Archive for May, 2007
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Stereotyping
There is a mildly irritating sentiment in our society which (though I have no evidence of this) seems to be growing healthily among even liberal members of my generation that stereotyping social groups is okay because most stereotypes generally hold some truth to them. “They are stereotypes for a reason,” after all. A new study coming out of the University of Chicago goes some way toward refuting that mentality.
Psychologists at the university gave female students a math test followed by a non-mathematical test. Some of the female students were casually reminded before they took the test that men consistently do better than women at standardized math tests, while some of the female students were not given such a reminder. The female students who were given the reminder did more poorly on not only the math test, but the non-math-related test afterward. This led the psychologists to some interesting conclusions about brain power, as they determined that the stereotype reminder didn’t simply reduce the women’s expectations for themselves, but rather took up valuable space in their brains that could have otherwise been used to process the test questions. Even women who did not buy into stereotypes performed more poorly because they were thinking too much about how they didn’t want to be one of the women to perform poorly and thus grant support to the stereotype.
This is another in a long line of studies which demonstrate that reminding students of negative stereotypes of groups to which they belong makes them perform more poorly on tests. Even just being asked to fill in a bubble saying what your race or gender is (which pretty much every standardized test on the planet does) causes blacks and women to perform more poorly. Another study asked students seemingly benign questions like whether they lived in co-ed or single-sex dorms, and even this triggered thoughts of gender stereotypes and affected the students’ performances. The principle can work the other way, too, as when students were asked why they chose to attend a private liberal arts college, activating what one psychologist called the students’ “snob schema,” making them think about how smart they are and thus causing them to perform better on the test.
None of this, of course, proves that there is no truth to stereotypes (though in many of these cases the performance gaps normally cited between genders or races are almost entirely eliminated by not triggering thoughts of stereotypes). It does, however, go a long way in demonstrating the way in which stereotypes are often times self-fulfilling prophecies, that whether they are accurate or not may not have all that much to do with the natural abilities of a given gender or race but rather with the way the stereotypes themselves have disadvantaged women and minorities. And this, of course, would lend support to the position that while stereotypes do not hold any great degree of truth, those who believe they do are in fact contributing to their damaging effects.
I think most people would agree with this conclusion when it comes to racism (I don’t know of many people who still argue that whites are the naturally superior race), though I suspect many do not adhere to it when it comes to gender. There are, of course, at least some minimal natural differences between men and women due to genetics and hormones, but I personally am of the belief that the wide gulf that has been created between the genders is almost entirely socially constructed. These studies are another reason to maintain that belief.
Stupid Foreign Policy Tricks
I’ve been planning this article for some time, but I’ve been waiting for something suitably illustrative to show up in order to give it the punch that’s really needed to make my point.
Those of you in the know about networks and are computer savvy probably know about what has been happening in Estonia over the past month. For the rest, let me bring you up to speed by linking to this.
The really short version is that it is very likely that the Kremlin has orchestrated a cyber-conflict over the recently independent nation’s disrespect for the Russian dead of World War 2. It may be hard for a Westerner to understand, since the realities of the Second World War in the then-Soviet Union are so horrific as to be incomprehensible. Let me give you one simple statistic that should bring it into perspective: The Soviet Union lost more civilians in Leningrad during its siege than the United States did soldiers during the entirety of the War.
Lally would know better than I what the present feelings in Moscow are about The Great Patriotic War for her generation, but the older generations in Russia lionized their war dead.
There is also a lot of remaining hard feelings in the Baltic Republics over the ill-treatment of the intelligensia during their occupation by the Soviet Union for the fifty years following the war. Therefore, the moving of a statue symbolizing the Russian dead was not the trivial thing that one would imagine.
Normally, this would not present a problem for us. Russia has imposed sanctions, there’ve been some riots in Tallinn, a cyber-attack that might be due to someone getting over-excited in the Security Agency, some border tension. No big deal, right?
WRONG, WRONG AND MORE WRONG
The neo-conservatives within the Bush administration have seen fit that in order to insure the victory of “democracy” in the world, it was necessary for the Baltic states to join NATO.
Let me show you something from the NATO charter:
ARTICLE 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area…
Ladies and gentlemen, what this means is that the United States government, (while you weren’t looking) has gotten us into a situation where, if the Russians decide that the Estonians have pissed on their statue and invade, the United States is obligated, by treaty, to go to war with them.
And that, I believe, speaks for itself. You can be horrified now.
Tom
Heroes, part 3
Over the weekend, I received a lovely email from a wife and mother of two who lives in one of the nearby small towns around Urbana. She wrote to me in response to the question that I posited last week about what we could do personally to help save the world. I want to share it, since it demonstrates the quiet sort of heroics that has been characteristic of this nation since its inception in its dedication to family.
My response-
1) Be an all-out totally awesome mom. To me, that means loving them while teaching limits and responsibility. It means sacrificing personal goals and desires for the betterment of the family. It means teaching my children morals and how to interact in society according to their abilities and personalities. It means understanding my kids and their inherent talents, and guiding them in a path that will teach them how to enhance their awesome parts as well as strengthen their weaknesses. It means paying attention to what is important to them. It means listening well when they talk to me. It means laughter, music, hugs, jokes, fun times and a lot of prayer on my part. It means explaining difficult and painful things with compassion and tenderness. It means not being fair all the time. It means reading to them- the Bible, the Hobbit, the paper- just the written word; and exposing them to new ideas. It means trying to teach them to think for themselves while teaching to act respectfully to the adults in charge. It means paying attention when my gut says something is WRONG and even breaking off a longstanding relationship to protect my kids from harm. It means never, ever, ever making my kids feel like they aren’t good enough, or that the other is so much better that they feel like failures. It means making active choices to listen to the unspoken messages they send and CHANGE when I’m causing them an avoidable unpleasantness or harm through my behavior. It means that they are the “bomb-diggety” all the time, and I do what I can to let them know it. My kids rock! With rockin’ kids, maybe I can influence the world- but even if not, I know I am making an impact and positive change by being a parent that gives a damn.
2) Be a hella-good wife to my husband. This is an area that is constantly in need of improvement. I’m working hard to be what he needs me to be, and give him the tools he needs to be his best. I know that being his wife is making a difference, and I am committed to doing it. I’ll admit that there have been and will be times when I had enough- but I always told him about it. How he responded has varied, but we’re still at it after more than 15 years. Helping him find the tools he has needed to become the man he is now has been immensely rewarding. I have witnessed awesome and powerful changes, and it is pretty cool to be part of it, even if it is just a small part. Watching him grow into who he is, and who he will be, is a blessing I gladly recieve. I can’t lie and say that it’s not difficult- neither of us make the relationship easy. But being a wife that honors, respects, loves, adores and works hard for him will help him. There’s a great promise in helping your mate be their best- and watching what they become and how they change the world around them. I know that being the best wife possible to him is important and of value.
3) Grow up. I’m on the way, but I know it’s a constant process. The more I seek maturity and direction, the more likely I am able to affect real changes to those around me. I work hard to act in a moral and compassionate way in my daily life, but I’m certain that through growth and positive change, I can do more to help my neighbor, coworker, someone I randomly encounter at the store, the parents of my kids’ friends, or my kids’ friends, or whomever I come across in my daily path. Being selfless and mindful of others, being responsive and compassionate, being accountable and responsible- they all make a difference.
Thanks a lot for sharing this. It made my day.
Tom
And Now, a Word from Ron Paul
Elderwife, especially note the good things he has to say about War Tax Refusers.
Tom
To Serve One’s Country
Now I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about service. Public service is one of our greatest values. We do it when we volunteer, when we work in charity, public interest, government, and the military. The kind of service I’m talking about today is the last one. Military service. I’ve heard presidential contenders talk about how we need to increase the size of the standing army. I’ve heard liberals talk about bringing our troops home and not getting into senseless wars. I’ve heard conservatives talk about the lack of shared sacrifice and national unity (patriotism). And I have a bold suggestion that would answer all three of these issues.
I know I’m not the first, I won’t be the last, but my reasoning is different from most people I’ve talked to about the issue. We should have compulsory national service. Yeah, I’m talking about the military. No, I didn’t drink any special punch, kool aid, or a special carmel mochiatto. I’m serious. We should have compulsory national military service for maybe 2 years for everyone. Abolish the standing army and go back to a citizen-militia or keep a small core of specialists and a large reserve of citizen-militia. For those who are physically unable to do the training or who are already exempt from military service (religious grounds, disability, etc) they can do logistical support and get job training to boot.
This proposal would work towards solving all three issues cited at the beginning.
1) It would greatly increase the size of the military
2) It would ensure a much greater degree of accountability in the use of the military. Anyone wonder why the Iraq war protests died after a few months? It’s because there was no draft. No one who doesn’t want to fight has to. If it doesn’t have a direct and immediate impact on people’s lives, it’s really easy to let it go.
3) It would make people give something up for their countrymen. I’m not talking about full-time service for two or three years, I’m talking serious training for 3-6 months, and on-call duty for a few years. Sort of like the national guard (except the politicians would have to be VERY careful how they used them since they’d be conscripts).
Now I know the first objection to this idea will probably be from Tom. Tom, relax. This would actually create something closer to what you think of as the perfect government – an armed and militarily trained citizenry that the politicians are terrified of pissing off. This could also help the poor by giving them skills training for free and wouldn’t disrupt lives too much. Ok so the kids would have to delay college by a year maybe. Actually if the training were done the summer after high school, they wouldn’t have to miss anything more serious than their backpacking trip across Europe (spoiled snots). Thoughts?
To Serve One’s Country
Now I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about service. Public service is one of our greatest values. We do it when we volunteer, when we work in charity, public interest, government, and the military. The kind of service I’m talking about today is the last one. Military service. I’ve heard presidential contenders talk about how we need to increase the size of the standing army. I’ve heard liberals talk about bringing our troops home and not getting into senseless wars. I’ve heard conservatives talk about the lack of shared sacrifice and national unity (patriotism). And I have a bold suggestion that would answer all three of these issues.
I know I’m not the first, I won’t be the last, but my reasoning is different from most people I’ve talked to about the issue. We should have compulsory national service. Yeah, I’m talking about the military. No, I didn’t drink any special punch, kool aid, or a special carmel mochiatto. I’m serious. We should have compulsory national military service for maybe 2 years for everyone. Abolish the standing army and go back to a citizen-militia or keep a small core of specialists and a large reserve of citizen-militia. For those who are physically unable to do the training or who are already exempt from military service (religious grounds, disability, etc) they can do logistical support and get job training to boot.
This proposal would work towards solving all three issues cited at the beginning.
1) It would greatly increase the size of the military
2) It would ensure a much greater degree of accountability in the use of the military. Anyone wonder why the Iraq war protests died after a few months? It’s because there was no draft. No one who doesn’t want to fight has to. If it doesn’t have a direct and immediate impact on people’s lives, it’s really easy to let it go.
3) It would make people give something up for their countrymen. I’m not talking about full-time service for two or three years, I’m talking serious training for 3-6 months, and on-call duty for a few years. Sort of like the national guard (except the politicians would have to be VERY careful how they used them since they’d be conscripts).
Now I know the first objection to this idea will probably be from Tom. Tom, relax. This would actually create something closer to what you think of as the perfect government – an armed and militarily trained citizenry that the politicians are terrified of pissing off. This could also help the poor by giving them skills training for free and wouldn’t disrupt lives too much. Ok so the kids would have to delay college by a year maybe. Actually if the training were done the summer after high school, they wouldn’t have to miss anything more serious than their backpacking trip across Europe (spoiled snots). Thoughts?
To Serve One’s Country
Now I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about service. Public service is one of our greatest values. We do it when we volunteer, when we work in charity, public interest, government, and the military. The kind of service I’m talking about today is the last one. Military service. I’ve heard presidential contenders talk about how we need to increase the size of the standing army. I’ve heard liberals talk about bringing our troops home and not getting into senseless wars. I’ve heard conservatives talk about the lack of shared sacrifice and national unity (patriotism). And I have a bold suggestion that would answer all three of these issues.
I know I’m not the first, I won’t be the last, but my reasoning is different from most people I’ve talked to about the issue. We should have compulsory national service. Yeah, I’m talking about the military. No, I didn’t drink any special punch, kool aid, or a special carmel mochiatto. I’m serious. We should have compulsory national military service for maybe 2 years for everyone. Abolish the standing army and go back to a citizen-militia or keep a small core of specialists and a large reserve of citizen-militia. For those who are physically unable to do the training or who are already exempt from military service (religious grounds, disability, etc) they can do logistical support and get job training to boot.
This proposal would work towards solving all three issues cited at the beginning.
1) It would greatly increase the size of the military
2) It would ensure a much greater degree of accountability in the use of the military. Anyone wonder why the Iraq war protests died after a few months? It’s because there was no draft. No one who doesn’t want to fight has to. If it doesn’t have a direct and immediate impact on people’s lives, it’s really easy to let it go.
3) It would make people give something up for their countrymen. I’m not talking about full-time service for two or three years, I’m talking serious training for 3-6 months, and on-call duty for a few years. Sort of like the national guard (except the politicians would have to be VERY careful how they used them since they’d be conscripts).
Now I know the first objection to this idea will probably be from Tom. Tom, relax. This would actually create something closer to what you think of as the perfect government – an armed and militarily trained citizenry that the politicians are terrified of pissing off. This could also help the poor by giving them skills training for free and wouldn’t disrupt lives too much. Ok so the kids would have to delay college by a year maybe. Actually if the training were done the summer after high school, they wouldn’t have to miss anything more serious than their backpacking trip across Europe (spoiled snots). Thoughts?
Proof
If there was any doubt left in my mind that I was the biggest nerd in existence, it was removed this afternoon when I read this and said to myself, “Wow, D&D isn’t anything LIKE a bong. What the hell is he talking about?”
Tom
The Great Debate Continues
Woody Allen takes on Billy Graham. Why can’t interviews like this happen on TV today?
Part I
Part II
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
Seven Reasons Doctor Who Is Better Than Jesus
I love Home on the Strange.
Tom