Political correctness really works! Sorry, conservatives, but science just said so

So in mixed sex groups of 3, you did read the study, it seems that PC gets more ideas discussed, however no control for creative IQ was used. It also found that in single sex groups of 3, more ideas are generated in a non-PC environment, or boys will be boys.

Might be interesting to see a study of classroom size groups with varying sex ratios.

---

Sweeping generalisations is what PC is all about.

In other words...

...Pure Crap!

Sweeping generalisations is what PC is all about.

Sweeping generalisations and hypocrisy.

If a member of Group A says or does something that "offends" a member of Group B, all hell breaks loose and the member of Group A is called an *ist or *obe and is a accused of all sorts of *isms. Yet if the situation is reversed and Group B says exactly the same thing about Group A, nothing is said and Group A is just supposed to wear it.

I also object to the way it used as a debate stopper. If someone says something that infers that not all members of a certain group are candidates for sainthood, or says that a group could handle their problems in a better way, the screeching starts again.

Recently where I live, we had the ridiculous situation where one indigenous lady politician called another indigenous lady politician a "racist" over a difference in policy. In another case, an executive of a community group claimed "racism" because he was being investigated for embezzlement from the organisation.

T.A.

If anyone feels oppressed by political correctness - speak out I say :) erm... Cordially helps :)

Cordially helps indeed.
PC does not!

Cordiality out of The Mouth, while In The Brain, Daggers.

I'll Take The Unvarnished or Un-Shellacked Truth, No Matter How Much 'it' Hurts.

The Real Truth, Not The Truth As One Sees 'it'.

In Other Words, Truth 'is' Never to be Found.

Oh Well. Deep Subject.

Dig 'it'? I Knew Dat YOu COuld.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Sweeping generalisations is what PC is all about.

Sweeping generalisations and hypocrisy.
If a member of Group A says or does something that "offends" a member of Group B, all hell breaks loose and the member of Group A is called an *ist or *obe and is a accused of all sorts of *isms. Yet if the situation is reversed and Group B says exactly the same thing about Group A, nothing is said and Group A is just supposed to wear it.
I also object to the way it used as a debate stopper. If someone says something that infers that not all members of a certain group are candidates for sainthood, or says that a group could handle their problems in a better way, the screeching starts again.
Recently where I live, we had the ridiculous situation where one indigenous lady politician called another indigenous lady politician a "racist" over a difference in policy. In another case, an executive of a community group claimed "racism" because he was being investigated for embezzlement from the organisation.
T.A.

What you are saying is very much like what happens in Europe right now.

Who define Political Correctsness?
PC to me is like BS in mine opinion!

It seems to me that some people here feel oppressed when they are asked not to behave in a way that oppresses other people.

and yes Gary, I read the study. Did you read the article?

---

Reality Internet Personality

It seems to me that some people here feel oppressed when they are asked not to behave in a way that oppresses other people.

Yes?
Who is other people?

Perhaps many person's in this thread will be amazed how many Black persons, after the incident, would approach me and say 'You were right'.

Not Amazed. Me, As A Non-Cop White Person, the Other People You Described in The Conversation, after 'it', I Guarantee, would Not tell me, 'You were right'. 'Cause I'm Not A Cop, but A Powerless Person Like Them.

When 'it's' Power Against Non-Power, The Outcome of Such A Conversation is Always Different. While Non-Power versus Non-Power, well, Neither Will Be Right, Admittedly by Either.

Yep. fO shO.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Perhaps many person's in this thread will be amazed how many Black persons, after the incident, would approach me and say 'You were right'.

Not Amazed. Me, As A Non-Cop White Person, the Other People You Described in The Conversation, after 'it', I Guarantee, would Not tell me, 'You were right'. 'Cause I'm Not A Cop, but A Powerless Person Like Them.
When 'it's' Power Against Non-Power, The Outcome of Such A Conversation is Always Different. While Non-Power versus Non-Power, well, Neither Will Be Right, Admittedly by Either.
Yep. fO shO.' '

Yep. fO shO.

Did you read the article?

I did, however I can't find where Oliver Burkeman is described other than "columnist" or "blogger."

Perhaps my comment about groups of 3 didn't quite register.
For 3 you have only 2 possible cases. All one sex, or 2 and 1.
For a group of 4 there are 3 possibilities, 4-0, 3-1, 2-2
For a group of 5 there are 3 possibilities, 5-0, 4-1, 3-2
For a group of 6 there are 4 possibilities, 6-0, 5-1, 4-2, 3-3

As per the study a all one sex non-PC group scored similar to a mixed sex PC group, I hypothesize that in a "large" group the presence of a single person of the opposite sex may not make a PC group "better" than a non-PC group. (Please note this does not describe the desirability of PC or non-PC, just the result obtained.) I'm simply curious about such possible groups from a behavior perspective.

The other issue I see as a possible problem is that in some groups there may be one highly creative person, who essentially provides all the input. I did not see where they attempted to account for that possibility and it may not be an issue in their data.

Also this study directed the participants to come up with ideas for a building, as a building is used by humans of both sexes, the instruction to think PC may have serendipitously caused the subjects to address more sex specific use issues than they would otherwise thought of, in which case the PCness of the results are specific to the particular idea being solicited.

Finally this says nothing about gender variant persons and PC in a group, which is another interesting monkey wrench.

I suspect a more comprehensive study would find more complexity than the simplistic result given by this study. In other words, it is an interesting start to a complex subject.

---

Not sure if this belongs in the PC thread, or the against women thread ....
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/25429/20141114/chimpanzees-bullying.htm

A study involving chimpanzees from Tanzania has shown that aggressive male chimps that attack female chimpanzees have a greater chance of impregnating them. Ian Gilby, one of the researchers, said the findings do not convey a happy message.

Gilby quoted, "Males who directed aggression toward females at high rates were more likely to sire those females' offspring than less violent males were. This effect was particularly strong for high ranking males (in the chimpanzee community)."

---

It seems to me that some people here feel oppressed when they are asked not to behave in a way that oppresses other people.....

Can you please define "oppressed" and "oppression" ?

Oppress, is one of the many words where the dictionary definition has been stretched so thin by inappropriate and inaccurate use that it has become almost meaningless. As a result, genuine cases of oppression get ignored in the noise.

Here is a thought experiment which describes a situation I find myself in every couple of weeks.

I'm walking through the shopping centre and get approached by a dark skinned beggar, who hits me up for money and cigarettes. When I politely refuse to give him anything, he calls me a "White "C" word" and takes a step towards me.

Who has the most right to feel "oppressed" and "offended" in this situation, the beggar or me ?

T.A.

I'm walking through the shopping centre and get approached by a dark skinned beggar, who hits me up for money and cigarettes. When I politely refuse to give him anything, he calls me a "White "C" word" and takes a step towards me.

Who has the most right to feel "oppressed" and "offended" in this situation, the beggar or me ?

T.A.

Your use of the words "dark skinned" could be perceived as a form of oppression. You appear to be automatically connecting "Dark skinned" and "beggar". Couldn't you have made your point by saying "...approached by a beggar"?

My point is that there is lots of oppression to go around. Nobody seems to have an exclusive claim on it anymore.

---

Your use of the words "dark skinned" could be perceived as a form of oppression. You appear to be automatically connecting "Dark skinned" and "beggar". Couldn't you have made your point by saying "...approached by a beggar"?

My point is that there is lots of oppression to go around. Nobody seems to have an exclusive claim on it anymore.

OMG. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say how meanings have been stretched. There is no way I was inferring that "all beggars are dark skinned" or that "all dark skinned people are beggars" and if you think either of those terms was what I meant you really need to detune your sensitivity. That is exactly the sort of PC BS this thread is about.

It was an accurate description of the beggar in question and no, I couldn't have made the point without giving a description of said beggar

The reason I used the term "dark skinned" was to demonstrate why the beggar used the term "White c***"". If the beggar had been white, he would have just called me the name without the adjective.

T.A.

One of the strangest examples of seen of Political Correctness was post to these boards a while back where the poster stated "I don't like the word "race", I prefer the term "ethnic group".

I thought WTF does he think the word race means ? That seems to be the aim of PC, to replace one word with a two or more word phrase. It's as if they are authors who get paid by the word.

Attitudes like that remind me of the Monty Python sketch where a gentleman goes into a bookstore to by the expurgated version of "Birds Of Britain" because there are some species of birds he doesn't like. Only PC people want to do it to the dictionary :P

T.A.

One of the strangest examples of seen of Political Correctness was post to these boards a while back where the poster stated "I don't like the word "race", I prefer the term "ethnic group".

I thought WTF does he think the word race means ? That seems to be the aim of PC, to replace one word with a two or more word phrase. It's as if they are authors who get paid by the word.

Attitudes like that remind me of the Monty Python sketch where a gentleman goes into a bookstore to by the expurgated version of "Birds Of Britain" because there are some species of birds he doesn't like. Only PC people want to do it to the dictionary :P

T.A.

I suspect it is more about being accurate because technically there is only one race. The human race. When you imply that people from different ethnic backgrounds are of another race you are also implying that they are not the same species. There are lots of embedded meanings in some phrases that people are unaware of.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Did you read the article?

I did, however I can't find where Oliver Burkeman is described other than "columnist" or "blogger."

Perhaps my comment about groups of 3 didn't quite register.
For 3 you have only 2 possible cases. All one sex, or 2 and 1.
For a group of 4 there are 3 possibilities, 4-0, 3-1, 2-2
For a group of 5 there are 3 possibilities, 5-0, 4-1, 3-2
For a group of 6 there are 4 possibilities, 6-0, 5-1, 4-2, 3-3

As per the study a all one sex non-PC group scored similar to a mixed sex PC group, I hypothesize that in a "large" group the presence of a single person of the opposite sex may not make a PC group "better" than a non-PC group. (Please note this does not describe the desirability of PC or non-PC, just the result obtained.) I'm simply curious about such possible groups from a behavior perspective.

The other issue I see as a possible problem is that in some groups there may be one highly creative person, who essentially provides all the input. I did not see where they attempted to account for that possibility and it may not be an issue in their data.

Also this study directed the participants to come up with ideas for a building, as a building is used by humans of both sexes, the instruction to think PC may have serendipitously caused the subjects to address more sex specific use issues than they would otherwise thought of, in which case the PCness of the results are specific to the particular idea being solicited.

Finally this says nothing about gender variant persons and PC in a group, which is another interesting monkey wrench.

I suspect a more comprehensive study would find more complexity than the simplistic result given by this study. In other words, it is an interesting start to a complex subject.

If you'd read the whole article you'd have noticed the point where he explains where the term PC comes from.

"None of which, by the way, detracts from the truth that political correctness – like the Top Secret Liberal Journalist Cabal – basically doesn’t exist. The War on Christmas is a Fox News fiction. (Although perhaps we ought to have one?) Most other instances of “political correctness gone mad” turn out, on inspection, to be false – or alternatively, just the resentful mutterings of people who wish they could still spout racist abuse without other people expressing disapproval. I can find no firm evidence that anyone ever tried to make anyone else call a manhole a “personal access unit”. One representative recent tale, about KFC banning handwipes to avoid offending Muslims, was, at the very worst, an isolated misunderstanding. A trope popular on the British right holds that “you can’t talk about immigration” these days thanks to PC taboos, which would be troubling except that British right-wing newspapers talk about it incessantly. And on it goes."

You are right the study was an interesting starting point, and it is absolutely obvious that if you treat people with respect around you that you will get better results.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Not sure if this belongs in the PC thread, or the against women thread ....
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/25429/20141114/chimpanzees-bullying.htm

A study involving chimpanzees from Tanzania has shown that aggressive male chimps that attack female chimpanzees have a greater chance of impregnating them. Ian Gilby, one of the researchers, said the findings do not convey a happy message.

Gilby quoted, "Males who directed aggression toward females at high rates were more likely to sire those females' offspring than less violent males were. This effect was particularly strong for high ranking males (in the chimpanzee community)."

It doesn't belong in either thread..because...this may surprise you...humans are not chimpanzees.

What I find odd is how often you fail to post articles about our other closest relative, the Bonobo.

---

Reality Internet Personality