Comments on: On Not Getting It http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/10/on-not-getting-it/ Colliding Softly with the World of Ideas Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:34:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jesrad http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/10/on-not-getting-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1370 Jesrad Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:48:01 +0000 http://perbylund.com/blog/?p=107#comment-1370 The idea that distance and higher numbers of victims dehumanize the decision makers is apparently <a href="http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130939.html" rel="nofollow">empirically verified</a>. As for the scientism that reigns in mainstream economics, well, that's the point of the still raging debate on epistemology between neo-classics and austrian economists... The idea that distance and higher numbers of victims dehumanize the decision makers is apparently empirically verified.

As for the scientism that reigns in mainstream economics, well, that’s the point of the still raging debate on epistemology between neo-classics and austrian economists…

]]> By: Ken http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/10/on-not-getting-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1367 Ken Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:55:18 +0000 http://perbylund.com/blog/?p=107#comment-1367 The importance of studying individual differences has been neglected, but it has not been entirely overllooked. You haven't given your predecessors sufficient credit. Take a look at "personality" psychologists, such as Henry Murrary and Gordon Allport. There are others that don't come to mind right now. You might find Erik Erikson interesting for another reason (generativity vs. stagnation). Ken The importance of studying individual differences has been neglected, but it has not been entirely overllooked. You haven’t given your predecessors sufficient credit. Take a look at “personality” psychologists, such as Henry Murrary and Gordon Allport. There are others that don’t come to mind right now. You might find Erik Erikson interesting for another reason (generativity vs. stagnation).

Ken

]]> By: Moacir http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/10/on-not-getting-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1360 Moacir Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:53:37 +0000 http://perbylund.com/blog/?p=107#comment-1360 Maybe you should call them as researchers, whose MS Excel is the window to see the world. Maybe you should call them as researchers, whose MS Excel is the window to see the world.

]]> By: Mike http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/10/on-not-getting-it/comment-page-1/#comment-1356 Mike Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:09:22 +0000 http://perbylund.com/blog/?p=107#comment-1356 Perhaps 'Dehumanization' is a concept that an observer or a student of behavior is unlikely to come by these days. Quite right: "Scientism" is a way to avoid the horrible consequences of policy. Some high managers are in a position to wreak havoc on millions of people (by deciding to declare a war, for example). Others affect dozens of people in their immediate spheres. Low managers may act on the principle that all of his or her employees are interchangeable and replaceable. They are means to an end. Not really human. Most surprising (to me, at least) is that this dehumanizing tendency is so common in non-profit organizations which are supposed to honor the personhood of clients, if not employees as well. I have spent my working years in not-for-profit work, and have found that the preference for distancing one's self from the awful reality of one's client's lives is quite common. Of course, line workers in social service are exposed to a crushing mass of personal detail - as well as the 98.6 degree flesh and blood belonging to the gory details. Sometimes one wants to fly away from this intimate exposure. I appreciate your raising the issue. Perhaps ‘Dehumanization’ is a concept that an observer or a student of behavior is unlikely to come by these days. Quite right: “Scientism” is a way to avoid the horrible consequences of policy. Some high managers are in a position to wreak havoc on millions of people (by deciding to declare a war, for example). Others affect dozens of people in their immediate spheres. Low managers may act on the principle that all of his or her employees are interchangeable and replaceable. They are means to an end. Not really human.

Most surprising (to me, at least) is that this dehumanizing tendency is so common in non-profit organizations which are supposed to honor the personhood of clients, if not employees as well.

I have spent my working years in not-for-profit work, and have found that the preference for distancing one’s self from the awful reality of one’s client’s lives is quite common. Of course, line workers in social service are exposed to a crushing mass of personal detail – as well as the 98.6 degree flesh and blood belonging to the gory details. Sometimes one wants to fly away from this intimate exposure.

I appreciate your raising the issue.

]]>