Mediation,Conflict Resolution,'s topics - tribe.net

Swimming through apologies

2008-08-03T08:12:16Z

I believe that people should not be forced to apologize. This is because I believe apologies should be completely sincere. And forced apologies are rarely sincere. As such, I'd prefer not to receive an apology than receive a forced apology which is, therefore, a fake apology. Besides, forcing people to apologize is a form of bullying. And since I believe bullying is a counterproductive form of behavior, I'd rather let the person who did me wrong apologize on their own.

I recently came to the conclusion that this view is a form of forgiveness or at least something close to it. Forgiveness, as I understand it, is an important step toward conflict resolution. On the most part, I suck at forgiveness. But hopefully my tolerance toward not receiving apologies might help improve my capacity for forgiveness eventually.

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 3 replies

Logical Fallacies

2008-05-20T04:01:35Z

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 16 replies

Peaceful Elizabeth

2007-09-12T10:49:56Z

She's into mediation and conflict resolution! And her Peaceful Husband is running for US President. I am so Grateful!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274035,00.html
Her and her Soulmate, Dennis will do wonders with us All!
http://people.tribe.net/89320b2e-5857-4066-bb80-0b4d93779a26/photos/dda27375-c3e7-437e-a08e-f0008b92fa34
Peace, Deborah

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 1 reply

Conflict Resolution

2007-09-12T10:38:08Z

http://www.wiserearth.org/aof/177

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 1 reply

Nonlethal weapons

2007-09-12T10:36:59Z

What abut the issue of nonlethal weapons? Or more specifically, nonlethal weapons that really work. I feel that that is an important step toward nonviolent conflict resoltion, though I admit that current nonlethal weapons don't work very well.

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 1 reply

Charlie Chaplin ~ The Dictator

2007-08-21T16:45:39Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4&mode=related&search=

Let us be big beings and send love and compassion to dictators big and small, for they need to learn that we can be trusted and that peace is indeed possible.

Peace, Deborah

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 0 replies

War Posters (A Way To End War)

2007-08-20T04:04:10Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7cszTjO0uo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople%2Etribe%2Enet%2Fcc2c269d%2D8561%2D4c43%2D92f2%2Dd67e1a980d67

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 0 replies

John Hagelin on Peace and Conflict Resolution

2007-08-10T02:00:25Z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhw4TS5IQBk&mode=related&search=

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 2 replies

The Third Party Law

2007-08-10T01:57:34Z

This stuff works!!
http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH8_1.HTM

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 2 replies

Do you ever get the feeling that you HAVE to do this sometimes?!

2007-08-08T03:44:07Z

I'm ALL For this!! For what if we don't??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9klv9q19rTY

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 1 reply

collaboration

2007-06-18T08:22:47Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_method
Collaborative methods are processes, behaviors and conversations that relate to collaboration between individuals.[1] These methods specifically aim to increase the success of teams as they engage in collaborative problem solving. Forms, rubrics, charts and graphs are useful in these situations to objectively document personal traits with the goal improving performance in current and future projects.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collaboration
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa1lk26.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_collaboration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration
http://collaboration.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.networkworld.com/topics/collaboration.html
http://www.npd-solutions.com/collaboration.html

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 0 replies

how do you get rid of chronic infantile pests?....

2007-06-04T04:29:26Z

......with whom you CAN'T negotiate, because they get such a kick out of bugging you? now, please DON'T tell me "just ignore the guy", because that doesn't work with this fool. i've ignored him many a time & he STILL comes out with his bullshit; in fact as often as not he'll deliberately make it impossible for me to ignore him!
on with my story... i have an aquaintance (& that's ALL he is to me, we know almost nothing about eachother) who, for YEARS now, whenever he sees me, calls out to me with the same inane, infantile "joke". he gets a big kick out of it. he gets a big kick out of annoying me, & it hardly matters if i gnore him, he'll do it anyway. i've asked him to stop & it made no difference. in our last encounter, my reaction consisted of getting in his face & screaming at him. he just got this shit-eating grin on his face & walked on. *perhaps* i won't have to put up with this guy after that, but in case i do...what the fuck should i do?

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 8 replies

Mindgames and Manipulation

2007-06-04T04:26:15Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipulation
http://www.beth-young.com/batter.html

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 4 replies

Mob Psychology

2006-11-14T23:06:18Z

Mob psychology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Mob psychology is a theoretical approach attempting to explain collective behavior solely on the basis of the psychological states of people who participate. Mob Psychology is similar to terms such as: crowd psychology and group mentality. It is portrayed in many works of literature, including William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

Mob psychology shows that individuals tend to behave in a different manner as part of a group in contrast to acting independently. Members of a group are prone to acting in ways that they would deem immoral or unjust if in control of their behavior. This is not due to change in one's belief or principle, but rather the fact that individuals tend to ignore or avoid one's conscience or rational judgement. It can be said that individuals in a group defer their goals and take upon the identity of the group. Therefore, members of a group are likely to commit acts they would never commit alone. Being in a group allows individuals to defer blame, responsibility, accountability, and/or judgement upon the group.

There exist many evidence and examples of mob psychology in modern society. One example is the persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust. The Nazi party blamed Germany's weak economy at the time upon the Jews. Experts and scholars have long pondered how an entire nation came to persecute their Jewish neighbors. Jews were harassed and treated with the utmost insolence. Another example is the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), uniting under the principles of Anglo-Saxon pride, nationalism, and segregration. The Ku-Klux-Klan persecuted African-Americans, promoting segregation under Jim Crow laws, and even murdered innocent people. Ironically the North American continent was first inhabited, not by whites, but by Native Americans, also termed Indians, by Christopher Columbus. Both the Nazis and members of the KKK feel that their race is superior to others' and united under a common identity. Nazis had numerous symbols and emblems that they bore, and the KKK dressed in white cloaks and hoods, masking their identity. Books that have been written that exhibit mob psychology include Lord of the Flies by William Golding and George Orwell's 1984.

[edit]
See also
crowd psychology
group think
This psychology-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_psychology"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_psychology

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 5 replies

Integrity and lucidity of local authority

2006-10-13T21:00:53Z

A very great deal hinges on this, ultimately, if a person is determined to be abusive, theres nothing you can do about it if the local authorities won't act.

There are two main issues to contend with obviously as to why they will or won't act.

The first is whether or not they have integrity. Integrity means having a sense of right and wrong and a preference for right over wrong. Sadly enough, most people actually don't have integrity. Most people are embroiled in the model of interpersonal relationships that is based on open warfare.

If your moderator or admin simply hasn't got integrity, theres no use appealing to it or to them for any kind of mercy. The truth is, such people only want things to be easy for them
personally; they don't care whats right or wrong, they just want ease of manuevering their
own agendas.

Lucidity is the other issue. Some people who do have integrity simply don't know how to make sense of abusive behaviors. Fallacious morality such as appeals to "free speach"
are a great example of this problem.

Lucidity is a spectrum of potentials based really on whether or not a person has intellectual
tools such as logic, psychology, or sociology under their belts.

If your moderator or admin doesn't have lucidity, they simply don't know how to make sense of abusive people.

Most public forums and boards and chatrooms actually operate on a zero integrity model of social darwinism. Wikipedia, Tribe, Yahoo, MSN, etc, all more or less don't care whats right or wrong, only whether or not theres a legal issue.

(the proofs for this are available upon request.)

Tribe benefits from the model of moderator as king/queen of their own tribe, in that if you have a moderator with integrity or lucidity, which many tribes do, then you can actually appeal to that person and they will actually care and understand. Tribe suffers from the reverse, like lots of such adventures or groups; once you have made enemies with a troll from one tribe, you may be able to appeal to the moderator there, but the admins at the top simply don't care about stalkers and trolls and won't do anything about it if you are stalked from place to place and tribe to tribe by a troll, unless their behavior crosses obvious lines.

The Code of conduct under such governments is simply a legal neccessity, but it carries only as much weight as the willingness to enforce it goes. Tribe quite apparently enforces its code of conduct selectively, and this raises serious questions.

Sadly, the only hope for a person who is stalked from tribe to tribe by a troll is to take the invariable advice of tribes troll freindly system; to ignore the troll. While this makes life easy for the administration, its a useless tactic for the victim since tribe doesn't do anything to follow up regarding the trolls activities.

Tribe staff are clearly freinds with the trolls; and its likely that tribe staff know the trolls in real life.

Due to the above problems, it is not in a trolls interest to bother to make peace, and abusive people know that they can simply continue to be abusive without regard for any sort of consequences. This means that mediation and conflict resolution on places like tribe is usually useless. Theres no point in extending a hand of peace to those who will see such a move as a sign of weakness, and who know that they simply won't be held accountable for their actions.

Because of this circular self manifesting cycle, tribe staff becomes increasingly insulated by their trolls; they are involved in a groupthink experiment where their policy drives off non-troll contributors, and in which they only recieve feedback from the trolls they keep as pets.

This again, flies back into a circuit. Since tribe is troll freindly, and since it has driven out
non-abusive people by telling them to ignore the trolls, and since what is thus left is a community of trolls, the truth becomes that the community is a troll community, and that any attempt to deal with the troll issue is a threat to the troll status quo. Contacting tou about a troll problem is thus possibly and probably simply like contacting your neighbor about their dog thats dug up your garden. You can almost hear tou saying "These Trolls are OUR trolls, Dammit! whats your problem with our pets?"

Clearly the only real solution for people who don't want to be abused is to steer clear of tribe
tribes and tribes with moderators who are inactive, non-lucid, or integrityless.

The better, long term solution, is to look for a place that isn't troll freindly to make social contacts.

Since i am invested neck deep in my own tribes, thats certainly what i will do myself;
bring my tribes to enough functionality that i have a core group, and then leave tribe as soon as i can make the transition. Unless tribe grows a consience, or, wakes up suddenly,
thats the best advice i can give anybody.

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 0 replies

tribe trolls

2006-10-12T22:04:49Z

well, we can all rest assured that should we come into any sort of conflict with trolls on tribe,
tribe will be less than useless.

heres the apparent final end of the attempt i made to get tribe to adress the issue.
its my copy, here, which was sent to all of tribes staff, after apparently one "marshal"
kicked me off the tribe.
--------------------------
Will I address any holes in your logic?
In a word, no. .....
All of us here would just as soon sit back and let thing take there course, but I will not allow this useless auguing to continue in this tribe. End of story.
--------------

Marshall
http://brainstorm.tribe.net/thread/bb07d674-a212-43d4-9ca1-e5128faf83d5

of tribe staff.
well, this is a great proof of the problem, and exactly why formal logic, rather than opinion should be used to evaluate situations, instead of blaming the victim,
and tossing them out.
in a word; "No". Because the concept that ignoring trolls works is simply and patently a false one, and theres no argument he can conjur to change that fact or that reality.
In a word "no"
and not a second thought to the total absence of accountability, to the total insanity and social entropy that ensues, or the fact that i just spent a week of my time trying to give a service to tribe, and to help tribe improve its service to its participants.
in a word "no"
not for any good reason, just a batch of duckspeak
and lame excuses, and then a kick out of the tribe.
i call that a lack of integrity, and i think its patently obvious to anybody reading with anything remotely like objectivity that i'm the good guy here, and the ambient trolls are the people who ought to get kicked out of the room.
having made my complaint, maybe you'd like to join me in my tribe mediation+conflict resolution.
http://tribes.tribe.net/conflictresolution?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B685b212f-969e-4e8d-9d48-3c4cac404c81%5D

You can rest assured that the dialogue there will actually be moderated fairly, that i won't blame the victims, and that i won't use my god powers just to stamp my feet down like some two year old temper tantrum, just because the logic of my argument
has been defeated.
ciao
prometheuspan

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 2 replies

Trolls

2006-10-11T20:04:33Z

Some troll tribes;

http://tribes.tribe.net/trollalert
http://everyoneisawinner.tribe.net/
http://tribes.tribe.net/dontfeedtrolls
http://tribes.tribe.net/monthlytroll
http://i-find-you-tiresome.tribe.net/
http://naughtygirls.tribe.net/
------------------

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

What is a Troll? Top
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

Why Does it Matter? Top
Some people — particularly those who have been online for years — are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."

It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.

Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas.

What Can be Done about Trolls? Top
When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.

However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.

What Not to Do Top
As already stated, it is futile to try to "cure" a troll of his obsession. But perhaps you simply cannot bear the hostile environment that the troll is creating and want to go away for a while.

If you do that, then for the sake of the others on the system, please do not post a dramatic "Goodbye!" message. This convinces the troll that he is winning the battle. There is, perhaps, no message you can write on a message system that is as damaging as an announcement that you are leaving because of the hostility that the troll has kindled.

If you feel you must say something, a discreet message to the system operator (and some of the others users, if you have their email addresses) is the best course of action. Incidentally, if you are writing the letter in an agitated state, it is a good idea to wait an hour and then give it one last review before you actually send it. That might spare you the pain of saying things that you don't really mean to people you like.

Impersonation Top
One technique used by trolls to generate chaos is to pretend to be a well-liked person. On some systems there is nothing to prevent somebody from signing your name to a distasteful message. On other systems the troll may have to be a bit more wiley, perhaps by replacing one character with another. Here are some examples of various spoofing gimmicks that could be used against a person named Brenda Q. O'Really:

Brenda Q. O"Really Brenda Q. 0'Really Brenda Q O'Really
Brenda Q. O'Rea11y Bredna Q. O'Really 8renda Q. O'Really

Note: "Brenda Q. O'Really" is a made-up name used to illustrate spoofing and is not intended to refer to a particular person.

If you react with anger, the troll wins. So if you see a message impersonating you on a message board, simply write a follow-up reply entitled "That Wasn't Me" and type only this:

I did not write that message; it is a fake.

Of course, sometimes you will find that people who know you well have already identified the message as a fake and have tagged it as such. After all, one of the troll's goals is to make you look bad. If you have a good reputation, people will be tipped off if a message that you apparently wrote is completely out of character.

Trolls have been known to become so irritated at having their spoofs identified that they have learned to write in another person's style. They may end up writing an intelligent message that is indistinguishable from your own golden words. If that happens, you can always just let the post stand and take credit for it!

Trolls will also sometimes write a "That Wasn't Me" message after a genuine one, attempting to elicit a denial. There really is no reason to give him what he wants, since a "That Wasn't Me" warning merely reminds people to be skeptical. That is to say, it is of no real consequence if somebody isn't sure that you wrote a normal message, since in the long run it is the ideas that are important.

The Webmaster's Challenge Top
When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed — more on this later.

The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll.

Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a troll based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a troll does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the troll can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate.

Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person?

Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one — himself.

What about Free Speech? Top
When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim.

While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.

Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.

The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.

When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.

The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbour has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.)

Why Do They Do It? Top
Affirmation.

Regular net users know how delightful it is when somebody responds to something they have written. It is a meeting of the minds, which is an intellectual thrill, but it is also an acknowledgement of one's value — and that can be a very satisfying emotional reward.

Trolls crave attention, and they care not whether it is positive or negative. They see the Internet as a mirror into which they can gaze in narcissistic rapture.

If you want a deeper analysis than that, perhaps a psychologist can shed some additional light on the matter.

Conclusion Top
Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody who you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "Troll Alert" and type only this:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby.

The Internet is a splendidly haphazard collection of both serious and silly material. Because it is so free, there are bound to be problems. I think that we can best enjoy it if we deal with everything that happens online with a wry grin and a ready shrug.

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 35 replies

Groupthink

2006-10-11T19:58:47Z

Groupthink
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they perceive to be the consensus of the group. Groupthink may cause the group (typically a committee or large organization) to make bad or irrational decisions which each member might individually consider to be unwise.

Contents [hide]
1 Origin
2 Groupthink
3 Causes and symptoms of groupthink
4 Preventing groupthink
5 Criticism
6 References
7 See also
8 External links

[edit]
Origin
The term was coined in 1952 by William H. Whyte in Fortune[1]:

Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well. [2]
Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:

A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. [3]
The word groupthink was intended to be reminiscent of Newspeak words such as "doublethink" and "duckspeak", from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

[edit]
Groupthink
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Irving Janis originally studied how groupthink affected the Pearl Harbor bombing, the Vietnam War, and the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

Groupthink, and its related dysfunctional group behavior, the Abilene Paradox, wherein groups agree to pursue goals with which the individual members do not agree, continue to fascinate researchers in the field of Social sciences. The reason for this fascination is that these theories appear to explain the observed behavior of individuals and groups in many social contexts. For example, some researchers point to the Bay of Pigs Invasion as the archetype of the groupthink phenomenon. They note that the decision to execute this disastrous military campaign was made with almost unanimous agreement by President John F. Kennedy and his advisors. These advisors were, almost without exception, very similar in background to the President and lacked military command experience. General David M. Shoup, Commandant of the Marine Corps at the time and not part of the group, predicted failure for the invasion, which went forward with disastrous results.

Many other kinds of social organizations, such as businesses, have likewise been cited as examples of "groupthink." While some of this is undoubtedly just an example of revisionist history, or a search for scapegoats to explain past failures, it has nonetheless been observed many times that individuals sometimes produce strikingly better solutions to certain problems than groups of those same individuals do, and that the dissenting lone voice (even within a "groupthinking" organization), is the one that, retrospectively speaking, probably should have been followed (a prime example of this is the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster where an engineer warned the 0-ring would fail but was shouted down by his peers, although they harboured similar concerns).

It is important to observe that terms such as "groupthink" are generally intended to describe the decision process that resulted in an inferior decision, not to the inferior decision itself nor necessarily to the particular group that made a particular decision. Likewise, the phrase is never used to describe the same decision process if it resulted in glorious success. The term "groupthink" is generally used in a derogatory manner, being generally attached to poor decisions and not to collective successes, and usually post facto.

[edit]
Causes and symptoms of groupthink
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Janis's "antecedent conditions" likely to encourage groupthink:

High stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the one offered by the leader(s)
High group cohesiveness
The persuasive strength of the group's leader
His eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

Illusion of invulnerability
Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
Collective rationalization of group's decisions
Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information
His seven symptoms of a decision affected by groupthink:

Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Failure to re-appraise initially rejected alternatives
Poor information search
Selective bias in processing information at hand (see also confirmation bias)
Failure to work out contingency plans
Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

Directive leadership
Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology
Insulation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis
[edit]
Preventing groupthink
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
One mechanism which management consultants recommend to avoid groupthink is to place responsibility and authority for a decision in the hands of a single person who makes the decision in private and can turn to others for advice. Others advise that a preselected individual take the role of disagreeing with any suggestion presented, thereby making other individuals more likely to present their own ideas and point out flaws in others' and reducing the stigma associated with being the first to take negative stances (see Devil's Advocate).

Anonymous feedback via suggestion box or online chat has been found to be a useful remedy for groupthink. Negative or dissenting views of proposals can be raised without any individual being identifiable by others as having lodged a critique. Thus the social capital of the group is preserved, as all members have plausible deniability that they raised a dissenting point.

Institutional mechanisms such as an inspector general system can also play a role in preventing groupthink as all participants have the option of appealing to an individual outside the decision-making group who has the authority to stop non-constructive or harmful trends.

Another possibility is giving each participant in a group a piece of paper, this is done randomly and without anyone but the receiver being able to read it. Two of the pieces of paper have "dissent" written on them, the others are blank. People have to dissent if the paper says so (like a Devil's Advocate), no-one is able to know if the other person is expressing dissent because they received a pre-marked "dissent" piece of paper or because it's an honest dissent. Also, as with every Devil's Advocate, there exists the possibility that the person adopting this role would think about the problem in a way that they wouldn't have if not under that role, and so promoting creative and critical thought.

Another way which is of special use in very asymmetric relations (as in a classroom) is to say something which is essentially wrong or false, having given (or being obvious that the persons that may be groupthinking know about that) the needed information to realize its inconsistency previously, if at the start of the class the teacher told the students that he would do so and not tell them when he did until the end of the class, they would be stimulated to criticize and "process" information instead of merely assimilating it.

An alternative to groupthink is a formal consensus decision-making process, which works best in a group whose aims are cooperative rather than competitive, where trust is able to build up, and where participants are willing to learn and apply facilitation skills.

[edit]
Criticism
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Recent research suggests that the observed phenomena are better accounted for by other theories. An excerpt from Professor Robert S. Baron’s 2005 review:

A review of the research and debate regarding Janis's groupthink model leads to the conclusion that after some 30 years of investigation, the evidence has largely failed to support the formulation's more ambitious and controversial predictions, specifically those linking certain antecedent conditions with groupthink phenomena. Moreover, research in the years since the theory's inception indicates that most of the "groupthink" phenomena described by Janis occur in a far wider range of group settings than he originally envisioned. Collectively, these data strongly suggest that Janis erred when identifying the necessary and sufficient antecedent conditions for groupthink. A ubiquity model of groupthink is introduced that specifies a revised set of antecedent conditions to explain why groupthink-like behavior occurs in mundane, temporary, and even minimal groups and yet is not an invariant feature of group decision making.
[edit]
References
^ William Safire, NYTimes Magazine (August 8, 2004)
^ [1]
^ [2]
Baron, R. S. (2005). So Right It's Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making. In Zanna, Mark P (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 37. (pp. 219-253). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14044-7
Janis, I. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and Commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Schwartz, John & Wald, Matthew L. Smart People Working Collectively can be Dumber Than the Sum of their Brains: "Groupthink" Is 30 Years Old, and Still Going Strong. New York Times March 9, 2003. Full Reprint here.
[edit]
See also
Abilene paradox
Communal reinforcement
Crowd psychology
Group-serving bias
Group polarization
Hive mind
Informational cascade
Mob mentality
Pack Journalism
Peer pressure
Social comparison theory
Spiral of silence
Haragei
[edit]
External links
Article on Groupthink from MeatballWiki
Article on Groupthink from SourceWatch
A Collaborative Game by Lot23
Victims of Groupthink Image Gallery
Introduction to Groupthink
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink"

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 8 replies

Pack psychology

2006-10-11T19:56:24Z

Wolves and Humans have a very similar system. Alphas are leaders, and they rule by physical coercion and threat of bodily harm. On the net, Alphas still manage to get packs of people to do what they want by means of social threat and social harm.

Betas are the direct followers of alphas, and with wolves two or three betas directly flank the alpha in pack confrontations, or, follow the alpha while stalking prey.

Deltas are the nerds of pack society, the pack outcaste. They tend to orbit the pack from a distance, and while hunting, cut off the preys escape route.

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 21 replies

Tribes Code of Conduct

2006-10-10T21:53:18Z

Code of Conduct
updated December 20, 2005

The TribeTM service ("Service") offers a place to meet friends on-line, build relationships, share discussion, and view member content. By using the Service (whether or not you choose to become a member) you agree to accept this Code of Conduct as part of the Service Agreement as a contract between you and Tribe. You may review the Service Agreement at any time at www.tribe.net/pub,Terms.vm.

You also agree that we may modify Code of Conduct terms from time to time at our sole discretion by posting an updated Code of Conduct. You may review the Code of Conduct at any time at www.tribe.net/pub,Code.vm. If you do not agree with these terms as posted, you are prohibited from using the Service.

1. Conduct and Content
While using or accessing the Service--directly or indirectly--you agree to take a constructive tone and practice good etiquette and courtesy and you agree NOT to:

threaten, disrupt, inflame, intimidate, libel, stalk, defame, or defraud any individual, entity, or group on any basis including but not limited to age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, religion or disability or encourage any one else to do so;
post, publish, or transmit any text, graphics, or material that is illegal or violates local and national laws or that contains, encourages, advocates, or expresses: obscenity, pornography, sexually explicit conduct, child pornography, the making or buying of illegal weapons or illegal drugs, hatred, bigotry, racism, profanity, vulgarity or gratuitous violence or use of weapons;
harm or exploit minors in any way including collecting personally identifiable information, including but not limited to name, email address, home address, phone number, or school;
invade privacy by attempting to collect, store, or publish private or personally identifiable information, including but not limited to password, account information, credit card number, address, or other contact information;
modify or falsify the source of any content or information, impersonate another individual, Tribe representative, or moderator, or falsely state or misrepresent affiliation with a person or entity;
disrupt, harm or inappropriately access any computer, network, server or telecommunication system or violate related security or operational procedures, policies or regulations;
flood, overload, or mail bomb any mail service or transmit or transfer any harmful or disruptive viruses, worms, computer code, files, or programs;
infringe any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, or other proprietary rights or violate contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as insider, proprietary, or confidential information);
encourage or instruct unauthorized copying or circumvention of copy protection or pirating of intellectual property or content including but not limited to software, music, text, photographs, illustrations, and movies;
access restricted, password-only, or hidden pages or images (those not linked to or from another accessible page);
distribute or disseminate inappropriate, unauthorized or unsolicited advertising or promotional offers including, but not limited to contests, sweepstakes, barter, junk mail, spam, chain letters, and pyramid schemes;
use tribe messages or member profile content to obtain personally identifiable information or to solicit, or sell to any member inappropriately;
support or help any organization designated by the United States government as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
include or create links or otherwise refer to external sites that violate these restrictions;
create "trolling" posts (trolling is deliberately posting false or provocative information in order to elicit responses from people who would not respond if they knew the motivation behind the post); or
attempt (i) to access or search the Service with any engine, software, tool, agent, device, or mechanism other than the software or search agents provided by Tribe or other generally available third party web browsers (such as Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox); or (ii) to "frame," "mirror" or otherwise copy any portion of the Site without Tribe's express written authorization.
2. Spam Is Prohibited
You will not use the Service to transmit, either directly or indirectly, or facilitate the transmission of any unsolicited bulk or commercial email ("Spam"). We may use filtering technology or other measures to stop incoming Spam. This filtering technology may block some email sent to you through the Service. This may happen even if the email does not violate the Service Agreement.

You will not post content: in inappropriate categories, with excessive frequency; in multiple categories or multiple cities; or with identical or substantially identical text or photography. You will not use unrelated words in content to skew search results.

3. Child Pornography
In no event will you post--or seek--images of children, whether nude, clothed or partially clothed, in association with sexuality, in any area of the Service. Tribe will attempt to remove any such postings and prohibits any postings or text containing or referring to child pornography, such as those containing the word "Lolita" or referring to nude photographs of "girls," "teens" or "children." In the event that Tribe discovers child pornography or images of children in violation of this policy, Tribe will promptly notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the appropriate law enforcement agency.

4. Violation
While we retain the right to cancel or suspend your Service at any time without cause or notice, we consider the following to be a reasonable basis for termination: suspected violations of the Code of Conduct, this Service Agreement, or other guidelines; extended periods of inactivity; fraudulent or illegal activities; age misrepresentation; or nonpayment of any fees owed by you in connection with the Service.
Boston | Chicago | Los Angeles | Miami | New York City | Philadelphia | San Diego | SF Bay Area | Seattle | more cities »
home | about | why join? | advertise | terms of use | privacy | contact | FAQ

Copyright © 2006 Utah Street Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 1 reply

ARG's

2006-10-10T21:05:57Z

thoughts?....

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 10 replies

Stolen Identity

2006-10-10T20:53:17Z

thoughts?

I could really use some M,CR on the topic of Stolen Identity.

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 5 replies

Alright so what's the plan of action???

2006-10-06T21:12:12Z

What do I do?

What is the appropriate response to incessant insults?

http://tribes.tribe.net/triberscourt/thread/8699e075-b1fc-4869-9a32-dc7e52be18b4#2e58c98b-3f79-42b6-89c9-3756c6ad8c38

http://tribes.tribe.net/triberscourt/thread/041edeb1-0872-42b5-9482-8f569945c088

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 25 replies

Non Violent Communication

2006-10-06T18:56:18Z

http://www.cnvc.org/nvc.htm
------------------
nonviolent communication is . . . ?
Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is sometimes referred to as compassionate communication. Its purpose is to strengthen our ability to inspire compassion from others and to respond compassionately to others and to ourselves. NVC guides us to reframe how we express ourselves and hear others by focusing our consciousness on what we are observing, feeling, needing, and requesting.

We are trained to make careful observations free of evaluation, and to specify behaviors and conditions that are affecting us. We learn to hear our own deeper needs and those of others, and to identify and clearly articulate what we are wanting in a given moment. When we focus on clarifying what is being observed, felt, and needed, rather than on diagnosing and judging, we discover the depth of our own compassion. Through its emphasis on deep listening—to ourselves as well as others—NVC fosters respect, attentiveness and empathy, and engenders a mutual desire to give from the heart. The form is simple, yet powerfully transformative.

While it is taught through the use of a concrete model, and is referred to as “a process of communication” or a “language of compassion,” Nonviolent Communication is more than a process or a language. As our cultural conditioning often leads our attention in directions unlikely to get us what we want, NVC serves as an ongoing reminder to focus our attention on places that have the potential to yield what we are seeking—a flow between ourselves and others based on a mutual giving from the heart.

Founded on language and communication skills that enable us to remain human, even under trying conditions, Nonviolent Communication contains nothing new: all that has been integrated into NVC has been known for centuries. The intent is to remind us about what we already know—about how we humans were meant to relate to one another—and to assist us in living in a way that concretely manifests this knowledge.

The use of NVC does not require that the persons with whom we are communicating be literate in NVC or even motivated to relate to us compassionately. If we stay with the principles of NVC, with the sole intention to give and receive compassionately, and do everything we can to let others know this is our only motive, they will join us in the process and eventually we will be able to respond compassionately to one another. While this may not happen quickly, it is our experience that compassion inevitably blossoms when we stay true to the principles and process of Nonviolent Communication.

adapted from Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life
by Marshall B. Rosenberg, Ph.D.
Published by PuddleDancer Press, available from CNVC

See also: The Spiritual Basis of Nonviolent Communication English or Las Bases Espirituales de la Comunicación No Violenta español

to top of page

nonviolent communication skills
As the name implies, this approach to communication emphasizes compassion as the motivation for action rather than fear, guilt, shame, blame, coercion, threat or justification for punishment. In other words, it is about getting what you want for reasons you will not regret later. These techniques allow you to make conscious choices about how you will respond whether you get what you want, or not. It is definitely NOT about guilt and tricking people into giving you what you want.

The skills are built on Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg's application of Nonviolent Communication. The process of NVC encourages us to focus on what we and others are observing, how and why we are each feeling as we do, what our underlying needs are, and what each of us would like to have happen. These skills emphasize personal responsibility for our actions and the choices we make when we respond to others.

Nonviolent Communication skills will assist you in dealing with major blocks to communication such as demands, diagnoses and blaming. In CNVC trainings you will learn to express your feelings without attacking. This will help minimize the likelihood of facing defensive reactions in others. The skills will help you make clear requests. They will help you receive critical and hostile messages without taking them personally, giving in, or losing self-esteem. These skills will be useful with your family, friends, students, subordinates, supervisors, co-workers and clients. These skills will be useful with your own internal dialogues.

NVC is a clear and effective model for communicating in a way that is cooperative, conscious, and compassionate.

-------------------
http://www.sedonacreativelife.com/pre0060.html
http://www.nonviolentparenting.org/index.html
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/health/coeh/projects/NVCommunication.pdf#search='Non%20Violent%20Communication'
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=N.V.C.communication+skills&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-500&x=wrt&u=filebox.vt.edu/t/tcaruso/NVC%2520Research%2520Files/NVC%2520Training%2520Assessments/RespComm%2520Final%2520Report/RespComm%2520Final%2520Report%2520with%2520appendixes.pdf&w=%22nvc+communication%22+%22n.v.c.+communication%22+skills&d=Y2FujiQ8NR2A&icp=1&.intl=us

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 19 replies

Flame Wars

2006-10-04T23:00:38Z

http://www.flayme.com/flame/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/15681/avoid_flame_wars_and_internet_trolls.html
http://web.morons.org/troll.jsp
http://thezionazireport.org/internet_troll.htm
http://members.aol.com/intwg/flamewars.htm
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FlameWar
-----------------
A flame war is a heated argument ad hominem: It primarily consists of personal insults, the rational arguments are secondary.
Flame wars usually develop out of a normal discussion in these ways:

Someone offends people through arrogant behavior (HelpingLusers)
A thread of discussion touches upon a LandMine
The rules or values of the community are questioned (c.f. WhatIsaTroll)
An ad hominem argument results when a poorly qualified contributor posts questionable material.
A participant tries to communicate with a chronic flamer (it's difficult to stay cool and polite)
A VestedContributor tries to pull rank.
There are also a minority of users (chronic flamers) who take enjoyment in flame wars and carry them on deliberately. Sometimes these are lumped together with trolls, but there can be a difference. Chronic flamers often have strong world views for which they have no constructive outlet. For example, an opponent of the use of pesticides on food might read a produce newsgroup and post repeated attacks on vegetable growers who use conventional growing practices (with frequent use of pesticides).

In general, we term any text that incites a flame war as flamebait. You will see this term frequently.

In a wiki a flame war can develop to a ForestFire (that means the participants start arguing on dozens of pages).

Netiquette
The Netiquette (RFC 1855 or the WikiNetiquette for wikis) was designed to avoid this for newsgroups. It was based on the anonymous 1980 "Emily Post" posting that, through manipulation of headers, would show up first when a user new to newsgroups opened a newsreader for the first time. Here are some examples from the RFC:

Remember that the recipient is a human being whose culture, language, and humor have different points of reference from your own. Remember that date formats, measurements, and idioms may not travel well. Be especially careful with sarcasm.

Use smilies to indicate tone of voice, but use them sparingly. :-) is an example of a smiley (Look sideways). Don't assume that the inclusion of a smiley will make the recipient happy with what you say or wipe out an otherwise insulting comment.

Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. If you have really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via FLAME ON/OFF enclosures. For example:

FLAME ON:
This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth it takes to send it.
It's illogical and poorly reasoned. The rest of the world agrees with me.

FLAME OFF

This usage has become archaic. When it was more prevalent it was usually used on material considered fairly tame by today's standards, such as a rant about the shortcomings of some particular technology, rather than an ad hominem attack

If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to the list or the group. If you are debating a point on which the group might have some interest, you may summarize for them later.

Don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond to incendiary material.

Take responsibility and eliminate flamebait. If you see a incendiary post, transform it into a valuable contribution. If there is no valuable information in the contribution, "return" the text to the person's namepage for further consideration. While this is possible on a wiki, other environments allow moderators to delete or rate down flamebait as well.
The FlameWarriors site categorizes the various fighting styles of flamers.

Theories why FlameWars occur so often
Although heated arguments happen in "RealLife" often enough, they occur more frequently online. There are many theories why this is true. Some common convincing suggestions include

Lack of ParaLanguage and other emotional clues blunts humour, sarcasm, or intonation which leads to miscommunication, which in turn leads to conflict.

Mediated communication protects individuals from immediate (physical) reaction to an argument, or otherwise makes individuals feel protected or safe from harm in response to their actions. This is a myth, however, as harm can be reasserted through psychological attacks, such as PunishReputation, or through a permanent digital AuditTrail (cf. ForgiveAndForget)

People likely to spend a lot of time online have undeveloped or damaged social skills, and thus they prefer the "safer" or more controllable digital discourse (see CyberSpace#quixote's take on HackingAtNight). These people tend to lack empathy more than the general population and therefore they tend to a) lose their tempers faster; b) misunderstand others; c) be paranoid (cf. DefendAgainstParanoia)

SwitchingCosts between communities is low and the expulsion rate (cf. DissuadeReputation) of malcontents is high. Thus, malcontents move from community to community rapidly as they get thrown out of one after another. The antisocial crowd consequently has a disproportionate visibility on the Internet to the sane crowd. Permanent AuditTrails and Google have helped addressed this problem, but in the event the person has improved, the contemporary situation fails to ForgiveAndForget.

In MeatSpace there is implicit segregation by point of view, since communities and sub-communities there are relatively homogeneous compared to online communities. It would be most unusual to happen upon a conversation about Mormonism, between two or more Mormons, in MeatSpace unless one is a Mormon. But it is possible to participate readily in such conversations online.

Some online communities actively encourage flaming, for the purpose of entertainment and because on occasion passionate arguments can result in good ideas and improved reasoning. Examples include the [Flame War Forum] and ThePhlogisticiansCorner?.

Cognitive Dissonance - [When Prophecy Fails]:
When Prophecy Fails focuses on the failure of prophecies to come true, termed disconfirmation by Festinger, and the accompanied renewal of energy and faith in their source of divine guidance. His theory presupposes the cult having certain identifying features, such as: (a) belief held with deep conviction along with respective actions taken, (b) the belief or prediction must be specific enough to be disconfirmed (i.e., it didn't happen), (c) the believer is a member of a group of like-minded believers who support one another and even proselytize.

This fits so accurately for all the traditional flame wars like emacs vs vi, Linux contra Windows, etc.

How to get out of a Flame-War
Your first interest must be not to get into a flame war. That's easier than getting out of it. So:

never insult people (not even in return)

always look at the problem, not at the person (if someone violates the rules, talk about the rules - not so much about the violation)

declare the flamebait as flamebait, use humour instead of aggression
How to get out as a person:

you may have or think about an ExitStrategy.

The Netiquette has already mentioned the number one rule for getting out of a flame-war: DissuadeReputation. Just ignore it.

declare the conflict as a boring, often repeating process, explain its roots and its silliness
How to get out as a community:

Realize that, in open communities, there often is no way to eliminate chronic flamers without becoming a GatedCommunity.

Act as a community. Don't look at two people fighting. The members should defend each other, so they don't have to react on personal attacks themselves. This is much more effective and credible for the reader.

Create value for TheAudience. Always think about the reader, it is their opinion that counts. Create pages and arguments that you can reuse in the next similar conflict. Its a big advantage of the wiki that this is possible.

Don't overreact. A conflict is not 100% negative. It also energy that can be used to strengthen the community, to make values and rules clearer, to improve arguments. You wouldn't without a need.

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 0 replies

omnipedia

2006-10-03T19:11:41Z

This is my Tribe, Omnipedia. Its sort of become a dead tribe,
i can't even get the members to say hi.
I was hoping that i could get some participation over there, that maybe people
could enjoy the more specific exploration of science topics, and a more formal
environment which i hope to provide. I was unsubbed, and have had a pain to get my tribes back, and could use some votes
to get myself remoderatorized...
http://tribes.tribe.net/omnipedia/thread/94ac607c-9971-4c30-be5f-fc4c1d6e3ba4?newpostingid=6273ece2-68d9-4c81-b723-6a31772e0ff3#6273ece2-68d9-4c81-b723-6a31772e0ff3

http://tribes.tribe.net/omnipedia/threads

hello, and welcome tothis group. The purpose of this group is to collect
and compile information on textbook subjects in preparation for eventually
having a wiki on which to
write Textbooks. This is very similar to Wikipedias mission or Wikibooks mission,
but with the following differences.

1. Omnipedia wants to cover every single detail. Omnipedia wants to be unabridged,
to be the most complete and most diverse information (on its subjects) of any information

resource in the world.

2. Wikipedia is generally of very low quality, and provides reliably only the most
superficial
sort of coverage and information.

3. Wikipedia is extremely abusive as a working environment, and so nobody should be

bothered to go there.

4. Wikibooks and wikipedia add details to their information in a haphazard sort of way.

Omnipedia seeks to find ALL of the information as rapidly as is possible and to

organize that information more lucidly than has previously been organized.

5. Despite some engineering designed to facilitate "neutrality" Wikipedia and Wikibooks

are in fact filled with propaganda and lies and distortions. Wikipedia and Wikibooks drifts

towards the lowest common denominator, 10 ignorant people will invariably overwhelm the one

educated person on any given article.

6. Omnipedia is all inclusive of every topic in theory. Whereas Wikipedia won't cover
things
like pseudoscience, Omnipedia will cover those things, however, Omnipedia will present
minority viewpoints as such, whereas wikipedia doesn't really tell you how many or what
percent of the population thinks any of the information they provide is true.

Omnipedia exists to outflank and outcompete wikipedia and wikibooks by having a superior
process that is not abusive to contributors, and which does not slide towards propaganda.
In this process, Omnipedia starts with wikipedia as an example of what we want to
accomplish in early stages, and as an example of what not to do and how not to do it.

Omnipedia can become much better than Wikipedia by having a much better rules and social
system in palce for people to contribute and participate without being abused.
Omnipedia can also in theory outcompete Wikipedia by having better criteria for judging
the value and truth of information. Lastly, Omnipedia can beat Wikipedia by having a
more diverse total portfolio, by not excluding topics and information out of systemic
bias.

-------------------------------------------------
welcome! Unsubscribed 3 September 22, 2006
Psychology Unsubscribed 3 July 17, 2006
Civil Engineering Unsubscribed 0 July 17, 2006
Psychonautics Unsubscribed 2 July 17, 2006
Ethics Unsubscribed 2 July 17, 2006
Methodology Unsubscribed 1 July 17, 2006
Sociology Unsubscribed 2 July 17, 2006
About Omnipedia Unsubscribed 0 July 11, 2006
Chemistry Unsubscribed 1 July 11, 2006
Physics Unsubscribed 1 July 7, 2006
Politics Unsubscribed 1 July 7, 2006
Biology Unsubscribed 1 July 7, 2006
Botany

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 2 replies

Anti-intellectualism

2006-10-03T00:42:09Z

Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as an attack on the merits of science, education, or literature.

Political cartoonist Thomas Nast contrasts an intellectual with a prize-fighter.Anti-intellectuals often seek to frame themselves as champions of the "ordinary people", and as advocates of egalitarianism against elitism, especially what they perceive as academic elitism. These critics argue from a perception that educated people form a social class by virtue of their education: that members of this class tend to talk chiefly to one another, and as such are remote from other points of view, and also that members of the intellectual elite tend to dominate political discourse.

Anti-intellectualism can also be used as a term used to criticize an educational system if it seems to place minimal emphasis on academic and intellectual accomplishment or a government's tendency to formulate policies without consultation with authoritative and scholarly study on the issues in question.

Contents [hide]
1 Causes
1.1 Religion
1.2 Authoritarian politics
1.3 Populism
1.4 Corporate culture
2 Issues within the educational system
2.1 In primary and secondary schools
2.1.1 The demands of youth culture
2.2 In colleges
2.2.1 Political bias
2.2.2 Deficient programs
2.2.3 Lack of usefulness
3 Anti-intellectualism in the United States
3.1 19th Century culture
3.2 Right-wing currents
3.2.1 Conservative critiques of academia
3.2.2 Religious fundamentalism
3.3 Left-wing currents
3.3.1 1960s student culture
3.3.2 The intellectual as paid apologist for the status quo
3.3.3 Current themes
3.4 Economic factors
3.5 In American political discourse
3.5.1 In the media
3.5.1.1 Sensationalism
4 Anti-intellectualism in the former Soviet Union
5 Anti-intellectualism in Asia - Maoist China, Cambodia and Iran
5.1 China
6 Anti-intellectualism in the classical world
7 A loaded term?
8 See also
9 References

[edit]
Causes
Anti-intellectual beliefs can come from a variety of sources. These include:

[edit]
Religion
Although most religions have rich intellectual traditions, many often rely on arguments from authority that are not independently verifiable, along with a somewhat common tendency to reject secular critical traditions.

The Evangelical and fundamentalist wings of a religion are the most likely to harbor anti-intellectual sentiments, though not all such groups can be described in this way and many pride themselves on their scholarly traditions. [citation needed]

Some religions have doctrines that affirm statements about natural or human history, the provenance of sacred texts, and other matters that may be investigated by outside scholarship; this can give rise to conflict. However, religious anti-intellectualism is not confined to hostility against science: When bohemianism and romanticism become major factors in the fine arts, religious believers may perceive these trends to be subversive of morality and call for censorship.[citation needed] This has been a fairly common theme in socio-cultural trends in the Americas and Europe since the time of the Reformation. Some would argue, however, that this is just moral conservatism, which is distinct from anti-intellectualism, though the two positions are allied in many cases.[citation needed]

[edit]
Authoritarian politics
Anti-intellectualism is often used by dictators or those seeking to establish dictatorships. The educated class has often been seen by totalitarian elements as a threat because of the tendency of intellectuals to use logic and reason to question situations they see as unjust. Thus, often violent anti-intellectual backlashes are common during the rise and rule of oppressive political movements, such as fascism, communism and theocracy. Because many intellectuals refuse to identify with nationalism, they are also commonly portrayed as unpatriotic.

The most extreme dictatorships, such as that of the Khmer Rouge, simply liquidated intellectuals as a class, while other regimes, like Iran, use a policy of harassment, intimidation, sporadic imprisonment and execution against intellectuals[citation needed]. In addition, intellectuals in countries ruled by authoritarian governments are often subject to popular condemnation and used as scapegoats to divert the anger of the public away from those in power. Anti-intellectualism is not necessarily violent however, and not necessarily oppressive. Anti-intellectual attitudes can be held by any group, including non-violent ones, as well as by individuals who merely disfavor intellectualism and learning in general.

[edit]
Populism
Populism is another major strain of anti-intellectualism. Intellectuals are presented as elitists and tricksters whose knowledge and rhetorical skills are feared, not because they are useless, but because they may be used to hoodwink the ordinary people, who are conceived of as the 'salt of the earth' and the source of virtue.

In a similar vein, the curiosity and objectivity of intellectuals about foreign countries and beliefs is portrayed by populists as a lack of patriotism or moral clarity, and intellectuals are often held to be suspect of holding dangerously foreign, possibly subversive, opinions. An extreme form was embodied by Joseph McCarthy, the fanatically anti-Communist senator from Wisconsin.

[edit]
Corporate culture
Corporate culture in modern times has demonstrated a general preference for 'pragmatism', and this is an occasional source of hostility toward learning. The idea here is that education is a costly and useless distraction from the more important business of making money. Reading and writing are solitary ventures, and according to this viewpoint these activities do little to make a person more affable or conventional and do not foster an aptitude for marketing or acumen for investment in profitable ventures. It is feared that intellectuals may acquire ethical and political ideas that may impede business or make its practices distasteful. Scientific and technological learning may be given a grudging respect; but the arts, literature, philosophy, and similar cultural pursuits are all considered a waste of time at best and subversive at worst. Those who pursue them are supposed to inhabit an 'ivory tower' of academia, full of grand plans whose practice is seen as impossibly flawed.

According to this view, education should be a sort of apprenticeship, rather than being done on the model of classical education based on Greek and Latin grammar and literature. The educational philosophy of John Dewey, founded on these assumptions, has had some influence on education in the USA, although it must be said that Dewey was also a philosopher and an atheist - two qualities guaranteed to raise suspicions among anti-intellectuals.

[edit]
Issues within the educational system
The educational system may serve as a powerful tool for forming the culture of a nation. In the English speaking world, particularly in the USA and Britain, the schools and universities have often been criticized for being overtaken by overtly anti-intellectual trends and hence not preparing the youth properly to be members of society who would be cultured, prepared for challenging jobs, and capable of independent thought.

[edit]
In primary and secondary schools
In schools there is often seen to be a lack of emphasis on mathematics and the sciences, accompanied by the rewriting of history curricula to de-emphasize facts in favor of political agendas, which may be either left-wing, such as political correctness, or right-wing nationalist narratives. Such critics would say, for example, that not teaching students multiplication tables in primary school and not making sure that they learn algebra by graduation is a flagrant example of anti-intellectualism and malfeasance on the part of many schools. They would similarly criticize allowing students to graduate without learning the key facts about their country's national history, or without having read any Shakespeare.

Many critics of anti-intellectualism would also suggest the push to teach creationism (or Intelligent Design) over evolution is an example of anti-intellectualism.

[edit]
The demands of youth culture
A major preserve of real, though hardly militant or even self-aware, anti-intellectualism in the contemporary world is a youth subculture often associated with those students who are more interested in social life or athletics than in their studies. Such subcultures, often marked by cliques, exist among students of all groups. Commercial youth culture also generates a dizzying variety of fads. Keeping up with the trends is difficult, and their content is frequently criticised by cultural critics of many different persuasions for being simple-minded and pandering to unsophisticated appetites. Pursuing popularity has been likened by blog writer Paul Graham to a full time job that leaves little time for intellectual interests. [1]

In the current of anti-intellectualism among African American youth is the perception that focusing on school studies means "acting white". Authors associated with this view include John McWhorter, whose book Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America (Harper, 2001, ISBN 0-06-093593-6) collects narratives and criticizes the cultivation of "ebonics" as an alternative speech norm, specifically labelling this as an instance of anti-intellectualism. Conservative commentators Thomas Sowell and Dinesh D'Souza are also associated with this view. Henry Louis Gates cited an informal poll in which African-American students in the Washington, DC area were asked what constituted "acting white"; according to Gates "the top three things were: making straight A's, speaking standard English and going to the Smithsonian". [2] Needless to say, there are plenty of anti-intellectual white students also, especially among the rural contingent and the children of the leisure class.

Adlai Stevenson was called an "egghead" by Richard Nixon during the 1952 US presidential race.[edit]
In colleges
In the realm of higher education concerns are generally threefold:

[edit]
Political bias
One type of criticism is based upon the perception that university professors and other academicians have increasingly inculcated their own political ideologies into pedagogical interactions and professional research at the cost of the quality, objectivity, and appropriateness of each. This claim is more often made by those individuals on the conservative side of the American political spectrum against political liberals, as understood in a contemporary sense of the term. Whether this focus on the proverbial "ivory tower left" is deserved is, rather unsurprisingly, the subject of much intense debate both within the Academy and various political spheres.

Generally, these criticisms are brought up against persons working within the field of the Humanities -- especially a set of the Humanities falling under the large subdivision of the Social Sciences. Among the fields most contested are Women's Studies, Cultural Studies, Ethnic Studies or Racial Studies, some divisions of academic History, and Political Science. Whether such field-specific attention is deserved is, once again, the subject of much intense debate.

When the criticism of political bias is set in the context of American liberals vs. American conservatives, as it often is, the dialogue between the two sides can become rapidly polemical. One finds conservative critics called "anti-intellectuals" as they attempt to bring the charge of political bias against various liberals even as the accused liberals are charged with such things as "re-writing history" (Historical revisionism); the fairness of each party's assertion must be recognized to vary from case to case.

[edit]
Deficient programs
Another major concern centers on the perceived lack of general education in college curricula. Critics claim, for example, that college students ought to take more humanities classes, such as history or literature, along with the requirements of their major. Allegedly, there is also a deficiency of academic rigor in the university liberal arts programs that are available to students, stemming from the aformentioned political bias, which is said to lead professors to concentrate on trendy and controversial subjects to the neglect of what is considered legitimate art and literature.

Notably, the humanities requirements in American colleges are actually much greater than in many other countries, such as Russia or India where college instruction is focused almost entirely on professional, often technical, preparation. It may be argued that in these countries it is generally believed high school education has given a student sufficient exposure to general education topics.

[edit]
Lack of usefulness
A third line of criticism, sometimes seeming to contradict the second, is the absence of 'real life' usefulness from the study of humanities. This has also contributed to anti-intellectualism, particularly among those who study, or have studied, technical subjects. This is sometimes considered more of a 'rival-intellectualism' rather than true anti-intellectualism, in as much as people who have received university-level technical training have themselves engaged in an intellectual activity of great complexity.

[edit]
Anti-intellectualism in the United States
[edit]
19th Century culture
19th century popular culture is important in the history of American anti-intellectualism. At the time when the vast majority of the population led a rural life, full of manual labor and agriculture, bookish education, which at the time focused on classics, was seen to have little value. It should be noted that Americans of the era were generally very literate and, in fact, read Shakespeare much more than their present-day counterparts. However, the ideal at the time was an individual skilled and successful in his trade and a productive member of society; studies of classics and Latin in colleges were generally derided.

The 19th century predominantly valued the self-reliant and "self-made man," schooled by society and by experience, over the intellectual whose learning was acquired through books and formal study. In 1843, Bayard R. Hall wrote of frontier Indiana, that "(w)e always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and hence attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; since unhappily smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and incompetence and goodness." Still, there was a possibility for redemption if the "egghead" embraced common mores. A character of O. Henry noted that once a graduate of an East Coast college gets over being vain, he makes just as good a cowboy as any other young man.

The related stereotype of the slow-witted naïf with a heart of gold, which became popular in 19th century stage shows, still reappears in American culture, recently in the 1985 novel and 1994 motion picture Forrest Gump.

[edit]
Right-wing currents
[edit]
Conservative critiques of academia
William F. Buckley, Jr. once remarked that he'd rather be governed by the first hundred names in the phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University, and many other conservatives have displayed similar disdain for academia. Institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and various other prestigious colleges have been portrayed on the right as centers of a radical and anti-American leftism. Robert Warshow has put forth the hypothesis that the Communist Party became central to American intellectual life during the 1930s:

For most American intellectuals, the Communist movement of the 1930s was a crucial experience. In Europe, where the movement was at once more serious and more popular, it was still only one current in intellectual life; the Communists could never completely set the tone of thinking. . . . But in this country there was a time when virtually all intellectual vitality was derived in one way or another from the Communist party. If you were not somewhere within the party’s wide orbit, then you were likely to be in the opposition, which meant that much of your thought and energy had to be devoted to maintaining yourself in opposition.[3]
Most observers believe that, while Warshow's criticism might have validity when applied to the Depression Era, it is not supportable today to claim that campus liberals form a hidden Communist or otherwise subversive force in America. Still, many conservatives and anti-intellectuals continue to argue this general point.

[edit]
Religious fundamentalism
Much modern American anti-intellectualism originates from the commonly held view among conservative Christians that the current form of public education subverts religious belief. The validity of this view, in fact, was well substantiated by the spread of atheism and Deism among the educated during the Enlightenment, and was deep-rooted even before that time. Hence, for instance, the New England writer and Puritan John Cotton wrote in 1642, "The more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee." More recently, an anti-intellectual current can be seen in the works of evangelical Christian cartoonist Jack Chick. In his anti-evolution tract Big Daddy? for example, he depicts the academic establishment as intolerant and elitist in their rejection of creationism. [4]

Some Christians, while not considering education an inherent evil, object to what they perceived as "un-Christian" elements, especially in public schools (K-12) and colleges and universities. Focal points for fundamentalist criticism are comprehensive sex education, evolution, and anti-prejudice programs.

[edit]
Left-wing currents
[edit]
1960s student culture
Especially in the 1960s many student demonstrators romanticized the impoverished populations of Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta. The lack of formal education in these regions was seen as a sort of freedom from "conformist" society that allowed one to lead a more genuine and worthy life. The sanitized version of folk music that became popular on campus around this time is a related trend.

The anti-war movement also despised the highly educated but cold-hearted Washington technocrat, epitomized by Robert McNamara, who was alleged to make decisions solely on numbers and probabilities and could not see individual lives or deaths as anything but statistics. The Vietnam body count was offered as an example of this inhuman intellectualism.

Theodor Adorno, himself a Marxist, sharply criticised this trend in the 60's Left, which he called "actionism," defined as the belief that actions such as protests and strikes could change the political structure by themselves without being supported by solid theory and an organized program or party.

Also, some of the extremes of the student movement at the time were heavily influenced by Maoism, which has a strong anti-intellectual component.

[edit]
The intellectual as paid apologist for the status quo
Many on the left have claimed that the intellectual's status as a "professional thinker" requires the support of a member of the ruling class willing to cut their checks.[citation needed] Therefore, most intellectuals, in order to maintain their profession, must assume a subservient posture towards the current power structure even when their ideas are outwardly "radical." These critics point out that many a tenured professor has called for revolution, but few have ever taken concrete steps to promote one. This has the effect of discrediting the idea of social change by associating it with hypocritical academics, thereby serving the status quo.

In return for their rhetorical services, so this theory goes, intellectuals are rewarded with the power to set themselves up as the social betters of the proletariat and are given a measure of control over how normal people live their lives. In addition, when government actions go awry, intellectuals provide rulers with a convenient scapegoat - those who were paid to promote the policy can easily be blamed for creating it.

Although not a leftist thinker, Eric Hoffer is closely associated with this view of intellectuals. He compared them to the scribes that directed the construction of the pyramids - seemingly authoritative figures, who were in reality servants to the Pharaoh.

[edit]
Current themes
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and conform with our NPOV policy, this article or section may require cleanup.
The current version of the article or section reads like a story or essay.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available.

More recently, in the politics of the United States, Democrats and liberals have become extremely suspicious of the neoconservative movement, which they often portray as a "cabal" of ivory-tower theorists who cause disaster when they gain power and try to put their abstract ideas into practice. The radical deregulation of the economy, tax cuts at a time of war, and the program to rapidly democratize the Middle East through military means are cited as examples of this.

Some even believe that neoconservatism is a front for a secret group that follows the teachings of the anti-democratic philosopher and intellectual Leo Strauss.

All of this lends to the portrait of neocoservatism as a sinister party of academics carelessly testing elitist theories on the suffering "ordinary people" of America.

[edit]
Economic factors
In the past five to ten years once-plentiful high-tech and skilled technical jobs have begun to disappear from America, and have been replaced with low-wage service occupations which at most require a high school diploma.[citation needed] Therefore the economic incentive to attend college, where one might be exposed to intellectual ideas and garner an appreciation for them, has lessened. There thus exists the potential for increased anti-intellectualism in the future. However, statistics indicate that currently in the United States half the adult population has at least some college experience and one-third of that population are graduates.

[edit]
In American political discourse
America, more than other developed nations, has been accused of suffering from anti-intellectualism, particularly by the liberal literati both in the United States and in Europe. Such accusations are particularly fueled by the political schism between the Republican and Democratic parties. The less scrupulous contenders on both sides use the accusation of anti-intellectualism as a rhetorical weapon, but most often it is Democrats that accuse Republican backers of exploiting public sentiments against the values of the cultural elite for their own economic gain.

Many Democrats and liberals claim that conservative beliefs about foreign affairs or economics stem from "ignorance," poor education, and a "lack of awareness" of the substantive issues involved, and as such are anti-intellectual. The liberal position often contends that conservative ideology has a tendency to approach issues such as morality and foreign policy in "simplistic" ways, breaking them down into easily understood confrontations between good and evil. The left views its own ideology as more sophisticated and worldly, and based on an interpretative study of human history. Conservatives have countered by claiming that it is liberals who are the true anti-intellectuals, ignorant of economics and relying on irrational and over-emotional arguments when debating poverty, civil liberties, and especially, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[edit]
In the media
In the 2000 Presidential Election, the media (particularly late night comics) portrayed Candidate Al Gore as boring "brainiac" who spoke in a monotonous voice and jabbered on about numbers and figures that no one could understand. His supposed "claim to have invented the Internet"[5] was widely ridiculed. It was the classic stereotype of a pompous, out-of-touch intellectual, and this perception arguably hurt Gore in the election. In the years since, debate between the left and right in America has often centered on the relation of the intellectual class to the public as a whole.

Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh commonly argue that conservative politicians, particularly Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, have been attacked by a liberal media as being "incompetent" - this can be understood as an accusation of intellectual snobbery by the media. O'Reilly in particular is well known for having a hostile attitude towards what he calls the "Ivy League Elite." The word "intellectual" itself has been used as an insult by many on the right.

Both O'Reilly and Limbaugh, as well as other conservative hosts such as Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough are frequently accused of having anti-intellectual atmospheres on their shows, evidenced by their frequent interruption of guests who try to put forward complex arguments. Scarborough once commented that, "If my guest is allowed to speak uninterrupted for more than 15 seconds, then I'm not doing my job."

While some on the left claim this represents a right-wing bias in the American media, other analysts feel it merely shows that the media, in the service of higher ratings, has a tendency to promote argument and spectacle rather than informed debate

[edit]
Sensationalism
Indeed, there is a strong feeling on both sides of the political divide that corporate news focuses too much on soundbites and headlines, and not enough on in-depth reporting. Researchers have noticed a trend in the amount of coverage newspapers and broadcast networks devote to various subjects: World events and political coverage are receiving a declining percentage of print space and airtime, while crimes, sex scandals, and celebrity intrigue take up more and more space.

This trend is clearly visible on cable television as well. For example, The Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel have shifted from airing purely documentary and informational content to devoting a large portion of their programming to makeover specials, home-remodeling shows, and programs focused on muscle cars and motorcycles.

This is cited as proof of a shift in American media that is undoubtedly anti-intellectual even though it is not rooted in any political or cultural bias.

[edit]
Anti-intellectualism in the former Soviet Union
In the Soviet Union, within the first decade after the Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks generally scorned and suspected the educated as potential traitors to the cause of the proletariat. Whereas the core of the Communist Party was well-educated, the people who became local activists and officials in government and industry often lacked at least formal education and disdained those who had it. Lenin once called the intelligentsia, particularly those who opposed him, "rotten" and "shit". The boast, roughly translated as "we ain't completed no academies" ("мы академиев не кончали") became a byword for the new ruling elite.

Later on, the Soviet government came to see education as important and dedicated great resources to literacy on the one hand, and higher and professional education on the other. However, as a matter of social policy, the government sought to promote the working class over an intellectual elite. Accordingly, industrial workers often received greater salaries than university-trained professionals such as teachers, doctors, and engineers. Moreover, workers were covertly inculcated with the notion that only the manual labor creates real value in the economy, whereas the educated people just sit around writing papers. Some critics have seen this policy as anti-intellectual.

It must be stressed, however, that the anti-intellectualism of the Soviet political elite was closely associated with the fact that the Russian academic milieu, as a part of the tzarist state apparatus, had been hostile to the 1917 Bolshevik takeover almost by definition; however, when dealing with practical issues such as economic and scientific management, the early Soviet regime had to resort to such "bourgeois experts", therefore the tense relationship between the Communist Party elite and non-Party educated people. It was only during the early 1930s that Stalin attempted to do away with the old intelligentsia altogether, and to put a new Party one in its stead. Such favouring of partinost - that's to say a partisan stance towards all matters intellectual - over formal scholarship, no matter how crude such partisan stance happened to be - in the end amounted to a clear anti-intellectual stance.

The Soviet treatment of science is an example of anti-intellectualism - the triumph of Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia was a result of political bullying of scientists and the punishment of dissenters rather than the normal scientific process of publishing one's findings. Soviet promotion of this pseudoscientific idea has been compared to the recent statements in favor of creationism by the current American political leadership.

[edit]
Anti-intellectualism in Asia - Maoist China, Cambodia and Iran
A number of Asian countries have experienced degrees of anti-intellectualism in the 20th century.

In Cambodia, a country where few people have access to formal education (the literacy rate is about 50% as of 2004), the Khmer Rouge regime (1975–1979) was generally disdainful of intellectuals and saw many as enemies or traitors (see also: Democratic Kampuchea). In some sectors, anyone who wore glasses was shot by Khmer guards, as glasses were seen as a mark of education and intellectualism.

The revolutionary regime in the newly established Islamic Republic of Iran also displayed a streak of anti-intellectualism in its policies. Besides the emigration of many well-educated, western-trained, intellectuals in the wake of the revolution, the government decreed in 1980 that all universities are to be closed until the curricula are "purified" from the corrupt Pahlavi legacy. The ban on secular high education persisted until 1982. Also, the repressive attitude of the regime toward Iranian intelligensia is well known (a highly publicized case of intellectual repression was the execution of the poet Said Soltanpour in 1981). It should be noted, however, that the revolutionary reforms in high education in Iran did democratize it somewhat, opening it to wider straits of population, who couldn't afford it beforehand (40% of all seats in the universities were reserved for Iran-Iraq war veterans) or were taken aback by the extremely westernized attitude of Iranian university circles under the Pahlavis.

[edit]
China
In Maoist China during the Cultural Revolution, a revolutionary transformation of all aspects of life, including education, was attempted. University education in particular was moved away from the generation of highly specialized experts, who were seen as constituting a self-interested class divorced from the rest of society, and into the service of the masses. Training programs were accelerated and connected to the practical needs of productive work and socialist development. Some universities were closed for several years during the transformation. At the same time, primary and secondary education were greatly expanded in rural China, and urban students were encouraged or required to spend some time in the countryside, both to teach the peasants and to learn from them. Critics have charged that the practice of curtailing and transforming university education and sending students to the countryside was anti-intellectual. In the view of the Chinese government, however, state-funded education should be made to serve first and foremost the needs of the society at large. A poor country with a mostly rural population, it argued, had more need of general, practical education for many than of highly specialized education for a few.

Although such pointed attacks by the Chinese government have waned since the days of the Cultural Revolution and Mao, in spite of the important and state-sponsored role intellectuals have traditionally played in the Chinese society, anti-intellectualism is still a prolific element in Chinese daily life. Anti-intellectualism is generally extant in the form of restrictions on freedom of thought and speech by an authoritarian regime.

The state monopolises all forms of "legal" media within Chinese borders and stamps out any dissident publications. What Chinese are permitted to view on a regular basis is therefore strictly limited. The state controls all newsprint publications, television, and regulates Internet activity (for example, Wikipedia is currently blocked in mainland China).

The other manner in which anti-intellectualism manifests itself in freedom of speech, where a bifurcation between "official" and "unofficial" is readily apparent. Communication is highly regulated on an individual basis and "the very language of communication - content, style, vocabulary, and even grammar - was different in these respective worlds," of official and unofficial speech, according to Perry Link. Chinese intellectuals, or any individuals wishing to express their true opinions about issues sensitive in the eyes of the state, are forced to do so in "unofficial" modes of communication. For the most part, "unofficial" means in private life, though private is entirely relative as the government may bug the rooms of the certain individuals in order to their monitor activities. "Official" communication is dominated the workplace, since most institutions, even those of capitalist nature, are state-run. Dissidents in the workplace may not necessarily fear bugs or other forms of direct monitor, but those expressing their true opinion on certain matters may be ratted out by co-workers. Incentive for such behavior exists because, as institutions are state-run, revealing a dissident may garner favor with bosses, paving the way for potential career gains. Conversely, a dissenter at the office risks possible reductions in pay, benefits, or even their career.

[edit]
Anti-intellectualism in the classical world
The Roman statesman Cato the Elder's public career displayed many traits that today would be considered anti-intellectual. He vehemently opposed the introduction of Greek cultural ideals and models into the Roman republic, believing them to be subversive of traditional plainspokenness and rugged military values. He urged the Roman Senate to pass its decree against the newly imported Bacchanalian mysteries, which it did in the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus in 186 BC. He urged the deportation of three Athenian philosophers, Carneades, Diogenes the Stoic, and Critolaus, who had been sent to Rome as ambassadors from Athens, on the grounds that he believed the opinions they expressed were dangerous. The Emperor Augustus also exiled many philosophers.

However, rulers in the ancient and classical worlds were generally intolerant of anyone who disagreed with them. Anti-intellectualism as hostility by self-identified "common" people, or those that claim to speak for them, against a perceived class of cultural elites is generally considered a modern phenomenon.

[edit]
A loaded term?
Not surprisingly, intellectuals commonly use allegations of anti-intellectualism as a charge against their critics. Critics of certain intellectuals in turn argue that "anti-intellectualism" is itself a loaded term. The term "intellectual" implies knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence, and thus to be called "anti-intellectual" can often be perceived as meaning one favors ignorance or stupidity.

Sometimes criticism of intellectuals can take the form of a specific critique of an intellectual's specific field of study or theory. Not all "intellectual" theories are correct, and thus an intellectual's beliefs can be disputed without necessarily being against the larger concept of intellectual study.

[edit]
See also
Anti-science
Appeal to emotion
Boffin
Creation-evolution controversy
Expert
Geek
God complex
Ignorance
Lysenkoism
Nerd
Boeotian
Obscurantism
Philistinism
Pop philosophy
Populism
Propaganda
To burn the classics and to bury the scholars
[edit]
References
Anti-intellectualism in American Life, by Richard Hofstadter: ISBN 0-394-70317-0
Anti-Intellectualism in American Media, by Dane S. Claussen: New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0-8204-5721-3
Evening Chats in Beijing: Probing China's Predicament, by Perry Link: New York,London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1991. ISBN 0-939-31065-5
Hinton, William. Hundred Day War: The Cultural Revolution at Tsinghua University. New York: New York UP, 1972. ISBN 0-85345-281-4.
Moynihan Commission Report, Appendix A, 7. The Cold War, footnote 103 quoted from Robert Warshow, The Legacy of the 30’s: Middle-Class Mass Culture and the Intellectuals’ Problem, Commentary Magazine (December 1947): 538.
"Action Will be Taken" Left Anti-Intelectualism and its Discontents by Liza Featherstone, Doug Henwood, and Christian Parenti (Left Business Observer)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism"

posted in Mediation,Conflict Resolution, - 19 replies