I also talk about the Ross et al. study in my social class, and I would love to
have a copy of the posts that you collect for use in class (assuming that the
TIPS contributors 'release' this source). Great idea. I like the added benefit
of making prof.'s seem more human.
Ah, a _teaching_ realted benefit from this unsuppressible (a word?) rope!
Matthew P. Winslow
Eastern Kentucky University
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> When I teach both intro and social one of my main goals is to make students
> aware of the cognitive biases that affect the way all of us view the world
> and interpret events, behavior, etc. I usually cite a study by Vallone,
> Ross, & Lepper (1985) showing how perception of bias in network news reports
> on the killings in a Beirut refugee camp were completely reversed for those
> with pro-Arab leanings versus those with pro-Israeli leanings. Each group
> felt the reports were biased: Pro-Arab Ss felt the reports gave an Israeli
> bias; Pro-Israeli Ss felt the same reports were biased in favor of the
> Arabs. I then cite a contemporary example that may have the same dynamic.
> I have used the Rodney King incident, OJ's trial, and more recently the
> Clinton impeachment trial. If no one objects, I am thinkig of gathering
> together some of our recent posts and presenting them to my next class as a
> potential real-life (assuming academia qualifies) example of this same
> phenomenon. I think it would make a real impact on students to see that
> even their psychology professors may occasionally fall prey to the same
> psychological processes that afflict the masses (or at least the majority of
> college sophomores). What do you think? Last semester I used the web site
> that was posting the comments generated by reaction to publication of
> Harris's Nurture Assumption but I think we may have outdone ourselves here.
> Maybe there is even a possibility of an example or two of escalation of
> aggression?
> Do we have an expert on conflict resolution who could turn this into an even
> better learning experience?
>
> Michael Quanty
> Psychology Professor
> CBMTS Project Director
> Thomas Nelson Community College
> P.O. Box 9407
> Hampton, Virginia 23670
> Voice: 757.825.3500
> Fax: 757.825.3807
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda M. Woolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 9:51 PM
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: List behavior
>
> Hi Rick and Tipsters,
>
> Rick Adams wrote:
>
> > Linda, why is it whenever I respond to anyone who posts something
> about
> > Michael Sylvester you insist on taking it as a personal attack on you?
>
> Perhaps, you phrased it poorly but it was how you characterized all who
> objected to
> Michael's posts. In response to "listen to endless adolescent discussion",
> you
> said: "Isn't that what we are listening to from the Michael Sylvester
> opponents?
>
> If you meant to characterize a specific individual, you might want to
> specify whom
> you are addressing or respond to them off list. As it were, you
> characterized all
> of "Michael Sylvesters opponents".
>
> > Sure,
> > Michael has said some things that provoked you--but does that mean that
> > all his posts are inappropriate?
>
> I have never stated that they were all inappropriate. The discussion of
> most
> individuals who have objected have concerned his offensive posts.
>
> > He has not encouraged
> > violence or discrimination against a group, he has not made threats,
> > deliberately degraded or ridiculed a minority, or otherwise performed acts
> > that would constitute "hate speech" in any reasonable sense of the term.
>
> He has consistently made comments that are degrading towards Jews (see prior
> post).
> You are correct that he has not advocated violence or made threats.
> However, I
> never stated that he had made threats. I discussed his comments which I
> found
> offensive and inappropriate to a professional discussion list.
>
> If over the course of two years, I consistently made statements that
> characterized
> African-Americans as lazy, shiftless, criminal, welfare chiselers, etc. etc.
> etc.,
> if I consistently made negative statements only regarding this one group,
> and if I
> periodically tried to make folks believe I wasn't racist with occasional
> comments
> such as "some of my best friends are Black", I would expect that folks on
> the list
> would find my statements to be objectionable and offensive.
>
> You do raise an interesting question however. At one point and after how
> many
> racist comments, would my offensiveness 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]
