https://racial-justice.aflcio.org/blog/est-aliquid-se-ipsum-...
This is beside the point. From the paper:
However, real-world decision-making often entails making choices where harm is unavoidable (7, 8). Groups may have to choose between in-group losses and out-group gains, a circumstance that has not been previously studied and reveals that individuals’ decisions cannot be explained by existing theories.
> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?
Often we do, because people generally are not all that shy in telling one another - and the media - what they think.
It is also highly improbable that a group which fought hard for union representation, or made considerable use of a public pool, suddenly decided these things were against their own interests right at the time these benefits were being extended to other people.
I was asking someone who made a specific claim, they were not quoting from the paper. I'm asking him about the claim they made.
Specifically the person said "A great example of this phenomenon is the white response to desegregation in the United States. White union workers voted against their labor interests".
In the context of an article titled "Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group.
If the person did present an example of something claimed by the article, the article cannot be used to substantiate it, the article cannot be an example of itself, it could contain examples, but this was presented as an independent example, which needs independent justification.
> > Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?
> Often we do
Do we have any for the specific instance in question?
In showing that a specific question you asked is beside the point of the paper, there is nothing wrong in quoting the paper to demonstrate what that point is.
Furthermore, I quoted the specific question you posed (for reference: 'Was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group?') Syzarian's comment (and, more relevantly, the claim you specifically picked out in your latest reply) neither implies nor is predicated on either a yes or no answer to the question I quoted - and there is no reason it should, especially if, as I suspect (but cannot prove), Syzarian is well aware that this is beside the point of the paper.
> In the context of an article titled "Individuals prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group.
This is an entire paragraph, yet it does not even appear to be a complete sentence, but you do seem to be agreeing that the context created by the paper is relevant.
> If the person did present an example of something claimed by the article, the article cannot be used to substantiate it...
The question of yours that I responded to is not about, and does not raise an issue concerning, the veracity of the claim you have specifically identified.
>>> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions?
>> Often we do [because people generally are not all that shy in telling one another - and the media - what they think.]
> Do we have any for the specific instance in question?
This is the most blatant example so far of something that pervades all your posts here: attempting to shift the burden of proof by raising questions where there is no real doubt, knowing that any attempt to respond could be stretched out indefinitely through the use of similar questions [Update: as you have demonstrated in your further replies to Syzarian and others.] If you have a point to make here, the burden's on you to make it, bud.
>> It is also highly improbable that a group which fought hard for union representation, or made considerable use of a public pool, suddenly decided these things were against their own interests right at the time these benefits were being extended to other people.
>
Don't you have anything to say here?
They also wrote books, letters, and op-eds, all part of the historical record, and available if you were willing to spend a little energy on this subject.
Mind citing any? I'm not going to try to do the work to substantiate someone else's claim, and besides, if I don't find anything that agrees with it your response would just be that I did not look hard enough. If you can't cite something, that is fine, just say this is your opinion, that is entirely okay, but claiming something as fact puts the burden of proof on you to substantiate it.
I'm not an American either, and my grandfather is demented now but I think I know him well enough to know that he is would not have done something like that, and I know of at least one case that could be said to show the opposite, where he voted against his own group interest to benefit another group.
That's fine, but I'm not sure why you'd expect someone else to do it for you.
>and besides, if I don't find anything that agrees with it your response would just be that I did not look hard enough.
And now you're the one making unsupported claims.
> What were these interests, and was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group, and if not what was it?
> Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions, and a clear objective understanding of their actual interests, or is this just your interpretation of their actions?
This, at a glance, answers none of those. I'm not going to go do research to clarify someone else's claim. If they did not want to make it, they should not have made it, but they did, and thus it is up to them to clarify it.
The groups interests were not correctly understood. The progressive course when this happens would be to attempt to improve understanding of the groups interests. Alternatively, you can keep the invalid assumptions, disproved by the groups behavior, and assert the group is illogical and harming itself - at this point you're no longer reflecting on reality.
- https://academic.oup.com/california-scholarship-online/book/...
Another: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0023656920089018...
Unfortunately don't have free links but if you're able to read these, they'll answer your questions.
What were these interests, and was their intent at the time of "voting against their interests" to injure their own group, and if not what was it?
Do we have any insights into their state of mind when taking these actions, and a clear objective understanding of their actual interests, or is this just your interpretation of their actions?