Why do so many non-Palestinians around the world stand with Palestinians and against Israel? Researchers at the University of South Florida set out to answer that question.
They gave two groups of test subjects a identical one-page essay that described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fairly from both sides' perspectives.
Then one group was given a map that showed Israel as small, and the other group got a map that showed Israel as big. Same country, same facts. The results were not the same.
The group that saw Israel as small on the map took Israel's side. And the group that saw Israel as big on the map took the Palestinians' side.
Why?
When the first group saw a small Israel, they felt, in their own words, that Israel was the underdog and took their side.
When the second group saw a big Israel, they saw Palestinians as the underdog and took their side.
That is underdogma. The widespread belief that in any given issue, whichever side has less power, the underdog, is automatically considered righteous. And whichever side has more power is automatically considered wrong. Doesn't matter which side is actually right or wrong, all that matters to those who practice underdogma is which side has less or more power.
Now, once upon a time, Jews were seen as underdogs. But today, Jews have a strong homeland, advanced weapons and powerful military. In the eyes of those who practice underdogma, Jews committed an unforgivable sin. History's underdogs became overdogs.
As Israel's late foreign minister said: "When I was first here, we had the advantages of the underdog. Now we have the disadvantage of the overdog." -- Abba Eban (1915-2002)
Underdogma. It's why millions of people choose sides the way they do on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and on many of the issues that shape our world today.
The overdog is automatically bad, and the underdog is automatically good.
Underdogma. Learn how it works and how to defeat it at under-dogma.com
--
When people observe competitions, they are often drawn to figures that are seen as disadvantaged or unlikely to prevail. The present researc
Abstract
When people observe competitions, they are often drawn to figures that are seen as disadvantaged or unlikely to prevail. The present research tested the scope and limits of people's support for underdogs. The first two studies demonstrated, in the context of Olympic matches (Study 1) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Study 2), that observers' support for a competitor increased when framing it as an underdog. The final two studies explored mechanisms underlying support for underdogs. Study 3 showed that participants attributed more effort to a team when they believed it to be an underdog, and perceptions of effort mediated liking. In Study 4, participants reading a hypothetical sporting event supported a team with a low probability of success and labeled it an underdog unless it had greater resources than an opponent, suggesting that low expectations by themselves do not engender support if positive outcomes are not seen as deserved.
==
Now you understand how people have been manipulated into supporting far-right fundamentalist Islamic jihad terrorists as "victims."
Notice that Intersectionality is rooted in underdogma, it just uses identity categories and politics to determine who's the underdog and who's the overdog.
