Trouble talking to masses about issues

[473912]

I'm wondering if I'm alone in this issue. I just got my BA and have applied to PhD programs. I can't wait. ...but whenever I talk about issues things related to mental illness or personality disorders or present personal academic research, I'm met with derision, snark, or in the case of talking to self-proclaimed "social justice warriors", which many of my friends are, things ultimately devolve into me being a racist or a sexist. This is even the case in my research on how avoid self-handicapping and the negative effects of stereotyped threats both of which have a greater effect on women and minorities. Self-image and personality psychology is what I'd like to research. In any case, I'm trying to avoid issues that disproportionately have a negative effect on women and minorities in this case, and I'm the bad guy. I show peer review research and an argument that follows, I'm a racist. I try to show how someone's thinking is full of begging the question fallacies or circular reasoning... Well I'm obviously a sexist then. It's driving me insane. If a proposal doesn't meet someone's particular warm and fuzzy feels on an issue, that makes me evil like I'm arguing social darwinism or something. I'm by no means saying I'm always right or that even the data is always representative of truth, but if I'm wrong, I'd like to be wrong for the right reasons.

Has anyone else experienced this? Is this common even in grad programs or is that where maybe I should start to go if I want a better back and forth? I want intelligent discourse. I want to learn. I want someone to challenge my arguments so I can make them sharper and be the better for it and I'd like the same from others that I talk with. Is that so much to ask?

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

Stick to talking about beer and bowl games with your male friends. Introduce your female friends to beer and bowl games. Problem solved.

People who actually adopt the title "social justice warrior" are probably just communists or total d-bags-most likely both.

 

[473912]

Just for clarification, I didn't want this thread to focus on SJW. That's was just contextual.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I was a bit confused just reading your post as to what your research is and why you are avoiding issues that have a negative effect on minorities? There is a fine line between advocating for how a victim responds to keep themselves from being re-victimized and blaming the victim. From what you posted, I would think that people think you are blaming the victim.

 

[Ollie123]

I was a bit confused just reading your post as to what your research is and why you are avoiding issues that have a negative effect on minorities? There is a fine line between advocating for how a victim responds to keep themselves from being re-victimized and blaming the victim. From what you posted, I would think that people think you are blaming the victim.

That was my assumption as well, but it would be helpful if the OP could clarify this since it may help us provide feedback. I wasn't clear if maybe they were taking research principles that were traditionally applied to minority/social justice issues and just trying to study them from a different perspective (thus "avoiding" those topics)...I'm just a little unclear.

OP - I realize its just one post, but the fact that we are unclear on what you are saying might be indicative of why you are getting the reaction you are! Your stance might not be the issue, its possible it is just being misconstrued due to your presentation. Its also possible your stance is the issue...we can't really answer that from the information available.

Assuming it is just an issue of framing...if you are dealing with controversial issues, it is very important to find a good mentor who is well versed in dealing with those issues and how to frame these in a palatable way to both the scientific community and wider audiences. This is absolutely an acquired skill and I would argue one of the more difficult ones to pick up. Psychology as a whole is quite liberal. Pockets of it are certainly social-justice oriented and it seems to be a growing contingency within the field. Personally, I think that could be a very good thing. Unfortunately, I think that has also been an area that is particularly prone to extremely poor quality science being done with clear political motivations that dramatically undermine its value. I have heard many tales from folks in my grad program of multi-experiment papers in which a dozen quasi-concurrent studies were run and the 3 "successful" ones with the desired finding are published as a series while the remaining negative and contradictory findings were dropped. Social psychology is far from the only field impacted by problems like this...but I think its been a particular issue there, which is likely why we are starting to see some pushback and they are largely taking the lead in things like the replication project. Thus, finding a good mentor is critical and such an individual would not be opposed to discussing or publishing findings that may challenge certain ideals.

If you can provide us with more detail, we can probably provide more guidance on whether the above is even the issue or whether it may be directly related to the stance you are taking.

 

[473912]

From what I understand, self-handicapping is doing something that provides a convenient excuse for doing something improper or failing. A stereotyped threat is a fear of confirming a negative stereotype and results in reduced efficiency and performance in tasks and tests. These two things situations are more prevalent in minorities and women. These two things are what I tried to talk about in one situation in particular with a friend. It was initiated right before I took the GRE when a friend suggested to do the best I can because "blacks have to work harder than whites". This is at the heart of stereotyped threat and causes poorer performances. When I suggested statements like that are counterproductive and explained how and why, I was called a racist that denies racism exists and the conversation was ended. This, to me, is not racist nor is not victim blaming. This is giving everyone, including those disproportionately affected by negative stereotypes, a better environment to thrive. Isn't that what we are here for? Isn't that almost the exact opposite of racism?

I have been told that my presentation is the problem once before. Maybe I haven't mastered wordplay like I should when talking about heated events. I try very carefully to say only exactly what I mean, but more often than not it seems my words prematurely sparks an extremely emotional response, a snap judgment, and in one case, an ending of a 10 year friendship after one conversation. This blew my mind. This person knows I'm not a sexist or a racist, but I was called both before being told never to talk to him again. If you're not given the benefit of the doubt even among 10 year friends, what does that say about people who don't even know you?

First off, you can't throw a nasty term at people after one short conversation unless they are ridiculous in their hatred. Also, things are not binary or simple. Psychology is complex. In a conversation, I may get the wrong idea about someone, so I ALWAYS give them a chance to explain and clarify. If it's a more academic discussion, I give them thrice a chance to explain because they might know more, or have a different perspective on things, or may be talking about things that are deep or counterintuitive. I want to learn. Labeling someone a racist or sexist and ending the conversation almost before it's begun is antithetic to learning.

The point of my post of to ask if this type of circumstance still exists in grad school or is there more leeway given to explore points and counterpoints? I'm really interested in conversations concerning my accuracy, the validity of my theory, the appropriateness of my research, and its application, not whether or not I am racist. That's not only false, it's irrelevant.

 

[erg923]

I dont think this exists in grad school as long as one doesn't say dumb stuff.

My question is: Why do your friends care so much about your personal opinions about such topics? If I surveyed 10 of our friends, I am sure I would find at least one opinion/stance/belief that is quite ignorant, dumb, antithetical to my sensibilities...maybe even offensive. Who gives a ****. Friends are friends because of shared experience(s), loyalty, humor, duty, and/or the ambiguous nature of the human social connection. I have a friend who I have been friends with since I was 5 who watches Fox news and thinks Arizona is soft immigration. Seems quite silly to me, and if we talked about it, we'd argue. Fortunately, we don't. We just fish, play softball, babysit each others kids, go on vacations together, and help each other out in life all the time. I don't know what kind of friends you have or how long you've had them, but they sounds awfully "soft" to me. I don't think true "friends" who would be so sensitive to such things.

I don't know how you present your social psychological opinions, but if this is a consistent reaction, there may indeed be something to it. I just don't think one should be losing real friendships over not mastering a PC vocab. I probably wouldn't stay friends with someone who ran off an joined the clan..but guess what? I am a Catholic and I have Jewish friends. Quite a discrepant belief system about the world, no? Yet I have never lost a friendship because I went to Mass. If your friends are on the tolerance bandwagon, maybe they should practice tolerating opinions that don't fit their view of the world?

 

[MCParent]

If your friends call themselves "social justice warriors" the battle is probably over before it's begun. Those who do not use reason cannot be swayed by it.

But also you titled this thread "talking to the masses." I'd thought it would be about public speaking or blogging or something. If you see anyone who disagrees with you as part of the unwashed ignorant masses, yes you are at least half the problem.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Thing to remember when discussing psychological topics with 'the masses' #1:

Everybody is a psychologist (in their own minds), i.e., most people discount (at least implicitly) that those with professional experiences/degrees in psychology (or mental health) have any special knowledge that is in any way epistemologically superior (because, hey, we're talking about human nature here and I'm a human and I've lived around other humans all my life so...). This is just something you're going to have to get used to.

Thing to remember when discussing psychological topics with the 'the masses' #2:

Very few people are able to (even temporarily) think rationally about topics which are 'hot-button' emotional topics for them and in which they have a strong emotional investment in favor of a particular worldview/position ('social justice warriors' are but one example). I know I lifted the following quote from the signature of another member of this forum but it's so awesome that it bears repeating:

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”


-Thomas Paine

 

[473912]

If your friends call themselves "social justice warriors" the battle is probably over before it's begun. Those who do not use reason cannot be swayed by it.

But also you titled this thread "talking to the masses." I'd thought it would be about public speaking or blogging or something. If you see anyone who disagrees with you as part of the unwashed ignorant masses, yes you are at least half the problem.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think anyone who disagrees with me is "unwashed ignorant masses" especially when I just said I welcome disagreement... or that I implied that "masses" is a negative term... but okay.

 

[erg923]

I don't know where you got the idea that I think anyone who disagrees with me is "unwashed ignorant masses" especially when I just said I welcome disagreement... or that I implied that "masses" is a negative term... but okay.

I think because this whole thing seems to be intellectuallized. Most people simply do not think in terms of social and cognitive psychology principles, and I think its a bit ridciulous to expect them to. That said, I think (true) friends and collegues can agree to disagree without becoming such a drama queen and cutting off long-terms friendhips.

 

[MCParent]

I think because this whole thing seems to be intellectuallized. Most people simply do not think in terms of social and cognitive psychology principles, and I think its a bit ridciulous to expect them to. That said, I think (true) friends and collegues can agree to disagree without becoming such a drama queen and cutting off long-terms friendhips.

Yup, that's what I meant.

OP, if you are *actually* interested in talking to folks like that about these things and having a debate, read some work like Influence by Cialdini. The way you are going about it (citing primary sources) is almost guaranteed to NOT work, and probably to entrench the other person even more in their original belief.

Alternatively, I've found that a lot of folks are really more interested in intellectual self-gratification than actual discussion of things. I don't really have a suggestion for fixing that one.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

From what I understand, self-handicapping is doing something that provides a convenient excuse for doing something improper or failing. A stereotyped threat is a fear of confirming a negative stereotype and results in reduced efficiency and performance in tasks and tests. These two things situations are more prevalent in minorities and women. These two things are what I tried to talk about in one situation in particular with a friend. It was initiated right before I took the GRE when a friend suggested to do the best I can because "blacks have to work harder than whites". This is at the heart of stereotyped threat and causes poorer performances. When I suggested statements like that are counterproductive and explained how and why, I was called a racist that denies racism exists and the conversation was ended.

In this example you give, I think the issue was more about time and place than anything. Am I understanding correctly that your friend that was expressing the idea that "Blacks have to work harder..." is Black himself? If that is the case, I suspect he was expressing an issue that is painful for him. In response, rather than validating how hard it is to have that experience, you were telling him that he was wrong and not thinking about the situation right.

Just taking a stab at it.

Also, it is more commonly called "stereotype threat" rather than "stereotyped threat." Not sure if that was a typo.