The term “model minority” refers to minority groups that have ostensibly achieved high levels of success in contemporary society. As part of their effort to deny cultural explanations for why there’s disparity in the world, woke prohibitionists have done everything in their power to discredit “model minority” theory. By citing the success of “white adjacent” Asians and Latino groups, the woke argument goes, people who promote the model minority myth are engaging in a form of anti-Blackness.
What the woke prohibitionists are really saying is that it is illegitimate to make cultural arguments that some immigrant communities have done better than others because of certain cultural attributes. Liberals who care about the future of liberal discourse must insist on the ability to make cultural arguments, which includes examining the successes and failures of various minority groups in the West.
None other than Spike Lee took up the theme of “model minority” in his 1989 film “Do the Right Thing,” in a scene depicting three older black men in Brooklyn discussing a successful Korean-owned store in their neighborhood:
Coconut Sid: “Look at those Korean motherfuckers across the street. I bet you they haven’t been off the boat a year before they opened up their own place. A mother fucking year off the motherfucking boat and they already have a business in our neighborhood. A good business. Occupying a building that had been boarded up longer than I care to remember. And I’ve been here a long time. Now for the life of me–I can’t figure this out–either these Korean motherfuckers are geniuses or you black asses are just plain dumb…I will be one happy fool if we open our own business right here in our own neighborhood…”
ML: “It’s gotta be because we’re black. Ain’t no other explanation.”
Sweet Dick Willie: “When are you gonna get your business? You ain’t gonna do a goddamn thing. I’m going to tell you what I am going to do. I am going to go over to those Koreans and give them some of my money.”
“Do the Right Thing” hints at how Spike Lee himself might have struggled with such perplexing, thorny issues. Like the rest of the film, the scene raised questions but offered no answers.
It has become much harder to speak of the success of various minority groups in the past 30 years since Lee made the film. Kat Chow argues in NPR that “At the root of…(this) pernicious argument is the idea that black failure and Asian success cannot be explained by inequities and racism, and that they are one and the same; this allows a segment of white America to avoid any responsibility for addressing racism or the damage it continues to inflict.”
Janelle Wong, the director of Asian American Studies at the University of Maryland, argued that model minority involves “1) ignoring the role that selective recruitment of highly educated Asian immigrants has played in Asian American success followed by 2) making a flawed comparison between Asian Americans and other groups, particularly Black Americans, to argue that racism, including more than two centuries of black enslavement, can be overcome by hard work and strong family values.”
Duke University sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva takes it a step further, arguing that to maintain white supremacy, whites will allow certain Asian and Latin American groups to become honorary whites and succeed, so they can ally with them to oppress blacks and other, generally darker-skinned Asian and Latin Americans. How precisely this happens he never explained. Apparently the forces of white supremacy work in mysterious ways.
The contention that relative Asian American success can be explained away as selective immigration or white adjacency does not hold water. Rav Arora points out that for nearly four decades in the 20th century Japanese Americans were “legally prevented from owning land and property in over a dozen American states. Moreover, 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned during World War II. But by 1959, the income disparity between Japanese Americans and white Americans nearly vanished. Today, Japanese Americans outperform whites by large margins in income statistics, education outcomes, test scores and incarceration rates.”
While some Asian and Latino groups came to America with significant social advantages, others did not and still found success. Wilfred Reilly, a political scientist and author of Taboo: 10 Facts You Can’t Talk About, points out that “many non-white American groups, including both Asian Americans and African immigrants, appear to have lower crime rates than whites do.” He continued, “caucasians dominate a whole range of socially problematic behaviors ranging from suicide to car wrecks to opiate abuse.” Indeed, the success of certain immigrant communities shines a bright light on the cultural maladies of whites, particularly in the south, as well as inner city blacks.
No doubt, invoking the model minority motif can be insensitive and even demeaning. It can easily be weaponized as an ugly canard, e.g., “Asians value education and hard work and blacks don’t.” Unfortunately, in this restrictive environment, too often the only people with the temerity to say anything out loud about culture are witless boors. Speaking a partial truth in a demeaning manner does not advance understanding. Such chauvinism emboldens woke prohibitionists, some of whom genuinely want to protect vulnerable people from unfair attacks. It turns out that when liberals fail to make thoughtfully-stated cultural arguments, they cede the floor to both bigots and woke ideologues.
While I do not know how to precisely weigh the various factors, such as cultural differences and legacies of oppression, selective immigration and institutional racism, in answering the question of why certain subgroups experience higher levels of success than others, it is beyond dispute that culture matters. Wilfred Reilly asserts “an especially important cultural variable…is the presence of a father in a child’s life…The National Center for Fathering states the plain facts bluntly: “Children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor, become involved in drug and alcohol abuse, drop out of school, and suffer from health and emotional problems. Boys are more likely to be involved in crime, and girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens.” Reilly states that “the anti-success effects of illegitimacy—and most notably of being raised by a young single mother—seem to be exactly the same for whites, Hispanics, and Blacks.” With a 75 percent illegitimacy rate in the Black community, it should surprise no one that there is an achievement gap.
Woke prohibitionists have made it nearly impossible to discuss the cultural variable. It’s too important a question to let them have their way.
47 comments
The Asians are not better than anyone their culture is not better they don’t live crime free lives have transnational human trafficking rings, drugs dealings,illegal activities are commonplace in Asian communities racist propaganda flows out of Asian run cities and communities.
They succeed because they are not targeted by the government and protected by their government in their homeland. Period.
You keep thinking these antiblack commie Marxists are the black American community and you will be very surprised our responses.
Asians need to leave us alone and stop comparing their cheating and hand up from authority and the bias in their favor to the descendants of slaves. They succeed bc black Americans are prevented from living their lives like normal ppl. They succeed bc we are kept down and deprived of any aid. Asians make the most in the country and attack the descendants of slaves as of they are competing. They can’t compete with us. They would never win.
gmmayo-
You’re probably familiar with Martin Niemolller’s quote, “First they came for the socialists and I did not speak out…and then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.” That sounds dire, I know.
I also understand the dangers of (i.e. getting terminated from a job) of speaking out against CT.
It’s a difficult situation. There’s, of course, safety in numbers (generally).
How much of the fatherless theory of under achievement could be examined by looking at the highest performing black students of any age and finding out if they have engaged male fathers or role models?
“Woke prohibitionists have made it nearly impossible to discuss the cultural variable.”
What’s more striking is how many people have never even considered a cultural variable. In one on one settings, I have had remarkable success in at least getting people to consider the obvious disparities from the cultural angle, and not only the dominant oppressor/oppressed trope.
A good friend of mine and I were having a discussion about this once, and I said that popular black culture had largely rejected many of the traits which bring socio-economic stability and even success. When he asked what I meant, I asked him – an educated man, who prized a good work ethic, study, punctuality, fiscal responsibility, etc – if any of his black friends had ever accused him of “acting white”, to which he resignedly said that he had.
Consider the Smithsonian’s recently ill-considered publication of what was considered “white supremacy” on its NMAAHC website – a list of traits that successful cultures have adopted independently of “white” influence for millennia. It was something that any actual white supremacist would see and nod in hearty agreement. After all, what supremacist wouldn’t want to claim a monopoly on the secrets of success? Nevermind the fact that millions of whites reject these same cultural traits with predictably similar poor socio-economic outcomes.
If, and it’s a big IF, you can get the conversation started, it is rewarding, productive, and interesting. You may not be entirely successful in changing minds, but you will likely get people to at least understand that it is an extraordinary complex and nuanced subject that does not lend itself well to the ridiculously reductivist outlook pushed by social “science”.
Could not agree more
David – Thanks for writing this, it dovetailed nicely with Helen’s piece at Areo today. In my daily wokeism newsletter I quoted you at length and also added a link to the “Straight Black Men are The White People of Black People” meme going around. Cheers!
https://snsmkr.com/the-fruits-and-thorns-of-liberalism-and-illiberalism-snsmkr-daily-digest/
I will read. Haven’t seen Helen’s post either.
What an incredibly dispiriting display by Pluckrose.
I was under the impression she had a firmer grasp on the threat CSJ posed to a pluralistic liberal democracy than she apparently does. I think this is rooted in her own, now-obvious misconceptions about the American political spectrum and public policy.
I had been interested in looking into her other works, but after that piece, I’ll relegate my interest in her work to that which is restricted to CSJ.
I agree-CT is present on a larger scope and scale than most, I think, realize. Good example: I read an article discussing how straight and white teeth is an indicator of privilege!
Normal body weight v. overweight/obesity is another class/privilege issue. Really?! Am I the only one to realize that obesity can be avoided is one eats moderately and exercises/moves?
Andy, please be in touch by email. I like your blog and am always looking to collaborate with others on these issues [email protected]
I would argue “model minorities” tend to do well in some part because of something even more heretical to the woke than culture, inherited cogitive ability.
Of course, that’s cognitive ability.
Blasphemy, indeed. How would you argue that? It seems nearly impossible to make that case, apart from having to cognitively test (that alone is challenging enough) massive swathes of statistically representative individuals such that you can control for any amount of “nurture,” which you would need to do, convincingly, to turn the spotlight solely on “nature.” Otherwise, that’s literally racism.
We know that intelligence is largely inherited, and we have plenty of data from large enough sample sizes to make externally valid correlations about various demographics.
When the data first came to light, there were four main responses to the disparities. 1) The methodology was flawed 2) IQ tests are racist. 3) Is there a cultural explanation? 4) There is an intellectual hierarchy of races.
In a robust and intellectually honest society, all four of these responses should be up for vigorous debate. The first is difficult to refute. The second and third are closely related as they deal precisely with the central thesis of this article. The 4th is probably the most uncomfortable due to the implications, but you defeat poor ideas with better ideas, not mindless aspersions.
The problem is that reflexively shouting “racism” is what makes reasoned discussion about this impossible.
gmmayo70 hello-
I don’t know how familiar you are with psychometrics (psych testing). Lewis Terman is an interesting psychologist/psychometrician. He revised the Stanford-Binet (SB), an early IQ test. Alfred Binet designed the original test and was meant to assess measures of intelligence in people with cognitive disabilities (once called mental retardation).
Terman is also famously and infamously know for noting that white people score higher than black people.
Big however here: Terman also found that Asians outscore whites on IQ tests. I’ve discovered some folks don’t know this.
Binet designed the original test to determine which pupils were in need of additional tutoring above and beyond what they normally received in the classroom in order to get them that help. Terman completely reversed the purpose of the test, using it to determine
which students NOT to waste scarce educational resources on because they were too stupid to benefit from it. He was also a prime mover in the infamous intelligence test applied to army recruits during the Great War that ‘determined’ that people of eastern and southern european extraction were mentally inferior to native ‘white’ English-speaking inhabitants of America, thus providing a scientific ‘basis’ supporting the anti-immigration laws promulgated in the 1920’s (they were likely going to come anyway, but his work helped polish that turd). Terman is also responsible for other abortions of scientific research like his study of gifted children and their progression through life.
Most existing intelligence tests do NOT test intelligence, they test knowledge and the ability to take tests. A shitty education, or an upbringing in a culture with ‘different ways of knowing’, will thus put the recipient of that education or upbringing at a disadvantage when taking that test, because they lack the knowledge or the appropriate mental matrix (probably not the right term). That is what Terman et al failed to understand when they created their tests and testing protocols. There is also the little problem of apples and oranges caused by test revisions and revisions to curricula. Average IQ scores going up doesn’t mean people are getting smarter; it means they are more knowledgeable than before and/or the tests and schooling are getting easier. Just my take.
(from wiki on Theory of Mind)
“Researchers have proposed that five key aspects of theory of mind develop sequentially for all children between the ages of three to five.[53] This five-step theory of mind scale consists of the development of diverse desires (DD), diverse beliefs (DB), knowledge access (KA), false beliefs (FB), and hidden emotions (HE).[53] Australian, American and European children acquire theory of mind in this exact order,[54] and studies with children in Canada, India, Peru, Samoa, and Thailand indicate that they all pass the false belief task at around the same time, suggesting that the children develop theory of mind consistently around the world.[55]
However, children from Iran and China develop theory of mind in a slightly different order. Although they begin the development of theory of mind around the same time, toddlers from these countries understand knowledge access (KA) before Western children but take longer to understand diverse beliefs (DB).[54][56] Researchers believe this swap in the developmental order is related to the culture of collectivism in Iran and China, which emphasizes interdependence and shared knowledge as opposed to the culture of individualism in Western countries, which promotes individuality and accepts differing opinions. Because of these different cultural values, Iranian and Chinese children might take longer to understand that other people have different beliefs and opinions. This suggests that the development of theory of mind is not universal and solely determined by innate brain processes but also influenced by social and cultural factors.[54]”
I have a feeling that the development of Theory of Mind would go a longer way to explaining inequities than systemic racism. You’ll notice in the above wiki entry that, supposedly due to “the culture of collectivism”, that children in Iran and China “understand knowledge access (KA) before Western children but take longer to understand diverse beliefs (DB).”
This sounds very familiar to our woke children today, doesn’t it? They focus very much on “knowledge access” while having a hateful deficit in “diversity of beliefs”. Do they fear that of which their understanding is sub-par?
Elsewhere in the wiki article it is mentioned that some connection with mimicry could effect the quality or strength of the development of Theory of Mind. When we see how the Western ways of doing things has been demonized as “white supremacist”, we see also the blocking of mimicry with things like “don’t act white” or calling blacks who don’t subscribe to certain identity markers as “coons” or “uncle toms”.
By reducing things like logic or discipline or punctuality or science to “evil white guy stuff”, they keep their subscribers, the true believers, from having or further developing the tools that are not only necessary for any kind of success, economic or otherwise, but also the tools to see through the bullshit they’re selling.
This blocking of mimicry reduces the capacity for Theory of Mind, which is very important for understanding and predicting human behavior, which in its turn, is crucial to outcomes. Blocking people from mimicking those who are successful, out of ignorance, racism or class hatred, will naturally create a block to success for the mimic-less.
Now, it’s not that cut and dry of course, but I think it might be a factor in the present and will be a much greater factor in the future if our schools educate the children to be woke collectivists.
If… “this swap in the developmental order is related to the culture of collectivism…which emphasizes interdependence and shared knowledge as opposed to the culture of individualism…which promotes individuality and accepts differing opinions…” is true, it would seem to follow that:
-there is some difference between the mind of an “individualist” and a “collectivist”
-the collective mind and the individual mind are formed under different environments
-Theory of Mind is likely to develop in an order related to what is emphasized in the environment
Theory of Mind also seems to be strongly correlated with language:
“Pragmatic theories of communication[29] assume that infants must possess an understanding of beliefs and mental states of others to infer the communicative content that proficient language users intend to convey. Since a verbal utterance is often underdetermined, and therefore, it can have different meanings depending on the actual context theory of mind abilities can play a crucial role in understanding the communicative and informative intentions of others and inferring the meaning of words. Some empirical results[30] suggest that even 13-month-old infants have an early capacity for communicative mind-reading that enables them to infer what relevant information is transferred between communicative partners, which implies that human language relies at least partially on theory of mind skills.
Carol A. Miller posed further possible explanations for this relationship. One idea was that the extent of verbal communication and conversation involving children in a family could explain theory of mind development. The belief is that this type of language exposure could help introduce a child to the different mental states and perspectives of others.[31] This has been suggested empirically by findings indicating that participation in family discussion predict scores on theory of mind tasks,[32] as well as findings showing that deaf children who have hearing parents and may not be able to communicate with their parents much during early years of development tend to score lower on theory of mind tasks.[33]
Another explanation of the relationship between language and theory of mind development has to do with a child’s understanding of mental state words such as “think” and “believe”. Since a mental state is not something that one can observe from behavior, children must learn the meanings of words denoting mental states from verbal explanations alone, requiring knowledge of the syntactic rules, semantic systems, and pragmatics of a language.[31] Studies have shown that understanding of these mental state words predicts theory of mind in four-year-olds.[34]
A third hypothesis is that the ability to distinguish a whole sentence (“Jimmy thinks the world is flat”) from its embedded complement (“the world is flat”) and understand that one can be true while the other can be false is related to theory of mind development. Recognizing these sentential complements as being independent of one another is a relatively complex syntactic skill and has been shown to be related to increased scores on theory of mind tasks in children.[35]
In addition to these hypotheses, there is also evidence that the neural networks between the areas of the brain responsible for language and theory of mind are closely connected. The temporoparietal junction has been shown to be involved in the ability to acquire new vocabulary, as well as perceive and reproduce words. The temporoparietal junction also contains areas that specialize in recognizing faces, voices, and biological motion, in addition to theory of mind. Since all of these areas are located so closely together, it is reasonable to conclude that they work together. Moreover, studies have reported an increase in activity in the TPJ when patients are absorbing information through reading or images regarding other peoples’ beliefs but not while observing information about physical control stimuli.[36]”
The idea that words can be violent or that words are always only unfolding power dynamics or the condition in which one is want to see racism everywhere or the inability to understand why anyone would be against their woke ideology other than wanton bigotry – all this seems to me to be examples of poor development of Theory of Mind.
Perhaps, if it is true that “the extent of verbal communication and conversation involving children in a family could explain theory of mind development” and that “this type of language exposure could help introduce a child to the different mental states and perspectives of others” it would easily follow that the breakdown of the extended family and the nuclear family is of major importance in the vulnerability of young people to the cult of woke drivel due to the lack of language exposure that would have in past times been provided by family settings.
It might be that, later on in life, many of them look to society and to collectivism to fill this social-emotional gap and to make up for the developmental weakness. This may be a contributing factor as to why it’s so hard to reason with any of them or to even communicate with them, for doing so might shatter the “shared knowledge” that fills the emotional wound and binds together the collective on which they depend. Thus, reasoning threatens the very structure of their mind, causing them to act like cornered animals at the slightest hint of non-belief or wrong think.
That “there is also evidence that the neural networks between the areas of the brain responsible for language and theory of mind are closely connected” and “the temporoparietal junction also contains areas that specialize in recognizing faces” and that these areas “work together”, it also seems reasonable to suggest that recognition of racial characteristics could play into this on a deeper level as it connects to language, facial recognition and Theory of Mind.
It’s not as though these people have some total lack of Theory of Mind, like mind-blindness, but many of them do seem to not just have a “collective” Theory of Mind, but an actual deficit, as described below in the wiki:
“The theory of mind impairment describes a difficulty someone would have with perspective-taking. This is also sometimes referred to as mind-blindness. This means that individuals with a theory of mind impairment would have a difficult time seeing phenomena from any other perspective than their own.[72] Individuals who experience a theory of mind deficit have difficulty determining the intentions of others, lack understanding of how their behavior affects others, and have a difficult time with social reciprocity.[73] Theory of Mind deficits have been observed in people with autism spectrum disorders, people with schizophrenia, people with nonverbal learning disorder, people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,[1] persons under the influence of alcohol and narcotics, sleep-deprived persons, and persons who are experiencing severe emotional or physical pain. Theory of mind deficits have also been observed in deaf children who are late signers (i.e. are born to hearing parents), but the deficit is due to the delay in language learning, not any cognitive deficit, and therefore disappears once the child learns sign language.[74]”
“One of the most pathetic–and dangerous–signs of our times is the growing number of individuals and groups who believe that no one can possibly disagree with them for any honest reason.” -Thomas Sowell
I appreciate that New Discourses continues to provide informed, thoughtful articles such as this so that we mere mortals may better understand the extent to which some have signed on to the rabid zealotry of the woke religion.
I will say however that I really don’t spend much time fretting over how I might deal with a card-carrying Wokist should the occasion arise.
Why?
Because I would never associate with such people.
There’s no need. There’s no point.
A discussion, even a heated argument, with someone holding an alternate view on any given topic can be engaging, informative and just downright good fun.
Subjecting myself to the delusional, baseless, pre-programmed rantings of Woke-vangelists would offer none of those things.
Lucky you! I’m a teacher, one of two that are still freethinkers. My coworker almost got fired for not espousing the mantra. I’m still struggling to find a pronoun that doesn’t incite criticism. You’d think a 60something female Middle Eastern nerd could be given a break. I think I’ve only still survived is I’m the only fool who has left high tech to teach ST3M.
Harry – based on your comment I’d say it’s less likely you work for ‘corporate America’ or anything in academia.
Nail and head. Fantastically expressed.
David (if I may)-
Please don’t overthink the issue. It’s always easier (humans prefer easy to challenging) to blame some else for a misfortune.
A couple of other thoughts-Most humans value being liked over being respected. Also, humans also tend to conform to group standards.
Our behavior is the result of the interplay between our environment and our genetics. Relatedly, some traits such as intelligence and height are heritable.
Woke ideology for white people is a luxury belief-Most of the adherents have almost certainly never spend time in section 8 housing, transported Medicaid patients in their own cars, visited a clients in the projects or ever socially associated with the poor, oppressed group they seek to empower.
This same wokeness actually ends up harming the intended beneficiary. White, woke people with money don’t have to worry about the unintended consequences of their beliefs. At the end of the day, they can safely return to their safe enclaves.
Finally, let’s discuss the fact that wokeness is actually racist. Implicit in the “need to help” oppressed people, is the belief they are weak and can’t do it for themselves. When people aren’t allowed to fail, they remain dependent on others. That’s hardly freedom.
Let’s focus on techniques to combat wokeness instead of how bad it is. If you stay there, you are stuck. Stuck doesn’t solve problems.
That’s all fine but I was writing about Model Minority Myth, which is being used to silence cultural critique.
David-
I understand you are writing about the minority myth cudgel. My point was and is this concept is merely another iteration/presentation of Critical Theory. This notion emerged from psychology/sociology and began to receive limited notice from a few people in the early 2000s.
During the course of my professional practice, I’ve had a front row seat to the release of some truly crappy ideas. Multiculturalism morphed into cultural competence and last year I learned about cultural humility.
I apply Occam’s razor the the myth, I boils down to: “I shouldn’t be responsible for the consequences of my actions”.
Of course it’s CRT. It all is. But we see different manifestations of it. That’s why we all write multiple articles and not just one. We respond to these manifestations and equip our community with arguments and our best thinking.
David-
Genuinely curious here: Beyond offering knowledg eabout and flaws in CRT, what other actions do you suggest as a weapon against CT?
Cal,
Responding: Genuinely curious here: Beyond offering knowledg eabout and flaws in CRT, what other actions do you suggest as a weapon against CT?
That’s the question I am struggling with now. One of the questions I have is this an effort to win over fence sitters or energizing the core. I think James L is a core guy. He’s trying to build a lot of followers and use them to even the score with the wokescolds. There may be value to that. I am more of a convince the fence sitters guy. I want our movement to exude liberal values and do the opposite of our adversaries–show respect. That’s my general preference in political strategy. But I’ve seen the “energizing the core” model work as well. In the meantime, I’m collecting ideas on how to defeat woke-ism. Arguments are important. But so are forms of advocacy (how can we get corporations, for example, to stop CRT style trainings?).
David,
Re: Responding: Genuinely curious here: One intervention is to employ the Socratic method with your listener/enemy. Cognitive Behavior Therapy and others (REBT, Reality Therapy, etc.) are based on it. So is Solution Focused Therapy.
I like all of the above. They have the client focus on a more active and reason-based course of Tx. Humanist theories are in line with feelings. Think Carl Rogers. The name Erich Fromm should sound some CT alerts here for you. Half of CT is comprised of principles from psych.
By the way, Freud (half the CT picture) was not entirely worthless. He did note, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.
A couple of other thoughts: I think humans always have the capacity to change unless:
They are dead.
Physically incapable (profound cognitive limitations, formerly mental retardation).
Actively psychotic.
Also note, the more entrenched and long practiced a behavior is, the harder and longer it will be to change.
I would be interested to discuss the above issues with you in greater detail.
Cal, I’m interested in the nexus of psych and CT. The CRT trainers treat race and racism as if they’re therapists. You’ll watch a film on racial dynamics and then sit with a group. The CRT trainer will ask you how the film made you feel. They see racism as a psychological disorder.
David,
I’m replying to your post below here re: racism as a mental health disorder (either it’s operator error or the link is missing). Anyway, I think your point is a valid one! All one needs to do is reference the history of how the former USSR used mental health disorder as a means to control dissenters.
On another note, I’m sure it feels really annoying to have a CRT trainer talk to people in therapist mode. I immediately see one palliative action everyone can take. It’s this: remember no one but you controls your feelings. Don’t respond with a “that makes me angry/sad, etc.
Instead (since some sort of response is expected), say “I feel angry/sad, etc when etc.” It may seem very subtle; however, you are retaking some control away from the presenter. Like I noted, it’s only palliative, not curative.
Sort of off-topic, it appears to me that far too many people wouldn’t be able to identify a properly designed experiment and have an inadequate understanding of stats. Do you observe the same thing?
Cal, Responding to CRT therapy: I said at the time “I don’t know how I feel but I do know what I think…” This is really the tact of White Fragility–an intellectual critique (I think what you are arguing makes no sense) is treated as an emotional malady (you are just being fragile). I plan on doing a piece on this if someone hasn’t already completely covered it… Happy to discuss [email protected]
Cal,
Your reference to the USSR’s use of psychology to control dissenters reminded me of that execrable study published back in 2012 about political conservatives exhibiting psychopathic traits. Setting aside the extremely poor methodology, it turned out they got their coding switched:
https://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/07/conservative-political-beliefs-not-linked-to-psychotic-traits/
Of course the authors later published a correction, but the damage was done. It was cited in 45 other papers and of course most of the usual sympathetic media outlets sprinted with the story.
Not to be outdone, other “scholars” published a similar paper in 2018. Their operationalization is also questionable, to be charitable:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918302332
At least this crew got their coding right.
This matters because this is ideology masquerading as science. In 2008, Wesley Clark called for re-education camps for American citizens during a presidential debate. Staffers on the Sanders campaign seemed Gulag-curious just last year. A senior CA Democrat operative recently called for “reprogramming” Trump supporters. The Washington Post recently proposed a litmus test for Republicans on election integrity before allowing them any media air time. These aren’t nobodies, nor can this be relegated to a fringe belief. The hour is late.
If a segment of the American population is crazy or poorly informed, and we value a pluralistic liberal democracy, shouldn’t such craziness and misinformation be cured by sober argument and better ideas? There are now mainstream calls for what used to terrify the American public about repressive foreign regimes, and that should give anyone pause before accepting these new “diagnoses”.
I’m afraid the techniques woke itself uses are pretty effective. Give the corporations negative publicity for it. Make slogans and hashtags that encapsulate points that need made. It’s not really natural to individualist liberals who prefer in-depth discussions but propaganda works, and always has.
Cal – you often call for articles on “what to do”. Which makes sense – theory is useless until applied (speaking as an engineer). However, here you’re calling for a shift in direction of articles to action-oriented away from informational and analytical:
“Let’s focus on techniques to combat wokeness instead of how bad it is.”
I don’t see why the site can’t host articles of both types. There is no reason articles like “The Model Minority Myth Cudgel” can’t and shouldn’t be posted.
Just FYI-I hope to write a series of articles on what we can do… I also think we need to create some kind of wiki in which we collect the best thinking.
I feel a little culpable for the mindset. I’ve frequently criticized this site for being almost exclusively focused on theory with little effort being made to develop a methodology to counter CRT and CSJ. Cal is not the only commenter to respond this way.
The work here is invaluable, but this theory is wasted without a methodic approach toward achieving the implied goals of reversing CRT’s damage to liberalism.
@David Bern
I look forward to work.
I agree John. Education on all the children of Critical Theory are necessary, but not sufficient. We have to understand the disease before we can appropriately treat it. And, it must be treated.
I’m probably “ahead of the curve” insofar as being aware of absurd, harmful applications of critical theory in psychology. On a related note, CT will eventually ruin the effective practice of mental health counseling. CT tells people they are powerless victims. Powerless people think/know they can’t change their problem. They rely on authority to do it for them. That’s not freedom-it’s imprisonment.
your work*
If only we could edit these comments. It would save me the burden of proofreading!
David,
I’m responding to your below comment about “I think/feel v that makes me feel” statements.
Briefly, The syntax merely re-empowers the speaker a bit. Our word choices are important. Also, I’m not suggesting you discuss your feelings in a group setting with people more powerful than you. (That’s threatening ) The rationale is: anything is better than nothing. Yes, I know that doesn’t address the larger problem of CT classes.
Another tactic is to interact with the presented in the same way you would with a Borderline or Narcissist.
I’ll visit unwoke blog and offer more detail there.
‘Woke ideology for white people is a luxury belief-Most of the adherents have almost certainly never spend time in section 8 housing, transported Medicaid patients in their own cars, visited a clients in the projects or ever socially associated with the poor, oppressed group they seek to empower.’
Quillette has a review of a book by British Labor political Paul Embery describing the abandonment of the laboring class by his party and why it’s the cause of their poor performance in the 2019 elections. https://quillette.com/2020/12/02/despised-a-review/
Here’s a quote from the review, which corroborates your statement above:
‘(Paul) Embery is scathing about the colonisation of the activist base of the Labour Party by what he calls “Toytown Revolutionaries”—middle-class liberals playing at radicalism. These people represent what David Swift calls political hobbyism, burnishing their moral credentials through the expression of luxury beliefs on racial, sexual, and gender identity to signify high status while effecting no change in the real world.’
Another name for them is ‘Recreational Marxists’, a phrase I borrowed from quote of an Eastern European who had actually lived behind the Iron Curtain who referred to her radicalized fellow college students (during continuing education in her middle age) who questioned her cynicism about The Cause.
And to reply to a much earlier reply to a comment of mine on another thread, I did not see the ‘He’s Alive’ episode of the Twilight Zone, I was four at the time it aired, and never saw many reruns of the series, although I did read the on-line synopsis after your comment.
Tars-
Exactly. In the 1970, Tom Wolfe, an American author, coined the term, “radical chic”. Radical chic is: “… a term coined by journalist Tom Wolfe in his 1970 essay “Radical Chic: That Party at Lenny’s” to describe the adoption and promotion of radical political causes by celebrities, socialites, and high society. In languages such as American English, French and Italian the term has become widely used to indicate people identifying themselves as socialists or radical leftists while conducting upper-class lifestyles.” (lifted from Wikipedia).
Secondly, you can watch original episodes of Twilight Zone on youtube. Also, if you’re in America, Syfy runs plays them. Ahh, another good episode is “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.”
I’ll go to Quilette and read the review you cited.
Excellent point! There are more than a few similarities between what was radical chic of the 1970s and the woke progressive perspective
Tars-
The reply link to your comment about IQ is absent. So, I’m replying to your comment on IQ test here.
Couple of thing: I define intelligence as the ability to see relationships. There are plenty of people who are smarter than hell, but perform poorly on vocabulary measures. Many of these individuals are in the Criminal System (CJ) system.
I agree that IQ tests can be skewed and some scales are affected by culture. I don’t know what your profession is (I’m not asking), however if it is in psychology, you know that IQ is very hard to measure. That is the reason Cattell developed a culture-free or fair IQ test and the notions of fluid v crystallized intelligence.
There are a multitude of other IQ tests. Some examples: The Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale 4th ed. Cattell’s test, and others. As you already seem to know, the Stanford-Binet is used primarily in school systems.
IQ tests are an objective measure of intelligence. Anything else is subjective.
‘Unfortunately, in this restrictive environment, too often the only people with the temerity to say anything out loud about culture are witless boors.’
Or they might actually be courageous curmudgeons, who don’t give an ‘F’ about what the woke think because they know they are going to get dogpiled the nanosecond they open their mouths, no matter what they say.
‘“Children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor, become involved in drug and alcohol abuse, drop out of school, and suffer from health and emotional problems. Boys are more likely to be involved in crime, and girls are more likely to become pregnant as teens.”’
Anthony Malcolm Daniels, writing as Theodore Dalrymple, has described this very state of being in the poor white communities of England. It’s the nurture, not the nature, although try to explain that to the logic and fact-resistant Blank-Slatist Woke.
I think its incumbent upon us to carefully and thoughtfully discuss issues of race and culture. That doesn’t mean perpetuating lies and woke silliness. It means speaking what we consider the truth the best we can, aware that there are those in our midst might use it in a demeaning way.
Carefully and thoughtfully, according to whom?
They think words are violence.
Any disagreement or criticism is by definition witless and boorish to them. They only accept acquiescence.