Author Archives: burford

Introverts have challenges but they’re not oppressed. Prove me wrong (please).

This is a reworking of something I posted on reddit last night in response to someone’s question about why introverts are the subject of discrimination.

I’m not an expert in prejudice-against-introverts research (if that exists) but a few (admittedly quick) searches aren’t turning up anything about that (link here to a google scholar search). I think it’s at least 50% probable that there is some research like this, somewhere, but until I find it the evidence I can see around me does not seem to suggest that introverts are the targets of systematic prejudice or discrimination or negative stereotyping.

On the other hand, there’s certainly a lot of assuming that introverts are a marginalized class of individuals. I should probably put “introverts” in quotes because introversion is a dimensional personality trait, not a category. Even with dimensions, of course, categories can arise; people who all have similar values on some trait might “cluster” in terms of other things, like correlates of the trait, outcomes, life experiences, etc. So that’s still possible, but I don’t have that information so I continue to think in dimensional terms: everyone has some “amount” of introversion: some people have lots, and others have only a little. I’ve included measures of introversion/extroversion in some empirical studies (N=400-1,000) and it’s a quite normally-distributed variable. Other researchers find the same. The vast majority of people have “medium” levels of introversion.

Despite the (apparent to me, right now) lack of evidence, lots of writers of scholarly and quasi-scholarly literature insist that “introverts” (OK, I made my point about dimensions; I’ll stop using the quotes, but it hurts me to do so) are marginalized, in some cases implying that they experience discrimination similar to racism or misogyny. The evidence presented by these introvexperts, (dorky label, just go with it), tends to rely heavily on lists of cultural messages (e.g., common sayings, famous quotes, familiar experiences) critical of traits associated with high-introvert personalities and demonstrations that many benefits in our society are more difficult to achieve for people with very high levels of introversion.

I don’t think any of the above adds up (yet?) to the conclusion that introverts are an oppressed social group, for at least four reasons. Details for each after the “more” link:

  1. There might not be any empirical research documenting such discrimination or oppression
  2. Alongside the lists of introvert-negative/extrovert-positive social messages it’s fairly easy to make large lists of the opposite—introvert-positive/extrovert-negative social messages
  3. Difficulties for people with a particular characteristic do not necessarily imply discrimination or oppression
  4. The overall tone of the “in defense of introverts” messaging is not totally consistent with the message that introverts are systematically disadvantaged or that equality is the motivation of the messages.

Continue reading

Trump Voters: I blame you.

Actually, I think “blame” is the wrong word. Better: I hold you responsible.

It feels like many Trump voters wish the rest of the country wouldn’t hold them responsible for the things Trump is doing, as the backlash intensifies and settles in for the long haul. I still see posts and tweets from Trump voters that seem to be saying, “why are you so upset at me?” or “Why isn’t your criticism ‘balanced’ to include [Obama/Clinton/protesters]?”. But the criticism should not be “balanced” like that, and the nation absolutely should hold you responsible for Trump’s behavior, for some good reasons (none of which are “you’re a bad person”).

  1. You are the main hope for change.
  2. You won.
  3. It’s your mess.

Explained below. Continue reading

We live in TrumpNation now.

It’s the day after Trump won the national election. Most people I know (because I know a lot of liberals) are in shock. I’m disappointed, uncertain, worried, kind of sad, but not in shock. This always felt like it would happen. Of course I can “believe this could happen.” The kind of people ultimately responsible for Trump’s win are the kind of people I grew up around, much of my childhood and adolescence. Rural Arizona, suburban Utah, rural Montana, rural Washington. Farming towns, mining towns, ranching towns, logging towns. Sarah Palin painted these places as the “real America,” and my stomach turned when she did. Populist candidates know they have to pander to rural America to get the votes they need. Sure, there are some lovely people in rural America, but when they appeal to that demographic they’re also appealing to the kind of people who made some of my childhood and adolescence a living hell. I don’t use that term lightly. I can’t really compare myself to holocaust victims or kids in Sudan or Syria, but it was 100% awful for me. At the time all I knew was my own kind of misery. I didn’t compare it to anything except memories of life without the misery, and it was infinitely worse. Continue reading

Dear LDS Church: Yes, it absolutely is punishing children for their parents’ actions

My testimony situation (i.e., lack of such) isn’t, as far as I can tell, about the LDS church’s many anti-inclusion policies or the many statements made by church leaders that can be seen as insensitive, tribal, reactionary, etc. However, I won’t blame anyone who leaves the church over this new policy change. It really is mind-boggling to me how people claiming to lead the church established by Jesus could have made these rules. I suppose, if I still felt connected enough to the doctrine to need to decide where I stood vis-a-vis the church, I might need to tell myself that the modern church, just like ancient Israel, is capable of being led by people who make really, really questionable decisions.

In typical adorable-yet-horrifying-native-Utahn naive fashion, lds.net both summarizes the issues and clarifies my reasons for being taken so very far aback, in a blog post defending the changes (note: copy-pasted on 11/7/2015, 5:45 a.m. EST):

The first change edits the definition of apostasy. The new definition adds that entering a same-sex marriage constitutes apostasy.

The second change requires that for children of same-sex couples to be baptized they must be adults, and specifically reaffirm their testimony of eternal marriage.

Continue reading

The System Of The World and How It Always Wins

There were times, as a child and young adolescent, when I spent many carefree years just being me. I was encouraged to do this, so I didn’t hold back. I wasn’t always happy doing this, and the world’s responses were sometimes negative, even brutal. But sometimes they were positive. There were people who liked how I was, or at least I thought there were.

Then I grew up. Continue reading

That’s me in the corner

I really do feel that I’ve lost my religion–lost my faith. It was precious to me, and now it’s essentially gone. I don’t feel I made any evil choices that led to this situation, or at least none that I could have done differently and still been me. In that way, I suppose it feels kind of inevitable, but I hate those implications. Continue reading

J Max Wilson, calm down and go study research methods

In a recent post on what is apparently a faith-based blog, someone named J Max Wilson purports to tell Mormons “what [they] should know” about “that Mormon gender issues survey.” This survey. The blog post has many of the hallmarks of a wagon-circling, lines-in-the-sand, us-vs-them call to arms (or at least to fear):

  • A title that hints at dark secrets not apparent to the naked eye
  • Allegations of guilt by association: the parent group of the surveyors includes a scary guy, and in case you don’t know why he’s scary, J Max Wilson will tell you: because he’s a “well-known LDS dissenter and agitator.”
  • Dog-whistle terms (for conservative Latter-day Saints) are thrown around with abandon: progressiveactivistsagitation, liberaltypical agenda, academic, propaganda.

Continue reading

Land of the Touchy

So. I’ve given up my beloved job in the very far southness of this land and taken one in its northeastness. Most things about this new job are just fine/great. However, I think there’s a larger proportion of really irritable, sensitive people in the administration and service sectors of this school. Actually, I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s what it feels like.

Here are the ways I have apparently annoyed/angered/hurt individuals so far:

  • Asking if there were any unused surplus computers available for my research.
  • Telling students to come see me personally for advice about whether X class is ‘the best choice right now.’
  • Asking whether I could hold my statistics course in a computer lab.
  • Requesting administrator rights on my office computer so I can install programs and, um, remove icons from the desktop.
  • Most recently: submitting a request to the IT department to get a VGA cable for the room I teach in, so I can connect my laptop to the projection system.

To be a bit more fair, I don’t know whether the admin rights request annoyed anyone, but I was warned away from asking by several people, and since I made the request (no answer, yet) I’ve heard from various third parties about it, as if the request were some monumental thing–it’s not, because I know others have requested the same thing… and the IT guy with the VGA cable: I have heard that he’s just irritable in general.

Still, I heave a huge sigh. I feel like any request I make, or even tentative question I ask, has about an 80% chance of being met with concerned, worried, or openly annoyed faces and phrases like, “I don’t know… we’ve never done it like that before,” or “there’s no rule against it, but I wouldn’t if I were you.”

Sigh. The adjustment continues. Luckily, my faculty colleagues seem to be pretty high-quality people, though admittedly they include a good dose of the expected diversity of faculty quirks. which mostly makes them more awesome, as a group.

Professors: Advisers to the royalty

In Olden Times, kings and queens and emperor types had advisers. Well, maybe; I don’t know–I’m not a historian. But what matters for this particular piece is that we have stories about them having advisers. We apparently like to believe they did. We have stories about kings and queens listening to their wise advisers, being used by malicious advisers, being made foolish by foolish advisers, and so on. I’ve been interested, since I was a kid, in the stories of royalty trying to use their power and authority to guarantee a certain kind of advice. They fired (or beheaded) advisers who didn’t tell them things they wanted to hear, or only selected advisers who were lickspittles in the first place, or used threats and bribes to try to ensure royalty-favorable answers to all questions. We understand that these kings and queens were letting their short-term, selfish desires override more important long-term concerns. We can watch, in the stories, as the kings and queens shoot themselves (and, of course, their subjects) in the foot when they refuse to make a place in their court for the advisers with the unpleasant messages. We want to scream at them that they need to hear–and even bankroll–the kind of thinking that makes them feel uncomfortable or guilty or confused. But they don’t listen to the audience. They fire the advisers, they burn them, they throw them in prisons, they threaten their families. Continue reading

Passion wanes

I could say “nobody tells you this will happen,” but I think I was told often. In fact, that’s one reason I never wanted to grow up. I knew things about adulthood (a few too many things–no, not those kinds of things… well, some of those, but that’s not what I mean). I had a pretty dismal picture of maturity from a young age. Right now, I’m talking about passion. Passion wanes. Not just sexual passion; passion. Continue reading

GIFS of first sexual experiences

I’m laughing at this Reddit thread, but the comments are often so crude that I don’t want to read them. So I’m just going to link a bunch of the GIFs.

“I was a natural”

 

“My name is Alex.”

“It was less than spectacular.”

(not title)

“Well, it was good for me.”

(no title):

?

(alternately…)

I’m not sure how it felt, but this was me the next morning:

(no title)

(no title)

(no title)

?

(no title)

“Oops!”

“alcohol is not always your friend”:

“[alcohol] does a good job of getting you there, but then betrays you.”

(no title)

“I had no idea what I was doing”:

(no title):

?

Um….

“This has never happened before.”

“Owww.”

(no title)

(no title)

“Who, me?”

(no title)

“Gonna have to go with this”

“Most likely this”

(no title)

“This sums it up well.”

“Trust me, I tried.”

(no title)

?

(no title)

“This pretty much sums up how I felt the minute afterwards.”

“I was a little nervous”

“…”

(no title)

“Doesn’t matter had sex”

OK, I must stop. Time for life.

Robert Crais: Ritual and Myth, not Literature

I sometimes “read” audiobooks that look interesting at my local library. I take a chance since they’re free. Well, I read Robert Crais‘s 2010 novel The First Rule. It’s “A Joe Pike novel.” Within a few minutes I had figured out that it was what I might call “tough guy lit.” It’s about a tough guy who is tougher than all the other guys and then the story’s over. As literature it was approximately as interesting to me as my dryer’s stock of old lint, but I listened (almost) all the way through because I became increasingly fascinated with this as a different kind of document, from a culture I’m not part of. Not quite ethnography, because there’s little chance this is a realistic depiction of much of anything. More like myth, or legend–something designed to communicate and reinforce shared values? Or something?

Anyway, a little about the book: Joe Pike is an ex-mercenary who is now a pawn shop owner. He’s tough. He spends his free time exercising and staying tough. He knows all about guns and how to use them, fighting and how to win. He talks very infrequently (this is pretty important) and is capable of being completely still for hours or days at a time without any indication of boredom or distress (also important). He’s intelligent, but you don’t see him using his considerable brains for eggheaded pursuits; only for winning fights. There is very little interesting about him, because he’s a one-dimensional caricature of a certain type of extreme idealized gender role. A dull character, through and through. Even the hint of a “bad” past is kind of ridiculous because his past is also perfectly aligned with an extreme idealization of aggressive maleness. Continue reading

Somebody was really mad at me for at least a year

Somebody–almost certainly an ex-girlfriend–was really, really mad at me at least from 2005 through 2006, and as new details come to light I find myself thinking of this a lot.

  • Right before my wife and I got married, someone sent a letter to her–it got delayed so she got it just after our honeymoon–alleging, in some detail, that I was a horrible person of various kinds. The letter was signed by a person claiming to be my cousin, and was postmarked from Atlanta. No return address, of course. It shook both my wife and me up. She talked to my sister and verified that I had no cousin by that name, and no relatives of any kind in Georgia. And no, she had never heard of the horrible allegations and didn’t believe them.
  • Around this time (I can’t actually remember whether it was before or after the letter) I received a couple of emails from young men–one European and one American, IIRC–threatening to come to where I lived and cause me extreme bodily harm for the horrible things I had allegedly done to their good friend, my ex-girlfriend.
  • While I was on internship in Indiana, I heard from a couple of people back in Ohio, where I had gone to grad school, that there were rumors circulating about me that I won’t even write here, on this theoretically-public blog. Vague rumors, but the source was certain they were circulating.
  • In the spring of 2005, I have just learned, some of my future colleagues at the university to which I was applying for a job received one or more anonymous emails alleging bad things about my character (I’m not sure what things) and saying that I had been trash-talking the university and department I was applying to, and possibly the people I had met during the interview. Continue reading

Pornography, Modesty, and LDS Pharisees

The teaser: maybe we should be chastising men who wear nice suits to church, drive nice cars, or demonstrate “leadership.” Okay, on with my rant du jour.

We Mormons are kind of obsessed with pornography: lamenting its terrible influence, warning about its dangers, etc. Porn is bad, no question. However, I worry that we members place too much emphasis on personal spirituality and not enough on the consequences of pornography consumption to others, and that both ends of that imbalance have bad consequences. I also worry that “personal spirituality” means, as is too often the case, male spirituality. This is going to veer right on into the modesty issue, BTW, which is kind of predictable.

The more I read, see, and think, the more I feel that our pornography-centered moral panic is problematic for several reasons (in roughly increasing order of rantiness):

1. Misinformation.

I think porn is a terrible thing, but not necessarily for all the reasons we often claim it is. There have been a lot of misleading or false claims repeated on this issue; we pile extra, often made-up “reasons” for opposing pornography use on top of the very good real reasons. To clear the air: pornography does not make people gay, and it probably doesn’t turn anyone into a rapist or child molester*. As always, I have problems with agendas being pushed using falsehoods. Now that we know these have little or no empirical support, we should stop parroting them as if they were irrefutable truths.

2. Woman-blaming and control.

It would be inaccurate to claim we’re exactly like Saudi clerics blaming insufficiently-burqua’d babies for child molestation, but when we perseverate on the modesty issue, we’re arguably dipping our toes in that pool. There’s a direct connection between our pornography obsession and our modesty obsession, perhaps best exemplified by some members’ love of repeating the claim that immodestly-dressed young women “become pornography.” I’m one of the many people currently on the bandwagon of criticizing our over-emphasis on modesty in women. I think such over-emphasis leads to bad consequences, independent of any benefits it may bestow, and no matter what motivates it. Research and boatloads of anecdotes convince me that these consequences can include increases in blaming victims of sexual abuse and in sex-based prejudice. The modesty/porn panic also leads, I think, to a subtle but real transfer of social power from women to men in the church. If women’s modesty is seen by members as causing spiritual problems, exclusively to the men of the church, then it stands to reason that the men (or other leaders) may feel entitled to regulate women’s (or young women’s, or single women’s) behavior to protect the community. The way we approach the porn and the modesty issues can lead to social control of women, backed by a feeling of righteous justification. Not too different from an ultra-conservative Muslim cleric insisting that women “invite seduction” by showing both eyes through their niqab, eh?

3. Navel-gazing Pharisaism. Continue reading

Dockers Ad: My Parody of a Parody

It’s been a while since the ridiculous Dockers “wear the pants” ad went live, but since I live under a rock I just saw it a few days ago. Posted on my FB feed by a niece. A female. She loved it, and she (and I’ve come to realize others) apparently took it at face value. It’s obviously a parody of right-wing gender-role attitudes, but I guess it’s too subtle. So anyway, I made another parody, and perhaps this one drives the “it’s a horrible, painful joke” point home (click for a slightly more readable image).

theSkirt

Breast Cancer: no redemption, no comeuppance

It’s a very unpleasant thing to realize that you are a villain in someone’s story. I find it even more unpleasant to know that former friends, as well as people I’ve never met, may hear this story about me, with no other perspective. Several years ago, I dated someone. It was, in my memory, at least, a good relationship. I loved this girl, even though she was too young for me to date (not legally; just, kind of, socially). It’s tempting to minimize my feelings so I don’t seem like the pathetic old guy wrapped around the young woman’s finger, but that’s probably who I was. Many people disliked the fact that we were dating. Her sister, for instance, though I never heard it from her own mouth. Her sister’s husband, with whom I had previously been friends, became cold and unfriendly, and told me more than once that he considered my pursuit of the relationship to be tantamount to a sin, or an overt act of aggression. Her parents–well. They were, perhaps, the theoretical maximum on the disapproval scale.

Despite my digressions to the contrary, this is about her sister. I liked her. I knew her sister first, actually. She was a very entertaining woman, and, well, I just thought she was fun, when she wasn’t on the opposite side of the relationship divide. She had her flaws, which were shown off in various ways in the brief time I knew her, but who doesn’t? Somewhere in the family, I came to believe (much later, after an initially amiable end to the relationship turned ugly), there was something really weird happening with information: I started to wonder, from subsequent events, whether my ex-girlfriend’s family (including her sister) had ever heard the story of our relationship as I knew it, as she and I seemed to live it, and as she narrated it to me. I started to doubt what seemed unarguable for a year: that the two of us were mutually concerned with each other’s welfare despite being beset by some well-meaning but ultimately irrational family members. Every part of that scenario seemed to come into question, after a while. I came to doubt, after a few nasty events, whether even the most fundamental things she had told me about her family’s words and actions were true at all, or whether she had represented our relationship to them in the way she told me she had. But that’s a cauterized, left-in-the-past mess, as much as such things ever are.

Back to her sister. Well. She died. I found out so recently that the time is best counted in hours, not days. She died of breast cancer and is survived by the husband mentioned above and at least two children. It seems inconceivable that I could have not known this was happening. Shoot, I still don’t even know how many children they had. Continue reading

Sylvia Plath: RIP 50 years ago

I guess this is (pretty close to) the 50th anniversary of Sylvia Plath’s death. Sigh. I fell in love with her writing when I was a teenager and never stopped being punched in the gut by it. I got a nice quotation from Paste magazine:

“Why are we conditioned to the smooth, strawberry-and-cream Mother-Goose-world… only to be broken on the wheel as we grow older and become aware of ourselves as individuals with a dull responsibility in life?”

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is imminence.

Dear conservatives with conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace, FEMA concentration camps, the Affordable Care Act, and gun control:

This is the real conspiracy, you idiots.

The rest is just political theater, and your political leaders are partnering up with Democrat leaders and the media to keep your focus on anything–anything–else. Democrat politicians won’t talk about this because it might weaken their hold on the White House. Conservative politicians won’t talk about it because our current president has found a way to get golden eggs from the Republican goose, and those Republicans really, really, really don’t want to kill that goose. I’m sure they have highly specific plans for it once the Oval Office turns a bit redder.

(Okay, I’m sort of sorry for calling some people idiots, but seriously… it really seems to me that anyone who claims to care about threats to the constitution but is not bothered by this stuff is either mind-bogglingly hypocritical, borderline delusional, or just seriously, seriously ignorant of the existence and reality of these issues.)

 

Recent History: Guns Will Not Safeguard Our Freedom

Dear Gun Rights Advocates,

In general, you tend to emphasize personal freedom and liberty and whatnot in your defense of gun ownership–gun ownership is as much a God-given right as breathing or the profit motive. However, you generally have a keen understanding of the principle that individual liberty must be tempered when the human consequences of that liberty are great, so when you are confronted with the negative consequences of large-scale and generally unregulated gun ownership, it becomes necessary to either tone down the gun-ownership rhetoric or show that gun ownership has benefits that outweigh the negative side effects. Of course, the first option is out of the question so your answers, at least in my Facebook feed, to the dangerousness of gun ownership seem to fall into these categories:

  1. There aren’t any real downsides to large-scale societal gun ownership
  2. I need my guns for self-defense against criminals (related: Gun ownership deters crime)
  3. Guns are our defense against tyrrany and loss of constitutional freedom [this one is my focus, here]
  4. Looks like we got ourselves a librul gun control nut on our hands maybe you need a little time at the business end of my .357 to clear your head, if ya knowuttamean. Continue reading