Prejudice Not Curable

[Boots]

Prejudice. There is no way out of it. We are at some level prejudice against a person for some reason or other. People that say they are not; are trying to deceive themselves and others. I think people who say that aren't haven't put any real thought to their boast. I would love your feedback and your input. Lets accept this truth, and then maybe man will grow toward an enlightenment.

Agreed. It is an evolved trait that has it's roots in in-group/out-group thinking.

However, I think that people who express their lack of prejudice, and I am one of them, are really just saying that they try really hard to recognize any predjudice that may arise within them and do what they can to quell it.

[LuckyR]

Prejudice. There is no way out of it. We are at some level prejudice against a person for some reason or other. People that say they are not; are trying to deceive themselves and others. I think people who say that aren't haven't put any real thought to their boast. I would love your feedback and your input. Lets accept this truth, and then maybe man will grow toward an enlightenment.

Agreed. It is an evolved trait that has it's roots in in-group/out-group thinking.

However, I think that people who express their lack of prejudice, and I am one of them, are really just saying that they try really hard to recognize any predjudice that may arise within them and do what they can to quell it.

Yet prejudice doesn't always need to be quelled. To my mind there is appropriate and inappropriate prejudice. If I am interviewing for a single job position, then using the result of the last 5 times I interviewed a Hispanic person as viable information for the 6th Hispanic person I interview is an example of inappropriate prejudice, there is no downside to giving this 6th interviewee a blank slate to treat them neutrally and the interviewee is liable to lose a money earning prospect if the first 5 were below par candidates.

OTOH, if my daughter decides to get off of an elevator she is riding alone in, when (to her eyes) an unsavory appearing individual steps on it, is an example of appropriate prejudice. She may have to wait for a second elevator and thus arrive at her floor 1-2 minutes later or she may avoid a physical assault, or at minimum, she can ride the elevator without a sense of fear, even if nothing happens. The other rider is out nothing, except an eyeroll that their appearance, (which they can control to a large extent) made them a "victim" of prejudice or in their wording age-ism or racism or class-ism.

[Boots]

(Nested quote removed.)


Agreed. It is an evolved trait that has it's roots in in-group/out-group thinking.

However, I think that people who express their lack of prejudice, and I am one of them, are really just saying that they try really hard to recognize any predjudice that may arise within them and do what they can to quell it.

Yet prejudice doesn't always need to be quelled. To my mind there is appropriate and inappropriate prejudice. If I am interviewing for a single job position, then using the result of the last 5 times I interviewed a Hispanic person as viable information for the 6th Hispanic person I interview is an example of inappropriate prejudice, there is no downside to giving this 6th interviewee a blank slate to treat them neutrally and the interviewee is liable to lose a money earning prospect if the first 5 were below par candidates.

OTOH, if my daughter decides to get off of an elevator she is riding alone in, when (to her eyes) an unsavory appearing individual steps on it, is an example of appropriate prejudice. She may have to wait for a second elevator and thus arrive at her floor 1-2 minutes later or she may avoid a physical assault, or at minimum, she can ride the elevator without a sense of fear, even if nothing happens. The other rider is out nothing, except an eyeroll that their appearance, (which they can control to a large extent) made them a "victim" of prejudice or in their wording age-ism or racism or class-ism.

Agreed. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'prejudice'. I think of what you are describing as discriminating vs discrimination. Or judging vs. judgmental.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Yet prejudice doesn't always need to be quelled. To my mind there is appropriate and inappropriate prejudice. If I am interviewing for a single job position, then using the result of the last 5 times I interviewed a Hispanic person as viable information for the 6th Hispanic person I interview is an example of inappropriate prejudice, there is no downside to giving this 6th interviewee a blank slate to treat them neutrally and the interviewee is liable to lose a money earning prospect if the first 5 were below par candidates.

OTOH, if my daughter decides to get off of an elevator she is riding alone in, when (to her eyes) an unsavory appearing individual steps on it, is an example of appropriate prejudice. She may have to wait for a second elevator and thus arrive at her floor 1-2 minutes later or she may avoid a physical assault, or at minimum, she can ride the elevator without a sense of fear, even if nothing happens. The other rider is out nothing, except an eyeroll that their appearance, (which they can control to a large extent) made them a "victim" of prejudice or in their wording age-ism or racism or class-ism.

Agreed. I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'prejudice'. I think of what you are describing as discriminating vs discrimination. Or judging vs. judgmental.

Uummm... I don't think so. Don't get me wrong there are examples of that sort of difference, but I specifically chose my examples to both be legitimate prejudice or discrimination, the difference between the two lies elsewhere, namely in the fallout from the prejudice, not whether they are examples of prejudice. The elevator rider in the second example, can rightly claim that he was discriminated against based on his appearance, or race/color or socioeconomic status, and he is correct. I still support my daughter, though.

[Wilson]

Here are the first three definitions of "prejudice" from Dictionary.com:
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

The word has such negative connotations nowadays that most people take it to mean the third - but it can also mean simply making assumptions based on the evidence before us - which we do all the time during the day. The real question is this: Is it ever acceptable to make assumptions about someone based on gender, race, appearance, national origin, and so on? The answer is ... sometimes. If there's a burglary, should we assume it was committed by a male, since that's usually the case? If you're interviewing candidates for a sales job, should you eliminate those who are poorly dressed? If you're worried about terrorism, should you concentrate more on those with Arabic names?

[LuckyR]

Here are the first three definitions of "prejudice" from Dictionary.com:
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

The word has such negative connotations nowadays that most people take it to mean the third - but it can also mean simply making assumptions based on the evidence before us - which we do all the time during the day. The real question is this: Is it ever acceptable to make assumptions about someone based on gender, race, appearance, national origin, and so on? The answer is ... sometimes. If there's a burglary, should we assume it was committed by a male, since that's usually the case? If you're interviewing candidates for a sales job, should you eliminate those who are poorly dressed? If you're worried about terrorism, should you concentrate more on those with Arabic names?

Well concentrating on certain ethnic groups when dealing with terrorism doesn't meet your first or third definitions since it is a calculation not a knee-jerk reaction. The second one is so vague as to encompass so many sentiments as to border on the useless.

[Mark1955]

You might suggest that the selfish gene makes one less inclined to co-operate with others the less related to you they are and that this expands beyond the literal family to the ever less close societies one is part of. In the words of Sid Kipper “the world will live as one – the day the aliens arrive.”

[Wilson]

Well concentrating on certain ethnic groups when dealing with terrorism doesn't meet your first or third definitions since it is a calculation not a knee-jerk reaction. The second one is so vague as to encompass so many sentiments as to border on the useless.

Those aren't my definitions, they're from Dictionary.com. Concentrating on certain ethnic groups when dealing with terrorism would be considered prejudice by many people. That's racial profiling. My opinion is that it would be justified at the airport, although it isn't done there currently. I think it's okay to draw generalizations about certain ethnic, racial, or gender groups, as long as they are based on real evidence - but only if one looks at individuals he encounters as individuals who may well not be typical of his or her group.

-- Updated June 4th, 2016, 1:33 pm to add the following --

You might suggest that the selfish gene makes one less inclined to co-operate with others the less related to you they are and that this expands beyond the literal family to the ever less close societies one is part of. In the words of Sid Kipper “the world will live as one – the day the aliens arrive.”

Ideally we allow other cultures to fit under our empathy umbrellas - that as we observe people in other lands, we recognize that they are not so different from us - that in fact they are more "us" than "them". Certainly that's happened to a great degree in the developed countries. We have sympathy for a starving child in Africa or India, whereas back in the days of the great explorers, the "savages" were considered almost like another species, nothing like us, not worthy of our concern. So we're part way there. But when you see the brutality and lack of respect for others in much of the Islamic world and even in certain segments of the developed world, it's obvious that it will be a long time before we get there.

[LuckyR]

Well concentrating on certain ethnic groups when dealing with terrorism doesn't meet your first or third definitions since it is a calculation not a knee-jerk reaction. The second one is so vague as to encompass so many sentiments as to border on the useless.

Those aren't my definitions, they're from Dictionary.com. Concentrating on certain ethnic groups when dealing with terrorism would be considered prejudice by many people. That's racial profiling. My opinion is that it would be justified at the airport, although it isn't done there currently. I think it's okay to draw generalizations about certain ethnic, racial, or gender groups, as long as they are based on real evidence - but only if one looks at individuals he encounters as individuals who may well not be typical of his or her group.

You bring up a very important distinction, the difference between using group information on groups and using group information on individuals.

If I say that gypsies make the best pickpockets, so I am going to concentrate on gypsy looking people in the crowded subway station that is clearly racial profiling, yet is perfectly logical and in fact preferable. OTOH, once I find a gypsy looking person wandering around the station I should treat them identically to any other suspect and let the evidence lead where it may. That is the definition of evenhandedness.

Using my original examples of the job interview and the elevator creep, both are prejudice since both use group experience on an individual. One is acceptable (even preferable) while the other is unacceptable. As stated that difference is based on the relative outcomes, a separate issue.