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 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,
why do
the words "slippery slope" keep popping into my head?
> Again, you need to stop assuming every post in disagreement with
your own
> is a direct attack on you personally.
Hmmmmm. . . . your post was directed at all who objected to Michael's recent
posts. If I had a group of students who stated that they disagreed with me
and
then I made a statement that students who disagree with me are being
childish, I
could see where they would object.
Again, I would suggest that if you are making statements about a specific
individual
whom you find adolescent or childish that you address it to them
specifically.
Addressing it to all who have taken a specific position is likely to cause
misunderstandings.
> Let the topic lay for a while, Linda. When you come back to it you
may
> find that you, yourself, see how personally you involved you have
> become---and you may be uncomfortable with the extreme levels of anger
> present in your own messages. You are far to rational and intelligent a
> woman to allow your emotions to affect you in this manner.
I must admit I'm smiling. A little flattery coupled with the woman's raging
emotions argument!
Trust me - you have never seen me really angry. Those of you who have seen
me
angry know what I am talking about. Thus far I have yet to achieve anything
approaching "extreme levels of anger". I'm still in the low level range
with simply
tongue-in-cheek irritation at your previous post. Kind of dismayed that I
need to
explain this.
I believe you are reading a level of emotion into this last post that is
absent on
this end of the keyboard. After I wrote my last message to you, I feel
asleep on
the couch (darn, I missed Judge Judy's verdict!). Not much adrenaline
going in
this ole body today.
I think sometime individuals will see anger when someone disagrees or when
someone
states something assertively (without all of the politically correct
niceties - "You
have raised some very valuable points BUT . . . . .). Sometimes, when a
person
expresses a small/moderate amount of anger, it is perceived as extreme as
the
expression of emotions (particularly negative) are often discouraged in U.S.
culture. Occasionally, folks will use the "out-of-control emotions"
argument as a
way to discount someone else's points. Or, someone may also be projecting
their own
anger into a post. Who's to say?
> Linda, if you are honestly comparing your response to Michael's
posts to
> the actions of Rosa Parks, you have clearly lost all sense of proportion.
>
Oh paleeeeeez. This really is beginning to look like, if I can't disagree
with the
statement I'll challenge the sensibilities of the person making the
statement.
Color me incredulous! You might want to reread the content of the last post
- I was
addressing the importance of standing up for what one believes. I think
this can
occur on a very, very, very small scale (put me down at that end - the
greatest risk
is loss of time and emotional energy) to a very large scale (put Daw Suu Kyi
down
here). *It's a continuum.* The fundamental principle is the same. In the
face of
prejudice, it can be harmful to simply filter it out or pretend it doesn't
exist.
> Linda, I have an enormous amount of respect for you and your work.
And I
> realize that you feel threatened and angered by the posts that have
> appeared here.
Sound of me ringing in the buzzer - "What a clinician might say? Emotions
for $300,
Alex".
Yes, I have been moderately angry off and on over the past week. . Past
couple of
days, mostly irritated by folks acceptance of "isms". Threatened? By what?
That
has me at a loss. I wonder why you feel the need to ascribe such extreme
emotions
and characterize my arguments as irrational. I am against prejudice. I
don't like
it. I find it destructive. And I will publicly say so. Why does that seem
to
disturb some people. I don't see that as irrational or lacking objectivity.
It
seems that some folks just don't like it.
What I would ask is that folks don't dismiss my arguments against racism,
sexism,
anti-Semitism etc. on a professional list on the basis of the over-wrought
female
characterization.
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
