prejudging

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I try to judge people on their actions and words, not on their appearance. "Try" being the important word because sometimes I start thinking like that despite myself.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I'll assume you're talking to me because I'm the only one I noticed talking about animals.

Not really, it was for anyone reading the thread, I'd just read your post and though that mentioning that prejudice in that particular sense was common to people and animals was a good idea.

 

[Betancore]

I try to avoid it, but I'm sorry, if you look like a complete wanker who thinks it's cool to play rap really loudly in the back of the train on your phone, then I'm going to assume you are one. But in the long run, it doesn't affect how I treat others - I'll just start off with some misconceptions but I'm always willing to change how I view people. I won't treat them different. I treat everyone respectfully if I can help it, but that's different to actually having respect for someone. A lot of the time, my friends introduce me to people who I probably wouldn't approach in the street, but after getting to know them, I'm always glad to have met them.

 

[Wutaiflea]

I think its all but completely impossible to avoid making judgements about people. It's just human nature- how do you stop yourself from noticing patterns of behaviour in people?

The important thing though is not to make those judgements final- give everyone the opportunity to prove they're better than that initial assumption- that's the rule I try to live by.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

We're descended from the most neurotic and hostile of our ancestors.

Our cultural leanings may indicate our idealism on the matter, but our discriminatory nature is strictly pragmatic. You can fight nature, but I don't understand people who flat out deny that it's there. We were living in caves an evoluionary blink of an eye ago, we've been "civilised" for a laughably short period of time.

Idealism has blinded us to what we are, and we seem to refuse to acknowledge that we are simply changing our minds and not our nature, or at least changing our culture at speeds that nature couldn't possibly keep up with.

If evolution favoured the strong, the presumptuous, the volatile and the violent for the millions of years it took to make us what we are, it's fanciful to think that these qualities are just going to go away because we've decided they're no longer desirable.

I "pre-judge" people every day, it conflicts with my ethics in certain ways...but it probably saves me alot of bother.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Is the good a typo or are we happily in accordance?

No, the "good" was not a typo but I fail to see how the inclusion or ommission of such affects anything.

 

[feather240]

We are organisms that have evolved. Do not seperate yourself from other animals based on the complexity of your brain. All the animals with the capacity to hold prejudices, hold prejudices. Whether in the form of choosing a sexual partner, in the sense of killing the sick in their group, allowing outsiders to join, dogs sniffing urine or chimpanzees fighting 'wars'. So if this idea of prejudices is present clearly within the animal kingdom and is clear thoroughly throughout our own civilization: How can it be argued that it is 'wrong' or ignorant to do such a thing?

Perhaps prejudices instead have served to instinctively favour those who employ them, perhaps they only worked in the past. What I would speculate, is that they are still necessary today. Not all of them, but the ability to draw assumptions. Is racism correct? Scientifically, I've never seen any evidence for or against that was reputable (nor have I looked very hard) Ethically, obviously not. Judging someone based on clothing? Perfectly legitimate. Clothing is an outward reflection, conciously made by the person. Certainly extreme decisions or actions should not be made/taken based upon this facet alone but the word prejudice carries huge negative connotations.

Haven't we reached a point where people are so complex that we can't always usually rely on labeling them?

This is a very valid point. Could human beings be complex enough to prevent themselves from performing actions which are predictable from their outward appearance?

First of all, I don't think that human beings are very distant from our animal cousins, which is to say I think the study of animals can tell us an awful lot about ourselves. This is my opinion. Its certainly not supported by medical science in practice, because treating people for 'mental illness' is sadly difficult. However I am yet to see predictability of behaviour under certain drugs for animals. Humans are very complex, and cannot be as easily labelled. I don't think its realistic to give everyone a clean slate and be a very efficient person.

Well, in your argument is the word always. There are 'always' exceptions (that is for unscientific judgements made by fallible creatures) to a rule. What is important is that a rule applies often enough to justify its existence. Prejudices are vast and vary in how much you can trust them. Prejudices are present all throughout society, for better or worse, advertisers know this and that's what's seen the rise in "brand recognition", "targetting demographics" and blatant sexism. I would say that prejudices which are untrue in the majority deserve to be actively quashed (through peaceful, awareness means) as they are based on ignorance. If however, racist prejudices actually applied and helped people, despite whether or not there is any genetic differences between people, then I would argue that the prejudice should be rendered invalid before it is removed.

/snip/

(Alright, I'll change that 'always' to an 'usually'.)

I don't understand how we can have rational prejudices and destroy irrational ones, because if we uses prejudices to define a group and the group changes wouldn't it still be logical to keep thinking the same way you've thought about them before, and if its not when should we begin to look past the labels we've created for a group?

 

[feather240]

(Alright, I'll change that 'always' to an 'usually'.)

I don't understand how we can have rational prejudices and destroy irrational ones, because if we uses prejudices to define a group and the group changes wouldn't it still be logical to keep thinking the same way you've thought about them before, and if its not when should we begin to look past the labels we've created for a group?

I suppose society should work towards destroying labels after they no longer apply when their application is a negative thing.

That's a very valid and concise point. You're right to suggest that we must have the good with the bad.

I would argue, however, that because the majority seem to form prejudices whether or not they are encouraged (I have no statistical proof for this) that this is a 'thing' society will have to live with. As such the best course of action I can see is to discourage the 'bad'. This is already done by governments with anti-smoking and anti-racism appeals. However I see no encouragement of the 'good' prejudices.

I don't think that groups really change. There are still rockers around. There are still hippies. Theres still goths. New groups evolve and split the group that existed. So, these groups won't transform but will die out. So, the prejudices needn't alter, they will simply fade away with the groups that fitted them. Some groups obviously will, but we already see today that as political parties or companies change they re brand themselves, because they see how hard it is to destroy prejudices.

So I guess what I'm posing is a sort of supply and demand prejudices.

I wouldn't classify prejudices as good or bad anymore. They just are, and some are just harmful. I say this because we can't really advocate prejudices, even good ones, because they don't really exist in that sense. If you show me a prejudice worthy of being promoted I think my mind might just be blown.

However I can imagine a way, a rather cheap way, you could do it. You could say it was prejudice that made me assume that a guy holding a knife to my throat wants my wallet, but does that count in this argument? I think we need to decide on what the line is between prejudice and deductive (Inductive?) reasoning.

 

[feather240]

(Alright, I'll change that 'always' to an 'usually'.)

I don't understand how we can have rational prejudices and destroy irrational ones, because if we uses prejudices to define a group and the group changes wouldn't it still be logical to keep thinking the same way you've thought about them before, and if its not when should we begin to look past the labels we've created for a group?

I suppose society should work towards destroying labels after they no longer apply when their application is a negative thing.

That's a very valid and concise point. You're right to suggest that we must have the good with the bad.

I would argue, however, that because the majority seem to form prejudices whether or not they are encouraged (I have no statistical proof for this) that this is a 'thing' society will have to live with. As such the best course of action I can see is to discourage the 'bad'. This is already done by governments with anti-smoking and anti-racism appeals. However I see no encouragement of the 'good' prejudices.

I don't think that groups really change. There are still rockers around. There are still hippies. Theres still goths. New groups evolve and split the group that existed. So, these groups won't transform but will die out. So, the prejudices needn't alter, they will simply fade away with the groups that fitted them. Some groups obviously will, but we already see today that as political parties or companies change they re brand themselves, because they see how hard it is to destroy prejudices.

So I guess what I'm posing is a sort of supply and demand prejudices.

I wouldn't classify prejudices as good or bad anymore. They just are, and some are just harmful. I say this because we can't really advocate prejudices, even good ones, because they don't really exist in that sense. If you show me a prejudice worthy of being promoted I think my mind might just be blown.

However I can imagine a way, a rather cheap way, you could do it. You could say it was prejudice that made me assume that a guy holding a knife to my throat wants my wallet, but does that count in this argument? I think we need to decide on what the line is between prejudice and deductive (Inductive?) reasoning.

When I speak of good I'm generally only talking about either aiding the one thinking them in survival/success or ones that allow society to run more efficiently.

It would be prejudicial of me to think that a mob of young Australian aboriginals are causing trouble. I don't give a fuck. I'd avoid them like the plague. This is from my own experiences, I don't know where you're from so I'll use one that will be less shit stirring.

I like the idea that deductive reasoning is not based off prejudices, but I disagree with it. How do we conclude that someone looks nervous. We see it in their body language and conclude that due to our prior experiences this is the way people act when they are nervous.
"A prejudice is a prejudgement: i.e. a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case."
Determinist would argue that everything a person does is based on prejudices. I am not a determinist because it seems to defeat itself.

They are a rudimentary skill. In fact a person with no prejudices wouldn't enjoy films the same way most people do. (If they enjoyed them at all)

...so now all that's left to do is create a mystery thread where some person belonging to a minority was lynched at a dinner party. Using deductive reasoning the posters put clues together to help them solve the case, but we've set up the story so it slowly amps up the political incorrectness of the prejudices needed to reason who the murderer in the house is, only for them to realize that they are the murderer in the story, then we end it with a 'That's what she said!' joke and call it a 'Double Double Entendre' because they're the murderer in the story, but just as prejudiced as him in real life.

It's funny because we got to say 'double' twice and it makes sense in context.

...I've lost all credibility.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Is the good a typo or are we happily in accordance?

No, the "good" was not a typo but I fail to see how the inclusion or ommission of such affects anything.

Well I was glad that you were suggesting my use of the comparison was appropriate. Or am I misunderstanding the

and though that mentioning that prejudice in that particular sense was common to people and animals was a good idea.

bit?

Are you referring to me directly this time?

uuuhh... I'm very confused now.

Oh, wait, no I was referring to me, I thought it would be a good idea to mention acting on prior knowledge/experience was a basic survival trait, I popped in the animal bit after skimming the page and picking the word out from your post. I think I then went on to say that I thought it was possible that the OP was talking about ingrained prejudice resulting in the refusal to change reactions, actions or whatever based on current or further observation. He may not have been, I didn't really read the OP properly, it's rare I find a post that I consider worth reading.

 

[feather240]

It took me two readings but that game/thread would be honestly hilarious. I would co-author that beast.

I don't follow the double, double entendre. I always thought they were sexual :S

It's anything with two meanings, I think anyway.

For instance 'Don't give up anything.' However this was said by Raganorak the 3rd to Urist Eaglander and Company on the twelth day of Ackintosh after the Up empire began it's siege on the walls of Urists hometown Forshwist after being refused their tribute.
Rshwenshir
Grab Fate by its Throat!

 

[LordFisheh]

It seems pretty damn fashionable to claim not to judge anyone, but we all do it. We have good reason to. It's a basic response that lets us get an idea of our situation quickly. If I see someone looking aggressive and angry, then I'll damn well think that they're aggressive and angry, noting wrong with that.

Surely the only moral problem is if they wish my a nice day and hand me the wallet I just dropped and I continue to follow my first impression. We make judgements on the information available to us. There's nothing wrong with judging based on little information, so long as we acknowledge that the judgement may well be inaccurate, change it if necessary, and don't act like a dick on a pre-emptive basis.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I cant help prejudging people. I didnt grow up in a "bad" neighborhood, but where i grew up, it helped to size people up quickly, so you could have some kinda idea of what the person would turn out to be/do, even if it was stereotyping.

Now, I just got so used it to, i got really good at reading people's life stories by looking at them and how they carry themselves, so I do it so when i talk to them, I know what to avoid, what to say, and if they are having problems, how to help.

So yeah, I prejudge people, and i'm not going ot hide and say i'm justified or better then others who do it because my reasons are alittle different, but its just something I do and I try to do more for the good then the bad.

 

[Something Amyss]

So... yeah, something odd has been going through my mind, prejudging.
I mean, no matter how hard you try, if you?re walking behind someone with is wherein some baggy shit that falling down to the legs then no matter who you are, most people will thing ?wow, does this guy think he?s a hard man, what a utter prick?, for all you know, he might be a charity worker, who gives to the poor, but the clothing will make you think otherwise.

It works the same way visor versa, I mean, someone may have hair covering one of their eyes, you?ll most likely assume they don?t want to talk; they don?t want to know you even exists. Or as some call it, ?Emo?. What a pathetic name, just to save you thinking of something creative just to mock them.
You know what the worst part is? Due to the way treat you because of how you look, you end up being just like they prejudge you, so in the end there right.

What I really want to know is, ?what is your option on prejudging and honestly, do you think you could really not prejudge people?

Thank for reading, please tell me your oppion.

Seriously? With all the people running around withbaggy clothes and pants to their knees, people still think it's just a "hard" look?

Weird.

I tend to judge people by their actions. If someone's acting like a threat, I treat them like one. but someone wearing baggy clothes isn't acting like a threat.

 

[Verp]

I guess I do have prejudices although I don't know what they are. The human brain is so inclined to make them that it's hard to avoid them, and most of the time they aren't harmful anyway. It's only the ones that cause hiccups in the way we interact with the outside world that even seem to be identifiable.

Anyway, even though I may have prejudices, I have to say that they might not have such a big effect on me. I am perhaps atypical in the sense that I seem to lack several mechanisms that most people have: almost all human interaction feels impersonal to me and I seem to lack certain emotions altogether. People not only make me feel a rather narrow range of different feelings, but they also fail to leave a long-lasting impression. When someone tells me that they wouldn't have expected some kind of behaviour from a certain kind of person, it baffles me -- I just don't know why they'd feel anything in particular because of something like that. I usually just go "Oh" and shrug it off when I learn something surprising about someone.

I sometimes call this trait of mine "teflon skin". People just don't stick to me no matter how close they come. It's why I decided to go for a social line of work where it's good to maintain a certain courteous distance to people so you don't lose your sense of self. I don't really need that distance, so it makes the work simpler.