|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Prof fired for asking students to stomp on the word ‘Jesus’
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
But do we really need to repeat the full force of that experiment every time with every group of students?
The essence of science is that the data are transferable. We can read the experiment, look at the means of the galvanic skin responses, look at the primary references that validate that as a measure of anxiety, and draw conclusions without needing to experience the same emotional reaction as the subjects.
I expect that just discussing in class the likely reactions if one were asked to do the trampling would make the point. Perhaps some would claim that they wouldn't react, and then it would be instructive to look at the experimental results.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:
Originally posted by Ann:
An article from the (British) Psychology Today blog.
Sorry Ann, won't work here as it is too rational.
from the article.
quote:
Belief in voodoo, albeit implicit, is still alive and well in this modern world
For context, that quote is referring to Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc.
Actually the article is quite irrational, because it is driven by confirmation bias. There is an a priori assumption that we should not respond to mere symbols in an emotional way, and then when we do (because symbols are replete with meaning), this confirms the rather mean-spirited and illogical conclusion that people ought only to respond in this way to 'real' people, rather than to information about them.
This is incredibly irrational, because the information (including symbolic information) about people - or some other reality - represents that reality, and actually, in some measure, conveys something of that reality to the person who values and derives meaning from that information. If these psychologists really cannot understand this, then I suggest they find another profession.
Psychology should be about understanding people sympathetically - and even empathetically - not imposing dubious philosophical assumptions on them.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
One of us needs different spectacles, that is not how I read the article at all.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Problem is, the safe sandbox does not sufficiently challenge.
Your example has people being asked to predict their reactions, and then being asked to test those predictions. That's a much gentler way in than beginning with the destruction of the photographs.
I know full well that I couldn't destroy pictures of objects that have sentimental value to me with impunity, even though I know intellectually that there's a double layer of indirection here (the picture is a picture of a thing, and the thing is merely an associative key to bring to mind a set of memories.) I get that from inside my sandbox - and I also know, from inside that sandbox, that I would need to go through a fairly elaborate mental exercise in order to convince myself that the pictures didn't matter, and that it would be OK to destroy them. I also know that if I was forced to dwell on the destruction of the pictures, I would not be able to maintain this mental distance. If, on the other hand, I was able to distance myself from the pictures, dispose of them, and wait a couple of days, the fact that they had gone wouldn't trouble me.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
One of us needs different spectacles, that is not how I read the article at all.
So you think it is rational for a psychologist to conclude that someone is into voodoo, who gets upset when being asked to cut up photographs which are full of meaning and significance for him or her?
You think that conclusion is rational. I think it's complete bullshit.
The photographs are not 'just' paper and ink. The paper and ink is a vehicle that carries something intangible, yet real: meaning. The reductionists, eliminativists, and mereological nihilists are trying hard to pretend that meaning doesn't really exist, but then again they don't really believe that mind exists either. In fact, strictly speaking, there is no reason why they should regard a human being as having any more significance than a piece of paper. After all, in their worldview, a human is just a bundle of chemicals. That is why their outrage at the death threats is so inconsistent with their philosophy. If everything is material, then nothing has any more significance than anything else, including the human body!
"Just a piece of paper" / "Just a bag of chemicals"
What's the difference, in terms of value?
There isn't one.
[ 04. April 2013, 19:47: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
EE you are missing the point of the article. It is a quick summary of the evidence of the effect that chopping up symbols with meaning have on people. It describes the emotional responses seen irrespective of what people state their rational beliefs might be.
The use of the word voodoo is unfortunate, but I don't think it was intended to be pejorative.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
From the link posted by Demas: quote:
The Florida Atlantic University professor incited uproar when he had his students write the name "Jesus" on a piece of paper and then step on it.
This is not a thought experiment (if reported correctly). It's a live psychological one, as has been pointed out.
Sure, there's over-reaction all round (including this thread), but the professor did ask for people's reactions, and he did get it from this Mormon guy. He didn't threaten him, he told the professor he would like to punch him. Hostile and a knee-jerk move certainly but not a threat. But am I the only one who thinks the professor might actually be one to learn something from this incident too?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
EE. In all honesty I can't really put myself in the same headspace as the Hindu child in your example. I just don't think or perceive the world in the same way. So I could sympathise but not empathise if that makes sense.
If I found myself in a session where I was asked to throw a dart at a picture of Charles Darwin, I think I'd strongly hesitate to do so. Not because Charles Darwin is going to send me to Hell: just because it might be seen as endorsing hostility. Can you empathise with that?
No I can't.
If for example I were to enter a room full of people chanting racist slogans and told to throw a dart at a photo of a non-white person then I could see the hostility.
But remove that context and just leave your above example? No it would just be a photo to me.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
But remove that context and just leave your above example? No it would just be a photo to me.
I should have specified that the way the person leading the session set up the throw darts at a photo made you suspect that he or she might be a creationist?
I was tempted to ask about a picture of Anne Frank, but I see you've already answered that.
(NB this is not intended to take sides in the account of the original incident. I wasn't there. My instincts, for what it's worth, are to side with the lecturer.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is nothing that indicates the professor was sneering at anything. All indications seem opposite.
Poole is not. Crook is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
But remove that context and just leave your above example? No it would just be a photo to me.
I should have specified that the way the person leading the session set up the throw darts at a photo made you suspect that he or she might be a creationist?
I was tempted to ask about a picture of Anne Frank, but I see you've already answered that.
(NB this is not intended to take sides in the account of the original incident. I wasn't there. My instincts, for what it's worth, are to side with the lecturer.)
If they were a creationist? Well I doubt it would make any difference. Its not going to harm Richard and it's not going to offend my love of Dawkins because I don't have any. I'd throw the dart then hopefully engage the creationist in some interesting debate. Actually if his stupid comments made after the whole asking to visit a woman back for coffee at 3am in a lift incident were on my mind I'd probably enjoy throwing the dart.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But do we really need to repeat the full force of that experiment every time with every group of students?
The essence of science is that the data are transferable. We can read the experiment, look at the means of the galvanic skin responses, look at the primary references that validate that as a measure of anxiety, and draw conclusions without needing to experience the same emotional reaction as the subjects.
I expect that just discussing in class the likely reactions if one were asked to do the trampling would make the point. Perhaps some would claim that they wouldn't react, and then it would be instructive to look at the experimental results.
but this isn't an experiment to discover something new, it's meant to show THESE students something that can be explained in words, but is much better experienced. Many people, myself included, often under- or over- estimate what their reaction to a particular situation will be.. untill they are actually IN that situation.
Besides, if it was enough just to describe an experiment to students because after all it's been done before, then there would be zero lab section for any undergrad science class. every "experiment" I conducted as an undergrad (and most as a grad as well) were repeats of experiments conducted years, sometimes centuries before, and countless times since then. but *I* hadn't done it, and doing it demonstrates the principles involved to me in a much more concrete way than just telling me about it would.
no, not every single experiment in history needs to be repeated by every student, just key ones that illustrate major, significant points.
This particular exercise, if conducted correctly, can definitely point out to a doubter that yes, words DO have meaning, well beyond the ink on paper. symbols do matter, and they matter not just to primitive people who "don't know any better" but each and every one of us. we react strongly. probably more strongly than even we suspect.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But am I the only one who thinks the professor might actually be one to learn something from this incident too?
I imagine he has learnt that some of his fellow Christians are fast to judgement, full of anger and hate and potentially violent.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
One of us needs different spectacles, that is not how I read the article at all.
So you think it is rational for a psychologist to conclude that someone is into voodoo, who gets upset when being asked to cut up photographs which are full of meaning and significance for him or her?
You think that conclusion is rational. I think it's complete bullshit.
No one, in any link yet presented, stated anyone is "into voodoo." What was said is the underlying mechanisms of associating an object with a person/deity are the same.
BTW, the photo is of an object held dear, not the object itself. Not the precious photo of Gran, but a photo of that photo. In that experiment, the person retains their precious object.
Most Christian faiths, Protestants especially, would reject transubstantiation, yes? More than once I have read complaints on this board from protestants when they have not been allowed communion at an Orthodox or RCC church. And yet, fuss and bother over a piece of paper. Not one blessed, not one with any prior history, just paper and ink.
Thing is, I do understand the feelings. If you were, full of hate, to burn a photo of me; I would have no issue with the burning. I would be sad for the enmity, but the photo would mean nothing. However, I would not wish to burn a photo of you, even though I bear you no ill will. The burning is equal, as far as the harm done to our persons, but psychologically different.
FWIW, I would feel uncomfortable stepping on a piece of paper with Jesus marked on it. Even though it is not my belief system. But I know this is not rational.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is nothing that indicates the professor was sneering at anything. All indications seem opposite.
Poole is not. Crook is.
From my read, with what little context we have, it seems dismissive at worse. I do not read sneering. However, without actually hearing the entire interview...?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
This particular exercise, if conducted correctly, can definitely point out to a doubter that yes, words DO have meaning, well beyond the ink on paper. symbols do matter, and they matter not just to primitive people who "don't know any better" but each and every one of us. we react strongly. probably more strongly than even we suspect.
Sure. The "if conducted correctly" thing is the key, though, and does not include running roughshod over people in order to prove the point. I can't see how doing things in the order that the study you referenced did (ask the students how they think they would react in a hypothetical situation, then challenge them to put it to the test) would have been much worse. Possibly the initial discussion causes a framing effect in people with only a weak attachment to Jesus (or whatever is put on the paper), but I don't think that alters the class much.
Doing things in that order would be much gentler.
quote:
Poole explained that the student [..] asked the professor after the class "How dare you disrespect someone's religion?" and hit his balled fists into his other hand, saying that he wanted to hit the professor. Although the student did not carry out his threats, Poole notified campus security and filed a report.
Now, I read that as "Professor instructs class to commit offensive act in order to make a point, but then fails to engage with the student he angered. In other words, almost a teachable moment, but the professor abandoned his post."
But this is mostly because I read the description of the student's behaviour as angry - aggressively angry, even - but not threatening.
It may be that I'm being too harsh on the professor and too easy on the student. It depends on details of tone, body language, positioning and on who else was present at the time, that aren't conveyed in the report.
But I stand by my earlier statement that if you deliberately provoke someone into anger, you have to allow them more latitude in behaviour than if you didn't do that.
This isn't grounds for disciplining the professor, although maybe he'll refine his presentation for the next time, and I wouldn't discipline the student for being angry either.
quote:
probably more strongly than even we suspect.
It certainly seems that the student's reaction was stronger than the professor suspected, which perhaps rather proves the point that the class was trying to make.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From my read, with what little context we have, [Poole] seems dismissive at worse. I do not read sneering. However, without actually hearing the entire interview...?
I'll admit, I'm arguing with Poole over on Facebook and that may be coloring my perception of the article.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Here is an article about the professor giving his side of the story.
From his description of what happened it appears the student went too far when he did more than just refuse to step on the piece of paper with "Jesus" written on it and explain why he won't. It appears to me they both went a little too far.
A close friend for 45 years made national news for something that supposedly happened in a class he teaches. He received death threats, calls for firing, you name it. Unless, that is, you heard from his students and people who know him.
Based upon what my friend went through I'd hope that folks get a chance to cool down and look at what happened and not be so rash in whatever decisions are made.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
I hope this idiot´s career is finished for good. No violence intended, but that is what would have happened if he required the students to step in a paper with the words "Gay" or "Nigger". I´m surprised nobody mentions the fact that american universities (and even seminars!) currently are imersed in an anti-christian atmosphere. This experiment obviously belong into this context.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Ah yes, those notoriously hair trigger gays and niggers. Yes, this white atheist professor had a narrow escape there, didn't he.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I will admit that it is taking a a bit of willpower not to start a Hell call for those expressing anger towards the professor.
Whilst one may not agree with the experiment, the vehemence generated shows a complete lack of mental processing. It also would seem indicate that Christians pay less attention to Christ than their name would imply.
What, indeed, Would Jesus Do in this situation? Ah, yes, he would call for the prof. to be sacked and beaten.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What, indeed, Would Jesus Do in this situation? Ah, yes, he would call for the prof. to be sacked and beaten.
I submit that the number of Christians on this thread calling for the prof. to be sacked and beaten is very small.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I hope this idiot´s career is finished for good. No violence intended, but that is what would have happened if he required the students to step in a paper with the words "Gay" or "Nigger". I´m surprised nobody mentions the fact that american universities (and even seminars!) currently are imersed in an anti-christian atmosphere. This experiment obviously belong into this context.
This makes no sense at all. Stepping on pejorative, insulting labels? What sort of person would be offended by that? How would this not be a positive thing?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sure. The "if conducted correctly" thing is the key, though, and does not include running roughshod over people in order to prove the point.
Given it's taken from a textbook and has been used for 30 years with no fuss... and given that the initial article is pretty obviously a poorly researched scare piece... and given that our knowledge of what actually happened in the classroom is sketchy at best... like lilbuddha, I think the onus should be pretty firmly on innocent until proven guilty with regards to the professor.
With regards to the student, well, there was a whole class of witnesses to his behaviour, not just the professor, so there's a good hope here that justice has been / will be done - whether he was threatening, or whether it was a misunderstanding.
But the sad thing is that once again the Internet hate community rears its ugly head.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
With regards to the student, well, there was a whole class of witnesses to his behaviour, not just the professor, so there's a good hope here that justice has been / will be done - whether he was threatening, or whether it was a misunderstanding.
Having started to read the article that Mere Nick linked to, it seems I was wrong about this - the student confronted the professor after the class had been dismissed. Which makes it harder to ascertain whether the student was being threatening or not.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But am I the only one who thinks the professor might actually be one to learn something from this incident too?
Yep.
Don't take risks (even if the exercise in the syllabus which has been used for 30 years). Pussy foot around your students and worry every minute about their reactions. Keep your head down, do as you are told and don't even think of treating your students as adults who are responsible for their own actions and reactions.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Don't take risks (even if the exercise in the syllabus which has been used for 30 years). Pussy foot around your students and worry every minute about their reactions. Keep your head down, do as you are told and don't even think of treating your students as adults who are responsible for their own actions and reactions.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
That strikes me as an equal and opposite hair-triggered and assumption making response as those doing the "discipline and sack him" dance.
We don't know whether this particular lesson was as well taught and conceived as it might have been.
A lot rests for me on how much time was spent asking the students to tread on the paper, how much coercion could have reasonably been perceived, how early and how carefully reactions were monitored and other factors. We can't know any of these things from the sketchy and contradictory reports we have.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
Don't take risks (even if the exercise in the syllabus which has been used for 30 years). Pussy foot around your students and worry every minute about their reactions. Keep your head down, do as you are told and don't even think of treating your students as adults who are responsible for their own actions and reactions.
Actually the professor was not taking much of a risk, because Christians are an easy target. If he really was a courageous person he should have devised exercises that provoke all major viewpoints. How about throwing darts at a picture of a happily smiling gay couple standing together after having been married or joined in a civil partnership? How about burning pictures of Jewish people in an oven - after all, they are just "pieces of paper", aren't they? How about going the whole hog and getting the students to write Muhammad on the paper? Or better still, how about burning the Koran?
Now if you believe in the value of this kind of exercise, then these are the kinds of activities that would show that you really mean business (exercises, by the way, that I certainly do not agree with!).
But, of course, the moment Christians complain, we are accused of having a persecution complex, and these naive anti-religious types seem incapable of understanding how we can feel threatened by this kind of action. It's not for them to decide what makes someone feel threatened. The mature approach is to listen to others and respect their sensitivities. That, to my mind, is far more courageous.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
The professor, who is a Christian himself, has received death threats.
And the reaction here is "We don't know whether this particular lesson was as well taught and conceived as it might have been." "Actually the professor was not taking much of a risk, because Christians are an easy target." "But am I the only one who thinks the professor might actually be one to learn something from this incident too?" "I hope this idiot's career is finished for good. "
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The professor, who is a Christian himself, has received death threats.
And the reaction here is "We don't know whether this particular lesson was as well taught and conceived as it might have been."
I don't see why receiving death threats affords one a "victim above criticism" status. The receiving of death threats, hideous and unjustified as it is, seems to me orthogonal to whether there was anything that might have been done better in the lesson.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If he really was a courageous person he should have devised exercises that provoke all major viewpoints. How about throwing darts at a picture of a happily smiling gay couple standing together after having been married or joined in a civil partnership? How about burning pictures of Jewish people in an oven - after all, they are just "pieces of paper", aren't they? How about going the whole hog and getting the students to write Muhammad on the paper? Or better still, how about burning the Koran?
Christianity remains the dominant worldview in that part of the world. Therefore using a Christian reference in the experiment has the greatest chance of producing the desired reaction in the students. After all, the whole point of the exercise is to use a symbol that the students would be reluctant to step on.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If the point of the exercise is to convince every individual present that symbols matter to them, then the first thing to do might be simply to ask what their reaction would be.
Those that say they would be furious have already demonstrated that point to themselves and others. No need to go further.
Those that say they wouldn't mind could be invited to actually participate in something. The something they do ought to be something calculated to provoke a reaction in them rather than others. Burning pictures of holocaust memorials might be one, being invited to wear a Nazi uniform another, trampling on a cross might work for another.
It would then be clear that the exercise isn't about any one individual belief system, but rather the power of symbols, and that it isn't particularly a religious issue either.
Even then, it still troubles me that if a university wanted to do this on members of the public in an experiment an institutional review board approval would be required, and so would informed consent.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
If they were a creationist? Well I doubt it would make any difference. Its not going to harm Richard and it's not going to offend my love of Dawkins because I don't have any.
Darwin, not Dawkins. There is a difference. (Insert joke about despite what Dawkins thinks.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Ah sorry. Id not had much sleep when I posted that. But yeah it mostly still applies.
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
What about if you knew the fact that you'd thrown the dart was going to be publicised?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What about if you knew the fact that you'd thrown the dart was going to be publicised?
The truth of the story would be, "Man throws dart at photo".
If a media outlet wanted to sensationalize the story and try to make it look like I was a bad person then I guess that's up to them. I'm not going to let my life be controlled by other peoples misconceptions.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Wouldn't the truth of the story be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin"?
Developing a misconception that you had something against the guy would be forgiveable, wouldn't it?
OK, the full story would be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin in order to refute the power of symbolism".
The real headline result would be from the galvanic skin sensor readings taken during the build up and throwing.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wouldn't the truth of the story be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin"?
Developing a misconception that you had something against the guy would be forgiveable, wouldn't it?
OK, the full story would be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin in order to refute the power of symbolism".
The real headline result would be from the galvanic skin sensor readings taken during the build up and throwing.
"George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin" Fair enough I'd be happy with that. Sounds like a very boring headline to me.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Well it's all very complicated, isn't it? And it doesn't look like any signle news source is giving us much more than half of the story.
But I would like to suggest this to the Professor or the College. Imagine you weren't in the USA but in, say, Saudi Arabia with a class made up partly of devout Muslims. Imagine asking them to write "Muhammad" on a piece of paper and step on it. Imagine the sort of reaction you might get. Now, regardless of any value-judgement you might put on that reaction, do you think you should expect American Christians to react differently from Saudi Muslims? And if so, why?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The truth of the story would be, "Man throws dart at photo".
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wouldn't the truth of the story be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin"?
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Fair enough I'd be happy with that. Sounds like a very boring headline to me.
Since we're into psychology here, should we ask Dr Freud why you abbreviated "photo of Charles Darwin" into "photo" the first time around? Could it be that there's something just a little bit more uncomfortable about the idea of throwing a dart at a photo of a human being?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The truth of the story would be, "Man throws dart at photo".
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wouldn't the truth of the story be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin"?
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Fair enough I'd be happy with that. Sounds like a very boring headline to me.
Since we're into psychology here, should we ask Dr Freud why you abbreviated "photo of Charles Darwin" into "photo" the first time around? Could it be that there's something just a little bit more uncomfortable about the idea of throwing a dart at a photo of a human being?
I don't think so. At least not consciously. I think it was more to highlight the mundanity of the headline.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
At least not consciously.
Well obviously.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If the point of the exercise is to convince every individual present that symbols matter to them, then the first thing to do might be simply to ask what their reaction would be.
Those that say they would be furious have already demonstrated that point to themselves and others. No need to go further.
Those that say they wouldn't mind could be invited to actually participate in something. The something they do ought to be something calculated to provoke a reaction in them rather than others. Burning pictures of holocaust memorials might be one, being invited to wear a Nazi uniform another, trampling on a cross might work for another.
It would then be clear that the exercise isn't about any one individual belief system, but rather the power of symbols, and that it isn't particularly a religious issue either.
Even then, it still troubles me that if a university wanted to do this on members of the public in an experiment an institutional review board approval would be required, and so would informed consent.
Do most people here honestly not get the difference between a teacher doing an exercise or activity in class to make a point about the subject s/he's teaching, and a researcher conducting research? Heaven help us if the day comes when we need institutional review board approval to carry out any kind of illustration or object lesson that requires student participation.
Every year I introduce my students (college age, but doing high-school level work to make up for earlier deficits in their education) to the concepts of communism and capitalism by bringing in a couple of bags of potato chips and dividing them unequally amongst class members, with most getting a few chips, some getting none, and one person getting a large bowlful. Then we talk about methods of chip distribution. Should I be concerned that some student will become outraged that they did not get their fair share of chips and threaten to attack me? Should I submit this exercise to the director of my institution for approval because I am, in effect, experimenting on the students to see what their reaction to unequal chip distribution is? Or should I water down the lesson by saying "Imagine I have here a bag of potato chips...." but not introducing any actual chips into the class?
Asking people "what would you do IF" has its value but it's a much less powerful tool for making people think about issues, than actually asking them to do it.
The only difference I would have made if using the activity that prof did is that I would have let the students choose what to write on the paper, suggesting that "Jesus" for Christians, "Muhammed" or "Allah" for Muslims, or the name of a loved one or a deeply cherished value for others, might be the sort of thing to put there. THEN I'd ask them to step on it and discuss their reactions to being asked to do that (whether or not they actually did it). Not everyone would have the same reaction to the word "Jesus."
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Christianity remains the dominant worldview in that part of the world. Therefore using a Christian reference in the experiment has the greatest chance of producing the desired reaction in the students. After all, the whole point of the exercise is to use a symbol that the students would be reluctant to step on.
This shows a profound lack of imagination. The prof could say, "Write a word that is of supreme importance to you. For instance if you are a Christian you might write 'Jesus', or if you are a Muslim, you might write 'Allah.'" Then everybody would be stepping on a word that's important to that person.
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Do most people here honestly not get the difference between a teacher doing an exercise or activity in class to make a point about the subject s/he's teaching, and a researcher conducting research?
Do you know WHY we have Human Subjects review boards? It's not because the fact something is an experiment makes its potential ill effects on the subjects so much worse. This experiment (for that is in fact what it is, whether you like it or not) is designed to provoke emotions, for the purpose of discussing them. The prof is purposely yanking chains. I can't see how one can argue this can't have a negative emotional impact on the subjects every bit as profound as filling out a survey for some psych grad student's research about religious feelings and tax brackets (or whatever), which WOULD require a Human Subjects review.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Every year I introduce my students (college age, but doing high-school level work to make up for earlier deficits in their education) to the concepts of communism and capitalism by bringing in a couple of bags of potato chips and dividing them unequally amongst class members, with most getting a few chips, some getting none, and one person getting a large bowlful. Then we talk about methods of chip distribution. Should I be concerned that some student will become outraged that they did not get their fair share of chips and threaten to attack me? Should I submit this exercise to the director of my institution for approval because I am, in effect, experimenting on the students to see what their reaction to unequal chip distribution is? Or should I water down the lesson by saying "Imagine I have here a bag of potato chips...." but not introducing any actual chips into the class?
It appears all you are doing is introducing to the concept of communism, socialism or some other sort of statism by having you at the top deciding who gets what. To show them capitalism, base the distribution on test scores.
quote:
The only difference I would have made if using the activity that prof did is that I would have let the students choose what to write on the paper, suggesting that "Jesus" for Christians, "Muhammed" or "Allah" for Muslims, or the name of a loved one or a deeply cherished value for others, might be the sort of thing to put there. THEN I'd ask them to step on it and discuss their reactions to being asked to do that (whether or not they actually did it). Not everyone would have the same reaction to the word "Jesus."
It appears the professor thought they would. That seems to tell me that the professor is, deep down inside, a pro-Jesus guy.
Back in the sixth grade a guy accidentally stepped on a framed 8x10 glossy of Fess Parker. For a while there he was deemed worse than a murderer and blasphemer.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To show them capitalism, base the distribution on test scores.
As if. To show them capitalism, base the distribution on their parents' income. On a logarithmic scale.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Every year I introduce my students (college age, but doing high-school level work to make up for earlier deficits in their education) to the concepts of communism and capitalism by bringing in a couple of bags of potato chips and dividing them unequally amongst class members, with most getting a few chips, some getting none, and one person getting a large bowlful.
There is a difference between an exercise and a psychological experiment designed to manipulate emotions and observe the outcome, like MT says.
The parallel would be if for the difference between communism and capitalism you told your class that school dinners that week were only going to be applied to a number of the class - the rest would have to go hungry and beg for their food or earn it from the others who would have food. That might start to bring it into the territory of an experiment rather than an exercise. And it brings obvious risks in terms of classmates reactions to each other and the situation that are not present in the exercise with potato crisps in bowls.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To show them capitalism, base the distribution on test scores.
As if. To show them capitalism, base the distribution on their parents' income. On a logarithmic scale.
She would need to try and keep it something that the kids can do something about. If my kids were in her class and the distribution was based upon how much debt their folks ran up to put them in the class then I suspect my kids would have chips out the wazoo.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What, indeed, Would Jesus Do in this situation? Ah, yes, he would call for the prof. to be sacked and beaten.
I submit that the number of Christians on this thread calling for the prof. to be sacked and beaten is very small.
On this thread, you are correct. Though, if I am honest, it was gorpo's post which triggered the response.
You and mdijion are arguing the side that perhaps the exercise should not be done or should be modified. You two, amoungst others, are arguing reasonably. If everyone were doing so, I wouldn't have gotten snarky. Not an excuse, mind, just a reason.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
