Also, I referenced Sowell as an example of an academic who doesnt buy systemic racism to show that its not foolish to deny it exists. — DingoJones

Yeah, but based on what he says, it is foolish. Not just a poor example, but a negative one. And that matches the criticism I quoted of grievance studies: politically motivated, and rather showing the opposite of what it claims. So I'm not really looking for any response, merely flagging up what looks as though it is a waft of smoke being blown on your part.

What, in your opinion, is the reason behind this shift in mindset, assuming of course that people have shifted gears from conspicuous consumption towards the philosophy of less is more? — TheMadFool

I think it's simply the way the upper class takes pains to distinguish itself from the hoi-poloi. The peasants are consuming, therefore we will diet. Thus fashion; darling the folk always wear last year's thing, haven't you noticed?

The Grievance Studies Affair — DingoJones

Had to look it up, this was what I found.

Despite claims to the contrary, the highly political, both ethically and methodologically flawed “experiment” failed to provide the evidence it sought. The experiences can be summed up as follows: (1) journals with higher impact factors were more likely to reject papers submitted as part of the project; (2) the chances were better, if the manuscript was allegedly based on empirical data; (3) peer reviews can be an important asset in the process of revising a manuscript; and (4) when the project authors, with academic education from neighboring disciplines, closely followed the reviewers’ advice, they were able to learn relatively quickly what is needed for writing an acceptable article. The boundary between a seriously written paper and a “hoax” gradually became blurred. Finally (5), the way the project ended showed that in the long run, the scientific community will uncover fraudulent practices.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0162243920923087?journalCode=sthd#

The "legacy of slavery" argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century. [...] The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period. — Thomas Sowell

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/05/poor_blacks_looking_for_someon.html

I had to go back and check, to see if I was understanding it right. The prevailing social vision in America has the same result as the welfare state in the UK. So the thesis is that the problems in America are due to too much welfare? Now I think an argument can be made along these general lines, that welfare can be disempowering, and especially when it is done in a top-down patronising manner, but that the US suffers from an excess of welfare or that any kind of socialism has prevailed for the last 50 years is complete lunacy.

And you might think I was reading too much into this, if I did not mention the title of the piece:"Blame the welfare state, not racism, for poor blacks' problems."

We are traumatised.

Who represents us?

A hate-filled narcissist fantasist.

Hate Trump, hate the American voter. But your hate cannot match his or ours because you are too reasonable. Understand, or lose again.

Consumerism culture is always pictured as mindless zombies buying items. — Josh Lee

How about "addicts getting a fix", as more realistic analogy.

https://www.psychguides.com/behavioral-disorders/shopping-addiction/

Hedonism does not recommend addiction.

'Lockdown' provides me some insight here. Personally I have really enjoyed it, being able to cross the road, hearing birdsong again, neighbours looking out for each other, and so on. Other people have been so desperate as to go looking for a black-market haircut. Conspicuous consumption used to be the privilege of the few, and a status symbol. The last century has almost reversed this, and the minimalist is the new cultural hero.

Since academics have the knowledge to understand the global system, have the skills and time to organize themselves, have actions available to disproportionately affect policy, have a supposed dedication to truth and justice, and they do not use their power, but primarily benefit from the global system, therefore they are responsible, perhaps the most responsible of any group, for the destruction the global system has brought to our planet and our people. With knowledge comes responsibility. — boethius

That is what we hippies call 'a heavy trip' you're laying on us. It took me right back to the early seventies at uni, where, in the final year all my fellow revolutionaries ditched the flares for sharp suits, cut their hair to conventional length and started going to interviews with ICI and applying for teacher-training courses. And the story was that they were going to 'fight for change from within. Perhaps they believed it; I never did.

I suggest that what is needed is despair. In 1968 the doomsday clock was at 2 minutes to midnight, and I did not expect to become old. And now there is a similar despair amongst the youth that their world will remain inhabitable. But as long as academics think academia inhabitable, they will not despair of it enough to risk their lives and livelihoods.

I hope — ssu

Don't. Watch the video and decide. I'm just talking telegraphically. I don't think it's sinister, I think it's dexter, that's why I'm sharing it. But you know races are social constructs, and institutions are social constructs, right? So maybe put "for therapeutic purposes" in there as a conditional modifier, and take a deep breath.

Since we're psychologising, this is a bit of an advert, but it's convinced me I need this book...



The idea that the police are institutionally a separate race, with a particular history of trauma is particularly interesting and relevant to current affairs. The focus on the body is in itself a therapy needed by most philosophers.

I am not disputing the connection between psychology and advertising, which is obvious enough. I am questioning to what extend the "values taught in psychology" really affect the society, which I figure would be an extremely difficult question to answer. — Echarmion

I'm fairly confident the main sticking point is "they bring and promote the values and views they have been taught" not the fields of work they go into. — Isaac

Well this is what you retreat to, not your original objections. And I am content to let the disagreement stand and honour your dis agreement. I see the influence everywhere, and you do not. Fair enough.

The way that people are brought together is, well, by bringing them together. Explaining the psychology of the situation, even if you're dead on, really isn't going to move the needle one way or the other in terms of resolution. — Hanover

Hanover, I think you might be right. Perhaps the philosophy of psychology should be discussed in a separate thread, although I still think David Smail's way of understanding the connections between macro-economics and psychological distress is worth looking at in this context. But I won't press it.
:rofl:

Is anyone who is an object of some study thereby objectified? — Echarmion

Yup.

I disagree with that definition of objectification. By this logic, trying to guess how a person might react to something I say is objectifying them. As is trying to figure out why an infant might be crying. — Echarmion

Nope.

Trying to understand an individual is an I-thou relationship Very very different to trying to measure an abstracted average five-yr-old, or whoever.

This post is the first time you ever actually provide an argument, your protestations that it's all so simple and obvious notwithstanding. — Echarmion

I quoted my own thread where I discuss this in some detail and with further references, I also linked to a book that makes part of the argument by a well respected author and with his wiki page. Nobody has mentioned any of this either to discuss, or dispute at any point. I have always regarded this as extremely tangental to the topic of systemic racism, but that certain aspects of psychology are important. If you know something about socio-political psychologies, then you will see it straight away, but I still think this is not the ideal place for a detailed discussion of the philosophy of psychology. However if someone wanted to find details of my argument or of David Smail's, the links are there. I have now given a very brief outline here, and I also contributed to the thread that @boethius linked to. So if you are interested, you can find plenty more of me and others on the history and philosophy of psychology. It's a particular interest of mine.

And I suppose there is some sociological evidence to back this claim up? — Echarmion

I think you can find your own evidence, but here's something to get you started. But the close connection of psychology to advertising goes back to Bernays, as you will have seen in my thread already, or not.

What contemptuous language? When you have break from accusing my entire profession of class oppression, promoting racial segregation and abusing children, perhaps you could take a moment to quote some of my contemptuous language for my self-improvement. — Isaac

Bogeyman, Bogeyman. You are the bogeyman!

Dude, I'm doing philosophy. I'm looking at the conditions of doing psychology, and making some serious criticisms, but you are not able to begin to address them because you are busy defending yourself. You don't need to defend yourself because I'm not attacking you. I am putting the whole subject and institutions of psychology under philosophical scrutiny and highlighting difficulties and you ought to be grateful. Instead you argue about side-issues, and make pointed remarks which I am not going to trawl back and find for you because it's NOT THE IMPORTANT ISSUE. The important issues are how humans can live together more happily and sustainably, and what is preventing us from doing that. And our theories of psychology play a very central role, so if there are systemic problems, they need exposing and sorting.

"child psychologists are not playing" this you don't quote, and this is the important bit. You do it a lot; find something off centre and make that the issue.

Magic does indeed have abusive roots in the scams of the fairs, find the lady etc, and some religious deceptions. It is defanged and presented now as entertainment; we agree to be deceived for our own amusement, not for the magicians purposes. But why do I have to argue this out? why are you bringing it up? It's such a simple thing Experimentation almost always involves deception, and always manipulation of the subject. It's undeniable. It may be unimportant compared to the wonderful good that is done - that remains to be discussed. But why do we have to go all round the magic circle just to say what we all know already?

So child psychologists pretend to play. It is a deception and a manipulation. It may be harmless or it may not. In general, deception is a bad thing. Manipulation is a bad thing. It may be justified sometimes and so there are ethical boards that consider the morality of experiments. But you know this, because you are psychologist, so you know there are moral issues, and you also know there have been various abusive experiments, I'll just say "twins" for now. So how about engaging in a less antagonistic and defensive way? I'm not totally up to date, but nor am I totally ignorant or stupid.

So I'd like you to consider seriously the central difficulty that I think plagues psychology and undermines its status as a science, which is that social behaviour is heavily influenced by the prevalent psychological worldview. So a scientific view leads to treating people as objects to be experimented on. It starts with an I-it relationship (as opposed to an I-thou relationship) because that's what objectivity means. This is the view that has held sway since Freud at least, and it has pervaded society in terms of the creation of a consumer society through the development of advertising, and this lead to the political development of propaganda again as psychological manipulation. It's not, obviously, my claim that every child psychologist is Goebbels. But it is my claim that they come from the same tradition and the same (scientific) psychological viewpoint. And this viewpoint as a social whole creates an inhuman humanity. Psychology graduates go into advertising, into human resources (there's an objectifying phrase for you) into health, social work, education, and they bring and promote the values and views they have been taught. So deception and manipulation has become the norm, not exceptionally, just to experiment harmlessly, and society and people suffer as a result.
Not that there wasn't always deception and manipulation, but it wasn't scientific. it wasn't dominant.

I'm not sure what point you're making — Isaac

That's not exactly new. But generally, experimental psychology tends to be abusive in two ways; firstly most experiments involve deception, and secondly they always depersonalisation the subject by objectification.

I'm not seeing how the child psychologist playing with them in the lab has become the bogeyman here. — Isaac

Actually, your contemptuous language has irritated me sufficiently now. You are the bogeyman! I'm not discussing with the bogeyman about his bogies. But child psychologists are not playing; they are serious.

At what point do they introduce the question to the legitimacy of the state? — Isaac

Roughly at the point where, we hope, they get the permission of the parents, but probably, alas, not of the children themselves to experiment on them. It is the state that allows parents that authority, or denies it to them and the state also demands of psychologists that they gain such permissions. Though it is not well enforced.

In reference to the Fanon lecture I linked to above, I can relate that when I lived in the South of France in the 80s, and probably still, there were enclaves of Algerians, well established, but completely separate, and this in every village of a thousand or so French, perhaps 50 or 100 Algerians slightly out of the village in prefab houses, rather like gypsies - tolerated but mistrusted. An equivalence to the redlined zones of American cities on a small scale.

I would not only rather be found among, but be considered as exactly the same as my down trodden brothers and sisters. I would rather not only hold out my arms to the refuse of society to comfort them, but also run to their arms to be comforted. — boethius

Credo!

None of this, however has helped explain your or unenlightened's comments about psychology — Isaac

You won't leave it will you?

Well while I wait for the mods to hive this off to a separate thread, I'll refer you to an old thread of mine that looks at the problems both moral and structural of the science of psychology.

There is a knot here; put very simply the theory of psyche is part of the psyche. It is as if the fundamental particles of physics changed their properties according to which laws of physics they decided to adopt. Psychologists have changed the way we think, the way we see, our whole culture, and in doing so, they give rise to a new psyche which needs a new theory. Fashion in psychology mirrors the fashion of youth that always has to be different to that of the previous generation. Today one talks of neural plasticity, and it is neural plasticity that makes this talk possible.

The knot is the bane of the psychologist and manipulator. The cleverer he is, the better the theory, the more it transforms the people it is a theory of. The more we the atoms see the manipulator scientist coming, the faster we adapt to his manipulations and frustrate his intentions. And we too are all manipulator scientists. — unenlightened

What recent papers in social psychology do you think have undermined class conflict?

Which prominent researchers in child psychology do you think are most responsible for re-integrating society along racial lines? — Isaac

I don't think here is the place to defend it, — unenlightened

And therefore I am not going to answer your questions. Your disagreement is registered.

No. I meant what I said, and it is a generalisation about mainstream psychology. I don't think here is the place to defend it, but I am referring back to David Smail who I mentioned earlier, as a critic of conventional psychiatry in particular. The Origins of Unhappiness sets out his thesis fairly clearly if I remember right.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origins-Unhappiness-Understanding-Personal-Distress/dp/1782202870

And the Negro’s name
Is used it is plain
For the politician’s gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain’t him to blame
He’s only a pawn in their game. — Bob Dylan

I think it's worth holding onto the idea that psychology as an industry is largely in the business of undermining any class consciousness, and supporting, in the first place the individualising and fragmenting of society, whereby poverty and unemployment is an internal psychological failure of ambition, and from there a reintegration along race and national lines and the projection of the internalised resentment onto the 'other'.

Homework.

it works on the ones you already have declared faith in. — Jacykow

Yes. It also says that the predictor puts something or nothing in box B before the choice is made. So my faith is that my choice cannot affect the past.

Is there racism in the U.S., yes, but is there "systematic racism," absolutely not. Did that police officer murder that man? Yes. That said, I don't want to have anything to do with this forum after reading some of the most disgusting posts by those who run this forum. Please delete my account. — Sam26

Sam, I'm sorry to see you go, and it may be too late already. But it would surely be tragic to leave over a typo. Systemic is not systematic.

This was very good. The more people hear and understand the impact of redlining, the better: — StreetlightX

It's not a secret though is it? I heard about it in Patricia Williams Reith Lectures in 1997.

That's a long time ago and a long way away. You'd think Americans would be familiar... them all being shit-hot financiers an'all.

Here's what one would be claiming does not exist, if one was claiming that systemic racism does not exist.

God has a head?

Who cuts his hair?

My question is why would anyone choose two boxes if the predictor is infallible? — Jacykow

The logic is that what I choose now cannot influence what is already in the box. The predictor has to predict whether you are bound by logic or by faith in the predictor. By your question, you are bound by faith, whereas by my answer, I am bound by logic. It's a paradox precisely because logic leads to failure.

In terms of media narrative (or ideological state apparatus), it pays to foster a blame narrative on immigrants and POCs for the same reason it pays to foster distrust along radical/centrist lines in the anti-racist protests; the interests of capital are in you fighting with your allies and not knowing who they are, even when a white working class Brit has way more interest in common with a third gen Indian working class family. — fdrake

David Smail has some interesting stuff on this. Notably the notion of a personal event horizon. So for reasons of international (American) economics and politics, Northern UK industrial towns go into decline, aided by a government based in the South with other priorities. But what the inhabitant sees is the collapse of industry, unemployment and poverty, leading to cheap housing, sweatshops, and so immigrants settling. But making the connections requires a global understanding that is rare. What one experiences are local events I'm doing badly, the town's doing badly, and the place is full of foreigners. The real sources of the decline are over the horizon, so one settles on whoever is newly around, whether that is the Pakis or the middle-class tourists. In either case, they are actually slowing the economic decline not causing it, but it's hard to see that from ground level.

Other people think their troubles are their own fault rather than due to distant economic forces, and get depressed etc. Not something discouraged by the authorities.

This thread is in danger of becoming, hopeful, conciliatory, and illuminating. Are we seeing, and being part of a process of pain and our lashing out at each other, becoming a source of awakening? Is this happening in the world or just our bubble?

When in doubt, you can trust your child's moral compass! — Benkei

Your Christianity is showing, Sir.

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew18

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. — Matthew 19:13-15

It's an industry. As you say, you are a sucker. It's called 'self-help', and so I, or whoever, am going to help you to help yourself. I'm here to help, for a price, but if you are not helped, then it is because you didn't help yourself, not because my help was useless.

Suckers are greedy, and their greed is what is used to exploit them, Typically, self-help suckers are greedy for power; they feel small and want to be big, unimportant and they want to be important, ugly and they want to be beautiful, unknown and they want to be famous, ordinary and they want to be exceptional.

Of course it is impossible - most people have to be ordinary. But you will not be told this, when you are being sold the seven habits of exceptional people, or the five vital affirmations (aka magic spells) of the wealthy, or whatever this week's scam is.

The other problem with self-help, apart from the scammer, is that the person who is helping the sucker is the sucker. So if your problem is, for example, that you are a fat slob, then the person who is supposed to help you become slim and fit you is a fat slob. While the scammer is flattering you, you may not notice this, but it will become apparent sooner or later; it's the nature of self-help.

Most of the problems people have are either trivial or insoluble. If you want to stop smoking, there is nothing easier; no one is forcing you to smoke. The difficulty is "motivation" - but this translates into , 'actually you want to smoke'. You want to smoke more than you want to stop smoking, and so you want help not to do what you want to do. It should be called self-hinderance, not self-help.

Life is not a game of football, and there are no goals. I wonder what you want? I wonder why you look in a book or to someone else for answers? Perhaps you don't really want anything much; this is called in the trade 'contentment'. It is something hated by scammers and power addicts because it makes you invulnerable to their manipulations.

What exactly do you mean by "sea of circumstance"? — TheMadFool

The circumstances of your question are that you and I are connected via the internet and communicating via some electronic device through a website dedicated to philosophy. Am in the UK and you are ... Well I don't know, but you do. So there is a whole physics of electricity and a whole network of interconnection that is unquestionable, because it is the condition for your question to appear on my screen. That is the sea of circumstance on which your question floats. It's not that you cannot question any of that, or wonder if I am not some program in your computer or on the website, but there's no point asking me about that, is there? "Are you real?" is not a sensible question.

Incidentally, I see elsewhere that the op has left the site for political reasons, so I think I will leave the discussion here. It's 'posed to be about W. not my theory, and needs an expertise I don't have.

If the implication is that black people can be as oppressive as white people in the very few situations where they dominate, then I don't see a difficulty. I wouldn't want to suggest that black people are universally better than white. But America is overwhelmingly white dominated and it is white culture that creates and maintains the radicalised distinctions.

The forces ghettoisation are actually pretty impersonal. 'They' start to move in, and 'we' start to move out, and property values are affected so mortgages become problematic and renting is the only option... and so on. This is "systemic" racism at work, it's not an ideology that anyone promotes, but a pressure that people respond to without much thought. and when 'we' become the minority, and lose control of the neighbourhood, it is naturally a bad experience socially and financially.

Bad experiences with another group can really color someone's perspective and I don't know how many people are truly immune from this — BitconnectCarlos

And so the racial prejudice maintains itself, and prejudice is rationalised with ideology.

I'm tempted to call you out on what you said which prima facie looks like a contradiction. Do you mind elaborating? I may have missed the point. — TheMadFool

I can say more stuff, I don't know if it will help. I'm not entirely certain I have understood Wittgenstein aright. And I'm not sure what you think is a contradiction in what I have said.

A recap. You cannot disagree with me, without presuming that there is someone, or at least something said, to disagree with. I contradict myself, therefore I am. But as you formulate it: "un contradicts himself, therefore he is."

The reality of our discussion cannot be a matter of dispute in our discussion. Our discussion thus forms an indisputable context within which other things can be known and/or doubted.

Of course tomorrow, you might be down the pub discussing with the barman, and doubting whether you had a discussion about Wittgenstein, with some weirdo called unenlightened. And in the context of your discussion down the pub, this discussion becomes doubtable, or knowable.

The context is the sea of circumstance, ever changing, but always the support

Also, hover on the title on the front page and the category will be revealed before you have to get here. Super handy for avoiding religion.

But the real moral is that it is useful and polite to give an informative title to threads.

Take a wee break. Watch this cartoon about some other black folks in another place with problems. It's the same shitty British Colonial legacy, but it has a different flavour. I think the white-man is less afraid.

Einstein imagined riding a light-wave like a train.

But there aren't many Einsteins on the forum.

In what sense is my "thinker", here merely an entity whose function is thought, inappropriate? — TheMadFool

I don't think W. goes into Descartes at all. But it makes an interesting contrast. firstly, Descartes is explicitly looking for a foundation for knowledge about which he cannot be wrong.

in many instances we can use the two words know and certain interchangeably; and this is probably where some confusion occurs. Except, as Wittgenstein says where it's "...meant to mean: I can't be wrong." — Sam26

Descartes finds, or thinks he finds his justified belief that cannot be wrong. But because he does it on his own, in a 'meditation', his knowledge is not of the external world, but of a purported internal world. I suspect W. found it beneath his dignity to even consider such nonsense - or else he never bothered to read Descartes. He wasn't a great reader of the canon.

Moore at least tries to start in the world, by waving his hands and addressing his fellows. but his project is Descartes' project.

Wittgenstein rejects the whole project to find a foundation for knowledge. Whatever is knowable is doubtable and knowing and doubting are activities in the world, that is to say in a context. so one can always imagine a context - waking up in hospital strapped to a gurney, where one might reasonably doubt that one has a hand,. So one sees that both knowledge and doubt are both equally justified or unjustified by the context and this context is the world within which knowledge and doubt can exist.

So the picture one might choose to replace the idea of knowledge as a building with foundations is perhaps more of a boat that floats on the Sea of Circumstance.

why would you believe objects are the only things — Benj96

I don't. There are all sorts of things, including objects, that exist in specific locations. This is why I talk about things and not objects.

Others have happily answered it with their views without telling me my questioning is invalid. — Benj96

Yes, and it's rather unkind of them, because it leads to difficulties and confusion. Will you accept that there are nouns (X) of which one cannot sensibly ask "Where is X?" Where is time? Where is confidence? Where is abstraction? Now if I am right, then 'where is consciousness?' is similarly a wrong question. I don't pretend I can prove it, but I commend it to your serious consideration. What would it mean to you to have an answer to your question? What do you have to give up in order to say that there is no answer?

I thought this was in poor taste as a response to my saying I had the virus.

↪unenlightened Lol, you're not too bright are you old fella! You're at higher risk because over half of deaths involve people over 80 and alcoholism can be seen as a chronic disease . Have you noticed that many people over 80 are already in a poor state of health, often due to over drinking? — Chester

And not just for being factually wrong about my risk factors. I had just called him a tosser, mind, so I didn't complain at the time.