Prejudice

[Nick_A]

"Consider prejudice. Once a person begins to accept a stereotype of a particular group, that "thought" becomes an active agent, "participating" in shaping how he or she interacts with another person who falls in that stereotyped class. In turn, the tone of their interaction influences the other person's behaviour. The prejudiced person can't see how his prejudice shapes what he "sees" and how he acts. In some sense, if he did, he would no longer be prejudiced. To operate, the "thought" of prejudice must remain hidden to its holder"

Peter Senge
MIT-based author, researcher & educator

"The secret of the Demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so that they believe they are as clever as he." KRAUS

Is it ever advisable to prejudge? Are we prone to prejudice without even being aware of it?

[venom mama]

no and no.

[Nick_A]

Hello Venomgirl

no and no.

I know in this day and age when a girl says no a man is supposed to stop but in this case I must continue.

This really isn't so easy and because it is so subtle, the demagogue becomes so effective. What does it mean to prejudge? From Encarta:

prejudge

pre·judge [ pree júj ] (past pre·judged, past participle pre·judged, present participle pre·judg·ing, 3rd person present singular pre·judg·es)


transitive verb

judge prematurely: to judge a person, issue, or case before sufficient evidence is available

Now what is prejudice?

prejudice

prej·u·dice [ préjjədiss ]


noun (plural prej·u·dic·es)

1. opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes


2. the holding of ill-informed opinions: the holding of opinions that are formed beforehand on the basis of insufficient knowledge


3. irrational dislike of somebody: an unfounded hatred, fear, or mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular religion, ethnicity, nationality, or social status


4. law disadvantage or harm: disadvantage or harm caused to somebody or something

The amazing things in these definitions is that there is no certainty as to whether the opinion formed is valid or not and the label is applied by someone other then oneself. People then can label reactions as either prejudgment or prejudice. Defining prejudice is an emotional response and that is very dangerous.

Say for example a person is open minded towards car drivers. He happens to be standing in the road and a car with a woman driving is approaching with her turn signal flashing. He assumes she will turn and doesn't want to appear untrusting so stands in the road and she hits him. He really prejudged trust in this situation and tried to appear as a modern male. In truth the same thing could happen with a male or female. In this case I would say it is better to be prejudiced against drivers and not take chances. I know it seems like a silly example but it is how these things work.

Trust though is a good example here. Should a person automatically trust another so as not to appear prejudiced? I would say no. It would seem that a person wishing to be trusted must prove themselves trustworthy. But all this is so hard to do and so open for error it is no wonder that the demagogue has a field day with it convincing people of the legitimacy of their particular prejudice.

So for me the question really becomes how to cope with ones own prejudicial nature rather then to deny and ignore it only to become amazed at how quickly and easily the "no" can turn into a "yes".

[sahyo]

today
sunwinding squirrel ran trunking firtree
running tiptop jumping landing
tiny tipbranch
noleaves tree
bouncing


*didn't
hesitate*

[Nick_A]

Asheera, I tend to agree. Reacting naturally probably would avoid a great many errors. But unfortunately we have "education" to contend with and the obstacles it presents have become so much a part of our personality that they are virtually impossible to transcend.

[fu*]

Asheera, I tend to agree. Reacting naturally probably would avoid a great many errors. But unfortunately we have "education" to contend with and the obstacles it presents have become so much a part of our personality that they are virtually impossible to transcend.

Hey Nick, What if, just for the hell of it, you made your posts a litle more 'personal', Like;

But unfortunately >> I << have "education" to contend with and the obstacles it presents have become so much a part of >> MY << personality that they are virtually impossible to transcend.

To fix what your statement suggests, it seems you would have to change everyone/everything.
To fix the revised statement, it seems you would have to change only self.

Or this, in another post;

Of course this is beyond us. We lose our presence just if we stub our toe or someone looks at us the wrong way.

We? Us?

How about this instead;

Of course this is beyond (ME). (I) lose MY presence just if (I) stub (MY) toe or someone looks at (ME) the wrong way.

So if >>you<< have "education" to contend with and the obstacles it presents have become so much a part of >> your << personality that they are virtually impossible to transcend.

And if >>you<< lose >>your<< presence just if >>you<< stub >>your<< toe or someone looks at >>you<< the wrong way.

Should you be working on "us"?


"Change yourself, and the world changes." <--Anthony DeMello, among others.

Does this make any sense to you?

[Nick_A]

Fu, I didn't mean to imply that I was free of these adverse effects since I am not and include myself in everything I used the word "we".

Of course this is beyond (ME). (I) lose MY presence just if (I) stub (MY) toe or someone looks at (ME) the wrong way.

Yes, this is me. I do not believe it to be just me but part of the human condition but I have nothing against admitting it as a certainity for myself as of now.

[venom mama]

Originally posted by Nick_A@Dec 20 2004, 05:08 AM


Say for example a person is open minded towards car drivers. He happens to be standing in the road and a car with a woman driving is approaching with her turn signal flashing. He assumes she will turn and doesn't want to appear untrusting so stands in the road and she hits him. He really prejudged trust in this situation and tried to appear as a modern male. In truth the same thing could happen with a male or female. In this case I would say it is better to be prejudiced against drivers and not take chances. I know it seems like a silly example but it is how these things work.


this has nothing to do with being prejudice. it's common sense to get out of the way if a car is coming, blinker or not. the person could have forgotten they had it on.


the only way a person can be prejudice is if they are ignorant. prejudice = ignorance
yes some people will prejudge a person from what they have been told about a certain race or religion and yes there are some that will act according to what another expects of them. so when i said no and no it was my own personal answer about me. as for what others say and do well...........

[Nick_A]

Venomgirl

the only way a person can be prejudice is if they are ignorant. prejudice = ignorance

Fu's gonna hate this but this is, I believe, the bigview so I must use the collective "we". As has been said: "the fact that wars exist is proof of our stupidity and as Einstein said:

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

A good argument can be made that the collective "we" are ignorant, gullible and vulnerable to suggestion which is why the demagogue can be so influential. I'm just willing to admit it about myself. All this bigotry continues mostly because people refuse to see it in themselves and think somehow that they are "above" it.
I remember reading of the superb way in which a great master demonstrated this to a number of the "educated". In the early part of the 1900's a group of these educated sophisticates asked this person to give a talk on the nature of man. He asked his associates to teach him as much profanity as they knew and finally the night came for the speech.

But this wasn't just an ordinary speech. He started speaking in ways that gradually coaxed it into becoming an orgy. At the conclusion he said that he had now shown them the nature of man and asked to be paid. They did. They saw how easily they could change.

The silliest example for me is the term "reverse" bigotry. This cannot exist. Either bigotry exists or it doesn't. But since bigotry is defined largely within an acceptable fashionable context limited to certain groups, a word phrase had to be found to refer to non-fashionable bigotry and reverse-bigotry was adopted.

One person's common sense can be another's prejudice since the determination is largely emotional.

i said no and no it was my own personal answer about me. as for what others say and do well...........

So am I to understand that you never prejudge and are not vulnerable at all to suggestion without being aware of it?

[sahyo]

nick :)

Reacting naturally probably would avoid a great many errors.

when reacting-avoiding, responding not

we have "education" to contend with and the obstacles it presents have become so much a part of our personality

what "personality"?

virtually impossible to transcend.

what's to transcend?

[Nick_A]

Asheera, you're giving me more gray hairs. :)

what "personality"?

Your false personality is what lives your life for you. It is all your habitual movement, postures, emotional reactions, thought patterns etc.

what's to transcend?

Habit. This habitual life is double edged. It gives us the feeling of meaning and of life yet it denies the freedom to experience reality since habitual life is void of consciousness.

If you want to experience the strength of habitual life, try breaking a habit.

I believe that it is possible to transcend the power of habitual life in order for a person to acquire the freedom to be able "to be".

[sahyo]

you're giving me more gray hairs. :)


hehe...not possible? :)


acquire the freedom


not possible either...hehehe :D

[sahyo]

This habitual life is double edged. It gives us the feeling of meaning and of life yet it denies the freedom to experience reality since habitual life is void of consciousness.


no

[Nick_A]

Asheera

no

Do you ever say yes? :) As a typicl Aries male, I don't know what "no" means in this context.

[venom mama]

vulnerable to suggestion? suggestion of what? hate? no, never.


why would i prejudge anything? to look at someone and think i know them? no, never.

[sahyo]

Do you ever say yes? :)

word 'no' when not happening :)

As a typicl Aries male, I don't know what "no" means in this context.

hehe...is happening "typicl"?, "Aries"?...is happening "male"? ;)

[sahyo]

why would i prejudge anything? to look at someone and think i know them? no, never.



yet posted


**** those bastards.

[venom mama]

when i said **** those bastards i was talking about the terrorists who cut off the heads of civillians and put it on the internet. i watched every single beheading video, i saw how they cheered as their victims screamed in terror and agony as their heads were sawed off. i'm not being prejudiced against those terrorists at all. i'll say it again too. **** those bastards.

[sahyo]

is still judging

[NeverMind]

Pssh, dont tell me you've never looked at a person and thought that they would react to you in a certain way. Don't tell me you've never generalized how you think someone would act due to their clothes, hair, race, etc.
I know I have.
You've never played loud angry music to piss off your elderly neighbor and then found that they enjoyed your music?
I know I have. I was pissed when i found out my mom liked Nirvana. Just assuming people are going to act a certain way without knowing them in prejudiced.

[mer]

Yes, and perhaps we need a more value-neutral term than prejudice. Assumption?

Prejudice is based on insufficient information - not necessarily incorrect information. Every time I meet a person, I have to make quick assumptions about how best to interact. I prejudge the situation and the person to engage most positively. I listen to their speech, see their dress, hear where they're from, etc. - and while I don't judge as "good" or "bad" I do make a quick determination of which way to present myself. In social situations it doesn't matter much - I don't need everybody to like me. But in professional situations, where I need parents of my students to trust me and feel they can speak openly with me, it's important I pre-judge and adapt extremely quickly.

Otherwise, with some people I sound like an airhead, with others snobby from using a large vocabulary, others too urban, others too rural, etc. It's just gauging and responding with insufficient information. Am I ever wrong? Sure. But less than if I just had one face I presented.

Are my assumptions and "pre-judging" open to change? ABsolutely.

And sometimes it's important to pre-judge. No, I don't cross the street when I see a Black male approaching - of course. That would be stupid. If somebody is showing signs of schizophrenia or drug use do I avoid eye contact? Yeah. As a teenager - if I heard stories of a date rapist, did I go off alone with him in his car? Uh, no. I gave him a chance in situations that were safe for me to prove himself trustworthy, to get to know him better. Yeah, I was prejudiced, but my safety matters too.

The danger of prejudice is where it ends. We all have been programmed with prejudices (yeah, I say we - because they're in there whether you realize it or not). Humans are pattern-seekers, which leads to prejudice. Going beyond that and learning to know people is what prevents that prejudice from becoming bigotry.

There are interesting quizzes on implicit biases:
Harvard Implicit Quizzes (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/)

It's not a matter of having instinctive preferences - it's what we do with that which is important.

[sahyo]

And sometimes it's important to pre-judge. No, I don't cross the street when I see a Black male approaching - of course. That would be stupid. If somebody is showing signs of schizophrenia or drug use do I avoid eye contact? Yeah.



weird

[sahyo]

Every time I meet a person, I have to make quick assumptions about how best to interact.



you don't "have to"

[mer]

weird

Really, asheera? You ever worked with people who are out of control? You ever been attacked by someone out of their senses, where direct eye contact is seen as provocation? Why on earth is it "weird" to not want to aggravate somebody who is having difficulties??

you don't "have to"
Uh, yeah, in the real world, I do. It's not a bad thing to make assumptions which are open to change. That's reality for people who want to accomplish things. Everybody is making assumptions about the best way to interact every time you do something, but you may not be conscious of it. Else, why did you interact that way instead of another?

I make assumptions about people I know all the time. "If I say this, will this hurt his feelings? Probably, so I shouldn't." "Would she want to know this? Then I should tell her." Those are assumptions because I do not know for sure. I have to extend them to people I don't know as well. "How can I present this idea so that it has the best chance of being realized?"

[sahyo]

You ever worked with people who are out of control?



"out of control"?


You ever been attacked by someone out of their senses, where direct eye contact is seen as provocation?



you assuming


Why on earth is it "weird" to not want to aggravate somebody who is having difficulties??



what are fearing?

[sahyo]

That's reality for people who want to accomplish things.


accomplish what?

[mer]

out of control - unable to control themselves. i've prevented children from killing themselves by bashing their heads so hard against the wall, that sort of thing. anytime a person does not have control of him/herself and is led by anger, drugs, illness, etc. Not external, but internal control.

no, it's not assumption - I inverted the verb "you ever been" and ended with a question mark. I was asking, not assuming.

where is fearing in not wishing to aggravate? i don't even have a healthy of level of fear, despite seeing people out of control - yes I use it too vaguely - attack and destroy. No, not wishing to aggravate - that is more respecting than fearing.

accomplish anything. accomplish consensus on a project. accomplish discussion, hearing and communicating. accomplish - to not wallow around where people cannot understand each other. if people are not sensitive to each other and the situation, not dancing the dance of communication, what is the point?

[sahyo]

out of control - unable to control themselves. i've prevented children from killing themselves by bashing their heads so hard against the wall, that sort of thing. anytime a person does not have control of him/herself and is led by anger, drugs, illness, etc. Not external, but internal control.



which you describe isn't "out of control" nor "control"


no, it's not assumption - I inverted the verb "you ever been" and ended with a question mark. I was asking, not assuming.



was referring "direct eye contact is seen as provocation"


where is fearing in not wishing to aggravate? i don't even have a healthy of level of fear, despite seeing people out of control - yes I use it too vaguely - attack and destroy. No, not wishing to aggravate - that is more respecting than fearing.



respecting what?


accomplish anything. accomplish consensus on a project. accomplish discussion, hearing and communicating. accomplish - to not wallow around where people cannot understand each other.



does it feel satisfying to imagine "accomplish"?

[mer]

yes, "out of control" as I describe is the inability to internally control one's actions. i cannot find a better term right now. it's like when a very young child has a temper tantrum and goes past that point of self-control and no longer can stop the screaming and pounding alone.

what was the original point? i forgot.

oh yes - prejudice. that's not prejudice. to assume someone is on drugs because they are young and of the "wrong" gender and race, that is.

hm. assuming? educated to understand? maybe a difference, maybe not. (usually, i think there is)

sure, accomplishment can feel satisfying, can it not? it is more satisfying to be understood than not, to understand than not.

respecting ... how to express? space. some of us need lots of space - physical, emotional, etc. if a person is "out-of-control" aggressive, his/her space can be respected and for some that means avoiding eye contact. in many cultures, eye contact is extremely aggressive and offensive, yet in US culture it is seen as negative to *not* make eye contact. funny cultural rules. and subcultural. funny-interesting.

[sahyo]

so mer believes in repression/suppression/trying-controlling,
assuming and trying avoiding (trying avoiding = trying controlling)?

[sahyo]

funny cultural rules. and subcultural.



yes :)