#rationalization | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

emptyanddark · 11 months

Text

Industrial methods of worker control were prefigured on plantations, which sought to maximize the labor of enslaved Black people otherwise unmotivated to produce value for those who kept them captive. While the relationship between industrial and plantation worker control is foundational, it is essential to recognize that there is no easy equivalence between the terror-enforced racialized labor regimes of plantation slavery, and industrial labor processes that drew on technologies developed on plantations.5 Plantation management—and the relations of domination that structured the plantation—was anchored in a view of Black people as commodities, as something-not-quite-human. And the conditions of bondage on the plantation defined the category of “unfreedom” against which white workers could be classified as “free.”

...

In Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness, Simone Browne demonstrates that power over enslaved people was executed through bureaucratic technologies that divided enslaved workers, prescribed their routines and motions, and calibrated their movements with the goal of managing and controlling “every moment of enslaved life.”11 Her work clarifies the interplay between the strict division and quantification of life and labor on plantations, and how such segmentation served to make enslaved people observable to overseers and managers.12 The fragmentation of production, whether in the field or the factory, shifts power away from those doing the work to owners who benefit from defining and overseeing a coherent view of workers and the labor process. Such a view doesn’t emerge on its own. Rather, it is produced through records, metrics, and standardized assessments—and we must understand the term “record keeping” to be a synonym for “surveillance.” Monitoring and quantification of work and workers was the first, and arguably most important, step in populating plantation records. And these records’ demands for data and information in turn shaped how labor was divided and managed, in service of making work and workers as visible and quantifiable as possible.

...

Iskander illuminates how designations of skill—and the power that capital claims to define what is and is not “skilled”—work to produce and naturalize conditions of bondage, creating a hierarchy of “deservedness” that justifies conditions of precarity and domination for the “unskilled.”20 The concept of skill is also racialized. In a “free” labor context, “skill” is narrated as something (white) workers possess and serves as an index of the wages a worker can deduct from the profits desired by capitalists—a sum they can, in theory, negotiate or refuse. On the plantation, enslaved Black people were not ascribed the capacity for skill. They were narrated as incapable of possessing skill, and any prowess they displayed was attributed to biological differences that nonetheless marked them as inferior—animal capacity, not human ingenuity. Racial categories structure who is deemed able to possess skill to begin with, while marking a lack of skill as a condition of unfreedom and thus a condition of Blackness.21

29 notes · View notes

momentsbeforemass · 1 year

Text

Spot the fake

Someone did you wrong. And to make it worse, it was a good friend.

Not only were you hurt. But you lost a good friend because of it. One of the very people you would have turned to – if anyone else had done that to you.

Now, they say they want to apologize. And this is what they say,

“I’m sorry if you were offended, but…”

You don’t need to listen to anything after that.

It’s like putting a Mercedes hood ornament on a Ford F-150. It is that fake. And that easy to spot.

“I’m sorry if you were offended, but…”

That’s not a real apology. It’s just someone going through the motions. Doing the less than the bare minimum. Because they don’t mean it.

Everything that comes after “but” is explanation. Rationalization. Justification.

The way they see it - they didn’t do anything wrong.

The “if you were offended” bit? That tells you all what they really think. About you.

The way they see it - this is your problem. Not theirs.

What they’re really saying is they’re not going to apologize.

And they’re not going to do anything to clean up the mess they made. Much less repair the damage that they did to their relationship with you.

But it would be great if you would get over it.

It’s a waste of time. And at bottom, it’s an insult.

If you and I are honest, how often do we approach our sins and the damage they do to our relationship with God in the same spirit?

We don’t go to confession because…it wasn’t a big deal. It wasn’t that bad. It’s not like we killed someone.

Explanation. Rationalization. Justification. The way we see it – we really didn’t do anything wrong.

And if we actually do go to confession? We may say the act of contrition. But do we mean it?

Or are we just going through the motions? Doing less than the bare minimum, so that God can get over it?

Something to think about, the next time you and I start trying to pretend that we’re not really doing what we’re doing. The next time that you and I are being fake with ourselves. And God.

Today’s Readings

#Fake Apology #Real Apology #God #Jesus #Catholic #Christian #Church #Confession #Rationalization #Justification #Explanation #Bare Minimum #Fake #Moments Before Mass

25 notes · View notes

3score11poet · 8 months

Text

Tea Time Emotiku

RATIONALIZATION, 08/26/2023

"Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others." Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Twist and turn the cube / go slow, fast, or in between / By Jove you've got it! © keefderpoet, 2023

I have never lied, stolen, or cheated where I didn't know I was doing it. I always knew. I always know. What I would do, of course, to grease the gears of my conscience involved rationalizing my misbehavior by throwing responsibility on those I was lying to or cheating. They made me do it. The devil made me do it. It wasn't until I stopped lying to myself, and took ownership for my own decisions and actions, that I began to experience recovery, and healing, and more peace of mind. Setting right the cube of my life is still a challenge, but it's no longer the mystery it once was. keefderpoet

#tea time emotiku #recovery #rationalization #truth #honor #lying

4 notes · View notes

bwhitex · 4 months

Text

Democrat Party is The Party of Collective Narcissism

Recent footage from a CNN interview provides a compelling case study for the analysis of collective narcissism within group dynamics or political entities. This clip, serving as visual evidence, encapsulates the quintessential strategies that are indicative of such collective behavior. Specifically, it illustrates tactics such as changing the subject, blame-shifting, projecting, playing the victim, gaslighting, minimization, and rationalization. These strategies are emblematic of a group’s or political body’s tendency to mirror the behavioral patterns commonly associated with individual narcissistic personalities. The application of this framework to the observed interaction within the interview offers a deeper understanding of the underlying psychological mechanisms at play in collective narcissism.

Introduction

Collective narcissism is a psychological phenomenon where a group possesses an inflated self-conception, dependent on external validation and praise. Members of a collective narcissist group often exhibit selective outrage, particularly sensitive to criticism aimed at their own group while readily pointing out faults in others. For example, in the political realm, one might observe a collective narcissist group emphasizing historical racial injustices perpetrated by whites, holding white individuals or groups to rigorous standards of accountability for past and present racism, while simultaneously dismissing or downplaying the group's own racial biases or instances of discrimination. This is and has been manifesting into a one-sided narrative that all societal issues stem from historical white mistakes, often ignoring or minimizing the group's current missteps or potential for prejudices.

Democrats as Collective Narcissists

In-Group favoritism, collective narcissists exhibit extreme partiality towards their own members. It’s called identity politics and if you don’t vote instep or “identify” as such, well you’re going to have at minimum subtle forms of social control applied to you. Out-group erogation, they disparage heterosexual white folks, largely targeting the male population, who challenge their superiority through diving and showing up at their houses with borderline aggressive protests, and some actually call for acts of violence. For example the severed Trump head, by a former famed actress a few years ago.

They act with aggression in response to threatened ego, they react defensively, sometimes aggressively, when their group's prestige is questioned. Then there is this denial of reality and facts, they frequently deny or distort facts that do not align with their self-image. They seek constant admiration and affirmation for their “social justice” activism and beliefs. They crave and actively seek affirmation of their group's perceived grandeur.

Changing The Subject

The first strategy used is changing the subject, it is a common deflection technique to avoid uncomfortable topics. Holder reimagines a scenario in the conversation where the Republican Party acts like the Democratic Party's and instead of Democrats asking AG’s to investigate Trump. In this reimagined of what is really happening to Trump. Democrats are now the victims, these actions serve entirely different, purpose. It distracts the audience from reality of what is actually happening to Trump. Avoids highlighting their policy and related issue with the Trump administration.

Blame Shifting

Holder then blame shifts, after he re-imagines a real life political scenario where Democrats are weaponizing the Justice system and doing everything they imagined in this real life scenario to Trump. Instead Trump is doing it to them. The blame shift is so subtle and clever, but serves his agenda to shift blame away from any personal or Democrat party's past misdeeds, suggesting that it is actually the other party (in this case, President Trump and his administration) that is engaging in corruption. This blame-shifting moves the spotlight from his own actions or those of his political affiliates to the opposing side.

Projection

Holder may then project, accusing the Trump administration of engaging in the very behaviors for which he or his party are being criticized. This projection serves to muddy the waters, casting aspersions on the opposition while deflecting from his or his party's actions. Holder reimagined a scenario where democrats are not only victims, and saviors of Democracy but everything is actually happening to Trump now, is now being reimagined and projected on to the oppositional party as happening to them. This evident when Holder explains the relational scenario where high ranking officials ask a “compliant” AG or DOJ to investigate people they don’t like. This is exactly what happen to Trump.

Playing Victim

Which brings me to the next strategy, playing the victim. The interview on CNN (2023) demonstrates a classic instance of collective narcissism, where the interviewed party employs tactics such as changing the subject, blame-shifting but now plays the role of the victim, reflective of the patterns observed in groups with narcissistic tendencies. To Holder, the Democratic Party is the “real victim” here. This evidenced by Holder imagining the Democratic Party positioning themselves as unfairly targeted by Trump's camp, suggesting that they are the ones suffering under false accusations or partisan attacks. Nothing of real world evidence is being suggested as happening. For example, what is happening to Trump, now, like the law-fare, the lack of evidence to support two Trump impeachments, the Russian collusion of which the FBI agents involved in those investigations were convicted of actual wrongdoing, meaning the agents themselves who were in charge with investigating Trump, were actually the ones colluding with Russian Oligarchs.

Gaslighting

With a subtle display of gaslighting, Holder manipulates viewers by casting doubt on the integrity and intentions of the Trump administration, subtly diverting attention from concrete evidence of their actions towards President Trump. Former Attorney General Eric Holder commented on the issue, "Hunter Biden charges wouldn't have been brought in normal scenario" (CNN, 2023, 00:15). Before the blame shift, projection and playing victim, there was the truth. He’s correct these are not “normal times”, everything happening Trump now, is unprecedented. No one has used law-fare, to prevent an opponent from running for office. Why wouldn’t that rising political opponent not seek accountability? He reframes the discourse, suggesting that such criticisms are nothing more than partisan tactics aimed at discrediting the Democratic Party. This strategic narrative shift paints the Democrats as casualties of an "unjust" electoral process, besieged by authoritarian figures, rather than confronting the reality of the situation. The truth, as Holder veils it, is obscured by a narrative that avoids acknowledging the Trump administration's legitimate efforts to enforce accountability. This includes the invocation of program F and the dismissal of individuals who are excessively aligned with a regime characterized by pronounced collective narcissism. In essence, Holder is redirecting the conversation, insinuating that the push for accountability is an act of political aggression rather than a response to actual mismanagement or malfeasance.

Minimization

Which brings me to my third symptom, minimization. Minimization is evidenced when holder downplays the significance of any wrongdoing that he or his party might be accused of, which leaves the audience to assume that what he and the Democratic Party do are minor issues compared to the alleged corruption, and “authoritarianism”, within the Trump administration. When confronted with the notion of President Trump's reelection and the hypothetical appointment of a corrupt Attorney General, a figure like Eric Holder deflects the criticism by attributing the very issues present in the current administration to the hypothetical future one. This deflection serves as a mirror, reflecting the accusations back onto the accuser, a common tactic seen in political discourse.

Rationalization

Holder might conclude his defense with rationalizations, portraying any controversial actions from his term as unavoidable necessities dictated by the political environment. He asserts that these actions were the lesser evil compared to what he predicts would be the far more detrimental consequences of President Trump's potential appointees. Within this justification narrative, Democrats are depicted as the unwavering defenders of democracy. Conversely, Trump is labeled a racist, an accusation Holder presents as a clear-cut example of collective narcissism, implying that such a flaw could never exist within the Democratic ranks. This is underpinned by a mythology that claims people of color cannot be racist as they lack the systemic power to enforce such racism, a belief that shifts focus from individual prejudice to systemic injustice.

In this context, rationalization takes a more extreme form: the assertion that the Democrats must "save America from its voters." This is done through legal maneuvers and any means deemed necessary, painting the party as protectors in a dire situation. Such narratives echo classic Marxist ideology, which Holder suggests is also evident in the actions of the Chinese Communist Party. Both are seen as authoritarian entities that argue their overreach is in service of protecting the working class, the proletariat, from the resurgence of the bourgeoisie's dominance. In Holder's discourse, the collective narcissism of the Democratic Party is framed not as self-interest, but as a noble struggle to uphold the greater good against prevailing class enemies.

Conclusion

By deploying these tactics, Holder would be engaging in a form of collective narcissism on behalf of his political affiliation, effectively defending the group's image by deflection rather than by direct refutation of the claims presented. In this charged exchange, a CNN posed with a question regarding the impact of President Trump's reelection and his choice of a potentially corrupt Attorney General, someone like Eric Holder, with his contentious history, might instinctively employ collective narcissistic deflection tactics. This form of deflection would involve shifting scrutiny from his own past actions to the hypothetical scenario, thus avoiding direct confrontation with any personal allegations of corruption. By mirroring the current criticism onto the future possibility, Holder could artfully navigate the conversation, effectively accusing the opposing side of the very transgressions being discussed. This method subtly shifts the focus from his own controversies to those of President Trump, implying a "they do it too" narrative.

This maneuver is designed to sidestep direct accountability and instead redirects the conversation toward a critique of Trump's potential decisions, thus maintaining a strategic defensive stance. The suggestion here is that the hypothetical corruption of a future Trump-appointed AG is not only possible but is, in fact, a reflection of the current state of affairs — a tactic that serves to normalize and diminish the gravity of Holder's own past actions by comparison. Holder could respond with a variety of strategies typical of narcissistic deflection but tailored to a collective or political narrative: blame-shifting to other political figures or entities, projecting the administration's faults onto its adversaries, gaslighting the public into questioning the veracity of any criticism aimed at them, and rationalizing any questionable actions as necessary or misinterpreted.

References:

Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074-1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016904

Golec de Zavala, A., Peker, M., Guerra, R., & Baran, T. (2016). Collective narcissism predicts hypersensitivity to in-group insult and direct and indirect retaliatory intergroup hostility. European Journal of Personality, 30 (6), 532-551. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2067

Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., & Kossowska, M. (2018). Addicted to praise: The role of positive feedback in collective narcissism's link with intergroup hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 374-393. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000117

CNN. (2023, December 8th). Eric Holder: Hunter Biden charges wouldn't have been brought in normal scenario [Video]. CNN Politics. https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/12/08/hunter-biden-eric-holder-reaction-sot-lcl-vpx.cnn

#lawfare #projecting #gaslighting #minimizing #blame shifting #deflection #collective narcissism #democrats #rationalization #playing victim #changing the subject

2 notes · View notes

mbti-notes · 1 year

Note

Hello, I guess this going to be more of a philosophical question arising from mbti and psychology. You said in post/633444575891079169/hello-i-hope-youre-well-id-like-some-advice-on, that our beliefs come from having particular emotions. Your Emotional Health post, under emotional responsibility, you said that our emotions come from having certain beliefs. There is a chicken and egg problem here, so which came first? Or maybe neither, like the cycle of thought, feeling and actions like in CBT?

1) Human psychology is complex and CBT tries to capture this by talking about how thought, feeling, and action are interrelated and constantly influencing each other. The mind rarely works in the form of single cause to single effect - this oversimplification is one source of your confusion.

I didn't say beliefs come from emotion; I said that people come to their beliefs through emotion. I'm not describing a straightforward cause-effect mechanism. Emotions are an indication of salience. As a general rule, strong/intense negative emotions are designed to be uncomfortable so that they prompt some sort of ameliorative response/action.

To ameliorate negative emotions, people with low emotional intelligence oftentimes create a narrative in an attempt to explain their cause or origin (rationalization). This is not an effective strategy. Why? One reason is the unfortunate side-effect of creating a false narrative that enables the formation of faulty beliefs (about the world). Let's say, early in life, someone you trusted hurt you quite badly. The situation would've triggered intense negative emotions like sadness or anger. Some examples of ameliorative narratives:

You might've crafted a story about how bad that person is. This would make people's misbehavior more emotionally salient to you. Gradually, with every slight and insult you witnessed in life, you'd start to form stronger and stronger beliefs about how terrible people are and/or how cold the world is. How would this affect the development of your personality? You'd likely develop anxiety issues and become very closed, avoidant, detached, or defensive.

You might've crafted a story about your status as a victim. This would make people's judgments of you more emotionally salient. Gradually, with every slight and insult you experienced in life, you'd start to form stronger and stronger beliefs about there being something fundamentally wrong with you and how you might actually deserve to be victimized. How would this affect the development of your personality? You'd likely become passive, helpless, and eventually expect/accept mistreatment.

The negative emotions you experienced didn't "cause" you to formulate specific beliefs or dictate what your beliefs should be, rather, they only served to create conducive conditions for your beliefs to arise. Notice how it's possible for two different people to respond very differently to the same negative situation and subsequently develop very different belief systems.

2) The other source of your confusion comes from having an oversimplified idea of what beliefs are. To be fair, in everyday speech, "belief" is used in an incredibly rough and broad way to encompass many different kinds of mental phenomena, so it's easy to get confused. Since I'm speaking mainly to laypeople, I avoid technical jargon whenever possible, but this sacrifices precision.

In the EI article, the word "belief" is not being used in the same way as in the above examples. Rather, I'm referring to a person's proneness to believe certain things due to their personality type (see the examples I gave in the article). For instance, being Ne dom primes one to believe that the world is full of wonder and possibility, or being Ni dom primes one to believe that the future is now. Why would two people respond differently to the same negative situation and come to different beliefs in the end? One important factor is having different personality traits that prime them to perceive and judge the world differently. Because of personality differences, people don't exactly begin at the same place, so it should come as no surprise when they end up with different belief systems.

Belief systems are quite complicated. There are various kinds of beliefs, various paths through which beliefs arise, and various ways in which beliefs influence emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. Being prone to certain beliefs because of your personality type isn't the same as the beliefs you formulate through accumulation of personal experience. If you want to get technical, you may call the former a "predisposition" and the latter a "schema". In type theory, while your personality type doesn't change, your predispositional beliefs can eventually change as you interact with the environment and formulate certain schemas in response to your experiences.

#emotion #emotional intelligence #beliefs #predisposition #schema #rationalization #development #psychology #ask

9 notes · View notes

ehj3 · 11 months

Text

ODD COUPLING

“Between the conception / And the creation / Between the emotion / And the responseFalls the Shadow / Life is very long” —T. S. Eliot, The Hollow Men First-person memories are not that accurate, they say. They are all like stories you have been told about events that happened to someone else. These memories are more like watching a movie again than reminiscing. Sometimes you don’t even recall…

View On WordPress

#1000-yard stare #chimera #cryptid #existential crisis #existentialism #frogs #memories #mermaid #projection #rationalization #self-incrimination #summer vacation #t s eliot #the hollow men

2 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 7 months

Text

"Moral justification is a powerful disengagement mechanism. Destructive conduct is made personally and socially acceptable by portraying it in the service of moral ends. This is why most appeals against violent means usually fall on deaf ears." -- Albert Bandura

“To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” -- Aldous Huxley

#Albert Bandura #moral justification #violence #the ends justify the means #rationalization #riots #religion is a mental illness

15 notes · View notes

thepnictogenwing · 1 year

Text

a critique of pure rationalization

Western society is desperately irrational (just look at the @elonmusk cult for starters) even while it idolizes “logic” and “reason”; every ranting ideologue whose talk consists of nothing but memorized propaganda points claims to be a champion of FACTS and LOGIC. we’re at the endpoint of a social trend that started centuries ago—the transference of the values of Christian ideology into the secular world. that which was orthodox and therefore Good™, in the Christian term, became “rational”; that which was heretical and therefore Evil™ became “irrational”. the modern Western ideologue habitually accuses their opponents of being not merely wrong in their facts or their logic, but crazy and deluded—hence (conveniently) not worth debating. why bother discoursing in a rational matter with people you’ve diagnosed as being [expletive deleted] in the head?

needless to say this general attitude has been very bad for logic and reason. the Internet is stuffed full to bursting with “debaters” who never actually debate; to them, “debate” is merely a matter of asserting the same few talking points over again, and steadfastly ignoring all counterarguments and refutations of the talking points as “irrational” and therefore fit only to be ignored. none of these champions of FACTS and LOGIC are very interested in examination of their own positions; such rational scrutiny would threaten the integrity of their ideology (which, by the way, they also usually pretend isn’t ideological, because “ideological” and “irrational” mean more or less the same thing in modern Western intellectual discourse) so they’re not interested. everyone’s running around in public having non-debates, starting non-arguments based on pre-decided conclusions.

basically we’ve seen a mass confusion and conflation of reason with rationalization. the reasonable person accepts that their assertions and their inferences are open to question, and allow other people to question them; “debate” is meaningless unless the debater accepts the possibility that their position may be unsound. but the modern ideologue refuses to accept the possibility of making serious mistakes. in their view, their belief system is already completely worked out, nigh-flawless, accounting for everything—a seamless fabric of FACTS and LOGIC, usually worked out with the assistance of fellow ideologues. it’s not reason that preoccupies such ideologues, but rationalization—the process of defending oneself rhetorically with statements that superficially resemble rational arguments. a rationalization is not a true logical argument unless it’s defended as part of a chain of reasoning, which is almost never done. instead the rationalization is intended to end debate. it’s supposed to be a solid block of FACT or LOGIC that’s self-evident and unanswerable.

let me supply an example: suppose you’re a COVID19 denialist, scared by talk of vaccination and quarantine measures, and therefore you’ve decided a priori to denounce these things as mere lies and fraud, part of some “media” conspiracy or whatever. your decision to deny the reality of COVID19 isn’t a rational one—but you’ll probably never admit that, least of all to yourself, because it’s the Western way to deny at all times that emotions play any role in your decisions. the proper and respectable Western person is always “rational”, which means that the COVID19 denialist must pretend that their rejection of vaccination and public-health measures against COVID19 was the result of rational decision-making and not simple fear or factionalism.

in steps rationalization to save you. there’s a multitude of public forums, propaganda outlets, YouTube channels, and other media crafted specifically to supply quasi-rational excuses for COVID19 denialism. most of these are satellites of the vast system for publication and propagation of right-wing diatribe that’s been extremely well funded and subsidized for many decades now. and indeed most of the rationalizations in support of COVID19 denialism are familiar right-wing propaganda points, retooled to apply specifically to COVID19. it’s “too expensive” to treat COVID19 as a public-health problem. it’s not “common sense” to demand that people wear face masks or limit their public gatherings. it’s “government overreach” or even “tyranny” for civil government to demand vaccination or impose quarantine measures on the population. and so forth: all of these arguments are merely variations on well-worn conservative talking points. an important point to make about rationalizations is that the ideologue who places their trust in rationalizations feels like they come out on top merely by having a lot of them on hand—in their mind, more “reasons” is always better, even if the given “reasons” contradict each other. for example, the COVID19 denialist is likely to simultaneously assert that COVID19 isn’t even a real problem and that public data about COVID19 sicknesses and deaths are probably all lies...while at the same time asserting that it’s good for people to get sick, because it’s building up “natural immunity” and helping weed undesirable genes out of the population. “COVID19 isn’t real” and “COVID19 is a great and good thing for human eugenics” are contradictory propositions, but to the dedicated rationalizer, there’s no contradiction at all—instead they see the conflicting rationalizations as “covering all their bases”. either the disease is a liberal fake, or it’s a purgative force for good: it’s like a win-win!

I’m not sure how to repair this situation. from my perspective it’s like the Western mind has dissolved into grey goo; our champions of “reason” are blithering dunces whose talk is almost entirely memetic, and they’re too well practiced in ducking all attempts at refutation. online, anyway, they usually run away from challenge; sometimes one of the ideologues gets humiliated in a public venue (like when Zizek flayed Jordan Peterson) but this scarcely slows them down. they simply pretend like the humiliation never happened, and keep on saying the same things they always say. what do we do, in such a dismal situation? surely logic and reason, those mighty abstractions, have not simply lost their substance, even if “the West” doesn’t seem to know how they work anymore.

~Chara of Pnictogen

#logic #reason #rationalization

3 notes · View notes