Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think that nearly all of us have been subjected to prejudism in some manner. Whether it be via religion, race, or nationality, prejudice still effects the large majority of us in some ways, even in a modern age.

My question is whether or not we need to redefine prejudice in an age that is taking so many different cultural changes?

Social class prejudice has always existed as well, with the proverbial peasant class being shunned by the middle class and high class. In medieval times, this was extremely evident in Europe and Japan. Is it still that definable in modern nations?

Also, the gender issues have stepped into the prejudice fray with often confusing ethical dilemmas. Gay, trans-gender, and bisexuals compel a new set of moral puzzles as the issue of "acceptance" comes into play.

Do political agendas really have the right to legalize what is considered acceptable? If the republicans win the elections (in America) do they have the right to initiate a ban on personal relationships (i.e. Civil Unions & such) and if so, is this not a form of legislative prejudice?

On a macro-social level, ideas about prejudice now stem into prehistory with some anthropologists believing that our species killed off the Neanderthals and many other hominid species due to a competitive drive fueled by prejudice. Is this true?

Prejudice on a micro-social level also seems to be a key component on overtly dangerous "Bullying" where children are often beat severely, and in ever growing cases, actually killed.

Is there a "cure" for prejudice out there, or in us? Or are we so linked to our primeval instincts that we can never truly obliterate the prejudice drive within our species?

Roots - ignorance; insulation; evolutionary tendency to create in-groups
Cures - education; perspective; none outside of inconceivable amounts of time or directed evolution via biological or technological means

Cures are ordered respective to that which they cure in the above list.

It's no big secret how to deconstruct prejudice. It's implementation that is logistically nightmarish.

You seem to want to steer this toward gay marriage, so meh.

Originally posted by Digi


I like what you said about the cures - and the difficulty in "applying" them. (Is that a correct way to view it?) However, I don't want to steer it toward gay marriage (though I do think that's a valid point as well) or any "particular" prejudice issue but prejudice on a generic level.

I will be bringing up many different types of circumstances to convey prejudice and how flexible it can be in destroying peoples lives.

What do you think about the role prejudice played in our more recent genocides -- like Rwanda? Would it be a fair assessment to say that the genocide in Rwanda Africa was an example of extreme prejudice wining over national/social logic? Could the same be said of the Serb/Muslim crisis?

I do not know the answers, but would like to consider other opinions on such things.

I think it depends on how you were bought up. We without noting offen share the same views with our parents which is scary but true.

Originally posted by Digi
Roots - ignorance; insulation; evolutionary tendency to create in-groups
Cures - education; perspective; none outside of inconceivable amounts of time or directed evolution via biological or technological means

Cures are ordered respective to that which they cure in the above list.

It's no big secret how to deconstruct prejudice. It's implementation that is logistically nightmarish.

You seem to want to steer this toward gay marriage, so meh.

As long as there are people in this world there will always be Prejudice!

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
As long as there are people in this world there will always be Prejudice!

True. Though if you keep their (humans) numbers down and educate, a beautiful thing can happen.

The sins of the fathers will always reflect onto their children.

Its probably the inherent inferiority of certain groups that causes it.

Yea and again how you are raised.

When people have a healthy concept of themselves and that of other human beings predudice deminishes and understanding fills its place.

At the "root" of it all: it's just biological programming.

I don't think there's a specific "prejudice" gene. In fact, the ability to discern based on how much "un-alike" another is from you was probably beneficial way back when (and is still partially true today).

But, we can only blame so much on evolution and genes when we have quite a bit of free will to choose on our own.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
When people have a healthy concept of themselves and that of other human beings predudice deminishes and understanding fills its place.

I still don't think it is ever going to happen. People don't like change. Specially older people once they make up there mind they keep it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
At the "root" of it all: it's just biological programming.

I don't think there's a specific "prejudice" gene. In fact, the ability to discern based on how much "un-alike" another is from you was probably beneficial way back when (and is still partially true today).

But, we can only blame so much on evolution and genes when we have quite a bit of free will to choose on our own.

there are some interesting theories about this with regard to why racial differences, while entirely genetically superfluous and meaningless, are the type of things that are instantly the most salient to our perceptual systems and able to be discerned at long distances or even simply from a silhouette

Originally posted by darkriddle
I think that nearly all of us have been subjected to prejudism in some manner. Whether it be via religion, race, or nationality, prejudice still effects the large majority of us in some ways, even in a modern age.

My question is whether or not we need to redefine prejudice in an age that is taking so many different cultural changes?

Social class prejudice has always existed as well, with the proverbial peasant class being shunned by the middle class and high class. In medieval times, this was extremely evident in Europe and Japan. Is it still that definable in modern nations?

Also, the gender issues have stepped into the prejudice fray with often confusing ethical dilemmas. Gay, trans-gender, and bisexuals compel a new set of moral puzzles as the issue of "acceptance" comes into play.

Do political agendas really have the right to legalize what is considered acceptable? If the republicans win the elections (in America) do they have the right to initiate a ban on personal relationships (i.e. Civil Unions & such) and if so, is this not a form of legislative prejudice?

On a macro-social level, ideas about prejudice now stem into prehistory with some anthropologists believing that our species killed off the Neanderthals and many other hominid species due to a competitive drive fueled by prejudice. Is this true?

Prejudice on a micro-social level also seems to be a key component on overtly dangerous "Bullying" where children are often beat severely, and in ever growing cases, actually killed.

Is there a "cure" for prejudice out there, or in us? Or are we so linked to our primeval instincts that we can never truly obliterate the prejudice drive within our species?


Sight..to see ... The root of the problem could be your Eyes.

Originally posted by alltoomany
Sight..to see ... The root of the problem could be your Eyes.

That's all kinds of dumb.

Originally posted by darkriddle
I like what you said about the cures - and the difficulty in "applying" them. (Is that a correct way to view it?) However, I don't want to steer it toward gay marriage (though I do think that's a valid point as well) or any "particular" prejudice issue but prejudice on a generic level.

I will be bringing up many different types of circumstances to convey prejudice and how flexible it can be in destroying peoples lives.

What do you think about the role prejudice played in our more recent genocides -- like Rwanda? Would it be a fair assessment to say that the genocide in Rwanda Africa was an example of extreme prejudice wining over national/social logic? Could the same be said of the Serb/Muslim crisis?

I do not know the answers, but would like to consider other opinions on such things.

It relates back to the last of my three original points. The genetic tendency to create in-groups is powerful and takes all sorts of forms. Education and Perspective can mitigate it somewhat, but not entirely. We're still prone to value those in "our circles" more than others, regardless of how enlightened we are. It's a problem that can only be blunted, not solved entirely.

lack of education, RACISM

^ prejudice is the source of racism actually

I remember going to primary school with an attendance of 99.

Regardless of racial, religious and cultural beliefs everybody was family in the end.

When I went to High School I watched the friends who went with me naturally converge with racial groups...I was shocked! This school had up to 1000 students.

In due time they diverged to people with similar interests whilst I just roamed between as many as I could. Sometimes some of their members would instantly shun me but I tended to get along with everybody.

I can't say what my point is. But community is the key regardless of race and creed.

I think this closed off lifestyle based on entertainment and comfort in our own homes is the downfall of society that embraces consumerism and escapism that's for sure. And societies forced hardship through career can make people not smell the flowers and embrace the people around them. Separation through caste systems is a big no no as well.

There is no right answer for a perfect society. Countries that embrace overpopulation in the name of competition may have deep camaraderie but just breeds war in the end with everybody else.

Someone once told me that you'll never be at peace with the world until you are at peace with yourself. I just wish everybody else knew that.

bump

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
As long as there are people in this world there will always be Prejudice!

This.

I don't feel it matters how well educated some people are as long as there is free will there will be Prejudice and Racism. Education may help the problem but it most certainly won't solve it. There can be so many variables causing someone to hate like this and some of them are simply to hate because they wish to hate. Some people may even fully understand the things they are prejudice against, accept them as normal people and still just not want to be anywhere near them. Im not trying to pick on the Homosexual populace here but some people may understand and agree they deserve equal rights but still not like them.

I'm sure ON will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that prejudice is simply a subset of bias, which is hardwired into humans.

It was my epistemology professor who said (and he was quoting an epistemologist whose name I can't remember) that without biases (including prejudice) we wouldn't be able to function because of the epistemic chaos that would result. It also ties into Hume's critique of Induction.

Ignorance leads to prejudice

Prejudice leads to fear.
Fear lead to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to ig'nance.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm sure ON will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that prejudice is simply a subset of bias, which is hardwired into humans.
Subset of bias? Bias and prejudice are synonymous, so this categorization doesn't explain anything.

I've always thought of prejudice as a subconscious survival tactic stemming from correlation between an object and your experiences with said object.

For instance. If you've only encountered what you experience to be maladjusted canines, then you might associate canines with malice, and stay away from them.

The root is Astner.

Originally posted by Astner
Bias and prejudice are synonymous Not always. And not often.

Originally posted by Astner
Subset of bias? Bias and prejudice are synonymous,
They're only synonymous if you look at them from a stripped-down Dictionary.com perspective. Their connotations are very different. Accusing someone of bias isn't nearly as bad as accusing them of prejudice.

Yeah, silly for using the Oxford dictionary and thesaurus.

No really, what's the difference? Because as far as I'm concerned you're wrong. I'm expecting sources.

at least in psych, the terms aren't seriously differentiated.

Its used more like prejudice is a specifically negative and generally values-based type of bias. All A are B not all B are A sort of thing.

Not synonyms though, no...

Bias can be enonciated in a positive way while prejudice is an absence as far as I can tell. If I only drink green tea because that's the way I do everyday, my experience comes from a positive perspective, I actually have an object of experience. You normally have a prejudice against things, which means you're devaluating them based on a subset of factors that aren't directly dependant on them. If your prejudice ends up adding enough on itself to become a fully fledged experience then it becomes a bias.

Prejudice is seen as something very negative partially because it comes from a subset of faulty expectatives which cannot be backed up by proper experience. Bias are barely better, because they root for partial experience instead of straight theoretical comparision.

That's the difference I get from the context in which the language is often applied, of course my word isn't necessarily true, as I'm not a native language speaker.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm expecting sources.
It's that difficult, huh?

which source would you expect to contrast semantic use of the terms?

like, you are suggesting anything that is a bias is also a prejudice? are you saying there is a prejudice against things you aren't biased toward or are you suggesting prejudice and preference are semantically indistinct?

Originally posted by Oliver North
which source would you expect to contrast semantic use of the terms?
I was assuming that you actually based your argument on a source you could reference. Well, maybe you can find something over at Encyclopedia Britannica. Good luck with that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice?s=t



So, in some, but not most, uses, prejudice can mean favorable bias, though not in most common usage.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/prejudice?__utma=1.189170407.1355158293.1355158293.1355158293.1&__utmb=1.5.9.1355158455019&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1355158293.1.1. utmcsr=google|utmccn=%28organic%29|utmcmd=organic|
utmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=168696737





like, does that work? Settled? semantics=done?

Originally posted by Astner
I was assuming that you actually based your argument on a source you could reference. Well, maybe you can find something over at Encyclopedia Britannica. Good luck with that.

omg so cute...

Originally posted by Oliver North
omg so cute...
Let's take another look at what you said.

Originally posted by Oliver North
at least in psych,

So. Let's try this again. Provide me with a credible source that distinguishes bias from prejudice as far as psychological terminology is concerned.

Because as far as semantics are concerned, there's nothing to argue. Using an open source like Reference.com to counter the validity of the Oxford dictionary and thesaurus as far as the English language is concerned is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Oliver North
omg so cute...

It made me lol, for sure. This guy...

He really seems to have trouble with connotation and semantics.

Originally posted by Astner
So. Let's try this again. Provide me with a credible source that distinguishes bias from prejudice as far as psychological terminology is concerned.

I said they wouldn't distinguish it...

a couple quick pubmed searches will reveal to you that "prejudice" is used as a subset of "bias" to talk about negative evaluations, though I can't imagine anyone has taken the time to fundamentally and empirically differentiate the two things.

My justification for my semantic choices would be ease of communication and common usage. I imagine you would have a much more difficult time communicating that you liked something using the term "prejudice", regardless of its semantic correctness.

Originally posted by Oliver North
a couple quick pubmed searches will reveal to you that "prejudice" is used as a subset of "bias" to talk about negative evaluations, though I can't imagine anyone has taken the time to fundamentally and empirically differentiate the two things.
As I suspected. Concession accepted.

I didn't realize we were arguing about that?

Oxford English Reference Dictionary defines 'bias' as: "a predisposition or prejudice".

It defines 'prejudice' as: "a preconceived notion; bias or impartiality; intolerance of or discrimination against a person or group, esp. especially on account of race, religion, or gender; bigotry (racial prejudice)."



We the English world use 'bias' to mean "predisposed", and prejudice to mean "intolerant discrimination". Astner's using them synonymously because he's Swedish.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I didn't realize we were arguing about that?
Then perhaps the next time you see some asking you to back up your statements with evidence, it may be a good idea to take a second and examine the context to figure out exactly what's being requested.

Originally posted by Oliver North
omg so cute...

I agree with this sentiment, the dogmatic belief in dictionary definitions is a huge problem in causing a lot of ignorance and silliness.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with this sentiment, the dogmatic belief in dictionary definitions is a huge problem in causing a lot of ignorance and silliness. theory

Originally posted by Astner
Then perhaps the next time you see some asking you to back up your statements with evidence, it may be a good idea to take a second and examine the context to figure out exactly what's being requested.

I... I did that... I got dictionary definitions for you, then you said that wasn't good enough and requested something that I not only had previously said wouldn't exist, I even made a comment suggesting they shouldn't exist.

I know this might come as a surprise to you, but psychologists are a little more interested in understanding the behaviours produced by biases and prejudices than the minutia of how those things might differ in proper semantic usage. A "psychological distinction" between the terms is useless and irrelevant to the field.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oxford English Reference Dictionary defines 'bias' as: "a predisposition or prejudice".

It defines 'prejudice' as: "a preconceived notion; bias or impartiality; intolerance of or discrimination against a person or group, esp. especially on account of race, religion, or gender; bigotry (racial prejudice)."

We the English world use 'bias' to mean "predisposed", and prejudice to mean "intolerant discrimination". Astner's using them synonymously because he's Swedish.
http://i.imgur.com/lcCZz.png

http://i.imgur.com/R3NNc.png

http://i.imgur.com/fYTUM.png

You're welcome.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
theory

It is true that I could not find anything substantiating this theory in the dictionary, therefore I concede

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm sure ON will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that prejudice is simply a subset of bias, which is hardwired into humans.

Originally posted by Astner
I've always thought of prejudice as a subconscious survival tactic stemming from correlation between an object and your experiences with said object.

It is generally thought to be fairly close to what both of you are saying, with some major caveats. Astner is explaining more the way things are grouped into categories and our evaluations of them whereas OV seems to be alluding to the fact that humans even have such group and categorical based learning in the first place.

There are types of stimuli, however, that it appears we have biases toward even without prior learning. the 4 F reflexes (fighting, fleeing, feeding, "mating", fears of things like snakes and spiders, very basic perceptual/attentional/cognitive biases, etc, challenge the idea that all bias would be learned through association (Astner: the technical term used sometimes is environmental contingency between expectation and outcome).

This is relevant to human prejudice, because in its most common usage, prejudice talks about negative evaluations of people based on some apparent feature (gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc). Some of these things we have to have learned to hate. We can't biologically be predisposed to hate another's religion specifically, this is obviously something learned by culture. Secondly, the mere existence of categories does not necessitate some value based judgement on them. When we select a stool with 4 legs to sit on, we are not also saying we want a political structure that takes away the rights of 3-legged stools (less congruent with out category of "stools"; this is part of an idea known as cognitive schemas, which are relevant, but not essential here, let me know if you want me to expand, but I think you guys get the idea intuitively anyways). So it isn't simply that we make categories and learn things that way that produces hate toward others, and the specifics of that hate has to be cultural.

However, the broader question becomes about whether value-based outgrouping of other groups is genetic or not, and there is some evidence to suggest there is. For instance, we show patterns of fear-learning with other races that are similar to those of spiders and snakes, models run looking at the natural growth of early agricultural groups requires a mix between in grouping and out grouping for success (totally empathic or totally hostile groups fail), and the race stuff: Races are 100% genetically insignificant, but the phenotypic changes we see are those which are the most salient to our perceptual systems, so much so that we are able (cross-culturally) to identify different racial groups from silhouette.

The obvious answer is that it isn't all one or the other, but the question of where and why this values based out-group tendency exists in the first place are still unanswered to any really satisfactory degree.



Originally posted by Omega Vision
It was my epistemology professor who said (and he was quoting an epistemologist whose name I can't remember) that without biases (including prejudice) we wouldn't be able to function because of the epistemic chaos that would result.

prejudice in the very broad sense, where it means any type of selective criteria for one thing over the next, sure. We can learn that some berries produce non-pleasurable sensory experiences therefore we are prejudice against eating them.

Also, I'd just add, that even if prejudice were natural, there is no real reason to think we are cursed to always endure it. Think of the difference between toilet training a human versus a dog or cat. These animals evolved on the ground, and their "droppings" were very behaviourally important (either to mark territory or in needing to be concealed). They were born essentially predisposed to poop where we want them to. Humans come from apes, which lived in trees and had much less to be behaviourally concerned about with their waste, and would basically just "let it go" off a branch. Because of this, it takes years of training to get a human child to use and recognize the need to use a toilet. But they can. It can become so ingrained you face massive embarrassment to go in other places, even with no witnesses. More than anything, our genetics predispose us to adapt to the environment we grow in. We have biases, to be sure, but we are much more plastic than that. The blank slate is more the predisposition to be written on than no predisposition at all, if that makes sense.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It also ties into Hume's critique of Induction.

it would...

Originally posted by Oliver North
I... I did that... I got dictionary definitions for you,
I never asked for that. Why would I? I was the first one to check the dictionary in this thread.

I specifically asked for the source of the supposed psychological terminology you were using.

Originally posted by Astner
I never asked for that. Why would I? I was the first one to check the dictionary in this thread.

I specifically asked for the source of the supposed psychological terminology you were using.

where did you get the idea I was using "supposed psychological terminology" given I've expressed amusement at the idea it would even exist?

Originally posted by Oliver North
where did you get the idea I was using "supposed psychological terminology" given I've expressed amusement at the idea it would even exist?
Originally posted by Oliver North
at least in psych, the terms aren't seriously differentiated.

Its used more like prejudice is a specifically negative and generally values-based type of bias. All A are B not all B are A sort of thing.

and if you do a quick search on pubmed, you will be made immediately aware of the truth of that sentiment

EDIT:

search for "bias psychology"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=bias%20psychology

search for "prejudice"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=prejudice

what would be more acceptable proof of the negative for you? Its hard to prove people don't contrast the terms in a meaningful way, you know?

I caught up. So was Astner actually right?


Honestly, I though the argument was irrelevant to real psychology and sociology. But if Astner's right, well, hey...I learned something new.

I think so, but only in terms of like a linguistic anachronism. In common usage, "prejudice" is only synonymous with "bias" in certain instances, the same way "robin" is sometimes synonymous with "bird".

Like, it would be confusing to try and describe your preferences as prejudices, but apparently it is a "proper" usage.

Pft, my definitions are better than those, I'll let it slide because it's not my maternal language.

Originally posted by Mindset
The root is Astner. I tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen.

The White Man is the source of prejudice.

He's also the source of creamy centres.

Surely I can't be held accountable for all the crimes of my race?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He's also the source of creamy centres.
Is that what your mom told you?

You'll have to admit that you set yourself up for that one.

Ignorance.

the root of prejudice is our ingrained herd mentality.

sometimes words like 'prejudice' , 'hatred', and 'intolerance' are mistaken as always having something to do with racism.