|
Hi Paul and other interested folks, Much of what Paul discusses below can be used as examples in class concerning various social cognitive and other psychological processes. For example, Paul Smith wrote: The audiobook that I received makes exactly those claims. There is considerable evidence presented, but obviously cherry-picked to make those points. Interestingly the author repeatedly asks (rhetorically) "Aren't these just cherry-picked examples?", and then claims they're not - but without presenting any kind of evidence that they're not. What the author is most likely relying on is the premise that his audience is made up of like-minded individuals who will not question their own ingroup/outgroup assumptions. He writes so that individuals will find support for their already existing illusory correlations and then subsequently filter the information in the book through an existing lens of bias and prejudice. In other words, they will read the material and just nod their heads as their beliefs are confirmed. Of course, once these beliefs become entrenched, individuals and groups become unlikely to modify them (Ross, Lepper, & Hubbard, 1975). I find my own response to these events interesting. It is difficult for me to avoid forming an equally unjustified attitude about Christianity in general, and when I catch myself and try better identify the culprits, I have a constant feeling that I'm still casting the net too broadly (as my experience reading Jimmy Carter's book showed me - he's a religious fundamentalist by self description and by any reasonable definition, yet clearly not among those misbehaving in the ways that bother me). Of course, what you are describing is a typical view of an outgroup as homogeneous and negative. However, it should be noted that you are questioning your assumptions and not just accepting them as fact. I strongly suspect that the real intent of those pushing the anti-Islamic point is not to destroy or assimilate anyone, but rather some combination of protecting their current way of life, hoping for some kind of additional profit (in terms of money or power), and some kind of self-justification (having a sense of heroic mission protecting civilization). Leaders of destructive groups have many motivations from a fanatical belief in the righteousness of their cause to the more common issue of self-interest (power and money). Members often have different motivations and by and large, join not because of any pre-existing hatred toward another group but rather to meet a variety of psychological needs. Unanticipated crisis and perceived threats to one's existence can have a dramatic impact on an individual. For example, prejudice goes up during times of national crisis and many individuals seek out groups both constructive and destructive to help provide a sense of community, identity, direction, and hope. For more more information on this, you might want to look at the work related to terror management theory (Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg, 2002). Mike Hulsizer and I also discuss this topic in another article that I've referenced below - Hate Groups for Dummies: How to build a successful hate group - yes, the title is tongue in cheek. Even if Islam really were a movement uniformly devoted to violence against America and Americans, the odds of my ever being affected by that violence are very low, and certainly far below the threat I face from numerous other sources, including violent actions of the American far right. Yet in the past several years that far right has cultivated a fear of Islamic-related (or whatever the appropriate term is...) terrorism in significant numbers of Americans, to the point that I have heard several people seriously tell me that they're concerned that without action against Islam America will become an Islamic state in the near future. I find that absolutely remarkable, that anyone could believe anything like that. What you are discussing here can be used as an example of the availability heuristic. Thus, such a belief as you describe above, with all of the TV programs and movies focusing on terrorism, the ever changing alert system, nightly reports of attacks in Iraq on the news, etc., isn't really all that remarkable - it is just easily available. A number of other topics can be applied to a discussion of what may appear to many to be extreme beliefs (e.g., the idea that the U.S. is at dire risk of becoming an "Islamic" state under a regime such as that of the Taliban or the idea that George W. Bush orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 - see http://st911.org/). Group polarization, groupthink, the foot-in-the-door technique (related to gaining recruits involvement), conformity, propaganda, individual needs related to group membership, etc. can all be used to discuss the functioning of both destructive and constructive, political and often religious groups, Best, Linda Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2002). In the wake of 9/11: The psychology of terror. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880-892. Woolf, L. M., & Hulsizer, M. R. (2004). Hate groups for dummies: How to build a successful hate group. Humanity and Society, 28, 40-62. http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/HateDummies.pdf --
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
- Re: Interreligious hate and violence Paul Smith
- Re: Interreligious hate and violence Linda Woolf, Ph.D.
