Which perspectives are welcome here?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
cara susanna said:
I want to say that I think requesting men to respectfully step back so the women can voice their viewpoints first on a thread that is, essentially, asking for the viewpoints of women about the climate of this forum is not the same as "muting" an entire gender. No one's stopping people from posting in terms of rules - this thread is a prime example of that. My understanding is that, although it was not phrased the most diplomatically, OP was just asking if other women on this board felt the same way as she did.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this clarifying post. I'll admit that I probably (mis?)interpreted the original poster's request (and she did ask, she did not tell) as more of an attempt to control the conversation (or other people's) behavior (or pre-empt responding) based on their gender. I believe that her motives were sincere and that I almost certainly 'jumped to conclusions' in this case. It could be that the explicit operationalization of how many women were to post before men were to post (10 posts) struck some of us as evidence of 'rule-making' and that this makes some of us 'uncomfortable' for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with gender (e.g., I am probably overly sensitized and overly rebellious against rule/policy/procedure making by others due to working in the VA system).
 
Fan_of_Meehl said:
Thanks for this clarifying post. I'll admit that I probably (mis?)interpreted the original poster's request (and she did ask, she did not tell) as more of an attempt to control the conversation (or other people's) behavior (or pre-empt responding) based on their gender. I believe that her motives were sincere and that I almost certainly 'jumped to conclusions' in this case. It could be that the explicit operationalization of how many women were to post before men were to post (10 posts) struck some of us as evidence of 'rule-making' and that this makes some of us 'uncomfortable' for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with gender (e.g., I am probably overly sensitized and overly rebellious against rule/policy/procedure making by others due to working in the VA system).
Click to expand...

Thank you @Fan_of_Meehl . Glad to see you, it's been a little while.
 
Hi to all,

My impression is that this conversation may have run its course. I think there may be more juice to squeeze, but I accept it if people are done with it.

As the profoundly imperfect initiator — and, as I view it, a well-intended and responsible host — of this thread, I am here to say a few last things:

1) I wish I could learn more about @Psycycle ’s science on gender-influenced norms of online communication. I respect her hesitation to share more on this for the sake of her own anonymity. To amplify @Sanman ’s good point, as an anonymous participant, I’m so grateful to be able to speak loudly and clearly here without professional or personal repercussions.

2) I wish to keep hearing the tenors of many male-identified posters who clearly love, celebrate, and devotedly serve women in their lives and their work. On this thread, many of these men have said, in essence, “I’m here and I’m listening, even if I feel uncomfortable with how the dialogue is unfolding.” I’m particularly thankful to @MCParent for dropping some science, to @calimich for his kindness and thoughtful opinions, and to @erg923 for being present in a simple way.

3) I wish so much to remain connected and communicative with the women who have devoted so much energy to this topic in order to improve our community. I am thankful especially right now for @StellaB , @GradStudent2020 , @Psycycle , @foreverbull, @cara susanna ,@MamaPhD , @futureapppsy2 , and @AcronymAllergy . If I’ve erred in understanding your gender, please forgive and correct me.

I remain willing to help with any systematic efforts by the community to learn more about the issues that have been discussed here. I have gotten many private messages from women who say that they have checked out from this board because, in essence, this place can really hurt, and there are many other places to get one’s needs met.

I would like for this space to thrive. This may require a collective willingness to hear and effectively respond to uncomfortable feedback.

Your colleague,
@msgeorge
 
Last edited:
I do agree that Google made a mistake in the firing. They did attempt to hold an internal town hall to discuss the issues, but canceled that after participants were doxxed by Breitbart and Milo, and the predictable onslaught of death threats. I agree that there is an issue about having balanced discussions. I disagree that the cause is solely in the progressive left. Neither end of the political spectrum seems much inclined to have debates on issues where both sides can present their case.
 
Jon Snow said:
I agree, it’s not solely the cause. But, it’s the louder voice to that effect today.
Click to expand...

I think it's the louder voice as it dominates some media outlets. I'd say that the doxxing. death, rape threat methods used by some create just as much censorship, and is much more physically dangerous when some actually act on the threats. I don't think either far fringe has a monopoly on efforts to control the message through intimidation.
 
WisNeuro said:
I think it's the louder voice as it dominates some media outlets. I'd say that the doxxing. death, rape threat methods used by some create just as much censorship, and is much more physically dangerous when some actually act on the threats. I don't think either far fringe has a monopoly on efforts to control the message through intimidation.
Click to expand...

Jumping in late to this conversation (I have been observing, but have not commented b/c any point I have had was already made), but I think the progressive left generally has a louder voice in the academy (or at least psychological sciences). I, a self-identified left-leaning moderate, often spoke with my mentor in undergrad (who was essentially anarchist) about how the progressive left -- in academic settings -- is loud and organized when it comes to silencing and/or shaming perspectives which do not jive with mainstream progressive values or thinking.

I echo @Jon Snow's point on this that perhaps the issue we see with the unfriendliness on this forum is not a direct byproduct of toxic masculinity, but "being comfortable in one skin" (or the lackthereof). I do not believe that we are all fully-achieved and successful, nor are we all narcissists, but perhaps the offensive/unwelcoming people on this forum swing more one way or the other and that is off-putting to the rest of us in the middle who perhaps struggle with the ever-pervasive issue of impostor syndrome.

That's my 2 cents. I've appreciated watching this dialogue unfold and do hope that it generally has led us to thinking how this place can be more welcoming, not less, to all people (including women, POC, LGBTQ+. new trainees... essentially anyone who is not of privilege).
 
I agree that our own field definitely skews on the left side of things, but it is in no way a one-sided issue. If anything, it's most likely a correction in relation to longstanding institutional censorship. If we want to truly discuss the silencing of opinions/stories/perspectives, we need to view it from a holistic viewpoint and see the way that some groups have systematically shut down dissenting opinions for some time now. To simply say that it's a problem of the left, is just being willfully obtuse, and doesn't help the issue at a societal level. Let's advocate for everyone to be able to participate, not just the ones we agree with.
 
Jon Snow said:
I agree with this. Though I see no need to specify privilege. We should be striving to make those things irrelevant to participation.
Click to expand...
The relevance to privilege on this board, IMO, has a lot to do with the underrepresentation of scientists from underprivileged backgrounds within our field.

A memory comes to mind from an I/O class in which the professor, whose research focused on the career selection process, was talking about personality-job fit. I pointed out that most people I knew at the time, if you asked them how they liked their job, they didn't tell you about the work itself, they told you whether they liked their boss and why. The prof could not wrap his head around this concept, and after some back-and-forth, said, "I don't have to care what [chair of the department] thinks about me!" And I was like, "yeah, but most jobs aren't like that. That's a cushy job." My classmates, most of whom went straight through undergrad to grad school and with no career experience, couldn't understand what I was saying either. It still shocks me to think about that.
 
Jon Snow said:
Sure, but in our field, academia generally and as is more mainstream in popular culture, the problem is the left. There are numerous examples. Kevin Hart being one.
Click to expand...
I would disagree that it's more of a problem in mainstream culture, that's purely a narrative advanced for a political agenda. See gamergate and like examples. Problem is just as bad, if not worse, on the other side. It's there, if you choose to look at it.
 
msgeorgeeliot said:
Hi to all,

My impression is that this conversation may have run its course. I think there may be more juice to squeeze, but I accept it if people are done with it.

As the profoundly imperfect initiator — and, as I view it, a well-intended and responsible host — of this thread, I am here to say a few last things:

1) I wish I could learn more about @Psycycle ’s science on gender-influenced norms of online communication. I respect her hesitation to share more on this for the sake of her own anonymity. To amplify @Sanman ’s good point, as an anonymous participant, I’m so grateful to be able to speak loudly and clearly here without professional or personal repercussions.

2) I wish to keep hearing the tenors of many male-identified posters who clearly love, celebrate, and devotedly serve women in their lives and their work. On this thread, many of these men have said, in essence, “I’m here and I’m listening, even if I feel uncomfortable with how the dialogue is unfolding.” I’m particularly thankful to @MCParent for dropping some science, to @calimich for his kindness and thoughtful opinions, and to @erg923 for being present in a simple way.

3) I wish so much to remain connected and communicative with the women who have devoted so much energy to this topic in order to improve our community. I am thankful especially right now for @StellaB , @GradStudent2020 , @Psycycle , @foreverbull, @cara susanna ,@MamaPhD , @futureapppsy2 , and @AcronymAllergy . If I’ve erred in understanding your gender, please forgive and correct me.

I remain willing to help with any systematic efforts by the community to learn more about the issues that have been discussed here. I have gotten many private messages from women who say that they have checked out from this board because, in essence, this place can really hurt, and there are many other places to get one’s needs met.

I would like for this space to thrive. This may require a collective willingness to hear and effectively respond to uncomfortable feedback.

Your colleague,
@msgeorge
Click to expand...

Just wanted to say I appreciate your effort! There’s ongoing denial of the problematic behavior and shifting the convo to something more “comfortable” for certain posters; it’s unfortunate but not surprising. I’ll continue to lurk and I hope you are successful in shifting the culture here. All the best.
 
WisNeuro said:
I would disagree that it's more of a problem in mainstream culture, that's purely a narrative advanced for a political agenda. See gamergate and like examples. Problem is just as bad, if not worse, on the other side. It's there, if you choose to look at it.
Click to expand...


It is present on both sides and is covers many different activity. Everything from safe spaces to gated neighborhoods is about shielding yourself from the discomfort of dealing with those different than yourself. The irony is that as technology has connected us more, it has allowed us to segregate into tribes of like minded people. Pick your cable news channel and internet forum based on your pre-existing beliefs. This is how we end up with #metoo, resurgence of white supremacists, and 4 chan. Sometimes the results are positive and other times it can reinforce negative beliefs about the world.
 
Sanman said:
It is present on both sides and is covers many different activity. Everything from safe spaces to gated neighborhoods is about shielding yourself from the discomfort of dealing with those different than yourself. The irony is that as technology has connected us more, it has allowed us to segregate into tribes of like minded people. Pick your cable news channel and internet forum based on your pre-existing beliefs. This is how we end up with #metoo, resurgence of white supremacists, and 4 chan. Sometimes the results are positive and other times it can reinforce negative beliefs about the world.
Click to expand...

Dude. I was so with you until you associated Me Too with white supremacists and 4 Chan. Are you seriously for real?

Here is a killer data point on why this thread is necessary.

Congrats, you got me! I am supremely pissed off right now, like my heart is actually racing.

To my earlier point: sometimes this place really sucks for women, and you right now are part of the problem.
 
msgeorgeeliot said:
Dude. I was so with you until you associated Me Too with white supremacists and 4 Chan. Are you seriously for real?

Here is a killer data point on why this thread is necessary.

Congrats, you got me! I am supremely pissed off right now, like my heart is actually racing.

To my earlier point: sometimes this place really sucks for women, and you right now are part of the problem.
Click to expand...


Read the next sentence, sometimes the results are positive and sometimes negative. I'm not assigning a "good" or "bad" to any of those. However, none would exist without the power of the internet bringing like-minded people together and all are well known movements/groups.

EDIT: However, saying people are part of the "problem" for having an opinion that differs from yours is the problem in my book. I say that as someone who might actually have similar views on this topic as you.
 
Last edited:
Sanman said:
Read the next sentence, sometimes the results are positive and sometimes negative. I'm not assigning a "good" or "bad" to any of those. However, none would exist without the power of the internet bringing like-minded people together and all are well known movements/groups.
Click to expand...

<primal scream>

I told you that your statement was hurtful and offensive. You response is condescending and also extremely weird to me. (You literally don’t assign “bad” to sexual abuse, white supremacy, and trolls?)

This is a fault line in this community. Seriously. Even if it was not your intent to be harmful, that was your impact, at least on me. Why is it so hard to just say you’re sorry? I really don’t understand.
 
msgeorgeeliot said:
<primal scream>

I told you that your statement was hurtful and offensive. You response is condescending and also extremely weird to me. (You literally don’t assign “bad” to sexual abuse, white supremacy, and trolls?)

This is a fault line in this community. Seriously. Even if it was not your intent to be harmful, that was your impact, at least on me. Why is it so hard to just say you’re sorry? I really don’t understand.
Click to expand...


Because I'm not sorry. You simply misunderstood the intent of my point. Why should I be sorry for that?
 
Sanman said:
EDIT: However, saying people are part of the "problem" for having an opinion that differs from yours is the problem in my book. I say that as someone who might actually have similar views on this topic as you.
Click to expand...

Feel free to miss me with this too, dude.
 
Sanman said:
It is present on both sides and is covers many different activity. Everything from safe spaces to gated neighborhoods is about shielding yourself from the discomfort of dealing with those different than yourself. The irony is that as technology has connected us more, it has allowed us to segregate into tribes of like minded people. Pick your cable news channel and internet forum based on your pre-existing beliefs. This is how we end up with #metoo, resurgence of white supremacists, and 4 chan. Sometimes the results are positive and other times it can reinforce negative beliefs about the world.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty interested in how “your cable news channel and Internet forum” choices lead to whether or not you’ve been sexually assaulted.
 
msgeorgeeliot said:
Exhibit 6,389 on why this space can be total crap for this woman *in particular.* I’m sick of doing this emotional labor for your apparent amusement. I’m out.
Click to expand...

:Shrug:

It's your emotional labor. You choose to yell at me (proverbially) rather than asking me to clarify my point, your choice.
 
GradStudent2020 said:
I’m pretty interested in how “your cable news channel and Internet forum” choices lead to whether or not you’ve been sexually assaulted.
Click to expand...


Because #metoo would never have happened without social media and large groups of women being able to speak out and support each other. Neither would 4chan craziness or white supremacist rallies. It is the support of like minded individuals that encourages all of these things. Some of these changes are positive for society and some are negative.

The point of the previous post was that in any event you can choose to find more like-minded individuals and shield yourself from opposing viewpoints.
 
Sanman said:
Because #metoo would never have happened without social media and large groups of women being able to speak out and support each other. Neither would 4chan craziness or white supremacist rallies. It is the support of like minded individuals that encourages all of these things. Some of these changes are positive for society and some are negative.

The point of the previous post was that in any event you can choose to find more like-minded individuals and shield yourself from opposing viewpoints.
Click to expand...

Do you get the irony of any of this? The #metoo movement happened because people were willing to listen to women’s voices and stories. Even when it was uncomfortable. Even when it caused problems. Plenty of people tried to dismiss the movement, but women’s voices were *heard* enough that change happened.

Here, when it was kindly asked that posters make room for women’s voices, there was so much push-back and vitriol thrown around that the conversation barely happened. Sure, there’s 7 pages of comments. There’s some thoughtful stuff sprinkled through. Most of it is just more of the same bull****, though.
 
msgeorgeeliot said:
Exhibit 6,389 on why this space can be total crap for this woman *in particular.* I’m sick of doing this emotional labor for your apparent amusement. I’m out.
Click to expand...

Yes, this. Exactly why I won’t “substantiate” my concerns or define constructs where the actual research articles are readily available. I’m not troll food, neither are you.
 
GradStudent2020 said:
Do you get the irony of any of this? The #metoo movement happened because people were willing to listen to women’s voices and stories. Even when it was uncomfortable. Even when it caused problems. Plenty of people tried to dismiss the movement, but women’s voices were *heard* enough that change happened.

Here, when it was kindly asked that posters make room for women’s voices, there was so much push-back and vitriol thrown around that the conversation barely happened. Sure, there’s 7 pages of comments. There’s some thoughtful stuff sprinkled through. Most of it is just more of the same bull****, though.
Click to expand...


I don't find it particularly ironic because one I think #metoo had mixed negative and positive consequences. It covered everything from serious sexual assault issues to bad dates and sometimes other minor issues. Some of it was important positive change and some of it was too far, imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tr
Sanman said:
I don't find it particularly ironic because one I think #metoo had mixed negative and positive consequences. It covered everything from serious sexual assault issues to bad dates and sometimes other minor issues. Some of it was important positive change and some of it was too far, imo.
Click to expand...

Well, there I go giving you the benefit of the doubt.

#instantregret
 
Sanman said:
Yes, why encourage an open exchange of ideas when there is a chance people don't agree you. Instead, just react and force people to take sides. #notsoopenminded
Click to expand...

It’s hard to take you seriously when you attempt to minimize the serious of sexual assault down to “bad dates.”
 
Jon Snow said:
White supremacist rallies have gone on long before social media. I’ll note such things are still very poorly attended. It’s fringe stuff. But, it has been a political strategy to try and paint republicans as a whole in with the white supremacists (basket of deplorables). Highlighting that white supremacists exist is largely a bogeyman strategy used to gain political points. Also, we’ve seen a shift in the meaning of words such that people feel perfectly comfortable calling pretty much anyone a white supremacist who they don’t like. Perhaps a bit like the misuse of “toxic masculinity”.
Click to expand...


They did go on before social media, but it has caused the movement to have a resurgence. What was a few people here and there has become a like minded group and has encouraged them to also become more visible and connect with each other.

Politically, I do believe both sides are moving to the edges rather than meeting in the center. You can even choose how you want your news slanted based on network. You never need to engage with those around you that have different opinions if you choose not to do so. Just find your internet tribe.
 
Only been loosely following this – have skimmed all of it, but very likely missed some things. Didn’t respond til now, in part by request but mostly because time is limited and in my newfound efforts to carve out more time for myself, my presence here has been deliberately cut down. Did want to weigh in before the thread dies though.

I certainly qualify as “old guard” since I think I’ve been posting here longer than all but a handful. I genuinely don’t know how people perceive my posts. My style has unquestionably evolved over time from that an overly rigid post-bac treating each post like a term paper to my current drive-by vomiting of vaguely cogent thoughts as rapidly as possible while doing 19 other things and hoping someone can make sense of it. I can say that consistently throughout my time here I have genuinely tried to help people whenever I could and as best I could. I try to be polite, though not coddling. I try to offer depth of thought and erred on the side of quality over quantity…especially as I have progressed in my career. I no longer respond to every WAMC post. I wish I could. Maybe you all love me, maybe you all hate me. I won't lose sleep over it (this manuscript revision though....).

For whatever reason, I seem to vomit thoughts in list form here, so for whatever its worth – here we go. Some loosely organized observations and comments:

  • Worth stating up front that my feelings towards the overwhelming majority of posters here over the last decade ranges from neutral to extremely positive. The exceptions were generally people I considered rock-stupid and therefore frustrating, but not evil.
  • I would roughly place the board within the top 50% of internet forums in its culture and “welcome-ing-ness”. In the same breath, I will say “Not the worst place on the internet” is not exactly an achievement to write home about.
  • Discussion about whether the board is “welcoming” or “unwelcoming”, “toxic” or “not toxic”, etc. is an artificial dichotomy. We're psychologists and we should know better. It’s a continuum. Whenever I see dichotomization it usually leads to polarization. This has played out quite clearly. I imagine everyone here would agree we are not the most or the least toxic place on the internet. If you think so, spend the next 15 minutes googling and get back to me.
  • If we want the board culture to change, we have done an unbelievably piss-poor job of operationalizing what should change in this thread. We’re on page 7 and I don’t have the foggiest idea what folks want to happen other than “Make it more like how it should be in my head”. That isn’t condemnation of the OP or anyone else – we’re talking about an inherently nebulous construct. These things are crazy difficult to define and its not realistic to demand of someone. Nonetheless, the clinician in me knows that without a clearer operationalization of it…this thread has no hope of any lasting impact. I think this point extends to broader societal issues of all types.
  • I certainly do not want the board to be unwelcoming or toxic. However, I also do not want it to be coddling, ultra-cheerleader-y sunshine and puppies. I want people who make asinine statements to be called out for it and I want and expect the same to be done to me. If this goes away, I would likely post less. I can live with that just fine if it happens, but I do think we need to recognize people have different preferences when it comes to these things. The issue is…where do we draw the line?
  • I want aggressive intellectual debates here. I post less than I used to in part because that seems to have dissipated over the years (or I’ve just outgrown the ones that still occur, but I do think they are less frequent). That is the stuff that keeps me interested and coming back. I’m unclear if others want this. Clearly some components/correlates of intense debate with the vague construct put forth that is making some people uncomfortable (as best I can tell). Even if we all agreed intense debate is awesome, again….where do we draw the line? This ties in to operationalizing things more clearly.
  • Part of my hesitation with regards to changing the culture is that I am seeing and experiencing some very real problems in my professional life on a near-daily basis that I strongly believe relate to misguided efforts to address culture in this manner. It mostly relates to the countless efforts I am seeing to “create a positive culture” that seems to loosely translate into “Be respectful towards all the staff who don’t do their effing job.” That is irrelevant here. I am nonetheless biased by these experiences and need to admit that.
  • Lastly…several have said something like “How do you know a poster’s gender?” This is completely tangential, but…really? This is literally a whole field of study. Wildly outdated computer programs from like 20 years ago can tell with like 80% accuracy the gender of the author of fiction passages. In a world with sufficient time for me to waste doing random geeky things for the sheer hell of it, I’m reasonably confident I could piece together an NLP/ML tool that would beat that handily. Between usernames and info in prior posts its usually pretty darn obvious for the regular posters. Could I get it 100%? Probably not. If you demand 100% accuracy to make judgments though, I hope you literally never ever use any sort of psychological assessment.

I will try to respond to any direct replies to this eventually, but with everything I have going on it likely will not happen quickly...
 
Jon Snow said:
A followup to my Biden/Harris comment and contributions to these sorts of tone discussions from modern political space.

Why did Harris rip Biden the way she did? To win an argument. To change perceptions and get points by pointing out demographics. “Hey look. I’m a black woman. Biden is a white male. Here’s this tidbit that loosely associates him with racists. I’m not saying he’s racist *wink wink, but he’s racist.”

This strategy is used to bend narratives, to change tones. It is the source of the eggshells in form of argument (same strategy you deal with when interacting with certain axis 2 pathologies). Look at the demographic. Assume most offensive possible position based on said demographic for the sake of whatever argument you’re tying to make, attack.

On this forum, I think there was a thread talking about an old guy that was blasted because he made a lingerie joke on an elevator at an academic conference with other tenured professors. This is a great example. There was no power differential. The joke was dated but from a mainstream source. The woman, I doubt was really offended. At least, my skepticism abounds. But, she took it to its infinite regress, invoking authority and societal pressure to knock the guy down because he’s a guy and she thought she could use that to win some points.

In thinking about left and right, it seems that this has become an acceptable and mainstream strategy on the left to gain power in an argument. Seek the offense, win the apology. Game over.

As I said before, it’s a nice thing to attempt to deliver messages in a friendly manner. But, I do think a not insignificant portion of the variance driving tone criticisms on the board rests in this strategy. That is not to say that people don’t say things in a surly manner periodically nor that people aren’t really offended. But, tone wouldn’t be an issue and gender wouldn’t be raised, if the message was agreeable. Ie, the biggest “problem” here is not everyone agrees. Some of the things that people disagree about are important to them and it makes them mad so they’d like to shut down those positions. My perception.

We could do that but you’ll find the posting volume here will drop to nothing.


Here’s another example.

www.google.com

CNN analyst Areva Martin accused radio host David Webb of 'white privilege.' Webb is black

CNN analyst Areva Martin said Fox News contributor David Webb benefits from 'white privilege.' Webb's response: 'I'm black.'
www.google.com
Click to expand...
Sir this is a Wendy's
 
Sanman said:
What does that mean?
Click to expand...

I think it is a meme that is used when someone believes that a poster has gone on a rant. I've seen it a couple times, but I could be wrong. Can't keep up with these kids and their social media these days.
 
Hi, I'm basically just a reader here on this forum, but enjoy it and have found it really helpful at times (Going back to my very own WAMC's 6-7 years ago on a different account). I read this in a new article today and wondered how it relates to the process of this thread:

"Our results suggest that people avoid empathy because of its inherent cognitive costs, an underappreciated factor that may powerfully shape empathy. Cognitive costs of empathy may derive in part from uncertainty about others’ experiences and the risk of making errors (Dunn et al., 2017), and such costs are phenomenological signals that alternative goals should be pursued (Apps etal., 2015; Kurzban, 2016)."

1st, empathy is not our default because it's hard. If a goal is to have this online forum be an empathic place, can we accept the challenge and increase our cognitive effort so that we can better understand where those we disagree with are coming from?
2nd, raising the responders' (perceived) chances of errors happening (blanket statements about how other groups are blind/delusional/biased etc.) and raising the stakes of making errors (rude/harsh backlash) may make empathy even harder. Should we try to lower the expectations and stakes of getting something wrong or misunderstanding a view?
3rd, what might be the "alternative goals" that could be occurring? Dehumanization, intellectualization, defensiveness, dismissive humor, ignoring, deflecting, resentment?

link to article

 
flerfmcgerf said:
Hi, I'm basically just a reader here on this forum, but enjoy it and have found it really helpful at times (Going back to my very own WAMC's 6-7 years ago on a different account). I read this in a new article today and wondered how it relates to the process of this thread:

"Our results suggest that people avoid empathy because of its inherent cognitive costs, an underappreciated factor that may powerfully shape empathy. Cognitive costs of empathy may derive in part from uncertainty about others’ experiences and the risk of making errors (Dunn et al., 2017), and such costs are phenomenological signals that alternative goals should be pursued (Apps etal., 2015; Kurzban, 2016)."

1st, empathy is not our default because it's hard. If a goal is to have this online forum be an empathic place, can we accept the challenge and increase our cognitive effort so that we can better understand where those we disagree with are coming from?
2nd, raising the responders' (perceived) chances of errors happening (blanket statements about how other groups are blind/delusional/biased etc.) and raising the stakes of making errors (rude/harsh backlash) may make empathy even harder. Should we try to lower the expectations and stakes of getting something wrong or misunderstanding a view?
3rd, what might be the "alternative goals" that could be occurring? Dehumanization, intellectualization, defensiveness, dismissive humor, ignoring, deflecting, resentment?

link to article
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting empirical investigation to take data (threads and replies) from this forum and have them blindly coded/rated for 'empathy' (however operationalized to be reliable/valid) and compare those results to those obtained by rating 'empathy' for other forums (r/politics). I'd imagine that the average 'empathy' rating for this forum would be at least above avg. if not 95th percentile, compared with, say 100 randomly selected internet forums. To be fair, we'd probably need some data from professional or psychological forums as well for a proper comparison. However, I realize that this would represent an approach to the issue that is decidedly 'rational/scientific' vs interpersonal process.

However, if the criterion for empathy is that those who are expressing concern/ suffering feel heard/ validated and can confirm that they experience the board as empathic, then we may have much more work to do (if prioritizing empathic responding is a principal goal of the forum, which may be debatable).

Apollonian vs. Dionysian? Logos vs. Eros? Yang vs. Yin? (dare it be suggested) masculine vs. feminine approaches to values or truth?
 
Last edited:
Fan_of_Meehl said:
It would be an interesting empirical investigation to take data (threads and replies) from this forum and have them blindly coded/rated for 'empathy' (however operationalized to be reliable/valid) and compare those results to those obtained by rating 'empathy' for other forums (r/politics). I'd imagine that the average 'empathy' rating for this forum would be at least above avg. if not 95th percentile, compared with, say 100 randomly selected internet forums. To be fair, we'd probably need some data from professional or psychological forums as well for a proper comparison. However, I realize that this would represent an approach to the issue that is decidedly 'rational/scientific' vs interpersonal process.

However, if the criterion for empathy is that those who are expressing concern/ suffering feel heard/ validated and can confirm that they experience the board as empathic, then we may have much more work to do (if prioritizing empathic responding is a principal goal of the forum, which may be debatable).

Apollonian vs. Dionysian? Logos vs. Eros? Yang vs. Yin? (dare it be suggested) masculine vs. feminine approaches to values or truth?
Click to expand...
For me, it's not really about empathy. I honestly don't care if anyone on this forum empathizes with me. But I dislike being talked down to, and I have found it to be the case that it happens on here. I'd be interested in a study that looks at whose opinions/feedback are treated with respect and given thoughtful criticism and whose aren't. Because I'm okay with nuanced intellectual debate and criticism. But not with condescension disguised as brutally honest but good feedback.

Something came out awhile ago about the Arrested Development conversation that was held discussing the verbal abuse one of the actors gave one of the actresses. The men all basically joined together, primarily vocalized by Jason Bateman, and said no, Jeffrey's great, he's always been great to me, no issues, he's a role model. Well, of course, that's because you're in. You're part of the club. So for the males here to be talking with each other about how open the forum is to everyone... well, hang out with Jason Bateman I guess.

I've been on a lot of forums. This one isn't the worst, and isn't the best. But across the boards (pun intended), male posters who offered input of substance were treated with respect, while female posters who offered input of substance frequently were not, and worse, they were perceived as looking for empathy and hugs vs. wanting an honest intellectual conversation.
 
MCParent said:
Literally the opposite of what the post said. Wow.
Click to expand...

Lol, ok. His follow up “examples” are further proof of minimization of problematic and coercive sexual behaviors.

I’ve been on bad dates. Once the waiter never brought my food. Another time the other person showed up with his roommate because he was nervous. Awkward. I wasn’t coerced into sexual acts I didn’t want to participate in on those “bad dates”. Can you see the difference in these examples and the one Sanman gave? The one where a woman was coerced into oral sex (among other things)? The one where the “accused” hasn’t actually challenged her version of events, and apologized the next day?

I don’t care if you do. I don’t actually think it’s useful for a group to try and be judge and jury on what was/wasn’t “bad” enough to be called sexual assault. The #metoo movement wasn’t *just* about calling out rape. It’s about exposing all types of problematic sexual behaviors.
 
GradStudent2020 said:
Lol, ok. His follow up “examples” are further proof of minimization of problematic and coercive sexual behaviors.

I’ve been on bad dates. Once the waiter never brought my food. Another time the other person showed up with his roommate because he was nervous. Awkward. I wasn’t coerced into sexual acts I didn’t want to participate in on those “bad dates”. Can you see the difference in these examples and the one Sanman gave? The one where a woman was coerced into oral sex (among other things)? The one where the “accused” hasn’t actually challenged her version of events, and apologized the next day?

I don’t care if you do. I don’t actually think it’s useful for a group to try and be judge and jury on what was/wasn’t “bad” enough to be called sexual assault. The #metoo movement wasn’t *just* about calling out rape. It’s about exposing all types of problematic sexual behaviors.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, in what way was the oral sex coerced? She was never promised anything or threatened in any way and was free to leave the entire time. It was engaged in and then regretted. One party apologized to the other for miscommunication of signals and what occurred as one felt the date went well and the other clearly did not.
 
Psycycle said:
For me, it's not really about empathy. I honestly don't care if anyone on this forum empathizes with me. But I dislike being talked down to, and I have found it to be the case that it happens on here. I'd be interested in a study that looks at whose opinions/feedback are treated with respect and given thoughtful criticism and whose aren't. Because I'm okay with nuanced intellectual debate and criticism. But not with condescension disguised as brutally honest but good feedback.

Something came out awhile ago about the Arrested Development conversation that was held discussing the verbal abuse one of the actors gave one of the actresses. The men all basically joined together, primarily vocalized by Jason Bateman, and said no, Jeffrey's great, he's always been great to me, no issues, he's a role model. Well, of course, that's because you're in. You're part of the club. So for the males here to be talking with each other about how open the forum is to everyone... well, hang out with Jason Bateman I guess.

I've been on a lot of forums. This one isn't the worst, and isn't the best. But across the boards (pun intended), male posters who offered input of substance were treated with respect, while female posters who offered input of substance frequently were not, and worse, they were perceived as looking for empathy and hugs vs. wanting an honest intellectual conversation.
Click to expand...
Can you link to some instances of different genders saying the same thing and being treated differently here so we can see what you are talking about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tr
Sanman said:
Out of curiosity, in what way was the oral sex coerced? She was never promised anything or threatened in any way and was free to leave the entire time. It was engaged in and then regretted. One party apologized to the other for miscommunication of signals and what occurred as one felt the date went well and the other clearly did not.
Click to expand...

As far as how that coercion went, how well do you understand power dynamics? A famous man physically pursuing a fan after they’ve been asked to slow down? After they’ve physically moved away multiple times?

Again, I don’t think it’s useful to pick apart a specific story. Neither of us were there.

Definition of coerce

transitive verb
1: to compel to an act or choice
 
Jon Snow said:
That latter experience has not been my observation.

In some forums, even in heavily male dominated space, women can even garner a positivity bias toward their content. Women post here, clearly and many have had good responses to their content. There have also been men who post here who don’t have positive responses to their content. Some of who have been banned.

I’d treat this more idiosyncratically. There are likely correlates to certain types of response styles based on gender. But, it’s not gender itself that is driving differences in respect leve given to certain styles.

There was a study with actors in which they took Donald trumps debate performance and Hillary Clinton’s debate performance and reversed the genders. Trumps performance as a woman was preferred to Clinton’s as a man.

So, in that case, anyway, it’s not the biological sex that was the differentiating factor. Could be a gender linked communication style though.
Click to expand...
Agreed that it's likely not biological sex, but performative gender based communications styles. Regardless, I have not appreciated the condescending tone. I can only speak for myself ultimately, and don't have time to do a content analysis of the forum. It appears that other women are reporting the experience, though.
 
Jon Snow said:
Not only that, Aziz is clearly progressive, politically. If you’ve deviated so far left that people that share your ideology become the enemy....
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. So you think that men that are progressive don’t engage in sexually coercive behaviors? Interesting.

You are also making some interesting assumptions about my political stance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Perspectives on VA hiring slowdown?
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
M
new here....
Replies
6
Views
1K
Cobblestone
Cobblestone
B
CBT Trainings: Which are worth it?
Replies
29
Views
5K
cara susanna
cara susanna
DynamicDidactic
Who on here posted to Reddit?
Replies
9
Views
2K
The Cinnabon
The Cinnabon
~Soñadora~
What are the consequences of breaking APPIC match agreement?
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregK
G
Top