Talk:Dehumanization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Needs something[edit]

on mamalian dominance routines in humans, impact on 'marriage' and children. Wblakesx (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Dehuminization as unintentional[edit]

psychological minimization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1A00:6EF:E5FC:4F4D:6FEF:4EB1 (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Text removal[edit]

Text described by The Anome as weird paranoid stuff and removed by him/her:

The empirically supported propaganda model of Herman and Chomsky shows how corporate media are able to carry out large-scale, successful dehumanization campaigns when that is in the interests (profit-making) that the corporations are legally obliged to maximise. Government-controlled media, in either democracies or dictatorships, are also capable of carrying out dehumanization campaigns, to the extent with which the population is unable to counteract the dehumanizing memes.

i'm putting this back in. If the Anome or anyone else wants to claim that empirical research is paranoid, then please actually read the research by Herman and Chomsky first. It's not paranoid, it's empirical research (external to the wikipedia) which has a simple explanation. Boud 18:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is a flavour of dehumanisation, but do the following situations qualify as cases of it?:

  • Scruffy homeless person collapses in railway station; people ignore him, give a wide berth and carry on their buisness.
  • A car driver shouts abuse at another motorist who got in his way; he would be be more polite if he encoutered the same person on a pavement who bumped into him.
  • Some people engage in internet trolling but are polite and helpful to members of the community they interact with directly.

In each case an individual or group is treated with disdain or contempt under specific conditions. In general, people behaved less compassionately in large crowds or where anonymity or lack of reprisals applied. If this is a topic of dehumanisation, it should be added to the article.--ChrisJMoor 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure on where the sources were, but a classmate of mine could have used some... isn't there a reference section? (I wrongfully called for sources on deindividuation, meant for this article).

In any case... yeah.

In a sense, technology can cause an illusion of dehumanization either by eroding the traditional privacy in our daily lives or by informing us of how the progress of science and rationalism tends to challenge our comforting notions of religion and humanity. The loss of privacy, especially that due to information technology, when shared by all, is not viewed as dehumanizing per se. In the extreme, posting everyone of ourselves in MRI scan, nude and accompanied by our genotype, would not dehumanize any one person, but it be viewed by some as dystopic as in the film The Man with the X-Ray Eyes. In the case of religion, for instance, the progress made by Nicolaus Copernicus (and Galileo Galilei), Hilaire Rouelle, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and James D. Watson or even Hippasus was met with negative emotions in the fashion of the Luddites because such progress via science shattered naive notions that have been conceived of based on emotions such as Narcissism and, to a lesser degree, the many implications of creationism and benevolence. Freud, in particular, gave us a better understanding that our logical conscious and our emotional unconscious were in a dynamic equilibrium with each other, thereby challenging prior notions about what makes any one person's action or decision not strictly rational and not more or less dehumanizing. In that same sense, the Internet and society itself can appear to be dehumanizing if we allow it to make us to feel like a small and replaceable component of some larger machine. If we were treat others as if they were such, then that would be dehumanizing on our part.

Is it just my interpretation, or does this entire paragraph seem to be loaded with biases? For instance, by stating in the first sentence that technology causes an 'ilusion' of dehumanization, it arguably dismisses any notions that genuine dehumanization can be caused by technology. Several statements throughout seem to be worded in a fairly biased manner, such as regarding beliefs held prior to certain scientific discoveries as naive notions that have been concieved of based on emotions such as Narcissism, which appears to infer that all primitive attempts to understand our surroundings were motivated by a desire to place ourselves in a state of central importance to the world (the context of narcissism here seems to be used in a disparaging manner, at least to me). It would also seem that by saying that Freud gave us a better understanding of the human mind presents his ideas on the unconscious as indesputable. However, I would like to have other interpretations on this. 74.67.115.198 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I am by no means trying to propose that technology is inherently dehumanizing, or to deny that, if looked at in a certain way, certain discoveries could be interpreted as devaluing human importance, or to ignore the adverse effects that certain religous traditions have had on society. All I am trying to bring to question is whether or not this paragraph infers that ceratin technological advances only appear to have dehumanizing effects, that certain discoveries will always lead people to find their lives less meaningful, that religous tradition is inherently unreasoning, or if any other personal opinions are presented as fact, if the alleged biases are in fact lacking in evidence enough to be considered personal opinions. 74.67.115.198 06:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dehumanization in Psychiatry[edit]

Does anybody agree that people with a psychiatric diagnosis are being discriminated against in a dehumanising way? By Psychiatrists and hospital/medical staff in as far as decisions are taken out of their hands. By drugs in as far as their way of thinking is being changed. Not all people who are mentally ill have a psychiatric diagnosis, and not all people with a psychiatric diagnosis are mentally ill. In the latter case, hardly ever mistakes are admitted. It is not morally sustainable to keep a patient lethargic on potent drugs for years in order not to have to deal with the complications, and it is not morally sustainable to force anybody to take medications that are controversial in themselves, like many antipsychotics are. In psychiatric wards a lot of assertive suspicion against the patients is exercised 'just in case', no due respect is paid to the individual, and if there is anything that could reasonably be still tailored to the individual in the age of mass production, that is the so called 'healing of the soul', psych-iatry. Something very dubious is going on with all this systematic sedating, tranquilizing, calming, stabilising, etc. Fluttermoth (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


Indubitably. I'm a person with a certain psychotic disorder (I'm not "paranoid schizophrenic" before people jump to say that I am, ironically enough considering the subject matter). In the company of friends and chance acquaintances, even in cases when people know about my illness, I am treated as an equal. In a mental hospital however, I've felt the brunt of extreme dehumanization (I am not exaggerating one bit), for example I've been insulted by the orderlies, the same have gloated upon my condition, I've been restricted the use of my own money (and I am not and have never been a problem-spender), veiled threats have been made against me and my family by two criminally insane patients and the staff took their side. Next to my room there was a particularly noisy patient, who would yell and bang the wall between with his fists, often late into the night, and when I asked for earplugs, I was given the answer: "Is there anyone else snoring in your room but you?". All of this straight out abuse led me to attempt suicide, that being my second suicide attempt ever, and as a result I am still walking funny. There is more but you get the picture. However, that this happened in a mental hospital is at best circumstantial. It's morally outrageous but it could have happened in any sort of a closed institution. And it's not all black and white. The same hospital has some good, some even great orderlies and doctors. All of the previous took place in one ward.

What justified this evil in their minds? I think it was a case of "not knowing what they are doing" combined with some character assassination, due to my political beliefs. If all this had happened to someone living in Soviet Russia, I would not be surprised. However, I live in a Western, "civilized", nation.

I know that my story has no bearing to the article, but I just wanted to share this experience. I think there are good uses for antipsychotics and pams, I probably would be dead by my own hand if it wasn't for the psychotic medication. Still, even at it's best, mental hospitals are places of immense suffering. The saddest fact is that so many outright sadistic people think that it is their calling to become an orderly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3metyl (talkcontribs) 21:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

3metyl

Incorrect Text or Vandalization of Article?[edit]

Is the following text properly part of the article? I think I've run across something similar intending to show the baseless nature of dehumanization of sub-populations by using an example with which we are all familiar in our lives (at least in North America) so the intent may not be malignant. Perhaps someone associated with the article should look at it. As it is, it either needs further information by way of explanation or removal.

"Furthermore, sub-minorities of the Caucasian population can be the subjects of dehumanization by the "accepted" majority. One such sub-minority are people with red hair and fair skin which have been the subject of dehumanization in both public and private arenas. A recent music video by MIA depicts the rounding up of red-headed young men by commandos who were later shot and forced to run through a mine field. The graphic nature of the music video has sparked public controversy and the detail of violence on red-heads alone within the film may justify public suspicions that red-heads already represent an additional minority-target of public dehuminization."

I notice the article seems to avoid mentioning a number of situations where a group of which I am a part is, in my lived experience, severely dehumanized to the point of being at risk in some countries of mass violence at some point or other. One is ambivalent about this omission, but perhaps it is better this way since such mentions would inexorably mire the article in controversy that would not necessarily be beneficial to getting the pure concept understood by as many people as possible. Yet somehow, the omission is disquieting for moral reasons. I wonder how this might be handled?--FurnaldHall (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Honourable members of al-qaeda and middle class people in Argentina[edit]

The honourable members of al-Qaeda and middle class people in Argentina are frequent victims of dehumanization.

This line is placed in the introductionary paragraph of the article. Is this sentence vandalism?

First off: honourable members ? Who put this here and why? Why are we to consider them honourable. Even if they were widely regarded as such (which they are not), Wikipedia is to remain neutral and no biased adjectives be used to describe people or groups. Second of all: middle class people in Argentina are frequent victims of dehumanization. Considered by whom? Argentinians? I find this very far fetched.

I will remove this line for now. Respond if you agree or disagree. Although i don't find it likely somebody will blame me for deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.44.239 (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right -- that was only added yesterday, by a new editor. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing Page for a Class Project[edit]

Hello,

I am editing this page for a class project. I am adding relevant social psychological literature. Please feel free to contact me with questions, comments or suggestions.

Thanks,

Ivuoma (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Welocme Ivuoma! I very much appreciate that you changed the notes at the bottom of the article into inline references. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 14:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


164.67.36.241 (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dehumanization/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 14:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Quick fail. I'll finish by tonight. TheSpecialUser TSU 14:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The main reason for the failure is lack of sources and verification issue. The article has 13 sources from which the content cannot be verified much. One should provide links to either ISBN or any site link where the link is present. The article has many facts unsourced so it qualifies for a quick fail. Other issues include, MoS corrections, c/e, and the topic is presented in a bit confusing manner if seen from readers point of view who knows nothing about the topic. Almost entire article is unsourced and it is tagged with maintenance tags which I second. These are tough to fix in a month or some so I'm sorry to say but it is a quick fail. TheSpecialUser TSU 03:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Unethical use of Wikiepdia's encyclopedic authority.[edit]

When is an article considered as verified? It appears that there is a standard among unethical editors that impose subjective demands of verification such as "this article requires verification" but allow the piece to be published along with the proviso. In other instances, articles are removed without notice for not having been verified when they are clearly cited and referenced according to the encyclopedia's standards. While rudeness is controllable, unethical behavior is not. At least if a majority of users of Wikipedia understand that objectivism is not in charge but favoritism to questionable verified information, people will no longer use this medium as way to improve their knowledge of the world. Fortunately, there are still people in the world who do not go down without a fight. The editors will meet the same fate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:83:8002:D298:80E5:40F5:A470:47E6 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unethical use of Wikiepdia's encyclopedic authority.[edit]

When is an article considered as verified? It appears that there is a standard among unethical editors that impose subjective demands of verification such as "this article requires verification" but allow the piece to be published along with the proviso. In other instances, articles are removed without notice for not having been verified when they are clearly cited and referenced according to the encyclopedia's standards. While rudeness is controllable, unethical behavior is not. At least if a majority of users of Wikipedia understand that objectivism is not in charge but favoritism to questionable verified information, people will no longer use this medium as way to improve their knowledge of the world. Fortunately, there are still people in the world who do not go down without a fight. The editors will meet the same fate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:83:8002:D298:80E5:40F5:A470:47E6 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Organization suggestions[edit]

I suggest removing all text that assigns value, for example, statements including “most prevalent” and “most notably” because these words indicate a bias which goes against Wikipedia policy. The lead section is very disconnected due to the frequent in-text descriptions; since each word that is described has a hyperlink to its own definition for clarification, I suggest removing the extra wordage. For example, creating a hyperlink for the word symbolically in order to remove the description, “(e.g., imagery)”. I would like to propose a new article concerning dehumanization in science in medicine. This is one of the lengthier sections on this page with a great amount of credible information that could benefit from being a standalone, more detailed page.Theresaquaderer (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dehumanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Darwin's views[edit]

The Human Anatomy section has wording that is either ambiguous, or suggestive of a position that Darwin didn't hold. At best a single quote is ever proffered to suggest he viewed some humans as 'less evolved'. However, there is ample evidence that he viewed humanity as one species. I suggest it be reworded to avoid unintended and false implications. 207.161.213.187 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)