I Don't Want to be Right

[Bolty]

Article in the New Yorker

Last month, Brendan Nyhan, a professor of political science at Dartmouth, published the results of a study that he and a team of pediatricians and political scientists had been working on for three years. They had followed a group of almost two thousand parents, all of whom had at least one child under the age of seventeen, to test a simple relationship: Could various pro-vaccination campaigns change parental attitudes toward vaccines? Each household received one of four messages: a leaflet from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stating that there had been no evidence linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (M.M.R.) vaccine and autism; a leaflet from the Vaccine Information Statement on the dangers of the diseases that the M.M.R. vaccine prevents; photographs of children who had suffered from the diseases; and a dramatic story from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about an infant who almost died of measles. A control group did not receive any information at all. The goal was to test whether facts, science, emotions, or stories could make people change their minds.

The result was dramatic: a whole lot of nothing. None of the interventions worked. The first leaflet—focussed on a lack of evidence connecting vaccines and autism—seemed to reduce misperceptions about the link, but it did nothing to affect intentions to vaccinate. It even decreased intent among parents who held the most negative attitudes toward vaccines, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect. The other two interventions fared even worse: the images of sick children increased the belief that vaccines cause autism, while the dramatic narrative somehow managed to increase beliefs about the dangers of vaccines. “It’s depressing,” Nyhan said. “We were definitely depressed,” he repeated, after a pause.

I recommend reading the full article.

The major gist can be summarized in a sentence midway through: "If information doesn’t square with someone’s prior beliefs, he discards the beliefs if they’re weak and discards the information if the beliefs are strong." What's the kicker is that this can happen even if he is aware that his belief system is affecting his decision. We, as humans, literally can't stop ourselves from processing information incorrectly, even if we know we're doing it. Now, before the inevitable posts of "see, this is why so-and-so LL poster is blind to his own misconceptions," note that everyone here - absolutely everyone - has fallen prey to this at some point in our lives. We all process information and filter it to fit our world view to some extent, and we're all generally blind to the fact that we're doing it. A noted phenomenon/problem of the Internet is that it allows everyone to splinter communities into echo chambers where the "hivemind" can operate to reinforce misconceptions. The more fractured the communities get, the more the crazy comes out. Even if you can rationally step back and think "you know, this is probably an echo chamber and I'm receiving all of my information through bad filters," it will still affect you at a subconscious level.

I wonder if humanity will ever "evolve" to the point where this stops happening? Because it's such a survival instinct to be able to say to oneself "this has worked for me in the past, therefore I see no reason to change it despite information to the contrary," we may never be able to overcome it. Thinking to the macro level of the entire human race, is there any way to rise above our genetic programming that actually damages us as a whole in civilized society?

Wrap your head around this:

when people feel their sense of self threatened by the outside world, they are strongly motivated to correct the misperception, be it by reasoning away the inconsistency or by modifying their behavior. For example, when women are asked to state their gender before taking a math or science test, they end up performing worse than if no such statement appears, conforming their behavior to societal beliefs about female math-and-science ability.

Wow. Merely having a seemingly innocent question asking what your gender is before taking a math test affects women's test scores just by reminding them that they are women, because it makes them conscious of society's pressure on women not to be good at math. This can happen even if they're fully aware that it's bull-honkey. They can swear up and down that they don't believe that for one second, but it still affects them.

One of the concepts that makes me laugh at shows like Star Trek is its underlying notion that as technology improves, the human race does too. It usually depicts a society of the future where humans have moved beyond their base instincts to acquire material possessions and instead pursue activities that interest them; after all, once a replicator can create food out of nothing, there's no competition for food, right? It always seems to ignore that while technology changes, human nature doesn't - we can't rise above our natural programming to be irrational, emotional meatbags, even when we know we're being irrational, emotional meatbags.

TL;DR: we're just rats on a wheel, man!

[kandrathe]

I've never been one to accept the "you are just an organism driven by your DNA/Id/instincts" at face value. It seems to be at least broadly over generalized. I do subscribe to the notion that subconsciously people rise or fall to the societal expectations of them. Hence, the subconscious motivation to strive, or to sandbag.

This is why, as a parent, I'm keen to protect my children from negative messaging (e.g. "you're an idiot", "you're stupid", "you can't do xyz", "you're not good at xyz", even from themselves or their peers/siblings. And, I work to counteract it with examples where they are doing well. To do this, I need to be involved with them daily in helping with homework, and family time. I give them encouragement, and unconditional love.

As the boss, I tend to keep high expectations of people, and help/enable them to achieve more than they believed possible of themselves. To show I care about their work, I keep involved in everything that they are doing. They know then that they are accountable. I'm probably the toughest boss that they will ever have, because I'm involved in their projects. I'm also their strongest advocate, and through the tough work I promote them, even it if means going elsewhere.

Now I want to pick apart the argument specifically. Let's begin with the source; When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions by Brenden Nyhan and Jason Reifler.

They use Iraq WMD's as an example of a misperception, as an example of how the political right cannot accept the "truth" that Iraq didn't have them. I would say this type of "knowledge" is representative of gray areas involving secrets and possibly unknowable truths. There is plenty of factual evidence that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and Iran. There is a similar refusal by the political left here to allow for the possibility of plausible alternative scenarios forwarded by people who would be in a position to know (Shaw and Clapper). But, we do know Duefler didn't find them and the ISG determined they could find any evidence they moved. Now with the Russian's in charge of destroying Syria's stockpiles we may never have the evidence of any materials transfered from Iraq by Spetsnaz. For me, a skeptic, I believe the correct answer is "Iraq probably didn't have usable WMD's, but due to interference by Saddam and Russia we'll never be sure." The important political question is not if Iraq had chemical weapons, or the materials to produce them; The important question is whether this was justification for the war. For me, this was never a credible threat that justified the war.

Then there are the misperceptions where I believe the source of mistrust is misplaced, like the link between MMR vaccine and autism. I don't think peoples misperception is necessarily the vaccine itself, but the misinformation linked to thiomersal and the common sense knowledge that Mercury = badness. Couple this with the publics distrust of big pharma, and industrialized medicine, and you have a population with big doubts and not trusting what "the authorities" are saying. This is the same type of problem encountered by nuclear power, in that the general public perception of nuclear anything is dangerous regardless of the science or facts relating to the safe operation of most power plants. Yes, there are some catastrophic failures due to human negligence and lack of precaution. In the end, this vaccine (and also the raw milk issue) are reinforced by slim anecdotal evidence, where their misperception is reinforced. To counter act this misperception we shouldn't attempt to prove the vaccine is safe, but rather appeal to the fear of contracting the disease (or being poisoned by unpasteurized milk). This was the campaign that successfully moved us as a society to become vaccinated (and drink pasteurized milk).

The same argument can be made for their analysis of climate change skeptics. In that "debate", I would say it was the inaccuracy(politicizing) of the messaging, coupled with the profit motives of the messengers. It is undeniable that our burning of fossil fuels contributes to an increase in atmospheric carbon, which has an impact of climate and ocean acidification. For me, the inaccuracy on both sides relate to the scale of anthropogenic contribution. I think we'd (ecologists) get further by emphasizing the down sides of coal not related to carbon dioxide. I'm uncomfortable (and have been since the 80's) with allowing lead, mercury, arsenic, and other toxins to rain downwind of coal fired power plants. On the other side of the equation, we are crippling natures ability to sequester carbon through pollution and deforestation. I'm also a realist, where the answer is clearly not "let's make energy really, really expensive" but rather, let's invest in research, and development of cleaner cheaper alternatives to our current energy production. Hence my displeasure with Obama's policies which have resulted in bringing gasoline prices higher (double what it had been), and unwillingness to pledge to support a viable electric vehicle infrastructure, with vehicles affordable to the average middle class home. In the 2008 campaign he hinted at an Apollo, or Manhattan project to deal with energy. I don't see it.

Generally then, in the analysis of the paper done by Nyhan and Riefler, I believe they've focused strongly on political issues that are thorny and complicated which defy an absolute "right" or "wrong" answer. Where they focus on prejudice, why yes, of course our minds are hard to change based upon reading "facts". I've found that it often takes experiences to counteract learned prejudice, even when that learned prejudice is not based experientially.

Human nature is not merely nature, but also nurture. Which is why we aspire to make ideal families, and assume properly that it is the norm;


... but also fail to know what to do when they end up more anti-social like; The Barkers


At least we can rely on public education to educate the ignorant masses... yeah, right. :-) So, then, yes, as things stand now, the Star Trek ideal is pretty far off.

P.S. An after thought. I believe also that due to our easy access to information we are bombarded by both the correct and incorrect at unprecedented levels. The media used to have limited time (60 minute nightly news) to process, package and deliver the known facts. Now, we hardly get the facts, but more punditry discussing and spinning the known facts, and speculating on the implications. Our sources for news have become more focused on entertainment, and reinforcing (political) biases. Since this research is focused on the political, so will I. You know where my politics lie, but I cannot stand to watch ANY of the typical US network news sources since they are so blatantly, unabashedly partisan and inherently deceptive bordering on propaganda. I try to be informed, but to do so requires research into the depth of topics, and scraping away at sources and attempting to pierce the veil of biases. The point being here is that the typical consumer of "political news" is likely to get a pre-packaged limited selection of spin bordering on propaganda, depending on their source. The Internet is a great place to find information, unfortunately you have to sift out the Natural News, from the CDC.gov. As a culture, we must do a better job teaching people (and our children) the difference between good and bad source information -- as well as opinions derived from factual evidence and grounded research, as opposed to the other kind.

TL;DR -- Naw, I don't think this is decidedly so, but it's the rare rat that bothers to traverse the maze.

[Taem]

I've never been one to accept the "you are just an organism driven by your DNA/Id/instincts" at face value. It seems to be at least broadly over generalized. I do subscribe to the notion that subconsciously people rise or fall to the societal expectations of them. Hence, the subconscious motivation to strive, or to sandbag.

[...]

The same argument can be made for their analysis of climate change skeptics.

[...]

TL;DR -- Naw, I don't think this is decidedly so, but it's the rare rat that bothers to traverse the maze.

How ironic we could read the exact same post, have a similar opinion about the topic, yet still have such vastly opposed opinions on certain related topics.

While reading the OP, I was pondering just how closed-minded religious fanatics are who can't see the forest through the trees, despite all the "proof" I've throw out at them which unequivocally proves the Judeo-Christian bible is man-made using nothing but their own sacred texts (at its worst), and nothing more than political propaganda used to support various leaders ideologies using actual history books (at its best). I've long ago come to the conclusion that the real truth is most religious fanatics don't want to read the proof and when it becomes unavoidably undeniable, they simply brush it off as fringe ideology or refuse to educate themselves entirely regardless of their education.

Through my very frustrating experiences, I've found there is almost no way to change someones belief structure, rather religion, global warming, or vaccinations, unless THEY BELIEVE THEY'RE THE ONE WHO CAME UP WITH THE IDEA THEMSELVES! That is the real crux of this argument Bolty made rather he realizes it or not, that for people to change their opinions, they can't be told what to believe, but have to believe they were the ones who came up with the idea themselves, an inception they not only have to realize for themselves, but believe they came to this conclusion through superior reasoning that others couldn't have possibly known because they just figured it out for themselves. Sometimes I hate how ignorant people choose to be, however its easy to see how professors and world-renowned scientists can get swept up into such cults and ideologies so easily because after all, it is the human condition after all.

[kandrathe]

How ironic we could read the exact same post, have a similar opinion about the topic, yet still have such vastly opposed opinions on certain related topics.

While reading the OP, I was pondering just how closed-minded religious fanatics are who can't see the forest through the trees, despite all the "proof" I've throw out at them which unequivocally proves the Judeo-Christian bible is man-made using nothing but their own sacred texts (at its worst), and nothing more than political propaganda used to support various leaders ideologies using actual history books (at its best). I've long ago come to the conclusion that the real truth is most religious fanatics don't want to read the proof and when it becomes unavoidably undeniable, they simply brush it off as fringe ideology or refuse to educate themselves entirely regardless of their education.

Generally, I believe this falls into the realm of; "You can't teach a pig to sing, you waste your time and annoy the pig." -- Robert Heinlein's character Lazarus Long AKA Woodrow Wilson Smith, in "Time Enough for Love"

Through my very frustrating experiences, I've found there is almost no way to change someones belief structure, rather religion, global warming, or vaccinations, unless THEY BELIEVE THEY'RE THE ONE WHO CAME UP WITH THE IDEA THEMSELVES! That is the real crux of this argument Bolty made rather he realizes it or not, that for people to change their opinions, they can't be told what to believe, but have to believe they were the ones who came up with the idea themselves, an inception they not only have to realize for themselves, but believe they came to this conclusion through superior reasoning that others couldn't have possibly known because they just figured it out for themselves.

If you can dialog with them first, then if you can establish your credibility, then you maybe get the chance to present enough information that will change their minds. If their senses are closed off, then you waste your time. If it is family, then I've just learned to politely say, "I'm going to change the subject because I don't want to get into a {political / religious} debate with my family". My father used to tell me the axiom, "Change a man against his will, he's of the same opinion still" -- which is attributed to many including of course, Ben Franklin.

Mostly though, people learn the hard way. And... at some level, why bother? As in your bible fanatics; does it really matter if they believe in something you believe is untrue if nothing comes of it? Sometimes it matters, such as when they won't allow surgery to save the lives of their children. Mostly, we argue about things as irrelevant as the color of the sky. Or, as Mark Twain said, "I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s." Where it matters is; get vaccinated so you don't infect the population with a heinous plague, and let's not kill our children with spoiled milk, or lack of medical care. I'm fine with divergent opinions and beliefs, so long as no one gets harmed by them.

Sometimes I hate how ignorant people choose to be, however its easy to see how professors and world-renowned scientists can get swept up into such cults and ideologies so easily because after all, it is the human condition after all.

Sort of, but... scientists and academics have a reputation to protect within their chosen field. If they sully it, they aren't taken seriously and fail to get published in journals or get referenced in other work, or get grant money and end up out on their ear. This is also a problem since any radical new theory that happens to be true, and debunks a widely held wrong theory, has trouble rising above the protections of the majority opinion. In that case, you must present enough evidence, and have it independently corroborated in order to open the closed minded.

[Archon_Wing]

Simplification is the only way to stay really sane. One's brain can't say, reinvent the wheel, every time it processes something, so it's only natural you rely on your preexisting experiences and learnings to make assumptions. Most of the time it does us good and often saves our lives, but I would definitely say society advances too fast for us to catch up. Unfortunately, the result can cause certain biases, prejudices and bad habits. For example, I skimmed the original post, and made certain assumptions on the tone of the discussion and how I would reply even before anything was done. As a more subtle example, I was going to say "the linked article" because I assumed from experience that it would contain a link to a website. But there's no such thing!

To say we are not too far away from cavepeople that just have way more toys wouldn't be that far off. I would definitely say the person you are is a result of numerous things outside your control. You had no say in where you were born, how you were raised, what you were born with, and what kind of culture you grew up in. If a meteorite lands from the sky and kills me right now, well, that's just that.

But such a conclusion is just an excuse for laziness I would say. If you are convinced that you can't do anything else, then you won't do anything else. And that would be an ideal situation for those in power waiting to take advantage of people like that. But it's much easier to live that way-- where everything is black and white, and all questions can be answered in a single sentence. Less anxiety and anticipation. Less uncertainty if the event plays out in one's mind as it does in reality. It would be the world as it should be, to you

So even if 99% of whatever one is made of is already predetermined, then the remaining 1% dictates their humanity-- what they can control. And while this seems like overly humanist cheerleading talk, I would like to remind everyone that if people did not try to reach for something beyond what they are, then we would still be living in caves. Someone decided that they shouldn't be another animal's dinner, and in fact it should be the other way around; natural order be damned.

It's pretty funny though. Humans are probably more advanced animals that are undeniably constructs of their biology and social upbringing. But is it really predestined that a species of puny mammals that have nowhere near the strengths, durability, reflexes, or senses of the other animals that populated the planet would establish their dominance over it? And establish that kind of arrogance that they know everything about said planet.

We really do take too much for granted. The fact that we're even having this topic is proof that things are a bit more complex. So, the way I see it is that there are many things you can't do. That's true. That's why you can only focus on things you can do.

[Jester]

Wow. Merely having a seemingly innocent question asking what your gender is before taking a math test affects women's test scores just by reminding them that they are women, because it makes them conscious of society's pressure on women not to be good at math. This can happen even if they're fully aware that it's bull-honkey. They can swear up and down that they don't believe that for one second, but it still affects them.

Stereotype threat, along with most other priming phenomena, have not largely held up to replication and meta-analysis. It's a neat idea, but it isn't well supported by the evidence at present.

Social science in general, and experimental psychology in particular, is suffering from a pretty bad case of false positives. The misuse of very crude statistical hypothesis testing and "statistical significance" as the threshold for publication has been pernicious. Though it does generate a constant stream of attention-grabbing headlines.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Stereotype threat, along with most other priming phenomena, have not largely held up to replication and meta-analysis. It's a neat idea, but it isn't well supported by the evidence at present.

Social science in general, and experimental psychology in particular, is suffering from a pretty bad case of false positives. The misuse of very crude statistical hypothesis testing and "statistical significance" as the threshold for publication has been pernicious. Though it does generate a constant stream of attention-grabbing headlines.

-Jester

What I said above in my first post fits into a quote by Goethe, "If I accept you as you are, I will make you worse; however if I treat you as though you are what you are capable of becoming, I help you become that."

I believe the negative of that idea also exists, in that if people constantly tear you down, you will begin to believe it yourself.

Would you agree though that in our society, discrimination and self-discrimination are an interrelated vicious circle. For gender say; the difficulty is in unpacking "what {wo}men want" from "what cultural norms pressure {wo}men to want". From birth, consciously or subconsciously, we reinforce gender stereotypes. Can we examine ourselves and even know which of our impulses are natural (correct), and which are imprinted expectations? Stereotypes are built on the simplified over-generalized notions and norms of the society.

Then again, civilization has brought us beyond our basic carnal instincts, and we engage in the rational process of compromise to get along with our neighbors in a society. This is good for us, and good for our neighbors -- rather than having to watch our backs lest we be their prey, we instead look out for each other allowing us more time to be productive.

Looking at gender again (as it is common), it is clear that some progress in gender equality has been achieved in western culture, yet much of the patriarchal nature remains (e.g. the other thread delving into prostitution. Contrast with other parts of society that may be a hundred (i.e. Japan), or some hundreds (middle east) years away from us. Is it liberating to decriminalize the sex trade, or does it perpetuate a stereotype of a patriarchal society where everything is commoditized for predominantly male consumption. Obviously, male and female are differently structured organisms, and still, equality is possible across a broad spectrum of what really matters in civilized society. We remain, animal, and mammal, with our instincts, pheromones, courtship dances, and whatnot. It doesn't mean I'm going to like auto mechanics, or be any better at them than my wife. Which is no on the first part, and yes on the second. My view is really that as individuals our gender roles are really a negotiation with every person we might count as friend or mate. Where norms and stereotypes are troubling are when we are bombarded by media and thereby social expectations to conform to a "Normal" as correct, or worse to shun anything not normal as aberrant and therefore wrong. As in the Marriage question in the US, the issue from my perspective was in ever encoding the Norm as law.

Here is an interesting reflection back to Bolty's OP. In Star Trek, the one thing that didn't much change in a Gene Roddenberry vision of the future is in gender roles and equality. The one decidedly anchor of the series and movies has been the male virility of the Captain. It is hard to find examples of females in power, yet numerous examples of them being objects of desire. While perhaps humans may have learned to better coexist on earth, the universe is filled with prejudice. A major theme, beyond the brains over brawn, is that the enlightened (as exemplified by Vulcans ) seek a broader coexistence with the universe of aliens, being preferable to very destructive interplanetary/galactic warfare. There is still a need for force to back up reason. The starships, even ones designed for exploration are armed with weapons and soldiers.

[Jester]

Would you agree though that in our society, discrimination and self-discrimination are an interrelated vicious circle. For gender say; the difficulty is in unpacking "what {wo}men want" from "what cultural norms pressure {wo}men to want". From birth, consciously or subconsciously, we reinforce gender stereotypes. Can we examine ourselves and even know which of our impulses are natural (correct), and which are imprinted expectations? Stereotypes are built on the simplified over-generalized notions and norms of the society.

Yes, of course I would agree with the idea that these things are a vicious circle. I've been thinking quite a lot about this lately, from the standpoint of the liberal/radical divide in feminism. Is it enough to "respect women's choices," and let that be the beginning and end of one's feminism? Or is there some more structural problem, that forces us to say "no, some peoples' values are just wrong, shaped as they are by patriarchy"? What does one say to a feminist who accepts "patrichical" views of what women want as her personal preferences, freely chosen? What about if that person was a man?

I would disagree that there is such a thing as a "natural" or "correct" impulse; humans are fundmentally social, learning creatures, and what we create in culture is not something alien or incorrect, nor is there a "real" self that somehow stands behind culture. Our real selves learn things from our social context, and reconstruct it for the next generation with a few changes. That's what "natural" humans do.

In Star Trek, the one thing that didn't much change in a Gene Roddenberry vision of the future is in gender roles and equality. The one decidedly anchor of the series and movies has been the male virility of the Captain. It is hard to find examples of females in power, yet numerous examples of them being objects of desire.

For TOS, sure. But Star Trek has examples of powerful women in commanding roles. I thought Janeway was a rubbish captain, but the fact that there was a woman in the big chair was a major step forward. Jadzia Dax and Kira Nerys were both strong characters, as was Beverly Crusher. Even Troi got better as the series progressed, and (as Marina Sirtis keeps pointing out) as her cleavage got smaller.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Yes, of course I would agree with the idea that these things are a vicious circle. I've been thinking quite a lot about this lately, from the standpoint of the liberal/radical divide in feminism. Is it enough to "respect women's choices," and let that be the beginning and end of one's feminism? Or is there some more structural problem, that forces us to say "no, some peoples' values are just wrong, shaped as they are by patriarchy"? What does one say to a feminist who accepts "patriarchal" views of what women want as her personal preferences, freely chosen? What about if that person was a man?

I would disagree that there is such a thing as a "natural" or "correct" impulse; humans are fundamentally social, learning creatures, and what we create in culture is not something alien or incorrect, nor is there a "real" self that somehow stands behind culture. Our real selves learn things from our social context, and reconstruct it for the next generation with a few changes. That's what "natural" humans do.

Well, I think that is what I was asking; for any individual, what level of femininity or masculinity is "correct"? I don't think we can fairly say. In other words, if I choose to do auto mechanics, no one would know if I'm doing it because I enjoy it, or if I'm doing it to fulfill societal expectations. And, therefore, I believe the same applies to female stereotypical roles. Only the individual can assess their own motives, but it seems even educating people about stereotypes in hopes of breaking the self-discrimination vicious circle introduces stereo type threat types of anxieties.

For TOS, sure. But Star Trek has examples of powerful women in commanding roles. I thought Janeway was a rubbish captain, but the fact that there was a woman in the big chair was a major step forward. Jadzia Dax and Kira Nerys were both strong characters, as was Beverly Crusher. Even Troi got better as the series progressed, and (as Marina Sirtis keeps pointing out) as her cleavage got smaller.

In TNG, I would say the counselor, and the doctor were "traditional" nurturing roles, in fact the Doctor also played the role of mother, and the counselor was frequently cast as daughter. The "Kirk" role was split into the more sensitive brainy Picard, and the suave and macho Rikker. I didn't watch much of DS9 -- so I can't comment.

[Bolty]

And yesterday came the news that Hurricanes with female names account for more deaths than those with male names.

Researchers examined more than 60 years of death tolls from the 94 hurricanes that hit the USA from 1950 to 2012 and found that hurricanes with a feminine name killed more people than those with male names. The scientists put the masculinity and femininity of some storm names on a rating scale.

The paper claimed that a masculine-named storm would kill about 15 people, but a hurricane of the same strength with a female name would kill about 42.

One reason for the discrepancy, according to the authors: A storm with a feminine name is seen as less threatening than one with a more masculine name.

This is when discarding Hurricane Katrina from the results, the deadliest known in the US.

At a subconscious level, we're simply not going to consider Hurricane Sheila to be as dangerous as Hurricane Michael. And it affects us even if we don't realize it does.

All Hurricanes should now be named after male villains. You can bet people would take Hurricane Darth Vader seriously, and nothing will clear out an area faster than hearing that Hurricane Hitler is on the way.

[LavCat]

Godwin.

[FireIceTalon]

Seems you can't even mention Hitler's name anymore, regardless of context, w/o someone screaming "Godwin's Law!!!"

It's become ridiculous (at least in cyberspace) to the point where it has become a tautology. But as I see it, Godwin's Law was never legitimate anyways. For there are times when a comparison to Hitler or Nazism is pretty fair or even downright accurate. Which would discredit "Godwin's Law" as even being a law at all. All it is now is a code phrase to justify racism, sexism, or try to discredit someone's point no matter how correct they may be.

[LennyLen]

But as I see it, Godwin's Law was never legitimate anyways.

It was never supposed to be a real thing. Godwin was being rhetorical when he wrote it.

Which would discredit "Godwin's Law" as even being a law at all.

See above.

All it is now is a code phrase to justify racism, sexism, or try to discredit someone's point no matter how correct they may be.

Or in this case, just a joke.

But to take the heat off Godwin, I shall now declare LennyLen's Law of the Lurker Lounge (aka LLLLL), which is "As any discussion grows longer, the probability of someone being accused of being a bourgeois pseudo-intellectual capitalist approaches 1"

[Archon_Wing]

Yes, of course I would agree with the idea that these things are a vicious circle. I've been thinking quite a lot about this lately, from the standpoint of the liberal/radical divide in feminism. Is it enough to "respect women's choices," and let that be the beginning and end of one's feminism? Or is there some more structural problem, that forces us to say "no, some peoples' values are just wrong, shaped as they are by patriarchy"? What does one say to a feminist who accepts "patriarchal" views of what women want as her personal preferences, freely chosen? What about if that person was a man?

I would disagree that there is such a thing as a "natural" or "correct" impulse; humans are fundamentally social, learning creatures, and what we create in culture is not something alien or incorrect, nor is there a "real" self that somehow stands behind culture. Our real selves learn things from our social context, and reconstruct it for the next generation with a few changes. That's what "natural" humans do.

Well, I think that is what I was asking; for any individual, what level of femininity or masculinity is "correct"? I don't think we can fairly say. In other words, if I choose to do auto mechanics, no one would know if I'm doing it because I enjoy it, or if I'm doing it to fulfill societal expectations. And, therefore, I believe the same applies to female stereotypical roles. Only the individual can assess their own motives, but it seems even educating people about stereotypes in hopes of breaking the self-discrimination vicious circle introduces stereo type threat types of anxieties.

For TOS, sure. But Star Trek has examples of powerful women in commanding roles. I thought Janeway was a rubbish captain, but the fact that there was a woman in the big chair was a major step forward. Jadzia Dax and Kira Nerys were both strong characters, as was Beverly Crusher. Even Troi got better as the series progressed, and (as Marina Sirtis keeps pointing out) as her cleavage got smaller.

In TNG, I would say the counselor, and the doctor were "traditional" nurturing roles, in fact the Doctor also played the role of mother, and the counselor was frequently cast as daughter. The "Kirk" role was split into the more sensitive brainy Picard, and the suave and macho Rikker. I didn't watch much of DS9 -- so I can't comment.

Oooohh Star Trek talk! /grabs a tricorder.

While I like TNG, in a lot of ways it was a step backwards from TOS. I mean granted TOS lacked female characters but considering the times both series were in, at least TOS put a woman in the communication station; Uhura wasn't as horrifically sexualized as Troi or even Crusher even if she was occasionally. Roddenberry had some really strange ideas towards the end, and basically anything that would make the characters interesting (aka anything that wasn't perfect) was a big no-no, and you ended up with little turds like Wesley Crusher. Tasha Yar was sadly a huge joke as a character who was just magnificently incompetent. (Well, to be fair, everyone else in season 1 was). Overall, the cast individually is just a lot more stiff and boring than the TOS cast, though arguably as a whole they have more cohesion.

But that would change after Roddenberry stepped aside, and we had some interesting female characters such as Ro Laren who didn't fit into this ideology, a confident commander Shelby that challenged the too comfortable Riker, and that would give the lead to characters like Kira. There was also the obnoxious Admiral Nechayev who was a authority figure who happened to be right a lot. And I guess Guinan was alright. Kinda funny the side characters ended up more interesting.

DS9 definitely had more interesting characters for sure though occasionally they tried too hard to make Kira and Dax able to hang with the other characters, though this has more to do with Dax just not being that great of a character in terms of depth. At least they weren't just fanservice.

Voyager was generally a step or 10 behind in characterization, although Seven of Nine was quite a detailed character, if you could ignore the silly outfits they put her in.

[Jester]

While I like TNG, in a lot of ways it was a step backwards from TOS. I mean granted TOS lacked female characters but considering the times both series were in, at least TOS put a woman in the communication station; Uhura wasn't as horrifically sexualized as Troi or even Crusher even if she was occasionally.

Troi is pretty bad. But I would argue that Crusher was a far more rounded character, and far less a sex object, than Uhura ever was. I'm having trouble coming up with instances where Crusher was overtly sexualized at all, to be honest.

Tasha Yar was sadly a huge joke as a character who was just magnificently incompetent.

She could have been a great character. Nothing about Denise Crosby's performance was a problem, they just bungled the scripts. But as you say, what does one expect from the season that brought us "Code of Honor"?

Voyager was generally a step or 10 behind in characterization, although Seven of Nine was quite a detailed character, if you could ignore the silly outfits they put her in.

Voyagerrrrr.... it burrrnnnnssss....

Seriously, my brother and I used to joke that Rick Berman was a necromancer. Incapable of creating anything living, his only power was to conjure up dead ideas and suture them together. Series getting dull? What's worked before? Sex appeal? Borg? Let's do 'em both! Together! Exploring new philosophical or thematic ground? Nah, let's go with the hot borg idea.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

It was never supposed to be a real thing. Godwin was being rhetorical when he wrote it.

Perhaps, but unfortunately people have turned it into something much more. People get scrutinized or even banned from forums or discussion because they take this "law" seriously and it actually becomes an overarching rule, in some instances, where even mentioning Hitler or anything Nazi related gets you accused of invoking Godwin's Law. The ironic thing about it all is that it actually ends up proving the point of those it seeks to silence or discredit. It's also bad for a number of other reasons but I won't get into that right now.

Or in this case, just a joke.

I realize Lav wasn't being serious, due to the context that Bolty used in his statement.

But nevertheless I wanted to make a point about it since it came up.

[kandrathe]

LLLLL or as I like to think of it L^5 -- it's all about the Reichstag fire. Or, Star Trek terms, the DS9 episode "In the Pale Moonlight". False flag operations are a plot staple for much of fiction.

[Hammerskjold]

Voyagerrrrr.... it burrrnnnnssss....

-Jester

Hey now, we have Voyager to thank, sorta kinda. Without it, Ron Moore would have never left to go make the BSG reboot.

What Voyager could\might have been.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/21/exclusiv...k-cliches/

TrekMovie: On Voyager and Battlestar, it is a ship on its way to Earth with no infrastructure, there are some parallels. Would ‘Ron Moore’s Voyager’ be like Battlestar, if you were the showrunner?

Ron Moore: Yah…probably…when I was on my brief tenure on Voyager and I was starting to think in terms of what I wanted to do, I remember sitting with the writing staff and saying ‘I really think…that when Voyager gets damaged it should get damaged, we should stop repairing the ship, the ship should be broken down more and devolving a little bit more.’ One of the ideas I had is that they should start developing their own culture within the starship and letting go of Starfleet protocols and stop thinking of themselves as Starfleet people on some level, even though they still wear the uniform and still try to adhere to the regulations. I thought it would be interesting that by the time this ship got back to Earth, that it didn’t even belong at Earth anymore. That it sort of had become its own culture, it had formed its own civilization which was dissimilar to that which they had left behind…Now that you mention this there was somebody, I don’t think it was me, somebody had pitched the notion of them having to guard some alien ships they had encountered. It was a convoy and through some plot I can’t remember that they had agreed to protect and Sheppard through some hostile star systems on their journey. And they were going to be the warship tending the little convey of civilian ships. And I was really taken with it and really liked the idea and thought it would be cool and it was sort of Galactica. We might have even mentioned Galactica….but to your question, If I had been the showrunner from the beginning I probably would have sent it into a darker direction and sent it into a more harrowing journey yes. And made them more on the run and more less of a pretty journey getting back, and at the same time, I probably would have felt compelled to stay within certain boundaries of what Trek was and how Trek had established itself. So I don’t think I could have taken Voyager to the places I have taken Galactica, even if I did have the reins.

Re: Hurricane gendered names.

I've read the same article.

I think the solution is obvious. We are still way too subtle. Hurricanes should all be named with the softest, cuddliest, most huggiest sounding names possible.

Hurricane Cotton Candy Cloud. Hurricane Snouggy Oukums. Hurricane Winkle Wonder. The people who tuck tail and leaves, they're obviously cowards. The brave ones who stay and weather such wimpy flatulence from feh, 'mother' nature. Those brave souls will be nominated for the Darwins.

I'm not saying it's the -final- solution, but it's one solution.

/Dogwin.

Daschundheit!

[Tal]

Perhaps, but unfortunately people have turned it into something much more. People get scrutinized or even banned from forums or discussion because they take this "law" seriously and it actually becomes an overarching rule, in some instances, where even mentioning Hitler or anything Nazi related gets you accused of invoking Godwin's Law. The ironic thing about it all is that it actually ends up proving the point of those it seeks to silence or discredit. It's also bad for a number of other reasons but I won't get into that right now.

But nevertheless I wanted to make a point about it since it came up.

[eppie]

Seems you can't even mention Hitler's name anymore, regardless of context, w/o someone screaming "Godwin's Law!!!"

It's become ridiculous (at least in cyberspace) to the point where it has become a tautology. But as I see it, Godwin's Law was never legitimate anyways. For there are times when a comparison to Hitler or Nazism is pretty fair or even downright accurate. Which would discredit "Godwin's Law" as even being a law at all. All it is now is a code phrase to justify racism, sexism, or try to discredit someone's point no matter how correct they may be.

I have at one point even been considering writing a book about this. So much I get annoyed by this supposed 'law' of Godwin.

Id much rather discuss about the point in history where it was actually allowed by the internet community to compare Hitler with Hitler.

1926? 1933? 1938? 1945?


If you are only allowed to compare something to anther thing which is exactly equally bad or gruesome or wrong you can never compare things anymore.


I think it requires intelligence and a good view on people to be able to compare someone to Hitler before this person actually becomes a homicidal dictator......you know, if we can't what stops a homicidal dictator from again grabbing power and commit genocide.