Political Correctness

[pioneer]

Normally, political correctness is discussed in political forums. But it is actually a condition that is better addressed with psychology. To begin let us look at the term "political correctness". The first word is the operative word. Politics often has less to do with objective truth and more to do with using subjective image to create the illusion of objective truth. That is why spin doctors are so important to most political campaigns. The terms political correctness adds up to using subjective spin and image to define objecitve reality. The term scientific correctness is more vigorous and typically require solid and repeatable data and/or repeatable logic to define reality. It doesn't need spin or image but stands on its own.

 

The term political correctness was a big softball lobbed over the plate. Most people missed it because political is suppose to subjectively convey the spin image of power. Many were expecting a fastball. This distinction between subjective and objective correctness should raise at least a yellow flag within the psychology community. But it seemed to have sail right past.

 

Here is how the political correctness game works. The goal is to replace things that create negative feelings with terms that feel better. This in itself is a noble goal but it is a short term fix that can lead to problems. It can create an alternate subjective reality that detaches from objectivity. Without objectivity there is no good rational way to solve the problems.

 

Let me go through a hypothetical example that shouldn't induce irrational subjectivity so we can look at the dynamics objectivity. Many people get in the dumps during rainy days and feel better when the sun is shining. To protect these unfortuneately people from these down feelings, we will need to change the word rain into the new term called sunshine limited. The buzzword shineshine is added to shift the feeling during those raining days closer to those of a sunny day.

 

If I tell someone to get their umbella because it is raining, that is now politically incorrect, since it uses that negative word rain. Object advice is now semi-prohibited by this new verbal standard. So to stay consistent with the new subjective reality, I need to say get your parasol since even on a limited sunshine day there are harmful UV affects. I need to translate objective advice into something that is beginning to detach from the objective reality of what an umbrella is suppose to be used for. That is the only allowable way to stay consistent with the alternate reality.

 

What is beginning to happen is we are creating an alternate reality. It is a speical place where everyone is suppose to feel good and make each other feel good, where every day is a type of sunny or limited sunny day. When a hurricane comes, we need to warn people of the extreme rain. One has to say the limited sunshine is coming with vengenence to be politically correct. But that doesn't get the point across to the dangerous reality of this situation. But the buzz work rain is now so taboo, that the mere mention of it will raise an over reaction. Now the category 1 is subjectively felt that it is a category 3, if that evil rain word is used.

 

If a person tries to hold out and stay in reality, eventully it begins to look like you are the one that is out of touch with reality. It comes down to consensus subjective reality being assumed to apply even to objectivity. If you say, I don't really mind rainy days. Then you need help. Not only did you say the rain word but you didn't even over react on cue.

 

If I was to trace the origins of this, it appears to be feminine. In the dating world, males are trying to get something from the female. Part of that dynamics, with many men, is to create an alternate reality, i.e., I will love you forever, etc. Many women expect the sweet little lies, and many actually like it, not due to the content but because of the nice feelings.

 

With women more masculine, they are learning to copy this male behavior. With many males becoming more feminine, the females are trying to win favors with sweet little lies. It is the feelings that matter. Many male-shes are spreading the legs of their heart and eating up the fantasy without trying to censor it using some objectivity to the reality. Men that retain more masculinity, tend to retain more objectivity. They know how this game works, and don't let themselve fall for it. Some feminine men like the sweet feelings but are a little tighter with the legs. They are a little more virtuous to distinctions of the heart and mind.

 

The problem is, there a lot of smart guys out there that are using the game to their own advantage. It is sort of like a guy who uses his line of bull on a woman. But she is too steps ahead and has him all sized up, only to reverse the wheels of fortune in her own favor. A smart business man would let the alternate reality develop and then try to capitalize on it. Love is a chess game. Some players think a few moves ahead. Smart men are using the alternately reality for fun and profit.

 

The global warming scare is taking advantage of the insecurity that is being induced by the alternate reality. Instinctively, one is going to feel more vulnerable when they lose touch with objective reality. Everything now subjectively becomes more of a potential danger. You harvest that vulnerbility and direct it where it is profitable. Since subjective reality has no objective limits in reality, anything that amplifies the fear and then offers solutions to the fear that it helped amplify, will do the trick.

 

Advertising will use the pick-up line for the females and the seductive image to lure the males. Let the buyer beware. But the alternate reality has a base of fear that adds an unhealthy dimension to cross gender pickup lines, that clouds the natural sexual roles and is hard to see. I don't really have a problem with the first but the second gets sleavey. It is heading toward big mother-brother control of our lives to appease fear. There are many riding the wave since more control equals more power.

[iNow]

Sad really, since at the heart of being PC is the hope for people to be more kind and empathetic toward one another.

 

 

Then again, I didn't read your post. I'm not much into fiction anymore.

 

 

 

EDIT: Okay. I just read your post. You, my friend, are a sexist bigot living in a mental fantasy world, and I suggest that you should perhaps try to better understand your own alternate reality.

[Wormwood]

I agree with the OP (up until the male female dynamic). Not only is PC policing thoughts, but it encourages false ideas about reality. For example, it is a popular tactic in some debates for the side with the standard issue PC opinion to resort to personal attacks such as calling someone a racist or a sexist, not because they feel like this should be pointed out, but because they know the other side will instantly lose all credibility if the claims stick. By that I mean if you go against the subjective truth of PC, any objective truth is lost because your opinion no longer matters. I have seen this tactic used a lot in Israeli v. Palestinian debates, when one side doesn't care about the other. Both sides call the other racist, as if that somehow makes an opinion more or less true. I was under the impression that something is true if it's factually correct, not if it fits well with everyone's delicate sensibilities.

[Paralith]

PC-ness definitely sacrifices objectiveness to some degree for the sake of being polite. But you do have to remember that people are - well, people. Someone is always going to be sensitive about something. And if you want to be able to broach the subject at all without losing the person to a fit of insulted anger, sometimes you have to at least begin with the polite version. Not as efficient logically speaking, but in terms of the reality of dealing with human nature, sometimes it's necessary to keep discussions from turning into fights. As with most things, I think it's knowing where to draw the line that really matters.

 

If I was to trace the origins of this, it appears to be feminine. In the dating world, males are trying to get something from the female. Part of that dynamics, with many men, is to create an alternate reality, i.e., I will love you forever, etc. Many women expect the sweet little lies, and many actually like it, not due to the content but because of the nice feelings.

 

This is an interesting idea, only you have not included another important aspect in human relationships. Males are trying to get something from the females, this is certainly true - they want to mate. But females are also trying to get something from the males - the commitment of the male's energy and resources on the female and her offspring. So when women hear "I will love you forever," this doesn't make them happy because it's a nice little dream that is separate from a sad reality. It makes them happy because they think it is an indication of reality - of the male saying, I will commit my energy and resources to you and your offspring, and not to other females and their offspring. It gives them nice feelings not because love is a warm and fuzzy idea, but because love represents real life commitment. Now, if the male means something entirely different when he says "I will love you forever," that is simply false signalling and is a different matter than political correctness.

 

That being said, I think it is true that women, on average, try to be more polite than men. A friend of mine once said, men can get frustrated when women seem to sidestep or not directly address a certain issue, but the reason women do it is that they're trying to be polite. In general, women tend to place more importance on the emotional substance of a relationships than men, and because of this go to more efforts to be polite and avoid hurting anyone's feelings. Men, who in general are more goal oriented in their relationships, don't see the same need for being so careful about feelings. This may have been where something like political correctness started, but I think that in a world with more and more people of different creeds and kinds, with all sorts of potential for inter-group violence, being careful to maintain the substance of relationships is more important than it used to be. Again, it's all about finding the appropriate middle path.

[Reaper]

That being said, I think it is true that women, on average, try to be more polite than men. A friend of mine once said, men can get frustrated when women seem to sidestep or not directly address a certain issue, but the reason women do it is that they're trying to be polite.

 

I'm not so sure about that. I know quite a few women who are very outspoken and do not aim for politeness. And they do not by any means sidestep an issue unless it is more of a personal thing (Either with themselves or their close friends, families, etc), at least from my own observations.

 

So when women hear "I will love you forever," this doesn't make them happy because it's a nice little dream that is separate from a sad reality. It makes them happy because they think it is an indication of reality - of the male saying, I will commit my energy and resources to you and your offspring, and not to other females and their offspring. It gives them nice feelings not because love is a warm and fuzzy idea, but because love represents real life commitment. Now, if the male means something entirely different when he says "I will love you forever," that is simply false signalling and is a different matter than political correctness.

 

But there are differing ways of loving. Love toward a spouse will not be the same as love toward, say, a family member such as a parent or sibling. Love does not necessarily have to involve intimacy. For instance, if they were to hear "I will love you forever" from their brother, I'm pretty sure they would be happy to hear that, especially if they got along very well.

 

In general, women tend to place more importance on the emotional substance of a relationships than men, and because of this go to more efforts to be polite and avoid hurting anyone's feelings. Men, who in general are more goal oriented in their relationships, don't see the same need for being so careful about feelings.

 

I agree with this one. Women tend to have more empathy than men do. Also, there is a cultural component to this as well, as men are expected to "bottle up" their emotions.

 

This may have been where something like political correctness started, but I think that in a world with more and more people of different creeds and kinds, with all sorts of potential for inter-group violence, being careful to maintain the substance of relationships is more important than it used to be. Again, it's all about finding the appropriate middle path.

 

I don't agree. From what I remember, the term evolved initially as a way protect people, mainly minorities in the US, from discrimination.

 

Nowadays I find that it is used as an excuse to impose censorship and fear, greatly enhanced by our now irresponsible media.

[Paralith]

I'm not so sure about that. I know quite a few women who are very outspoken and do not aim for politeness. And they do not by any means sidestep an issue unless it is more of a personal thing (Either with themselves or their close friends, families, etc), at least from my own observations.

 

That's why I say "on average." As far as evolved genetics goes, women on average have a predisposition towards being more polite, or at least trying not to offend. But there will always be variation in this trait, and especially in today's modern industrial cultures, many a woman's upbringing outweighs any such predisposition.

 

But there are differing ways of loving. Love toward a spouse will not be the same as love toward, say, a family member such as a parent or sibling. Love does not necessarily have to involve intimacy. For instance, if they were to hear "I will love you forever" from their brother, I'm pretty sure they would be happy to hear that, especially if they got along very well.

 

You're right, what the statement means can depend on who is saying it. But pioneer established it as being said by a man trying to "get something" from a woman, by which case I assumed he meant an intimate relationship, so that's the situation I was addressing.

 

I don't agree. From what I remember, the term evolved initially as a way protect people, mainly minorities in the US, from discrimination.

 

I'll concede to you on this point - I don't actually know much of the history, I was mostly speculating. But, regardless of how it evolved, I think PC-ness does have a place in the world for the reasons I described.

 

Nowadays I find that it is used as an excuse to impose censorship and fear, greatly enhanced by our now irresponsible media.

Lots of people use it for other than its intended purposes, I do agree. But used correctly, I think it does have a reason to be implemented. Unfortunately, there's always going to be people out there willing to twist a well-intentioned thing for their own reasons.

[Reaper]

That's why I say "on average." As far as evolved genetics goes, women on average have a predisposition towards being more polite, or at least trying not to offend. But there will always be variation in this trait, and especially in today's modern industrial cultures, many a woman's upbringing outweighs any such predisposition.

 

The problem with that statement now is that politeness is largely cultural. There are different expectations for both genders as to what is polite and what isn't, even in industrial cultures. The behaviors that characterize "politeness" in men are not necessarily the same for women.

 

The same thing also applies to age. I know that some cultures in Southeast Asia forbid young people to look elders in the eye, for example.

[Paralith]

The problem with that statement now is that politeness is largely cultural. There are different expectations for both genders as to what is polite and what isn't, even in industrial cultures. The behaviors that characterize "politeness" in men are not necessarily the same for women.

 

The same thing also applies to age. I know that some cultures in Southeast Asia forbid young people to look elders in the eye, for example.

 

That's a good point. In this sense I'm using the term "politeness" pretty loosely, I guess. Let me try to put it in context. Men are usually more likely to maintain a relationship with another person, even if they don't get along very well with that person, if they share a common purpose or goal. Maybe they work together, are on a sports team together, etc. Women, however, are less likely to keep up the relationship if they don't get along with the person, even if the purpose is common. Good emotional connections are usually more important with women when it comes to their friendships, so they'll go to greater lengths to get along. By this reasoning, whatever rules your particular culture or age group have that dictate what's polite or what isn't offensive etc, women will be more likely to follow them, at least with people they want to maintain good relationships with.

 

(And to prove that I'm not just pulling all this out of my butt and that I've actually researched some of this relationship stuff, here's a reference:

Seeley, E. A., Gardner, W. L., Pennington, G., & Gabriel, S. (2003). Circle of Friends or Members of a Group? Sex and Collective Attachment to Groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 3, 251-263. )

 

And just to reiterate, these patterns are just average ones that are evolutionary predispositions, but are most certainly not 100% true of every woman out there, especially in modern cultures.

[Reaper]

That's a good point. In this sense I'm using the term "politeness" pretty loosely, I guess. Let me try to put it in context. Men are usually more likely to maintain a relationship with another person, even if they don't get along very well with that person, if they share a common purpose or goal. Maybe they work together, are on a sports team together, etc. Women, however, are less likely to keep up the relationship if they don't get along with the person, even if the purpose is common. Good emotional connections are usually more important with women when it comes to their friendships, so they'll go to greater lengths to get along. By this reasoning, whatever rules your particular culture or age group have that dictate what's polite or what isn't offensive etc, women will be more likely to follow them, at least with people they want to maintain good relationships with.

 

(And to prove that I'm not just pulling all this out of my butt and that I've actually researched some of this relationship stuff, here's a reference:

Seeley, E. A., Gardner, W. L., Pennington, G., & Gabriel, S. (2003). Circle of Friends or Members of a Group? Sex and Collective Attachment to Groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 3, 251-263. )

 

And just to reiterate, these patterns are just average ones that are evolutionary predispositions, but are most certainly not 100% true of every woman out there, especially in modern cultures.

 

 

Alright, that makes a lot more sense. As I said before, women tend to have more empathy than men. I notice this a lot in social groups and even in work groups, that they will tend to work better with people that they like then with people that they are either indifferent about or don't really like.

[iNow]

It's acceptable that you speak in gender specific trends, just bear in mind the extreme difficulty in attributing these trends completely to either genetics or environmental learning.

[Paralith]

It's acceptable that you speak in gender specific trends, just bear in mind the extreme difficulty in attributing these trends completely to either genetics or environmental learning.

 

Your caution is well taken, but many of the trends that I mention have a high likelihood of being genetically based; there is a lot of research and theory that describes how they may have evolved. But these traits are most certainly highly variable and highly subject to change based on environmental learning. The genes influence the behavior, not completely dictate it.

[pioneer]

There is no one size fits all when it comes to behavior, since exceptions can always be found. The same is true of political correctness. This one size fits all does not apply to everyone. Those who wish to play by these rules can set up their own club. That way they are not trying to impose their will over others, who don't wish to play that game.

 

I can see that the goal is noble. The PC would like to see an environment where people are not mean to each other, especially the underdog. A world where we all get along and the emotion ambiance is positive. The problem with this utopia, is that anything that ruins that romatic feeling will not tolerated.The goddess of love has demon inside.

 

For example, if one sours the utopian mood/vision about gays, one is a homo-phobe. That means if you don't go along, there is something wrong with you, that amounts to a psychological disorder. I understand that this utopian place will not tolerate name calling, but rational observation is also not tolerated. Why aren't homosexuals called hetero-phobes, since they shy away from this lifestyle. Gays do represent a subset of a much larger set. That would not be politically correct since it would change the emotional ambiance within this utopian world. The romantic idealism only works if the subset is greater than or equal to the set. Being consistent with logic and science would hurt their romantic idealism.

 

It is sort of analogous to everyone having a party. Everyone is having a good time. Someone speaks up and says it is getting late and we all need to get up early the next day. That dose of reality sours the mood. The person trying to think outside the emotional moment, into the future, is now the scape goat since they ruined the romantic ambience with reality.

 

I was part of the liberal mindset during most of my younger days. It is a state where feeling leads thoughts, instead of thoughts leading feelings. If a person was completely psychologically healthy this might work. Intuition is a very powerful tool that can grasp reality and generate good ideas. But if there are issues in that head and/or heart, these feelings are not always the best core onto which one builds stable ideas. It tends to be too short sighted and tries to shift feelings as fast as possible with quick solutions. If thinking is leading the emotions, the dynamics are different. Trying to get to a state of everyone getting along is not done with strong arm tactics. Strong arm is better for creating strife. While censor is much better for creating a totalitarian style govenment not utopia.

 

There is a wise saying that a tree can be judged by the fruit it bears. Strong-arm and censor is not part of any upotian world. The output from this type of heart looks more like it is heading toward dictatorship. A place where you remained brained washed or else go to the goulags for rehab. When a dictator forces conformity, this ss is not to make everyone happy, but to consolidate their power over them. The PC is part of a diseased tree with rotten fruits that needs some bug spray. This tree has a rotten core.

[iNow]

So where is this ethereal dictator preventing you from being an asshole? I'd suggest that you are substituting the term "dictator" into what is currently understood as "socially accepted norms." Nobody is preventing you from saying what you think. You are your only censor.

 

 

You can be as un-PC as you want, but you still need others to survive. Why not maximize the group with which you can successfully interact? Start calling your neighbors a bunch of hate filled names and we'll see how many help you when you need them to.