The idea academics shouldn't makes arguments that might undermine people's own understanding of who they are is infuriatingly ludicrous. It rules out the denial of the existence of the soul, e.g. - it might upset Christians for whom souls are central to their self-understanding.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
And (in most formulations?) denying it in myself is equivalent to denying that they have theirs, as their belief fundamentally requires everyone to have one.
Yes. And if you add that sort of thought to the work of Asch on conformity, I think you begin to get to an explanation of why there is absolutely zero tolerance of dissent on the part of the gender identity crowd. (One dissenster breaks the spell, basically.)
-
-
Don’t know Asch (where would I best start?) but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the contrast with my (many) very strongly religious friends over my life who have not been at all threatened my definite if non-haranguing atheism. Something means they don’t need “the spell”.
-
This is Asch's most famous (first) study. (The section starting p. 230 on non-unanimity is interesting.) https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/1952-asch.pdf …
-
Thankyou.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.