Related very closely to the concept of Groupthink
is a process called Social Conditioning. However, where Groupthink relates to cognitive issues in a small
group, Social Conditioning is concerned more with broad
social implications – typically nationwide.
|Click for Image
Social conditioning is the sociological process of training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society.
Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including nationalism, education, employment, entertainment, popular culture, religion, spirituality and family life. The social structure in which an individual finds him or herself influences and can determine their social actions and responses.
Summary of Part 1
So . . . . in a similar manner to my experience, we have someone (DjSadhu) discover a fact that:
- was never before shared with him in any form (school, documentaries, books, web sites, etc.), and
- was a revolutionary idea totally different from what he did learn, so he had to share his “aha” moment with others.
Unlike me (no video animation expertise) DjSadhu produces a slick video to show this newfound perspective, since he can’t find anything like it elsewhere.
What’s the response from the “interwebs”?
Critic/Instructor – Rhys Taylor
Here we have the rare individual who is both a scientist, critic and yet not above being an educator/instructor. Mr. Smith and Mr. Plait could learn much from Mr. Taylor (post-doctorate in astrophysics).
Mr. Taylor wrote a few articles here
. What sets him off from Mr. Plait and Mr. Smith is two-fold:
- He understands that DjSadhu’s first couple of videos have scientific errors, yet the basicpremise of the solar system moving through space in a helical motion is for the most part correct.
- He takes a constructive win-win approach and works in a positive manner with DjSadhu to fix the errors in an attempt to produce a more accurate video than the original two.
The result? A third video
by DjSadhu that according to Mr. Taylor is “a million times better and has correct physics.” Mr. Sadhu’s associated blog post to accompany that video is here
. Here’s that video:
Mr. Taylor actually carried on a critical yet positive conversation with Mr. Sadhu – the ultimate intent towards a more accurate model. He even developed his own version of the helical motion to show DjSadhu the correct motion and inclination:
Bruce Charlton, In PC no one is ever safe.
Is anybody safe?
Under PC, whatever you do, whatever willing you show, status is contingent.
There is no safety even for members of the ruling elite in a system of Political Correctness; anyone at all is susceptible to denunciation for any reason or no reason at any time.
Since PC is a wave of moral ‘progress’ which leaves-behind all previous moral standards and behaviours – there can be no accumulation of moral capital.
This applies to the ultra-PC just as much as to the openly reactionary.
(In this respect PC is more like communist than fascist totalitarianism: under fascism membership-of and courageous loyalty to the in-group usually brings safety from denunciation; but under communism anybody was vulnerable to denunciation – friends and enemies of the government alternated with bewildering rapidity: nobody was safe.)
Indeed, the PC elite seem especially vulnerable to denunciation – since they are under continuous scrutiny; it is hard to keep-up with the pace of change, and the change is so arbitrary; it is very difficult to suppress common sense 24/7.
The highest member of the PC elite is only a single gaffe away from disaster.
(Note: A ‘gaffe’ is when an elite PC intellectual momentarily forgets to lie.)
Under political correctness, you are only as good as today’s match between your motivations and the ever-changing societal symbols of virtue.
PC assumes that (as an elite intellectual) your motivations are bad unless proven good – and motivations cannot be proven.
You may advertise your good motivations relentlessly – daily, hourly – but you cannot ever prove conclusively, against hostile skepticism, that you are deep-down and overall a fully PC (hence decent) person.
(Not least because it is very unlikely that you are a decent person – after all, who is?).
All of this means that a politically correct social diktat can (from whatever cause – such as elite competition, the need for a scapegoat, or the whim of the media) arbitrarily decide at any time to stop giving you the benefit of the intrinsic doubt; and then you will be helpless, isolated, stripped of all moral status, a marked-man, a legitimate target of self-righteous aggression.
Because, after all, you are guilty – everybody is.
- We must now take precautions to prevent you from being embarrassed by something in which the ignorant majority is at fault for lack of proper consideration, and so from supposing with them, that man has not been created truly good simply because he is able to do evil. … If you reconsider this matter carefully and force your mind to apply a more acute understanding to it, it will be revealed to you that man’s status is better and higher for the very reason for which it is thought to be inferior: it is on this choice between two ways, on this freedom to choose either alternative, that the glory of the rational mind is based, it is in this that the whole honor of our nature consists, it is from this that its dignity is derived.
(c. 390-418) was an Irish or British ascetic moralist, who became well known throughout the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity. He was declared a heretic by the Council of Carthage
. His doctrine became known as Pelagianism