RE: List behavior
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When I teach both intro and social one of my main goals is to make students > aware of the cognitive biases that affect the way all of us view the world > and interpret events, behavior, etc. I usually cite a study by Vallone, > Ross, & Lepper (1985) showing how perception of bias in network news reports > on the killings in a Beirut refugee camp were completely reversed for those > with pro-Arab leanings versus those with pro-Israeli leanings. Each group > felt the reports were biased: Pro-Arab Ss felt the reports gave an Israeli > bias; Pro-Israeli Ss felt the same reports were biased in favor of the > Arabs. I then cite a contemporary example that may have the same dynamic. > I have used the Rodney King incident, OJ's trial, and more recently the > Clinton impeachment trial. If no one objects, I am thinkig of gathering > together some of our recent posts and presenting them to my next class as a > potential real-life (assuming academia qualifies) example of this same > phenomenon. I think it would make a real impact on students to see that > even their psychology professors may occasionally fall prey to the same > psychological processes that afflict the masses (or at least the majority of > college sophomores). What do you think? Last semester I used the web site > that was posting the comments generated by reaction to publication of > Harris's Nurture Assumption but I think we may have outdone ourselves here. > Maybe there is even a possibility of an example or two of escalation of > aggression? > Do we have an expert on conflict resolution who could turn this into an even > better learning experience? > > Michael Quanty > Psychology Professor > CBMTS Project Director > Thomas Nelson Community College > P.O. Box 9407 > Hampton, Virginia 23670 > Voice: 757.825.3500 > Fax: 757.825.3807 > Mike: may I suggest that you bring the appropriate members of the minority group to the class for discussion. re my post , I did talk to students from Ethiopia and they said that HIV was not prominent in that specific region, but again consider the source? Michael Sylvester Daytona Beach,Florida
Re: List behavior
I also talk about the Ross et al. study in my social class, and I would love to have a copy of the posts that you collect for use in class (assuming that the TIPS contributors 'release' this source). Great idea. I like the added benefit of making prof.'s seem more human. Ah, a _teaching_ realted benefit from this unsuppressible (a word?) rope! Matthew P. Winslow Eastern Kentucky University [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When I teach both intro and social one of my main goals is to make students > aware of the cognitive biases that affect the way all of us view the world > and interpret events, behavior, etc. I usually cite a study by Vallone, > Ross, & Lepper (1985) showing how perception of bias in network news reports > on the killings in a Beirut refugee camp were completely reversed for those > with pro-Arab leanings versus those with pro-Israeli leanings. Each group > felt the reports were biased: Pro-Arab Ss felt the reports gave an Israeli > bias; Pro-Israeli Ss felt the same reports were biased in favor of the > Arabs. I then cite a contemporary example that may have the same dynamic. > I have used the Rodney King incident, OJ's trial, and more recently the > Clinton impeachment trial. If no one objects, I am thinkig of gathering > together some of our recent posts and presenting them to my next class as a > potential real-life (assuming academia qualifies) example of this same > phenomenon. I think it would make a real impact on students to see that > even their psychology professors may occasionally fall prey to the same > psychological processes that afflict the masses (or at least the majority of > college sophomores). What do you think? Last semester I used the web site > that was posting the comments generated by reaction to publication of > Harris's Nurture Assumption but I think we may have outdone ourselves here. > Maybe there is even a possibility of an example or two of escalation of > aggression? > Do we have an expert on conflict resolution who could turn this into an even > better learning experience? > > Michael Quanty > Psychology Professor > CBMTS Project Director > Thomas Nelson Community College > P.O. Box 9407 > Hampton, Virginia 23670 > Voice: 757.825.3500 > Fax: 757.825.3807 > > -Original Message----- > From: Linda M. Woolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 9:51 PM > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: List behavior > > Hi Rick and Tipsters, > > Rick Adams wrote: > > > Linda, why is it whenever I respond to anyone who posts something > about > > Michael Sylvester you insist on taking it as a personal attack on you? > > Perhaps, you phrased it poorly but it was how you characterized all who > objected to > Michael's posts. In response to "listen to endless adolescent discussion", > you > said: "Isn't that what we are listening to from the Michael Sylvester > opponents? > > If you meant to characterize a specific individual, you might want to > specify whom > you are addressing or respond to them off list. As it were, you > characterized all > of "Michael Sylvesters opponents". > > > Sure, > > Michael has said some things that provoked you--but does that mean that > > all his posts are inappropriate? > > I have never stated that they were all inappropriate. The discussion of > most > individuals who have objected have concerned his offensive posts. > > > He has not encouraged > > violence or discrimination against a group, he has not made threats, > > deliberately degraded or ridiculed a minority, or otherwise performed acts > > that would constitute "hate speech" in any reasonable sense of the term. > > He has consistently made comments that are degrading towards Jews (see prior > post). > You are correct that he has not advocated violence or made threats. > However, I > never stated that he had made threats. I discussed his comments which I > found > offensive and inappropriate to a professional discussion list. > > If over the course of two years, I consistently made statements that > characterized > African-Americans as lazy, shiftless, criminal, welfare chiselers, etc. etc. > etc., > if I consistently made negative statements only regarding this one group, > and if I > periodically tried to make folks believe I wasn't racist with occasional > comments > such as "some of my best friends are Black", I would expect that folks on > the list > would find my statements to be objectionable and offensive. > > You do raise an interesting question however. At one point and after how > many > racist comments, would my offensiveness bec
RE: List behavior
When I teach both intro and social one of my main goals is to make students aware of the cognitive biases that affect the way all of us view the world and interpret events, behavior, etc. I usually cite a study by Vallone, Ross, & Lepper (1985) showing how perception of bias in network news reports on the killings in a Beirut refugee camp were completely reversed for those with pro-Arab leanings versus those with pro-Israeli leanings. Each group felt the reports were biased: Pro-Arab Ss felt the reports gave an Israeli bias; Pro-Israeli Ss felt the same reports were biased in favor of the Arabs. I then cite a contemporary example that may have the same dynamic. I have used the Rodney King incident, OJ's trial, and more recently the Clinton impeachment trial. If no one objects, I am thinkig of gathering together some of our recent posts and presenting them to my next class as a potential real-life (assuming academia qualifies) example of this same phenomenon. I think it would make a real impact on students to see that even their psychology professors may occasionally fall prey to the same psychological processes that afflict the masses (or at least the majority of college sophomores). What do you think? Last semester I used the web site that was posting the comments generated by reaction to publication of Harris's Nurture Assumption but I think we may have outdone ourselves here. Maybe there is even a possibility of an example or two of escalation of aggression? Do we have an expert on conflict resolution who could turn this into an even better learning experience? Michael Quanty Psychology Professor CBMTS Project Director Thomas Nelson Community College P.O. Box 9407 Hampton, Virginia 23670 Voice: 757.825.3500 Fax: 757.825.3807 -Original Message- From: Linda M. Woolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 9:51 PM Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: List behavior Hi Rick and Tipsters, Rick Adams wrote: > Linda, why is it whenever I respond to anyone who posts something about > Michael Sylvester you insist on taking it as a personal attack on you? Perhaps, you phrased it poorly but it was how you characterized all who objected to Michael's posts. In response to "listen to endless adolescent discussion", you said: "Isn't that what we are listening to from the Michael Sylvester opponents? If you meant to characterize a specific individual, you might want to specify whom you are addressing or respond to them off list. As it were, you characterized all of "Michael Sylvesters opponents". > Sure, > Michael has said some things that provoked you--but does that mean that > all his posts are inappropriate? I have never stated that they were all inappropriate. The discussion of most individuals who have objected have concerned his offensive posts. > He has not encouraged > violence or discrimination against a group, he has not made threats, > deliberately degraded or ridiculed a minority, or otherwise performed acts > that would constitute "hate speech" in any reasonable sense of the term. He has consistently made comments that are degrading towards Jews (see prior post). You are correct that he has not advocated violence or made threats. However, I never stated that he had made threats. I discussed his comments which I found offensive and inappropriate to a professional discussion list. If over the course of two years, I consistently made statements that characterized African-Americans as lazy, shiftless, criminal, welfare chiselers, etc. etc. etc., if I consistently made negative statements only regarding this one group, and if I periodically tried to make folks believe I wasn't racist with occasional comments such as "some of my best friends are Black", I would expect that folks on the list would find my statements to be objectionable and offensive. You do raise an interesting question however. At one point and after how many racist comments, would my offensiveness become defined as hate speech in the work place or on the street. I imagine we can leave that to the attorneys. >Again, I honestly believe you are letting your personal reactions > completely overcome your natural objectivity and "seeing tigers" where > there are only alley cats. If I made a racist comment characterizing all African-Americans, I could see where someone who is African-American could take offense. I think this is a common reaction to the experience of prejudice. "Completely overcome"? Now, now, now . . ..Not much ranting and raving in that post. I simply disagreed. I do not believe that individuals should simply look away or filter out racist, etc. comments and to do so has ramifications. Racism ignored will probably no more likely go away but will rather grow much like an infection. It needs to be addressed. And sometimes
Re: List behavior
Hi Rick and Tipsters, Rick Adams wrote: > Linda, why is it whenever I respond to anyone who posts something about > Michael Sylvester you insist on taking it as a personal attack on you? Perhaps, you phrased it poorly but it was how you characterized all who objected to Michael's posts. In response to "listen to endless adolescent discussion", you said: "Isn't that what we are listening to from the Michael Sylvester opponents? If you meant to characterize a specific individual, you might want to specify whom you are addressing or respond to them off list. As it were, you characterized all of "Michael Sylvesters opponents". > Sure, > Michael has said some things that provoked you--but does that mean that > all his posts are inappropriate? I have never stated that they were all inappropriate. The discussion of most individuals who have objected have concerned his offensive posts. > He has not encouraged > violence or discrimination against a group, he has not made threats, > deliberately degraded or ridiculed a minority, or otherwise performed acts > that would constitute "hate speech" in any reasonable sense of the term. He has consistently made comments that are degrading towards Jews (see prior post). You are correct that he has not advocated violence or made threats. However, I never stated that he had made threats. I discussed his comments which I found offensive and inappropriate to a professional discussion list. If over the course of two years, I consistently made statements that characterized African-Americans as lazy, shiftless, criminal, welfare chiselers, etc. etc. etc., if I consistently made negative statements only regarding this one group, and if I periodically tried to make folks believe I wasn't racist with occasional comments such as "some of my best friends are Black", I would expect that folks on the list would find my statements to be objectionable and offensive. You do raise an interesting question however. At one point and after how many racist comments, would my offensiveness become defined as hate speech in the work place or on the street. I imagine we can leave that to the attorneys. >Again, I honestly believe you are letting your personal reactions > completely overcome your natural objectivity and "seeing tigers" where > there are only alley cats. If I made a racist comment characterizing all African-Americans, I could see where someone who is African-American could take offense. I think this is a common reaction to the experience of prejudice. "Completely overcome"? Now, now, now . . ..Not much ranting and raving in that post. I simply disagreed. I do not believe that individuals should simply look away or filter out racist, etc. comments and to do so has ramifications. Racism ignored will probably no more likely go away but will rather grow much like an infection. It needs to be addressed. And sometimes that involves simply saying "That statement was offensive". On a personal note, I must confess - occasionally, I will assume that the only way a person could disagree with me is if they had lost all objectivity/rationality - "The point is so obvious, - to disagree, they must be insane."Perhaps? > > A civil list for professionals is not too much to expect (from > > all sides). > > I agree. But calls for ridicule of a member, as were present in the > original message I was replying to, are hardly examples of a "civil list > for professionals." I agree - that is why I said "from all sides". > > Should we turn our heads and voices away from racism? Should > > we turn our heads and voices away from sexism? How many problems > > and atrocities have gone unchecked because good people simply > > chose to filter them out? > > Linda, this isn't Tibet or Rwanda--it's a discussion list for > professionals. You are treating these threads as though they were likely > to cause the rest of us to go out and "lynch" someone--when in reality the > most likely effect a racist, sexist, or anti-semetic statement will have > on the participants here is to reduce our respect for (and opinion of) the > poster! ??? Never said it was Tibet or Rwanda. Usually, the effects and problems are much more subtle. The research literature certainly makes clear that if these are ignored other problems and atrocities (such as a beating, truck dragging, or a synagogue bombing) can occur down the road. And yes, I do believe that most folks on this list can see through the racism, sexism, etc. However, these "isms" are alive and well in the U.S. and I have no reason to believe that this list is immune to these problems. Additionally, I think Michael Hulsizer (no need to thank me for bringing your name back into the discussion) made some excellent points in his discussion of the "dangers in off the cuff racist remarks". Obviously, more could be said about this concern but I think you are familiar with this research literature. Also
RE: List behavior
Linda wrote: > So my posts have been adolescent? Linda, why is it whenever I respond to anyone who posts something about Michael Sylvester you insist on taking it as a personal attack on you? My comment was directed to a specific poster who stated that permitting conversations involving Michael Sylvester's posts meant listening to "adolescent" discussions; i.e., he was specifically stating that participation in any conversation involving Michael was adolescent behavior. My response made it clear that it is _just_ as adolescent to spend time complaining about Michael (not debating him--complaining about him) as it could possibly be to participate in the threads he has started. At no time did I refer to your posts (which, until recently, were focused on the issues, not personalities) as adolescent. To be honest, I feel you are taking the entire conversation--not just the parts about Jews or other potentially prejudicial areas, but the entire discussion of Michael as an individual and free speech as a principle--far too personally. Back off from it for a while and try to bring the same objectivity to it that you would demand of your own students. Sure, Michael has said some things that provoked you--but does that mean that all his posts are inappropriate? I don't believe that to be the case, and apparently many others don't feel that way either. Look at his most recent post about a bipolar student--that post asks a serious question relating directly to the topic of this list. Would you want _that_ message labeled as one of Michael Sylvester's "inanities?" Yet, according to the original author to whom my reply (quoted back in your message) was directed, it certainly should have been. > No, as stated by myself and others - it is not about topics. > It is about the appropriateness of someone on a professional > discussion list making racist, sexist, homophobic etc. > statements about individuals whether on or off the list. Is > hate speech appropriate for this list? Now we don't need to > rehash this discussion. Folks can just re-read our previous > exchanges. If you seriously characterize Michael's posts as "hate speech" you have a very rigid definition of free expression, Linda. He has not encouraged violence or discrimination against a group, he has not made threats, deliberately degraded or ridiculed a minority, or otherwise performed acts that would constitute "hate speech" in any reasonable sense of the term. Again, I honestly believe you are letting your personal reactions completely overcome your natural objectivity and "seeing tigers" where there are only alley cats. > This however can have consequences. When misinformation is > presented (deliberately or non-deliberately) it needs to be > corrected. When racist, sexist, homophobic etc. statements > are made which remain unaddressed in can have repercussions > both in the short and long term. Then if they need correction, correct them. But don't encourage their suppression--that only leads to hate and distrust. This, as you and others have pointed out, is a professional list. Presumably, as professionals in the social sciences and as well educated individuals, we have developed the critical thinking skills necessary to read statements that may be racist, sexist, or homophobic with an understanding of the nature of such statements. To assume that such statements could sway opinion in a forum such as this one is offensive to every participant in the list. Simply because someone makes a comment that can be taken to be anti-semetic, I am rather unlikely to change my opinion of Jews or to suddenly decide that my Jewish friends are in some way no longer my equals. And just because a message is posted that is homophobic in nature, I am not about to immediately shut down the support lists I run for glbt youths. Such messages deserve response, if only to clarify points that may be raised (i.e., the question of Ethopian Jews and Israel) or to correct the errors of the poster--but they hardly need to be viewed as in any way likely to change the views and values of the other members of this list. Hopefully, you have more respect for our integrity than to believe that of us. > A civil list for professionals is not too much to expect (from > all sides). I agree. But calls for ridicule of a member, as were present in the original message I was replying to, are hardly examples of a "civil list for professionals." > Should we turn our heads and voices away from racism? Should > we turn our heads and voices away from sexism? How many problems > and atrocities have gone unchecked because good people simply > chose to filter them out? Linda, this isn't Tibet or Rwanda--it's a discussion list for professionals. You are treating these threads as though they were likely to cause the rest of us to go out and "lynch" someone--when in reality the most likely eff
