If you choose a black teammate for your sports team, or an Asian person for your knowledge-bowl, these are reinforcing positive stereotypes that might be equally wrong as any negative stereotypes. Or maybe you choose a female therapist or physician assuming her feminine empathy and intuition will make her a better provider. Is that still wrong? Or are only negative stereotypes wrong? What if a person has had repeated bad experiences with a certain type of person? Is that a justified prejudice or should they expose themselves to more risks to be appropriately PC?
If the word "prejudice" is applied as it is employed in contemporary usage, that is to say as a synonym for "bigotry" or "racism," then in that sense it represents something that is generally quite wrong. However, that is not the original meaning of the word and, in fact, "prejudice" can be a very good thing.
As the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke put it, “Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, skeptical, puzzled and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit; and not a series of unconnected acts. Through past prejudice, his duty becomes part of his nature.”
Thus prejudice, in its original meaning, was a viewpoint or an idea that is understood at an historic and instinctive level. For example, a man need not be educated that child abuse is wrong, there is rather an almost instinctive reaction against it. This, in turn, allows an individual to act against it. As Burke says, he acts because it is his intuitive understanding that it is wrong and must be prevented.
Much of life in society is guided by prejudice. Which is not to say that it is absent reason. Rather that historical experience and time have made certain ideas and certain actions almost instinctive. This thereby allowing society to operate in the absence of actual law. Indeed, society operates predominantly absent the dictates of law and this conduces to a society that is at once free and virtuous.
Of course, not all prejudices are good and society must take care, in the fullness of time, to assess and reassess its prejudices and where necessary step in - sometimes with the instrument of the law, other times more informally through changing social and cultural standards - to correct or modify them. However, overall, prejudice is a useful tool and should not be casually dismissed - and, to repeat, especially not be confused with bigotry or racism.
Okay I'll admit I'm a little bit of a hypocrite because I play into identity politics when it benefits MY standpoint. But from a general sense, I do think good stereotypes are just as dangerous as bad ones. Though at the same time, all stereotypes are based in partial truths, so you're really taking a gamble.
Dave Chappelle said it best, "We are brought up to think in generalizations." That's just how humans are wired. There's no avoiding it.
As for the last part of your question, YES, it's absolutely justified. That's how a rational human brain works. There is a saying, "2 is a coincidence, 3 is a pattern." And what irks me most is certain demographic groups just love to play the victim and want everyone else to change for them, when in reality it's their own behavior that's causing people to be racist against them. An English girl on THIS website said it best, "We wouldn't be Islamophobic if you people didn't blow us up and rape our daughters."
The people you quote are just as ignorant as you are. You are putting people in groups based on your own prejudices which is nothing but wrong, but I admit lot of people do it because of how we are influenced by the media.
I didn't expect anything less from someone who supports sex with minors if it's a predator woman. Absolutely horrible and ridiculous for more than one reason
@SunnyHeythere *sigh, YOU again. It wasn't the media. It was my own personal experiences. And if you're so opposed to sex with "minors", why are you defending Muslims?
Assuming a black person is better at sports is not a postive, that makes the other student feel like less. Also the small portion of athletic black people doesn't mean all black people are. Meaning now more pressures are put on non athletic black people to be athletic
Assuming Asians are smarter does the same.
And because you had a bad experience with a handful of people doesn't mean millions of people are bad, that stupid thinking all around, holds down that racial group of people someone assumes is evil.
To be fair, unless you openly state the reason for your choice at the time, the person NOT selected is going to experience the exact same kind of rejection. They DIDN’T get the spot. Not, they didn’t get the spot BECAUSE…. I’m definitely going to put some more thought into your elaboration on how “positive” stereotypes effect individuals negatively though. I don’t think it’s ever occurred to me the way you put it. Chris Rock explicitly addresses being the “non athletic black student” in an otherwise all white skool in his youth. Normally his stuff makes me think because he’s brilliant that way, but i completely let it slip. So, thanks for reinforcing that for us! My next question in that line of thought would be this: to what extent am i responsible for your personal experience? If i’m not singularly putting those expectations on you, am i still responsible for the pressure you put on yourself due to a “positive” stereotype? Isn’t assuming all white people assume all black people are athletic also a prejudice? And either way, how do we relieve people, more importantly children in my opinion, of internalized anxiety over not meeting a positive stereotype? Is there something we can do now, or will it take generations of changed behavior? Sorry. It might feel like i’m putting a lot on you, but that’s mostly your fault for offering such a great response! Ell oh ell!
All racial stereotypes are wrong because in general they’re no intrinsic differences between races. Choosing a female physician because of her empathy and intuition is not wrong because in general there are actually are differences between men and women and that’s one of them.
If there are no intrinsic differences, why do black areas have the highest crime and poverty rates and the lowest IQs. Why are only White and Asian countries ranked as "developed". Why do those countries have more stable governments and not as much corruption.
You're extremely naiive if you think all races/cultures are equal
@KostasKouvalis they don’t have the lowest IQs. Or if they do it’s cause of deficits in the educational system. Plus I heard IQ tests are racist and patriarchal.
You’re Greek. At one time Greeks were considered inferior by the WASP ruling class in America.
And you're right that it probably has to do with lack access to educational facilities but a lot of black people also don't care that much about school
@KostasKouvalis some years ago I pointed out to an Irish-American man that 150 years signs in bars routinely said “No dogs or Irish allowed.” His response was “That was a long time ago. Now we’re the ruling class and we get to say what the rules are.”
A stereotype is a quick lazy way to make a quick decision, mostly stemming from experiences or beliefs or rumours. My personal opinion is that it's wrong in a way but depending on the level of cautiousness there is a thin line between being picky, and cautious and being stereotypical. Unfortunately, we are not living in a perfect world where we can just look at someone and know if he/she is good or capable, or smart or funny, or evil or bad.
It is can be better than you can do a quick risk assessment as accurate as possible tho that sometimes can make costly mistakes, so it depends on different fields and events that you need to assess people, you may need to change how you act and may even act or do it in secrecy. It's good to protect yourself while being optimal in life decisions. People always have their preferences, it's hard to change and it's always like there is nothing wrong with it, it's pretty close to choosing someone to start a date with, only this time, it's a therapist instead.
I don't think being prejudiced is right or wrong. I'd say that a person's opinion on these things depends mostly on their maturity and upbringing.
If you wanna think like this, I seriously think that this type of thinking is something you should have outgrown before puberty.
To see someone pick an accomplished athlete who is in phenomenal shape and you just think they picked the black guy. Or you see an interview with a guy at IBM and you you say, of course they pick the Asian guy. Not only do you think like a 5 year old on a playground, but how is that way of thinking not inherently racist?
@SunnyHeythere when did I justify being prejudiced? Maybe I was talking about too many things at once in my comment because it has two parts.
The first part was me saying that I don't feel like being prejudice is inherently right or wrong. I hate to be this guy but the definition of prejudice is actually incredibly arguable.
The Oxford dictionary says: "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."
The word we can get hung up on here is actual (not opinion) because whether or not an experience is an actual one is one of the longest philosophical debates in all of humanity. The discussion of how to tell if something is an" actual experience" dates back before written word.
So there's enough ambiguity in the defination of prejudice that there's really not a difference between a guy who woke up one day and decided that all Indians like vanilla ice cream or a person who over the course of many years in their life, after having thousands of interactions with Italians, noticing that they mostly seem to have similar haircuts (and for the record, I'm making all these up)
So in short, the first part of my response is merely pointing out that there are many reasons a person can be "prejudice" and it's not always what it seems to be on the surface. By many philosophers and scientists understanding of how they would read this definition, the person who uses life experience to make an assumption about someone before meeting them is not prejudice at all.
The second part of my comment talks about how the asker took what appears to be your line of reasoning to the breaking point.
It is inherently racist to say "if you put a black person on your sports team or an Asian person on your debate team, you're a racist" because for all you know, that person might have based their decision on a multitude of other factors and even if these people were standing behind a glass pane and you had no information about them besides their skin color, there is an unfathomably gigantic body of research and statistics that says, if you have a running team and all you know about your candidates is their skin color, go with the black guy.
I'm not even saying you're a bad person for being more racist than I am (which you should sit down with some tea for a bit, because you are) I'm saying that understanding these nuances can lead to being a more understanding person who can see the world through multiple perspectives.
If you make judgements on others based on your experience, it is understandable, but wrong because its ignorant as you know nothing about that person's experience.
You can have an opinion, but disguising them as facts because you experienced it Is wrong because there are many different experiences you didn't have.
I feel like you are in the minority with your thinking.
@SunnyHeythere of corse I'm a minority. Most people are racist as hell. Also, I don't care if I'm in the minority with my thinking. In 1920 if I believed women should be able to vote or that maybe guys in their mid 20's shouldn't be trying to have sex with 16 year Olds, I'd be in a minority too.
So mentally being in a minority in a society that believes having any preconceived notion about anything is bad, really doesn't bother me.
I'm not sure you can have a negative positive, if something is a positive stereotypes then it's just that positive. To be fair stereotypes can be hurtful, and that's bad. But just because they are hurtful doesn't mean they're false, or inaccurate. There would be no stereotypes at all if at least a portion of the specific demographic didn't fit the stereotypes. Right?
No. People pre-judge daily. Prejudging isn't the same as discrimination. And discrimination isn't the same as bigotry. If you see a 6'7" man in a hockey mask walking down the street with red stuff on his arms and t-shirt, at midnight on an August evening, would you not prejudge him or your safety?
You’ve made a good point. However, let’s take out the hyperbole. If i’ve been robbed at gun point by every 20-25 white kid wearing a backwards ball cap that i’ve ever met. It’s obviously prejudice for me to cross the street for my own safety. But without the hyperbole, it appears most people here would say that’s “wrong”. It’s NOT wrong the setting is otherworldly or expectedly fictional. But in real life, we’re not supposed to jump to conclusions that could save our lives because it’s absurd to assume all people of a certain type are the same. See my concern?
"But in real life, we’re not supposed to jump to conclusions that could save our lives because it’s absurd to assume all people of a certain type are the same."
All people of a certain type may NOT be a certain way, however, all people of a certain type CAN be a certain way. All criminals may not be dangerous, but all criminals have broken the law. All murderers have killed someone. So it is more absurd to assume all people of a certain type cannot be a certain way. They either are or possibly not, which is why not all forms of prejudice are "bad."
I think we agree. I only felt like you might not share my opinion because you used hyperbole. You didn’t respond directly to my hypothetical intended to supplant yours. Thoughts on that? Better yet, let me be blunt. If a black man is walking down the street and a white woman walking toward him crosses the street to avoid him, is that okay? Ever? Even if she’s had repeated bad experiences with black men AND believes empirical data published by the FBI and other collectors of crime statistics?
"If a black man is walking down the street and a white woman walking toward him crosses the street to avoid him, is that okay? Ever?"
Sure it is. White women have done that to me. Just because the black man might take some minor offense, doesn't mean the woman shouldn't take precautions to be safe.
I verily appreciate your perspective. Do you feel like your opinion is closer to the majority or the minority? Cuz my experience suggests you’re in the minority.
My bigger point, is to treat everyone fairly. I am not advocating for discrimination. What I AM saying though, is that we are all different. We deserve the same level of respect, but to ignore these differences would be foolish, because men ARE stronger than women, certain looking people are more likely to be dangerous, and not all prejudice is rooted in "hatred and racism."
To put it in easier terms: Work towards the world you want to live in through your actions, but don't ignore the world you still currently live in.
If the black teammate for basketball or Asian trivia teammate is someone I actually know, I’m making the decision based on experience and not prejudice.
If I’m picking from strangers, those stereotypes might still improve my odds even for I did overlook Monte Towe for my basketball team. (To save everyone a trip to Google, he’s the shortest white man to ever play in the NBA.)
What I know from experience is positive stereotypes are hurtful too. If you don't meet the expectations, you feel like there's something wrong with you, and people assume there's something wrong with you too.
I’m not convinced i agree yet, but you’re the second person to suggest as much and i’ve already begun to work through it. It makes sense on a personal level. But i struggle with the idea that I have to take responsibility for your internalized anxiety. To be fair, i’m certain i have room to improve on my recognition of my own prejudices, particularly the positive ones, and how i act on them. But given that i’m very practiced at not acting on negative prejudices, it shouldn’t take long for me to be frustrated with being blamed for other people’s insecurities. I don’t think i owe strangers that even if i owe apologies and amends to people in my life. Where i end up remains to be seen though.
The FBI literally uses stereotyping to catch criminals and it works I'm done pretending we're all the same and that certain groups of people don't lean toward certain things
I prefer to live in reality, and in that reality there's a good chance that 12 year old Asian girl is gonna kick your ass in chess.
Or you can bet the family farm that you'll win because you don't wanna "stereotype" and learn the hard way
I think profiling is more complex than stereotyping, but i definitely get the point. That was kind of the point of my, i think, final question in the body of my post.
Prejudices are the community experience and not your own. It's always based on something and it's usually deserved. If you don't have time to do detailed judgement. It's basically group to group interaction, as a person dealing with a person you don't need to take it into consideration. But if the average outcome in the past has caused a prejudice, future action are likely to align with it.
I jump when I see a snake or a large spider and my reflexes kick in. Prejudice is natural but we should use our brains and knowledge to learn the good snakes and spiders from the venomous/ poisonous ones. Being on guard and cautious is healthy. Blind blanket reactions are not. I’m more cautious of snakes in the swamps and spiders in dark places… but squirrels don’t scare me anywhere.
I’m not confused even a little. I never said prejudice stems from stereotypes. I defy you or anyone else to prove otherwise. I did say stereotypes are a form of prejudice. Prejudice literally means to “pre judge”; as in to come to a conclusion with too little or inaccurate information. That’s EXACTLY what stereotypes are.
I have never eaten a uranium-and-arsenic casserole. And yet, I genuinely believe that eating said casserole would be a bad idea. I'm prejudiced against it. Is THAT wrong?
Do you really think that’s the same? You chose two things that you KNOW are dangerous to humans. The term “prejudice” means to pre-judge. As in to make a determination without necessary information. You can’t learn much from lousy examples, and you can’t teach anything from them.
As bias against humans? No- but it's still prejudice. If you're going to give blanket condemnations, you're not really in a position to be complaining about someone doing just that. You're prejudiced against prejudice.
Good question. It’s only wrong so far as you are making a false judgement impacting your life and theirs. Otherwise it’s ok if that’s what you believe is best for you.
Is that legit? Did you hear him say it or otherwise fact check it? Cuz that’s a compelling argument. Not that i necessarily agree. I’m on the “freedom of speech” end of the hate speech debate. Bear with me here…. What’s more dangerous, the hateful bigot who announces themselves thanks to freedom of speech, or the one who hides their ignorance, fear and hatred publicly but operates on it behind closed doors? Let that sink in and mull it over before you reply. I would always prefer the person trying to destroy me announce themselves so we can have a fair fight. But maybe that’s just me.
@Chazmatazz269 “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. - Voltaire.
Now freedom of speech is foundational to a true democratic society. And yes you are accurate that it is better for a ignorant person to toot their horn vs them staying quiet and plotting behind closed doors. Also silencing a fool might only reinforce their beliefs vs. defeating them with coherent logic.
I have commented about this on other posts. But the human brain has a method of categorizing objects, environments, situations and (unfortunately) people. I fully believe this is an evolutionary development to ensure survival. Think of tribalism. In ancient history a person from a different tribe could have their freedom or lives in danger if they encountered person (s) from a different tribe. There are still parts of the world I know I would encounter discrimination or worse if I visited. Certain groups will categorize me based on my skin color and admittedly vice versa.
Now of course that is flat out prejudice in safer more developed countries. But still the categorizing process is both nature and nurture in my opinion. Nobody is beyond it. No matter how “altruistic” they claim to be. Rather it takes introspection and genuine relationships with people of different ethnicities to transcend that.
And it doesn’t happen overnight. I know I am open minded now than I was when I was younger. But I’m not perfect, nor are you nor is anybody.
However I also believe this so called “positive racism” (which BLM organized in mass) is only reinforcing mental categorization i. e. prejudice. Even if it was originally meant to be altruistic it really is judging groups of people as a whole vs. individuals. And the greatest minority is the individual.
You can’t shortcut your self improvement with categorization no matter how well intended. Rather you become a better person and humanize people through relationships and that takes mental effort.
Actually that’s not that silly. Consider ego. You think nobody has ever chosen someone to join their team in order to make themselves look better? I think it’s absurd to expect otherwise. The human ego is a powerful and confounding thing.
An underlying assumption in most all of what has been written is that nothing is known about a person other than their race and that is seldom the case. Take a school class. Most everyone will know who gets the top grades. Most everyone will know who is best at sports. Performance is generally known and acted on. Not only we know who to pick for the chess team and football team the appropriate children will self select.
So the prejudice falls down on that. We know ChildA is smarter and ChildZ has good hand eye co-ordination. That's just objective measurement not prejudice.
Now you might argue ChildA is given encouragement and better schooling because he is Asian but more and more it is turning out general intelligence is more an innate ( & inheritable) quality. It is also becoming more apparent that good peripheral vision is related to sporting ability and is again something of an innate quality.
It’s not really an assumption in the ignorant sense though. I’m asking about prejudice and i gave specific examples. I wasn’t holding anyone to those examples per se, but that’s generally how an appropriate conversation works; especially in terms of debate or argument. Adding qualifiers just convolutes the discourse, unless adequate support is provided to relate to the original point. To many people are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions to have a meaningful conversation these days. I stand by my statement about ego in the face of what seemed to me to be ridicule from you on the original topic. Your subsequent statement did nothing to further support your first or refute my reply. So it really just rambles. I’m not trying to discourage your efforts. I just think you have room to improve. Don’t take it personally. We all have room to improve.
Reducto ad absurdum is a valid test of truth in maths and philosophy. A thesis should hold at the extremes as well as at the mid point. If it doesn't then something is NQR (not quite right).
If we were face to face we would see each other's skin color, make inferences on phenotype/race or possibly be unsure. Equally, aside from skin color, we would observe other aspects about each other. I would see if you had a well developed musculature. You would see if I have a well developed beer belly.
These are not qualifiers but are as equally primary observations as those of phenotype/ethnicity/race. General intelligence is not as manifestly observable, I grant you, but there are indicators. An interesting one, is reaction time. It correlates well with general intelligence - aka IQ - but also sporting prowess. I am simply staying with your case points but of course there are many human attributes of significant importance other than those. My experience is the willingness to work is a very important one. Affability and cooperativeness are two others. Many of them in fact.
I think your hypothesis, in essence, is that people only observe phenotype/ethnicity/race and that is clearly wrong. People secondarily inferring capabilities or in-capabilities based on that alone might happen but is an unsubstantiated assumption.
My conjecture is that like military plans, it seldom survives contact.
I don't based specific jobs on a person gender or race, I can equally take medical treatment from both men and women doctors, the same way I can easily trust both female and male nannies to watch out for my hypothetical future children.
I suspect it’s a matter of recognizing our own tendencies to subscribe to prejudices, good or bad, and commit to behaving differently. Then commit to teaching the next generation the best of what we think we know and try to remain positive examples for them. Then, in a generation or two, it’s something people will only read about in history books. However, no solution can be absolute. There will always be ignorant people, including those who are committed to their ignorance. As long as they can find each other and raise children with the same ignorance, there will always be those people. Even when they’re the minority, they will be out there.
Asian have to meet the score the highest on the tests to get into Harvard because of the positive stereotypes. I think that is a negative consequence of a positive stereotype.
Right, plus East Asian and South Asian parents put a lot of pressure on their kids to do good in school and get good careers. A lot of Arabs too. But Black and Hispanic parents for instance don't put so much importance on good career and education. So anyone who believes that "all races/cultures are equal" and that "people everywhere are the same", is incredibly naiive.
stereotypes got there for a reason. I mean have ever heard the stereotype of the midget that is great at dunking basketballs or the black charity organization that helps all humans equally? Of course not, these don't exist.
I disagree. But i’m interested in your elaboration on the differences. Know that this is a special occasion. I routinely delete responses that completely fail to address the question as posted or otherwise attempt to change the subject to something the respondent is clearly more comfortable discussing.
By all means - delete it if so inclined. Look up the definitions. They may at first seem same but are only related. Realizing the difference is what separates educated people from the "triggered" masses.
I don’t need to look those words up. I have an exceptional mastery of American English. Racism and stereotypes are both forms of prejudice. You try and dance around that simple fact all you like, but you’re not fooling “educated people”. Feel free to stay off my posts in the future.
Most Helpful Opinions