For as long as I can remember; Any clear, obvious and positive social advance (over the unbelievably crass, prejudiced and unjust practices that has gone before) is resisted with almost 'obsessional' determination, by those who clearly have a vested interest (Personal Security, Job's Worth, Status, Power, Influence, Money, etc.). One at a time; blatantly unjust and inhuman behaviours (justified by some religious, legalistic, or quasi-scientific logic) are eventually knocked down by sound logic and persistent 'counter evidence'; Which challenges the flawed arguments of those who had been clearly 'deluded'. The usual excuse for continuing in this way; "It is human nature - you will never change that".
Supposedly 'normal', everyday people manage to convince themselves (as recently as yesterday) that physical, social, moral, spiritual, racial and gender characteristic are indicators of some variation in fundamental human status, intelligence, criminality, personality and a whole range of other 'invented' human 'flaws'. Any number of newly invented 'normalisms' then pop up and become legitimised; by the great mass of the intellectually unwashed, often supported by the sound logic of learned academics; 'Sound Logic and Rationales built around the fundamental errors of judgment and underlying, prevailing, communally irrational prejudices' (although, often understandable 'fear of difference'). The 'normal curve' (used in human statistics), is fine until we use the artificial 'percentile' criteria for 'abnormality'.
The Nature of True Intellectual and Scientific Knowledge:
The proper and adequate solution (valid intellectual resolution), when it is finally arrived at, is not a compromise (as many inadequate thinkers would insist), but a radical step outside of the usual 'two dimensional' frames of reference, which have confounded all previous understandings and explanations. Racism, Sexism and Fascism, are the obvious, recently identified (& rather embarrassing) examples of erroneous thinking; stemming from 'conventional', or 'normalised', frames of reference. Others prejudicial perspectives include; disablement, ageism, nationalism, 'mentalism', 'culturalism', intellectualism, commercialism, monetarism and other 'ism's which says one group is better, more entitled, or more 'fundamentally' human, or valid, than the 'abnormal' groups. Changing names doesn't wash here.
This is not to say there are not clear, identifiable and legitimate differences; it is the 'quality' of intellectual and emotional understanding; in appreciating and valuing difference, variety, variability, adaptability and perspective, that is flawed. These 'normalised' frames of reference are fine for everyday explanations of ordinary physical events, but are wholly inappropriate and inadequate for explaining human thought, human behaviour, language, socialisation and evolutionary advancement in general. The physical sciences have already taken this important, radical step. Human sciences are still in the dark ages. In many ways, 'mysticism' has greater 'validity' than modern social sciences. Social sciences took some of their first step sideways and slightly backwards. It is staggering forward and being dragged back daily.
The Quality of Social Science determines the Quality of Social Outcomes:
Any powerful and convincing intellectual discipline is capable of being turned to great benefit, especially when it is recognised for its serious flaws and inadequacies. This is no more (or less) true for anecdote, analogy and conventional wisdoms, than it is for existing, relatively primitive social sciences. The danger is when these flaws and inadequacies are not recognised, and those (who delude themselves into believing they discovered the fundamental secrets of the universe) use their flawed concepts to disadvantage significant groups of people. Such amateur scientists completely misunderstanding the biological nature of 'Difference' & 'Diversity' and the broader scientific principles of 'Uncertainty', 'Chaos' and 'Relativistic Theories'.
To model these ideas on the 'Physical Sciences' for a moment; Electricity, Genetics, Engineering, Drugs, Nano-technology, Atomic energy and IT can enhance & improve the quality of our lives and even save lives. Used with belligerent intent, out of relative ignorance, or through lack of rigorous thinking (concerning the 'side effects'), it can also maim, kill and reduce the quality of our lives. The utilisation of any powerful, natural energy, or resource, and any discovered &/or invented technology, is capable of great benefits, but always with the proviso that there will be contra indicators and disadvantaging consequences. It is a fundamental principle of most scientific and technological developments - even quite soundly based, well tested and evidenced ones.
Relativistic Perspectives in Social Science:
Albert Einstein had many of those features we would describe today as Dyslexic, Autistic Spectrum, Slow Learner, Confusional Thinking and even Delusional Thinking. There are some psychiatrist would have had him classified as 'psychotic' in some of his advanced explanations of theoretical physics. Einstein was not alone. Some would like to have contended that many people who have made significant contributions to science and human advancement, as being deluded, psychotic, or having personality disorders, etc (the modern, social science equivalents to 'Witch', 'Possessed', 'Heretic' and 'Blasphemer'). Classical Psychiatry is little more than a classification of 'features'. Like is so often the case with 'clever' people, the concepts are sound advances, but the communication of them is 'our' problem.
The legalistic character of psychiatric concepts are not very sophisticated and it is even reasonable to speculate that such Geniuses would have exhibited some 'distressing' psychological features & symptoms; while repeatedly trying to express their significant and revolutionary insights, to the truly 'deluded' and relatively ignorant listeners of their time. Certainly Florence Nightingale psychologically suffered for her struggle with the ignorant intellectual elite of her time, along with Wilberforce, Dickens and many others; All struggled to get the powerfully ignorant and the compliant, self interested, middle class intellectuals, to open up their minds to alternative, evidenced based possibilities. Times have not progressed so much. Little has really changed, just the 'use and misuse' of even newer concepts.
Critical Perspective are Essential when it comes to Social Science and Social Welfare:
This website is dedicated to the true advancement of ideas and the spotlighting of ignorance, prejudice, misunderstanding and blatant abuses; physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual, social and institutional. It will seek to do this by presenting sound evidence and rigorous thinking. It will also present the 'emotional' and 'anecdotal' arguments alongside sound logic and exemplary evidence of successful outcome (often achieved in spite of mischievous interference and ignorant institutional restrictions). Concern was expressed in the 1970, about the potential impact on social outcomes, from the statistical feature of 'Regression to the Mean'; This is where everyone becomes 'average' competence, in our attempt to reduce poor performance. To use Biblical analogy, 'It Has come to Pass'.
Those with more intelligent, radical insights are now frequently 'excluded', by that same process that was intended to raise the standards of the least competent, to acceptable practical levels. This initiative was to meet the increasing demand on professionals, needed to put right the erroneous outcome of previously incompetent and poorly skilled practitioners. This distortion has mostly been the accidental consequence of trying to raise minimum standards, but it has been assisted by restrictive, fearful and often bullying practices of those 'average' performers, who feel threatened by any idea which may undermine their rather limited, insecure understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
Having a highly retentive memory (ideal for swatting up and passing exams), is a great quality in playing poker, classifying systems, and entertaining the masses. Having good, well practiced mathematic skills (perfect for getting 100% exam accuracy) makes for good accountants, statisticians and theoretical scientists. Having a good command of grammar and a wide vocabulary (excellent for convincing exam essays) is perfect for literary and drama careers and working as a Barrister. We each have particular skills and interests, which are reinforced or disabled, by our particular experiences. What underlies this are different 'learning modes'. Not everyone learns the same way. The behaviouristic explanations of 'salivation' have very limited application to 'all' forms of learning of 'all' thinking species.
The mind set and appropriate attitudes for problem solving, creative thinking, social science method, compassionate nursing & social work and other empathetic social professionals; requires at least a proportion of those professional groups to have highly developed problems solving skills, high level social skills & social insight and competence at being critically reflective. These qualities are poorly addresses, inadequately appreciated and very difficult for the unlearned to test for. For that reason they have been largely ignored in formal education, which has been briefed to provide more of what we better understand; Those who basically do as they are told, stick to the institutional rules and work by prescription, or according to a script. Little wonder we have a situation where problems seem to be getting worse and solutions more become costly.
In this space, I am not going to go into the wealth of incontrovertible evidence which suggest that human learning soon becomes an 'active' process and that 'problem solving' and 'creativity' do not requite significant 'tuition' to become properly and uninhibitedly exhibited. There are some valuable 'natural' qualities, often more important than formally learned skills, which have the most profound impact on human welfare and development of all kinds. It is very often a hopelessly frustrating chore; trying to convince those who are unable &/or unwilling to contemplate the alternative possibilities; That there are those who are less learned, who may actually be more 'clever' and competent, sometime because they were not 'taught', or because they rejected 'learning by wrote'. Some people get out the box because it is intellectually suffocating them.
Most serious personal and social problems are best addressed with an open mind, mental experiments, hypothesis testing and brain storming. Some people are more disposed to this than others. They are perhaps naturally, genetically disposed and along with their natural, early 'pro-active' critical thinking, are better prepared them to conceptualising and problems solving in this way. Having identified the consistent failures and the poor science behind many of these institutional misunderstanding, we are now committed to find good, challenging research and 'model' examples of good and effective practice. If you feel that you have any examples, please let us know and we will publish these. The time is right for radical solutions to what have become intractable problems.
You can not learn what is needed from university, only build on what is already there. Colleges have to be more 'open' to the variety of styles of conceptualising and learning and incorporate those who are not natural, classically 'academic' types, but are demonstrably highly competent intellectual types. Scripted Language, Formal Logic and Mathematics are not the only academically viable channels of conveying sophisticated, more representative concepts. Sometimes a model, metaphor, or a demonstration, conveys information that is not accessible by these other channels alone. These can be formalised to a point where they have serious academic validity, especially with the fast developing Information Technology and Computer processing. This initiative has begun. Imitators will not do the job. Now make space for us.
