Month: October 2022

After reading the selected chapters of Gad Saad’s The Parasitic Mind, I was fascinated with Saad’s ideas on the “idea pathogens”. In the chapters we read, I think the main idea is that there has been an emerging trend in the recent decades of academia shifting from truth-seeking to trying to not hurt feelings. I also had the same question when I first joined the class – why are so many intellectuals making claims that are not “truth-seeking.” I had understood intellectuals as those who actively seek truth. However, as we learned more throughout the course, I found out intellectuals could do this for multiple reasons. The most recent one was about political correctness. I felt that Saad isn’t arguing that political correctness is objectively bad, but rather that it is not fit to appear in academia, since he feels that academia should be about trying to find and present truth about the world as accurately as possible. I also agree with his view that if we are intellectually discussing on some topic, the goal should be to learn about “the truth” on the topic, rather than on the people whose feelings might be hurt from learning about the truth.

So then I thought of a question: “how would someone know if something is really true?” I asked Saad this question in class, since he wrote that he is in “constant pursuit of the truth.” How do you really know if something is “true,” taking into account that science is always advancing, and old theories get replaced by new theories all the time. Saad’s response was that:

• Everything in science is provisionally true. So we probably can’t find the objective, definitive truth. So we should also be aware of this – that what we consider now as true might be found as not true later on.
• Thus, we should also be humble about knowledge. We should understand that there are always things that we don’t quite know about.
• On scientific claims or theories, we should apply the Karl popper falsification principle. The falsification principle basically states that: if a theory cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific theory, since the “theory” would always hold “true,” regardless of the conditions. The example Gad Saad gave on this was about a graduate student doing a research project on sexism. And the argument was that, if they found evidence of rapes, then clearly it is sexism; if there was no rape, the point is that those men hated women so much that they won’t even rape them.
• If something is true, we can find multiple directions / perspectives to prove this. For example, Saad said that there is sex difference in toy preference for babies. He claimed this because he believed that there can be multiple ways to show this
  • First, there are studies on infants, before they were socialized, that found the preference.
  • If we look at other mammals such as monkeys or chimpanzees, we also noticed the same phenomenon, that again there are sex differences in toy preference.
  • And if we look at some hunter gatherer societies that are distant from our civilization, we also notice this in their tribes.
• So, if something is true, it will be true universally, in different conditions and no matter the dependent variables. And since they are universally true, we are able to find examples from different areas to prove it.

Here are some of my other questions:

• Why are apolitical people (intellectuals) and institutions (universities) now so political?
• Why do universities with the word “truth” in their mottos have forbidden knowledge?
• Why are we in this position now?

I always think it is interesting when a guest speaker whose material has been presented in the course comes in. It provides a setting to ask questions that can give more context to their argument and a better understanding overall. 

I thought that the first part of Professor Saad’s talk about truth was fascinating as it can relate to contemporary politics. He said that it is important to always pursue the truth. Then defined consequentialists. This group are individuals who believe that it is justified to lie in order to spare the feelings of others. When he said this, it made me think of how politicians sometimes will not be completely transparent as their main goal while in office is to be re-elected. Therefore, they will spare the feelings of their constituents in order to get votes. 

Additionally, I found his research on evolutionary psychology applied to markets and consumer behavior to be interesting. Being a biology major, I have taken many courses that focus on evolution and the connection to survival. I think that it is interesting that he takes a concept that is strongly evidence based to apply to human behavior and particular decisions.

Another part of his talk that gave me a new perspective was the part about the homeostasis of victimology and non-falsifiability. The two examples that he provided with the graduate student wear a hijab for a week and the Israeli soldiers gang raping women highlighted this concept. When these individuals started they had a particular hypothesis and then all the evidence gathered over the course of the experiment did not support it. Instead of concluding that the evidence did not support the hypothesis, they changed how they interpreted the data. A researcher having this type of bias in their work can perpetuate negative stereotypes. I think that this partially relates back to the first point of pursuing the truth vs. consequentialist. The results of the two examples he provided, these researchers lied in order to spare their own feelings of admitting they were wrong. This relates to the general theme of the course of intellectuals. Intellectuals pursue the truth. However, they do so objectively, thus not factoring emotions into the truths they discover. I think that it is always important to critically analyze if a truth is actually evidence based or the evidence is molded to fit a particular emotional idea that someone holds.

As I am also doing the book review for this book I thought I would take this opportunity to do a blog post on the other chapters since I figured I would keep my opinion out of the review. The last three chapters talked about various things including religion, hatred of jewish individuals, toy preferences (which we talked about in class with him) and many other topics. He has a whole section in one of the chapters of Nomological networks of cumulative evidence which it thought was pretty interesting and that’s where the toy preferences example came up. However he also talks about Islam using the nomological network of cumulative evidence and after reading that section along with other sections that talked about Islam in some way shape or form, it seems to me that he believes that terrorists (which are muslim) become that way because they practice Islam. (he’s basically saying that its the religion that makes them violent and commit terrorists acts) 

I’m just gonna leave it at that….

After our discussion with Professor Saad, I found that many of the arguments he brought up and later Professor Riley solidified were extremely interesting. The idea of non-falsifiability and false consciousness were an interesting take on the arguments which Professor Saad described.

Non-falsifiability is one of the main issues in the idea of the parasitic mind. It prevents any idea from being held to scrutiny of truth, anything could be true under this pretense. There were several examples that Professor Saad and Professor Riley gave of this, one of which was especially concerning. The example he gave of the Israeli soldiers who were accused of gang raping Palestinian women by the droves and when it was actually studied, there was not a single occurrence of such acts. The woman who performed the research twisted the meaning of this data into the fact that they were reviled by these women and did not find these women worthy of such acts. I think this very clearly goes back to that idea we learned regarding gnosticism, in that this world is inherently corrupt and needs to be changed in all aspects in order for true utopia to arise. This also stems back to the idea that intellectuals believe they have the truth therefore anything they study or do must be true and data can be skewed or interpreted in such a way to fit that narrative of undeniably “true” thoughts.

Another example was one Professor Riley brought up about the role the patriarchy plays on female and male innate gender differences. The feminist writer he quoted stated that women were incapable of consenting to sexual encounters because of our patriarchal society where the men rule over all and any woman who believes otherwise is simply not aware of the fact that they are being manipulated by the male population. This is exactly the same argument the intellectual class had for the people in the proletariat that were content with their lives at that moment. They simply were not smart enough or aware enough to clearly see that connection and need to forcibly be reminded that that control exists. Here that idea of false consciousness presents itself. Women simply do not have the mental capacity to understand that they are being manipulated and they need to be shown the truth by those who can see past that oppression. This clarifies much of the reason why the Left feels so strongly about this. It is like a religious belief and many of these statements are faith-based arguments, not unlike arguments and beliefs held by Christians, Muslims or Jewish people.

What I find hard to understand is why they have such contempt toward those that have differing views and express that opposition? Why are they immediately labeled as sexist or racist for those views? I have never personally met a Christian or someone of any other faith who feels so strongly to tear down others for their opposing religious or worldly views. Yet in political frameworks, based on which side of the spectrum you lie on, one is immediately labeled with hateful and resentful terminology.

After reading sections from Gad Saad’s book, and having him talk about it with us in class, i feel that he did a great job explaining the concepts he was talking about by giving hard evidence of them. For example, in class we talked about victimology (I thought that whole section was interesting) and he gave examples of people who did studies and then when those studies did not provide the results they wanted they took on a victimhood stance. Two examples that I remember from the reading Gad also brought up in class which was the one where Israelis were dehumanizing the Palestinians because they were not raping them and then the other was the graduate student who wore a hijab for a certain number of days and even though everyone was nice to her during that time she still kept her thesis the same and said that people were overly nice as a why to compensate for their “concealed bigotry.” (page 111) 

The last of these two stood out to me because it seems people think that other people have hidden agendas or something which would mean that they are mixing their emotions with their ability to think rationally about something. Thinking that people have hidden agendas would assume that that person would have some diabolical intent or something like that. 

The whole concept of ideological pathogens I found to be quite interesting. 

This is only the 2nd time in my bucknell career (that I can remember) that i have had a guest speaker come and talk in the class that was NOT associated with the school.  This also makes me ask questions of why is that the case? Since bringing in outside professionals or professors from other schools makes class more engaging since students get to ask basically any range of questions they want (including uncomfortable topics). 

Going off of what i mentioned earlier, i did like that he did a good job explaining things but that does not mean that i agree with everything he was talking about.

In our conversation with Gad Saad, there were many things that I questioned in the reading and in the conversation. As a critique, I thought that while he is very smart his reading and answers to questions used condescending language. I personally did not agree with anything that he said and I found him very provocative in a way that was off-putting. In terms of his writing and the book itself, I could not read it without being confused or getting frustrated, I guess playing into the point he made about the social justice warrior student who is driven by emotion. I am driven by emotion and try to be politically correct but I won’t deny the truth of a fact. Something that I did not understand was how this reading related to the course topic and this is not just based on the fact that I did agree with him because there have been readings that I did not agree with but I felt that they related to our course. Saad touched on in his talk the thinking of an intellectual and how the ones in his realm are leftist ones he opposes because they are not looking at facts and are stuck in their ways but he did note that there are people on the right that he would also agree with and he does not have any stake in American politics.  One part of the reading that I had the most difficulty understanding was in the section titled Death of the West by a Thousand Cuts. I found this section very childish in thought and explanation. This section was very problematic in terms of what he is arguing as the reasons the west is dying. I have found in my time in this course it is almost impossible to remain unbias in the delivery of opinions (or “facts”) and Saad’s biases are heavily shown in this section. The chart that is on 21 is something that I would want to discuss further as to why Saad thinks that these reasons are a part of the decline. But something else I would want to know is why does he use the language that he does such as language police and social justice worries and identity police. I think that his phrasing these “cuts” this way takes away from his argument because I can’t take it seriously that in order to prove a point he feels the need to talk down on people who do not have the same opinion as him. One part of the reading I wanted to highlight was at the end of chapter one when he says “Unless we win the battle of ideas, the enemies of reason, along with the mind viruses that they promulgate, will lead our free societies to lunatic self-destruction.” While I do not agree with most of what saad says this is a point I would want to speak more with him about. One question I would want to ask is, isn’t diversity of thought even if it is wrong beneficial for society? Why is it a virus if people do not believe what you say to be fact? 

I think that our discussion of the relationship between race and the prison system was very important from last class. Throughout time there has been a noteworthy trend between these two variables. For instance, black males are disproportionately incarcerated in relation to any other race. I found the story of George Jackson to be an interesting case in American history to analyze. It was fascinating to me that even from the confinements of a prison cell he was able to achieve public outreach and support for his case. Additionally his case can teach us more about the dangers of the radicalization of the prison system. Both prisoners and guards died as a result of this conflict. The George Jackson story also gives us a better understanding of the criminal class being a part of the population that could drive gnostic religion. He was able to present himself as a refined intellectual through his book and this led to great appeal from the New Left. Additionally he was able to manipulate the public with his charismatic attitude and motivational speaking skills. He was a major reason why the New Left sought out to use prisoners as the vanguard of political movement. I also think that it is fascinating that upper-middle class and educated white students would seek out the assistance of criminals in their political agenda. With two groups so structurally different it is surprising that the New Left thought their unison would achieve an utopian society. This especially surprised me because these two groups were fighting every different inequalities (The New Left was more concerned with classroom politics and the black prisoners more concerned with civil rights movements and prison reform).

Something we talked about in class was how the young college students of the University of California Berkeley compared themselves to the oppressed black people of the south who were dealing with the Jim Crow laws as if they were going through the same thing as them. Somehow their struggle to ascend the student movement was equivalent to brutal mistreatment that black people in the south received. When I try to wrap my mind around why they would even think to believe that their struggles are similar the only thing that comes to my mind is that both groups were seeking more rights from people who had more power than them. In the case of the students, they were seeking acceptance from the older generation so that they can gain more progress in the student movement. For the black people of the south, they were fighting against the white people who had more power over them for equal rights so that they can start to live life like a human being should instead of being constricted to only doing what they were told. Other than this, these situations are very different based on the fact that the black people of the south were basically fighting for their lives while the students’ lives would still carry on the same whether or not they won the battle they were trying to fight. The students comparing themselves to the blacks of the south could be deemed disrespectful depending on who you ask. I know for a fact that the black people who were being oppressed would trade lifestyles with the students in a heartbeat. I think you can attribute this claim that the students were making to their blindness to what was really happening in the south as well as how far apart they are from each other geographically which is understandable. This was a time where there was no social media so it is really hard for people to really get a grasp of what is going on across the country because of the lack of technology and media coverage that they had at that time compared to now. Since they are located so far apart from each other the only way the students knew anything about how black people were treated in the south is through what they are told. They don’t get to see it first hand like they would have if they were located in states like Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia. This is similar to the Hollinder reading when he talked about how all of the French intellectuals had nothing but good things to say about Joseph Stalin when they visited him. When they visited him Stalin would make sure that they only saw what he wanted them to see by blinding them of the reality of what was really going on in the Soviet Union. People who did not live in the Soviet Union really had no idea what was going on because there was no way to relay information efficiently.

The chapter focuses on Fay Stender, known as a left leaning political activist. The chapter goes through her life, focusing on important aspects of her as a person. Her funeral consisted of a lot of confusion and reflection on her life. People discussed her radical behavior, how she was driven by contradictory feelings, and her forceful nature. Fay was known as a “Berkeley person,” referring to the political and cultural liberalism which came from the university, which was also later known as the New Left. She went to law school at the University of Chicago, and when people would visit her she would take them to the Chicago slums. Later she got married to the chairman of a communist group, Marvin Stender. They became invested in a joint venture on behalf of the oppressed. Later, they moved back to Berkeley since they were interested in political affairs. She wanted her life to have meaning, and she was very hungry for a dream. She wanted to get involved through her clients since she was a lawyer, she was searching for meaning that was greater than the legal principles she could establish. She got involved in the civil rights movement, getting involved in organizations which were anti-Semitic and wanted whites to leave. Fay agreed with these organizations. Fay was instrumental in defending the Black Panther Party when the founder Huey Newton killed a policeman John Frey. The political defense became the main radical viewpoint of the time and the model for other trials such as of Angela Davis, the Chicago Seven, and others that followed. After Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated, student rebels had seized certain universities such as Columbia, and lawmen had clashed with demonstrators at the Democratic convention in Chicago, there was a very uncontrolled state and mood of the Left. Fay was too emotional in court and could not handle a jury trial. She got too involved with her clients. Fay continued anyway to work on Huey Newton’s case for killing policeman John Frey. She was very involved in this. She pushed herself extremely hard and worked around the clock, her reputation spreading quickly. She also stayed involved with the Black Panther Party, and wondered if she could be involved heavily in politics as well as in law. She questioned whether her effectiveness would be enhanced or impaired. Fay believed that prisoners were going to be in the vanguard of the social revolution. She became sexually involved with Newton in prison. Fay began to defend George Jackson, and he slowly began to resist that. He wanted to be known as a manly person. He warned her that there was serious friction between the two of them, and she didn’t listen. His brother later went into a courtroom and killed two prisoners and a judge as well as wounded several others in a courtroom. He ended up dying as well. George Jackson continued to act out, wanting to smuggle guns for an insurrection that would coincide with the short-circuiting of the prison’s electricity and the arrival of jeeps to spirit away the prisoners who scaled the walls. Fay did not want to get behind this, she believed she was still going to win in court and prove Jackson’s innocence despite everything that happened. Later, there was an attack between Jackson and Fay, Fay was thinking about leaving the case entirely. The Left was feeling in crisis, of paranoia and despair. The violence rhetorically aimed at the larger society turned inward. Later, Huey Newton and George Jackson turned their backs on Fay. Fay ended up leaving Jackson’s case. Jackson ended up becoming suicidal, and she apposed his suicidal plans. She had to remove herself from the situation, and became extremely scared. Jackson ended up meeting Stephen Bingham, his new lawyer, and he hid bullets in his Afro wig. Jackson ended up with a gun and the bullets, and forced the guards to open the cells and said, “The Black Dragon has come to free you.” He soon realized there was nowhere to go, and everything spiraled out of control. Three guards and two white convicts ended up in Jackson’s cell, lying dead. Jackson ended up being killed by guards. Many people were confused by the events that occurred, asking themselves if Jackson was set up by Bingham since he disappeared after the event. Similarly, people were wondering if the Black Panther Party had set him up as well. Fay wasn’t surprised by the events. People began to wonder that Fay was afraid of the authorities and the people she had helped. Later, the organization that Fay was a part of the Prison Law Project ended up splitting from the radicals. The radicals formed the Prison Law Collective. This caused controversy as Fay tried to get away from the radicals. There was word that an inmate at a prison in California wanted to escape and wanted to visit with her as well as her different organizations, Fay ended up hiding in friends’ houses since she did not want to deal with it. Fay slowly realized that her prison work was not ending well. Time after time she would get somebody paroled or moved from maximum security to the main line, and a month later he would be back. She realized that certain prisoners she was helping get out of prison would end up doing something horrible and get back into prison. Later, Fay closed the Prison Law Project and shortly afterward stopped taking prison clients. She was still extremely driven, taking other legal cases. She began saying “The Left betrayed me,” and became extremely bitter towards the community that had once been her main support. She soon became very interested in feminism. She became involved in the community of gay women lawyers, and joined the board of Lesbian Rights. She became attracted to women, but was scared of what that would do to her career as well as her personal relationships. She ran as the only woman candidate for the board of governors of the State Bar of California and lost, so she decided to go to Europe. She wrote about personal experiences she had there in a journal, including what it was like to be a Jewish woman in Europe. After Fay got back, her son was awoken in the middle of the night by a Black man who was demanding where Fay was. The man had a gun, and was asking whether or not she betrayed George Jackson. Fay ended up being seriously injured after the man shot her multiple times, however she lived. The top suspects for the crime were a prison gang known as the Black Guerrilla Family, because it was co-founded by Jackson. Later, the suspect was found and was arrested. Eventually, Fay ended up being terrified and refused to go out on the streets. She realized that she became a target for getting involved with certain people. She became disabled for her previous injuries. 

My discussion question is: Was Fay wrong in doing what she did, did she really take things too far? When people have the intelligence and means to be able to get involved politically, especially when they believe it is the right thing to do, what are the limitations to that? When are the risks too much?