Well one must differentiate between a biased attitude and an insistence on the use of words being accurate. The definition of a word and its use as a scientific concept surely must have a basis in fact, not in fiction or personal preference. When a scientist analyses a study or makes mathematical rigor of numbers his use of terms cannot be construed to make a value judgement. Far from it. But when people striving to colour all other's natural judgement of a group look to hijack the rigor of meaning and mathematics to suit their political agenda, then values are being mixed with science. Clearly not what mathematics, and psychology intended. The scientist's job is to observe, compare, count and conclude, not to condone, issue cant and condemn. We leave that to Church and State. But if you take away his tools of rational thought and make the rules for definition of terms by political means as has been tried in various totalitarian and religious right societies, then there are no longer any conclusions or judgements to make as to groups or samples. These are all important when it comes to devising effective treatment or arrive at an evaluation of trends or groups. Scientific thought cannot advance where it is told how to think by people who do not understand it. It is the psychologist who tells us what the word abnormal means. He tells us that by observing the groups' distribution on a graph. Not by a knee jerk reaction to social stimulus. I stand by my analysis. It the essence of non bigotry and non bias to say without reference to category or criteria that minorities are not the norm. They will have to seek other wordings to allow themselves social belongingness. We are simply seeking to define the terms. When you have ten red roses and one white rose, in that grouping the white rose is abnormal. Itsa fackt. Cannot escape it.
The mathematical curve of distribution is called the normal curve. There is a reason for that. It is a mathemical term. The norm is defined as that measure of the degree of central tendency the comprises the greater part of any measured group that meets a certain defined criteria. You cannot just change the mathematics of psychology to suit our tender feelings that are mostly imagined of slight. It would be sliding down the slippery slope of benevolent ignorance and scientific bigotry to do that. We would end up sliced by Occams razor sharp bannister and land in the despairing cesspool and La Brea Tar Pit of intellectual stagnation and evolutionary ossification. Heaven and the Holy Angels of Reason's harps would break asunder, their strings to tie us in knots, strangling any aspiration of arising from a the Myre to play upon the heavenly Lyre, thus to attain the higher inspiration and understanding of Elysian truth. The Norm, the norm's the thing upon which the analyst will bring sweet truth of groups to sing, the better to unnerstand the subtle complex nature of this creature, man.
I could supply them for these groups, but it is not my job. Better they think of terms for themselves. The ones they want are taken.
EC<:-} |
