Toribash
Original Post
Dear whiny babies
Two articles I want to present to you today. I'll quote the abstracts and link the full texts.

First article, by Nick Haslam (full text can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._and_Pathology) is about the idea of 'concept creep'.

Here's the abstract;
Originally Posted by Nick Haslam
Many of psychology’s concepts have undergone semantic shifts in recent years. These conceptual changes follow a consistent trend. Concepts that refer to the negative aspects of human experience and behavior have expanded their meanings so that they now encompass a much broader range of phenomena than before. This expansion takes ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ forms: concepts extend outward to capture qualitatively new phenomena and downward to capture quantitatively less extreme phenomena. The concepts of abuse, bullying, trauma, mental disorder, addiction, and prejudice are examined to illustrate these historical changes. In each case, the concept’s boundary has stretched and its meaning has dilated. A variety of explanations for this pattern of ‘concept creep’ are considered and its implications are explored. I contend that the expansion primarily reflects an ever-increasing sensitivity to harm, reflecting a liberal moral agenda. Its implications are ambivalent, however. Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood.

In essence, concepts are continually being redefined all the time. This particular research focuses on concepts relating to harm, like bullying and prejudice. These definitions are being made broader, to include things that weren't previously weren't included. Haslam identifies two ways that concepts become broader, vertical and horizontal expansion. Vertical expansion has to do with the 'threshold' of identification of the concept being lowered or through 'relaxation' of the defining criteria. Horizontal expansion has to do with the concept taking on entirely new meanings or applications.

For example;
The concept of bullying originally had 3 core traits - The behaviour was a) intentional, b) repetitive and c) carried out in the context of power imbalance. Haslam argues bullying has (mainly) horizontally expanded. Cyber-bullying, while closely resembling 'traditional bullying' is a new application of the concept and has its own intricacies. Another way bullying has been expanded is that it was formerly associated with verbal and physical acts, but now acts of 'manipulation' are included (e.g. ignoring or excluding others (ingroup/outgrouping).

You can read the article yourself, but I'll summarise it a little bit more. The concept of trauma has been vertically expanded (used to be a 'traumatic' event would be considered traumatic if 'almost everyone' considered it to be traumatic - This 'almost everyone' check is no longer applied). Prejudice used to refer to direct and expressed hostile intergroup antipathy - This has now expanded to 'inferred' antipathy and is no longer exclusively hostile ('aversive' prejudice is based on fear/unease/discomfort). The creation of the concept of microaggression further broadens the concept of prejudice. I'll quote Haslam directly here;
Originally Posted by Nick Haslam
All of the forms of prejudice just reviewed are usually understood from the standpoint of the perpetrator of prejudice. Particular social actors are prejudiced and their attitudes are objective elements of their psychology. However, some research implies that prejudice exists at least in part in the eyes of the target. Research on microaggressions (Sue et al., 2007), for example, takes the target’s perceptions of prejudiceas clear evidence of its existence: If a target perceives a slight as evidence of prejudice, then it is taken as such, even if the slight is ambiguous and its author denies it. Of course, many prejudiced acts are unambiguous, target perceptions may tend to be accurate,and denials of prejudice are frequently not credible. Nevertheless, to count perceived discrimination and ambiguous microaggressions as unqualified instances of prejudice is to subjectivize the concept.

With that in mind, let's move on to the second article - "Prevalence-induced concept change in human judgment". Full text can be found here (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6396/1465), it's a lot shorter than the other article.
The abstract;
Originally Posted by Levari et al.
Why do some social problems seem so intractable? In a series of experiments, we show that people often respond to decreases in the prevalence of a stimulus by expanding their concept of it. When blue dots became rare, participants began to see purple dots as blue; when threatening faces became rare, participants began to see neutral faces as threatening; and when unethical requests became rare, participants began to see innocuous requests as unethical. This “prevalence-induced concept change” occurred even when participants were forewarned about it and even when they were instructed and paid to resist it. Social problems may seem intractable in part because reductions in their prevalence lead people to see more of them.

When we look for things, we tend to find it, even when it's not there.

These researchers showed a bunch of people a series of dots and asked them to press a button when they identified a blue dot. Everything goes fine, people identify blue dots as blue. Then they make blue dots more scarce. What happens? People start identifying purple dots as blue. They repeated this experiment with faces, asking participants to press a button when they saw a threatening face. As the threatening faces become scarce, people identified neutral faces as threatening.

Which leads me to my point. Despite all the progress we've made as a society (truly harmful things becoming scarcer), people are looking for ways to point out how bad it is. Because they're searching for ways to be upset and offended, they'll expand their definitions of concepts (concept creep) until they can feel satisfactorily victimized. As Haslam included in his abstract, 'concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood.' Does that ring any bells?

Personal theory of mine, but this has all happened because of the pussification of society (if you're offended by that term, you're the problem). Historians noted it with the Romans (and pretty much any hedgemonic powers that became complacent, soft and 'decadent'). People are soft cus their society, free from existential harm, has made them so. What do you think WW1 survivors would make of microaggressions, having just come from seeing their next-door-neighbour get machinegunned to mincemeat in the trenches, while standing next to them? People who've been hardened by modern wars often also have the same disregard for this soft, hyperliberal concept creep bullshit.

Harden the fuck up. Stop crying. Go to war/Go do some combat sport and get punched in the face.

I am not a transphobe for not wanting to fuck a transexual. I am not a bigot for not wanting to fuck anyone I decide not to fuck, while we're at it. Fuck off.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 9, 2020 at 06:30 PM.
This post comes off awfully defensive and self justifying for someone that insists they've said / done nothing wrong and are not the problem.
Addicted-re 07-16
Custom Profile Shop
24/07/2019. I'll find you again my friend.
Replay thread thing
Have any reports or issues?

a boston cream pie is when u let an irish catholic nut in u raw
I mean Ele has a point lmfao. I used to get beat with a belt or tanned with a spoon if I acted up. Nowadays that's "child abuse" to those who must've had senseless parents and god forbid those people ever have children. A perfect reason for how to ensure discipline in kids. Corporal Punishment is the term.
<a href=https://imgur.com/gallery/AnXm6 target=_blank>https://imgur.com/gallery/AnXm6</a>
Dargon Moderated Message:
Infracted for having the best goddamn replays in Toribash history.

Originally Posted by Icky View Post
This post comes off awfully defensive and self justifying for someone that insists they've said / done nothing wrong and are not the problem.

I'm sure it does come off like that to you. You're kinda apart of the target audience.

Want to actually engage with the research or the points I made, or nah?
Last edited by Ele; Feb 9, 2020 at 06:45 PM.
Lol not even slightly, I'll bail on that harder than you did on our meet with solax + sparky.
Addicted-re 07-16
Custom Profile Shop
24/07/2019. I'll find you again my friend.
Replay thread thing
Have any reports or issues?

a boston cream pie is when u let an irish catholic nut in u raw
Lol you say all this like it's a bad thing that life becomes easier for future generations, I'd love to see your attempt at surviving a cold winter in 1785 Russia, starvation style. Also what soldiers had when they came back from the trenches was severe ptsd and they called it shell-shock. Everyone is familiar with the phrase what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, but I don't want to be stronger, I want life to be easy. For everyone. You are entitled to being offended and I'm entitled to not care that you are offended. Mind your business, law makers would make it a law if it was actually something to be concerned about.
Click the link...do eet.
Originally Posted by Icky View Post
Lol not even slightly, I'll bail on that harder than you did on our meet with solax + sparky.

Sorry son. Next time you visit we can drink and fuck or whatever. If you wanna get wild, we can drop some acid and trip as well (Sparky can confirm the ecstatic joys of tripping with me).

Originally Posted by sirkill
Lol you say all this like it's a bad thing that life becomes easier for future generations

Certainly not. Just that we become softer as true threats become scarcer, and in this scarcity of true threats, we start to broaden the idea of what a true threat actually is.

I wouldn't want to live 100 years ago, and you wouldn't either (as you said), because we both recognise the difference between true threats and soft threats.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 9, 2020 at 07:02 PM.
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
Personal theory of mine, but this has all happened because of the pussification of society (if you're offended by that term, you're the problem). Historians noted it with the Romans (and pretty much any hedgemonic powers that became complacent, soft and 'decadent'). People are soft cus their society, free from existential harm, has made them so.

We are free from other forms of harm... so we're able to move on to making society a less toxic place for all peoples, a less bigoted place. It's a shift of focus and that's not a bad thing. You're comparing "less harmful" things to "more harmful" things in an attempt to invalidate the former, but they're both bad and any work to reduce either of them is good.
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
What do you think WW1 survivors would make of microaggressions, having just come from seeing their next-door-neighbour get machinegunned to mincemeat in the trenches, while standing next to them? People who've been hardened by modern wars often also have the same disregard for this soft, hyperliberal concept creep bullshit.

Harden the fuck up. Stop crying. Go to war/Go do some combat sport and get punched in the face.

So war is much more harmful... so these other less harmful things are irrelevant and shouldn't be focused on at all? The ignorance and bigotry which "hyperliberals" are working to eradicate leads to the subjugation, alienation, and oppression of large groups of people. It's much more widespread than war, though a little less physically harmful. Either way, it's harmful stuff! There's no reason to argue against trying to eradicate behavior which is harmful to people for no reason beyond ignorance or prejudice.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
I am not a transphobe for not wanting to fuck a transexual. I am not a bigot for not wanting to fuck anyone I decide not to fuck, while we're at it. Fuck off.

You're a transphobe for saying you're not attracted to trans people (and let me make this clear to you ANOTHER time, trans people, not a trans person). "I don't fuck black people" is not okay and you need to acknowledge that intolerance is not something that should be tolerated.
-----
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
I wouldn't want to live 100 years ago, and you wouldn't either (as you said), because we both recognise the difference between true threats and soft threats.

By separating threats into "true" and "soft," you're invalidating "soft" threats. Do you understand the implications of the language you chose there?
Last edited by Maya; Feb 9, 2020 at 07:06 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
<Hush> the beat feature sounds like the main event at a circle jerk festival
Originally Posted by Maya
We are free from other forms of harm... so we're able to move on to making society a less toxic place for all peoples, a less bigoted place. It's a shift of focus and that's not a bad thing. You're comparing "less harmful" things to "more harmful" things in an attempt to invalidate the former, but they're both bad and any work to reduce either of them is good.

It's about the legitimate severity of the harm. "They're both bad" - Not all bad is created equal. To each bad, a proportionate response. Additionally, the increasingly subjectivised concept of 'harm' (read the first paper) makes 'bad' an increasingly subjectivised term.
It's exactly as Hasram says "Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood".
Originally Posted by Maya
By separating threats into "true" and "soft," you're invalidating "soft" threats. Do you understand the implications of the language you chose there?

I'm putting them into perspective. I'm ranking them against each other. Because yes, there is a difference in severity.

---------------------
Off to bed. Will get back to this thread when I wake.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 9, 2020 at 07:20 PM.
Originally Posted by Enclave View Post
I mean Ele has a point lmfao. I used to get beat with a belt or tanned with a spoon if I acted up. Nowadays that's "child abuse" to those who must've had senseless parents and god forbid those people ever have children. A perfect reason for how to ensure discipline in kids. Corporal Punishment is the term.

ah i see ur parents are the ones to blame

Chirs Moderated Message:
User was infracted for this post.

Keep in mind this thread will be moderated in the same way Mayas thread was. Useless/offensive/blatantly non-constructive posts will get infracted/deleted
Last edited by Chirs; Feb 10, 2020 at 09:33 PM.
That was really bad sorry.
Someone tell me why this guy is highly respected by some people ???