Project Implicit
- Thread starter tank girl
- Start date
So, as scientists discover more & more genetic coding that says you WILL hate blue eyed brown haired children or you are powerless to stop yourself from becoming a drug/alcohol addict or you are incapable of supplanting your physical pleasure base and are no more than an animal & a victim of circumstance, there will be no more need for groups lke the ACLU or the United Nations because we simply can't help ourselves.
tank girl
New Member
no, in fact quite the opposite.
source
as soon as we recognise implicit bias we are more able (and usually, willing) to scrutinise ourselves and right the wrongs that we have inherently learned through learned societal/cultural prejudice.
[
Gonz, I'm sorry I must've missed what college you went to that gave you such authority to be so dismissive of research which offers so much potential to ALL of us as far as exploring and working on the various unconcious prejudices still underlying the fabric of contemporary "free" society]
as much as I disagree with your point of view, Gonz - I thank you for your input -it is a rich if not somewhat confusing perspective to those who are not similarly "enlightened" as you see yourself to be. See, that is the essence of freedom of speech. (I would like to think the same could occur in return.)
But I have to ask you whether you are able to see beyond the comfortable confines of your own world-view and really see that I and in particular this sort of post is one made for the sake of humanity not for the sake of your own insular world.
(I take it you didn't even bother to attempt one of the tests)
source
as soon as we recognise implicit bias we are more able (and usually, willing) to scrutinise ourselves and right the wrongs that we have inherently learned through learned societal/cultural prejudice.
[
Gonz, I'm sorry I must've missed what college you went to that gave you such authority to be so dismissive of research which offers so much potential to ALL of us as far as exploring and working on the various unconcious prejudices still underlying the fabric of contemporary "free" society] as much as I disagree with your point of view, Gonz - I thank you for your input -it is a rich if not somewhat confusing perspective to those who are not similarly "enlightened" as you see yourself to be. See, that is the essence of freedom of speech. (I would like to think the same could occur in return.)
But I have to ask you whether you are able to see beyond the comfortable confines of your own world-view and really see that I and in particular this sort of post is one made for the sake of humanity not for the sake of your own insular world.
(I take it you didn't even bother to attempt one of the tests)
chcr
Too cute for words
I took the religion one (pure curiosity on my part). I'm not anti-semitic, but on the other hand I don't "prefer" one religion to another; in fact I find them all equally in error. I really didn't find the test very conclusive or very well thought out. I'm guessing it was designed by pre-grad psych students as a project. Oh, and TG, I went to Cornell University, but I dropped out to make what was then for me a ton of money playing guitar in a rock and roll band (hope that makes you feel better about my comments).
tank girl
New Member
Inkara1 said:
I'm a natural Genius
*yup, comedy hour at OTC.
no, this thread wasn't another excuse to bash me... (But if you take that opportunity, once again, I'm sure that can only further demonstrate how retarded some of you appear to be if you can only resort to that)I genuinely am interested in this research, I think its extremely important to recognise hidden bias - and I'm genuinely interested in seeing what sort of results 'y'all' get.
However, this intitial reaction only proves that you only have one: as suggested - 'the easy path' : an immediate defensive and ignorant denial without stopping to think that I might actually have a reasonable point to make here.
believe it or not I actually recieved a 'moderate' result for the few that I tried....
And Gonz, wildly off the mark, as usual - just thought I'd point out to you that this is not the simple matter of "scientists" telling people "what to do" but psychologists (from Harvard, the University of Virginia and the University of Washington - might I add) exploring ways to help people become more aware of their prejudices in order to attempt to ger people think and act on them.
unclehobart
New Member
Ad hominem
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is 1) a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself; 2) an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.
Ad hominem as logical fallacy
A traditional, regular (fallacious) ad hominem argument was identified by Aristotle in his On Sophistical Refutations and has the basic form:
Regular Ad Hominem
A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.
An inverted (fallacious) ad hominem argument was only identified as such more recently. Traditionally it would have been considered only an appeal to authority fallacy which, it also is. The inversion can be seen as, and called as such when, an implication to "appeal to authority-lacking" regarding the opponent is obvious. Stated as such it is a better reflection of the bind the fallacymonger finds himself in, in presenting this fallacy, especially when self-referencing credentials as a critical point to an argument and, particularly when the claim is, to his own authority or, authority for it's own sake. It has the basic form:
Inverted Ad Hominem
A makes claim B;
there is something desirable about A,
therefore claim B is true.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Other positive arguments to the person are discussed under appeal to authority.
Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.
Usage
A regular ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than about the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount her arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect.
An inverted ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is correct and/or they are correct to argue at all purely because of something creditable/authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than the argument itself. The implication is that the person need not even bother to defend against an attack on the soundness of his arguments because of this very credibility/authority. The other implication which can be seen as either leading to or following from the preceding implication, being that a potential opponent lacks this very same credibility/authority. This "appeal to authority" and/or implied "appeal to authority-lacking" leaves the fallacymonger in a serious bind as it also implies a hidden premise which itself defeats his argument. This premise may then be 'granted' by any victim of this fallacy and her argument is all but made.
Bind example: A recognizably credentialed professional logician (Fallacymonger) vs. a layperson (Fallacymongered); Fallacymonger - "You are wrong to argue with me about matters of logic because I am an expert in this field. Because you lack this expertise yourself, I refuse to waste my time arguing with you at all about this matter." Fallacymongered - "I will grant you this premise: That I would have to be a fool to argue that you are wrong in this regard simply because most, if not all, professional logicians agree that an 'appeal to authority' of this sort is a fallacy." By granting this premise the fallacymongered acknowledges and forces the fallacymonger likewise to acknowledge A) he is already arguing with her and B) a willingness to argue from first principles if required, in order to make their respective cases. She must still present a sound argument, but so must the fallacymonger. Note that if he rejects her offer of the granted premise then he acknowledges, A) her right to cite his own peers to establish the fallaciousness of his argument or B) her right to ignore likewise the rules of logic, and so assume authority fallaciously herself (which of course leads to absurdity). But if he accepts the granted premise then, he has defeated himself undoubtedly, for he acknowledges that he would have to be a fool himself to use his own expertise in this way. Either way she has established her right to question his authority and his need to defend his authority logically. Note also that in this example the fallacymonger is also fallaciously begging the question by claiming his authority by appealing to his own authority. This is of course a rather silly example, but unfortunately it is in principle a common situation. One need only consider the circular arguments of someone defending their religion by invoking the authority of the God of that same religion to defend the authority of the church or bible of that very same religion which, in turn the authority of, are used to defend the authority of that same God and the artifacts themselves. This is of course an inversion of the all too common regular (fallacious) ad hominem arguments of those who discredit secular views as evil and, claim those views are therefore invalid. (Inverted-Ad Hominem is a term first coined by Layman at The Brights Forums (http://www.the-brights.net/forums/index.php?act=idx). A bright being a person whose worldview is naturalistic.)
Conversely, not all regular ad hominem attacks are insulting. "Paula says it is impossible for her to murder a man, but this is false because Paula has never lost her temper." Nor likewise are all inverted ad hominem defenses self flattering - "I say it is impossible for me to murder a man, and this is true because I often lose my temper."
Subtypes
Three traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.
Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that--usually, anyway--insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions.
An example: "Jack is wrong when he says there is no God because he is a convicted felon."
Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way.
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy.
It is important to note that the above argument is not irrational, although it is not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
Ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a claim is dismissed either because it is inconsistent with other claims that the claimant is making or because the claim is about actions the claimant has engaged in, too.
"You say airplanes fly because of physics, but this is false because you said earlier airplanes fly because of magic."
"You cannot accuse me of libel because what you do is libel as well."
The tu quoque form is often a specific kind of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is 1) a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself; 2) an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.
Ad hominem as logical fallacy
A traditional, regular (fallacious) ad hominem argument was identified by Aristotle in his On Sophistical Refutations and has the basic form:
Regular Ad Hominem
A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.
An inverted (fallacious) ad hominem argument was only identified as such more recently. Traditionally it would have been considered only an appeal to authority fallacy which, it also is. The inversion can be seen as, and called as such when, an implication to "appeal to authority-lacking" regarding the opponent is obvious. Stated as such it is a better reflection of the bind the fallacymonger finds himself in, in presenting this fallacy, especially when self-referencing credentials as a critical point to an argument and, particularly when the claim is, to his own authority or, authority for it's own sake. It has the basic form:
Inverted Ad Hominem
A makes claim B;
there is something desirable about A,
therefore claim B is true.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Other positive arguments to the person are discussed under appeal to authority.
Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.
Usage
A regular ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than about the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount her arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect.
An inverted ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is correct and/or they are correct to argue at all purely because of something creditable/authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than the argument itself. The implication is that the person need not even bother to defend against an attack on the soundness of his arguments because of this very credibility/authority. The other implication which can be seen as either leading to or following from the preceding implication, being that a potential opponent lacks this very same credibility/authority. This "appeal to authority" and/or implied "appeal to authority-lacking" leaves the fallacymonger in a serious bind as it also implies a hidden premise which itself defeats his argument. This premise may then be 'granted' by any victim of this fallacy and her argument is all but made.
Bind example: A recognizably credentialed professional logician (Fallacymonger) vs. a layperson (Fallacymongered); Fallacymonger - "You are wrong to argue with me about matters of logic because I am an expert in this field. Because you lack this expertise yourself, I refuse to waste my time arguing with you at all about this matter." Fallacymongered - "I will grant you this premise: That I would have to be a fool to argue that you are wrong in this regard simply because most, if not all, professional logicians agree that an 'appeal to authority' of this sort is a fallacy." By granting this premise the fallacymongered acknowledges and forces the fallacymonger likewise to acknowledge A) he is already arguing with her and B) a willingness to argue from first principles if required, in order to make their respective cases. She must still present a sound argument, but so must the fallacymonger. Note that if he rejects her offer of the granted premise then he acknowledges, A) her right to cite his own peers to establish the fallaciousness of his argument or B) her right to ignore likewise the rules of logic, and so assume authority fallaciously herself (which of course leads to absurdity). But if he accepts the granted premise then, he has defeated himself undoubtedly, for he acknowledges that he would have to be a fool himself to use his own expertise in this way. Either way she has established her right to question his authority and his need to defend his authority logically. Note also that in this example the fallacymonger is also fallaciously begging the question by claiming his authority by appealing to his own authority. This is of course a rather silly example, but unfortunately it is in principle a common situation. One need only consider the circular arguments of someone defending their religion by invoking the authority of the God of that same religion to defend the authority of the church or bible of that very same religion which, in turn the authority of, are used to defend the authority of that same God and the artifacts themselves. This is of course an inversion of the all too common regular (fallacious) ad hominem arguments of those who discredit secular views as evil and, claim those views are therefore invalid. (Inverted-Ad Hominem is a term first coined by Layman at The Brights Forums (http://www.the-brights.net/forums/index.php?act=idx). A bright being a person whose worldview is naturalistic.)
Conversely, not all regular ad hominem attacks are insulting. "Paula says it is impossible for her to murder a man, but this is false because Paula has never lost her temper." Nor likewise are all inverted ad hominem defenses self flattering - "I say it is impossible for me to murder a man, and this is true because I often lose my temper."
Subtypes
Three traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.
Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that--usually, anyway--insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions.
An example: "Jack is wrong when he says there is no God because he is a convicted felon."
Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way.
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy.
It is important to note that the above argument is not irrational, although it is not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
Ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a claim is dismissed either because it is inconsistent with other claims that the claimant is making or because the claim is about actions the claimant has engaged in, too.
"You say airplanes fly because of physics, but this is false because you said earlier airplanes fly because of magic."
"You cannot accuse me of libel because what you do is libel as well."
The tu quoque form is often a specific kind of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
tank girl
New Member
ah! you really know you've reached notoriety when you're being quoted out-of context on another thread...
should I be rehearsing my Oscar speech or what.
I know it may be hard for y'all to try and ignore my celebrity appeal, but just please behave yourselves and address the topic of the thread or else get back to the bitchin thread where ya'll belong...now do y'hear?
should I be rehearsing my Oscar speech or what.
I know it may be hard for y'all to try and ignore my celebrity appeal, but just please behave yourselves and address the topic of the thread or else get back to the bitchin thread where ya'll belong...now do y'hear?
tank girl
New Member
unclehobart said:
gawsh i didn't realise I had to reform to such a strict lesson in accuracy on a lil old bulletin board called "OFF TOPIC". Darlin' i thought you would have acknowledge that by now, being THAT anal about being "right" and "accurate" clearlly isn't my style. You'd probably notice by my spelling that my efforts are clearly more absorbed in more important ideas than trying to get everything flawless.
I enjoy being opinionated, dammit - and I didn't see anywhere in the rules that insisted that everyone be perfectly refined in argument and grammar in order to get "top marks". Obviously, here I don't place any importance on trying to impress anyone - no-one would listen to me here anyway due to the obvious dominance of right-wingers here - I place importance on expression, full stop. If I wanted to be concerned about being accurate I would do that in my studies, where I get genuine recognition for my ideas and intelligence and thats exactly what I do. Here, I am having fun, and I think having fun to an extent without restriction and being able to express myself the way I want to be is fine and thats how I feel that things should be. I'm not imposing anything on anyone and not directing anything personally offensive to anyone except for where you choose to interpret that to be so. And if I do step over the line its only due to your own provocation of me in the first place.
Its you that appears to need to impose a set some kind of precedent that I should live up to. however in no way do I profess to anyone that everything I say is right, I merely offer my point of view up for criticism, I believe in standing up for what you believe in. But I also realise that I'm not right, I'm not trying to prove something and try and convince anyone to follow my perspective....by any means, in fact - I'm a firm believer that the more you learn the less you know but what really gets me is that you think you have some sort of right to mock me, bash me, as if you're the elite authority on who is right or wrong, and you being the only "right" ones of course. If you genuinely believed in freedom and in a democratic shout then you should be genuinely willing to let me shout to my hearts content no matter how much you despise my viewpoint, my inaccuracies and contradictions - the point is, I at least have the passion to speak up and be vocal despite ridicule and its that passion that should be respected and not my errors. Thats the beauty of free speech, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
If you criticise me thats fine - and I just love the conflict
I thought that was quite obvious by now - but you persist to play my ball game, and frankly I'm not complaining because it gives me so much more incentive to express myself.it just happens that I'm of a highly cynical, sarcastic and volatile nature - but trust me, theres a lot of good things about me too...
I should be thanking y'all for being so encouraging!
Just don't be so sensitive when i'm naturally critical of you in return too
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Show us your boobies and see what biased responses you get.
Personally, I like the centered sloping ones, maybe its genetic.
Personally, I like the centered sloping ones, maybe its genetic.
Winky
Well-Known Member
All the boyz and even some of the "Gurls" are biased towards Hot young honey's.
And this one's a real Tiger!
My Prob is the best response I've been able to elicit
from her recently is:
tell ya one thing if she ends up getting paid 'by the word' she's gonna be a blinkin' millionare lol
And this one's a real Tiger!
My Prob is the best response I've been able to elicit
from her recently is:
tank girl said:Winks - I won't satisfy you by attacking that ridiculous comment...
tell ya one thing if she ends up getting paid 'by the word' she's gonna be a blinkin' millionare lol
DFisherman
New Member
Good Evening (EDT) Kamarads,
My belief is that in fact the more interesting "debate" (I find myself at a loss for words, forgive me as English is not my native language) on the metagolocical level is the discussion of the application or meaning of the test itself being co-opted by multiple adherents of said test or others.
Following the thread(s) is(are) more interesting reading than the threads or information sessions which deal with taking any of the tests, or even discuss it's connotations and the feelings it genarates in the participants.
I find it quite amusing, entertaining, and stimulating.
Cheers,
- DFisherman
P.S.: I know, I'm easily amused.
Cheers,
- DF
My belief is that in fact the more interesting "debate" (I find myself at a loss for words, forgive me as English is not my native language) on the metagolocical level is the discussion of the application or meaning of the test itself being co-opted by multiple adherents of said test or others.
Following the thread(s) is(are) more interesting reading than the threads or information sessions which deal with taking any of the tests, or even discuss it's connotations and the feelings it genarates in the participants.
I find it quite amusing, entertaining, and stimulating.
Cheers,
- DFisherman
P.S.: I know, I'm easily amused.
Cheers,
- DF
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I love the entire concept of tossing out your own real life experiences and replacing them with some neutered concepts of Political Correctness.
Can you say impeachment, infidelity? .... I thought you could.
Oh to be young again, the bliss of it all.
Psychology Today - Can you trust first impressions? said:
Can you say impeachment, infidelity? .... I thought you could.
Oh to be young again, the bliss of it all.
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
Amazing how you wrote all that and yet failed to answer my question with anything other than some sort of "natural genius" horseshit. I posed my question because you had just slammed whatever education Gonz might have had. It's only fair that we know what qualifies you to do so.tank girl said:I'm a natural Genius
*yup, comedy hour at OTC.
I genuinely am interested in this research, I think its extremely important to recognise hidden bias - and I'm genuinely interested in seeing what sort of results 'y'all' get.
However, this intitial reaction only proves that you only have one: as suggested - 'the easy path' : an immediate defensive and ignorant denial without stopping to think that I might actually have a reasonable point to make here.
believe it or not I actually recieved a 'moderate' result for the few that I tried....
And Gonz, wildly off the mark, as usual - just thought I'd point out to you that this is not the simple matter of "scientists" telling people "what to do" but psychologists (from Harvard, the University of Virginia and the University of Washington - might I add) exploring ways to help people become more aware of their prejudices in order to attempt to ger people think and act on them.