Possible explanation for the "SJW" mindset

Post Reply New Topic

An interesting video (primarily related to the video gaming industry) popped up which looked at recent research and how it explains a certain mindset (SJW being a common\large example, but it is not restricted to it), namely a "Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood" (TIV):


The research abstract:

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341548585_The_Tendency_for_Interpersonal_Victimhood_The_Personality_Construct_and_its_Consequences

Description of the video:

I note that the authors of the research make no reference to SJWs.

Looking at the criteria, it is immediately noticeable that they seem to apply rather more strongly to reactionary bigots than to the people who oppose them. Reactionary bigots:

- constantly require that others acknowledge them (“but what about men? But what about racism against white people? But what about cis people’s rights?”)

- moral elitism (criticising anyone who doesn’t share their bigotry as an “SJW”, saying that LGBT people “threaten children”, characterising black people as a threat to white people, characterising diversity as an attack on their culture)

- lack of empathy (obvious)

- rumination (seriously, it’s all these people talk about - there are dozens of YouTube channels with hundreds of videos about how women are ruining pop culture, and these have thousands of comments)

I could therefore conclude that the OP and the creator of the video are engaging in psychological projection - ascribing their own traits to others as a defence mechanism - but I’d rather make the accusation of pseudo-psychology. You are taking a psychological concept that you don’t understand and levelling it, without evidence, against people you disagree with. This gives your argument a scientific veneer despite a fundamental lack of content. It’s also a form of ad hominem attack. Rather than addressing the substance of your opponents’ arguments, you simply claim that they are all morally and mentally defective. This can feel satisfying but it is intellectually bankrupt.

The paper doesn't actually "explain" anything; it just attempts to define a psychological category.

People with these traits can be found all over the political spectrum. (A glaring right wing example would be the Christian nationalists who believe that Christians are "persecuted" here in the U.S.A.)

On the other hand, not all political activists are like this. Plenty of activists are capable of fighting against real injustices without assuming malice on the part of just about everyone who crosses their path.

I should also say that I'm uncomfortable with the term "SJW," because of its ambiguity. On the one hand, some political moderates here whom I respect, such as ASPartOfMe, use it to refer ONLY to the more obnoxious, self-righteous, inter-personally paranoid, and generally more extreme people on the left. But other people use it as a general pejorative term for all leftists.

I agree that some people do take this stuff too far eg. HAES and those who expect you to not assign gender at birth when 99% of the time babies sex with match their gender or trying to raise them as genderless as if you can make a kid non binary and expecting you to not assume peoples pronouns when you will be correct 99% of the time.

Nothing wrong with as a fat person wanting to be treated as human and wanting basic respect and wanting binge eating to be taken seriously as anorexia than being seen as a lazy slob. But these HAES people are in denial and will lie and pretend weight won't affect our body and our health and that there is a big conspiracy out there against fat people and doctors are purposely not wanting to help you because you are fat, not because it is too risky and unsafe. Doctors are not telling you to lose weight because they hate you, it's because it's for your medical issues and to make them better or so they can medicate you when you need to take medication.

But I also agree with what The Walrus is saying too and Mona.

Alt-Right folks play the “victim card” at least as much as SJWs.

They say things like “I’m discriminated against because I am white,”

It is like an entire meme how people on the far right, and right wing religious groups, want so bad to be victims. You can see it so much likely where they are crying that they are being censored on social media, or receive any social consequences to spreading their bigotry.

The video is from a gaming channel and I tend to not trust their takes wrt social issues or just about anything else. Looking through their other vids didn't help. Smacked of white male gamer victim complex--ironically enough.

The study also seems pretty apolitical. It's trying to tie together various personality traits into a new, overarching personality type--and I'm usually hesitant about shoehorning people into sweeping psychological categories. I didn't see any references to SJW's or leftists in general. It seemed like the study was mainly concerned with feelings of guilt and victimhood among Jewish Israelis stemming from real or perceived experiences with anti-semitism.

And as has been said, these criteria seem to apply more to reactionaries than to leftists.
Have you ever met anyone on the Christian Right? They can't stop ruminating about their perceived victimhood (read: not monopolizing social and political power like in the good old days). They consider non-Christians or left-of-center Christians to be morally inferior. They demand attention and special treatment because they have spent the last several hundred years growing accustomed to those things. And their empathy tends to extend only to fellow Fundamentalist Christians:
"Would Jesus agree with me cheering on separating migrant children from their parents? Of course he would! Jesus despises poor people and lawbreakers! Jesus thinks children should pay for their parents' 'sins'! I am a master of theology and scriptural interpretation!"

Someone used a video from a gaming channel to prove an unrelated sociological hypothesis?

What next ... using a Tom & Jerry cartoon to prove the epigenetic origin theory of autism?

Hey, I know this one! I really do like this guy's channel, but maybe I am missing something? Someone further up called him out as having white male gamer syndrome. What do you mean? If this guy has serious flaws, then I need to know.

An online "friend" once showed me a "source" to an article about CHAP in Seattle and the article itself made it sound like the whole entire Seattle had been invaded by people and they had taken over and there are no more police and the city is all up in chaos and flames.

But I used my critical thinking and looked it up and it was only six blocks and just that one neighborhood and this was a protest to end police brutality and they had blocked off the streets to protest against the police.

I was not surprised there was right wing propaganda and these people will go to these "sources" that reinforces their conspiracy beliefs and think the rest of the media is bias by the left.

I honestly got tired of this "friend's" propaganda and conspiracy BS and Trumpism crap.

Finding "proof" after reaching a conclusion?  How very unscientific.

I once showed this same "friend" a youtube video of the food analogy to explain why "All lives matter" is racist and all the "friend" did was cherry picked the video and said "see, she even said all lives matter" totally ignoring the context.

I get so tired of this BS people in general do totally ignore thing whole thing and they only go for what they want to hear to confirm their belief.

Eventually, we will all come to realize that they really have nothing pertinent to say, and that they throw out these outrageous claims not so much to warn others of impending doom, but to draw attention to themselves.  It seems that, to them, bad attention is better than no attention at all.

One recent example was a man who spouted all kinds of false "facts" and conspiracy theories for years, and then slunk off to his retirement home in Florida when it finally became obvious that the majority of people hated him.

Sad.

As a fellow science person, I see your point. Think of a hypothesis. Then test it. Then come to a conclusion after thorough research and experiments.

In a forensic study, one abandons all assumptions, gathers as much evidence as possible, and then forms a conclusion.  It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.  Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

Yes.