from the working-exactly-as-intended dept.
From the ever politically neutral UC Berkeley (via phys.org) comes this fun little article.
The study highlights a paradoxical consequence of the political correctness (PC) norm. While PC behavior is generally thought to threaten the free expression of ideas, Professor Jennifer Chatman of the Haas School's Management of Organizations Group and her co-authors found that positioning such PC norms as the office standard provides a layer of safety in the workplace that fosters creativity.
"Creativity is essential to organizational innovation and growth. But our research departs from the prevailing theory of group creativity by showing that creativity in mixed-sex groups emerges, not by removing behavioral constraints, but by imposing them. Setting a norm that both clarifies expectations for appropriate behavior and makes salient the social sanctions that result from using sexist language unleashes creative expression by countering the uncertainty that arises in mixed-sex work groups," says Chatman.
Personally, I'd like to see the exact same study done with "political correctness" swapped out with simply "treating others with dignity and respect". This one smells entirely too strongly of an agenda to me.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 02 2014, @12:06AM
So much modern art fails because constraints were removed after traditional modes were discarded.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 02 2014, @12:31AM
> provides a layer of safety in the workplace that fosters creativity
Nobody told any of my bosses that...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @01:36AM
"We suggest that this critical view of the PC norm reflects a deeply rooted theoretical assumption that normative constraints inevitably stifle creative expression—an assumption we challenge."
Whatever happened to being direct while at the same time being polite?
But my feelings!
Whatever happened to calling someone out on their shit and shaming them so they'll never do it again?
But my feelings!
PC only belongs in politics, not getting shit done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @01:44AM
PC only belongs in politics, not getting shit done.
Agreed, but remember TFA is talking about creativity, not results. Their main scenario was "what are some ways to use the property that belonged to a defunct restaurant?" The real weakness in the article's thesis has less to do with getting shit done, and more to do with creativity (brainstorming, sharing of ideas, "Could we build an ice cream store there?" type shit, etc.) and the type of environment that fosters creativity.
Big f*cking surprise, a value-neutral environment encourages a free exchange of ideas.
What was the control group? A bunch of greasy men leering at the females in the room making lewd overtures during the session?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @01:59AM
value-neutral environment encourages a free exchange of ideas.
The thing is, any group that emphasizes being PC isn't value-neutral.
If your ideas/opinions don't conform to what's considered PC, the group will ostracize you, no matter how valuable your input is.
Someone in their "research" group confused being respectful with being PC.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 02 2014, @03:30AM
If your input is polluted with language/attitudes/etc which don't pertain to the problem to be solved, you are asking your dialogue partners to sift out the irrelevant in real-time.
For contrast, here's another expression of the same idea: "It is moronic to think your input is uberfucking valuable when polluted with things irrelevant to the matter at (in?) hand, things only a dickhead uses".
Which one you prefer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @05:52AM
If your input is polluted with language/attitudes/etc which don't pertain to the problem to be solved, you are asking your dialogue partners to sift out the irrelevant in real-time.
So you want to strip out all individuality and personality from discussions? Sounds fun.
Which one you prefer?
Even you should know that answer without needing a response from me!
"It is moronic to think your input is uberfucking valuable when polluted with things irrelevant to the matter at (in?) hand, things only a dickhead uses."
[dead serious] What a wonderful display of your personality!
Out of every group I've worked with, the ones that respected individual differences without being PC were by far superior to the cautious PC groups.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:36AM
If your individuality/personality is "noise" for the professional problem at hand, probably I'd like to sit with you in a pub and have whatever number of pints, but believe me I'd prefer not to sit with you in a professional meeting.
(we talk together and understand each other separately). Respect for individual opinions on professional matters is something and be PC is something else.
For instance, I don't/wouldn't understand what feminism or sexual matters have to do with a technical problem.
In professional life, I find myself being PC for strictly pragmatical reasons: not being PC distract everybody from the problem we work on and, believe me, I don't intend to spend being professional more time than necessary.
(Yes, maybe I'm lucky not to work in an area were being/not-being PC is the actual subject of the problems to solve)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @01:26PM
Out of every group I've worked with, the ones that respected individual differences without being PC were by far superior to the cautious PC groups.
"Respecting individual differences" is politically correct. It's choosing to use words that don't intentionally dismiss or demean other people because of their differences. "PC" doesn't restrict you from using harsh language, like the AC above, or from pointing out the flaws in an idea, it only asks that you insult people by calling them "asshole" instead of "bitch" or "nigger." PC asks you to recognize that phrases like "welching on a deal" might actually offend people of Welsh heritage, and, unfortunately, English contains a lot of idioms built on ethnic or gender stereotypes.
Political correctness asks that you talk about the ideas and not the people who generated them. It is difficult to see how a working group's effectiveness would be improved by including ad hominem as valid arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @07:34PM
"The real weakness in the article's thesis"
I missed the part where they were trying to prove that the PC group was more productive. You do not need to make the study about something that it is not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @01:38AM
Personally, I'd like to see the exact same study done with "political correctness" swapped out with simply "treating others with dignity and respect". This one smells entirely too strongly of an agenda to me.
To get that, you have to actually change people's hearts and minds. Good luck with that on a short time scale. With PC-ness, you just have to get them to pretend-behave that way for short periods of time at a time. Much more feasible. Perhaps some of the more intelligent participants will eventually come around to the former, but again, on a short time-scale, that's wishful thinking.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 02 2014, @01:51AM
More specifically, follow the rule: "Don't mention religion or politics at and, ladies, stop dressing like whores."
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday December 02 2014, @04:28AM
"Don't mention religion, politics or sex related subjects, nor sending out biological cues that may be disruptive"
Could also be "Only communicate falsifiable subjects and only send biological cues when prepared for a response at the same level".
And don't ever communicate with dumb or unattentive life forms. It will in most probabilities only result in bad outcomes.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 02 2014, @04:19AM
Personally, I'd like to see the exact same study done with "political correctness" swapped out with simply "treating others with dignity and respect". This one smells entirely too strongly of an agenda to me.
Let me get this straight: Political correctness smells too strongly, so to be politically correct we should substitute "treating others with dignity and respect"? Buzz!! Are you being politically correct about political correctness! Do you realize the danger of an infinite recursion of political correctness that could result from this! All is lost, all is lost.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday December 02 2014, @01:55AM
You have to get creative to speak the truth without "offending" someone. Jeez, it's a royal pain nowdays.
As for "diversity"? IMHO, if being diverse made companies more effective then they'd have done so decades ago on their own. Instead, they're forced to hire and babysit unqualified $pc_word_for_minorities while the competent workers pick up the slack.
My feeling? Diversity does nothing for a companies effectiveness, except for the friction caused by dealing with thousands of government rules.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 02 2014, @02:04AM
When you're dealing with minorities, especially first-generation immigrants, you get better results the more of them adapt to they host culture and not do all those little things (like hoard all the donuts for themselves or accuse all short people of "being thieves") and all that other barking at the moon that makes them annoying.
First-generation immigrants will almost always cling to their own type and habitually speak their own language at work. Not only is that rude, but disrespectful of the host nation as well as the employer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @03:07AM
> if being diverse made companies more effective then they'd have done so decades ago on their own.
That's just stating the premise as the conclusion. You can make the same argument about every single societal change ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @03:15AM
"political correctness" swapped out with simply "treating others with dignity and respect
It is really messed up that you see a distinction between those two things.
The best conclusion I can come to is that either:
(1) Your version of "dignity and respect" is actually arbitrary mean-spiritedness
-- or --
(2) You are so wrapped up in a fantasy world that you think the extremes define the norm
(Score: 1) by FlatPepsi on Tuesday December 02 2014, @03:39AM
You apparently haven't had to deal with actual political correctness.
I too call shenanigans on this study. The whole point of PC is to shut down and shame a subset of communication and thought. It is the antithesis of diversity of thought.
Treating people with respect is a totally different topic, and can *sometimes* be seen with the enforcement of political correctness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @09:25AM
The whole point of PC is to shut down and shame a subset of communication and thought.
That would be the "asshole" subset of communication. Can't really call it "thought". We used to have another name for PC; it was called "manners". Git yerself some, or we'll tell yo Momma!
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 02 2014, @12:53PM
Thank you. I can't believe I had to wade through so much reactionary bullshit to find a comment like this.
Political correctness is quite simply, trying not to behave like a racist, sexist, bigotted dunghole. It seems to me people who complain about PC are either (a) pining for the good old days when you could smack passing women on the backside with impunity and complain loudly in public about jews, niggers and poofters or (b) confusing real PC with some ridiculous, exaggerated strawman version of it propagated by group a.
Let's be clear: PC is not about never making anyone feel bad about anything ever so that you can't even call people out when it's needed. It's not about preventing you from speaking honestly (unless your honest opinions really are repulsively racist, sexist and homophobic) or about sucking the fun and spontaneity out of human interaction. It's not about making absolutely sure that everybody feels like a precious and valued unique snowflake absolutely 100% of the fucking time. It's simply about not insulting or belittling people for no good reason, because it turns out it's actually a lot easier to inadvertently do that than you might realise. As someone else says downthread, PC is just another name for good manners. What the hell is wrong with good manners?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @03:55PM
Well, it kind of blows up when I'm being held accountable, personally, to my face, for the lack of female programmers (read as "womyn-born-womyn" because this is what they actually mean—or "cisgendered women"—I don't give a flying fuck anymore since I don't have access to a genie so that I might just wish I were assigned the female gender at birth, get on with my hacking, and never have to deal with this fucking issue again) solely on the basis of my assigned gender by somebody who hasn't the first clue how to program and doesn't care to learn herself.
Do you have a scroll or wand or some other magickal source that might grant me a life as a cisgendered woman instead of an all men drone who, if attempting to escape the assignment of the male gender then is accused of being a feminist socialist by the MRAs and a metaphysical rapist by the feminists? No? Well, then, what the fuck are we going to do?
It also kind of blows up when I have to listen to drivel about how anyone assigned the male gender at birth a.) doesn't have breasts and b.) therefore will antagonize breast cancer awareness. It also blows up when I'm accused of racism solely on the basis of my skin color and held accountable for the racist actions of somebody with a different skin color.
It doesn't matter that I've successfully mentored somebody who turned out to be a trans woman and is living full time as the female gender and that I also successfully mentored a cisgendered woman.
It doesn't matter how much effort I've gone through to analyze data to help charities reach out to minority women for breast cancer awareness off the fucking clock.
I am not an individual. I am all men. I just don't understand why I can't hear the others. Since I'm all men, I should be able to hear and influence the thoughts of other men. Yet, I can't hear them, and I can't control them. I can't even kill them and dissect them to determine why I can't hear them as the Borg Queen would when she can't hear one of her drones.
I think the trouble with PC is that it's just as bigoted as the alternative. With PC, we've merely swapped the demographics it's acceptable to insult as a whole.
Since I'm on the receiving end, and because PC has raped me of individuality, what on earth could I possibly do when despite my beliefs and values and actions, I am continually shamed and accused of having beliefs and values I abhore and held accountable for the actions of others?
Sure, there's one cisgendered woman out there who might be thankful I went to bat for her when she was being sexually harassed. Yet I'm all men, so I'm accountable for the actions of the male collective. At best, reporting her harasser makes the male collective's actions in that situation neutral.
Why can't I hear the others?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 02 2014, @05:09PM
OK, so if everything is as you described then it sounds to me like one wacky person with a serious persecution complex has decided that you are personally responsible for all the injustices in their world. Just as you individually do not represent all of malekind, I don't think this one crazy person represents political correctness.
I mean seriously, if some nutjob said "To reverse global warming, I must sodomise your dog" would you go around complaining that all environmentalists are dogfuckers? It sounds like you've run into one nutty individual who needs to smoke a joint and get fucking laid. If this crazy person is in a position of authority over you, or has bullied your bosses into coming down on you, then that's a damn shame, but if it really came to a proper tribunal or trial and s/he's trying to lay all that bullshit at your feet then s/he hasn't a leg to stand on legally - not in any jursidiction in the world.
Part of the problem I mentioned in my grandparent post is that there is this misconception of political correctness as a big legal blunt instrument that forces workplaces to adopt all kind of crazy restrictions. When ignorant or lazy bosses start to believe this (perhaps because they've been convinced of it by someone with an axe to grind) then they will start imposing all kinds of silly and unnecessary CYA rules - truth imitates fiction. Other times they want to implement an unpopular rule for their own purposes, but see political correctness as a sneaky way of justifying it to the workforce and diverting the blame. In those cases though you should blame the idiots in charge, not the benign ethos that they have completely misunderstood.
We see something similar here in the UK, where hysterical, perpetually-terrified Daily Mail readers think the EU wants to regulate the curviness of bananas and other imaginary shit like that. CYA-types then jump at the chance to use that as a convenient excuse. I remember a case a few years back where the papers reported that a school had decreed that all pupils playing conkers (google it) should wear eye protection. They blamed EU Health and Safety rules. It's all bullshit, the EU mandated nothing if the kind. It was just one dweeby administrator's petulant little protest about having to carry out playground risk assessments.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 02 2014, @07:15PM
We see something similar here in the UK, where hysterical, perpetually-terrified Daily Mail readers think the EU wants to regulate the curviness of bananas and other imaginary shit like that.
And this is exactly why Scotland should secede from the UK, and then rejoin the EU as a new member nation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @08:37PM
I mean seriously, if some nutjob said "To reverse global warming, I must sodomise your dog" would you go around complaining that all environmentalists are dogfuckers?
Well, you're right. The first time it happened, I would write that person off as a nutjob.
My opinion might be swayed, though, if I heard this from person after person claiming to be an environmentalist, and I didn't hear any dissent from anybody likewise claiming to be an environmentalist, especially if there were pseudoscience involved. Then if I caught an environmentalist attempting it only to be called an AGW denier by other environmentalists for not letting them proceed, I don't believe I would have any recourse but to conclude that environmentalists really are dogfuckers.
Other things that would sway my opinion include if I were required to attend classes about how sodomizing dogs will prevent global warming and acknowledge that I'm responsible for climate change if I don't let my dog be sodomized, privileges given to those whose dogs were sodomized, and group punishments for those who refused to have their dogs sodomized.
And at least in this hypothetical situation, I actually have a choice! If I get sick of it and say fuck it, sodomize my dog already, I can get on with my life.
If the PC crowd would go after womyn-born-womyn who spout misogyny (or misandry) the same as they go after assigned males, it would help me to see PC differently.
Also, it's unhelpful when someone jumps straight to the misogyny conclusion when an assigned male presents evidence that a womyn-born-womyn is wrong about a factual matter.
The silence on issues that affect men such as infant genital mutilation is deafening. Would it be acceptable to tell a rape victim that her rape is merely a matter between her and her rapist, and if she doesn't like being a rape victim, she should discuss it with her rapist? The equivalent response (that having to live with mutilated genitals is just a matter between my ex-parents and me) is all the 1/500 men for whom circumcision goes wrong get.
I digress perhaps, but let's accept that the science is valid and that mutilating male genitals protects women from cervical cancer and is a valid AIDS vaccine. We should at least find it troubling that we're performing a surgical operation on an infant that's supposed to protect from sexually transmitted diseases without any kind of follow-up care and certainly without any discussion with the patient, even when he's old enough to talk about it. Why not wait until the kid's 10? How much sex are we expecting a toddler to have, anyway? Additionally, if we're so cavalier about violating the male body over cervical cancer and sexually transmitted HPV, why is there even a controversy about giving 12 year old girls an actual vaccine against HPV that leaves their bodies intact?
Things like gender equality would be great. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the PC crowd actually wants that. In fact, bringing up circumcision at all is probably politically incorrect, because it points out an area where women have a privilege men do not.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 03 2014, @10:39AM
OK, I'm not really sure where to start. Your terminology is confusing, and me giving you a metaphorical dog to bugger probably didn't help.
Anyway, I've never had to attend classes where I'm being blamed for everything because I'm a male. I'm not punished not being a woman, and I've never heard of anybody (except you) who has had to put up with anything even resembling the kind of shit you are describing, and I have a lot of friends and family in highly PC-conscious workplaces like social services, schools, childcare and the medical professions. I don't know where the hell you work but personally I'd be looking for an exit.
> In fact, bringing up circumcision at all is probably politically incorrect, because it points out an area where women have a privilege men do not.
I'm not sure how women are privileged by FGM, but I don't think bringing it up would be considered politically incorrect (unless, of course, you were bringing it up in totally inappropriate contexts, of course). I would expect it to turn into a conversation of the rights of the baby vs the rights/ duties of the parents, and I think anybody who opposes FGM would ultimately have to concede that circumcision falls into the same general category (although it is usually far less damaging) and is therefore also wrong - unless of course they have some agenda (probably religious) that they just can't deviate from. But that's religion, which is a whole other barrel of monkeys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 03 2014, @03:38PM
FGM
Please go back and read. Women have the privilege of having intact genitals. Men are mutilated as infants to protect women from HPV, which causes cervical cancer.
Do you remember around fall 2012?
An HPV vaccine was developed, and there was this big uproar about the idea that girls should be vaccinated against HPV, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer, at age 12. Why? How dare you sexualize my daughter!
Also, the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed routine infant male genital mutilation because it had found evidence that circumcised men were less likely to transmit HPV to women. They didn't recommend that circumcision was something a young couple should discuss before getting it on. They didn't recommend that 12 year old boys should be circumcised to protect women from HPV. They recommended that newborn infants be circumcised to protect somebody else from a sexually transmitted disease.
If you can't see what's wrong here… well, of course you can't see what's wrong here. You jumped straight to the assumption that I was talking about FGM.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 03 2014, @05:16PM
> Please go back and read. Women have the privilege of having intact genitals. Men are mutilated as infants to protect women from HPV, which causes cervical cancer.
Point taken. As a counterpoint, I'd offer that ALL women who suffer FGM have their sex lives ruined. The majority of men who are circumcised have few or no negative side effects. Doesn't make it less wrong, especially for the unlucky minority of men who get severe consequences, but I wouldn't call the women "privileged." However I don't want to turn it into a pissing match (no pun intended), suffering is not a competitive sport.
About HPV - I didn't so much jump to a conclusion as miss your point. As I said before, I find your writing style a little confusing sometimes.
But yes, I agree, the vaccine is the sensible solution. My daughter will get it when she's old enough. I would say that the resistance to that was not so much about political correctness as the bizarre squeamishness of some people about sex in general. Seeing "sexually transmitted disease" and " twelve-year-olds" in the same sentence just pushed some big red panic-button in their brains and triggered the blind, hysterical, unfounded moral outrage shitstorm response.
I can't say I'm surprised that people of that particular backwards mindset decided that cutting baby boys was preferable to protecting young girls from STDs, and I strongly suspect that most of them had already decided that they support circumcision for other reasons (religion? tradition?), and saw STD protection as a convenient argument to support a position they had already decided on.[1] It's a fairly typical case of getting the whole evidence / opinion relationship the wrong way round.[2] That's what I meant by a backwards mindset. But again, nothing whatsoever to do with PC.
[1] Never mind that the evidence for circumcision as STD protection is shaky at best.
[2] Just as the vast majority of people who oppose windfarms don't give a shit about birds, they will nevertheless trot out the same tired old debunked bullshit about wind turbines killing birds by the million, simply because it is an argument that happens to support the view point they've already chosen.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 03 2014, @02:57AM
A nice bit of revisionist history there. You need to read The PC Manifesto [fiction.net] written in 1992:
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 03 2014, @10:21AM
Are you.... are you serious?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday December 04 2014, @12:01AM
Fairly close, except you need to move sharks into the "rights" column.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @04:06AM
They started with the conclusions they wanted to reach and designed the study to supply that.
But, I agree with the biases of the researchers. The act of making an effort to treat people courteously and with respect, even those with a background, personality, gender, ethnicity et al different from ours (and at times, not in an immediately pleasing way), benefits the entire organization. People are generally more free to be creative when they are not in a hostile environment.
Those who are white, male, upper middle class, heterosexual, in their 20's, with college degrees, sometimes have a hard time seeing the need for all this. You might start to change your mind twenty years from now when you lose out on a job to some young person whom the hiring manager figures is less likely to be set in their ways. Or when you have a major medical setback, and people start regarding you differently.
Pressure is often conducive to productivity, but it's the pressure that comes from competition and an orientation towards achievement. Not people arbitrarily dismissing one another out of prejudice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @04:14AM
Coming out of Beserkley this pre-gone conclusion "study" is no surprise. I was actually bullied out of a workplace by a "PC" bastard who managed to wrap management and HR around his finger.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday December 02 2014, @04:34AM
What was the right attribute the PC thing had going? being the right color? sex? poor? ethnicity? political group? buzzword fan?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @07:23PM
Bastards will use all means necessary to get what they want. Political correctness and harassment claims are tools among others that they can employ.
You should separate your experiences and assumptions from your analysis of the data.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday December 02 2014, @04:42AM
In a politically correct environment some people will be allowed to ostracize others for irrelevant factors when they receive any resistance for being wrong or incomplete in the relevant factors.
When people are allowed to spread and execute bad ideas because values irrelevant to the problem at hand. Shit will inevitable rear its head. If you can't tell someone is wrong things tend to go wrong.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @04:16PM
Debian rejects things if they're not PC
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday December 02 2014, @05:10PM
As any reader of a British tabloid would know, it's not political correctness that is a problem. It's only when it becomes political correctness gone mad.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:38PM
I'm reminded of a recent interview Chris Rock did (http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/chris-rock-frank-rich-in-conversation.html [vulture.com]) in which he said:
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @10:02PM
1991 University of Michigan commencement address: