Traitors gonna trait

This is why you don’t trust r-types pretending to be right wing or neutral in a clearly sided political conflict.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/15/16144070/psychology-alt-right
They’ll always stab you in the back for personal gain.
They didn’t study SJWs because they only want to pathologize one side. Communists have a known history of doing this, Lenin in particular.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5940212/how-the-soviets-used-their-own-twisted-version-of-psychiatry-to-suppress-political-dissent

see also Legacy of Soviet Dissent, by  Robert Horvath.

And who answers a political survey honestly? If anyone asks me, I always claim to be a Communist who attends global warming marches and Gay Pride. The worst part is, I can convince myself.
Most people troll these things, it’s the same way polls are basically lies now.
The Alt Lite / Alt Light / whatever is signalling for edge points, are after money. They’re shills for anyone with shekels.
I wonder who has the most money?

“Recently, psychologists Patrick Forscher and Nour Kteily recruited members of the alt-right to participate in a study to build the first psychological profile of their movement.

You were played.

“So while it is a preliminary assessment, it validates some common perceptions of the alt-right with data. It helps us understand this group not just as straw men but as people with knowable motivations.”

You’ve handed the enemy publishable strawman results.
You can’t outplay someone who is literally writing the results. They’re worse than journalists, I know.
They have data to point to now, thanks to these people.

” It’s a convenience sample of alt-righters on the internet who were willing to take a survey for a small cash reward.”

And people who didn’t know a trap when they saw one, tried to out-edge and troll in a scientific ‘hit’ piece or were plain paid to lie and pretend to be the most stereotypical neo-Nazi larper fag possible.

Excellent.

Who are these researchers?

Patrick Forscher
http://www.sciencecox.com/pub?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=1
wrote a paper on “breaking the prejudice habit”… sounds completely neutral to me.
It’s instructive to see where a person’s work is mentioned.
http://www.academia.edu/9144015/Stereotypes_prejudice_and_depression_The_integrated_perspective
Here’s his page
https://sites.google.com/site/devinesocialpsych/patrick-schnarrenberger
“My research concerns the causes of disparities between social groups. I am investigating the antecedents of these disparities, such as intentional and unintentional bias, and whether changing these antecedents can help eliminate the disparities.”

translation: I want to brainwash everyone into liking everyone else. Personal safety or evolution be damned! Let’s play god!
So much for human right to freedom of association and freedom of thought. What about freedom of emotion?

papers
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lEXTftIAAAAJ&hl=en
Paper here: “A Meta-Analysis of Change in Implicit Bias July 1, 2017”
https://osf.io/b5m97/download
Yes, I can find basically anything on the internet.

A key mention
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/01/so-it-turns-out-implicit-bias-as-measured-does-not-predict-behavior.html
that won’t be.

Bias doesn’t mean shit because it doesn’t predict behaviour.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230881880_Foxhole_Atheism_Revisited_The_Effects_of_Mortality_Salience_on_Explicit_and_Implicit_Religious_Belief

Implicit bias paper linked on that page.

From this latest paper, this image made me laugh.


It’s completely inaccurate to the alt right, or to neo-Nazis or even to actual Nazis in the 40s.
You wouldn’t actually know that as a neutral reader.
I wonder who funded this paper.
These people do nothing without money.
Let’s see the other one.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=b2S9a0gAAAAJ
Lead author on “The Ascent of Man: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence for Blatant Dehumanization.”

“Not One of Us” Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to Ambiguous Targets”
The irony.

How can there be an outgroup if you aren’t allowed to deny what other people tell you because your own lying eyes say different?

“They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization.”
Is religious war reciprocal?
I had no idea.

“Social dominance theory: Explorations in the psychology of oppression”

This year: “Backlash: The Politics and Real-World Consequences of Minority Group Dehumanization”
No political motive whatsoever.

Texts here https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nour_Kteily

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-consequences-anti-muslim-anti-mexican-attitudes-actions.html
That picture you’ll see a lot of?

“In the study, the authors presented American participants with the popular ‘Ascent of Man’ diagram, and had each participant place groups of people where they thought they belonged on this scale, from the ape-like human ancestor (0) through modern human (100).”

That isn’t even a methodology, it’s totally and completely biased to ask participants to arrange people [italics] then gaslight them about doing what you ordered. Milgram and experimenter trust?

And Ascent of Man is pure Darwin, they are implicitly denying evolution.

I’m gonna get a lot of use out of that GIF.

Thanks, anti-science crowd! It stopped at the neck, didn’t it? Sure it did.

Don’t tell them about the oxytocin findings, chemistry and biology scares them because there’s no spin.

They basically endorse the You deserve it! line on terrorism.

If we use rhetoric and enact policies that make Muslims feel dehumanized, this may lead them to support exactly the types of aggression that reinforce the perception that they are ‘less civilized’ than ‘us.’ In this way, dehumanization can become self-fulfilling in the minds of the dehumanizers and justify their aggression,” Bruneau says.”

When Muslims kill white people, victim blaming is not only OK, but encouraged!
Forget how they kill a bunch of non-whites too!

Logically, if the aggression is there first, it wasn’t caused externally, merely provoked.
OR if provoked, it proves they aren’t the same, they harbour violent intentions. If the behaviour predicted is accurate to the behaviour demonstrated, they were proven correct to distrust the violent group who literally wants to kill them.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/14302019/ThomsenObaidiSheehy-SkeffingtonKteilySidaniusSubmitted-libre.pdf?sequence=2

“Individual differences in relational motives interact with the political context to produce terrorism and terrorism-support

This one IS interesting….
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181422

“The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare”
So it is warfare-specific, they acknowledge?

I’m bored, you find more.

Worse than a PR scare, from Vox;

Once we understand the psychological motivations behind the alt-right worldview, maybe we can learn to stop it.

They literally want to use state power to crush not only you, but also your worldview.
And you handed them the keys to the guard tower? You gave them an excuse to claim to speak on your behalf?

This survey is just a first step in that direction.

“One of the biggest reasons I wanted to do this in the first place was to find some leverage points for change,” Forscher says.

They’re not even hiding it!

They’re also trying the obvious tactic of conflating white political interests with wanting anything to do with anyone else.
Thanks, yokels.
America ruins everything.
THE ETERNAL YANK.

Advertisements

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s