Sure. But where do you draw the line? Of course there is a difference between black and white people, or female and man? What about those in between, like Hispanics, or intersexed. And what exactly is a pure black man, or a 100% man. How advanced is our science to make sound decisions on these matters?
Didn't we think the earth was flat as well, when we operated by observation. And later round, when we again operated by observation?
So isn't our illusion of non ignorance, truly total ignorance?
But as you say; (quote) I just wonder why. Does not make sense to me. And (S)ense is supposed to be my strong point.
I think you've got me a little wrong here. Observing differences shouldn't be about categorization, because as you've pointed out, there will always be people in the middle who defy it. Not everybody is completely male or female, gay or straight, black or white.
Secondly, as you've pointed out again, observations may not always be accurate and are completely susceptible to human error. However, just because something doesn't have a 100% rate of success (nothing does) doesn't mean that it isn't useful or beneficial in some way. We used to think that illness could be cured by blood-letting, and we have since made progress and learnt about viruses and bacteria. We have still got a lot of it not-quite-right-
Doctors are highly intelligent and educated humans but human nevertheless, often making errors of observation themselves. Medical malpractice can destroy lives; but would you honestly say that the world would be better off if doctors choose not to observe differences?
Regarding your Earth flat/round analogy: We once thought the Earth was flat. To this day, we do not completely understand many things about the Earth- global warming, plate tectonics, the atmosphere, you name it. We once didn't know that CFCs had negative side-effects- it was the power of observation that eventually led us to stop (or at least cut down) on this pollution.
We may never completely know everything about our planet, but surely it is better to try and observe it with the risk of getting it wrong, then to remain ignorant altogether?
Let me share with you some of my personal experiences:
I am an atheist myself but several of my friends are religious- some are Protestant, Catholic, Methodist and Anglican. Others are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist. How would you suggest I classify them?
Should I pretend that there is no difference? Should I classify them "religious" and "non-religious"? Some people are slightly religious, some are superstitious.
Being aware of these differences allows me to make sure that I know how to respond when something happens. There were some church bombings in Malaysia recently, and my religious friends have a wide range of different perspectives on the issue.
Being aware and sensitive to their different religious sensitivities allows me to build deeper and more meaningful relationships with them than if I chose to be ignorant about their religions.
"Why bother acknowledging these differences?" You might ask?
Being aware of these differences has added value and quality to my life and to my relationships with these people. I could live my life forcibly ignorant about all these things, but being aware of them have allowed me to develop a deeper understanding of people, of social forces, of everything in general.
Sometimes you hear about people who are handicapped or trans-gendered who say "I wish everyone would just treat me as if I were normal, like everybody else." I don't think the world works that way.
You cannot ignore what makes you different or unique because it is a part of your identity. I have a close friend (I introduced him to this forum, he's Astroninja) who is Singaporean Chinese and most noticeably Albino. People stare at him everywhere he goes. Growing up looking different from everybody else must have been strange and difficult for him, but it is also a unique experience and he has learnt to
embrace that difference as part of his very unique identity. He knows that he can't pretend that he isn't albino, and he doesn't want to either- so he embraces it. You will notice that he looks pretty cool in his display picture and it is quite a conversation starter.
FINALLY: You ask why people choose to be observant rather than ignorant. It is really simple-
natural selection. Over generations, observant people have survived better than ignorant ones. Your senses are attuned to observing differences; it is vital to survival. Our ancestors (that is, humans who survived long enough to reproduced) figured out that liquids that are discoloured or smell funny probably shouldn't be ingested. If something hurts, we should probably do something about it.
Passing judgement about your observations, of course, is a whole different story. I might observe, for instance, that many terrorists are religiously motivated. I might also observe that I have several friends who are Muslim and deeply religious. It would not be COMPLETELY inaccurate to suggest that my Muslim friends are more likely to blow something up than my atheist friends, but it is a ridiculous gesture.
Observing differences and making unfounded generalizations about said differences are two different things altogether.
I imagine you would next ask about generalizations-
People generalize because it is the easy and "safe" thing to do when it comes to short term self-interest. In the past, men that learnt to run away from what appeared to be harmful were more likely to survive than men who stuck around to find out for themselves. If it looks like a hungry lion, it probably is a hungry lion. Avoid. This caveman sort of thinking benefited cavemen in the past. But the human mind still hasn't evolved past it (if you think about it, the world's unique circumstances have only been in place for only a couple of hundred years), and it is not uncommon today for people to think "if he looks like a black man, he'll probably beat me up and take my money".