why do you think it cant be known to be causal? As I’ve said before, you don’t need to imply determinism to say that one can trace the neurological effect of hate speech in the brain

Yeah, and how they think about what they're hearing, the semantics they apply to it, etc. Where they wouldn't at all have to think about it the way they are.

Okay, the first paper you cited says, for example, "Similarly, demonstrating the causal effects of media or political rhetoric on people’s prejudiced attitudes or conduct is fraught with methodological difficulties and few convincing studies exist. "

Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? — Terrapin Station

Well no, obviously I'm referring to the entire rest of the document which details what can be gleaned from those few convincing studies, plus what can be raised as a serious concern from the even greater number of less convincing studies. I've been perfectly upfront from the start that social sciences can only ever be suggestive.

Still waiting for that large number of convincing studies to support your contention that beliefs/actions cannot have external causes.

why do you think it cant be known to be causal? — khaled

I don't even think we can show a correlation.

I don't mean that we can't show this in principle necessarily. But certainly there's nothing showing a correlation yet, forget trying to show causality.

For causality, because (a) we can't even give an account of mentality being identical to brain states yet in a manner that can convince people on the fence about mind/brain ontology--we have a ton of work to do there, if it will ever be possible to give an account of it that's plausible to fence-sitters (forget about those firmly in the "not physical" camp), and (b) we'd have to be able to show that free will doesn't obtain. (Which might turn out to be impossible to do in principle . . . well, and especially because I believe it's incorrect; I believe we have free will.)

Well no, obviously I'm referring to the entire rest of the document — Isaac

So that statement contradicts what other text in the document that you believe forwards a claim that hate speech is causal to violent actions in others?

So that statement contradicts what other text in the document that you believe forwards a claim that hate speech is causal to violent actions in others? — Terrapin Station

No. That statement says that there are few convincing studies. It is not a contradiction to then go on to explore what that small number of convincing studies can tell us, and what we might need to be cautious about as a consequence of other, less convincing studies. Where's the contradiction?

Still waiting for the equivalent document with the large number of convincing studies showing that beliefs/actions cannot have external causes. You keep forgetting to attach them, having a senior moment?

It says it's fraught with methodological difficulties, and "few convincing studies" doesn't necessarily imply there are any convincing studies, unless you're an Aspie who is insisting that we read everything strictly "literally."

So again, what text in the paper do you believe supports a claim that hate speech is causal to any violence?

Table 1.3 in the paper doesn't list "hate speech" as a cause anywhere, for another example.

What in the paper do you believe claims that hate speech is causal, or even correlated to violence?

You are clearly exercising bias here. That document does not support your argument, except if you have heavy confirmation bias like when religious folks read the bible. You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data. Then, you try and shift the burden of proof...also like a religious person.
Conclusion: you aren’t arguing in good faith, but showing your dogmatic thinking on this issue.

What in the paper do you believe claims that hate speech is causal, or even correlated to violence? — Terrapin Station

I'm not going to run an entire introduction to psychology course. The paper is aimed at those who do not hold irrational views on psychology. They are talking about the primary causes (the ones we need to identify) one of which is familial and education influences (weak evidence), others are personality and structurally based. But no one feels the need to prove that, for example, those with a personality which predisposes them to prejudice, still have to arrive at that prejudice by some means. I presented the first paper as evidence (which you asked for) of the widespread opinion. The second paper is what I submitted as research evidence of a correlation. However, if you read Judith Harris's work on peer group influence you will more details on the weak evidence supporting the speech-based causes of prejudice. I'm trying to find an online version or summary.

Still waiting on the equivalent evidence for your position, fourth time asking now.

That document does not support your argument, — DingoJones

You mean my argument that there is a possibility hate speech might lead to increased violence? How does it not support that?

You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data — DingoJones

You mean like my directly saying that social sciences cannot provide strong evidence for their theories because of methodological problems and can only ever be suggestive? How is that ignoring those caveats?

Then, you try and shift the burden of proof — DingoJones

Shifting the burden of proof implies that the burden lay rightly in one place prior to my actions. So why is the burden of proof correctly on me such that my requesting evidence from the other side is a disingenuous 'shift'?

Thats not really what your claiming, well not all you're claiming. You are saying hate speech should be banned, aren't you?

You are saying hate speech should be banned, aren't you? — DingoJones

Yes, but I'm arguing that that does not require absolutely convincing evidence of harm. It is sufficient, where the potential harm is great and the loss of liberty from legislation small, to legislate on the basis of weak evidence as a precaution.

I suppose the issue I have is the so-called effect of the words, when clearly the effect—hearing, constructing meaning, decoding sounds—has only me as it’s cause. Once the sound or word enters my domain, so to speak, it is under the control of my processes whether automatic or not. — NOS4A2

I wonder if there's some kind of psychological reason why you want to claim full ownership of your response to things...

claim full ownership of your response to things... — S

I don’t think that’s what he’s doing, I think it’s more that he thinks that as long as the information processing and deciding happened within one’s own body that it’s his responsibility, automatic or not

It's similar to something like learning how to drive. At first, you need to consciously think about everything you're doing, and you need to figure out how to do it. After you've done it a bit, though, you no longer need to think about it to do it. That doesn't imply that it's not something you're doing. — Terrapin Station

Okay, but clearly that's not free will. It's not will, and it's not free. It's an unconscious automatic response.

Why would we ban something based on unconvincing evidence? Thats a low standard. To give up any ANY liberty the standard needs to be higher than that. Id go further than that, I dont think its a good idea to ever base anything at all on unconvincing evidence.
I have to say, it seems a bit disingenuous to try and dodge the clear relation to your stance on hate speech and this paper.

I don’t think that’s what he’s doing, I think it’s more that he thinks that as long as the information processing and deciding happened within one’s own body that it’s his responsibility, automatic or not. — khaled

But that's off topic. It doesn't matter whether or not he thinks that that's his responsibility. It matters whether or not it is his free will or whether it's something else. The automatic part can't be his free will, regardless of whether or not he wants to be irrational and claim responsibility for it.

didn’t realize you guys were discussing free will my apologies. There are like 3 threads on that ongoing already though

Well, originally it was about whether or not hate speech should be allowed, and it kind of still is, but that lead to a discussion about cause and effect, with some people being unreasonable enough to deny the known effects that hate speech can have.

Free will can't be part of the equation if we're trying to claim that something prior to it caused something. That's contradictory. Free will isn't deterministic. — Terrapin Station

But free will doesn't exist. I haven't seen a single good reason from you or anyone else in this discussion to believe in such a thing as free will. Every mental act is determined. Why would I believe otherwise, when that makes perfect sense?

You are clearly exercising bias here. That document does not support your argument, except if you have heavy confirmation bias like when religious folks read the bible. You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data. Then, you try and shift the burden of proof...also like a religious person.
Conclusion: you aren’t arguing in good faith, but showing your dogmatic thinking on this issue. — DingoJones

Yeah, I also had the impression that he's arguing in the vein of a fundie.

I'm not going to run an entire introduction to psychology course. — Isaac

Dude, just quote something in the paper that you believe amounts to a claim that hate speech is causal to violence.

That document does not support your argument, — DingoJones


You mean my argument that there is a possibility hate speech might lead to increased violence? How does it not support that?

You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data — DingoJones


You mean like my directly saying that social sciences cannot provide strong evidence for their theories because of methodological problems and can only ever be suggestive? How is that ignoring those caveats?

Then, you try and shift the burden of proof — DingoJones


Shifting the burden of proof implies that the burden lay rightly in one place prior to my actions. So why is the burden of proof correctly on me such that my requesting evidence from the other side is a disingenuous 'shift'? — Isaac

What he means by you not arguing in good faith is that you're now trying to ignore that you had just written:

" There's a correlation between hate speech and violence which just about every psychologist in the world thinks is causal (as in one of a number of causes, all of which are necessary). They think this off the back of decades of research. I've presented some of that research in a summary paper saying exactly that."

You're an extremely dishonest poster. You approach this stuff just like a fundie.

Okay, but clearly that's not free will. It's not will, and it's not free. It's an unconscious automatic response. — S

That bit didn't have anything to do with free will. It had to do with how meaning works.

You're a determinist. I'm not. Obviously I don't believe that free will is "wishful thinking" I think that determinism is thinking that hasn't moved past about 1840. — Terrapin Station

Well, the funny thing is that I was more on the fence when I entered this discussion, but now I find the notion of free will much less convincing than the alternatives.

Letting posts on this board sway you on something is a scary idea.

I wonder if there's some kind of psychological reason why you want to claim full ownership of your response to things...

Simply because they are my responses and no one else’s.

Do you also think that video games, movies, etc. can cause violence? Would you say that just about every psychologist in the world thinks those things are causal to violence? And if you don't think they're causal to violence, why not, when you think that hate speech is?

I didn't say that it's impossible for speech to be a cause of violent action. I said that we can't show that it is. — Terrapin Station

Why do you care so much about "showing"? It's the most plausible explanation.

Why do you care so much about "showing"? It's the most plausible explanation. — S

Nothing plausible about it in my view if we don't have empirical evidence to support it.

So that's why I care. I guess I'm more skeptical than you.