Who Will Be a Violent White Supremacist? Part 1: We Cannot Predict.

Global Information Society Watch 2014 – Communications surveillance in the digital age. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Author: Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

by Alice LoCicero

It may come as unexpected bad news to many readers, but even “the experts” who propose what seem like logical programs to predict who will engage in violence against civilians for a political cause cannot do that. The idea has its appeal–predict who will become violent and intervene to prevent it before they get too close to acting. But, in fact, no one can predict, on an individual level, who will become violent in the future.

That is not to say that we don’t know anything—we know, for example, that men are more likely to engage in physical violence than women. But nothing we know can be relied upon to predict whether a specific individual—male or female⁠—will act violently in the future. 

There are multiple articles advocating programs (almost all of which reflect implicit or explicit bias against Muslim youth) intended to identify youth who are apt to become terrorists. Appropriately, these articles generally include a disclaimer saying there’s no consistent pattern to help us actually predict who might become a terrorist. That is, no one knows what the path to terrorism might look like; it’s impossible to predict, for any individuals, whether they will engage in violence against civilians for political purposes. 

Telling it like it is, here’s a quote from a 2017 article in the American Psychologist, by terrorism researcher John Horgan: “Though terrorist profiles exist in a broad sense, no meaningful (i.e., having predictive validity) psychological profile has been found either within or across groups.”

Given the lack of a solid scientific foundation for predicting the development of terrorists, many scientific and professional articles on the “terrorist threat” suggest that more research is needed–a reasonable suggestion. However, terrifyingly, others recommend programs and interventions based on conjectures, hypotheses, and theories about 1) who in the community might be helpful in predicting potential terrorists, and 2) how we might get them to inform the authorities of their suspicions about their friends, neighbors, and/or family members.

Just think about this: Here we have “professionals” making the outrageous assertion that, since neither researchers nor clinicians know who will become violent, we should get members of the community to inform on other members of the community, and assume that they’re correct.* 

Ask yourself: What are the implications of getting family, friends, and community members to inform police if they think someone may be on the path to committing terrorist acts? Some authors even suggest that teachers and/or care providers should report if they have some reason to think someone is at risk for developing into a terrorist. Some even have lists of risk factors. But the lists do not stand up to scientific inquiry.

It’s a House of Cards, and an expensive one at that. 

*Readers might wonder about the “duty to warn”—i.e., clinicians’ legal duty to inform potential victims and law enforcement if a patient threatens imminent harm to an identifiable person or persons. The differences here are: duty to warn involves 1) Imminent harm and 2) patient report. That is, if a patient–or anyone– tells a clinician that they’re about to do harm, the obligation is to believe them.  But the programs proposed for predicting future terrorists are not oriented to self-reported imminent actions, but to scrutinizing kids to guess which ones are likely to become terrorists in the future.  

Reprinted, lightly edited, from an article published Aug 30, 2019, on the Psychology Today website.

Alice LoCicero, Ph.D., is past president of the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence, Division 48 of the APA.

  In Print: Creating Young Martyrs: Conditions That Make Dying in a Terrorist Attack Seem Like a Good Idea (Contemporary Psychology (Hardcover)) Online: Personal Website

“They’re Different from Us”: The Profiteers of Prejudice

 

March for justice after the greensboro massacre. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: The Romero Institute

By Roy Eidelson

They’re Different from Us.” It’s a favorite mind game of the 1% when they want to stifle broad opposition to their agenda. By manipulating our understanding of what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible, this psychological appeal takes advantage of prejudice to promote distrust and division within and across communities.

Today’s elites know that solidarity with the disadvantaged and mistreated is jeopardized whenever differences like race, gender, and religion are emphasized and exaggerated. That’s why so many one-percenters highlight these differences while downplaying similarities in the concerns and aspirations we all share. If this ploy works, it divides groups that might otherwise form a more united and more potent resistance. When such coalitions fail to materialize, the winners are the defenders of extreme inequality who’ve long ago forsaken the common good.

What makes these “They’re Different from Us” appeals psychologically effective is that we tend to view ingroup members more favorably than outgroup members. When we’re persuaded that someone belongs to the same group we do, we usually perceive them as more trustworthy, we hold them in higher regard, and we’re more willing to share scarce resources with them. In part, this positive bias reflects our belief that these individuals have a lot in common with us. Even if we’ve never met them, we imagine that their values, attitudes, and life experiences are probably similar to our own. However, if we see people as members of a different group instead, then we don’t care as much about their welfare and there’s a greater chance that we’ll view them as potential adversaries rather than allies. Such divisiveness is exactly what the 1% want.

The ambitions of one-percenters don’t require that they all hold explicitly racist or prejudiced attitudes about Hispanics, African Americans, Muslims, or other groups—although some obviously do. But even those who don’t can still take advantage of the fact that bigotry in the United States continues to divide individuals and groups whose collective futures could be brighter if unwarranted suspicions gave way to mutual respect and support. Law professor Ian Haney López has described this approach as strategic racism: “purposeful efforts to use racial animus as leverage to gain material wealth, political power, or heightened social standing.” Journalist Naomi Klein has similarly noted, “White supremacy, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia have been the elite’s most potent defenses against genuine democracy.”

Today it’s clear that the leadership of the Republican Party and many titans of corporate America are comfortable supporting—or at least acquiescing to—a litany of racist and discriminatory White House policies. Their reward includes billionaire tax cuts, windfall profits, deregulation of their industries, and other favors reserved for them alone. For some this is perhaps a devil’s bargain; for others, it’s undoubtedly considered a win-win situation.

If we want to focus on the kind of differences that truly matter, we should turn our attention to the striking divergences between the documented policy preferences of the 1% compared to the rest of us. In a nutshell, Americans in general are much stronger supporters of a higher minimum wage, labor unions to strengthen workers’ rights, affordable healthcare for everyone, a more progressive tax structure, higher taxes for high-income earners and corporations, government initiatives to decrease unemployment, and a stronger social welfare safety net for those facing adversity. These are all worthy and achievable goals. The first step is to recognize and reject the manipulative “They’re Different from Us” mind game that’s designed to divide us.

Note from Kathie MM:  This is a condensed version of an article originally published on Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dangerous-ideas/201806/they-re-different-us-the-profiteers-prejudice

 

Beware Resurgence of Deadly Diseases, Part 3

by Kathie MM

Out, out damn deadly disease!

We recently began a series on racialopathy and ethnicopathy , deadly social diseases, all too contagious in these virulent times.

How can we stop them?

Many diseases—think of cancer—are very complex, taking different forms, attacking different parts and processes in different ways in different people.

To combat those diseases, it is vital to understand them in all their complexity.

A useful place to begin is by uploading (free!) The Official Study Guide by Mary Pugh Clark.  Written to accompany Deep Denial, The Persistence of White Supremacy in United States History and Life by David Billings, it has considerable merit on its own.

Billings, an anti-racist trainer and organizer with The People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond (www.pisab.org), is an ordained United Methodist minister and historian. According to civil rights activist Charlayne Hunter-Gault, “No one speaks to racism and its cure better than David Billings, a white Southerner who has seen it all. His is a voice that needs to be heard.”

Clark’s chapter-by-chapter exposition of Deep Denial, like the book itself, is rich in history,  ideas, and  reasons why all of us should challenge the specter of White Supremacy in all its noxious cloaks.

Among the valuable features of the study guide are questions encouraging analysis, reflection, and action related to the material in each chapter.

Here are some examples:

“• What can white people who benefit from gentrification do to mitigate the effects of displacement on families and businesses?

  • What are ways you can engage people who have opinions based on racial stereotyping?
  • If you are involved in non-profit or religious organizations, what are effective ways you can do anti-racist work?

Reading Clark’s Study Guide and Billings’ Deep Denial may get us one step closer to curing one lng-deadly disease.

 

Getting to Better Signs

https://youtu.be/Y_TFGYV35zQ

In response to my last post, “Getting to Good“, several engaging peace readers sent  photos of signs displayed at the counter-rally on Boston Commons last Saturday, when members of a number of social justice groups faced off against the group rallying on behalf of “free speech.” This rally and counter-rally were responses to the  August 12 violence at a White Nationalist rally in Charlottesville, VA.

Consider the signs in these photos.  To what extent do you think they can be effective if their goal is to promote nonviolent anti-racist activism?  Are some better than others?  Which ones? Why?  Have you seen anti-racism signs that you think are more effective than these might be?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me, these signs serve their purpose more effectively than other banners I saw full of curses.  I am definitely not convinced that blazoning the F word on an anti-anything placard helps any cause .

Moreover, when the cause is one in which I believe, like the fight against racism (or environmental devastation or hunger), it distresses me that the advocates for these causes cannot conceive of a more civil manner to promote their goals. Where is the evidence that expletives resolve conflicts?

And are the bearers of hateful anti-racism placards really supporters of equal rights, social justice, and peace, or are they mostly trouble-makers, spoilers, infiltrators?

Again, I would love to have you submit your views on these questions. Thank you.