Study says: Don't hug Nazis, tell them to STFU

[FIVR]

A new study confirms that hugging or otherwise tolerating Nazis and bigots is not the way to change their behavior. We often hear from posters on this forum that we should tolerate intolerance and refrain from offending bigots, but science appears to tell us the opposite: We need to be MEAN to bigots. Make fun of them, tell them to STFU, marginalize them in conversations. There is nothing wrong with being an asshole if you are being an asshole to a Nazi. If you allow them to speak and share their views, you are giving your implied consent and approval. You are normalizing them, just like the New York Times.

Social psychologists Diana Sanchez and Kimberly Chaney have studied the way people react to being confronted about making bigoted statements and discovered that people who are confronted feel bad and consciously try to avoid repeating such statements. Their new research is published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

“We found that participants who were confronted felt bad about their behavior, ruminated more, showed an enduring prejudice reduction,” said Sanchez, an associate professor of psychology in the School of Arts and Sciences. “And we didn’t just look at their immediate response, but looked at them a week later.”

See below:

https://news.rutgers.edu/speaking-against-bigotry-can-reduce-bad-behavior/20171129#.WiHWd7aZO9v

 

[woolfe9998]

You're stretching your interpretation of the study. What it says is that if someone says something bigoted, you're more likely to change their behavior by pointing it out rather than doing nothing. It says nothing about the manner in which you confront them, whether it's by being aggressive or more calm and respectful.

Also, my read of the article suggests that it may matter which type of bigot we're talking about. The "curmudgeonly uncle who says something unintentionally bigoted" is someone you can perhaps shame by calling him on it. But the Nazi is proud of his bigotry, and might not be so deterred because he gets outed.

 

[FIVR]

You're stretching your interpretation of the study. What it says is that if someone says something bigoted, you're more likely to change their behavior by pointing it out rather than doing nothing. It says nothing about the manner in which you confront them, whether it's by being aggressive or more calm and respectful.

Also, my read of the article suggests that it may matter which type of bigot we're talking about. The "curmudgeonly uncle who says something unintentionally bigoted" is someone you can perhaps shame by calling him on it. But the Nazi is proud of his bigotry, and might not be so deterred because he gets outed.

The study obviously needs to be expanded and more data analyzed. The next obvious step would be to include violence. Does violence against bigots work even better than vocal criticism? We need more studies.

 

[woolfe9998]

The study obviously needs to be expanded and more data analyzed. The next obvious step would be to include violence. Does violence against bigots work even better than vocal criticism? We need more studies.

I'm pretty sure they aren't going to beat people up in a lab setting as that would be unethical. I suppose they could try relying on real world case studies, but I doubt there would be a sufficient number to qualify for statistical validity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm pretty sure they aren't going to beat people up in a lab setting as that would be unethical. I suppose they could try relying on real world case studies, but I doubt there would be a sufficient number to qualify for statistical validity.

This would be an impossible study since the variables in such conflict could not be managed. The best one could do are sporadic anecdotes. I wonder if the OP would be willing to engage in physical conflict with Klansmen to assist with that challenge.

 

[theeedude]

That study is too PC.

 

[interchange]

You're stretching your interpretation of the study. What it says is that if someone says something bigoted, you're more likely to change their behavior by pointing it out rather than doing nothing. It says nothing about the manner in which you confront them, whether it's by being aggressive or more calm and respectful.

Also, my read of the article suggests that it may matter which type of bigot we're talking about. The "curmudgeonly uncle who says something unintentionally bigoted" is someone you can perhaps shame by calling him on it. But the Nazi is proud of his bigotry, and might not be so deterred because he gets outed.

Thanks for something reasonable but it's obvious the OP doesn't want reason. I should note that, at least for me, I have tried to be clear that compassion for someone and treating them like a person involves also condemning beliefs and actions and holding people to equitable justice for crimes. I believe that success of such "confrontation" is bolstered by compassion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thanks for something reasonable but it's obvious the OP doesn't want reason. I should note that, at least for me, I have tried to be cleared that compassion for someone and treating them like a person involves also condemning beliefs and actions and holding people to equitable justice for crimes. I believe that success of such "confrontation" is bolstered by compassion.

I also note the ease which he transitioned to violence, something he seems to not understand in real-world terms. Such confrontations could easily lead to a life and death scenario, and it is not wise to engage in such things unless one is physically and psychologically prepared for. No, it's foolish even then, but to emerge alive and functional those requirements are not optional.

The first rule of fighting is to not get into a fight. Someone doesn't know that.

 

[Zaap]

LOL. Isn't FIVR just Agent Fail back for more fun?

 

[pmv]

You're stretching your interpretation of the study. What it says is that if someone says something bigoted, you're more likely to change their behavior by pointing it out rather than doing nothing. It says nothing about the manner in which you confront them, whether it's by being aggressive or more calm and respectful.

Also, my read of the article suggests that it may matter which type of bigot we're talking about. The "curmudgeonly uncle who says something unintentionally bigoted" is someone you can perhaps shame by calling him on it. But the Nazi is proud of his bigotry, and might not be so deterred because he gets outed.

Not sure how much I agree with you in general. But I do agree with this post.

I don't think social psychology studies are ever fully convincing, because the whole subject deals with such extremely fuzzy concepts. What is a 'bigot'? Is there just one kind of 'bigotry' that follows the same rules in all contexts? Does this study apply across all social demographic groups? What if the context is such that the vast majority are bigoted, does that mean the non-bigots will be changed by being confronted by the bigot majority?

And, yeah, it doesn't seem to say anything about the _nature_ of the 'confrontation', which is surely the main point of disagreement?

I would have said it was 'conventional wisdom' that you should verbally-challenge prejudicial statements...but people still don't necessarily want to cause arguments, that's just human nature.

Nor, as far as I can see, does it say anything about how long-lasting any change is (a week is not a long time in politics), and whether it turns out to be 'real' if circumstances change so as to put someone on the spot when it comes to actions rather than words. Anyone can learn to say the socially-acceptable things, it doesn't mean they won't up and join the Nazi party if they find themselves in a Weimar situation. Nor does someone saying vile things mean they won't step in to help an individual of the group they bad-mouth, especially if they feel they have other factors in common with them that come to seem more important.

This seems to make it all about individual psychology, when surely it's about what's going on in society and the economy?

 

[pmv]

LOL. Isn't FIVR just Agent Fail back for more fun?

Given that both his prose-style and his politics appear to be completely different, I rather doubt it.

 

[shortylickens]

Well if the fucking PRESIDENT hugs them then how the hell are they encouraged to change their ways?

 

[woolfe9998]

Not sure how much I agree with you in general. But I do agree with this post.

I don't think social psychology studies are ever fully convincing, because the whole subject deals with such extremely fuzzy concepts. What is a 'bigot'? Is there just one kind of 'bigotry' that follows the same rules in all contexts? Does this study apply across all social demographic groups? What if the context is such that the vast majority are bigoted, does that mean the non-bigots will be changed by being confronted by the bigot majority?

And, yeah, it doesn't seem to say anything about the _nature_ of the 'confrontation', which is surely the main point of disagreement?

Nor, as far as I can see, does it say anything about how long-lasting any change is (a week is not a long time in politics), and whether it turns out to be 'real' if circumstances change so as to put someone on the spot when it comes to actions rather than words. Anyone can learn to say the socially-acceptable things, it doesn't mean they won't up and join the Nazi party if they find themselves in a Weimar situation. Nor does someone saying vile things mean they won't step in to help an individual of the group they bad-mouth, especially if they feel they have other factors in common with them that come to seem more important.

This seems to make it all about individual psychology, when surely it's about what's going on in society and the economy?

As one who majored in psych undergrad and took two social psych course, I agree. The vast majority of social psych studies are trying to measure something affected by myriad variables in a lab setting where most of the variables aren't present. And the ones that aren't doing that are telling us things we probably already know. Like someone is more likely to help you by giving you directions to where you're going if you didn't first accidently step on the person's foot than if you did. Yes, that was an actual study I recall reading about.

 

[OWR88]

Punch them in the face is my preferred method.

However some people seems to be against that.....Still not sure why after long debate.

 

[pmv]

As one who majored in psych undergrad and took two social psych course, I agree. The vast majority of social psych studies are trying to measure something affected by myriad variables in a lab setting where most of the variables aren't present. And the ones that aren't doing that are telling us things we probably already know. Like someone is more likely to help you by giving you directions to where you're going if you didn't first accidently step on the person's foot than if you did. Yes, that was an actual study I recall reading about.

Even when I _want_ to find one convincing because I like the finding, it still often seems very weak stuff to me. Humans aren't fundamental particles, I don't see one can so easily isolate variables as in physics experiments.

 

[HomerJS]

Its the core of what I have been saying. These people need to by publicly outed. Make it as uncomfortable for them as possible short of violence.

Like the moron who lost his job when people found out who he is.

 

[theeedude]

Tell Nazis and Republicans to STFU, for sure. Fortunately, most Trump supporters I know have shut themselves up already. But we know who they are.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Punch them in the face is my preferred method.

However some people seems to be against that.....Still not sure why after long debate.

Because it's like screwing for celibacy

 

[Jaskalas]

Study says: Don't hug Nazis, tell them to STFU

The problem is when you don't stop at just Nazis and instead treat all Trump voters that way. When you attack middle America.
Scream all you want at the edge cases, but if you want to win an election make damn sure your aim is true.

 

[Jaskalas]

The next obvious step would be to include violence.

I'm pretty sure they aren't going to beat people up in a lab setting as that would be unethical. I suppose they could try relying on real world case studies, but I doubt there would be a sufficient number to qualify for statistical validity.

Erdogan's purge in Turkey might be a fine case study of the sort of violence FIVR is begging for.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Punch them in the face is my preferred method.

However some people seems to be against that.....Still not sure why after long debate.

Because it's like fucking for virginity.

 

[Puffnstuff]

What we shouldn't do is give them an audience or demonstrate hatred back towards them as both serve to reinforce their world views.

 

[ch33zw1z]

What we shouldn't do is give them an audience or demonstrate hatred back towards them as both serve to reinforce their world views.

ask them if they need some opiates....on the house.

 

[Puffnstuff]

ask them if they need some opiates....on the house.

If they're on the house will you provide the ladder so they can reach them?

 

[zinfamous]

I was driving around Annapolis yesterday and saw some dude driving a pickup truck with a "6 million Lies" sticker on the back, and a "something something Peace is achieved through a Drum Magazine" sticker...along with various other anarchist, paranoid statements.

What I'm saying is, I don't think such people are swayed by rational discussion and secondly, I was surprised that John Conner would have driven so far from his CO bunker.