posted
So I've got an incredible jumping, intermittent bug that I'm trying to tack down. That's probably as good an explanation as any for what's to follow.
I've been reading over the recent spate of homosexaulity threads and one thing rally struck me, as it has struck me before. There is a great deal of discussion about bigotted or prejudicial thinking and it's link to religion. However, it appears to me that this dicussion is taking place without any reference to the over 60 years of investigation, scientific and otherwise, that has gone into these issues. While it obviously bothers me that a great deal of what has been said has a great deal of evidence against it and very little for it, I am more concerned about the general attitude of casual ignorance that this apparent ignorance implies. I don't know, I just find it hard to believe that people really believe that they should approach a complex and important issue such as prejudice with only their biased opinions to guide them. Of course, this could all just be a matter of my misperception of people's knowledge, in which case, I appologize. In either case, I'm being an arrogant jackass; just in the former, I'm also right.
I am often critical of religions, especially Christianity. However, I'd like to state for the record that I have no intrinsic problem with religions or Christianity. I try - and generally succed, I think - to approach all types of religious and spiritual in a respectful manner. The problems I'm going to be talking about are based rather in people and in specific manners of belief.
I take it as a given that prejudice and authoritarianism are immature and dangerous types of thinking. Sure, I could trot out study after study which gives supporting evidence from this, but, truth be told, it's really my gut I'm listening to. Also, I believe that the mass of humanity is, and always has been, in a state of grave immaturity. Again, a given, but one with some support.
This immaturity exists and manifests itself regardless of whether a person is religious or not. As such, we should expect to see prejudice and authoritarianism across all populations, and we do. The question is, however, is there a difference in the amount of this exhibited based on group membership and is it more dangerous in some groups than in others.
In regards to the first question - Is there a greater amount of prejudice and authoritarianism in religious people than in non-religious? - the answer in the US (there have been some cross-cultural studies that cast doubt on the universality of these findings), the answer is unequivocally yes. In all the multitude of peer-reviewed studies investigating this question, only two that I know of have failed to find a significant correlation between claiming religious membership and prejudice. There results are somewhat less overwhelming concerning authoritarianism, but still the vast majority of studies have found significant correlations.
However, the issue is by no means as clear-cut as that makes it sound. The results merely show that the population of religious - taken as a whole - show greater levels of prejudice than the population of non-religious - again, taken as a whole. There is no call to claim that being religious implies that you are more prejudiced than someone who isn't religious.
I'm sure almost everyone can think of religious people who break this stereotype, who are both extremely religious and extremely non-prejudiced and non-authoritarian. Not suprisingly, more detailed studies also turn up this result. Various investigations came up with different ways to measure actual religious dedicated and threw this into the equation and found an interesting result. Instead of a monotonically increasing level of prejudice where how highly dedicated you were determined how prejudiced you were, they found a curivilinear situation, where prejudice rose for low religious dedication and was higher still for medium religious dedication, but dropped sharply for high levels of religious dedication. More than a few studies found that the level of prejudice exhibited by the highly religiously dedicated was below that of non-religious and many more showed no significant difference between the two groups.
One of the initial and most influential researchers into prejudice and its link to religion, as well as the author of the seminal The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon Allport, suggested that there was a dichotomy in how people approached their religious beliefs. He claimed that some religious people have what he termed "Intrinsic" religious belief, that has the following qualities: views God as loving, supportive, forgiving, views each person as unique and special, inclusive in vision; views all people as their neighbors, views death positively, and looks upon religion as a search for truth. This approach was contrasted with "Extrinsic" religious belief, which was has these qualities: views God as stern, vindictive and punitive, views people in terms of social categories: sex, age, status, exclusionist in vision; views their in-group as their neighbors, views death negatively, looks upon religion for its utilitarian value, as a means to other ends. Using the scale Allport developed to measure the extent that people used one or the other styles of religious belief, reasearchers found the same results as in the above, with the one change being that the most intrinsic people were almost always less prejudiced and less authoritarian than the non-religious people.
There is one characteristic of the results that is implied by the above but which I haven't yet stated. That is, the people on the far end of the scale, the religious who have low levels of prejudice are far outweighed by the religious who have higher levels. If I recall correctly, the highest percentage I saw put them at around 15% of the total religious population.
I want to stress that as yet, the only scientific studies I know of have been able to show correlation to prejudice. There has been a great deal of speculation as to what this correlation means, but it remains just that, correlation. Causation is a completly different story.
As to the second question, it is only a matter of personal belief that I believe that prejudice and authoritarianism is more dangerous in religious people than in other groups. Having considered the history and nature of western religion, I believe that it is a type of belief that is even less susceptible to reality testing than most other human beliefs. The very factors that religous thought aims towards, such as the nature of the divine or life after death, are beyond rational verification. Many religious dictates use their status solely as religious dictates as proof for their rightness. Also, the lack of realistic proof leads often leads to religious believers to search for the common irrational and immature forms of proof, such as social prooving, i.e. getting other people, by whatever means necessary, to agree with what you say.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I've got an incredible jumping, intermittent bug that I'm trying to tack down.
I have no idea what this means, but I just pictured Jiminy Cricket on the run.
quote:Instead of a monotonically increasing level of prejudice where how highly dedicated you were determined how prejudiced you were, they found a curivilinear situation, where prejudice rose for low religious dedication and was higher still for medium religious dedication, but dropped sharply for high levels of religious dedication. More than a few studies found that the level of prejudice exhibited by the highly religiously dedicated was below that of non-religious and many more showed no significant difference between the two groups.
That explains a great deal.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very interesting post Squicky. Although I often disagree with things you post I must admit that this post had me nodding my head much of the time. In my own experience it is the people who have been a member of their religion for a good deal of time and yet have not studied beyond a fairly superficial view who are the most dogmatic and unbending in their views.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, it makes a lot of sense. The person who is more dedicated to his faith (and I'm speaking towards Christianity) likely holds the "love your neighbor" commandment from Christ in higher regard than those who are less dedicated and only pay lip-service to their religion.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect it's more complex than that, zgator.
The more religious one is, the more likely one is to feel secure in their beliefs. That makes it easier to be open to the beliefs of others, without being threatened by them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very interesting data, Mr. Squicky, especially what Kat quoted. I was just about to quote that paragraph myself. The intinsic/extrinsic categories of religious beliefs are interesting as well. It almost fits to call Old Testemant=extrinsic, N.T.=intrinsic.
I know I have made lots of negative comments about Christianity here at Hatrack, much of that has to do with my distrust of organized religion and my broad anti-authority views in general.
Some of my comments stem from dealing with smug, strident, holier-than-thou Christians who wish hellfire and damnation down upon non-believers and in general give Christ's teachings lip service but little or no practice in their dealings with others. Because these Christians can be very vocal, they give Christians everywhere a bad name.
That said, the 15% or so of Christian true-believers who have low levels of prejudice you mention from studies, and follow Christ's gospel of "turn the other cheek," "walk a mile in his shoes," "judge not lest ye be judged," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "look to the beam in your own eye before the mote in your brother's," and in general, love of neighbor, tolerance of other's, mercy and forgiveness are role models to me. I try to practice some of those ideals, but it's freaking hard to be that self-less. I respect anyone who can do it enormously.
posted
So we now have a way of labeling how prejudiced someone is? Does that seem ironic to anyone else?
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying REALLY hard not to get angry, Morbo. I know you well enough, I think, to be fairly certain that you did not mean this to be offensive:
quote: The intinsic/extrinsic categories of religious beliefs are interesting as well. It almost fits to call Old Testemant=extrinsic, N.T.=intrinsic.
But that is simply FALSE. The CHRISTIAN views of the OT and NT may fit.
But the ways Jews read the MT (Masoretic Text, a name I prefer to OT for obvious reasons) is different, not having a vested interest in reading it as portraying an angry, vengeful God.
quote: views God as loving, supportive, forgiving, views each person as unique and special, inclusive in vision; views all people as their neighbors, views death positively, and looks upon religion as a search for truth
Sounds a lot like how most Jews view God, contrary to popular belief.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, I think you can probably take Morbo's comment as having been based in a Christian view of the Bible.
However, I've noticed that this particular subject seems to a real pressure point for you, and I'm quite curious about it. Not about your reactions, but about the text itself. I don't know how much experience you have with the Christian Old Testament, but do you have any info on how different the actual text of the Old Testament is from the Masoretic Text, if at all? I'm not much of a Bible scholar, but most of what I have read is from the Old Testament, and I do seem to recall the text indicating a "vengeful God." If the texts are not markedly different, then how does such a different interpretation come from the same words?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it is something that sets me off, isn't it. Sorry.
Well, the main difference is the simple fact that the Christian OT is a translation. As such, it cannot possibly be accurate. Many verses are meant to be read multiple ways -- but you can only translate it one way at a time. And some concepts simply don't translate.
But the main difference, I think, is not in the text. Traditional Jews believe that it is impossible to understand the text without the assistance of the Oral Law. Not difficult -- impossible. They were given to Moses at the same time for that very reason.
posted
Of course I didn't mean to offend you Rivka, nor Jews or Christians in general. I'm sorry if you are offended. It was an offhanded remark in response to the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy brought up in the first post. I am not the first who has noted the differences between the OT God and the NT God. Martin Gardner noted it in a philosophy book I read last year, then went on to say that most Christians ignore the OT in favor of the NT.
What is the Oral Law? I have never heard of that.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, the main difference is the simple fact that the Christian OT is a translation.
Um, not necessarily. I have a Christian OT that's in Hebrew. I also have a Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanach that's in English. Of course no translation can capture the full sense of the original. But that's what study is for -- to look at the different possible meanings and nuances of the original words.
And no, Morbo, you're not the first one to suggest that there is a different God in the OT and the NT. It was suggested as early as the 4th century. It was declared a heresy then, but somehow it keeps popping up. Usually among people who haven't bothered to study the MT/OT in any depth. Which, as your book points out, applies to many (I'll remain optimistic and not say most) Christians. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: So then, according to the traditional Jewish view, the text itself is not strictly primary?
Yes . . . and no.
Yes, in that the text IS looked at alone, to obtain the p'shat, or literal explanation. No, in that we look at more than just the p'shat of each verse. Yes in that all the explanations of the Oral Law are alluded to in the written text. Proximity of seemingly unrelated topics, letters that are "missing" or "extra," use of uncommon verbs or conjugations -- all these are clues to the deeper meaning of the text.
quote: It is a book, an idea, a quality of life. It is the Pentateuch; the Bible in all its parts; the Bible and the rabbinical writings; all writings dealing with revelation; all reflection and tradition dealing with God, man and the world. It is represented as a bride, the "daughter" of God, as a crown, a jewel, a sword; as fire and water; as life, but to those who are unworthy, as poison and death. It is the pre-existent Wisdom or Word of God, present at creation and acting as the "architect" of the creative work. It preserves the world from destruction; without it, all creation would lapse into chaos; it is the harmony and law of the universe. It is all this and much more, for the exaltation of the Torah in Jewish tradition is a theme which no words can exhaust. Torah is the reason man was created. It is the equivalent of the Temple sacrifices.
Oral law:
quote: We must refer to the second part of the Torah -- the Oral Law -- also given at Sinai, to understand the written word. This encompasses the Divine interpretations and expositions, which are accessible to human comprehension; and it includes the rules of exegesis by which God instructs man in how to delve more deeply into the law and teaches him how to apply it to evolving circumstances.
During the Roman persecutions, the Oral Law was written down, lest it be lost.
quote: Why would anyone view death positively?
Death is a transition to the World of Truth. Is that not a positive thing?
quote: Um, not necessarily. I have a Christian OT that's in Hebrew.
Really? Cool. I would be curious as to the differences between it and the Tanach on my bookshelf (which, BTW, does contain an English translation).
quote: I also have a Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanach that's in English.
This one? It's a reasonably good translation, although the fact that they compare themselves to the Septuagint makes me wince.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Tis true, I have no Hebrew texts with Latin footnotes.
I had to look up the Leningrad Codex and NRSV. The Codex (according to this article) has only very minor differences with the Tanach on my shelf.
I found a site with the NRSV and looked at the first chapter (*sings* Begin at the very beginning . . . ). It looks to be a fairly good translation. A few of the word choices made me go , though. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider myself a Christian, but I don't think the Lord of the Pre-Common era (who made the world) compares unfavorably with Christ, who was executed. We believe they were the same deity.
I was confused about it as a child, because I thought the Lord in Genesis was the Father Jesus prays to in the book of John. And really it has only become clear to me since my twenties.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
dkw, Hebrew with Latin footnotes? Wow. I remember when I picked up a book on Beowulf in high school. It had English, Old English, Old French, Latin, and something else, I remember it had 5 languages, mostly straight untranslated text. What a narrow audience could get anything out of that text.
quote: I don't think the Lord of the Pre-Common era (who made the world) compares unfavorably with Christ, who was executed. We believe they were the same deity.
skrika03. I understand and respect that you believe Jesus and the Lord of the Pre-Common era are one and the same, without diving into the whole trinity/monotheism quandry.
I haven't studied the bible in years, and never as rigorously as dkw (she's a minister) or Rivka (she's an Orthodox Jew--is that the right term, Rivka?) But on a basic level, don't the OT and NT seem very different? I seem to remember a whole lot of towns being destroyed by the Lord (Jericho, Sodom and Gomorroh for example), the seven plagues of Egypt, curses, the flood, and just in general a whole lot of smiting of sinners by the Lord.
Whereas Jesus preached love, tolerance, mercy and forgiveness. I know you could find all those attributes in the OT, but the tone certainly seemed to shift (not counting Revalations, that is prophecy.)
Not trying to attack anybodies beliefs, just curious how others view this.
posted
"although the fact that they compare themselves to the Septuagint makes me wince."
Why is that so? I understand it is standard procedure among Biblical scholars to compare all the ancient translations to look for preserved variant readings. The Septuagint is still a very old version.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Septuagint translation was produced under extreme duress from a conquering nation. It's not precisely something to aspire to.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got to admit, I expected a much different reaction to my post. I'm not sure if people got the rather extreme implications of that information. In a way, it's a scientific suggestion that generally, a person claiming to be religious and acting on religious motives, is probably rather acting on their psychological weaknesses. It's stuff like this and the high correlation between certain measures of religiousity and f-scale scores, that makes me think that mainstream contemporary religion is an extremely worrying social force. At least on these specific measures of immaturity, the mast majority of the religious population show them to be among the least mature people in our society.
I don't know, I expected a little more comment than, "Oh, well I'm glad that I and everyone I know are part of the good religious people."
You know, it's not my place to judge people, and I've known both religious and non-religious people who were very mature and religious and non-religious people who were very immature, but I really do want to make people doubt their motivations. My perspective is that my understanding of the various psychological weaknesses that are attendent with mainstream America religiousity has fueled a lot of my discussions about religion and the disagreements that have occured during them. I've consistently seen people express attitudes about God and their religion that I know are on the extrinsic side of the Religious Orientation Scale.
What it comes down to is, I think that this information and the volumes of other info of this type suggests quite strongly that the role of traditional religion in American society is, at best, a mix of good and bad. And yet, discussions of the possible dangerous aspects of religion generally boil down to zealous defense unfettered with any doubts on one side and puerile and usually inacurate attacks on the other.
If information such as this doesn't cause people to doubt and do some soul searching and attempt to educate themselves about it, I have no idea what will.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The more religious one is, the more likely one is to feel secure in their beliefs. That makes it easier to be open to the beliefs of others, without being threatened by them.
I think that this is a fundamental point of human nature that so many people just don't get. Many people think that fighting for their beliefs, often by trying to get rid of any opposing ones, is a sign that they are strong in these beliefs. I - and over a 100 years of psychology - suggest that it's much more likely that this is a sign of weakness. If you know something is true, there's little reason to fight when someone says it's false.
A counter-point is that strong, mature people are that way because they doubt. They are willing to listen to people that they respect but who disagree with them and give a fair hearing to those people's ideas. It's been my experience that mature people are constantly trying to better their understand, while immature people generally are fighting a battle to maintain their set views.
I also believe that mature people of any religion - even none - recognize and celebrate the underlying unity of the world and possess a great deal of empathy for others, as is exemplified by the actual version of the "Golden Rule" that Jesus gave: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Interesting that now-mainstream version of this rule is the much more egocentric "Do unto others and you'd have done unto you."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One question: what exactly do "prejudice" and "highly religious" mean in this context? Take the case of homosexuality for example. Is prejudice a)believing that homosexuality is wrong b)loudly proclaiming that homosexuality is wrong c)hating homosexuals or d)actually trying to stop homosexual behavior through legislation or encouraging gays to become straight? If the first qualifies as prejudice, then is it wrong to condemn certain behaviors? If I say that it's wrong to steal, am I prejudiced against thieves, and is this then wrong?
Because that's probably how many Christians see the prejudice issue. The popular moral standard today is tolerance for anything that doesn't hurt others. That is not necessarily the moral standard that Christians hold, since many of them believe that morals are handed down by God and are not subject to change by humans (most are actually pretty hypocritical about this, though--I've never met a Christian who doesn't pick and choose to some degree). It seems that Christians are judged by society's morals and found wanting. How is that different from the way homosexuals were treated in the past?
On the other hand, if "prejudice" is hatred towards particular groups or an attempt to force others to change, then that's a little more reasonable. After all, I see things in the NT about "speaking the truth in love" but nothing about forcing conversion, trying to influence the behavior of non-Christians, or hating people. The Kingdom of God is spiritual, not political, and Jesus told his followers to change themselves rather than other people. As you pointed out, the deeply religious may be more likely to understand the "love your neighbor" aspect of Christianity.
Your point that we are not doing much soul-searching as a result of your post is well-taken. But don't you think that lumping us all in a group and then telling us we're probably prejudiced is a bit...prejudicial?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shigosei, If you want to know how prejudice is defined and highly religious or about authoritarianism, all the information I'm working from is more or less publicly available. Seriously, I'm not try to lead you by the nose here or play some sort of trick because I just really hate Christians. I am genuinely concerned about this.
Go to the library. Check out The Nature or Prejudice. It's the book that Martin Luther King used and praised. It's still very highly regarded. It will make you a better person, and more than likely make you a better Christian.
If you're interested in the actual studies, do a web search or check out the Journal of Scientific Studies of Religion or the Journal of Psychology and Theology. Surely this is an important enough issue to put some effort into.
I get it. You're defensive because I said that bad things about something you care about. I can't make you undefensive, no matter what I say, you're going to build a defense. So I'm not even going to bother.
If you want to talk about specific topics, like how crazy it is that the used to Bogardis Social Distance Scale for so long and whether the newer "unconscious preference" types are more accurate, I'd be happy to oblige you. I'm just not in the mood right now to answer "Nuhuh".
posted
I'm sorry if my questioning of the study came across as being defensive. That certainly wasn't my intention. I was trying to point out that "prejudiced" Christians may dismiss the study as being prejudiced against them. I suppose I should have gone and examined it myself. I thought it would be useful to try to expose people to a different point of view.
You ask people to think about the implications of the study, Mr. Squicky. I think that is good. I asked people to think about the implications in a different light. I did not ask anyone to dismiss the study, and I did not try to refute it outright. I am not even disagreeing that the behavior of many Christians is pretty intolerant. Is there no room for any disagreement at all without being labeled as defensive?
The statement that I am defending something I care about requires some assumptions about me. What are those based on? The way I argued? My religion?
In the end, I can't make you believe that I'm not defensive, no matter what I say. You may call me prejudiced if you like; you are almost certainly correct. You ask me to examine my prejudices and try to rid myself of them, and I will.
Edit: By the way, where do fundamentalists fit in? They'd probably categorize themselves as "highly religious" and most people would categorize them as intolerant.
posted
What I noted in regard to the study you quoted, Mr. Squicky, was that some religions hold the positions of one side or the other as tenets of faith. It occurred to me that some people might believe these things not because of psychological weakness but just because they accept as true for other reasons a religion that espouses them.
For my own part, I am happy to straddle the line and once again defy classification. Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's stuff like this and the high correlation between certain measures of religiousity and f-scale scores, that makes me think that mainstream contemporary religion is an extremely worrying social force. At least on these specific measures of immaturity, the mast majority of the religious population show them to be among the least mature people in our society.
Here is my problem with this conclusion:
First, I cannot believe that such a generalized statement holds true for such a large group of people. There is no large group that I have yet encountered which does not hold a good cross section of all attitudes and personality types from apathetic to dogmatic to sincerely interested in new opinions.
Second, there are very, very few people who will not argue to the death for the set of core values they hold dear. What those core values are may be very different from group to group, but I really doubt that there is a group called the religious who are much more close-minded than a group called the non-religious. What changes, I think, is what the core values of people likely to be found in either group consist of.
For example, the areligious in the US are quite often former Christians who because of one experience or another have become disenchanted with their former religion. As these people were raised in a tradition of spirituality I am sure that many times they can simply not be comfortable with no spirituality at all, so they try Wicca or various Eastern philosophies or perhaps the more liberal Christian philosophies. This spiritual casting about undoubtedly improves their appreciation for previously foreign ideas.
However, it also seems to develop a counter close-mindedness to the Christian close-mindedness which goes something like this:
I have examined countless other religions and synthesized my spirituality based on the truth in all of them. You, however, are too provincial to consider anything outside of your narrow little belief system.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrSquicky said: I don't know, I expected a little more comment than, "Oh, well I'm glad that I and everyone I know are part of the good religious people."
OK, here goes. I have grave reservations about a group of studies conducted by a profession that is much more secular than the general population as a whole. Unconscious prejudices about religion invariably color the methodology and the interpretation of the results.
For example, I notice that you did not answer Shigosei’s question about what constitutes prejudice. It’s fine to suggest reading the primary source material, but this question is key to understanding the possible conflicts over this type of research and is easily answered in summary.
quote:MrSquicky said: As to the second question, it is only a matter of personal belief that I believe that prejudice and authoritarianism is more dangerous in religious people than in other groups.
This is flat out wrong. Let’s pick Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao off the top of our heads. Three of the four greatest genocides of the 20th century were caused by despots invoking a secular and specifically anti-religious belief system.
Taking these together with religion-inspired systematic oppressions would suggest that it is strong beliefs which lead to the worst atrocities, not merely strong religious beliefs.
Belief systems are often co-opted by others for selfish reasons. The biblical “justifications” for slavery were written in response to slavery to allow “Christians” to ignore large tenets of their faith for material gain. Some minister poring over old texts did not suddenly realize that slavery was a good thing and send expeditions to Africa to buy slaves. Some Portuguese traders realized that they could buy captives from Africans and sell them in the Americas. Someone started feeling guilty about it and took about 20 verses out of context and said, “See, God wants us to own slaves.” Greed inspired the evil; the religious machinations were needed to overcome the religion-inspired consciences of the slaveholders.
This is not to ignore atrocities that actually were inspired by misguided interpretations of a religious belief, nor those inspired by the actual tenets of some religious beliefs. It is to provide a context for examining belief
The flip side is that strong beliefs also lead to the greatest good in the world. Abolition and the civil rights movement were both strongly grounded in the Christian faith, although both included many other religious and secular belief systems as well.
The civil rights movement was successful because it made it impossible for Americans to stay apathetic about it – it was these largely apathetic people that allowed the system to continue. By forcing people to pick sides and clearly delineating the evil of the system, a small group of people motivated a much larger group of people to stop tolerating it.
Your statement also ignores the fact that uniformity of belief makes it possible to convince or dupe followers with a much smaller set of arguments than if the target audience had diverse beliefs. If I need 1000 followers, I’ll do better to find 1000 people I all collected in one place and with a similar belief system than to harangue random people in the street.
quote:You know, it's not my place to judge people, and I've known both religious and non-religious people who were very mature and religious and non-religious people who were very immature, but I really do want to make people doubt their motivations.
What's your motivation? You seem to have a problem with judging religious people. Why does that disturb you?
Don't point to the study. I mean, why, of all the incredible things to point out, you picked that one to induce questioning?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aspects of the prejudiced personality, as defined by Gordon Allport in his definitive, and really easy to get a hold of, book, The Nature of Prejudice, which was one of the staples of the Civil Rights Movement and which I feel the people responding here won't read because they're not interested in learning about this, they're interested in coming up with reasons to justify why they're not going to try and learn: Ambivalence towards parents-conscious express no faults with parents, unconsciously express animosity Moralism Dichotomization A need for definiteness Externalization of conflict Institutionalism Authoritarianism
From a study, quoted in this book, on the prevalent attitudes of highly prejudiced children: There is only one right way to do anything If a person does not watch out somebody will make a sucker out of him It would be better if teachers were more strict Only people who are like myself have a right to be happy Girls should learn only things that are useful around the house There will always be war; it is part of human nature The positions of the stars at the time of your birth tells your character and personality
expanded to adults, they also include: The world is a hazardous place in which men are basically evil and dangerous We do not have enough discipline in our American way of life On the whole, I am more afraid of swindlers than I am of gangsters.
Here's a link to the Bogardus Social Distance Scale, the only scale of prejudice used in the multitude of studies going on since the 1940s (when, for example, prejudices against gays were not measured) that I can find that I can post without breaking copyright laws Others are readily available in your local library.
Here's a link to a version of the F-Scale, a - better to say the - test of authoritarianism.
Look, I doubt the integrity of the people who are disagreeing with me here. I'll state that plain. As I said, it is my feeling that you are acting only on the defensive to provide reasons why you don't have to consider what I'm saying. You don't want to look into the scientific study of prejudice, especially as it relates to religion, but you want feel justified in ignoring it. Because that's all I'm asking, for people to look into it. I'd be upset if you just took my word for it. I want people to explore this topic on their own, because it is so very important.
But, as I said, while I have my impressions, it's not my place to judge. Only you know how sincere your interest and criticisms of this issue are. Maybe you really don't think that understanding prejudice beyond your gut instincts is important. Maybe you've got this incredible fund of knowledge on the subject that leads you to disagree with what I've said. Maybe you are avoiding educating yourself for some noble reason. I don't see any of these things, rather I see the actings of the same forces that I was talking about in my above posts. So far, the criticisms that people have posted are those of people completely ignorant of the subject matter. That, in and of itself, tells me something. There have been a host of issues brought up in the psychometrics of prejudice over the past 60 years that it's been going on and these issues have all been addressed to some extent or another. All of the issues that people have mentioned are dealt with in the literature. It's an open field. All of the work done is available for review and comment. Criticisms of this work (from all corners, there has been a lot of religious people who have studied this issue - ofen to disprove it - who now agree with the findings) are also available for review and comment. I am making the simple claims that the studies done and the scales used are scientifically valid (which can only really be verified by review) and that, while the results found are open to interpretation, people who criticize the results without knowing anything about what they are talking about are likely not the best judges.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, I'm finding what you are saying to be very interesting. However, I like most humans am a bit lazy. I readily admit I'm not going to go out and do the amount of research that you have on the subject, and why should I when I have your condensation right here? Also you will be researching on the subject at the same time so the likilhood of me ever "catching up" to your knowledge further diminishes.
Rather then lecture me, educate me. I'm willing to learn, but like most people that hinges on my convienence. If you put it on hatrack it is convienent. If you tell me to go to the libary it isn't. I have a whole lot of OSC books on my reading list before I go voluntarily reading something that would be that dry and boring to me.
Does the fact that I'm not willing to go to the library to do research on predjudice automatically make me prejudiced? I think not. Though I would be curious to take a test to see where I fall.
posted
Squick- Banna pretty much hit it right on the head. Let's face it, most everyone has a fairly busy life. When I go off to do research it is generally on some subject that I find very interesting. I do in fact take "serious" research suggestions from a forum from time to time. I am reading some interesting theology books as well as one on the effects of geography on human history due solely to suggestions in forums.
However, while it is interesting enough to debate I simply am not interested enough to spend many hours doing research on this topic. Nor, I think, is anyone else here. If you think it interesting enough to talk about and debate about then do so. If you think it isn't worth your time then don't. But please don't lecture us about our willful ignorance, knee-jerk defensiveness etc. etc. It simply isn't the least bit productive.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, you are ASKING for our attention. You are requesting our time away from our own happy lives to listen to you. There are many, many issues in this world that are worth of concern; what makes yours special?
I am puzzled how someone who claims to be such a student of human psychology can apply it so poorly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrSquicky said: which I feel the people responding here won't read because they're not interested in learning about this, they're interested in coming up with reasons to justify why they're not going to try and learn.
That’s a really poor attitude. You post an interesting, thought provoking topic based on some studies and sources you’ve read, and refuse to clarify the positions of those studies in response to questions. Then you dismiss Shigosei’s legitimate question and analysis as defensiveness.
quote:MrSquicky said: Look, I doubt the integrity of the people who are disagreeing with me here. I'll state that plain.
quote:MrSquicky said: So far, the criticisms that people have posted are those of people completely ignorant of the subject matter.
And yet until now you’ve refused to provide additional information in response to their questions. People generally don’t respond well to “You need to read this for your own good. If you don’t, I’m going to question your integrity.”
Besides, you’re also postulating that these studies provide the only perspective to discuss these issues, which is begging the question at the heart of the studies and other thoughts on these matters.
quote:[4] The business man and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor.
This is not an either/or scenario. Someone who thinks it is lacks a view of the bigger picture.
Favoring the "artistic" group of people over the "practical" group of people is just as close-minded as assuming that only the "practical" people have claim to the benefits of society.
Besides, there's no such thing as the all or nothing scenario presented. What was it Heinlein said? Specialization is for insects? Human beings should be able to do everything.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Wow, if that doesn't say something about the test, I don't know what would. My self-assessment is considerably less liberal on some issues than either Kayla or AJ. Go figure. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
kat, the question in and of itself need not be biased. That is, it is absolutely possible to disagree that businessmen and manufacturers are more important than artists and professors without thinking that artists and professors are more important than businessmen and manufacturers. It's quite easy to do so, in fact. The bias only comes with the way in which the answer to such a question is interpreted.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Within normal limits; an appropriate score for an American. (The overall average score for groups tested in the original study is listed in the 1950 publication as 3.84, with men averaging somewhat higher and women somewhat lower.)
An appropriate score for an American?!? I should probably read this thread and figure out what that means in context.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon75: I don't believe professions are divided into matters of relative importance. Even if they were, neither artists nor manufacturers would be at the top of the list.
If it isn't an either or question, then it's a trick question. Trick questions that force the subject into a mode of thinking they may not have originally inhabited, and then measure that new mode of thinking, are inappropriate for what is being touted as an excellent objective study.
Also, the F scale? The F is for fascist. Fascist = prejudiced?
The scale, the questions, and the entire argument seem designed to paint religious people as the unenlightened source of evil. Considering Squicky's response to indifference is to accuse Hatrack of dissemination, the entire enterprise seems like a witch hunt.
quote:Look, I doubt the integrity of the people who are disagreeing with me here. I'll state that plain.
*snort* Baby, try to get an open mind. You are not the source of all truth, no matter desperately you feather the armor.
posted
The F scale clearly conflates certain attitudes, likely inappropriately. For instance:
quote: A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people.
While it used to be (say, around the time the F scale was created) that a given person had similar attitudes about the importance of bad manners, habits, and breeding, the conflation was not intrinsic. There are plenty of people now who would consider bad manners and habits detrimental to being able to get along with "decent people", but who would not consider breeding relevant at all. Furthermore, the manner in which the question is asked implies that decent people includes only people with good breeding, which if a person decides the question is intended to mean such may get them to respond highly in the negative when in fact they moderately agree with a more moderate sentiment that could be expressed by the question.
In fact, reading over the test, the entire test is hilarious. It asks people to judge agreement with the statements, but some of the statements clearly intend for a person to answer based on the degree they consider the distinction appropriate, not the degree they agree or disagree with it. For instance:
quote: The business man and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor.
If someone answers strongly agree or strongly disagree to this question they display strong fascist tendencies in the conventional definition of the word. However, if they answer as to the degree they find the question appropriate many people will put strongly disagree. It is exceptionally hard to accurately score based on questions which will illicit significantly different answers based on how a person takes a question, where how a person takes a question is not dependent on their position (as in this case).
Or take questions where the scoring would depend on the person's perception of the current state of the country in ways that are not ascertained by the question:
quote: What this country needs most, more than laws and political programs, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom the people can put their faith.
Taken absolutely literally, it is not dependent on that, but most people will take it as a relative question, I think (I sure did on first reading). In that case, a non-fascist could very well answer in the affirmative, if they thought the laws and political programs were already in place but due to lack of leadership had not been well implemented.
Then there're questions which are dependent upon whom the answerer considers to be enforcing the situation, such as:
quote: When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
A non fascist person could very well answer in the affirmative, thinking this a matter of personal positive thinking. A fascist person could also answer in the affirmative, thinking that the government would provide the ways of keeping busy.
All in all, I consider it a pretty inexact example of psychological testing, suffering from highly ambiguous phrasings and relying upon answerers to guess the writers intent, which will generate answers based on the answerer trying to make themselves look the way they want themselves to look based on their perception of that intent. It will likely catch most extreme cases of fascist tendencies due to its few more unambiguous questions, but I question its ability to do even the most moderate discernment towards the other end of the scale.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skipping to the end- after Katharina's you are asking for our attention comment-
There is a lot in the new testament about being critical of your own perceptions and influence. Why don't you (Squick) go to LDS.org >> scriptures >> topical guide and search on Fear and Trembling for me?
I'm not as much of an OT scholar, but I bet the case can be made from that text too.
Scientific knowledge requires you to take much "on blind faith" under the principle of "oh, it was published in a peer reviewed journal." Both living religion and science are Processes, not edifices, of improving one's own knowledge and not simply regurgiating. THough both involve regurge in the early stages of learning.
The only other Jatraquero that I am aware studies my specialty of Linguistics is Jon Boy. We do not go around trying to seed debates on our specialty in order to make others feel inferior. (feel free to read this as an accusation.) Though there are often related threads to which we can contribute. Then again, I guess I'm not accusing you if you are working on the assumption that most Jatraqueros can easily grasp the intricacies of psychology without a lot of effort.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the leap of faith required to believe that a scientist is accurately and honestly describing his methods and results in a journal, and that said methods and results have been fairly reviewed by others in the field is a bit smaller than that required to believe that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Creator.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Why? I mean, I generally assume that most scientists are honest with their research, but why is it easier to believe in the wisdom of fellow human beings than God?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
'Tis true, I have no Hebrew texts with Latin footnotes.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
, though. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
2.966666666666667 score.
