social domains

It might at first seem attractive to say things like “Marxism can’t explain everything and although it is useful in its particular domain it’s not enough to explain the experiences of xyz, etc.”—but there’s a few things that people forget or don’t realize when they say that.

First, people mistake Marxism for a specific set of conclusions. When we realize that certain issues like racial or national oppression cannot be strictly analyzed through the lens of some pre-existing categories within the Marxist “canon,” we may be tempted to say that Marxism has reached its limit here. I must insist in contrast that, while i certainly feel many of the conclusions typically associated with Marxism are correct, all of these conclusions could actually be wrong and Marxism would still be “true” in the sense that it is most fundamentally a revolutionary way of approaching problems and enacting social change

Second, what is particularly insidious about the idea that Marxism “doesn’t apply” to this or that is the broader implication—which is quite consistent with postmodern theory in general—that different “domains” of life require us to use different approaches, different methodologies, different systems, etc. Wittgenstein, for example, was one of the people who most rigorously argued this, and he held that different domains of life were playing different “language games” which each had their own logic. One conclusion that follows from this is that no domain of social life is really poised to evaluate the validity of the others or appeal to universal truths. This can seem like a compelling line of reasoning, especially since it aligns with the dominant ideology of late capitalism. But it begins to fall apart when one realizes that, to even be able to distinguish where different domains of social life lie and what separates them requires a “global” logic by which you make the distinctions. Proponents of the notion that there can only be “local” theoretical and political systems tailored to the specific conditions of different “domains” do not at all escape appealing to universals; they simply leave the universal principles upon which they base their conclusion completely unsaid, which i feel is extremely dangerous. At least with the liberal humanists, although they simply assert universality from on-high and base their notion on the most vague of abstractions, you know what their assumptions are.

So the question is, what do you hold to be universal? Because without universality, the notion of specificity literally has no meaning.

What do i think? Well, i think Marxism as a theoretical and political practice does have boundaries, but it is able to evaluate where its own boundaries lie utilizing certain principles which are universal. To be precise materialist dialectics contain statements about the very nature of existence which are of necessity global. The fact that materialist dialectics are the product of a concrete practice—namely, taking the standpoint of proletariat in the realm of theory—does not jeopardize their universal “reach.” In fact, i would say that the proletariat, a force which occurs at the point where the various contradictions of society fuse, is particularly poised to access the universal.

Further, the boundaries of Marxism as assessed under the framework of materialist dialectics are larger than many people assume. Remember that Marx does not simply presuppose social class and then analyze society through that lens. Marxism is ultimately interested in the social formation as a whole and in particular in the transformation of that social whole. Marx arrives at the concept of social class as a result (not as the point of departure!) of the study of the social formation in its entirety (which is also why he really only began to concretely articulate the concept of class near the end of his life). So, Marxism is immediately relevant whenever we are talking about the revolutionary transformation of social life. And i am convinced that it remains the best tool for catalyzing revolutionary change there is. After all, it is not a coincidence that the most successful revolutionary movements around the globe have either been explicitly communist or have at least tried to appropriate certain elements of Marxism to suit their purposes.

Long story short, Marxism as a whole “package” may have limits, but they are broader than most people assume, and within Marxism there are universal principles, without which it is impossible to even distinguish what is specific. 

Social psychologists are becoming rather brilliant at setting up these gender difference sleights of hand [to show that gender differences disappear in the absence of stereotype threat]. The examples are piling up in all sorts of domains–from social sensitivity to chess to negotiation–but the pièce de resistance is the visuospatial skill of mental rotation performance.

In the classic and most widely used test of this ability, the test taker is shown an unfamiliar three-dimensional shape made up of little cubes–the target–and four other similar shapes. Two of these are the same as the original but have been rotated in three-dimensional space, and two are mirror images. The task is to work out which two are the same as the target. Mental rotation performance is the largest and most reliable gender difference in cognition. In a typical sample, about 75 percent of people who score above average are male. Gender differences in mental rotation ability have even recently been seen in babies three to four and five months of age. While it’s easy to see that a high score on the mental rotation test would be a distinct advantage when it comes to playing Tetris, some also claim (although they’re often strongly disputed) that male superiority in this domain plays a significant role in explaining males’ better representation in science, engineering, and math.

People’s mental rotation ability is malleable; it can be greatly enhanced by training. But there are far quicker, easier ways to modulate mental rotation ability. By…manipulating the social context in such a way that it changes the mind that is performing the task. For example, you can feminize the task. When, in one study, participants were told that performance on mental rotation is probably linked with success on such tasks as “in-flight and carrier-based aviation engineering … nuclear propulsion engineering, undersea approach and evasion, [and] navigation,” the men came out well ahead. Yet when the same test was described as predicting facility for “clothing dress and design, interior decoration and interior design … decorative creative needlepoint, creative sewing and knitting, crocheting [and] flower arrangement,” this emasculating list of activities had a draining effect on male performance.

Alternatively, instead of changing the gender of the task, you can keep the task the same but push gender into the mental background. Matthew McGlone and Joshua Aronson, for example, measured mental rotation ability in students at a selective liberal arts college in the northeastern United States. One group was primed with gender, while another group was primed with their exclusive private-college identity. Women who had been induced to think of themselves as a student at a selective liberal arts college enjoyed a performance boost, scoring significantly higher than gender-primed women. Likewise, Markus Hausmann and colleagues found that although gender-stereotype-primed men outperformed gender-stereotype-primed women, men and women primed with an irrelevant (geographical region-based) stereotype performed similarly on the mental rotation task.

Another outrageous, but successful, approach was recently devised by Italian researcher Angelica Moè. She described the mental rotation test to her Italian high school student participants as a test of spatial abilities and told one group that “men perform better than women in this test, probably for genetic reasons.” The control group was given no information about gender. But a third group was presented with a downright lie. That group was told that “women perform better than men in this test, probably for genetic reasons.” So what effect did this have? In both the men-are-better and the control group, men outperformed women with the usual size of gender difference. But women in the women-are-better group, the recipients of the little white lie, performed just as well as the men.

—  Cordelia Fine, Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference
In addition to social hierarchies of class, race, gender, and ethnicity, there is a hierarchy based on sexual behavior. The most blessed form of sexual contact is heterosexual, married, monogamous, and reproductive. Unions that are unmarried, nonmonogamous, nonreproductive, involve more than two partners, are homosexual, or which involve kink or fetish are judged as inferior and punished accordingly. This hierarchy … is a domain of social life in which great power is exercised.
—  Gayle S. Rubin, “The Leather Menace” [1981] in Deviations (135)

the negativity about the day and night albums is already so gross like some are getting pissy that it is only a repackaged album (what happened to the boys need rest, etc. and now there are people contradicting that, complaining that they are only releasing three new songs) and then there are some who are getting upset over the album concept not being as good as the first two of the hyyh series. seriously, get a grip.

as fans, what compels you to get so angry at them, after everything they have already given us, to bring them down over something they are so proud of? sure it is okay to be disappointed, but don’t go vocalising that the album design is ugly and wow only three songs what kind of moneymaking scam is this on social domains where the boys can potentially see it. I understand that everyone is allowed their own opinion, but there is a line between saying what you think and then carelessly insulting someone, and I have noticed a lot of people have completely stepped over that border. 

namjoon has already stated how proud he is of this epilogue album, the one that ties up the entire series, so of course it will include the songs that were the stepping stones to this grand finale. seeing people directly retweet the boys with such insults is honestly heartbreaking, because although the chances are slim, there is still the possibility that they could stumble upon a negative tweet degrading this final piece that they are so, so proud of.

I am sure they are used to criticism and negativity but do not be the kind of fan that contributes so harshly and personally to it, even if the album does not live up to your expectations. remember that it takes a million compliments to build you up, but one insult to send it all crashing back down. do not be the ones to do that to them, after everything they have provided for us over the course of this incredible series.

the boys have done nothing but give. do not throw it back in their face because you think that a goddamn album package is not up to your particular standard.

anonymous asked:

Hello ! Do you think Sasuke has a mood disorder ? (Plus havonv anxiety and PTSD). And I love your blog, super interesting and super realist !

Thank you!

Before I’ll answer your question, I want to clear something up. I’m not an expert on this topic, so I have definitely no authority in determining if Sasuke displays patterns of a disordered personality. Moreover, it is hard to diagnose Sasuke with the material presented in canon. Not only because he is a fictional character, but also because the circumstances in which he operates are extreme, meaning everyone who has to deal with the pressure is doomed to resort to the measures he takes in order to achieve his plans.

Notice that context is always of importance in psychology. Now, I am able to make a psychological evaluation, though you should take this with a grain of salt, given the fact I’m not a professional. Meeting a criterion on a DSM-5 checklist is not an evidence of one being mentally ill. As for the length, I’m going to keep this fairly short since I don’t want to go beyond the scope of this reply. One could easily span long college level lectures going in-depth on this issue. Personality disorders are complex and multifactorial in their pathogenesis, and I’m really, really, really, really, really oversimplifying things on purpose.

The TL;DR of this is that Sasuke displays a pattern of psychotic features due to a post-traumatic stress disorder. Having said that, I do not subscribe to the categorical approach of personality disorders. I myself am in favour of a much more dimensional and multi-layered approach to personality disorders, which is observable in co-occurring disorders, also known as comorbidity.

Nonetheless, let’s start with the basics. I put the rest under a cut for more convenient reading.

Keep reading

Not everyone on your Facebook, tumblur,instagram or Twitter are truly your friends/family. It’s a sad fact. Be mindful of what you share/post even if your account is private because honestly, there’s really no private domain for social media. Some pretend to be “friends” but are really waiting to see you fall… #notetoself

flickr

untitled by mitchell haindfield
Via Flickr:
U.S. District Courthouse, Seattle, Washington

Things private people and their families do not do when linked to a celebrity:

  • pose for pictures with the celebrity outside of a club instead of avoiding the paps, covering their face, or at least climbing straight into the car
  • agree to have their relationship to the celebrity made public in the first place
  • show up at the celebrity’s concerts on the floor of the venue
  • agree to get papped multiple times during the same week while on private property
  • make new, recognizable social media accounts or make old accounts public
  • respond to fans and hold conversations with them online
  • like posts dissing the celebrity or make comments dissing the celebrity on social media
  • buy site domains related to the celebrity, one of which isn’t even related to the “private” person in any way

A therapist whom I suspected of being thoroughly fake and socially manipulative in her relations with the people she works with just disappeared as we tend to do when our current social domains become too boring or too demanding. She was brilliant at what she did, it’s just a shame that what she did was projecting seductive illusions of genuine friendship and connection at vulnerable, isolated young people for professional and personal entertainment, influence and benefit. Goodbye, C, you were an interesting acquaintance.