Monday, January 17, 2005

Nerdfame, Part I: the second best thing to real fame

Today hotshot social psychologist Felicia Pratto gave a talk to the people who study intergroup relations at UCLA. She and fellow important social psychologist Jim Sidanius (who's at UCLA) are responsible for Social Dominance Theory, which, in regular-people-speak says that there are basically two kinds of people -- bastards who want to keep oppressed people in their place of relative disadvantage ("hierarachy enhancers") and good people who believe in equality between groups ("hierarchy attenuators"). Of course the real theory is much more complex, but you get the idea. Her talk was about a new theory of power she's developing, but my favorite part was when she was describing how she was measuring power relations with a fairly complicated allocation game her team created. Total deadpan delivery and in all earnestness she says, "I'm a full professor now so I can do whatever stupid thing I want." The other non-theory related but noticeable piece of her talk was that she kept using the word "fungible." Fungible? Really? Yes. Fungible is not a beautiful word. It sounds like it should describe the shower mats in a junior high gym. I looked it up after the talk and it means interchangeable-- she was talking about dynamic bases of power after all. I think she could've found a more pleasant sounding word.

11 Comments:

Blogger kelly said...

Well, for starters people who don't have access to healthcare because the only jobs for which they're qualified never give them enough hours to qualify as full-time employees, or maybe people who are bused in from Mexico to work in meatpacking plants and are only allowed to see company "doctors" who insist that nothing is wrong with them when parts of their bodies get cut off, or maybe people who make less money for doing the exact same job as someone else just because of how many X chromosomes they have, or people who don't get jobs, get worse financing on new cars, or can't rent apartments because of their skin color. I'd say these people are oppressed.

7:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"only jobs for which they're qualified never give them enough hours to qualify as full-time employees"

Of course, they're entitled to benefits.

"people who are bused in from Mexico"

Wonder why they leave Mexico? Think Mexico may be more "oppressive" than the U.S.?

"or maybe people who make less money for doing the exact same job as someone else just because of how many X chromosomes they have"

People are worth what they will work for. Who else should set the standards for which one gets paid? You?

"or people who don't get jobs"

Again, they're entitled to a job? According to whom?

"get worse financing on new cars"

Think that may be due to past credit history? Riskier loans require higher reward. No one cares, as long as your money is green, what color you are. If they do, they won't last long in finance.

"or can't rent apartments because of their skin color"

Where did this happen, and when? And, if I own an apartment complex, should I not be able to run that business in any manner I see fit?

9:12 PM  
Blogger kelly said...

Yes, these things do happen. They are examined experimentally and are empircially documented -- identical financial histories, education levels, etc -- no job/apt/finance rate depending on what color skin you're wearing (or presumably wearing in the cases where identical resumes are sent out with different first names that are either stereotypically Caucasian or African American). Just because people come from bad conditions, that doesn't justify tricking them to move somewhere else so they can be exploited.

9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why was my post removed? Too long, or too poignant?

10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:54 AM  
Blogger kelly said...

Dear Anonymous who thinks life in America is hunky dory for everyone--I removed your comments because I don't want this blog to become a forum for debate. Also, you piss me off . Too poignant my ass. Mentioning that Margaret Mead's credibility has been questioned is like saying that becuase Freud wasn't spot-on we should abandon psychology all together. I could say I don't trust reporters b/c of Stephen Glass or Jason Blair. Also, Mead was an Anthropologist who did most of her work 50 years ago -- I'm talking about contemporary, EMPIRICAL, not descriptive, data. The bottom line is that it's my blog and I don't like your comments, nor do I have the time or motivation to respsond to them -- so I took them off..

12:54 PM  
Blogger timothy said...

BU-U-U-U-U-U-U-R-R-R-R-R-RN!

2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim....burned? OK....no questions were answered....none. Of course you would think that since the original and duplicate posts were deleted. Fancy how that works, huh? If you would like it, I'm sure I could send it to you. The only rebuttle was that Mead was an anthropologist, not a sociologist (who cares?) (whose work in Samoa [/snicker] was regurgitated to every college sociology class in the U.S. during her "career"). That's fine if you'd like to erase my entry, it is your blog. Just like it is that owner's apartment complex, or finance company. Are you now oppressing me? No. Just not letting the other side side of the story be told. That's fine too. I won't call the ACLU. Anyway, last time I try to debate on your blog. I thought that might be what the comments section was for, but suit yourself. Well, hope your research is going well. Holler at me when you can. (It would no longer let me log in as duckkiller). Gotta go to baseball practice. :) Love you! 936-336-????
P.S. Trust me, I'm pretty sure I know at least as well as you do that life isn't "hunky dory" for everyone.
P.P.S. Did Freud ever just make up his data out of the blue? If not, then that's not exactly the same thing as not wanting to listen to Mead.

4:16 PM  
Blogger kelly said...

Bleh!! Are you kidding, John? If I had known this was you I would've taken your interest a *tiny* bit more seriously. But really, I think I'm right (people ARE oppressed here and I'm shocked that you'd question this and I also think you're being sort of an ass. Of course I knew that you'd call me on taking your commments down, but I don't have the energy to debate the state of the nation with you and this is not the appropriate place for that to happen. Obviously my point wasn't that Mead wasn't a Sociologist, but that you can't go around making generalizations about the credibility of "academics" based on one person that used totally different kinds of methods. What?!?

6:54 PM  
Blogger workingmemory said...

look at the drama on conscientious elitism! seriously, this my new favorite blog. update again! write about speed dating!

10:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home