This article links "hubristic pride" (e.g., "my country is the best in the world and everyone else sucks compared to us!") to insecurity. I'm interested in people's responses, vis-a-vis their political leanings: do those with a liberal bent feel that this is pretty obvious stuff? Do those with a conservative bent feel that this is another example of liberal professors justifying their hatred of America?
This seems self-evident to me--being insecure in one's own identity, whether individual or group, can bring about fear and one defense mechanism for such fear is "grand standing" to obfuscate this weakness. And as the counter to that, someone that is secure in this area has less reason to harbor fear and thus less need to devise a coping mechanism.
Of more interest to me is the thought that liberals might see this as positive while conservatives would see it as negative. I'm fairly conservative myself, but also of fairly "high" social status (i.e. high salary, well-educated, and other such measures of worldly status). The article, I think, posits that it is my social status rather than my general point of view that makes this issue of true pride versus hubris so obvious to me. I would assume that both liberal and conservative groups are equally susceptible to hubris.
|
I really don't think it's a bunch of liberal whatchamacallit, because of the way the study was done. This was the part of the article that really stuck out to me.
Each participant then rated to what extent they would use certain words to describe themselves at the time of the event or achievement. Some of the descriptors indicated hubristic pride, such as "snobbish," "pompous" and "smug," while others were linked with authentic pride, such as "accomplished," "successful" and "confident."
Students also answered questions about the status of the group, including whether the group was valued by non-members, whether they themselves thought highly of the group, whether the group was under threat or in competition with another group, and other group-related questions.
The way I read this is that, for example, the study was more interested in the motive of the "anti-American" professor than their actions. What I see is that some people attend a basketball game because they seriously enjoy the sport and enjoy watching the achievements of the players. I'm like that, I may go to root for my team but it doesn't prevent my from recognizing when the other team makes a good play. Other people go to the game to be part of the "in group" because it makes them feel better about themselves. Similarly, someone may go to a political rally because they really believe what the candidate stands for, while others may go because it is the in thing to do at the time. Point being, it is the motives behind the actions that count, rather than the actions themselves.
I'm like that, I may go to root for my team but it doesn't prevent my from recognizing when the other team makes a good play. Similarly, someone may go to a political rally because they really believe what the candidate stands for, while others may go because it is the in thing to do at the time. Point being, it is the motives behind the actions that count, rather than the actions themselves.
We agree in theory. Regarding motivations, I often hear things like, "Anyone who wants us to withdraw from Iraq hates America and wants the terrorists to win." Certainly, that attributes clear motives to another group, or else implies that the pro-withdrawal people have not thought it through and are just doing the "in" thing themselves. By the standards of the study, though, the person saying that is more likely the one caught up in the whole "hubristic pride" thing, because they're repeating "team slogans" rather than addressing specifics. Is there a conflict there? Or is it just that almost everyone is caught up in the "team" thing vs. the "issues" thing? (Howard Stern's study on low-education Obama supporters is fairly telling in that regard, as is a quick perusal of Conservapedia's main page, which bends current events into unusual shapes in order to make a point that liberals are the cause of all evil).
Sadly, almost any examples I can think of imply that, when it comes to politics in particular, "hubristic pride" rules the day on both sides of the spectrum.
|
This article links "hubristic pride" (e.g., "my country is the best in the world and everyone else sucks compared to us!") to insecurity. I'm interested in people's responses, vis-a-vis their political leanings: do those with a liberal bent feel that this is pretty obvious stuff? Do those with a conservative bent feel that this is another example of liberal professors justifying their hatred of America?
I think it simply ignores highly relevant factors in favor of advancing a bias of the tester.
When a particular subgroup is under an attack that goes above and beyond a mere preference, they are much more likely to express their support in a more forceful manner. Consider:
Person 1 "I like ice cream."
Person 2 "Only vanilla ice cream is worth eating."
Person 1 "I prefer chocolate actually."
Person 2 "I said only vanilla ice cream is worth eating. Chocolate ice cream should be outlawed."
Person 1 "I really like chocolate."
Person 2 "People who like chocolate ice cream should be beaten until they learn what tastes good."
Person 1 "Hey, screw you buddy. Chocolate all the way!"
Person 2 "Don't call me buddy, pal."
A bit absurd, but it sets a baseline. Is Person 1 exprssing "huristic pride" in asserting their preference for chocolate ice cream? Person 2 is certainly being aggressive about vanilla, but how does that affect Person 1's responses?
Of course, this is only ice cream. What if we raise the stakes a bit. Say to the level of the BADD attacks on D&D. How much pride did people take in being a D&D player then? How forcefully did some people respond to the accusations? How far did some people go in demonstrating the positive elements of gaming? Was that "hubristic pride"? How did the presence of such threats to our hobby, and the related slanders against us for it, affect the way we expressed support? You can extend that to game type wars (RPGs vs. CCGs and the like), and the ever popular edition wars.
Now change it to something on a national level. When you raise it to the point of "Your country sucks!", the stakes are no longer whether or not I get to have a particular dessert or play our favorite hobby, but my government and culture. When, as too much political discourse inevitably develops, it is made a choice of absolutes, "Better Dead than Red!", then just as inevitably views will be expressed even more forcefully. When you tell people to vote for their way of life or someone else's way of life, the absurd choices of expression are "Well, I do not really care one way or the other", or "I like mine, but not enough to actually do anything about it if it becomes an issue or anything."
I would not phrase it as a "liberal professors justifying their hatred of America" though.
I would phrase it as a "professor showing hubristic pride in not being a nationalist".
He is not one of use weak willed types with no sense of self who has to idenfity with a country and tell everyone how wonderful it is. He is completely above that level, so there!
|
This is exactly the sort of thing that propaganda plays on, and that pseudo-science has been around for almost 100 years. Groupthink is one of my primary concerns as a teacher, as I do not find it is conducive to learning - especially radical problem-solving and healthy psychological development.
But there is something the article fails to clarify: can strong groups also act with hubris? Can weak groups experience true pride? These are implied, but seem not to have been studied.
This article links "hubristic pride" (e.g., "my country is the best in the world and everyone else sucks compared to us!") to insecurity. I'm interested in people's responses, vis-a-vis their political leanings: do those with a liberal bent feel that this is pretty obvious stuff? Do those with a conservative bent feel that this is another example of liberal professors justifying their hatred of America?
Why does this remind me of the Goth Kids episode of South Park?
|
|
This is exactly the sort of thing that propaganda plays on, and that pseudo-science has been around for almost 100 years.Maybe not codified, maybe not called "propaganda", but change "100 years" to "8000 years", and I agree...
Of course, I was referring to a more codified approach. By no means do I think that ancient civilizations did not practice manipulative rhetoric (I mean, the very concept dates back at least to Cicero) or other media. One has only to look at the political machine that was the Pharoahs to see it in action.
But in terms of actually understanding and mass-producing the effects of propaganda, it is a more modern system.
But in terms of actually understanding and mass-producing the effects of propaganda, it is a more modern system.
Dunno, Machiavelli seemed to have a pretty good handle on it... maybe not 8,000 years ago, but he outlined a clear system with examples in 1513.