Recent reports are that South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson is recovering from a life-threatening episode of bleeding in the brain. That is good news, indeed. It remains to be seen, however, how well he will function cognitively in the coming months. Johnson suffered a brain hemorrhage last Wednesday caused by…
In my quest to better understand basic principles of group behavior, I reviewed Intergroup Relations, by Maryland B. Brewer and Norman Miller (1996) [this work appears to be out of print]. The stated focus this book is to better understand “the causes and consequences of the distinctions between ingroups (those groups to which an individual belongs) and outgroups (social groups that do not include the individual as a member). At the outset, the authors note “the apparently universal propensity to differentiate the social world into ‘us’ and ‘them.’” (Page xiii).
It was my suspicion that basic principles of social psychology would give me a deeper context for understanding many modern conflicts. I was not disappointed. By the way, these same principles appear in all basic social psychology books. Nothing I mention here is tentative or controversial among social scientists.
According to Sherif (1966) “whenever individuals belonging to one group interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms of their group identification, we have an instance of Intergroup behavior.” (Page 2) Such social categories “tend to be less rational than other categorizations in that the beliefs we hold about social groupings often do not rest on firm evidence of actual Intergroup differences.” (Page 6) Once we establish categories, “we are biased toward information that enhances the differences between categories and less attentive to information about similarities between members of different categories.” (Page 7).
We live in a pluralistic society. Therefore, individuals are simultaneously members in multiple …
I just can’t help periodically visiting the site of Focus on the Family, at least once in a while. They address many good topics over there—I often disagree with their conclusions, though not always (I almost always disagree with their attempted intrusions into government). They offer some solid good advice on parenting, marriage and career, some of it without much religion. Sometimes it reads like almost entirely like pop psychology.
For instance, in the current article on Mary Cheney, there is no condemnation, no fire and brim stone, only concern. Actually, lots of concern. Most of it about the absence of a father-figure in a child’s life. This is a legitimate concern, though it seems a bit hollow coming from an organization which is quintessentially homophobic. But they keep their deeper concerns about gays and inerrant bible passages in check in this particular article. Certainly, there is no discussion about hell.
Another current FOTF article features “Worldviews.” The ostensible concern is that “The Lion King” does not teach biblical Christianity, “despite a handful of good moral lessons. Again, no rampant condemnation. Instead, the article warns that
the notion of the “circle of life,” that history is circular and the present is heavily influenced by the spirits of one’s ancestors, is closer to Eastern pantheism or native spiritualism than the linear view of history presented in the Bible.
On a lark, I read a FOTF article on “Marijuana — inhaled intellectual impairment.” The gist of the article is that marijuana …
According to this salon.com post by Bill Maher, the worst menace isn't Mark Foley. Not by a long shot. Focus, instead on legions of corporate and government predators. Though this was written in October 2006, I didn't notice it until today. As always, Maher doesn't pull any punches: [Foley] was…
Take a look at the front page of today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
You can see the photo of an Iraqi man grieving over the body of his three-year-old daughter outside of the Baghdad hospital. According to the paper, “the girl was killed and three other family members injured when they were caught in crossfire as clashes erupted between gunmen and US forces.”
The lead story starts with this assertion:
The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. The current approach is not working, and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.
This story line and this photograph clearly impugn the integrity of the United States. Publishing such information is unpatriotic. Or, at least, those are the sorts of things we’ve been told, until recently.
It was always OK to publish pictures of our proud soldiers and our high-tech missiles taking off, of course. It was up to Al Jazeera and the Europeans to publish pictures of what happened when those missiles exploded on the ground, however. And when those non-American media sources published those photos of Iraqi civilian carnage, it infuriated “America.” It’s not that American soldiers weren’t also credible witnesses to the civilian killings on the ground. The evidence was there to be published, if anyone cared to know.
For most of the past 3 1/2 years, the Post-Dispatch (along with most mainstream newspapers across the United States) did not publish pictures like this, certainly not in prominent places. It simply wasn’t deemed news …