Forum Sponsors

www.inshutters.co.uk

All Round Renovation

www.no-flies.co.uk

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Which pubs, bars, restaurants and take-aways do you avoid?
Goto Page: 123Next
Current Page: 1 of 3
messageCognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 04, 07:59AM

The below text may help you determine if you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

According to Festinger (1957), the author of the theory cognitive dissonance, people hold a variety of beliefs of the world and themselves and when these beliefs are contradicted by observable information it creates an anxiety. However, to resolve this anxiety the habitual response in many people is not to alter their beliefs to confirm to the new information, but rather to alter or deny their observations so they can maintain their beliefs. For example, a single parent who suffered intense emotional turmoil after their only child was killed fighting in the 2003 Iraq war and who holds a belief that their child was fighting courageously for justice, freedom and peace and thus their death was not in vain, will have a tendency, according to the theory, to be dismissive of information which demonstrates the war was fought for oppression and exploitation. Moreover, if you the reader of the above example consider yourself not to confirm to gender based stereotypes, but you presumed that the single parent is a female or that the only child killed in the war was a male may begin to suffer from cognitive dissonance. This is because genders were not assigned in the above example, and thus any imposition of gender will have stemmed from the stereotypes you adhere to. To conclude, if you imposed gender stereotypes to define the characters in the above example yet maintain you do not adhere to such stereotypes it is highly probable you are currently suffering from cognitive dissonance.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by lavender27 May 04, 10:40AM

, do you have a stereo, I'd love to play my vinyls again.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 04, 10:56AM

lavender27 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> , do you have a stereo, I'd love to play my vinyls
> again.

No.
Do you have anything to say which is meaningful and related to the subject of cognitive dissonance, perhaps from your own experience?

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by PeckhamRose May 04, 05:52PM

You cite two points in a poorly written text. First, you talk of dissonance with an example of a parent proud of its child's death in a war in which said parent has a belief system, ie. maintaining that belief that it died for a good cause despite other points of view claiming it was a pointless war (in effect). Fine. So what. That is clearly what would happen. What parent of either gender would want to change their belief that their child had died pointlessly in a pointless war? I mean, such cognitive dissonance could kill through grief and shock. You would be devastated that your original belief was wrong or faulty, and that therefore it would have to follow that you would believe that your kid died pointlessly. It would be reasonable to continue with original belief out of ignorance but for the reason of self protection.

Secondly, your point about assuming gender. Well so what? Casting directors have done that for years and they are slowly coming round to learning to be gender blind and actually fighting any writer's description of, for example, a doctor as a male doctor when there is no reason in the script that said doctor should be male. What is a blind spot to many casters, is disability casting and race casting. If a writer writes "Doctor" then that doctor could be any human who could believably be a doctor. ie. an adult past the age of 28. The more examples of this we see, the more we see our world having more possibilities.

As far as self diagnosis is concerned, well again, so what? My experience is that I don't think I suffer from it, but maybe having worked as a playwright and actor, I am more sensitive to it.

The question is: why are you raising it here?

--------------------
Humanist Funeral Celebrant

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by lavender27 May 05, 02:35AM

Davis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lavender27 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > , do you have a stereo, I'd love to play my
> vinyls
> > again.
>
> No.
> Do you have anything to say which is meaningful
> and related to the subject of cognitive
> dissonance, perhaps from your own experience?

No, I have not ever heard of this description of diagnosis before, I have only just read your laboriously long text , I shall get back to you. Previous text was just a playful play on words, not so good though. We overthink ourselves sometimes, and conjour up some magical things about ourselves. Anyway what has brought you to write this?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was may 05, 02:36am by lavender27.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Sue May 06, 10:30PM

PeckhamRose Wrote:
--------------------------------------------
>
> The question is: why are you raising it here?


I wondered this too.

Though it did bring back memories of a seminar on cognitive dissonance reduction I went to circa 1971 big grin

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by JohnL May 07, 10:36AM

Brexit

Edit: Actually the (I thought) laughable Brexit Anxiety Disorder seems to be happening too.

[www.politico.eu]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was may 07, 10:39am by JohnL.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 07, 11:41AM

PeckhamRose, lavender27 and Sue I appreciate your input into the topic of cognitive dissonance. You all have questioned my rationale for raising this subject here and therefore I should address this. Firstly, I thought it would be of interest because cognitive dissonance is a factor which can affect our decisions adversely. Secondly, it goes someway to accounting for the denial of information which contradicts the decisions people make. A good example of this is the way people have denied objective and quantifiable evidence in the Brexit debate.

Taking into account Peckhamrose’s comment that my initial post was ‘poorly written’ and lavender27’s claim that it was ‘laboriously long’ I will now attempt to present the subject in manner that is hoped to be more engaging and has direct relevance to those who have commented so far.

Let us imagine there is a small theatre in East Dulwich which produces plays using the same actors, theatre manager and director but different playwrights. The theatre never advertises its productions beyond what is announced on its billboard. However, the system is uses to gauge if a particular play should continue is as follows: if the first night of the play does not manage to fill more than 50% of the available seats it will be cancelled and will not be given a second night showing. On the second night and thereafter if it does manage to fill more than 70% of available seats the show will be cancelled and a new production will be introduced. The reasoning behind this system is that anything below a 70% capacity means the theatre is at a financial loss. This rule is only broken on the first night to allow information on the production to circulate. The idea being, if the play is good then people from the first show will recommend it to their friends and the numbers should increase for subsequent shows. Also, a relevant point to note is the theatre is generally busier during the winter than in the summer months.

Peckhamrose writes a play which is directed by the theatre director, lavender27. The play’s opening night is on the first on the 1st of June and manages to fill 52% of available seats in the theatre. According to the theatre’s system it is allowed to be given a second show, but only manages to fill 40% of available seats. A meeting is held, lavender27, the director, states that the low intake was due to the play being poorly written and thus should not be given a third screening in accordance with the theatre’s system. Peckhamrose, the playwright, argues that the play was written well but the low intake was due to heavy rain on the night of the second show. Sue, the theatre manager, presents an offer to the playwright which is as follows: the play will be given a third show only if they personally cover any losses the theatre incurs due to a low intake.

What do you think Peckham rose will do, and why?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was may 08, 02:58am by Davis.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by dbboy May 07, 12:14PM

cognitive dissonance
nounPSYCHOLOGY
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Sue May 07, 09:56PM

If anybody has managed to read to the end of Davis' last post, I take my hat off to them big grin

It might have been easier if the paragraphs had been rather shorter ....

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by TheArtfulDogger May 08, 09:29AM

Davis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Peckhamrose writes a play which is directed by the
> theatre director, lavender27. The play’s opening
> night is on the first on the 1st of June and
> manages to fill 52% of available seats in the
> theatre. According to the theatre’s system it is
> allowed to be given a second show, but only
> manages to fill 40% of available seats. A meeting
> is held, lavender27, the director, states that the
> low intake was due to the play being poorly
> written and thus should not be given a third
> screening in accordance with the theatre’s system.
> Peckhamrose, the playwright, argues that the play
> was written well but the low intake was due to
> heavy rain on the night of the second show. Sue,
> the theatre manager, presents an offer to the
> playwright which is as follows: the play will be
> given a third show only if they personally cover
> any losses the theatre incurs due to a low intake.
>
>
> What do you think Peckham rose will do, and why?


I think peckhamrose will tell lavender27 to go take a running jump and put the amazing play on at a more modern forward thinking theatre

Still not getting the point of your posts Davis , can you explain them in one or two very concise sentences or is that a challenge ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was may 08, 09:29am by TheArtfulDogger.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Sue May 08, 10:02AM

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Still not getting the point of your posts Davis ,
> can you explain them in one or two very concise
> sentences or is that a challenge ?



Nor am I, and yes, rather less wordy posts might be helpful in attempting to get the point smiling smiley

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by PeckhamRose May 08, 02:14PM

Have you actually been to any of my plays? lolol I am not reading any more of this. Open a Facebook page to discuss it or something. Buh bye.

--------------------
Humanist Funeral Celebrant

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 14, 09:19AM

I started this thread to explain the theory of cognitive dissonance in the hope it would create an awareness of how habitual cognitive biases can affect perception. I have shared a similar text with my work colleagues and did not experience any issues with them comprehending the subject. In fact the initial post has an element of humour and irony that many of my colleagues identified. However, the initial reception I received here was one of contempt. For example, I was told my initial post was poorly written and laborious. Also, my motives for writing about this subject on this form were questioned. I find this peculiar because people, in the lounge, write on various topics without having to justify their motives.

What is interesting to note is that even when I was asked to simplify the idea by reducing it to a few short sentences this was done in a patronising manner. For example, theartfuldodger wrote ‘still not getting the point of your posts Davis , can you explain them in one or two very concise sentences or is that a challenge’? It is perfectly acceptable to ask me to simplify the issue but why the need to patronise me?

I did attempt to make the issue more relevant by giving a theoretical situation that relates to Peckhmarose but despite this Peckhamrose took offence and told me ‘open a Facebook page to discuss it or something’. I challenge anyone to justify Peckhamrose’s response.

On face value the hostile, dismissive and patronising reaction I got seems irrational. However, a way to account for this can be achieved by applying the theory of cognitive dissonance. It could the case that those who showed an unprovoked hostile, dismissive and patronising reaction may have done so because they had difficulty in comprehending the concept, but rather than accept this they attempted to change the situation (their failure to understand the concept) by blaming me and thus maintain their belief that they are not prone to such a failure. What is ironic is this reading of their behaviour can be used to further demonstrate the theory of cognitive dissonance. In this regard their reactions have merit. Conversely, another explanation of their behaviour may be simply due to poor manners.

I feel this is an important subject to discuss because the inherent biases we have can affect the most important decisions in our lives. It is an awareness of these biases that can help us overcome and avoid their negative effects.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by dbboy May 14, 09:54AM

Maybe it has something to do with how you use the language, you may be an "expert" in this area, readers may not have come across, be aware or have knowledge / experience about the topic which you may have. If you write in a way that people find easy to read and understand the points you are trying to make, the reaction received may then be different.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by nxjen May 14, 10:02AM

Davis - Have you read your own post?

“... people hold a variety of beliefs of the world and themselves and when these beliefs are contradicted by observable information it creates an anxiety. However, to resolve this anxiety the habitual response in many people is not to alter their beliefs to confirm to the new information, but rather to alter or deny their observations so they can maintain their beliefs.”

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 14, 11:12AM

dbboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it has something to do with how you use the
> language, you may be an "expert" in this area,
> readers may not have come across, be aware or have
> knowledge / experience about the topic which you
> may have. If you write in a way that people find
> easy to read and understand the points you are
> trying to make, the reaction received may then be
> different.

dbboy I am no expert in this area, but it is an area I find interesting and wish to learn more about.
I accept my use of the English language can be improved greatly, but I do not understand how this would cause the reaction received. Why the need for a dismissive and patronising tone?

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 14, 11:16AM

nxjen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Davis - Have you read your own post?
>
> “... people hold a variety of beliefs of the world
> and themselves and when these beliefs are
> contradicted by observable information it creates
> an anxiety. However, to resolve this anxiety the
> habitual response in many people is not to alter
> their beliefs to confirm to the new information,
> but rather to alter or deny their observations so
> they can maintain their beliefs.”


nxjen, even though the point you are making may be absolutely clear to yourself and others I was unable to comprehend it; therefore, please can you clarify it for me as I am sure it will add value to this discussion.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by dbboy May 14, 11:19AM

that was niether dismissive and patronising

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 14, 11:31AM

dbboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that was niether dismissive and patronising


Sorry if what I wrote was confusing. I was not referring to you; I do not consider what you said to be dismissive or patronising. Rather it was very helpful. The comment about being dismissive and patronising was in reference to previous posts not yours.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was may 14, 11:43am by Davis.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by seenbeen May 14, 12:37PM

People who 'belong' to a group or cult which has a well defined belief system will ignore any observed contradictions if it means they will be at odds with the beliefs of the group....the most extreme example is where apostasy is punishable by death....

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 14, 01:34PM

Everyone belongs to a group in terms of their belief system and everyone has a code of morals. A problem is people do not always realize this. I am of the opinion that everyone has an ideology and it is impossible to function in this world without one. Ideologies and the narratives they produce aid us in understanding otherwise incomprehensible observations and events.

Regarding punishments for apostasy ( i.e. leaving a belief system for another) this does not necessary have anything to do with cognitive dissonance, but rather can be seen as a punishment for changing beliefs and the consequences it brings to that group. For example, consider a solider who changes sides during a war due to a change of ideology, but then is captured by the side he deserted and is executed.

Regardless, beliefs not only affect human perception but also form moral codes. The key for me is to acknowledge that people with different beliefs will have different morals.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by dbboy May 14, 03:16PM

When you say everyone has an ideology, not sure what you mean by ideology, but if you mean values, then I agree with that. However I disagree with you when you say "that people with different beliefs will have different morals. It doesn't matter what colour, creed, age, gender, race or what ever other descriptive you want to insert, I would hope that everyone has morals, its just that some peoples morals are stronger than others, but that doesn't make them any less of a person.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 14, 03:34PM

What I mean by ideology is a belief system that affects our view of the world (e.g. Darwinism, Capitalism, Christianity, Atheism, Marxism and so on). Regarding people having different morals based on their beliefs, what I mean is people derive different morals from their beliefs. For example, someone who believes in a particular form of Capitalism will consider it morally acceptable to make the poor and sick pay for necessary medication. Conversely, someone who believes in a particular form of Marxism will consider this unacceptable and immoral. Just to clarify these positions are not mutually exclusive to the ideologies I mentioned but rather are just used to illustrate the point.

Regarding ‘them being any less’. This again depends on the subject and one’s moral position derived from their ideology. For example, would you consider someone who believes it is morally acceptable to earn money from selling Heroin to the vulnerable as equal to someone who condemns such behavior?

Likewise, would you consider someone who believes in racial superiority and as a consequence considers the slavery of black people to be morally acceptable equal to someone who opposes slavery based on racial superiority.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit was may 14, 03:47pm by Davis.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by JohnL May 14, 03:49PM

What about just Pragmatism - which doesn't necessarily mean a good outcome but at least you can treat each problem on it's merits.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by TE44 May 14, 05:14PM

How do I know what I know, seems a simple enough question, when looking at our own beliefs and assumption where they come from, how we learn, what we rely on etc. Having similar beliefs with others where the same action or decisions are
taken does not guarantee the same morals. It depends which situation you're looking at. To observe lets say 2 different heroin dealers as simply commiting an act of what appears to be selling drugs to make money. On hearing two very different stories it may be your judgement morally differs with each when understanding of
the people, individually, outside of there action
is learned, creating no dissonance, then again it may be on your estate where your children pass each day, and you feel threatened, once we feel threatened it breeds a cutting of point for many, or else a battleground for each side to have
Inclination to see it through each other view.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by TE44 May 16, 12:46PM

Sorry not ver clear my post above, couldn't
see what I had typed. I suppose we all feel some dissonance on different levels. Holding and understanding two viewpoints that are contradictory does not have to cause dissonance,
This has been suggested to me when speaking to others on this forum around my beliefs and choices, I had never heard the saying before. Not taking this off topic.
On reading about Fastinger and his experiments
I felt it was a term that could only be recognised by yourself and by your actions. Not everyone that say is diabetic will feel dissonance whilst eating something they fell they shouldn"t be. Its interesting to hear how people
behave to get rid off the feeling.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Blah Blah May 17, 04:31AM

I think it is a very relevant conversation to have in today's climate of fact denial (climate change), conspiracy theories (9/11 'truthers'), and an extended us of 'whataboutery' by just about everybody, including those who govern us. On less clear cut ideas/ beliefs, such as those based around philosophical/ moral arguments, it becomes tricky though. These are social constructs and learned. Religion is a perfect example of that. The existence of a God or gods is not proven, yet so many are convinced they exist. That confidence of belief in something as true. without hard evidence, fascinates me more.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 17, 12:25PM

TE44 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do I know what I know, seems a simple enough
> question, when looking at our own beliefs and
> assumption where they come from, how we learn,
> what we rely on etc. Having similar beliefs with
> others where the same action or decisions are
> taken does not guarantee the same morals. It
> depends which situation you're looking at. To
> observe lets say 2 different heroin dealers as
> simply commiting an act of what appears to be
> selling drugs to make money. On hearing two very
> different stories it may be your judgement morally
> differs with each when understanding of
> the people, individually, outside of there action
> is learned, creating no dissonance, then again it
> may be on your estate where your children pass
> each day, and you feel threatened, once we feel
> threatened it breeds a cutting of point for many,
> or else a battleground for each side to have
> Inclination to see it through each other view.

The question you started with is an extremely important and unfortunately most people do not question why they believe what they consider to be a given truth, an objective fact. In most social contexts the status quo is taken as a means to validate what people believe and how they act. If a certain act or belief conforms to social norms it is legitimized and if it clashes with them, it is rejected. This is a circular form of argument i.e. it would be like saying this idea is correct because it is the same as my idea even though I have no proof that my idea itself is correct.

Regarding the same belief producing different morals this is true to an extent. From my own research in this area I would argue that people adhering to the same ideology can have differences in cursory elements as long as those differences do not challenge the foundational premise of that ideology.

You also highlight how different perspectives change judgment in the example of a drug dealer. However, there is another element to this which is double standards derived from an ideological bias. For example, most people in the UK would condemn the 9/11 attacks as an immoral act of terrorism because the perpetrators of the attacks targeted civilians, but they would not apply this rationale to the RAF’s deliberate bombing of Dresden and Hamburg which targeted civilians and killed hundreds of thousands. The cause of this is ideological bias. When the same act is committed for the advancement of an agenda that people are in agreement with the act is legitimized, but when the same act is committed for the advancement of an agenda that people are opposed to than it is condemned.

The other point you make about a diabetic eating something they feel they know is harmful is not completely the same as the main topic I raised about cognitive dissonance. A diabetic can eat unhealthy food while maintaining the belief that it is healthy. Most people contradict through actions what they belief. However, the main point I raised is when people deny observable evidence because it contradicts core beliefs. For example, imagine a good friend that you trust and have invested a lot of time into building a strong relationship with because you believe your friend to be an honest and good person. Then one day you observe your friend telling you something which you know to be a lie; according to the theory your habitual reaction will be to deny this and perhaps think you misheard or misunderstood. The reason is the consequence of discovering you friend is a liar will completely undermine your relationship with them that is built on the premise they are an honest person.

messageRe: Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis
Posted by Davis May 17, 12:29PM

Blah Blah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it is a very relevant conversation to have
> in today's climate of fact denial (climate
> change), conspiracy theories (9/11 'truthers'),
> and an extended us of 'whataboutery' by just about
> everybody, including those who govern us. On less
> clear cut ideas/ beliefs, such as those based
> around philosophical/ moral arguments, it becomes
> tricky though. These are social constructs and
> learned. Religion is a perfect example of that.
> The existence of a God or gods is not proven, yet
> so many are convinced they exist. That confidence
> of belief in something as true. without hard
> evidence, fascinates me more.

I agree with you that it is a relevant conversation to have in today’s climate especially with the increase of extremely divisive politics becoming the standard in the UK. I believe the issue of Brexit has changed the political and social climate to resemble one of the 1970’s and 1980’s in terms of attitudes towards race and immigration. However, you have conflated many different issues in the examples you gave. It could be easily argued that a rejection of information which is contrary to, for example, the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks is a form of cognitive dissonance. The key is to identify the basis of a belief. How much of the belief relies on an adherence to social norms (blind following) and how much is based on objective quantifiable information.

When you discuss religion, do you include atheism? When you talk about ‘God’ and ‘gods’ what definition do you adhere to? There is a tendency in relation to these topics to limit the definitions of religion, ‘God’ and ‘gods’ to the post Enlightenment European gaze. However, from other perspectives every ideology is a religion and a ‘god’ is anything which is given certain attributes. For example, the concept of a ‘big bang’ can be considered to be a ‘god’ because it is ascribed the ability to create life. Likewise, the notion of evolution stemming from Darwinism can be considered to be a ‘god’ as it is assumed this mystical mechanism (evolution) bought about humans and other forms of life.

It also fascinates me greatly that people can accept crucial beliefs without evidence yet claim they are critical thinkers. It may be the case that you have not been convinced on the basis of evidence of the existence of a ‘God’, but on what grounds can you then claim others have not? I would argue there is evidence proofing a Creator exists. However, as you raised this subject so confidently what I wish to understand is what is your belief regarding how life came about? Do you believe in Darwinism, if so, please share your honest account why?

This is an area I have researched greatly and what I find extremely interesting is that the period Darwin’s theory emerged the notion of racial hierarchy was the basis for many ideas and theories stemming from post Enlightenment Europe. A core part of the belief of racial hierarchy was that the European was racially superior and as a consequence anything which contradicted their subjective social norms was viewed as barbaric. In short, their social norms were assumed to be universal, an objective truth and functioned as a criterion to distinguish between humanity and barbarism. For example, the very observation of cannibalism was used to reinforce notions of European superiority and the inferiority of other races. A case in point, Charles Darwin after giving an account of cannibalism practiced by the Fuegians concluded in his log dated the 25th December 1832 that,

‘Viewing such men, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow-creatures, and inhabitants of the same world. It is a common subject of conjecture what pleasure in life some of the lower animals can enjoy: how much more reasonably the same question may be asked of these barbarians! (Darwin 1997 pg 203-204)’.

It is important to note that Darwin’s assertions regarding the Fuegians occurred 27 years before he published the ‘Origin of Species’. Meaning, he was already analysing data from a position of racial and ethical superiority which predated arguments of racial superiority based on evolution theory. His claim that the Fuegians who practiced cannibalism were subhuman, is ideologically consistent with his later theory that the European was more evolved than the other ‘savage races’. Darwin asserts that,

‘At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races... The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (Darwin 1871 pg 193)’.

The point I wish to make is that Darwinism and European universalism are inseparable from racial of hierarchy. This is extremely problematic because even though the notion of supremacy based on race is currently rejected in Europe the very ideas and beliefs (e.g. Darwinism) which stemmed from it still have currency.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was may 17, 12:31pm by Davis.

Goto Page: 123Next
Current Page: 1 of 3

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum