Reactions to Prejudice

[erm]

So I've recently been reminded how offended some people can react when something or someone is called prejudice.

In some groups racism and sexism, for example, are called out in a relatively casual manner, and it's considered that you have to fail before you succeed in that you're going to be prejudice and ignorant on an issue before you're not.

In other groups calling out racism and sexism are considered quite strong attacks of character and a common method of silencing people.

I'm wondering what the difference is between these two perceptions.

I've heard it said that some people perceive prejudice in a very straightforward and even extreme manner, so being called racist for something is a comparison to the KKK, or being called sexist is a comparison to a serial wife-beater, and thus it's seen as a pretty big personal accusation.

A similar perception of prejudice is as a straightforward easy-to-spot bias, like thinking women won't be able to understand computers very well, or men won't make very good carers.

Others associate those same terms with more nuanced mishaps in thinking, and that racism and sexism are often hard to spot until analysis is done, and so heuristics are used which can seem quite crude but may be needed to spot prejudice in real time.

Finally I just want to note that prejudice which isn't politically charged, like those regarding height, tone of voice and mannerisms are often good comparisons, but I didn't want to open with them for motivation's sake.

 

[Coriolis]

I agree that there are differences in group culture regarding how prejudice and accusations of prejudice are viewed. I think it all depends on how much the group values ideology vs. reality, and how personally they tend to take things. Everyone has personal biases. It is just part of being human, and the inherent subjectivity that is part of that. Many of these biases align with an identifiable group, whether racial, religious, sex/gender related, etc. Some of these biases are extreme, as in the case of KKK members. Others are fairly mild, like my old boss who was as egalitarian as they come, but reflexively opened a large business meeting with "Good morning, gentlemen!" Anyone who asserts they are free of prejudice (i.e. free of biases) is deluding themselves, but most people manage to keep their worst biases in check and override them with reason and evidence, most of the time.

 

[erm]

If we take height as an example:

In some circumstances, like reaching for high up objects, favoring height is not a prejudice. In others, like office work, it is. Then there's the murky areas like leadership positions, where it doesn't directly affect your performance but indirectly impacts how others react to you.

Now it seems everyone has their biases surrounding height, and it seems to be internalized in taller/shorter people, so I wonder how people would react to being told that they are prejudice against, say, short men? I think the absence of politics will lead to a much calmer response in many cases.

People who have never experienced a black person or a white person often have a strong reaction when they first encounter one, so it's clear, even ignoring the neuroscience, that the brain puts some weight to skin color inherently, before cultural influences necessarily weigh in. Add to that the clustering network of the brain and society and it's pretty clear that bias will be all over the place, to the point where blind people show a racial preference.

That previous paragraph, I'm guessing, was obvious to some and not so obvious to others, and they'll fall on different sides when it comes to their reactions to being called prejudice.

I think it all depends on how much the group values ideology vs. reality

I'm not quite clear on what you mean here. Do you mean attachment to a non-prejudice ideal of humans/themselves?

 

[Coriolis]

In some circumstances, like reaching for high up objects, favoring height is not a prejudice. In others, like office work, it is. Then there's the murky areas like leadership positions, where it doesn't directly affect your performance but indirectly impacts how others react to you.

Now it seems everyone has their biases surrounding height, and it seems to be internalized in taller/shorter people, so I wonder how people would react to being told that they are prejudice against, say, short men? I think the absence of politics will lead to a much calmer response in many cases.

People who have never experienced a black person or a white person often have a strong reaction when they first encounter one, so it's clear, even ignoring the neuroscience, that the brain puts some weight to skin color inherently, before cultural influences necessarily weigh in. Add to that the clustering network of the brain and society and it's pretty clear that bias will be all over the place, to the point where blind people show a racial preference.

That previous paragraph, I'm guessing, was obvious to some and not so obvious to others, and they'll fall on different sides when it comes to their reactions to being called prejudice.

The thread topic is prejudice, which is basically pre-judging someone before you know what they are really like. In the usual cases, we are taking something we do know about the person, e.g. their race, sex, ethnic background, etc., and extrapolating other qualities from it. Blacks are lazy; women are too emotional; he looks like an Arab, so must be a terrorist. But all we can really tell from these external factors is exactly that: the external factor. If we then want to make a decision based on that, we need to know the nature of the decision, and the purpose we have in mind.

Take your tall people. Yes, I have read there is bias in favor of tall people, and extraverts, and certain other qualities beyond the usual race, gender, etc. But if you are looking for jockeys or gymnasts, tall is not a plus. Even if you want people who can stack things on high shelves, better to make that exact ability your target, not simply height. You might end up with a tall person who is a total klutz, while a shorter person simply knows to pull a chair over, stage the items on the counter, then stack on the shelf. See how that works? If we keep the end goal in mind, and judge people strictly on their ability to meet it, we are neither pre-judging, nor discriminating unfairly.

I'm not quite clear on what you mean here. Do you mean attachment to a non-prejudice ideal of humans/themselves?

This is related to the paragraphs above. By "focused on reality" I mean goal oriented, understanding that there is something specific to be accomplished, and that decisions made should support reaching that goal. In such an environment, people won't waste much time and effort on taking things personally, or worrying about semantics and what to call things. If an accusation of prejudice comes up, it will be evaluated for validity (is someone really being prejudiced here?), and then for impact on the goal (how can we fix this?) If an accusation of prejudice is viewed as an attack on character and/or is used as a means to silence people, then they are putting group politics and personal posturing ahead of whatever the goal is. I'm assuming here that the group's goal isn't simply to silence dissent of enforce some kind of ideological purity. Such a group is rather pointless.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

The people who are the recipients of prejudice protest because ... well, who wouldn't in that position? The prejudiced protest because they feel coerced to change a way of being they have always had.