Is prejudice bad?

Gulliamo

Critical Thinker
Gulliamo
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
488
In another thread someone stated "freedom is good and rationality is good and prejudice is bad...those are my core values." Which got me thinking and, not wanting to derail their thread, I had to ask, "Is prejudice bad?"

My initial reaction was, "Yes, of course it is." But as I thought about it, it would be almost impossible to live your life without preconceived notions of some kind or another.

The dictionary definitions:
#1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
1b. A preconceived preference or idea.
#2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
#3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
#4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others

Definition 2 and 3 seem inherently wrong because of the words "unreasonable" and "Irrational". Aside from that it doesn't seem that prejudice in and of itself is a bad thing. Racism is unequivocally wrong, sexism usually is. But it would seem fair to be "prejudice" against all convicted pedophile babysitters. Is it wrong to be "prejudice" against hiring all brokers brought up on SEC charges? It seems I shop, hire, and live based on prejudice... Is this wrong?

Maybe the word itself has evolved to almost always mean the same as definition #3...
 
#1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
Click to expand...
Well, that would make it the exact opposite of critical thinking. If this is somehow a good thing, I'll need an explanation. I would say it is a bad thing because it supposes you have knowledge you don't really posess.
 
Gulliamo said:
But it would seem fair to be "prejudice" against all convicted pedophile babysitters. Is it wrong to be "prejudice" against hiring all brokers brought up on SEC charges?
Click to expand...
These two decisions would be judicious and witting. You look at pedophiles and hate them because they have been found to be pedophiles. What would be "prejudicial" is if you assumed someone was a pedophile for a stupid reason and decided to be scornful of him/her as a result. Having a "prejudice" against hiring grifting brokers is silly, too, because that means that you take the position as postulate; you don't think it through. You could just as easily favor such hiring practices if you were completely unwilling to be pensive in the least about the situation. But if you have a sincere conviction about what you said and can back it up with the proper rationale, then it's simply not "prejudice" at all. And I'm guessing that your case is the latter.
 
Hmmm... I see. I think I was simply misinterpreting the use of the word.

[Edit to add:] Thanks!
 
Gulliamo said:
The dictionary definitions:
#1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
Click to expand...
Experiments are still being performed, right? Provided that one is actually performing experiments and taking precautions to avoid introducing bias, what is wrong with having, before performing the experiment, an opinion about what will happen?

Also, what is an "adverse judgment or opinion"? Given that there are various conceivable outcomes for an experiment, which outcomes are "adverse"?

Gulliamo said:
#3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Click to expand...
The mirror image of this is something like the following:
"Irrational liking of a particular group, race, or religion."

Can one create irrational liking as a way to counterbalance or eliminate irrational suspicion or hatred? Is the creation of irrational liking an effective method for eliminating irrational suspicion and hatred? Assuming that it is actually an effective method, is the outcome desirable? Is it a good thing for people to have irrational liking? Perhaps one could claim that liking can never be irrational?
 
I always thought there were two distinct and different things.

Prejudice: which I believe is making judgments based on biases which have not been verified.

Stereotyping: Making a rational judgments based on your personal past experiences.

Prejudice is always bad. Stereotyping is a human defense action which is not wise to ignore.


For example my children are taught to stereotype adults in cars as molesters I tell them if an adult pulls over and want to ask a question, or show them something they should run away and draw attention to themselves.
 
I don't see stereotyping as a rational decision made on past experience. Maybe I misunderstood, but what is rational about saying that all adults in vehicles are child molesters? To teach children about the perils of talking to strangers is valid. It fosters critical thinking. To my understanding, stereotyping is based on preconceived notions and perceptions. I sort of liken it to profiling.
 
Like it or not you (meaning everyone) stereotype people. It can be taught and enforced but we have an instinct that makes judgments about everyone you meet, see. It is simply how our minds work. Our first impressions are based on stereotypes, otherwise you would have no impression of a person when you first meet them.

If you see a pretty woman on the street you impression that she is pretty is based on your stereotype of what is pretty.
 
I don't think that prejudice is a good thing but it does seem like something to which we are easily susceptible. Many do not possess the intellectual wattage to make rational choices. How are they going to make decisions if not on prejudice.

If a parent teaches the child to stay away from gypsies because they kidnap children and turn them into pigs the child will grow up with a prejudice but will never be turned into a pig (or otherwise be taken advantage of by gypsies.) This could in fact be a wise instruction for a child if the different communities are experiencing a culture clash. Yes, it may have an unfortunate and lingering affect on the child that exceeds its usefulness but in those cases where the rationality of individual should not be relied on, a little prejudice might be a good thing.

I think parents try to prejudice their daughters against the wrong sort of boy. Parents are not always wrong. Daughters can be rational about it and may know what the right action should be even without prejudicing the outcome but they may still decide poorly due to hormonal reasons.

Evolutionwise, we are equipped to make decisions when there is no time for rational thought. Prejudice may be life saving in times like these.

So yah, it may be the opposite of critical thinking as c4ts points out, but sometimes critical thinking is a luxury. At those times prejudice is an acceptable decision making method but, again, I don't believe it is a good one - it just may be the best one available.
 
Re: Re: Is prejudice bad?

The idea said:
The mirror image of this is something like the following:
"Irrational liking of a particular group, race, or religion."

Can one create irrational liking as a way to counterbalance or eliminate irrational suspicion or hatred? Is the creation of irrational liking an effective method for eliminating irrational suspicion and hatred? Assuming that it is actually an effective method, is the outcome desirable? Is it a good thing for people to have irrational liking? Perhaps one could claim that liking can never be irrational?
Click to expand...
Is there a word for "irrational liking" of a group? If so, is this as "inherently wrong" as "prejudice?" Now that I think about it I know of several people who have said, "Well, how bad can the lad be? He's Irish." Or, "They're good Christian folk" about people they do not even know!

When someone "pre-supposes" a bad thing they are "prejudice." When they "pres-suppose" a good thing they are simply "optimistic." Why is that?
 
Atlas said:
So yah, it may be the opposite of critical thinking as c4ts points out, but sometimes critical thinking is a luxury. At those times prejudice is an acceptable decision making method but, again, I don't believe it is a good one - it just may be the best one available. [/B]
Click to expand...

Well said and thought provoking.
 
If one is "-judiced" because of specific prior knowledge of something adverse about the subject, then I would call that "postjudice" rather than "prejudice" and completely appropriate.
 
I think that we lack of enough words for the ideas that we want to communicate.

"Prejudice" comes from "prae" meaning "previous" and "judicium" meaning "judgment". So it is a "previous judgment". Or you can think of the prefix "pre" meaning "before". Really it comes down to "preconceived judgment". So it means a judgment about something before getting all the facts. (It also has a specific legal meaning.) We do this all the time. It is essential to ability to live in the world. For example, if I have a Coke can, I make the preconceived judgment that the can contains Coke. If I see a large unkempt man carrying a large knife staggering down the street towards me, I may make the preconceived judgment that he is dangerous. If we didn't have prejudices, we would have a tough time surviving. We make preconceived judgments about all kinds of things all the time. The judgment can be based on our past experience or reasoning. It can also be based on complete hogwash.

So the word has come to often be used to describe preconceived judgments that are not based on reason. It is also most often used to describe an adverse judgment. In some cases the term is used as "prejudice against" something or "prejudice for" somehting. Really we need more words to describe a preconceived judgment about something, and other words for a preconceived judgment for/against something, and yet more words for preconceived judgments that are based on logical reasoning/past experience and hogwash/hearsay. But we don't have them so the same word gets used in these many different contexts.

"Stereotype" comes from "stere" meaning "solid" and "type" which means "type" or "image" or "impression". So it is a "solid type" or "solid impression". Really it comes down to "set type". So it means a belief about something that applies to all cases of a certain type. (It also has a specific meaning in print making.) It is an extension of a prejudice. It is a "solid type" of a "preconceived judgment"--or a "set preconceived judgment of a type or group".

The difference between a prejudice and a stereotype is that a prejudice is an initial evaluation of something specific that can be easliy changed with more data, a stereotype is an evaluation of something general (a group) that is less flexible to change. Again, we do not have adequate words to describe differnt types of stereotypes.

So, you can (and do) have prejudices all the time, and they do not require steroetypes. Think about driving around and being lost and needing to ask directions. You will make preconceived judgments about which people or businesses have the best ability to give you good directions. Your decision may be based on your past experience of asking for directions, reasoning of the best people to ask, or complete hogwash. And the person that you ask probably is not the best person that you could have asked. You may ask someone because your past experiance and reasoning tells you that the person "looks like" they can give you directions. That's life. But a sterotype would be like concluding that "blonde women can't give directions". This would also affect your prejudice, such that in no case (or very limited cases) would you choose a blonde woman to ask directions.

So a stereotype requires a prejudice. Both can be bad, or good. Although they both have many possible meanings they are usually used in the sense where they are bad.

There seems to be a lack of a single term to take it to the next level. "Racism" and "sexism" describe certain aspects of ths level for specific types of stereotypes. This is taking a steroetype to an absolute.

For example (and it amy not be a really good one): Let's say I coach a boy's football team. A girl wants to join the team. I say, "No way. Girl's can't play football." This could be sexist (girls cannnot play football period) or a stereotype (girls are not good at football) or a prejudice (assuming that I have not seen the girl, based on reason conclude that a girl playing football would not be good and may be dangerous). Now if I bring out some huge girl that can kick the boy linebackers butts all over the place, I dismiss my prejudice because I now have more data. The girl can play football. But I have to lose or amend my stereotype. If I were sexist, I would refuse the girl on the team no matter what.

Another example would be a food company. Say I run "General Foods". You buy a can of "General Foods Green Beans". They are awful. When you go to the store to buy a can of corn will you buy "General Foods Corn" or another brand? If you don't buy "General Foods Corn" then you are being prejudice--you have never tried "General Foods Corn" but are making a preconceived judgment about the quality of the corn based on your experience of the quality of the green beans.

You could be right, or could be wrong. Maybe you just got a bad can of green beans. But even if you try a number of other cans of green beans and they are all bad, you still may be wrong. Maybe General Foods makes bad green beans, but all their other products are excellent.

Now let's say that you do try the General Foods corn, and the mushrooms, and the carrots, and the black olives, and the split peas; and they are all awful. Now you form the stereotype that "General Foods" sells awful food. These are based on experienced data. But what if General Foods actually does sell excellent canned artichokes? You never buy them because of your prejudice and stereotyping.

The problem is that in real life we can't do all of these tests. What if your neighbor told you "General Foods sells awful food". Then you can still form the stereotype, and resonablly so, unless you don't trust your neighbor.
 
Umm...I'm rambling on a bit. The point is that we HAVE to have prejudices and stereotypes. But we also have to accept that those prejudices and stereotypes could be wrong for any specific case, or could be wrong with additional data. "Political correctness" seems to say that we should abandon all prejudices and stereotypes; this can't, won't, and shouldn't happen.

Political correctness should not be an acceptance of any behavior, but an openness to modifying a prejudice if a reasonable number of individuals within that group of the prejudice present behavior that goes against the prejudice or a modifying a stereotype a significant number of individuals within that group present behavior that is against the stereotype.

If guys with red hair and green eyes that wear top hats and pocket watches and green Converse tennis shoes have a history of gang violence, drug use, child neglect, laziness, etc., then I will stay away from anyone fitting that description. That’s a prejudice. Now if I take away the hat, shoes and watch, I’ve just got a guy with red hair and green eyes. So if someone with red hair and green eyes applies (and no hat, shoes or watch), I may not want to hire that person based on my stereotype. But my stereotype is (or should be ) based on whether I think this person is one of the persons of this type that also meets the type that wears top hats and pocket watches and green Converse tennis shoes and is also the type of that type that commits gang violence, drug use, child neglect, laziness, etc.

This gets difficult, so I may decide that I will not hire anybody with red hair or green eyes. This is like racism or sexism, or any other such -ism.

This is not entirely reasonable, but it isn’t entirely unreasonable either. I think this is the nitty-gritty of racism in America. But it is not easy to overcome. Different cultures have different values, and prejudices are based on cultural values so getting cultural prejudices and stereotypes is difficult.
 
Predjudice, in its most general meaning, is absolutely necessary in order to relate to others in a complex society. You have to make (possibly incorrect) assumptions about people based on limited experience, since it's impossible to have full knowledge of any other person's personality.

So, if say, I'm lost in Manhattan, and I need to ask someone for directions, I'm going to look for a person who (based only on appearance and demeanor) I feel will be the most helpful. I'll make guesses about what language they speak, whether they are sane, whether they are generally kind to strangers, etc. Any of these guesses may be wrong, but there's no other choice.

When this becomes bad, is when these assumptions are not recognized as such. That is, when law makes these assumptions into policy, or when people are treated unfairly because of unfounded assumptions.
 
Re: Re: Re: Is prejudice bad?

Gulliamo said:
Is there a word for "irrational liking" of a group?
Click to expand...

They are called 'groupies'. For instance, The GM is a groupie of Gulliamo.

If so, is this as "inherently wrong" as "prejudice?"
Click to expand...

No way. Not in this case, anyway.:p :D
 
Re: Re: Re: Is prejudice bad?

Gulliamo said:
Is there a word for "irrational liking" of a group?
Click to expand...

Some people call it "predjudice". As the saying goes: The opposite of stupidity is the opposite stupidity.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is prejudice bad?

phildonnia said:
Some people call it "predjudice". As the saying goes: The opposite of stupidity is the opposite stupidity.
Click to expand...

Now this is interesting as I've never heard someone say they were prejudiced for something. I thought the opposite of prejudice was favoritism, although that word tends to have a negative connotation as well when applied to a lot of situations. I.E., she got the promotion because of favoritism.
 
DevilsAdvocate-
Thank you! That was the most well thought out answer today and articulates well the thoughts that were spinning through my head.

GM-
Thanks, I've always wanted a groupie. I think I have a prejudice towards groupies.

General-
In the (legal) work world is it possible to get into trouble for "reverse prejudice" or "prejudice towards" rather than against? For example: If I were a manager that thought, "Asians make the best programmers" and hired accordingly, maybe in the process skipping over a perfectly qualified disabled, gay, Latino, veteran... could I get into legal trouble? Not because I prejudice against anyone else but I was prejudice for Asian programmers? Is there a legal precedent for this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom