I am probably one of the people he thinks is a system justifier.
Incidentally, the entire concept of system justification is a progressive laced critique. The more conservative world view naturally looks upon the status quo as more decent than a more liberal world view. But to the issue of perceptions and prejudice, I will simply say this. The best way to shatter prejudice and negative perceptions, is to see counter examples. Simply asserting that such prejudices and negative perceptions are wrong is far less effective in my view, even worse, it assumes there is no empirical and objective truth to such perceptions.
Actually SEEING physical counter examples that go against a negative perception or prejudice gives tangible, empirical, objective examples. Rhetoric and assertion is not enough if what you care about is cutting away bad perceptions. There is one rub to such a view though, a rub many "progressives" will not be comfortable with I suspect. The possibility that certain negative perceptions have some objective and empirical truth to them. It's OK when the subject is less sensitive like the perception, and empirical reality, that teenagers are worse drivers than adults. But shift the field to

Quoting JonIrenicus: There is one rub to such a view though, a rub many "progressives" will not be comfortable with I suspect. The possibility that certain negative perceptions have some objective and empirical truth to them.

It's OK when the subject is less sensitive like the perception, and empirical reality, that teenagers are worse drivers than adults. But shift the field to something more sensitive, and elements of what should be the case often substitute evaluations of what is the case.

Quit being a pussy. If you want to say something racist, then just come out and say it. "something more sensitive"--Jesus.

Quoting JonIrenicus: There is one rub to such a view though, a rub many "progressives" will not be comfortable with I suspect. The possibility that certain negative perceptions have some objective and empirical truth to them.

You mean like, say, "Conservatives are morons?"

Quoting Ray: Quit being a pussy.

If you want to say something racist, then just come out and say it.

"something more sensitive"--Jesus.

Added an example, though not the kind you want to hear from me. And if that disappoints you, I am greatly pleased. Thanks for that.

I see a couple issues with this theory as presented. 1.) The stereotypes that groups have of themselves or others cannot assumed to be wrong. They might be accurate statistical approximations. These cases would not count as evidence. 2.) Low income workers who believe in meritocracy may simply reflect on their immediate work conditions rather than on the entire income distribution. It seems entirely plausible to me that plumbing is more meritocratic than tenured professorships. 3.) John Host clearly believes that social change is a good thing and activist groups for social change need to be empowered. He forgets the many lunatic movements that have failed and, I would argue fascism and bolschewism. Nazis and Bolschewiks used exactly the method, John Host proposes, namely gathering popular support among the masses through authoritarian and conservative mechanisms to implement the utopian vision of intellectual radicals.
Open to experience individuals are certainly able to hate those groups, who they perceive to be in charge of "the system". Bankers, Americans (in the case of the european anti-american left). Antisemites believe that Jews are running the system. There you go. And what if social change succeeds? Will the next

ATTN Percontations participants (not commenters) .. don't be put off by stupid comments. Those with least to say shout the loudest. Keep up the good work!

Quoting JonIrenicus: I have a clear prejudice of muslim societies, a negative one.

Did I call it or did I call it? The kid is in the hizzzouse!!!

Quoting JonIrenicus: Added an example, though not the kind you want to hear from me. And if that disappoints you, I am greatly pleased. Thanks for that.

Wut? I implied that you were being coy about your racism; you countered with religious bigotry, bordering on racism. I'm disappointed in that it sux you're a bigot, but I'm glad my radar's still working. N.B. Your "i.e." should be an "e.g." Nice usage of "of" with "prejudice", though.

Drinking game: listen to this diavlogue and take a drink every time Jost tries to justify a system he believes in without any apparent awareness that system justification theory applies to him as well.

Quoting Ray: Did I call it or did I call it?

The kid is in the hizzzouse!!!

Wut? I implied that you were being coy about your racism; you countered with religious bigotry, bordering on racism.

I'm disappointed in that it sux you're a bigot, but I'm glad my radar's still working.

N.B. Your "i.e." should be an "e.g." Nice usage of "of" with "prejudice", though.

I countered that negative perceptions can be accurate. That is all. If this is lost on you, if you actually want to make the case that all religions are equally benevolent and benign in the ways they are practiced, and the ideas they propagate, I don't know what to tell you except that your view is a confused one. I am an atheist, but not some Christopher Hitchens / Dawkins type. I have no qualms with people having beliefs I consider nonsensical so long as those beliefs do not get in others way. Sam Harris made the point long ago, A Jaines religious aversion to harming all life, even insects one might step on may well be equally deranged when compared to a suicide bomber who thinks he will be rewarded for murdering a bunch of infidels, but they are NOT equally benevolent

What JonIrenicus wrote:

Quoting JonIrenicus: I countered that negative perceptions can be accurate. That is all. If this is lost on you, if you actually want to make the case that all religions are equally benevolent and benign in the ways they are practiced, and the ideas they propagate, I don't know what to tell you except that your view is a confused one.

I am an atheist, but not some Christopher Hitchens / Dawkins type. I have no qualms with people having beliefs I consider nonsensical so long as those beliefs do not get in others way.

Sam Harris made the point long ago, A Jaines religious aversion to harming all life, even insects one might step on may well be equally deranged when compared to a suicide bomber who thinks he will be rewarded for murdering a bunch of infidels, but they are NOT equally benevolent or harmless.

My view of Islam and its effects on modern life have a negative skew precisely because of the harmful effects propagated by too many of its practictioners.

Don't like my negative view? Would you prefer I lie, like you do to yourself when you suggest that you are

Quoting nikkibong: What JonIrenicus wrote:

What nikkibong heard:

I think he said something about "proud to be a bigot."

Quoting JonIrenicus: To be fair the guest never said we should, but his examples seemed to suggest he did not have any place in his world view for many if any negative perceptions.

Some of mine, I am keeping, deal with it.

I am dealing with it! I'm trying to help you! I'm encouraging you to man up and out with it. You know you're inches away from "The Sons of Ham" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Why not just go for it?

"...not a single word about the influence of a determinst world-view upon justification of oppression."

Most determinist thinkers find that as a working philosophy it is self neutralizing; in other words the fact that the universe is predetermined need have no effect on one's daily life or sense of agency. Furthermore, most people are probably not of a deterministic bent, i.e. determinism is statistically insignificant in the population.

Haven't finished this one yet but I'm really enjoying it. I got into the social science polymath Jon Elster a couple of months ago after I stumbled across the idea of endogenous preferences (that is, explaining where wants come from instead of taking them as given). Elster wrote a terrific little book called "Sour Grapes" about how people shape their preferences to reduce the pain of cognitive dissonance, often in ways that amplifies their own oppression. It never occurred to me that you could try to demonstrate it experimentally. Pretty cool!

Quoting JonIrenicus: I happen to think, as I suspect most reading this do as well, that of the major religions being practiced today, Islam has the most work to do to modernize and get out of the dark ages. Yes the perception is negative, but also correct and earned.

Maybe you haven't noticed that right now there are devout Muslims dying in the streets fighting for their democratic rights. I think you'd be better off being less judgmental and just seeing how things play out. Reality is full of surprises.

I have a question about the Implicit Association Tests (IATs), which is similar to the criticism that Joshua raised and John dismissed. I agree that social stereotypes can "get in your head" and affect your performance on various IAT-types tests. You may respond more quickly to associational pairings that support social stereotypes, regardless of your own group membership or your explicit beliefs about those groups. But, as Joshua notes, could this simply reflect an "awareness of certain kinds of associations within our society" -- an awareness that makes certain matching tasks easier than others, regardless of beliefs? Here's a too-simple example. Many stereotypical associations are crystallized in insulting phrases -- phrases like "dumb blonde," "greedy Jew," "bleeding-heart liberal," and so on. We all know these phrases. We could complete them without a second thought (Password-style). Wouldn't it makes sense, then, if you took a test that forced you to act quickly and immediately, that it would be easier to make connections that coincide with or even repeat these cliches? To put it simply, "dumb ... blonde" is going to pop into your head a lot more easily that "dumb ... brunette." "Greedy ... Jew" will beat out "greedy ... Irishman." And the same goes for

I think we have to be highly suspicious of theses like these which amount to 'if you are smart and get my theory, you will be a democrat, otherwise, stay ignorant and remain republican'. I believe Haidt has come to much same conclusion by an unfair reductionism of the more conservative position as one that is afraid of change. I don't say this because I support either side. I am not American and am more of a classical liberal/libertarian, incidentally not mentioned in the discussion. I am not justifying the system I live under despite being a major beneficiary of it! But this elastic thesis answers this contradiction by saying those that fight it will come from an affluent middle class which is able to deal with ambiguity. Guilty but I would say, assuming I know why I think what I think, it is because I have had the benefit of a lot of time to read and think about these things and believe, with good reason, in classical liberalism. It doesn't take much reflection to think of many issues which democrats or republicans are passionate about and if they lived in a 'system' where those values held, they

I may be one of those disadvantaged activists that Jon referred to, and I do not believe in subjective systems of classification. I have noticed some biases raised against being determinate and certain, so I am fearful and a little apprehensive of a looming angry retort. Let me assert that I am against modern reductionism and determinism, relativism and unjustified skepticism. I blame those systems for getting us here. I am a semanticist. My work is in the field of language systems, information systems and semiotic or symbol systems-- utilitarian systems. I think equality or certainty are the wrong focus here. Being corroborated by common experience has nothing whatsoever to do with the abstract concept of certainty, and in my view, very little to do with equality. Actually, I think people are satisfied by the unity of their awareness. When a cognitive dissonance sets in, they can become dissatisfied, though I haven't a shred of any but anecdotal evidence to support that observation. In any event, I take unity of awareness is a much better focal point than either equality or certainty. The American Philosopher and logican Charles Sanders Pierce wrote "that the function of conceptions is to reduce the manifold of sensuous