To What Extent is it Possible to Overcome All Prejudices?

[JackDaydream]

I am asking about the nature of biases and the idea of the unbiased mind. Is going beyond biases possible and what would it mean? . It is a question involving aspects of psychology and politics. That is because prejudice may involve projection of specific attributes onto 'others'. However, in practice this which is linked to the practice of discrimination in social aspects of life.

Part of the problem underlying prejudice and discrimination may involve projection onto others. Some may be labelled and it is possible to see unwanted characteristics in others. This may be the psychological component that prejudice. One other aspect of this may be that people may use stereotypes as a way of making classifications about other people and generalisations.

On the other hand, there is a fairly widespread understanding of how much prejudice can be such a fundamental aspect of human experience and lack of acceptance of difference in general. People may experience prejudice on the basis of physical attributes, such as race and gender. However, there may also be prejudice on the basis opinions, as a whole aspect of living with diversity.

It may be so easy to see prejudice in others, but is it possible to see prejudices, which are about preconceived ideas when we meet others. Even though it may be an ethical ideal, is any human being free of prejudice, and is it possible to get to the point of being able to go beyond prejudices, psychologically and politically? To what extent is possible to get to the mindset of going beyond prejudice as an ethical ideal?

[JackDaydream]

It is possible, of course, that even a wish to hold onto the idea of going beyond prejudice has some moral connotations of what it means to be a 'good person's. Stepping aside from this, it could be asked what it means to go beyond prejudices and preconceptions about others. Is it possible to cast aside such judgments about others and aspects of life , as a way of going beyond prejudice and preconceived notions, especially in relation to stereotypes and generalisations about other human beings?

[JackDaydream]

It is important to ask.what is prejudice exactly, and how this relates to any perceived hostility, on any specific basis. Is there really such a thing as 'a prejudiced mind'? Is it possible to be aware of stereotypical assumptions, even such as ideas such as fat people are lazy. To what extent do such assumptions play in everyday thinking and how is it possible to challenge stereotypes which may play a role in the whole area of prejudiced attitudes to various people and the whole idea of understanding 'differences' in its many forms?

[Sy Borg]

Everyone's circle of concern is different. Some only care about self, or family, or family and friends, or some other fairly exclusive grouping. Some deep sympathies are broader - to community, country, or humanity as a whole. It may extend to nature, to the biosphere, the Earth or the universe (in an increasingly abstract way).

So what are the qualities of those who, for the sake of this thread, extend their sympathies to all of humanity in a more visceral and less abstract way than is usual? It comes down to their schema, their paradigm, how they see the world, ie. philosophies. Many aspire to broaden their circle of concern, although if the allegiances are tested periods of privation, many will default back to family and friends.

Hence the idea of being free of attachments in some philosophies. Thus, one is more capable of being a true universalist. I'm speaking theoretically here, of course :)

[JackDaydream]

@Sy Borg

To some extent I think that the more 'downtrodden' one may feel may lead towards fighting prejudice against those who are different. For example, as a child, I was in a class where there were very few black children but I was drawn to them because although I was white, I was rather short, spotty and wore glasses. It may be that those who fit most comfortably into the mainstream of society are less likely to think about prejudice often. Even though ideas about prejudice and fighting it may be seen in organisations through adherence to 'Equal Opportunities', it may be that the way we seen and evaluated by others influences our ideas. One book relevant to this may be, 'Stigma' by Erving Goffman. For example, some characteristic of a person may encompass the way a person is seen, such as a deaf person.

It is possible that overcoming prejudices is best not approached as a 'moral' issue in some ways, because that may miss the whole nature of understanding of the whole nature of differences. Of course, prejudice involves attitudes, ranging from sexism, racism, homophobia etc, but it may be about connecting to the way in which some people are seen as inferior to others and the implications this has on a social level.

[Gee]

I am asking about the nature of biases and the idea of the unbiased mind. Is going beyond biases possible and what would it mean? . It is a question involving aspects of psychology and politics. That is because prejudice may involve projection of specific attributes onto 'others'. However, in practice this which is linked to the practice of discrimination in social aspects of life.

It is not possible to have an unbiased mind. This is not just my opinion; it is how the mind works, at least the unconscious aspect of mind -- and bias comes from the unconscious.

Consider that we name the rational self-directed aspect of mind, that with which we think, plan, and direct our lives, as our "self". This aspect of mind works with logic, and it works with time and causal reality, so we can say "this and this, and therefore, that".

For a long time, it was believed that there was no logic and no ability to understand, the unconscious aspect of mind, as it made no sense. Finally, someone realized that there are parts of the unconscious that do not recognize time, just as emotion does not recognize time; it knows everything as "now". This shows itself in a lot of ways, and there is a great deal of evidence that this is so, but for an example consider that a childhood trauma can affect the rest of your life because you understand it as being part of your "now" and being immanent. PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) works in a similar way as it can jerk your consciousness into a different time and space. Because the unconscious ignores time, it can not be rational or logical; there is nothing that can follow anything else because there is no time to allow the possibility of "therefore" or following.

So, if the unconscious can not be rational and logical, then how does it "think" or process information? One of the ways that it "thinks" is to divide information by "self" and "other" and by "same" and "different". When you meet someone, your unconscious aspect of mind calculates hundreds or maybe thousands of bits of information about them and then uses that information to assign them the category of friend or foe. This is where bias comes from and there is nothing that you can do to stop this happening. What we can do is to learn about people that we see as different and make that difference familiar, so that our unconscious will not categorize them as foe.

We cannot eliminate bias because that would require everyone to be identical, so the unconscious could not pick up any differences. That can not happen, so the best alternative is to work at familiarizing ourselves with others and learning acceptance of differences.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

Everyone's circle of concern is different. Some only care about self, or family, or family and friends, or some other fairly exclusive grouping. Some deep sympathies are broader - to community, country, or humanity as a whole. It may extend to nature, to the biosphere, the Earth or the universe (in an increasingly abstract way).

My own sympathies cover all of the above, to some extent.

...if the allegiances are tested periods of privation, many will default back to family and friends.

I would word that slightly differently. I think these expanding circles of concern are prioritised. In difficult times, we withdraw - temporarily, we might hope - to the inner (higher-priority) circles.

It is not possible to have an unbiased mind. This is not just my opinion; it is how the mind works, at least the unconscious aspect of mind -- and bias comes from the unconscious.

I think bias comes from the human mind, as a whole, not just from the small part of the mind that is 'conscious' or 'aware'.

Consider that we name the rational self-directed aspect of mind, that with which we think, plan, and direct our lives, as our "self". This aspect of mind works with logic, and it works with time and causal reality, so we can say "this and this, and therefore, that".

If your thesis is that humans are rational animals, governed by logic (and so on), then I suggest that your premises are flawed.

Humans are animals capable of rational and logical behaviour, sometimes. The rest of the time, we act according to mood, belief, and so on. To consider us to be only the former (as you describe ) directly contradicts plentiful empirical evidence.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is not possible to have an unbiased mind. This is not just my opinion; it is how the mind works, at least the unconscious aspect of mind -- and bias comes from the unconscious.

I think bias comes from the human mind, as a whole, not just from the small part of the mind that is 'conscious' or 'aware'.

This still comes out more or less right, but it was my intention to say it the other way around - I think bias comes from the human mind, as a whole, including the small "rational self-directed" part of the mind that is 'conscious' or 'aware'.

[Sy Borg]

...if the allegiances are tested periods of privation, many will default back to family and friends.

I would word that slightly differently. I think these expanding circles of concern are prioritised. In difficult times, we withdraw - temporarily, we might hope - to the inner (higher-priority) circles.

Me too, I would have said,"... if the allegiances are tested during periods of privation" :)

It's like a dance. As times because easier or harder, our circles of concern grow and shrink respectively. At a time like today, the chances or making social progress are poor. Most work in that area seems aimed at protecting existing human rights gains which are eroding at a fair rate.

[Belindi]

I think 'prejudices' is too strong a word for learned biases. I can't imagine anyone who is not free of cultural influences from significant others such as parents, teachers, peers, or deliberate influencers such as politicians and marketers. What makes someone relatively free of bias is learned insight into own biases. The arts help people to learn others' points of view.

There are individuals who will not learn alternative points of view, and we call these people "arrogant" and "self-opinionated" and so on.

[Sculptor1]

I am asking about the nature of biases and the idea of the unbiased mind. Is going beyond biases possible and what would it mean? . It is a question involving aspects of psychology and politics. That is because prejudice may involve projection of specific attributes onto 'others'. However, in practice this which is linked to the practice of discrimination in social aspects of life.

Part of the problem underlying prejudice and discrimination may involve projection onto others. Some may be labelled and it is possible to see unwanted characteristics in others. This may be the psychological component that prejudice. One other aspect of this may be that people may use stereotypes as a way of making classifications about other people and generalisations.

On the other hand, there is a fairly widespread understanding of how much prejudice can be such a fundamental aspect of human experience and lack of acceptance of difference in general. People may experience prejudice on the basis of physical attributes, such as race and gender. However, there may also be prejudice on the basis opinions, as a whole aspect of living with diversity.

It may be so easy to see prejudice in others, but is it possible to see prejudices, which are about preconceived ideas when we meet others. Even though it may be an ethical ideal, is any human being free of prejudice, and is it possible to get to the point of being able to go beyond prejudices, psychologically and politically? To what extent is possible to get to the mindset of going beyond prejudice as an ethical ideal?

Your personal bias is exactly equal to your experience, opinion, and point of view. It is your personal context.
It is an horrific thought that a person could expunge their prejudice since this is the very basis of their social and political position.
To even harbour such a thought simply begs the question; where on earth is the middle ground without prejudice and who controls it?

One needs to be highly suspicious of anyone claiming to be without prejudice since it cannot be clear that a perfect middle ground on any issue is even possible.

What is called "objectivity," scientific for instance (in which I firmly believe, in a given situation) imposes itself only within a context which is extremely vast, old, firmly established, or rooted in a network of conventions … and yet which still remains a context.
Jacque Derrida

[Gee]

It is not possible to have an unbiased mind. This is not just my opinion; it is how the mind works, at least the unconscious aspect of mind -- and bias comes from the unconscious.

I think bias comes from the human mind, as a whole, not just from the small part of the mind that is 'conscious' or 'aware'.

You may have misunderstood me. I study consciousness, mind, its limits, parameters, and how they work. I do not study the "human mind" specifically, as I find that studies limited to humans invite corruption as idealism and arrogance enter into the conclusions.

What is prejudice? Well, that would be pre-judging something before taking the time to think about it. If we judge it before thinking about it, then we are judging it unconsciously -- without thought -- this is what we call bias. A lot of bias is instinctive and other species can also be biased. Do you believe that an antelope stops to think about whether or not a lion is dangerous? Or does it make a biased and unconscious decision to run like hell when it sees a lion?

Unlike the deer, a human can add information to that instinctive bias instead of just reacting. That additional information can create wisdom, it can fortify the differences and create fear, and it can focus on the similarities and create new possibilities. In that you are correct that it can be the result of a "whole" mind.

Consider that we name the rational self-directed aspect of mind, that with which we think, plan, and direct our lives, as our "self". This aspect of mind works with logic, and it works with time and causal reality, so we can say "this and this, and therefore, that".

If your thesis is that humans are rational animals, governed by logic (and so on), then I suggest that your premises are flawed.

It is not my thesis. And again, I said nothing about "humans" being rational; what I talked about is the rational aspect of mind, aka the Ego, as opposed to the Superego and the Id. I do know that humans can take a poor decision or a biased position and rationalize it to make it appear valid.

Humans are animals capable of rational and logical behaviour, sometimes. The rest of the time, we act according to mood, belief, and so on. To consider us to be only the former (as you describe ) directly contradicts plentiful empirical evidence.

So, consider what mood is; consider what belief is; both require emotion in order to exist. Both are part of the unconscious aspect of mind.

I don't know how, but I gave you are very mistaken impression of what I meant. We do not know what the parameters of mind are, but we do know about the divisions of mind. There is the Ego, the Superego, and the Id as identified in psychology. The Ego is the rational self-directed part of mind where we do our thinking. The Superego is the unconscious aspect of mind where we react to something before we know or think about it. The Id is the aspect of mind that controls our instincts, most especially our survival instincts, which keep us alive and which we react to before we think about it. Both the Superego and the Id are part of the unconscious.

The Ego is the rational aspect of mind that is self-directed, works with time and space and causal reality and with classic physics.

The Superego and Id are the unconscious aspects of mind, that are mostly reactionary, they ignore time and space, emotion works through the unconscious, and I suspect that this aspect of mind works with quantum physics. It is really very different, but it is still part of our consciousness.

Gee

[LuckyR]

First, prejudice is not an evil thing to be removed, it is the result of experience. Thus it is a form of learning, ie it is a good thing. What makes prejudice a bad thing is either learning erroneous information or stereotyping based on old prejudices and ignoring new information.

If I get beat up on the schoolyard by some kids wearing "colors" today, if I am smart I will be wary of new kids I meet tomorrow on the schoolyard wearing "colors". That is a very common correct use of learned prejudice. OTOH, if I get beat up by a Hispanic gang member in middle school and therefore won't hire Hispanics when I am the head of HR in middle age, that is a misuse of learned prejudice.

Lastly, the way to address inappropriate biases internally isn't to try to "remove" them, it is to recognize them and compensate for them.

[Gee]

If I get beat up on the schoolyard by some kids wearing "colors" today, if I am smart I will be wary of new kids I meet tomorrow on the schoolyard wearing "colors".

This could also be considered as wisdom. People often do not realize that prejudice can be wisdom.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

I am asking about the nature of biases and the idea of the unbiased mind. Is going beyond biases possible and what would it mean? It is a question involving aspects of psychology and politics.

I disagree that this question involves "psychology".

<Rant>
In its desperate attempts to achieve the status of being a 'science', psychology has disembowelled itself. Psychology has developed into an external study. It results in knowledge of humanity from the outside, as a team of Vulcans or Romulans, in orbit for many centuries, observing us, might have achieved.

So psychology will tell us that humans can detect electromagnetic radiation of wavelength 670nm, but a real understanding of human mentality would tell us that humans can see red, and experience the qualia of redness.
</Rant>


It is the discipline that psychology should be that this problem requires, I think.