• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Equality Bias

This reminds me a lot of conformity experiments I did during my A level psychology course at college. We'd have four stooges and a subject answer simple questions - if the stooges all gave the same prearranged wrong answer, the subject would agree 90% of the time, even when they knew it was wrong!
Conformity - fitting in!
I find that I'm less likely to conform than most.. AS or simply being used to not fitting in? Hmm
 
How do we get "equality" from the "everyone wins" concept that we now embrace so much as a society? One is actually quite different from the other when you get down to it, even though they seem to be synonymous on the surface.
Equality= in theory it's treat everyone the same because it's the right thing to do.

Everyone wins/no one loses= it's the politically correct/perceived polite thing to do because we need to protect everyone's feelings, and I'm not supposed to say I'm smarter than you. heaven forbid.

I think that is why this research is so telling, whereas if it was conducted fifty years ago it likely wouldn't be. On the other hand, it's The Washington Post, who tend to not get research and science news entirely correct nor seem to be able to report it without excessive angle. So I'll have to wait until I can read the articles myself. [WP is not equal in terms of science expertise. Never. Nope]
 
How do we get "equality" from the "everyone wins" concept that we now embrace so much as a society? One is actually quite different from the other when you get down to it, even though they seem to be synonymous on the surface.
Equality= in theory it's treat everyone the same because it's the right thing to do.

Everyone wins/no one loses= it's the politically correct/perceived polite thing to do because we need to protect everyone's feelings, and I'm not supposed to say I'm smarter than you. heaven forbid.

I think that is why this research is so telling, whereas if it was conducted fifty years ago it likely wouldn't be. On the other hand, it's The Washington Post, who tend to not get research and science news entirely correct nor seem to be able to report it without excessive angle. So I'll have to wait until I can read the articles myself. [WP is not equal in terms of science expertise. Never. Nope]

In my view and experience, those who live in such a society are simply ignoring those who are not winning.. look at the disabled, Autistic and mental health groups whose members struggle every day to obtain treatment and who are isolated from society at large.
There's no equality, no justice, they rarely win.. there is only empty political correctness!
 
If what I write here is tangental to the thread would someone please tell me, because it is a subject that for some reason has always interested, almost fascinated me. Maybe because my ability to read people is slow and faulty.

I can only speak for myself and say that I'm prone to disregard utterly the value of group membership, as my needs and perceptions take precedence over that of most groups. I consciously force an over-ride of this strong trait to take care of my offspring.
I've been very careful to not have run-ins with authority, because, being aware of my so to speak wild card nature, it'd definitely not end well. (For me)

I have tried to engage more with social activities - to volunteer for example, but the group situation is not comfortable for me; this is understating it greatly. I want to get to the best possible solution to a problem or task, while others want peace and friendliness which gets in the way of the goal, at times, or is just a waste of time and energy. I mean in my opinion.

(Plus. Someone or more than one someones, always are promulgating a hierarchy with themselves at the helm, others are establishing equality under the guise of friendliness and testing for vulnerabilities, etc, etc. My brain senses some of this going on, only hours or days after I am away from the group and it's been analyzing what went on.)
 
I would be interested in seeing the experiment repeated while controlling for competence in basic probability.

A lack of understanding of probability, coupled with the gambler's fallacy, could offer an alternate explanation of the results, so researchers should attempt to rule it out (if they haven't already).
 
The ultimate test of conformity ?

Be a member of a jury in a criminal trial. Potentially a very uncomfortable place to be.
 
The ultimate test of conformity ?

Be a member of a jury in a criminal trial. Potentially a very uncomfortable place to be.

I've thankfully managed to avoid this.. I really hate the thought of being responsible for the incarceration of another human being. But my father served once, for two weeks and, while he found it an interesting experience, also felt the same way I do.
Conformity feels, to me, quite a bit like blackmail.. the sickening feeling that you have no choice but to follow a course of action you know is wrong.
 
I've thankfully managed to avoid this.. I really hate the thought of being responsible for the incarceration of another human being. But my father served once, for two weeks and, while he found it an interesting experience, also felt the same way I do.
Conformity feels, to me, quite a bit like blackmail.. the sickening feeling that you have no choice but to follow a course of action you know is wrong.

Imagine faced with such social considerations when someone's life is at stake. I've had to deal with this three times. What always bothered me was the distinct impression that some jurors would simply go along to get along rather than exhibit an analysis of the facts. Despite what was at stake. The innocence or guilt and freedom of a human being.

Really scary, real-life considerations.
 
Imagine faced with such social considerations when someone's life is at stake. I've had to deal with this three times. What always bothered me was the distinct impression that some jurors would simply go along to get along rather than exhibit an analysis of the facts. Despite what was at stake. The innocence or guilt and freedom of a human being.

Really scary, real-life considerations.

Three times really sucks Judge! ..and feeling responsible for a life when others seemingly don't.. OMG!
Makes me wonder how humanity has survived this long.
 
Three times really sucks Judge! ..and feeling responsible for a life when others seemingly don't.. OMG!
Makes me wonder how humanity has survived this long.

I''ll do it again when called upon. But I'd rather serve on a civil matter, but that will NEVER happen in my case.
 
I had a really good laugh out of the first half of the article. Having grown up around a bunch of "politically incorrect" cynics, I understood that sentiment perfectly. "He's too much of an idiot to realize he's an idiot". I've just never seen it put politely before.

And to think, all those advertisements about not giving in to peer pressure. Society can't make up it's mind. Is conforming good or is peer pressure bad? Round and around.
 
This must be what we lack. This, and a love of eye contact.

It just has to be. It's the only way it makes sense. We clearly have empathy, social intelligence, social feelings, including friendship…

The science of protecting people’s feelings: why we pretend all opinions are equal - The Washington Post
Was he an expert and wasn't listened to?
There's always a reason why a person so upset about a particular subject...
Anyway, when people work in a group they come from different backgrounds and with different sets of skills, and each person thinks their opinion is important. In the end it's about people's ability to communicate and hear each other, it's also about ability of each person understand and hear themselves. People who have knowledge and the right skills for a particular task are no different from those who don't have the knowledge, if they tell the other party that they are wrong, or dumb. Simply because they as unable to listen, show respect and be open as the ones whom they attack.
If we talk about information that presented as facts by self-proclaimed experts, well, our world is full of it and each supporter of a particular idea think they can call supporters of another idea - lunatics or whatnot. Nothing is a fact until it's proven by many people performing unbiased research and by real life situations, and even then, any fact can still be questioned.
If we talk about a very specific goal, each team has to look at each piece of information presented without attaching it to an individual but see it as a sort of a like a cooking pot where all the information is "cooking", some may be discarted, some kept in order for the team to reach desirable result.
As for equality of opinions, in many cases that I've been observing so far, people tend to put an emotional label of "right" or "wrong" to serve their personal emotional needs. In the end it's not about right or wrong, it's about what each individual team, society, any type of group of people, want to achieve and then review what information, what actions will get them there.
Right now there' re several different directions people see themselves going (I'm talking about humanity as whole), but on the inside those directions aren't as different. When human race "grows up" a little, those goals, directions and opinions will be unified and there will be more logic and agreement in any type of team work.
As for equality, Equality means that each individual deserves equal right to be heard and respected, not that their ideas can equality contribute to a common goal. When I say respect, I'm talking about a person as whole, not a particular trait of him/her or a particular action. When we see a person as whole, with all the experiences, with all the characteristics, with all his genes, history, culture and SEE this one unified being, than we'll understand what this respect is. Well, maybe another word would suit better, but respect will do. I could probably use acceptance instead.

And some people might think, "well... I disagree". And that's exactly my point: the goal of this discussion is to express, not to prove right or wrong, and for that reason every opinion is equally valuable (if we talk about equality as "the same", not general Equality :) ). If somebody believes that the goal of this, or any other discussion is different, they may say so :)

I think I'm done. I can try to explain all different angles,"why-s" and "what-s" for hours until I get lost and end up in a completely different subject :D so, I'm going to stop :)
 
Was he an expert and wasn't listened to?
There's always a reason why a person so upset about a particular subject...

See? It's not so subtle I miss it, yet not so direct you'd stereotype it as autistic. So perception is not what I lack.
 
How do we get "equality" from the "everyone wins" concept that we now embrace so much. [WP is not equal in terms of science expertise. Never. Nope]

I believe the equality bias they are talking about is simply the notion that everyone's opinion is equally weighted, not that an "everybody wins " mentality will lead to a better society.

As to weather or not aspies are immune to this phenomena, I cannot say. I, for one, have always felt uncomfortable with groups as singular entities and been horrified by the notion of having my identity and opinions subsumed by them. On the other hand, I often trust other peoples opinions over my own, perhaps because I am unsure of myself in the first place. This mostly applies only to day to day situations though. When it comes to science and issues of justice I often find myself having to hold my tongue lest I deeply offend people by laying bare their ignorance.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom