A few more comments in continuation on the subject of prejudice as resulting from lower cognitive ability (here and here).
1. The phenomenon in question was succinctly summarized by George Orwell in his "Animal farm" by the phrase "Four legs good, two legs bad!", intended to oppose animals and humans. (Orwell immediately points out that it posed the problem with identifying chickens as animals.)
The beauty of Orwell's animalism is that it can be applied to many settings, for example:
"Conservatives are good, liberals are bad" or "liberals are good, conservatives are bad" (By now you may realize the point that I am making - the problem is not with liberals or conservatives, but with rejecting either of the views in favor of the other one, deemed to be "correct".)
2. One thing that bothers me is the widespread view of the horrors of Fascism as a result of the conflict between the right and left ideologies. The crimes committed by Nazis and fascists have been widely popularized and resulted in most of the "western world" swinging in the direction of the left ideologies. This resulted in the strange state of affairs, when Communism and its horrors are viewed with much less aversion than the Nazi/fascist symbols, and portraits of Che Guevara and red flags are considered "cool" symbols of the social equality rather than the symbols of murder and oppression, which they are to the hundreds of millions who suffered from the Communism.
3. I think that Communism and Fascism are the two expressions of the same phenomenon: exploiting the image of a "common enemy" to unite people behind a "leader" or a political movement. The particular choice of the enemy might be different: it may be the external powers (Such as "the Big Satan" - the US); it may be culturally different groups, such as immigrants or Muslims; it may be differing ethnic or racial groups, such as Jews, Arabs or black; it may be the people who stand apart economically - "the rich".
The excesses of such views were notably demonstrated by Nazism (anti-Jew) and Communism (anti-rich), but, as I have stated above, the latter case is being consistently overlooked.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Ordinary fascism
I have written yesterday about an article that a friend of mine posted on a social network (here). The article claims to explain the racial and anti-homosexual prejudices as the result of lower cognitive ability and general intelligence. It is also claimed that this prejudices are channeled via supporting conservative and authoritarian ideologies.
Ironically, the article itself presents an example of the phenomenon that it claims to investigate: it effectively affirms the existing among "liberal/progressive" community prejudice that the people supporting conservative ideologies or right-wing parties are less educated and less intelligent. This prejudice is particularly strong in the overwhelmingly left-wing academic communities, the members of which, by virtue of their higher level of education, consider themselves intellectually superior to the typically conservative "blue collar" public.
A few additional comments
1. The article discussed is essentially fascist in nature (or as a minimum extremely prejudiced). Indeed, one could conceivably obtain a very similar text by taking an article from a Nazi-time research journal and replacing the references to "conservative/right-wing ideologies" by "Jews/Communists/Liberal democracies", and the references to "lower cognitive abilities/intelligence" by references to "inferior race/scull shape".
2. It is quite embarassing that my friend posted such an article in a public forum, and that it is overlooked by most and even "liked" by some.
3. I admit the possibility that the article might be itself a part of another scientific experiment, similar to Milgram experiment or Standford prison experiment (or perhaps my friend is conducting such an experiment): the authors might have on purpose posted an extremely prejudiced peace of work in order to see the public reaction, and demonstrate how the prejudices similar to those, that have been historically discredited within various kinds of authoritarian/conservative ideologies, quite successfuly continue to exist under the disguise of "liberal/progressive/left-wing" (See my other post on non-liberal and non-progressive nature of many things called "liberal" and "progressive".)
Ironically, the article itself presents an example of the phenomenon that it claims to investigate: it effectively affirms the existing among "liberal/progressive" community prejudice that the people supporting conservative ideologies or right-wing parties are less educated and less intelligent. This prejudice is particularly strong in the overwhelmingly left-wing academic communities, the members of which, by virtue of their higher level of education, consider themselves intellectually superior to the typically conservative "blue collar" public.
A few additional comments
1. The article discussed is essentially fascist in nature (or as a minimum extremely prejudiced). Indeed, one could conceivably obtain a very similar text by taking an article from a Nazi-time research journal and replacing the references to "conservative/right-wing ideologies" by "Jews/Communists/Liberal democracies", and the references to "lower cognitive abilities/intelligence" by references to "inferior race/scull shape".
2. It is quite embarassing that my friend posted such an article in a public forum, and that it is overlooked by most and even "liked" by some.
3. I admit the possibility that the article might be itself a part of another scientific experiment, similar to Milgram experiment or Standford prison experiment (or perhaps my friend is conducting such an experiment): the authors might have on purpose posted an extremely prejudiced peace of work in order to see the public reaction, and demonstrate how the prejudices similar to those, that have been historically discredited within various kinds of authoritarian/conservative ideologies, quite successfuly continue to exist under the disguise of "liberal/progressive/left-wing" (See my other post on non-liberal and non-progressive nature of many things called "liberal" and "progressive".)
Sunday, February 5, 2012
New racism
Here is what passes nowadays for "research"... Those who are not blinded by either ideology will have difficulty setting this apart from the "research" conducted by Nazi scientists and others in the similar strain:
"Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models. "
While it is to be expected that lower intellectual abilities and inabilities to distinguish "the shades of gray" make it more likely for individuals to adopt extremist ideologies, the claim that extremism is limited to the conservative and right-wing ideologies is precisely what is terribly wrong with modern "intellectuals".
An unbiased person has no difficulty pointing out many instances of the "liberal" and "progressive" intolerance towards different opinions, religious convictions, policies etc.
Added later:
Perhaps, my my point will be clearer, if I point out the similarity of this research with the concept of "untermensch", which has earned a rather gruesome reputation throughout the XXth century.
"Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models. "
While it is to be expected that lower intellectual abilities and inabilities to distinguish "the shades of gray" make it more likely for individuals to adopt extremist ideologies, the claim that extremism is limited to the conservative and right-wing ideologies is precisely what is terribly wrong with modern "intellectuals".
An unbiased person has no difficulty pointing out many instances of the "liberal" and "progressive" intolerance towards different opinions, religious convictions, policies etc.
Added later:
Perhaps, my my point will be clearer, if I point out the similarity of this research with the concept of "untermensch", which has earned a rather gruesome reputation throughout the XXth century.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Parenting in US and France
Here is a good comparative analysis of parenting in US in France. If you are interested in parenting or psychology, then you will be interested in the points that this article makes about delaying gratification, self-sufficiency and parental authority.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Separation of the state and the religion
These statements put Obama fair and square together with other political leaders guided by the teaching of Jesus, notably Rick Perry and George W. Bush.
"President Obama used an appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday to reaffirm his faith at a time when Republican critics have accused him of a “war on religion,” telling an audience of religious leaders that his policies are grounded in his Christian beliefs.
Obama, speaking to 3,000 people at the Washington Hilton, used passages from the Bible to make the case that his push for a more equitable economy is rooted in a long-honored value system. And he suggested that his proposal to increase taxes on wealthier Americans is consistent with the teachings of Jesus."
Unquestionably, this qualifies for my "theatre of the absurd" section.
"President Obama used an appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday to reaffirm his faith at a time when Republican critics have accused him of a “war on religion,” telling an audience of religious leaders that his policies are grounded in his Christian beliefs.
Obama, speaking to 3,000 people at the Washington Hilton, used passages from the Bible to make the case that his push for a more equitable economy is rooted in a long-honored value system. And he suggested that his proposal to increase taxes on wealthier Americans is consistent with the teachings of Jesus."
Unquestionably, this qualifies for my "theatre of the absurd" section.
"This is not class warfare -- It's math"
In my yesterday post I noted together the two facts that Reuters preferred to publish on separate days: the size of the planned US budget deficit for the fiscal year 2012 (about $1 trillion), and the amount of revenue that is expected from the "Buffet tax" on the millionaires:
"Revenue generated from the tax has yet to be officially calculated, but Whitehouse said it could raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year."
"This is not class warfare -- It's math" - Barack Obama
"Revenue generated from the tax has yet to be officially calculated, but Whitehouse said it could raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year."
"This is not class warfare -- It's math" - Barack Obama
Why some social movements succeed?
A behind-the-scenes alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
My comments:
1. This is a smart policy on Romney's side, since, as the article correctly notes, Ron Paul's supporters are a significant and loyal group within the Republican electorate.
2. Let's give some credit to Ron Paul - he is willing to engage with those who are more likely to win the presidency, for the sake of achieving his goals. This puts him apart from the typical fringe parties which put their ideological purity above any compromise needed to implement their ideas in practice. This is how democracy works - by compromising interests of different groups.
3. Ron Paul also shows a way for social movements to actually achieve some of their goals. Recently, there have been too much excitement about the spontaneous shows of unity, such as the Arab revolutions, as well as the social movements such as the Tent City and the Occupy Wall St. In the aftermath one recognizes that the failure of these movements to achieve substantial results stems precisely from their lack of leadership and their reluctance to engage in politics. The successful examples are the Tea Party, which influences politics via many low-rank elected representatives in the US Congress, as well as the Libertarian movement, represented by a charismatic high-profile politician, such as Ron Paul.
My comments:
1. This is a smart policy on Romney's side, since, as the article correctly notes, Ron Paul's supporters are a significant and loyal group within the Republican electorate.
2. Let's give some credit to Ron Paul - he is willing to engage with those who are more likely to win the presidency, for the sake of achieving his goals. This puts him apart from the typical fringe parties which put their ideological purity above any compromise needed to implement their ideas in practice. This is how democracy works - by compromising interests of different groups.
3. Ron Paul also shows a way for social movements to actually achieve some of their goals. Recently, there have been too much excitement about the spontaneous shows of unity, such as the Arab revolutions, as well as the social movements such as the Tent City and the Occupy Wall St. In the aftermath one recognizes that the failure of these movements to achieve substantial results stems precisely from their lack of leadership and their reluctance to engage in politics. The successful examples are the Tea Party, which influences politics via many low-rank elected representatives in the US Congress, as well as the Libertarian movement, represented by a charismatic high-profile politician, such as Ron Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)