Unconditional Positive Regard in Anthropology and Psychology

William writes:

I suspect it has to do with Robert’s Anthropologist-ish background, it seems like you guys have a deep respect for basically any people capable of civilization at all/ have a deeper appreciation for it.

Correct, I have worked as a Cultural Anthropologist. I sort of fake my way into most of my jobs – I get a bunch of books on how to do it read them or I call up people who work in the field and ask them how to do the job. Then just go be an impostor. I remember when I boned up for the job, the books I read said that if you were going to be an anthropologist and work with an ethnic group, one thing you had to do was to accept the ethnic group in toto, and that meant you had to accept every single one of their behaviors and cultural practices. That’s the only way to do ethnographic work.
If you dislike some of the group’s beliefs, behaviors or practices, it can show up in your work with your informants, and if you don’t have a good relationship with your informants, you can’t get any good anthropological work done at all. Your informants will lie, play tricks on you, make up jokes about what they believe and do and all sorts of nonsense. Or they will just become hostile and refuse to cooperate much at all.
It’s sort an unconditional positive regard thing, a Rogersian way of doing anthropology.
Speaking of which, I also work in mental health, and I believe in Rogers’ Unconditional Positive Regard model here too. Too many therapists don’t, and I believe as a result, they do lousy therapy. I accept all of my clients in toto and generally don’t have any negative attitudes about any of them. Of course it helps that most of my clients are very good people. I don’t have to work with lousy or bad people as clients. I guess it’s difficult.
Also I am still a liberal at heart. That never left me. If your heart is still on the Left, it’s hard to get all that racist no matter how awful X group or race acts. Though Gypsies would definitely try my patience!

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

49 thoughts on “Unconditional Positive Regard in Anthropology and Psychology”

  1. This is going to surprise you nut I have a lot of that accepting people for who they are thoughts also. The main difference between you and me is that I while accepting people as they are want some of them the hell the away from me. I don’t want them involved in my life and I don’t care about the hardships it brings into their lives if by me having to live with them causes me misery. I’m also not talking about people who are mentally ill although if dangerous I want them away from me also.
    I think all people if they try hard enough can get along with others without purposely oppressing them or causing them harm. I get along with Blacks fine by just being polite and also by limiting my proximity to them best I can.
    In the long run you can’t control others behavior if they don’t want to control themselves. At that point you have conflict and at that point I and my people come first.

      1. GSG always has good questions.
        I’m sure Sam will say that he does, regardless of truth. How can it be proved?
        However, it seems like Jason Y and I sure as hell don’t.
        I understand that others may feel this way, and that’s tolerable to an extent. But the destruction and desolation of others’ lives because of your feelings is just wrong.
        I’ve oddly enough always felt this insane level of alturism towards Ashkenazim Jews, and I honestly don’t know why. I suppose I look like one, a little bit. IDK.

        1. I’m starting to feel less and less tribal myself. Especially with the Jewish establishment which I find to be incredibly exploitative.

        2. Give me your Jew card, and I’ll give you my Goy card.
          No but in all seriousness I think a lot of what the Jews are doing now is pretty messed up.
          I believe that the story of the Jews is really one of the “oppressor v. the oppressed” and the oppressed turning around and winning with his cleverness;
          but for the first times in history that’s being reversed.

        3. GSG- very true.
          Speaking of “Civil Liberties” Trumpenreich has basically caused Libertarianism to fracture. You have those who really just wanted to use it as a reason to but down non-Whites, those who wanted to it to put down the poor (regardless of race), and those who just did not like government.
          The latter two groups are repulsed by Trumpenreich, and mad that the former group is completely abandoning libertarian principles (it’s okay that low-IQ scumbags are out in the open, because they are of our race, and government is okay to oppress Coloreds’, silly cuck- a la Stefan Moly-Jew).

        4. Our civil liberties and privacy have been eroding under the last administration. A Trump Presidency would just draw more attention to it.

        5. Phil- do you think ethnicity-without cultural influences (i.e. Raise somewhere else) is still the best indicator of altruism? I.e. Is it biological or just a fondness of the people who nurtured/ raised you (successfully/well , in this case)

        6. To william, I think more along the line of specific personality would be a better predictor but if you’re referring to “by and large”, probably innate ethnicity. Also it may depend on the breeding background on the person;s background.

      2. In a crowd of people of different races most ALL races will be drawn to their own. This is not some special evil White thing and you know it.
        I’m fairly fed up with the psychological warfare directed at Whites. I’ve read a few books on influence and when I see it so blatant it just annoys me. It certainly doesn’t move me. Car salesmen really piss me off. All their mirroring and liking the stuff you like, their your buddy. It’s infuriating. Just tell me how much you want for the damn car. All this signing paper and compliance bullshit is a waste of my time.

        1. “In a crowd of people of different races most ALL races will be drawn to their own. This is not some special evil White thing and you know it.”
          Maybe in terms of friendships, etc. But even so I’m skeptical because Interracial sex has always been a massive thing.
          why was this always required, from the get-go?
          Why are African-Americans 17% White?
          Why are Central-Mexican Mestizos 12% White?
          why was Obama born pre-Civil Rights act?
          the fact that this is even an issue proves that such talking points are nonsense. Think about it, especially if it occurred Pre-Jewish influence.
          It’s a contrived bullshit talking point that’s eaten up by the low-IQ hordes of racialists.
          and you know it
          you want to hit that,
          that’s not “The Jews” in your pants…………….
          half-Australian Aborigine half-Anglo Australian

        2. If your not Jewish you think like one. Someone says one thing and you disjointedly veer off in another direction so as to confuse the first point. I’ll answer your question anyways.
          You speak as if this is profound evil White thing. This amazing law against miscegenation. No it’s very simple. Men will fuck anything. They’re whores. They’ll fuck goats, they’ll fuck sheep, they’ll fuck Dolphins, they’ll fuck children, Australian Aborigine, etc…on and on; and yes the girl looks hot.
          None the less when it comes to miscegenation let’s let the Jews go first. All Jews should pair with Australian Aborigine and tell us how it works out. All of them, no exceptions. You too.
          You really shouldn’t be bothering WN after all Whites are minority if you just count the youths. You should go after those pesky racist Andaman Islanders. The nerve of those people. They KILL people who land on their Islands.

        3. FWIW, I don’t believe in encouraging interracial marriage. I don’t believe in attempting to influence people’s personal lives.

        4. No, Sam. Men will fuck women of other races more than goats. Although the latter does happen far too often. And you’ve just written off the women? Takes two to tango……. And guy, stop screaming Jew when there’s something you don’t like… For the sake of your argument

        5. The notion that interracial dating is encouraged by parents is something I’ve never seen. But, laws against it have always needed to be enacted, so….its natural…presumably.

        6. I don’t like to see intermarriage actively encouraged.
          I am aware of a movement that believes that mandatory intermarriage is the solution to ethnic strife. LOL Perpetuated by none other than Phil Weiss and his cronies, but he wishes to apply his ideals to Zionists as much as White Gentiles. Don’t know why Kevin MacDonald loves him so much.

        7. GSG- If people in the U.S. screwed until the next generation(s) were the same color, the potential for Balkanization would diminish. I’ve seen no conclusive evidence that high-rates of Mixed-race mental illness are genetic (“if it doesn’t make sense, then it isn’t true”) + Occam’s razor.
          The misconception among Nationalists/Supremacists is that a society where 100% of the people are 80% White, 20% Black, is worse than a society where 80% of people are pure White and 20% pure Black. The IQ stays the same, and since IQ comes more from mommy, if women from the higher IQ race bred with those from the lower IQ race, it could actually result in an increase.
          The only concern with that of course, is that the everyone is mixed society would have a lower IQ standard deviation, meaning fewer geniuses.

        8. The point was, idealists can be so blind to their vision, that it could drive them to take away a basic civil liberty of choosing one’s own spouse.

        9. To William,
          there are exceptions, but Sam of course meant “by and large” in terms of races and socialization. I mean, there’s a reason Blacks are complained about by politically incorrect folks of being more racist, for they believe in conspiracy theories of the other putting them down, commit more violence (not murders) towards the other, do the causal shit that trigger SJWs more, and indeed are more ethnocentric percentage wise than whites.
          To Sam,
          I’ve meant to comment earlier, but I’m currently on vacation with my family and I never got around to it. Your comments on what should be required for young blacks that are in criminal behavior is exactly what I’ve heard and discussed. IMO you put more thought and honesty in a beneficial solution than most people who are “concerned”.
          As for your political beliefs, in all honesty I can at least sympathize. While I’m unsure towards your interpretation of it being stated in the constitution of white entitlement to the U.S, I don’t think you really have to justify simply the act of preserving the native citizens of one’s country, just HOW you do it. With that I say, assimilation or boot in the basic sense. They could keep some heritage, but have some damn gratitude and conform to ways were you can at least healthily adjust with other citizens if you think this country has opportunity. Otherwise, it’s just arrogant.
          My beliefs, I see liberty as a fundamental to governing but consciousness on preserving a society to have such liberties is just as important. If others, foreign or not, don’t see it that way fine but don’t complain if it comes back to bite you. This could be deportation, protests and execution towards some means of separation, etc.
          And that’s my beef, or as Jason would call “self hate” about blacks. We could all argue whether most or some commit savage crime, but the facts can tell you without doubt a disproportionate amount do compared to others to the point that it cause internal and external difficulties (e.i “knockout”) AND that at least close to most try to be apologetic about it or out right try to defend it, shifting the responsibility.
          In a “fair and just world” I would see that “deportation” was discriminant with a clear and rational threshold on who deserves it, but that’s not going to be the case if history were to prove anything. While deportation may likely not happen in the near future, we, including blacks, are going to be screwed in some fashion
          What can be done? Well, read of these guys.
          “They are very strict Mahometans indeed, marabouts always calling them to one hour before sunrise; that, according to theological astronomy, being the at which the sun rises at Mecca, Mahometanism has done much for the Mandingoes. It has substituted monotheism for and totally abolished human sacrifices. It has not extirpated the innate negro character of the Mandingoes; but it raised them greatly in the scale of humanity.
          In other words, only Blacks can truly eliminate “black” problems. Not all black “leaders” do, but only they themselves should be at least expected to understand their own psychology. Whites can understand to an extent, in the past why Christianity hasn’t has been noted many times by those of the past.
          “The Methodists I fear have done harm for they have diffused a general feeling among the negro population that abstaining from dancing from drinking (a vice, by the way which negroes are rarely prone to) and a certain phraseology which is mere form on their part is Christianity. Now it would be much better if the negroes were taught that lying stealing cruelty to each other or the brute creation slander and disobedience were sins in the sight of God rather than level their anathemas against dancing the favourite, and let me say the innocent recreation of the negroes, unless when it trenches as it sometimes does upon the sacredness of the Sabbath.”
          Blacks were given instructions on civilization through basic cultural diffusion on the level of religion, by which is a great way to modify a population to advancement, and then selection between the savages and the civilize commenced.
          I’m not waiting for a white guy to do it, cause it’ll likely not happen to soon or would likely work.
          Back towards you, I’m someone of a rare opinion and and even rarer form of expressing it, so I’m not really one who likes to make more enemies than I have to, especially when I can sense that you have comprehension on the issue that overlaps mine. That’s pretty much why I’m not dogging you like William, I really can’t afford it and I’m not going to shut away someone who can understand over things which can pretty much amount to a petty difference.

        10. “there are exceptions, but Sam of course meant “by and large” in terms of races and socialization. I mean, there’s a reason Blacks are complained about by politically incorrect folks of being more racist, for they believe in conspiracy theories of the other putting them down, commit more violence (not murders) towards the other, do the causal shit that trigger SJWs more, and indeed are more ethnocentric percentage wise than whites.”
          I can buy that. However, it’s more complex than “I love my race” or “appearance” or some supernatural great White God source that he seems to imply;
          it seem that such may be because of things like IQ, whether or not, if they are Black, they are more likely to have higher testosterone and go out and look for babes on Saturday night, or if they are Asians to use their spatial ability to play video games, or something like that.

        11. To william,
          Basically, relatedness. Naturally, people within a race tend to have a combination or traits that are more common and compatible towards socialization. In a Nutshell, genetic interests.
          The intensity towards a “race preference” varies of course on whether how endogamous or exogamous they are. In other words, how much they breed within or outside their immediate families. Eastern europe is relatively high for the continent in cousin marriage, thus you don;t here them complaining about immigrants taken them over. Britain is the over extreme and Iceland is in the middle with Third cousins marriage.
          Even between different races, those who marry each other for example would have similar IQs as a trend, such as “wigger” girls and ghetto blacks or African immigrants children and whites. I’m unsure if they really associate with Blacks who emulate the “ghetto” culture.

        12. Phil-
          Perhaps if you count marriage as a social union.
          But in terms of pure sexual desire- Human nature, as evident in History (the laws I referenced, the make-up of many populations, etc). It does not appear to be the case that people will want to select someone exactly like them, they can’t breed out their flaws?
          For instance, a weak female in a lion pride does not go for the weak male,still.
          If you a White with a mental illness, you might attempt to breed it out by going with an Asian (who have low rates of such).
          I believe that marriage and sex can be influenced by you are surrounded by, since that purely is what you are comfortable with and limits your options. But controlled for, I really don’t see how it’s even possible there is a racial preference in sex or the related parts of marriage.

        13. Well keep in mind, in polygamy even females would have to be appealing, so a weak female still has lower chances of being with the alpha but better chances to kook up than a lower male.
          And yes, features of another race can determine preference. Black women, on average and varies, were less selected for strictly domestic and child oriented work due to resources obtaining influences on the culture, more on physically ability to do a variety of work as well as behavior.
          However, as noted with ashanti women for instance, they belonged to a high society with higher means of survival, thus achieved better beauty based around new influences of sexual selection.
          Eurasian women however had this experience longer and thus they have more of an sexually aesthetic appeal as well as behavioral appeal (less violent) thus making them relatively more attractive to many.
          To put it bluntly, humans have variation shared between each other, and either on a macro or micro-level, some of another group may see thing beneficial from mating with other of another. This has happened well before races even really existed.
          For instance, runaway Black and Indian slaves in the americas often form communities with mixed offspring, like the seminole or marroons. Likely, because they shared traits and they were beneficial (same motivations, etc.) However, it worht noting that the Native americans did it more often, thus runaway slaves of black origins weren’t as representative (depends on tribe ethnicitiy of course)
          I’m not saying genetic interest by race, in certain areas, is absolutely strict by race but it often acts on traits that are alike and are beneficial for future engagement with the other individual.

        14. If Native Americans ran away more often, it was likely largely because they were more familiar with local areas and peoples (and to have connections therewith), and thus better able to hide/stay uncaught.
          Indian slavery was also less significant in many places and tended to ended earlier— this was less true in places with big Indian populations like parts of Central America nad the Andes—, partly for those reasons. In some areas—variably—, Indian populations were smaller, coming from nomadic or smaller scale farming groups. Indians were also less resistant to Western diseases like smallpox, to which parts of Africa had acclimated in the preceding few centuries, sometimes indirectly, contacts with Europe—initially with significant losses).
          Slave rebellions and even maroon sttlements were not uncommon esp in the Caribbean and South America (eg: the maroons of Suriname and Jamaica, the Quilombos of Brasil and Panama, Yenga’s rebellion in Mexico) where first generation Africans were a larger part of the slave populations

        15. Edits: “… (and likely to have connections therewith)…”
          “…Indians were also less resistant to Western diseases like smallpox, (to which parts of Africa had acclimated in the preceding few centuries, sometimes indirectly, from contact/trade with Europe—initially with significant losses).

        16. Edit: ” and South America…” where first generation Africans were a larger part of the slave populations and ethnic groups were less likely to be separated by slave owners (sometimes allowing something closer to the cultural cohesion/ethnic cooperation—though still greatly altered by slavery— of certain Indian groups)”
          I should also have mentioned the rebellion in Haiti.
          Also, many runaways in North American and elsewhere likely failed, though many also escaped to the (when slavery there had ended) north and Canada (where I believe some of their descendants still exist)

        17. JM8-
          It does appear that Black slave escapes in the United States were highly planned. Great observation of astrology (i.e. the North Star) and related things were undertaken prior in order to give better chances of success to such a daunting challenge.

        18. Edit: “and ethnic groups, or broader cultural groupings(sharing similar customs), were less likely to be separated/broken up…

        19. To jm8,
          Well, that’s likely a factor, but what slaveholders observed was that it was linked to character regarding ethnicity..
          For examples, Maroon blacks were noted to be mostly of ashanti stock, sometime Eboe but this would likely be the Calabar group called the Mokoes, who had a similar reputation as the ashanti as fierce slaves. This inclined them to escape more often than say other black tribes.
          Also Native americans being prone to suicide and escaping were factors in them not being desirable as slaves, same for the Igbo as this source notes. (eboe really, the term at the time wasn’t too specific at least with new world, referring to those of the Calabar region in general).
          Now As for South and Central Africa, well…
          It’s possible that some other tribes could’ve had a similar reputation like the Ashanti in terms of ferocity, The congo appearing to be a huge contributor to those regions.

        20. As for haiti that’s not suprising, they would seem to have a significant ancestry from Dahomey, a rather violent African society from what I’ve read,

        21. Maroons were formed by runaways (not always, or often initially violent), but violence sometimes followed—though sometimes soon after—(in defense of their free status) later: the Maroon wars with the Dutch in S. America, and in Jamaica with the British.
          The maroons in Suriname/Guyana have mostly a mixture of Dahomean, Akan/Ashanti, and Congo/Angolan ancestry. The Maroons in Jamaica indeed had a Significant Ashanti element, but also (as everywhere in the New world) a signifcant Congo one (and likely Igbo/SE. Nigerian).
          The Dahomeans were said by some to be more docile or tolerant of oppression. According to some slaveowners/Euro-caribbean writers, thius was because they were (so conditioned because they were) used to living under tyrannical kings. But they seem to have contributed a fair number of runaways (where they were a significant group). They were a significant contributor, along with the Congos, in Haiti. Some Congo groups were known for rebelling (the men of the Stono rebellion in N. America were Congo/Angolans). The Quilombos (runaway settlements in Brasil and Panema) were largely Congo/Angolan.
          In larger groups Dahomeans perhaps they could be quite war-like, especially under slave conditions/the threat thereof. They were a warrior culture and some Europeans described them as having a mixture of “savage” or brutal and “noble” traits. One writer compared them to the Arabs and the Japanese. The Ashanti were—at least by one writer—compared to the Romans for their love of freedom, and sometime war-likeness. They and the Dahomeans, and later the Yoruba, were said to be especially hard workers.
          Of course colonies that allowed slaves to buy their freedom were more likely to see industrious slaves.

        22. Edit: “…Europeans described them as having a mixture of “savage” or brutal and “noble” traits. One writer compared them to the Arabs and the Japanese. Their kings, and those of some Yoruba groups (some other tribes in Africa did as well) had a tradition of honorable suicide (using poison).”

        23. Edit: “…(in defense of their free status) later: (eg: the Maroon wars with the Dutch in S. America and Brasil, and in Jamaica with the British) often through guerilla warfare and other strategies.

        24. To Jm8,
          Dahomeyans could still vary though. Keep in mind, they aren’t homogenous because they’ve expanded from their original tribes, it’s been noted for example that the royalty were the best representatives of what the original peopled looked like. for examples, like the ebo dichotomy with the Mokoes (who were described as quite dark) and the “yellow” ebo variant (a yellowish-brown).
          Also, it may’ve not been ferocity, but perhaps some sort of faculty they developed that was similar to the Ashanti.
          Both have been noted to have similar cranial traits (of course, though, I’m aware of the Fon’s closer links to the Yoruba)
          this speaks of the different tribes subdued by the Fon on page 93-94 and the traits they share with Ashanties in terms of cranial development 97

        25. I have no interest in keeping Blacks down. I wish all the health, wealth and wellness in the world to them. My basic point is that there are only so many resources. Only so much time. At some point the predations of Blacks on Whites must be stopped. Whole entire cities and regions are depopulated because Blacks are so violent. I want this stopped and if it requires heavy handed repression of Blacks then so be it. White people would not allow any group of Whites to do what Black people are doing today. We wouldn’t stand for it.
          We always hear about lynching in the South but if you look at the numbers it’s extremely small compared to the mass mega-deaths that Blacks commit on each other today. I’ve posted the numbers somewhere on Robert’s blog but can’t remember where. The point being the Blacks as a whole were better off when they were lynched for heinous crimes infrequently than allowing them to mass murder everyone around them. This may have not done much for the people actually lynched but it did a great deal for Black society to make abundantly clear that there were just some actions that you didn’t think about doing.
          After writing all this I realized that nothing will change. Things will get worse and eventually there will be a huge death match 2000 race war because that’s just what societies do. Our country is run by a bunch of psychopaths and uber rich who are only interested in milking it for what they can.

        26. To sam, I read you loud and clear, especially the last part of what direction things are going.
          That reminds me what I held in my earlier philosophy, relying on solidarity because at this point government reliance is suicide.

        27. Edit: “The Ashanti were—at least by one writer—compared to the Romans for their stoicism, love of freedom, and sometime war-likeness.”

        28. To Jm8, don;t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Ashantis were savages.
          Actually, I’ve remembered it being often argued that they were “barbarians”, in which that were wild but held ability to comprehend and establish civilization and organization.

        29. To Sam:
          Blacks were not lynched primarily for heinous crimes, though often such were were used as pretexts (sometimes such pretexts were not bothered with)—and the standard of evidence was often very low— for other (political and economic) motives
          As I posted elsewhere:
          “Lynchings were sometimes but not always—or even that frequently—done on the (often flimsy) pretext of a sex crime, but were often also often an effort to suppress Blacks who competed/tried to compete with Whites economically or were seen as generally behaving above their station.”
          There is no evidence that the majority (or even anything close) were guilty of the crimes they were accused of (though clearly some fraction must have been guilty).

        30. “I’ve remembered it being often argued that they were “barbarians”, in which that were wild but held ability to comprehend and establish civilization and organization.”
          Yes, barbarism was consodered a cultural stage above savagery. It seems it roughly corresponded to the state of “semi-civilization” (another equivalent term sometimes used by the writers of the period), as opposed to savagery, or, I suppose, total non-civilization.

        31. “…Blacks were not lynched primarily for heinous crimes…”
          You’re either lying or misinformed. I’m not saying that on occasion Blacks were not lynched for being familiar with White Women but I haven’t seen any documentation that this is true other than Jews just repeat it all the time. The large majority of Blacks were lynched for heinous crimes. If you will give it even the slightest amount of thought knowing the behavior of Blacks today do in you wildest imagination believe they were all Angels in the early 19th century? Somehow what they do now NEVER would happen when the Evil White Man ran things. Don’t be absurd and foolish.

        32. To Sam:
          There is no evidence that the majority that were lynched were guilty of heinous crimes. That is what I said Nor is it clear that the majority were lynched for such accusations (you seem to have ignored the links I posted). But obvously some must have been guilty of such crimes. I never said they were all angels, or any such absurd thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)