Link back to comment

Thanks again Arnd,

I will start by answering your question of what is IP trying to achieve (apologies I did forget to answer that in my original reply). If my understanding of IP is correct, then the broad goal would be to influence social change regarding the disadvantage/oppression/injustice experienced by particular groups. In some cases, such injustices may include stereotypes or negative assumptions regarding the group, so the goal may include combating dominant narratives that perpetuate such beliefs.

Regarding your example of department superiors, in my experience if the supervisors/managers do their job well, they ought to take into account their employees findings, for example if they hired social researchers/psyhologists/etc to collect their data by qualitative means (focus groups, interviews, etc). I understand that in many cases this is not what goes on, but nonetheless this is what ought to. I should emphasise that the acquainted knowledge by experience is not the only knowledge that matters, only that its absence leaves us with incomplete knowledge. It could be the case that Veterans affairs could make all the correct decisions without such research, but it could easily be the case there may be something they have not considered since they have not engaged with those who have direct experience of what they are trying to understand.

I'll leave the universal humanism stuff for now since Peter has been kind and helpful by assisting me with writing another article for this site that covers some of those points you have raised, which may be best left for that (by the way I always appreciate a good Monty Python reference! lol).

I am aware of D. Dennet's consciousness explained, but I haven't got around to reading it yet. I have read his 'elbow room' but that is all I have read. I have read some things that have referenced it, but it is hard to really delve into without knowing his argument in its full detail.

Regarding empathy, it is an interesting field in moral psychology in of itself. I am not so sure if the inability to artifically create empathy suggests empathy is not naturally occuring (if that is what you meant, please correct me if this is not the case). Furthermore, this may be the case for machines, but as fellow human beings we can appeal to both our universality and our special relationships to increase our empathy towards others. Take for instance a man cat-calling a woman on the street. I could say to him 'what if I did that to your sister, how would you react?' This is an example of the universality of our capacity for special relationships as human beings to create (artifically or naturally) empathy in an effective way.

Thanks for the mention of 'The Wisdom of Crowds', it looks very interesting and seems right up my alley.

Thanks again Arnd,

Andrew.