- MBTI
- INTJ
My bad on the county thing. I read and type on this phone. While it has a large screen the two are similar enough to have mistaken.
Racialy biased exit pole...opinions?
- Thread starter dogman6126
- Start date
Dave Fallon
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
My bad on the county thing. I read and type on this phone. While it has a large screen the two are similar enough to have mistaken.
Haha, I hear you. I use my phone and tablet a lot as well and often misread things. I guess that is the price for a communication channel based on small text.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
I have no doubt vote rigging goes on and there were some extremely dodgy stories emerging from a recent referendum in my country with bags of votes being found in sacks in public bins!
In the UK ballot papers are often filled in using pencils which obviously would be easy to change!
But we are perhaps missing the biggest con of them all...
In the Us you can choose between the democrats and the republicans and with each election the electorate move back and forth between the two parties because each time they try the other party it fails to deliver positive change for the public
The truth is that BOTH parties are controlled by the same powerful monied interests and it doesn't matter which people vote for the result will be the same
People need to either reject those parties or reject the system imo
Dave Fallon
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
I have no doubt either that it does happen, there's too much power, prestige and most importantly money behind who wins and loses for there to be no interest in rigging elections. I just don't know how extensive it is, and I think the real nasty cases are not happening in a way that can be video taped or otherwise easily caught... On the other hand, a video tape of something shocking has long been a motivator, and I think that this video was far more evident of manipulation against the Democrats than for them.
Yes, and this is probably one of the many problems with a two-party-only system, especially one without an open neutral field for other parties to rise up. I stop short of saying both parties are the same; they're really not. But, I would agree that some of the issues that they contrast most sharply are not issues that really matter in the grand scheme of things. They are more like talking points. And I agree that when you trace back all the money, all the deals, all the little favors and winks across the aisles you'll find that the top brass in either party have much more in common to each other than to most of us.
That being said, I hope this does not preclude you from voting when you have the opportunity, and I really hope it does not preclude you from voting for a good candidate despite their party affiliation. By comparison, you could make an argument that no matter what gas station you go to, the profits end up in some enormous, probably foreign business that has no interest in human life and health, the environment, and even jobs unless they come with serious profit. But, that does not stop me from preferring the gas station with the best prices, or best service, or just the one with the best coffee for sale in the morning. I need gas; we need the government. I don't know if you vote or not, but IMO not voting is the worst kind of protest, in that it does not change anything and, in fact, makes things more like they are.
But when it comes down to it, you are 110% correct: the people need to either reject those parties or reject the system. The first world has a serious institutional problem in its governments, and one that can't be solved quickly or easily, certainly not with a single vote one way or the other. In the past, major change like what is needed in the US, UK, Europe and other industrialized nations required action, protests, and mobilization of like-minded individuals. In some cases, it required violence and destruction. I really really hope that isn't the case with this. But when enough people wake up and see that this problem requires more than just a vote, places like this forum and other social media applications will be essential in organizing and mobilizing action that can make a difference. I'm going to keep an eye out for that, but keep voting as well.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
There's many ways they can do it
As stalin famously said: ''it doesn't matter who votes, it only matters who does the counting!''
There's outright fraud but there are also legal ways they can do it. I remember there was a bit of a scandal in the bush v's gore election where things hinged on florida which was run by george's brother jeb
There was some skullduggery involving blocking black people from voting by chabging the goal posts relating to who was eligible to vote. I think they blocked anyone who had a criminal record from voting. So even someone busted with a bit of grass was dissenfranchised
Then there is also the way the system is structured. For example in the Uk the government is split up into constituencies and each party tries when in power to have the borders of these altered to try and draw borders around favourable demographic groupings
So these are ways in which they cook the books effectivly
I read somewhere that the reason the british government dissolves every 5 years is that it is a corporation and by dissolving it avoids certain legal requirmments (the crown is a corporation)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281299/British-election-open-corruption-fraud.html
[h=1]'Corruptible and open to fraud': International observers give damning verdict on UK electoral system[/h] By James Groves
Updated: 15:58, 25 May 2010
The money men who fund the political system often use hegelian dialectics and that is what the two party system is
They create two seemingly contrasting poles and from it they synthesise the result they want. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis
Well if people want to use their vote there are groups they cpuld give a protest vote to such as the pirate party who will campaign for internet freedoms
But yeah i think we are going to see some big changes ahead and the internet is going to be one of the main ways that we the people are able to pull together and find the solution that the political elites have never found (or looked for because they do the bidding of the money men who aren't interested in a fairer system)
Dave Fallon
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
I have to say that I had been discussing this on another forum and I need to apologize to [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION] for mocking their theories. There is more to this story that I hadn't realized, and it does sound like dirty manipulation, if not a conspiracy that didn't work out as expected.
The professor Woodard was trying to prove that racism is dead in South Carolina. To do that, he had intended to show this "exit poll" to white voters with extra bold statements about racism. (Which, by the way, came from a psychological test to determine pathological racism, not the casual kind that is so much worse.) His goal was to get statistical data by being as offensive as possible and getting near 100% "disagree" to those questions. Then he could report the results on some news program as "numeric proof" that white people in SC are less racist than more progressive places like New York. But he wouldn't disclose that the questions were structured to only apply to those with pathological conditions.
It backfired slightly when the local news picked up the story. Now the questions are out in the open. But the story is still focused on how disgusting the statements are, not that they are from a psychological test or that this was an attempt to game the results to lend credibility to a partisan talking point.
Sorry [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION], though this is a real story, as verified by Snopes, there was clearly more to it if I had scratched a little deeper. And sorry [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] for saying that there are less conspiracies out there than you think. I still don't think they are everywhere, this was actually a good example of what you were talking about with legal ways to commit fraud and the thesis, antithesis and synthesis that keeps both sides in power.
I wanted to believe that this was a mountain out of a mole hill situation, but I focused on the wrong thing. Lesson learned! (I hope)
The professor Woodard was trying to prove that racism is dead in South Carolina. To do that, he had intended to show this "exit poll" to white voters with extra bold statements about racism. (Which, by the way, came from a psychological test to determine pathological racism, not the casual kind that is so much worse.) His goal was to get statistical data by being as offensive as possible and getting near 100% "disagree" to those questions. Then he could report the results on some news program as "numeric proof" that white people in SC are less racist than more progressive places like New York. But he wouldn't disclose that the questions were structured to only apply to those with pathological conditions.
It backfired slightly when the local news picked up the story. Now the questions are out in the open. But the story is still focused on how disgusting the statements are, not that they are from a psychological test or that this was an attempt to game the results to lend credibility to a partisan talking point.
Sorry [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION], though this is a real story, as verified by Snopes, there was clearly more to it if I had scratched a little deeper. And sorry [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] for saying that there are less conspiracies out there than you think. I still don't think they are everywhere, this was actually a good example of what you were talking about with legal ways to commit fraud and the thesis, antithesis and synthesis that keeps both sides in power.
I wanted to believe that this was a mountain out of a mole hill situation, but I focused on the wrong thing. Lesson learned! (I hope)
- MBTI
- INTJ
NP. You continued to ask questions which is more than most do.
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
I read your link in snoopes, but I don't see where you reached your conclusions that I bolded. The use of these terms in so far as I'm familiar with them is used as a tool to measure modern racism, not pathological racism. I question if you are not making the assumption from this, and then concluding the next part I bolded. This very well can and has been used as a measure of modern racism meaning the way racism is expressed today. Specifically the distinction between overt racism or subtle and more socially hidden racism. Per the part that I underlined, he could use that to show that traditional racism is not so apparent anymore. And in fact this has been done in past studies (Hodson et al,.2002). It can be used as a kind of baseline or control group. That is the study that we went over in my psychology class, actually only two days before I found this link. You might have further information in so far as his intentions, but given what I've heard I would not be so quick to conclude foul play.
Going beyond his intent, it is in fact true that these exact same questions (at least one I guarantee was word for word while others were of the same context) have been used as a measure of modern racism (per my previous citation). However I also find it interesting the way it demonstrates peoples over sensitivity to cases of perceived traditional racism. To put another way, (and probably more accurately) the way people are just as quick to assume something as traditional racist because it resembles traditional racist remarks even if it very well might not be. I'm not saying its justifiable or good or wrong or punishable, I'm just saying its an interesting other example of the same mechanism that drives the problem of racism itself. That being not fully considering the case and instead falling onto a schema to save mental recourses.
I brought it up in this forum because in every (reasonable) population sample you will have varying responses. For example, some people demonstrated (at least to some extent) the example of seeing something resembling traditional racism and then assuming that was the intent. Another person however demonstrated that and also confirmation bias to fit in their schema of south Carolina. In truth I do not think that it is a social problem unless its a continued use of such a behavior (important to note I have no way to determine actual reasoning or motivation, so don't misunderstand my next sentence, these are only possible explanations, the first being the one of concern). This result can be used to drive self image maintenance which is morally wrong per a Kantian perspective as one example (not to say the only example of moral issue). A viable alternative is that such a behavior is simply an extreme version of the behavior demonstrated by the first group of people.
On the other hand there was the group of people that didn't assume negative, and went to research. This is an example of those who instead of falling to a schema to judge the case, they instead went to look into the case. Varying degrees per those people who looked into the situation, but looking into it nonetheless is a plus. I was disappointed there wasn't one who assumed positive as opposed to those who assumed negative. Last but not least was the one who went completely off subject to support their own agenda in giving out information without further than a minor consideration as to the intent of the thread.
Ok, on a side note, so I typed this while being partially distracted by debating with friends and watching a documentary, so I apologize if some of this doesn't make sense. I will clarify if necessary tomorrow or when I find time to get on here again.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
No worries Dave, we are all just looking for answers
The more i dig though the stranger it all gets!
Dave Fallon
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
Oh, some of that probably came more from the discussion I was having on another forum, or maybe an assumption I made based on that discussion. I don't know, personally, but I was being told that the professor who ran the test is known for controversial connections with right-wing think tanks, and maybe that is coloring the interpretation of what is going on. Those I was discussing with assured me that his intent was clearly as I mentioned, but I do not have personal knowledge of the professor and, of course, I can't know what was going on in his mind.
Yeah. So I'm left with a similar question: "What exactly is the story here?" Is this a conspiracy? Is it a mountain out of a molehill? Maybe the answer is we don't know because we don't know what the motivation was for Woodard to ask those particular questions. Or maybe there is no story, and we're just discussing concepts based on what is otherwise barely more than fiction.
Interesting. What is the "mechanism"? Do you mean pre-judging based on assumptions that may have been gleaned from culture or environment, ie: bias? If so, where does the line between natural bias and racism lay? Or is there one?
Ok. Fair enough, I think. I was one of those who made an assumption, but then I discussed with someone else and made a new assumption, now I'm reading your feedback and possibly reassessing again. But that's what we do, as humans, right? Worse would be to stick to that first assumption despite evidence to the contrary.
But as a student if psychology, I'm guessing you would agree that bias is how we understand the world where we cannot immediately research each fact that comes flying at us, especially over the Internet. And that's both the problem and the promise of the Internet: easier to say something false/easier to research and figure out the truth. I hope you don't believe that bias can be completely wiped out of conversation, even in written form as posts on a forum. That being said, I would also hope that no one on here thinks they cannot be corrected if a new and more accurate version of the events is revealed. I relish the chance to have my convictions challenged and corrected, but I do not think I can avoid having those convictions to begin with.
I'm guessing at some point through wearable, and eventually implantable connectivity devices the speed at which the truth can be researched will reach a critical point where no one assumes anymore and outright falsehoods can be quickly overruled by truth. Either that, or, we will become so reliant on the technology to know what the truth is that we will not longer second guess anything we read there, and then those who control the Internet (or whatever it is called at that point) control the truth.
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
I can't speak to the intent of the questions as applied to the research he had planned, but if he had planned to use these results as a way to manipulate the public rather than explain there full implications then shame on him, and I question if he should be allowed to continue research. However, this is only my response if his intent actually was negative. I simply don't know.
I find it hard to imagine that this exit poll could somehow influence the voting of people seeing as they don't get the poll until after they have voted. I am comfortable that this is an actual thing that happened, and I know it has happened in the past. I don't see this being a conspiracy of any kind. A far simpler explanation, assuming foul play or intent, would be that it is the professor himself. The same exact questions have been used in the past, and those weren't conspiracies. Why would this be one? And even if it was, what could they hope to accomplish by demonstrating people's natural aversion to traditional racism?
I can only speak to the extent of my own thoughts and my low level study of psychology, but by my understanding, racism is the fact of stereotyping directed towards another race. Stereotyping is what happens when judgment on something is passed based on a schema, and if that schema is not a perfect representation of that which you are passing judgment on (schemas are basically never exactly right). Other types of stereotyping can be cultural, age, social class, and even more basic things such as the simple in-group and out-group. They all use the same mechanism, just applied to different areas of our social interactions. Notice here this only speaks to the fact of judgment itself, not how the person then processes that judgment. It becomes a serious problem when a person applies that judgment as self-image maintenance which is to say the person judges bad of some group to apply a downward social comparison to increase one's own self esteem. Its especially bad if it happens a lot.
Actually I considered you as one who did research or at least did not pass immediate judgment. However I can only speak to what I've seen on this forum. Maybe it was different in your other groups. However I want to point out the part I bolded. It's not the case that all humans will assess and reassess. I can't speak to the frequency, but I know there are plenty of examples of people who will reach a conclusion and even when presented with new information will refuse and even actively fight the possibility of reassessing their views for any number of reasons. It is certainly logical to assess and reassess as more information is received like what you did. However I also suspect that you are already aware of most of what I've typed, and you are simply being modest
Yes I certainly agree that bias is inherent to the structure of our brain. We simply can't get around it all. Specifically it is the function of schemas that seem to make the most problems. As the human brain is now, we must rely on schemas as a way to save mental recourses, and make judgments fast enough to keep us alive. If we didn't have schemas, every time you walked into a classroom you'd have to figure our what those things are in the middle of the room, what they might be used for, what it is exactly your supposed to do, and all while trying to figure out where your going to sit. It's when schemas are applied to social interactions that these problems such as racism or ethnocentrism arise. We can do the best we can to avoid them, but I agree, we will probably never be perfect at it.
We all want to reach the objective truth. The trap is when we think we are there. Even when we think we are absolutely justified in thinking we have reached the objective truth, we must still consider the possibility that we are wrong. There is the objective truth, and then there is our perception of the objective truth. We could be very close, and a lot of things might imply that we are right per evidence (experimental or logical or experiential), but then we would still be wrong. This idea even applies to things like the speed of light. Right now, I would definitely place my bets that we are right about that. But its still possible that we are wrong.
As for your last part, I don't think more advanced connectivity devices would solve the problem. While availability heuristic would potential disappear, confirmation bias would probably become even more common.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
http://www.infowars.com/the-hegelian-dialectic-and-its-use-in-controlling-modern-society/
The Hegelian Dialectic and its use in Controlling Modern Society
General Maddox
realnewsaustralia.com
April 8, 2013
What exactly is the Hegelian Dialectic? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a 19th century German philosopher who devised a particular dialectic, or, method of argument for resolving disagreements. His method of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments is a system of thought process still use to this day.
To put it simply, the basis of Hegelianism dictates that the human mind can’t understand anything unless it can be split into two polar opposites. Good / Evil, Right / Wrong, Left / Right.
For example when people are talking about 2 political parties, Labor or Liberal, what they’re actually referring to, without realising it, is the thesis and the antithesis based off the Hegelian Dialectic. The only real debate that occurs is just the minor differences between those two parties. Nothing is said or done about the issues that neither left or right is discussing. This in particular will become more apparent as the election draws near.
Another form of the Hegelian Dialectic is Problem – Reaction – Solution. Most of us unwittingly fall victim to it all too often and sadly if we don’t stop, we will continue to lose our free will and liberties. It has been widely used by our governments and corporations around the world. You could say that in terms of controlling the masses, and society in general, it’s deployment has been an effective tool in keeping humanity in check.
Almost all major events in history employ the Hegelian Dialectic of:
Problem – manufacture a crisis or take advantage of one already in place in order to get the desired Reaction of public outcry whereby the public demands a Solution which as been predetermined from the beginning.
A classic example is 9/11.
Only when you break the left/right paradigm and come to the realisation that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the whole fake, and not to mention contradictory, war on terror was the desired outcome for the neo-conservatives within the Bush administration and the whole military industrial complex. They in fact stated in their own white papers the need for another catastrophic and catalysing event like a “new Pearl Harbour”.
Here’s a more current example of the Hegelian Dialectic is use. In Australia at present both of the main political parties on the eve of the upcoming election on September 7 are discussing “Boat People”. A derogatory term used to describe refugees and asylum seekers displaced by war or other hardships. I don’t believe they constitute what you would call a “crisis” as the statistics clearly show they aren’t, but for the purpose of this example, our Government is telling us they are a problem. The media is used to play up this problem in order to instigate a reaction (debate) in the public domain on how to tackle it. Both the opposition and ruling party offer their solution.
Again we see that the only real debate occurring is just the minor differences between those two parties. Nothing is said or done about the many other more important issues that neither left or right is discussing.
In order to avoid falling victim to the Hegelian Dialectic from now on you must remember the process involved. Anytime a major problem or issue arises in society think about who will gain or profit from it. Then remove yourself from the equation and take a step back to look at it from a third party perspective. See the so-called “problem”, look at who is reacting, why and in what way. Then look for who is offering up the solution.
When you do this from now on you’ll quickly see the real truth instead of the false truth they wanted you to see.
The Hegelian Dialectic and its use in Controlling Modern Society
General Maddox
realnewsaustralia.com
April 8, 2013
What exactly is the Hegelian Dialectic? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a 19th century German philosopher who devised a particular dialectic, or, method of argument for resolving disagreements. His method of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments is a system of thought process still use to this day.
To put it simply, the basis of Hegelianism dictates that the human mind can’t understand anything unless it can be split into two polar opposites. Good / Evil, Right / Wrong, Left / Right.
For example when people are talking about 2 political parties, Labor or Liberal, what they’re actually referring to, without realising it, is the thesis and the antithesis based off the Hegelian Dialectic. The only real debate that occurs is just the minor differences between those two parties. Nothing is said or done about the issues that neither left or right is discussing. This in particular will become more apparent as the election draws near.
Another form of the Hegelian Dialectic is Problem – Reaction – Solution. Most of us unwittingly fall victim to it all too often and sadly if we don’t stop, we will continue to lose our free will and liberties. It has been widely used by our governments and corporations around the world. You could say that in terms of controlling the masses, and society in general, it’s deployment has been an effective tool in keeping humanity in check.
Almost all major events in history employ the Hegelian Dialectic of:
Problem – manufacture a crisis or take advantage of one already in place in order to get the desired Reaction of public outcry whereby the public demands a Solution which as been predetermined from the beginning.
A classic example is 9/11.
Only when you break the left/right paradigm and come to the realisation that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the whole fake, and not to mention contradictory, war on terror was the desired outcome for the neo-conservatives within the Bush administration and the whole military industrial complex. They in fact stated in their own white papers the need for another catastrophic and catalysing event like a “new Pearl Harbour”.
Here’s a more current example of the Hegelian Dialectic is use. In Australia at present both of the main political parties on the eve of the upcoming election on September 7 are discussing “Boat People”. A derogatory term used to describe refugees and asylum seekers displaced by war or other hardships. I don’t believe they constitute what you would call a “crisis” as the statistics clearly show they aren’t, but for the purpose of this example, our Government is telling us they are a problem. The media is used to play up this problem in order to instigate a reaction (debate) in the public domain on how to tackle it. Both the opposition and ruling party offer their solution.
Again we see that the only real debate occurring is just the minor differences between those two parties. Nothing is said or done about the many other more important issues that neither left or right is discussing.
In order to avoid falling victim to the Hegelian Dialectic from now on you must remember the process involved. Anytime a major problem or issue arises in society think about who will gain or profit from it. Then remove yourself from the equation and take a step back to look at it from a third party perspective. See the so-called “problem”, look at who is reacting, why and in what way. Then look for who is offering up the solution.
When you do this from now on you’ll quickly see the real truth instead of the false truth they wanted you to see.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
http://www.infowars.com/the-hegelian-dialectic-and-its-use-in-controlling-modern-society/
The Hegelian Dialectic and its use in Controlling Modern Society
General Maddox
realnewsaustralia.com
April 8, 2013
What exactly is the Hegelian Dialectic? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a 19th century German philosopher who devised a particular dialectic, or, method of argument for resolving disagreements. His method of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments is a system of thought process still use to this day.
To put it simply, the basis of Hegelianism dictates that the human mind can’t understand anything unless it can be split into two polar opposites. Good / Evil, Right / Wrong, Left / Right.
For example when people are talking about 2 political parties, Labor or Liberal, what they’re actually referring to, without realising it, is the thesis and the antithesis based off the Hegelian Dialectic. The only real debate that occurs is just the minor differences between those two parties. Nothing is said or done about the issues that neither left or right is discussing. This in particular will become more apparent as the election draws near.
Another form of the Hegelian Dialectic is Problem – Reaction – Solution. Most of us unwittingly fall victim to it all too often and sadly if we don’t stop, we will continue to lose our free will and liberties. It has been widely used by our governments and corporations around the world. You could say that in terms of controlling the masses, and society in general, it’s deployment has been an effective tool in keeping humanity in check.
Almost all major events in history employ the Hegelian Dialectic of:
Problem – manufacture a crisis or take advantage of one already in place in order to get the desired Reaction of public outcry whereby the public demands a Solution which as been predetermined from the beginning.
A classic example is 9/11.
Only when you break the left/right paradigm and come to the realisation that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the whole fake, and not to mention contradictory, war on terror was the desired outcome for the neo-conservatives within the Bush administration and the whole military industrial complex. They in fact stated in their own white papers the need for another catastrophic and catalysing event like a “new Pearl Harbour”.
Here’s a more current example of the Hegelian Dialectic is use. In Australia at present both of the main political parties on the eve of the upcoming election on September 7 are discussing “Boat People”. A derogatory term used to describe refugees and asylum seekers displaced by war or other hardships. I don’t believe they constitute what you would call a “crisis” as the statistics clearly show they aren’t, but for the purpose of this example, our Government is telling us they are a problem. The media is used to play up this problem in order to instigate a reaction (debate) in the public domain on how to tackle it. Both the opposition and ruling party offer their solution.
Again we see that the only real debate occurring is just the minor differences between those two parties. Nothing is said or done about the many other more important issues that neither left or right is discussing.
In order to avoid falling victim to the Hegelian Dialectic from now on you must remember the process involved. Anytime a major problem or issue arises in society think about who will gain or profit from it. Then remove yourself from the equation and take a step back to look at it from a third party perspective. See the so-called “problem”, look at who is reacting, why and in what way. Then look for who is offering up the solution.
When you do this from now on you’ll quickly see the real truth instead of the false truth they wanted you to see.
This isn't even related muir, so why did you post it? oh wait, you fit into the last category I mentioned, that being one who went completely off subject to support their own agenda. If you want to post your conspiracy theories and fundamentally biased views of the world, please do it in your own threads you made specifically for that reason. Here, we are talking about social biases as applied to stereotyping such as racism.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
It is totally relevant to your political system and also to polarising issues such as race and how they are presented to the public
Come on man...keep up!
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
It might be relevant to those things, but not relevant to this thread. Please stay on topic. :focus:
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Racial issues is the topic...please go back and read your own OP and don't allow yourself to lose track of reality and why these things are all happening and what they mean for us and our society
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
Wow, are you so biased that you can't even see that what you just said here is absolutely wrong? The point of this thread, as I mentioned, was to see how people react to an apparent racially biased situation. Why don't you try considering the possibility that the all knowing all seeing muir could possibly be wrong. Oh wait, that would be against your fundamental personality. I understand, why you don't want to be wrong, but that doesn't make you any less wrong. And even if you weren't so biased that you couldn't see the actual point of this thread, and we go with what you thought the point of this thread was based only on the original post, you would still be wrong. Even with that information this topic is based on a professor using racially charged questions on an exit poll as part of research. That still doesn't in any way resemble a social crises like what your Hegelian dialectic would need to be applicable.