"? By finding a husband and being a good wife. How did a child "gain"? By being an obedient child so he/she wouldn't get a sound belt whipping.
The above does not exactly address the question, I'm trying to explain my thoughts. None of the above concepts are obsolete. Humans still think in this way and their behaviors are shaped by what everyone else accepts, thinks, and does. No one is an Island, we are all social animals. So when it comes to something as complex as the human psyche, there's no easy 'correct' answer.
It's hard to come up with a good example, but there are a couple of small examples of 'universally accepted limiting paradigm' that i can think of at the moment which applied to most everyone on the planet. For decades, the four minute mile was considered an anatomical impossibility. There was no record of anyone in the history of the world obtaining that speed. But as soon as someone did, another person did it just a few short weeks later. Today so many have accomplished this goal that it isn't even considered incredible. No gymnast received a perfect 10 until Nadia Comaneci. Up until that time it was thought impossible. Right after, many began to receive it and now it isn’t particularly extraordinary. Was every professional runner and/or gymnast before that time “motivated to act against their own self-interest by a desire to preserve the "system" as is?” Clearly gymnasts were practicing tirelessly before, and runners were training exhaustively. Human psychology is tricky. I think the accepted paradigms effected the performance of those runners and gymnasts, somehow. Once it was broken others were able to continue to break it. So on that note, per this topic, I predict that there will be more serious and competitive minority and female presidental candidates in our future. The Bradley effect is going to end soon.
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
Yes, I believe so.
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
Very. In order for any social "system" to work, it's necessary that the majority of participants accept it as (at least generally) fair. Look at what 'The Jungle' did for the labor industry, how much of an impact Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath had through its passionate depiction of the plight of the poor, and Charles Dickens for that matter....People respond to situations they feel are unfair. On the other hand, they are also perfectly capable of accepting all manner of nasty things if the paradigm of society considers it to be 'fair' or 'just'. So, for instance, a society that accepts child labor without any restraint, as things were in eighteenth century London, doesn’t bat an eye that only seven in one hundred children survive three years in the workhouses. Just a part of life for children without parents that can raise them. Here is an excerpt from the Diary of a Surgeon in the Year 1751-1752 (by John Knyveton):
QUOTE
This day George Blumenfield and I to see a hanging at Tyburn of a woman who stole three loaves. Was ready enough for some diversion for have kept close to my business these last days and the stench of the infirmary though one grows accustomed to it is tiresome for long times. Doctor Urquehart himself though pompous has a real mind to the Instruction of his pupils and had kindly taken seats in a nearby house for self, Grge. Blumenfield, St. Clair, Mr. Pope and three other of his young gentleman. On taking our seats found a crowd already gathered such occasions being quite a holiday for the poor people who live in Oxford Street, and also for those in the villages of Paddington and the hamlets along the road leading to Edgeware. A number of the gentry present, standing on the roofs of their coaches both the gentleman and the ladies very fine, the bucks dressing as for a route and the ladies all powdered and patched, monstrous pretty with their scarves and great hats and flowered pannier skirts.
The gallows a big one to take four at once but this day only the woman to be hanged, and with her a boy who is to be half-hanged and then cut down and whipped through the town as a warning to him against begging. George Blumenfield very merry and quizzing the ladies on the coaches and Mr. Pope kindly sends out to a drawer for cans of liquor for us all, which puts us quite happy to watch the Turning Off. The woman arrives after we had waited some twenty minutes a young wench not ill-favoured, driven in a cart tied on to a board so that she might not leap over the side; the hangman greeting her with much cheer and she answering him in kind, so that the crowd and the gentry were Highly Diverted, one buck near me with a vast wig I thought would swoon with mirth, and so she to the Tree and the hangman makes her mount upon a bucket, she being a Vagabond and of no importance, and then fastens the rope about her neck and she blowing him a kiss his assistant pulls away the bucket and she fell with a force that must instantly have deprived her of Her Vital Faculties. Was intrigued to see how the body did jerk so that I thought the rope would break. Then the boy aforesaid, who had been brought there very early so that the execution might prove of instruction to him, was taken up, he squalling in a fashion that made the gentry cry Shame upon His Cowardice, and proving near frantic the hangman did not trouble to tie him to the tree but threw him to the ground and encouraged by shouts from the crowd did kneel upon his chest and strangle him with a cord, removing same before the boy was dead. Then the rogue was pulled to his feet and a bucket of water splashed over him, and so he was taken to the cart in which the woman came and tied to its tail two gentleman nigh our window shouting themselves hoarse with admiration; and the hangman's assistant takes up his whip and the cart moves on the assistant wielding the rope right shrewdly. The woman was cut down and delivered to her farther who had been waiting for her corse with a barrow, and so the crowd disperses and the gentry drive off one lady laying her whip about the ears of the father with his barrow for not being out of the road of her coach. And so to dine with my friends and a very pleasant hour of music and talk afterwards on divers topics. Did learn that the woman hanged was the mother of the boy aforesaid which I trust will be a lesson to him of the Penalties of An Evil Life.
The gallows a big one to take four at once but this day only the woman to be hanged, and with her a boy who is to be half-hanged and then cut down and whipped through the town as a warning to him against begging. George Blumenfield very merry and quizzing the ladies on the coaches and Mr. Pope kindly sends out to a drawer for cans of liquor for us all, which puts us quite happy to watch the Turning Off. The woman arrives after we had waited some twenty minutes a young wench not ill-favoured, driven in a cart tied on to a board so that she might not leap over the side; the hangman greeting her with much cheer and she answering him in kind, so that the crowd and the gentry were Highly Diverted, one buck near me with a vast wig I thought would swoon with mirth, and so she to the Tree and the hangman makes her mount upon a bucket, she being a Vagabond and of no importance, and then fastens the rope about her neck and she blowing him a kiss his assistant pulls away the bucket and she fell with a force that must instantly have deprived her of Her Vital Faculties. Was intrigued to see how the body did jerk so that I thought the rope would break. Then the boy aforesaid, who had been brought there very early so that the execution might prove of instruction to him, was taken up, he squalling in a fashion that made the gentry cry Shame upon His Cowardice, and proving near frantic the hangman did not trouble to tie him to the tree but threw him to the ground and encouraged by shouts from the crowd did kneel upon his chest and strangle him with a cord, removing same before the boy was dead. Then the rogue was pulled to his feet and a bucket of water splashed over him, and so he was taken to the cart in which the woman came and tied to its tail two gentleman nigh our window shouting themselves hoarse with admiration; and the hangman's assistant takes up his whip and the cart moves on the assistant wielding the rope right shrewdly. The woman was cut down and delivered to her farther who had been waiting for her corse with a barrow, and so the crowd disperses and the gentry drive off one lady laying her whip about the ears of the father with his barrow for not being out of the road of her coach. And so to dine with my friends and a very pleasant hour of music and talk afterwards on divers topics. Did learn that the woman hanged was the mother of the boy aforesaid which I trust will be a lesson to him of the Penalties of An Evil Life.
Nice, eh? We are exactly like those human beings. No biological evolution has taken place in such a short timespan, yet (most of) our societies have evolved considerably. We are the products of our environments. Social acceptance is necessary to continue the status quo. It's what creates the status quo. When a situation is accepted as unfair by enough people, it changes.
Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
Definitely.
I agree with posters so far who indicated that people do act for personal “gain”, but it is society that determines what will be interpreted as “gain”. It isn’t always money. All societies have social positions that vary according to a person’s status in the group. That status largely determines the individual’s personal sense of worth, and that will affect everything in his/her life. But this concept isn't limited to individuals, it can apply to massively large groups of people, and last for decades or more. We think of Stockholm syndrome, for rough instance, as some sort of psychological anomaly to cover semi-unique situations of hostage-taking, but at one time in history this syndrome covered thousands. It was just a normal part of life for women, children, minorities, and slaves many of whom accepted their fates as well as everyone else around them. How does a slave "gain"? By being a good slave. How did a woman "gain"? By finding a husband and being a good wife. How did a child "gain"? By being an obedient child so he/she wouldn't get a sound belt whipping.
The above does not exactly address the question, I'm trying to explain my thoughts. None of the above concepts are obsolete. Humans still think in this way and their behaviors are shaped by what everyone else accepts, thinks, and does. No one is an Island, we are all social animals. So when it comes to something as complex as the human psyche, there's no easy 'correct' answer.
It's hard to come up with a good example, but there are a couple of small examples of 'universally accepted limiting paradigm' that i can think of at the moment which applied to most everyone on the planet. For decades, the four minute mile was considered an anatomical impossibility. There was no record of anyone in the history of the world obtaining that speed. But as soon as someone did, another person did it just a few short weeks later. Today so many have accomplished this goal that it isn't even considered incredible. No gymnast received a perfect 10 until Nadia Comaneci. Up until that time it was thought impossible. Right after, many began to receive it and now it isn’t particularly extraordinary. Was every professional runner and/or gymnast before that time “motivated to act against their own self-interest by a desire to preserve the "system" as is?” Clearly gymnasts were practicing tirelessly before, and runners were training exhaustively. Human psychology is tricky. I think the accepted paradigms effected the performance of those runners and gymnasts, somehow. Once it was broken others were able to continue to break it. So on that note, per this topic, I predict that there will be more serious and competitive minority and female presidental candidates in our future. The Bradley effect is going to end soon.
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
Yes, I believe so.
Very good topic Turnea- as usual- but I must add- Mrs P- we are evolving biologically as fast as we are socially, if not faster:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12...s-evolving.html
We're more different from people 5,000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals," said study co-author and University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending.
That being said- I am wondering if what Turnea is debating here is the "why" of the notion that people that advocate REAL reform are called "extremists"- such as Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucicinch. And the "why" that those that really work for those reforms feel as though society is made up of a bunch of dummies that can't see the forest for the trees.
( I fired at will there? 
)
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
(Ron Paul supporters fire at will )
Talk to your parents- you will find this to be anecdotal in it's correctness as well as the emprical data you presented.
Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
I would almost answer this with a "duh"- look at a truly color blind society to note the difference- of all places, Cuba. The self image of black cubans in cuba is no different than the "white" cubans of cuba. I would say this is quite noticiable, despite the fact that almost everyone in Cuba has the same standard of living, black or white, that is not in the upper echelon of goverment.
They may feel dissatisfaction, but I don't think black cubans feel singled out for discrimination like they are in the US.
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
Yes, but also- it is important to reflect on the fact that a inferiority/superiority complex is two sides of the same coin- they usually exist together in the same person. I would say social forces definately play into this situation, how could it not?
Does the effect of cultural expectations of women limit their own involvement in the political and business arenas?
Well, I would say yes- in fact, I think women are expected to do better than men now, expected to go to college, while boys are now the "throwaway thugs" of our society. It appears that men are starting to live up to thier single mom's expectations.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12...s-evolving.html
We're more different from people 5,000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals," said study co-author and University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending.
That being said- I am wondering if what Turnea is debating here is the "why" of the notion that people that advocate REAL reform are called "extremists"- such as Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucicinch. And the "why" that those that really work for those reforms feel as though society is made up of a bunch of dummies that can't see the forest for the trees.
( I fired at will there? ) How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
(Ron Paul supporters fire at will )
Talk to your parents- you will find this to be anecdotal in it's correctness as well as the emprical data you presented.
Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
I would almost answer this with a "duh"- look at a truly color blind society to note the difference- of all places, Cuba. The self image of black cubans in cuba is no different than the "white" cubans of cuba. I would say this is quite noticiable, despite the fact that almost everyone in Cuba has the same standard of living, black or white, that is not in the upper echelon of goverment.
They may feel dissatisfaction, but I don't think black cubans feel singled out for discrimination like they are in the US.
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
Yes, but also- it is important to reflect on the fact that a inferiority/superiority complex is two sides of the same coin- they usually exist together in the same person. I would say social forces definately play into this situation, how could it not?
Does the effect of cultural expectations of women limit their own involvement in the political and business arenas?
Well, I would say yes- in fact, I think women are expected to do better than men now, expected to go to college, while boys are now the "throwaway thugs" of our society. It appears that men are starting to live up to thier single mom's expectations.
How serious is the psychological need to feel "the system" is fair whether or not it is so when it comes to limiting the desire for reform?
System justification explains a lot about how American politics has evolved. In general, people have a host of cognitive biases that prevent them really viewing the world on a larger scale. We create mental short cuts ("heuristics") that allow us to make sense of information quickly; the downside is that we tend to miss a lot of important information. System justification is a heuristic that we have that helps us make sense of the world. Because most people view the system as generally fair (but always and not for everyone, but in most cases), it really impedes reform.
For instance, we have such a strong urge to view the world we live in as just, that when we are confronted with a situation that is clearly not just, we tend to blame the victim. Otherwise, the world wouldn't make sense. The most immediate example on this board is the debate Student and Bus Driver Brawl. This is of course debatable, but if anyone's been reading the thread, one can see how the student is no longer viewed as merely a 15 year old girl. Many participants call her a liar, a brat, spoiled, out of control. Additionally, the bus driver is seen as having done nothing wrong. I think this is a classic case of system justification theory: the girl must be wild and out of control, otherwise the bus driver would not have responded the way she did. That girl "deserved" whatever happened to her, simply because most people cannot fathom a world where an adult would tackle a 15 year old girl for no reason. In a just world, that whole incident would never have happened, and since we live in a just world, that girl must have deserved it.
I don't want to derail this thread, I just wanted to use that as an example. A thing that goes hand in hand with system justification theory is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is what we experience when we see things, or do things, that dont make sense to us. Because most people tend to see themselves as rational, good people, they tend to think that they make rational, good decisions. When they act in a way that isn't in accordance with their self-image (let's say someone is vegetarian and they eat meat once while drunk), or they see something that doesnt fit into their world view (black people as a high percentage of the prison population), they come up with elaborate explanations in order to explain something that they don't understand. The vegetarian will make several excuses, but never admit to liking the taste of meat; someone seeing a large black prison population may conclude that those people must have committed crimes. The bus driver thread is also a good example of cognitive dissonance. Because we don't normally see things like bus drivers attacking teenagers, we have to come up with a "rational" explanation for why something like that happened. Again, in this particular case, most people will conclude that the teenager deserved it.
A better real life example may be Abu Ghraib. We like to say that its not the system that encouraged those abuses, but rather, it was only a few "bad" apples that ruined it for everyone else. However, extensive research has been done that shows how upstanding soldiers deteriorated under the intense pressure and began to abuse prisoners. However, if we admit that the prison guards in Iraq are not as disciplined as we were told, the implications of other military operations comes into question. Rather than deal with the cognitive dissonance, we prefer to accept the easy solution and punish the "bad guys."
I think it is easy to see how these biases can interfere with any creation of reform. If one admits to needing reform, it would imply that the system created hadn't been fair in the first place. Because we see ourselves as mostly good (especially our in-groups), it becomes more difficult to accept the need for reform. It appears to me in a lot of situations what is implemented as reform are actually quick band-aid solutions that do not get at the underlying problems. I think this is due, in part, to system justification. Rather than get at the structural root of the problem, we prefer to see the easy solutions, because anything else could shake our perception of the world.
Has a cultural bias against African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups made a serious impact on these groups self-image
Does the Brown argument concerning an inferiority complex still have validity?
Does the effect of cultural expectations of women limit their own involvement in the political and business arenas?
Absolutely. But since I just spent like half an hour writing the above, I am not going to address these other questions.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.