The Post-Modern Left Eternally BTFO

Warm up your neurons, activate your almonds, and put that hand on your chin because this article will really make you think.

quillette.com/2017/02/23/on-meaning-identity-politics-and-bias-in-the-academy-an-interview-with-clay-routledge/

>Every survey reveals that Americans, and Westerners more broadly, are becoming less religious. Religious identification, church membership, and rated importance of religion are all on the decline. Some assume that this means people are becoming more rational and empirical, but there is little evidence to support this view. For one, even as religious belief and identification are decreasing, non-traditional supernatural, spiritual, and paranormal interests and beliefs are increasing. So are beliefs in conspiracy theories and alternative medical practices that are not supported by scientific evidence. Fewer people are going to church, but more people believe in ghosts, that they can make contact with the dead, that the government is covering up evidence of UFOs, that there is spiritual energy beyond the realm of science, and so on. This is not just the case in the U.S. It has also been observed in Europe. But why? Why would people who abandon the religion of their parents turn to other spiritual and magical practices and beliefs?

>My research has explored two possibilities. First, religious faith and spirituality are driven, in part, by stable cognitive and personality differences. For instance, research related to the concept of Theory of Mind (ToM) shows that people who are more inclined to imagine the feelings and intentions of others (often referred to as empathizing) are also more likely to be spiritual and religious. This suggests that part of religious belief is related to social cognitive processes, specifically, the extent to which people can – and desire to – imagine the mental lives of others. Individual differences in thinking style also matter. Specifically, people differ in their tendency to rely on intuitive versus rational thinking. Some people like to trust their gut feelings. Others do not. People who score higher on trait intuitive thinking tend to be more religious. Importantly, these are stable traits. Thus, if someone who is naturally cognitively inclined to be a spiritual person turns away from a religious faith for whatever reason, they are likely to turn to some other spiritual practice or belief.

>The second reason why the trend of Americans becoming less religious does not truly represent a move away from religious-like thinking gets us back to the meaning motive. Religion and spirituality are powerful sources of meaning for many people. As a result of changing social views and lifestyles, many people, especially young people, are leaving the traditional church. However, many of them appear to be turning to other religious-like interests and beliefs to seek meaning.

>For example, in a recent series of studies conducted in my lab, we observed that the established inverse association between religiosity and belief in extra-terrestrial intelligence (ETI; e.g., aliens, UFOs) is partially accounted for by the desire to find meaning. That is, atheists, agnostics, and those who do not identify as religious are more likely than highly religious people to hold paranormal ETI beliefs such as intelligent alien beings are monitoring the lives of humans and that the government is covering-up evidence of their existence. We found that this is because these non-religious folks are more likely to perceive life as meaningless and thus more likely to be actively searching for meaning. ETI beliefs help people feel like humans are not alone in the universe and that perhaps there are godlike beings watching over us.

>Identity politics, especially what is going on within the academic left, is strange because it is at odds with much of what we know about intergroup relations. Decades ago, psychological scientists established that dividing people into groups and highlighting group differences leads to in-group bias. It also leads to hostility if the groups perceive themselves as fighting over scarce resources. It is human nature to defend one’s in-group and to be suspicious of and hesitant to trust out-groups. Identity politics makes relations between groups worse because it constantly reminds people of their group identity and what distinguishes them from members of other groups. Experimental research also shows that making people feel like victims, which is common in identity politics and on college campuses, increases feelings of entitlement and reduces prosocial behavior.

>Feelings of victimhood are also contagious. This is called competitive victimhood. Research shows that when one group is accused of victimizing another group, it causes members of the supposed victimizing group to perceive their own group as victims. Therefore, a lot of identity politics activism is causing harm to intergroup relations. The key to helping members of disadvantaged groups and improving intergroup relations more generally is to focus on what unites people, not what divides them. We often call this a common in-group identity or a superordinate group identity.

aint reading all that but i'm fapping to that pic right now

that's a boy

tl;dr obvious shit that any Sup Forumsack with a rudimentary understanding of memetics already knows

She's a coalburner, mind you. And not just any nigger, it's that retarded ass Jaden Smith.

What the fuck happened to him? Did he accidentally break a Haitian fertility idol unleashing a female goddess into his body or something?

>If gender scholars, for example, really believe that science is contaminated by a system of patriarchal and colonialist oppression then they should demand more rigor in science, not less. They should fight for increased efforts to remove human bias through more careful research design, instrument development, and data-collection procedures. They should be big fans of predictive research, hypothesis testing, inferential statistics, and replication attempts from independent labs. They should champion all efforts to suppress the extent to which humans can contaminate science with their personal biases and motives.

>Instead, they reject empirical methods. They publish autoethnographies which represent the definition of bias because they perfectly confound a research topic with the person writing about it. They conduct qualitative studies utilizing very small samples and procedures that allow all sorts of human contamination. While empirical social scientists are trying to improve our fields by increasing sample sizes, diversifying samples, reporting our methods and procedures in more detail, demanding more statistical reporting, conducting replication studies and meta-analyses, postmodernists are publishing papers involving anecdotal accounts of life experiences. How is that going to tell us anything objective about the world?

if all that shit says that transgenders are fucked up in the head and should be gassed.. I agree.

>I previously discussed the religious mind in terms of cognitive traits. A lot of the postmodern fields have characteristics that are very similar to religion. They are non-empirical. They prioritize subjective feelings (intuition). They also have a religious fundamentalism quality. That is, they are not friendly to those who challenge postmodern orthodoxy, inject morality into their work, ostracize or punish dissenters, and treat certain views as inherently true and sacred. Social science should be based on empirical evidence. It should be distinct from religion. Many postmodernists are blurring the line, in my opinion.

>What can empirically minded academics do? They should quit looking the other way and giving their postmodern colleagues a free pass. Most empirical social scientists are on the political left so I think they are often forgiving of their postmodern colleagues because they see them as ideological allies. And many of them are friends because they work together. But academia shouldn’t be treated like a social club or political organization. We should be seeking truth, not protecting or defending our own ideological perspectives or our friends’ feelings.

no.. its called make up. Hollywood uses it to make people look like monsters too. It's not real.

Millenials...

>Viewpoint diversity helps because we rely on peers to challenge us, to debate our ideas and point out the biases and flaws in our research. In research that does not touch on social or political issues, we often see considerable debate, people offering alternative hypotheses or questioning particulars of the research design and statistical tests. This always improves the quality of the work and helps us get closer to the objective truth. But people seem to go a little or a lot easier on research that touches on sensitive social or political topics, or supports leftist ideology. I have seen this firsthand. I have been at talks where people present very poorly conducted research related to ideas that failed to replicate or were never well-supported to begin with and watched as hardly anyone in the audience offered even the slightest challenge. It is very strange to see well-trained scientists so blatantly ignore fundamental research flaws because they find the conclusion ideologically affirming. This is precisely why we need to make our methods more rigorous, fight for an academic culture that challenges groupthink and prioritizes the pursuit of truth over tribal loyalty, and encourage diversity of thought.

>But people seem to go a little or a lot easier on research that touches on sensitive social or political topics, or supports leftist ideology.
>It is very strange to see well-trained scientists so blatantly ignore fundamental research flaws because they find the conclusion ideologically affirming.

I would sew her feminine penis inside my mouth

How Can Jaden Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real.

how can she burn coal, if stoves aren't real?

that was actually a legit article. Thanks for posting. Didn't activate my almonds, but it was more akin to floating in an innertube down a river sipping on iced tea, thoroughly enjoyable.

this.

Also,
Quillette Magazine only has 6k twitter followers, so I doubt this article will make waves.

...

Good post. In their efforts to destroy the older religous order, they simply traded it in for a new one. SJWism is a religion.

You know she was blacked, right?

>their

A bit of melancholy research into who drove the critique of christianity in the west puts jewish intellectuals at the forefront, often mixed in with some shabbos goys they use for cover.

I doubt its replacement was coincidental. Redirected energy from religiosity went where it was intended to go: reducing in-group loyalty.

Note the observations about female spirituality and then compare with trends in female emancipation and attendance in higher education. The real result of female attendance has not been an improvement of empirical research - the opposite has occured. Polite society puts this down to coincidence and would offer the rebuttal that correlation does not equal causation, but its difficult to reconcile commentary on female religiosity, the new religious energy in post-modernism/identity politics and the correlative increase in female involvement.

Women are useful idiots in this realm and I have my doubts that female emancipation was done for purely altruistic purposes.

Their religion is deconstructed, their role in the world is thrown open to question, they are moved into academia and they are given a replacement for their religion in the form of an ideology motivated to attack their own in-group preference and support outsiders in all circumstances. A bit too neat.

Just depends on your definition of religion

They are also fantastically driven by conformity, and I suppose everyone here is familiar with the argument that this is a biological imperative. Once enough of them were on-board with the new religion they sought to protect it from criticism in the same way the puritan women in early America routed out witches from their villages.

Almost all of the phenomenon described are symptom of forced multiculturalism.

Nice thoughts OP. Thanks for sharing.

Have you watched Jordan Peterson on youtube?

whats this things name?
i wonder how much more there is out there of it

good article. we need to reclaim the social sciences, teach the crazies how to be ashamed for failing analyticism in a field entirely based around it. studies into human nature are important, we cant let economics be the only one to retain its integrity.

>economics be the only one to retain its integrity.

aussies always are curious!

prove it faggot

>anti-realist
>scientists

u wot m8

the article in posts

great interview. thank you for sharing.

nah its wil smith's kids girlfriend