At the beginning for the journalism course for which this blog began, our professor had us read a blog post by Steve Schwartz called (for those of us who prefer not to swear) "The Three Types of Knowledge."
In this post, Schwartz asserts that, as humans, we really know far less than we think we do. He categorizes information into three categories, "what we know," "what we know we don't know" and "what we don't know we don't know." He then uses bar graphs and blunt language to explain that the actual goal of education is only to teach us how large the final category truly is.
I had seen the concept before, presented in a much more professional way, and was not too impressed this time around. However, I could not have imagined how often the idea would show up in my own research for the story.
Though concepts of cognitive bias such as the Dunning-Kruger effect didn't directly relate with my story, the brushes with them that I had in my research expanded my own awareness of how much I "don't know I don't know." They also confirmed the gist of Schwartz's message: that we seem to think we know much more than we actually do.
I first discovered this doing research about the demographics of Muslims when I came across this article from The Guardian. It reveals the results of a survey that assessed how much people know about their countries. The results showed a great gap in knowledge! Using the averages of the answers of those surveyed, respondents thought 21 percent of people in the United Kingdom are Muslim, while actually only 5 percent are. American respondents thought 15 percent of the U.S. population is Muslim, while only 1 percent actually is. Results are equally off-base for the questions.
All this made me wonder: Can Americans truly be prejudiced toward a population they don't even understand? If we misunderstand how many Muslims are in the country, might we also misunderstand what they believe and how they act?
The answer is yes. I learned from social psychologist Walter Stephan that feelings of prejudice often stem from feelings of threat based on the negative stereotypes people hold about members of a particular group. They don't have to be accurate stereotypes to do damage. And, as psychologist David Dunning explains in his article, "We Are All Confident Idiots," the human tendency to assume we know everything when we don't is pervasive.
So, what does all this mean for individuals working to find their place in today's world?
To me, it means we must be humble. We must seek new knowledge at every opportunity, aware that we will never know it all. We must seek correction whenever available, aware that we are probably wrong about many things. We must be patient and forgiving of others who make mistakes, aware that we make the same mistakes in our own way.
That all sound mushy, but it's true. I may not know everything, but what I do know is that I've got a lot more to learn.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
The Effect of Affective Forecasting on Prejudice - And How Even the Most Tolerant People Do It
When I was interviewing Indiana University professor Eliot Smith about Intergroup Threat Theory and racial or ethnic conflict, he mentioned a scenario: You walk down the street, see a person with a skin color or religious clothing you hold prejudice to, and automatically assume you're going to have a bad experience. It's called affective forecasting.
When he first told me about this phenomenon, I couldn't quite fathom it. The only bad experiences I've had walking down the street might have been in middle school if I passed a "mean girl" from social studies class or when I was in Guatemala and knew a drunk guy was going to try to follow me around because I was white. But me, get a pit in the bottom of my stomach because of seeing a black person or a Muslim? I couldn't imagine it.
Then I interviewed Brandy Grayson, a continuing student at Ball State University, who told me of her everyday struggle. "I just can't wait to get done and for it to be over," she said of her required hours on campus. What makes her so eager to leave? In part, seeing Muslim men in the hall.
Listening to Grayson was difficult for me because I haven't had her experiences. She grew up in an incredibly rural environment where she said there was one black man in the whole county. I grew up in a college town since since elementary school have had friends who fasted for Ramadan. She can lost the names of friends who've lost their lives or been injured fighting in the Middle East. If I think hard, I can come up with one or two names of acquaintances whom I think were actually deployed. She has read some violent passages of the Quran; I have read some ones that seemed almost Christian.
That's why I look a group of Muslim women at a carnival and see sisters caring for their children, while she boards the campus shuttle bus and takes the seat farthest from any man who looks Middle Eastern.
For me, affective forecasting was a myth. For Grayson, it describes her daily reality.
But before you pity Grayson, or judge her, or box her into a category of prejudiced people (and especially lest you use worse words), I want you to know that she taught me something.
She taught me that "out" groups and "in" groups don't just exist in terms of race or religion. When I first found out about affective forecasting, I labeled people who do it because of prejudice "weak" in my mind. I assumed I would feel aversion and repulsion if I ever heard someone speak about it.
When I spoke with Grayson, I realized that she is not weak. She is a strong army wife, a mother, a student, a career woman. She has done many things that I hope to do in my life, things that are worthy of admiration. But because of affective forecasting, I had a hard time accepting our conversation. I wanted to correct her, to defend Muslims, to invite her to rethink. Though I bit my tongue in the name of journalistic objectivity, I certainly had an opinion about her.
And now, as I write this, I realize I held prejudice too. But my prejudice - and the affective forecasting it inspired in me - was toward prejudice people.
Now, that's a humbling realization.
When he first told me about this phenomenon, I couldn't quite fathom it. The only bad experiences I've had walking down the street might have been in middle school if I passed a "mean girl" from social studies class or when I was in Guatemala and knew a drunk guy was going to try to follow me around because I was white. But me, get a pit in the bottom of my stomach because of seeing a black person or a Muslim? I couldn't imagine it.
Then I interviewed Brandy Grayson, a continuing student at Ball State University, who told me of her everyday struggle. "I just can't wait to get done and for it to be over," she said of her required hours on campus. What makes her so eager to leave? In part, seeing Muslim men in the hall.
Listening to Grayson was difficult for me because I haven't had her experiences. She grew up in an incredibly rural environment where she said there was one black man in the whole county. I grew up in a college town since since elementary school have had friends who fasted for Ramadan. She can lost the names of friends who've lost their lives or been injured fighting in the Middle East. If I think hard, I can come up with one or two names of acquaintances whom I think were actually deployed. She has read some violent passages of the Quran; I have read some ones that seemed almost Christian.
That's why I look a group of Muslim women at a carnival and see sisters caring for their children, while she boards the campus shuttle bus and takes the seat farthest from any man who looks Middle Eastern.
For me, affective forecasting was a myth. For Grayson, it describes her daily reality.
But before you pity Grayson, or judge her, or box her into a category of prejudiced people (and especially lest you use worse words), I want you to know that she taught me something.
She taught me that "out" groups and "in" groups don't just exist in terms of race or religion. When I first found out about affective forecasting, I labeled people who do it because of prejudice "weak" in my mind. I assumed I would feel aversion and repulsion if I ever heard someone speak about it.
When I spoke with Grayson, I realized that she is not weak. She is a strong army wife, a mother, a student, a career woman. She has done many things that I hope to do in my life, things that are worthy of admiration. But because of affective forecasting, I had a hard time accepting our conversation. I wanted to correct her, to defend Muslims, to invite her to rethink. Though I bit my tongue in the name of journalistic objectivity, I certainly had an opinion about her.
And now, as I write this, I realize I held prejudice too. But my prejudice - and the affective forecasting it inspired in me - was toward prejudice people.
Now, that's a humbling realization.
Fewer Christians, More Muslims - And How That Makes Me Feel
"[Population rates of] Muslims are expected to grow twice as fast as the overall population."
That is the sentence that is most concerning to many people who learn of the Pew Research Center's new and extremely comprehensive report, "The Future of World Religions."
The report includes data that show that the number of Christians worldwide and in the United States is set to decrease significantly by 2050, while the number of Muslims will increase by more than a billion, to a total of 30 percent of the world's population.
Soon after the release of these results on April 2, news media were already publishing articles such as this one from Voice of America, the U.S. international broadcasting service funded by Congress. For the article, a population studies professor was asked if the increased number of Muslims would put Islam any closer to being a dominant religion in the United States. The professor was assuring in his answer that it would not.
I find it amusing that this is our immediate worry - and I say "our" because, honestly, I also wondered about dominance when I read the results. I'm Christian; what will it mean to live in a country where even fewer people believe in Christ? Will I have to be constantly standing up for my beliefs? Will my children be teased at school for living their religion?
While my concerns were less about a Muslim "takeoever" and more about the diminshment of my own "in" group, I exhibited the same symptoms of a felt symbolic threat that are described in the Intergroup Threat Theory.
Why?
There are so many things that are going to change in the next 45 years. Who knows what technological inventions will make new gadgets a part of my daily life? I might have children, maybe even grandchildren! I will certainly have a career. And the report shows no evidence that Christianity won't still be a majority group; in fact, two-thirds of Americans are predicted to identify as Christians in 2050 (compared to three-fourths today). With all this going on and the relative assurance that I won't be a minority, why do I still worry?
Social psychologists would say it's because of my biological nature, and the biological nature of every other human being. We're trained to protect ourselves, to defend and fend for the pack with which we roam. In modern times, the groups I belong to don't need my aggressive defense. In fact, protecting myself from those in "out" groups is called intolerance, even bigotry.
But no matter how currently useless or detrimental the need to protect our "in" group may be today, it comes with being human. It's one of those biological processes - kind of like the craving for salt, or the tendency of the body to store fat - that isn't too useful in modern American society.
Oh well. We must wait for evolution to catch up - and, in the meantime, continue disciplining ourselves to have manners, repect and tolerance, for those who are different than us but pose no threat. As I try to realize that other peoples' decisions not to be Christian doesn't affect my ability to live what I believe, I become a stronger, more faithful person. And isn't that one of the things this life is about, anyway?
That is the sentence that is most concerning to many people who learn of the Pew Research Center's new and extremely comprehensive report, "The Future of World Religions."
The report includes data that show that the number of Christians worldwide and in the United States is set to decrease significantly by 2050, while the number of Muslims will increase by more than a billion, to a total of 30 percent of the world's population.
Soon after the release of these results on April 2, news media were already publishing articles such as this one from Voice of America, the U.S. international broadcasting service funded by Congress. For the article, a population studies professor was asked if the increased number of Muslims would put Islam any closer to being a dominant religion in the United States. The professor was assuring in his answer that it would not.
I find it amusing that this is our immediate worry - and I say "our" because, honestly, I also wondered about dominance when I read the results. I'm Christian; what will it mean to live in a country where even fewer people believe in Christ? Will I have to be constantly standing up for my beliefs? Will my children be teased at school for living their religion?
While my concerns were less about a Muslim "takeoever" and more about the diminshment of my own "in" group, I exhibited the same symptoms of a felt symbolic threat that are described in the Intergroup Threat Theory.
Why?
There are so many things that are going to change in the next 45 years. Who knows what technological inventions will make new gadgets a part of my daily life? I might have children, maybe even grandchildren! I will certainly have a career. And the report shows no evidence that Christianity won't still be a majority group; in fact, two-thirds of Americans are predicted to identify as Christians in 2050 (compared to three-fourths today). With all this going on and the relative assurance that I won't be a minority, why do I still worry?
Social psychologists would say it's because of my biological nature, and the biological nature of every other human being. We're trained to protect ourselves, to defend and fend for the pack with which we roam. In modern times, the groups I belong to don't need my aggressive defense. In fact, protecting myself from those in "out" groups is called intolerance, even bigotry.
But no matter how currently useless or detrimental the need to protect our "in" group may be today, it comes with being human. It's one of those biological processes - kind of like the craving for salt, or the tendency of the body to store fat - that isn't too useful in modern American society.
Oh well. We must wait for evolution to catch up - and, in the meantime, continue disciplining ourselves to have manners, repect and tolerance, for those who are different than us but pose no threat. As I try to realize that other peoples' decisions not to be Christian doesn't affect my ability to live what I believe, I become a stronger, more faithful person. And isn't that one of the things this life is about, anyway?
Speaking of Compromise and Compassion
A Catholic archbishop at a Jesuit university in Ohio is leading the way in interfaith education with his class about the Quran.
Guest lecturer Michael Fitzgerald tries to inspire understanding among Catholics for the teachings and practices of Islam in a course he teaches at John Carrol University in Cleveland, Ohio. About twenty students take the course, in which they relate Islamic pratices and beliefs, such as reverence toward the Quran, to elements of Catholic worship, such as reverence toward the Eucharist.
You can read or listen to the 7-minute story on NPR.
Carrol's work is an excellent example of seeking common ground even on issues about which both sides feel passionately. He is fulfilling several items on the United Nation's list of ways to combat intolerance, where education ranks second.
To Archbishop Fitzgerald: Kudos
Guest lecturer Michael Fitzgerald tries to inspire understanding among Catholics for the teachings and practices of Islam in a course he teaches at John Carrol University in Cleveland, Ohio. About twenty students take the course, in which they relate Islamic pratices and beliefs, such as reverence toward the Quran, to elements of Catholic worship, such as reverence toward the Eucharist.
You can read or listen to the 7-minute story on NPR.
Carrol's work is an excellent example of seeking common ground even on issues about which both sides feel passionately. He is fulfilling several items on the United Nation's list of ways to combat intolerance, where education ranks second.
To Archbishop Fitzgerald: Kudos
Jeb Bush Calls Muslims "Barbarians" - and The Guardian Calls it News
The Guardian is self-admittedly a liberal newspaper. Jeb Bush is self-admittedly quite conservative.
I'm neither of those things, but today I'll try to figure out the Republican. This might be a bit of a devil's advocate kind of post for this blog, but something in the British newspaper's story got under my skin.
The article summarizes Bush's comments at a conservative conference in Washington, focusing on his answer to a question about Islam in which he said that Muslim extremists are "barbarians" who have "hijacked" the religion in order to "destroy western civilization."
Um, so that's extreme. So much so, in fact, that it makes me wonder: why would a possible presidential candidate choose to put a foot worthy of a size 14 shoe in his mouth?
The Guardian writer would have readers believe it's because of Bush's lack of intelligence, judging by the three paragraphs he devotes to the last minutes of the interview, in which Bush forgot the name of the book he's reading (The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson, if you're curious).
But could it be as simple as that? Does Bush truly not realize that his statement is of the kind that go viral and make politicians the laughingstock of all liberal media?
Maybe there is something so disturbing, so frightening in Islam that Bush feels justified in making his sweeping statements. Surely the sight of seeing the twin towers fall on 9/11 was so terrifying. Perhaps he knew someone who had been affected.
It's easy to explain away his feelings of fear and threat and say if he only knew more about Islam, he would not be so worried. But for someone who has truly had negative experiences - maybe even lost a loved one in a terrorist attack - forgetting the negative and believing the positive isn't a simple matter of choice.
And we live in a world that doesn't make it any easier.
Just as the extreme statements of conservative politicians are discussed and exaggerated by liberal media, so are the extreme actions of Islamic fundamentalists discussed and exaggerated by conservative media.
A more compassionate journalist might have chosen to include other details from Bush's interview instead of the politician's reading list memory slip. More understanding media might choose to focus on positive aspects of Islam rather than repeating reels of terrorism footage.
Until we all get a little closer to the center, to compromise and to compassion, this world will never cease to seem divided and unfriendly.
I'm neither of those things, but today I'll try to figure out the Republican. This might be a bit of a devil's advocate kind of post for this blog, but something in the British newspaper's story got under my skin.
The article summarizes Bush's comments at a conservative conference in Washington, focusing on his answer to a question about Islam in which he said that Muslim extremists are "barbarians" who have "hijacked" the religion in order to "destroy western civilization."
Um, so that's extreme. So much so, in fact, that it makes me wonder: why would a possible presidential candidate choose to put a foot worthy of a size 14 shoe in his mouth?
The Guardian writer would have readers believe it's because of Bush's lack of intelligence, judging by the three paragraphs he devotes to the last minutes of the interview, in which Bush forgot the name of the book he's reading (The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson, if you're curious).
But could it be as simple as that? Does Bush truly not realize that his statement is of the kind that go viral and make politicians the laughingstock of all liberal media?
Maybe there is something so disturbing, so frightening in Islam that Bush feels justified in making his sweeping statements. Surely the sight of seeing the twin towers fall on 9/11 was so terrifying. Perhaps he knew someone who had been affected.
It's easy to explain away his feelings of fear and threat and say if he only knew more about Islam, he would not be so worried. But for someone who has truly had negative experiences - maybe even lost a loved one in a terrorist attack - forgetting the negative and believing the positive isn't a simple matter of choice.
And we live in a world that doesn't make it any easier.
Just as the extreme statements of conservative politicians are discussed and exaggerated by liberal media, so are the extreme actions of Islamic fundamentalists discussed and exaggerated by conservative media.
A more compassionate journalist might have chosen to include other details from Bush's interview instead of the politician's reading list memory slip. More understanding media might choose to focus on positive aspects of Islam rather than repeating reels of terrorism footage.
Until we all get a little closer to the center, to compromise and to compassion, this world will never cease to seem divided and unfriendly.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Speaking of Surprising Statistics
Sometimes, 24-year-old newspaper photographer and convert to Islam, Bobby Ellis, stops his car at a gas station and kneels outside of it.
"I think people just assume I'm checking my tire pressure or something," Ellis said.
He's really saying prayers to Allah, something he's tried to do almost every day since converting to Islam a few years ago.
Ellis is one of the growing percentage of American Muslims who are converts. The current proportion is 23 percent.
Most of the people who have prejudice against Muslims whom I interviewed for this story were surprised by that statistic. It turns out it's easier to be threatened by people from a foreign country than by one's own.
And while prejudice people can still worry about and feel threatened by a religion with a propensity to acquire brown-haired, blue-eyed American converts, they're more likely to question people they identify with about it. That gives people like Ellis a chance to break down stereotypes, even if they're not always successful in it.
This is just one more example of how critical thinking - and knowing the statistics - can help minimize prejudice.
"I think people just assume I'm checking my tire pressure or something," Ellis said.
He's really saying prayers to Allah, something he's tried to do almost every day since converting to Islam a few years ago.
Ellis is one of the growing percentage of American Muslims who are converts. The current proportion is 23 percent.
Most of the people who have prejudice against Muslims whom I interviewed for this story were surprised by that statistic. It turns out it's easier to be threatened by people from a foreign country than by one's own.
And while prejudice people can still worry about and feel threatened by a religion with a propensity to acquire brown-haired, blue-eyed American converts, they're more likely to question people they identify with about it. That gives people like Ellis a chance to break down stereotypes, even if they're not always successful in it.
This is just one more example of how critical thinking - and knowing the statistics - can help minimize prejudice.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Fear of the Believers, the "Blind Sheep"?
In recent months and years, Christians have at times been criticized for blindly following their religion. I had my own wake up call a few weeks ago, when I looked up the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" in the Bible - only to find that it doesn't exist! It can be dangerous to believe everything a pastor says or "follow the crowd" of congregants, especially if they aren't behaving in the most Christ-like of ways.
But while Christians may be sometimes targeted by atheists, church and state separatists and others, the heat Muslims receive for supposedly adhering very strictly to their religion comes from more diverse sources and is more widespread.
In his book, The Muslim Tide, journalist Doug Saunders describes the belief that "unlike, other immigrants, [Muslims] are loyal to Islam, not to their host society. They do not regard their religion a as a private source of inspiration, but as a political ideology they intend to act upon" (5). He goes on to describe the numerous cases of discrimination Muslims have faced in the Western world in the last decades at the hands of those who believe this, from the New York City police surveillance to the well-funded protests of the TLC documentary, All-American Muslim.
In essence, Muslims get discriminated against because people think they're all going to be terrorists.
The truth is that Islam in general doesn't teach or advocate violence or extremism. The majority of Muslims, especially Muslim Americans, don't support suicide bombing. And as one of my sources, a convert to Islam. said, "I've never heard anything but love and respect taught in a mosque. If there’s some secret agenda that we’re supposed to be lying and furthering Islam, I have not got the newsletter. I guess it’s above my pay grade."
The key to eliminating those feelings of threat and fear and prejudice is the same key that Muslims and Christians and people of other religions use to avoid become extremists, "blind sheep," or otherwise "carried about by every wave of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14, NT). It is simply: think critically.
The Bible asks people to ask before they receive and knock before expecting metaphorical doors to be opened. The Quran also includes teachings that suggest that being thoughtful and meaningful in spiritual pursuits are desirable characteristics. Almost every religion has a book of scripture or doctrine against which questionable teachings from leaders should be compared for veracity. Religious people certainly should have faith, but that doesn't mean they relinquish their decision-making abilities, or that they lose the integrity to stand up when false doctrines are being introduced.
The same goes for people who are not religious. It is unacceptable to be "carried away by every wave of doctrine," whether that doctrine is religious or secular. It may be easy to believe that all Christians are helpless sheep and all Muslims are violent terrorists, but those beliefs are false. One must always analyze the data and try to discover the objective, absolute truth.
Conclusion: thinking logically and critically - and being governed by the mind and not the fearful heart - is key to reducing feelings of threat and eliminating prejudice.
In essence, Muslims get discriminated against because people think they're all going to be terrorists.
The truth is that Islam in general doesn't teach or advocate violence or extremism. The majority of Muslims, especially Muslim Americans, don't support suicide bombing. And as one of my sources, a convert to Islam. said, "I've never heard anything but love and respect taught in a mosque. If there’s some secret agenda that we’re supposed to be lying and furthering Islam, I have not got the newsletter. I guess it’s above my pay grade."
The key to eliminating those feelings of threat and fear and prejudice is the same key that Muslims and Christians and people of other religions use to avoid become extremists, "blind sheep," or otherwise "carried about by every wave of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14, NT). It is simply: think critically.
The Bible asks people to ask before they receive and knock before expecting metaphorical doors to be opened. The Quran also includes teachings that suggest that being thoughtful and meaningful in spiritual pursuits are desirable characteristics. Almost every religion has a book of scripture or doctrine against which questionable teachings from leaders should be compared for veracity. Religious people certainly should have faith, but that doesn't mean they relinquish their decision-making abilities, or that they lose the integrity to stand up when false doctrines are being introduced.
The same goes for people who are not religious. It is unacceptable to be "carried away by every wave of doctrine," whether that doctrine is religious or secular. It may be easy to believe that all Christians are helpless sheep and all Muslims are violent terrorists, but those beliefs are false. One must always analyze the data and try to discover the objective, absolute truth.
Conclusion: thinking logically and critically - and being governed by the mind and not the fearful heart - is key to reducing feelings of threat and eliminating prejudice.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Closed-mindedness Hits Home
I'm breaking into first person for this one; it's a story.
We were sitting on the couch eating pizza, dismayed that Ratatouille wasn't on Netflix but glad that it was warm enough outside for us to kick around the soccer ball. For our regular mid-week hang out sessions, my friend Colin and I alternate going to his house and mine (or rather, my aunt and uncle's home, since I live with them).
Today, my 58-year-old aunt was home, looking at some financial forms on her computer. She was sitting at the desk across the room, immersed in my cousin's taxes, muttering some numbers and summations under her breath. I picked a piece of sausage off my pizza and started to say something to Colin about a class assignment that deals with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Suddenly, my aunt looked up, thoughtful.
"Yeah, what do you think about all this?" she asked.
Uncertain which of us she was addressing and of what the "all this" meant, we waited. Soon, she clarified that she was asking Colin what he thinks about gay marriage.
Colin is bisexual but my aunt doesn't know it. Respectful as ever, he began to state his opinion without revealing his sexual orientation.
My aunt interrupted.
"You know, I watched this thing on the TV the other day, and it just really clarified the whole thing for me," she said. "This man was talking and he said that marriage is something more than what people are taking it as."
Interested, I asked who the man was.
My aunt couldn't remember.
What show was it? She couldn't remember. What else did he say? Not sure. It had been a few days.
"But I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. He just laid it out really clearly for me."
My aunt is an intelligent person. She holds a college degree, has raised six children, volunteers monthly, runs a rental business, and works two part-time jobs. She reads the newspaper everyday and also gets news on TV and on the internet. I've never heard her speak like this before.
Maybe I'm not being fair to her, highlighting this particular conversation. But I couldn't help but feel tense the entire time. Forget that my bisexual friend was there. (He respects others' beliefs just as he hopes they'll respect his and was not disturbed.)
The thing that made me put my pizza down and not want to eat anymore was the way my aunt so faithfully confided in some mysterious stranger from the television screen. She knows better than to adopt someone else's opinion without thinking critically about it. When she does cite someone else, she knows enough to remember their name and position, not to mention context.
But, this time, she didn't. And on such an important issue... The conversation put me back in an interview with a 25-year-old Hoosier man who converted to Islam two years ago. He won't tell his grandma he's Muslim because "all she knows about us are the stereotypes she gets off of Fox News."
The source expressed concerns not only about the way Muslims are portrayed in the media, but also about the propensity of Americans, especially those of the older generation, to believe everything they see.
As a journalist, I try to be very critical of the media I consume. It was disheartening to see a family member follow so blindly.
Next time: How to be Christian without being a "blind sheep"
We were sitting on the couch eating pizza, dismayed that Ratatouille wasn't on Netflix but glad that it was warm enough outside for us to kick around the soccer ball. For our regular mid-week hang out sessions, my friend Colin and I alternate going to his house and mine (or rather, my aunt and uncle's home, since I live with them).
Today, my 58-year-old aunt was home, looking at some financial forms on her computer. She was sitting at the desk across the room, immersed in my cousin's taxes, muttering some numbers and summations under her breath. I picked a piece of sausage off my pizza and started to say something to Colin about a class assignment that deals with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Suddenly, my aunt looked up, thoughtful.
"Yeah, what do you think about all this?" she asked.
Uncertain which of us she was addressing and of what the "all this" meant, we waited. Soon, she clarified that she was asking Colin what he thinks about gay marriage.
Colin is bisexual but my aunt doesn't know it. Respectful as ever, he began to state his opinion without revealing his sexual orientation.
My aunt interrupted.
"You know, I watched this thing on the TV the other day, and it just really clarified the whole thing for me," she said. "This man was talking and he said that marriage is something more than what people are taking it as."
Interested, I asked who the man was.
My aunt couldn't remember.
What show was it? She couldn't remember. What else did he say? Not sure. It had been a few days.
"But I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. He just laid it out really clearly for me."
My aunt is an intelligent person. She holds a college degree, has raised six children, volunteers monthly, runs a rental business, and works two part-time jobs. She reads the newspaper everyday and also gets news on TV and on the internet. I've never heard her speak like this before.
Maybe I'm not being fair to her, highlighting this particular conversation. But I couldn't help but feel tense the entire time. Forget that my bisexual friend was there. (He respects others' beliefs just as he hopes they'll respect his and was not disturbed.)
The thing that made me put my pizza down and not want to eat anymore was the way my aunt so faithfully confided in some mysterious stranger from the television screen. She knows better than to adopt someone else's opinion without thinking critically about it. When she does cite someone else, she knows enough to remember their name and position, not to mention context.
But, this time, she didn't. And on such an important issue... The conversation put me back in an interview with a 25-year-old Hoosier man who converted to Islam two years ago. He won't tell his grandma he's Muslim because "all she knows about us are the stereotypes she gets off of Fox News."
The source expressed concerns not only about the way Muslims are portrayed in the media, but also about the propensity of Americans, especially those of the older generation, to believe everything they see.
As a journalist, I try to be very critical of the media I consume. It was disheartening to see a family member follow so blindly.
Next time: How to be Christian without being a "blind sheep"
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
"We Don't Need to Invite Foreign Law Into Idaho"
A county that is 95 percent white (like many of America's counties, to be fair) is drawing national attention now that some of its state's political leaders refused to comply with a national child support law because they feared it would compel them to follow Sharia law.
A week before the debate in the Idaho Senate, the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee (BCRCC) distributed a newsletter containing an opinion piece called "Islam in Idaho." Presumably because of the backlash the essay caused, it can not be found on the BCRCC's website or Facebook page.
In the essay, BCRCC executive director Becky Prestwich assumed 10 percent of all Muslims are radicals, asserted that Muslims are being taught to behave violently against infidels, and urged constituents to contact their lawmakers to "do something about it ... before it's too late" (as quoted in these articles from The Idaho Statesman and The Idaho State Journal).
Bonneville County, which contains the city of Idaho Falls, does not lay claim to a mosque, though the county's Islamic Society website says prayers are held in local residence, and a new mosque 50 miles away opened in Pocatello last year.
While the number of Muslims in Idaho has been growing, there have been no recent acts of terrorism committed by Muslims in the state. Local leaders, Christian, Muslim and agnostic, deplored the letter and one professor called it "the same garbage that we've been hearing forever."
It's true.
Throughout the history of the country and the world, in-groups have been threatened by out-groups. Think KKK, the anti-immigrant leagues of the 1920s, even the Alien and Seditions Acts the government passed during World War II. Prestwich is just one more in a long line of Americans who have exaggerated the threat implied by a harmless minority.
Even if her assertions about the percentage of Muslims who support violence are true - and research shows they're not - Prestwich fails because she provides no realistic way for constituents to defend themselves. She encourages them to contact her legislators - but then what?
The Pew Research Center study cited above shows that eight percent of American Muslims might consider suicide bombing acceptable to defend Islam in some cases. Even if eight percent of Idaho Muslim do feel that way, so what? Lawmakers can't legislate their beliefs. And Muslims wouldn't need to defend Islam if people like Prestwich weren't attacking it.
A week before the debate in the Idaho Senate, the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee (BCRCC) distributed a newsletter containing an opinion piece called "Islam in Idaho." Presumably because of the backlash the essay caused, it can not be found on the BCRCC's website or Facebook page.
In the essay, BCRCC executive director Becky Prestwich assumed 10 percent of all Muslims are radicals, asserted that Muslims are being taught to behave violently against infidels, and urged constituents to contact their lawmakers to "do something about it ... before it's too late" (as quoted in these articles from The Idaho Statesman and The Idaho State Journal).
Bonneville County, which contains the city of Idaho Falls, does not lay claim to a mosque, though the county's Islamic Society website says prayers are held in local residence, and a new mosque 50 miles away opened in Pocatello last year.
While the number of Muslims in Idaho has been growing, there have been no recent acts of terrorism committed by Muslims in the state. Local leaders, Christian, Muslim and agnostic, deplored the letter and one professor called it "the same garbage that we've been hearing forever."
It's true.
Throughout the history of the country and the world, in-groups have been threatened by out-groups. Think KKK, the anti-immigrant leagues of the 1920s, even the Alien and Seditions Acts the government passed during World War II. Prestwich is just one more in a long line of Americans who have exaggerated the threat implied by a harmless minority.
Even if her assertions about the percentage of Muslims who support violence are true - and research shows they're not - Prestwich fails because she provides no realistic way for constituents to defend themselves. She encourages them to contact her legislators - but then what?
The Pew Research Center study cited above shows that eight percent of American Muslims might consider suicide bombing acceptable to defend Islam in some cases. Even if eight percent of Idaho Muslim do feel that way, so what? Lawmakers can't legislate their beliefs. And Muslims wouldn't need to defend Islam if people like Prestwich weren't attacking it.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Can Perceived Assimilation Reduce Threat (and Therefore Prejudice)?
If reducing prejudice really is a matter of reducing the threat felt by members of the "in" and "out" groups (as defined in the classic research by Stephan and Stephan), there seem to be two major ways to do that:
1. Convince the "in" group that the "out" group really isn't that scary.
2. Cause the "out" group to seem a lot more like the "in" group, so they won't seem so scary.
Sometimes, both strategies are employed simultaneously. Take this publication by the U.S. State Department, for example. The 66-page full-color document was published in the years after 9/11, when a number of studies focused on what it was like for perfectly "normal," non-terrorist Muslims to be living in a country whose citizens were suddenly hyper-concerned about the potential threats of people from the Middle East.
The document is notable because it because it strives to show that Muslims (member of the "out" group) aren't dangerous because they're just like Americans (who make up the "in" group). Replete with photos of young Muslim women in head coverings shooting layups on high school basketball courts and Muslim couples grocery shopping at Walmart, the publication tries to show the "Americanization" of American Muslims.
The title of the introduction is especially telling: "I am a Muslim with an American Soul." Written by Chicago interfaith leader Eboo Patel, a child of Muslim immigrants from India, the two-page introduction establishes John Winthrop's "city on a hill" allusion as the goal for America; Patel writes that the country should continue to be a place where "diverse nations and peoples come to know one another in a spirit of brotherhood and righteousness."
The State Department's "Being Muslim in America" publication certainly helps fulfill this goal. By showing Muslims participating in everyday "American" activities, it attempts to reduce the threat some Americans might feel toward members of the religion and debunks stereotypes that Muslims have no patriotism (see pages 15-16 for the giant photo of men in a mosque praying before the stars and stripes-covered casket of one of one of their own, who was killed fighting for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan).
The question, however, is whether it works. Do prejudice-holding Americans who read this document stop feeling threatened by Muslims, at least partially? Does "proof" of Muslims' assimilation into the traditional basketball- and Walmart-loving American culture help dispel stereotypes of Muslims as terrorists?
Or maybe the deeper question: Do we just want everyone to look and act like us?
1. Convince the "in" group that the "out" group really isn't that scary.
2. Cause the "out" group to seem a lot more like the "in" group, so they won't seem so scary.
Sometimes, both strategies are employed simultaneously. Take this publication by the U.S. State Department, for example. The 66-page full-color document was published in the years after 9/11, when a number of studies focused on what it was like for perfectly "normal," non-terrorist Muslims to be living in a country whose citizens were suddenly hyper-concerned about the potential threats of people from the Middle East.
The document is notable because it because it strives to show that Muslims (member of the "out" group) aren't dangerous because they're just like Americans (who make up the "in" group). Replete with photos of young Muslim women in head coverings shooting layups on high school basketball courts and Muslim couples grocery shopping at Walmart, the publication tries to show the "Americanization" of American Muslims.
The title of the introduction is especially telling: "I am a Muslim with an American Soul." Written by Chicago interfaith leader Eboo Patel, a child of Muslim immigrants from India, the two-page introduction establishes John Winthrop's "city on a hill" allusion as the goal for America; Patel writes that the country should continue to be a place where "diverse nations and peoples come to know one another in a spirit of brotherhood and righteousness."
The State Department's "Being Muslim in America" publication certainly helps fulfill this goal. By showing Muslims participating in everyday "American" activities, it attempts to reduce the threat some Americans might feel toward members of the religion and debunks stereotypes that Muslims have no patriotism (see pages 15-16 for the giant photo of men in a mosque praying before the stars and stripes-covered casket of one of one of their own, who was killed fighting for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan).
The question, however, is whether it works. Do prejudice-holding Americans who read this document stop feeling threatened by Muslims, at least partially? Does "proof" of Muslims' assimilation into the traditional basketball- and Walmart-loving American culture help dispel stereotypes of Muslims as terrorists?
Or maybe the deeper question: Do we just want everyone to look and act like us?
Monday, April 6, 2015
Taking the "Threat" Out of "Threatened"
Speaking of differences: Researchers at two very different universities (the University of Oklahoma and the University of Jyväskylä in Finland) worked together on a social psychology research study in 2011. They aimed to find out what kind of prejudice, if any, American Christians hold toward American Muslims.
The study
The 281 participants, all self-identifying as Christians, were asked in paper surveys how often they interact with people who are Muslim, to what degree they agree or disagree with statements about the negative economic impact of a larger Muslim-American population, how much they think the identity of American society will be changed by the presence of Muslims, and to what extent they associate Muslims and words from a list of negative descriptors.
The results, published in 2013, found that people who said they more often associated with Muslims were less likely than those who don't to hold prejudice toward Muslims (though they might still stereotype).
What it means
If prejudice is based on threat, it makes sense that prejudice could be diminished by diminishing feelings of threat. Indeed, the study's authors mention conflict mediation in their report's implications section, implying that conflicts can be more easily resolved if all sides fully understand one another.
This is part of the reason the Muslim Student Association is hosting at Ball State University is holding Islamic Awareness Week with events such as the screening of the film Inside Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. The hope is that uncertain or possibly prejudiced students will, over the course of the week, learn about the commonalities they share with members of the Islamic faith. Then they'll be less likely to harbor negative sentiments or attack it in the future.
A Call to Action
Of course, there's a difference between dislike and prejudice. Even those social psychologists who most strongly believe the integrated threat theory of prejudice will state that removing all the reasons a person might feel threatened by a group will not always remove the prejudice they had toward that group.
An example is kids and vegetables: Tommy might have had an aversion to brussels sprouts before he ever tried them thanks to a cartoon teaching him they're undesirable. That's like a person holding negative feelings toward Muslims because of TV footage of suicide bombers.
Tommy might feel threatened by worries of discomfort and future illness as he sits down at a table where brussels sprouts are served to him. That's like the intergroup anxiety students might feel when approaching an information table at a university to learn about hijab.
Whether Tommy likes the brussels sprouts or not will depend as much on his ability to let go of preconceived notions as it will his tastebuds. The same is true with the students who attend events at Ball State's Islamic Awareness Week. How much a student with prejudice toward Muslims learns to like members of the Islamic faith will depend not only on whether he interacts with Muslims, but on his attitude toward those interactions and the quality of them.
This example points out that learning to interact with those who threaten us may be difficult. That's the intergroup anxiety of Stephan's theory doing its part.
However, just as eating vegetables is essential for they body's health, getting to know people who are different is essential for anyone who wants to be a productive and meaningful member of an increasingly international society. It may just be time to grimace, open wide, and try.
The study
The 281 participants, all self-identifying as Christians, were asked in paper surveys how often they interact with people who are Muslim, to what degree they agree or disagree with statements about the negative economic impact of a larger Muslim-American population, how much they think the identity of American society will be changed by the presence of Muslims, and to what extent they associate Muslims and words from a list of negative descriptors.
The results, published in 2013, found that people who said they more often associated with Muslims were less likely than those who don't to hold prejudice toward Muslims (though they might still stereotype).
What it means
If prejudice is based on threat, it makes sense that prejudice could be diminished by diminishing feelings of threat. Indeed, the study's authors mention conflict mediation in their report's implications section, implying that conflicts can be more easily resolved if all sides fully understand one another.
This is part of the reason the Muslim Student Association is hosting at Ball State University is holding Islamic Awareness Week with events such as the screening of the film Inside Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. The hope is that uncertain or possibly prejudiced students will, over the course of the week, learn about the commonalities they share with members of the Islamic faith. Then they'll be less likely to harbor negative sentiments or attack it in the future.
A Call to Action
Of course, there's a difference between dislike and prejudice. Even those social psychologists who most strongly believe the integrated threat theory of prejudice will state that removing all the reasons a person might feel threatened by a group will not always remove the prejudice they had toward that group.
An example is kids and vegetables: Tommy might have had an aversion to brussels sprouts before he ever tried them thanks to a cartoon teaching him they're undesirable. That's like a person holding negative feelings toward Muslims because of TV footage of suicide bombers.
Tommy might feel threatened by worries of discomfort and future illness as he sits down at a table where brussels sprouts are served to him. That's like the intergroup anxiety students might feel when approaching an information table at a university to learn about hijab.
Whether Tommy likes the brussels sprouts or not will depend as much on his ability to let go of preconceived notions as it will his tastebuds. The same is true with the students who attend events at Ball State's Islamic Awareness Week. How much a student with prejudice toward Muslims learns to like members of the Islamic faith will depend not only on whether he interacts with Muslims, but on his attitude toward those interactions and the quality of them.
This example points out that learning to interact with those who threaten us may be difficult. That's the intergroup anxiety of Stephan's theory doing its part.
However, just as eating vegetables is essential for they body's health, getting to know people who are different is essential for anyone who wants to be a productive and meaningful member of an increasingly international society. It may just be time to grimace, open wide, and try.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Evidence of Integrated Threat Theory Is Everywhere in Indiana Right Now
When a husband and wife team of social psychologists outlined the intergroup threat theory of prejudice in 2000, they were thinking primarily in terms of black and white race relations.
But the theory's principles can be applied to any two groups that hold prejudice or feel threatened by each other, its authors, Walter and Cookie Stephan, have said.
What's taking place in Indiana and across the country these days is surely an example.
Some quick definitions
In any situation in which the integrated threat theory can apply, there must be an "in-group" and an "out-group." The in-group feels the pressure caused by the out-group and responds, potentially causing a reaction from the out-group.
The threat theory is "integrated" with four parts:
- realistic threats: concerns held by the in-group about the out-group's ability to cause the in-group tangible harm
- symbolic threats: concerns held by the in-group about the out-group's ability to cause the in-group intangible harm
-intergroup anxiety: feelings experienced by members of the either group about the possibility of interacting with members of the other
-negative stereotypes: what they sound like, held by members of either group
Now, the theory seen in action
Anyone who has even glanced at social media in the last week has seen a barrage of attacks from each side against the other. Some even use the word "threat," though what constitutes the threat depends on who's talking.
Conservative Christians (the in-group) were worried about people of other faiths or lifestyles (the members of the out-group) infringing on their beliefs. That's a symbolic threat.
Lawmakers passed SB 101, which liberals viewed as both a symbolic and a realistic threat to the lifestyles of LGBT people. They fought back.
Governor Pence tried to prove he doesn't experience intergroup anxiety.
Black-white race wars used to divide America. Now, that battle has largely been won. However, a different one is being waged.
As gay and straight people and their supporters exchange jabs on social media, it becomes more and more apparent that when each side feels threatened, it responds threatening the other.
The research tells us why we fight, but it doesn't answer the age old question: Why can't we all just get along?
But the theory's principles can be applied to any two groups that hold prejudice or feel threatened by each other, its authors, Walter and Cookie Stephan, have said.
What's taking place in Indiana and across the country these days is surely an example.
Some quick definitions
In any situation in which the integrated threat theory can apply, there must be an "in-group" and an "out-group." The in-group feels the pressure caused by the out-group and responds, potentially causing a reaction from the out-group.
The threat theory is "integrated" with four parts:
- realistic threats: concerns held by the in-group about the out-group's ability to cause the in-group tangible harm
- symbolic threats: concerns held by the in-group about the out-group's ability to cause the in-group intangible harm
-intergroup anxiety: feelings experienced by members of the either group about the possibility of interacting with members of the other
-negative stereotypes: what they sound like, held by members of either group
Now, the theory seen in action
Anyone who has even glanced at social media in the last week has seen a barrage of attacks from each side against the other. Some even use the word "threat," though what constitutes the threat depends on who's talking.
But don't let Rep. Wesco mislead you. #RFRA is a REAL threat to the welfare of Hoosier children, via @AP: http://t.co/htnOdU4siJ #INLegis
— Freedom Indiana (@freedom_indiana) March 23, 2015
Liberals & Media Are Lying About Indiana's #ReligiousFreedom Law! #StandWithIndiana #RFRA Indiana. This is atheists attacking religion.
— Highlander (@Incogneato76) April 1, 2015
It all seems very simple, in the end.Conservative Christians (the in-group) were worried about people of other faiths or lifestyles (the members of the out-group) infringing on their beliefs. That's a symbolic threat.
Lawmakers passed SB 101, which liberals viewed as both a symbolic and a realistic threat to the lifestyles of LGBT people. They fought back.
Governor Pence tried to prove he doesn't experience intergroup anxiety.
If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn't eat there anymore. http://t.co/QCAPBfnJzL
— Governor Mike Pence (@GovPenceIN) March 30, 2015
Meanwhile, critics exploded with a wave of negative stereotypes about Indiana.
#BoycottIndiana pic.twitter.com/aXMrMPMMNj
— The Mad Asshatter (@CptnBlackbeard) March 31, 2015
A Sad ConclusionBlack-white race wars used to divide America. Now, that battle has largely been won. However, a different one is being waged.
As gay and straight people and their supporters exchange jabs on social media, it becomes more and more apparent that when each side feels threatened, it responds threatening the other.
The research tells us why we fight, but it doesn't answer the age old question: Why can't we all just get along?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)