Forum menu
Ok, bit by bit. Junkyard, yes you are right sexist is how the police chief case can be summed up. However the interesting part is that the sexists weren't aware they were being sexist, they created good claims to defend their 'preconceived' choices. This is the interesting bit, as highlighted later, it explains why people who are blatantly and offensively racist or sexist, don't seem to realise it. I agree, some broad heuristics do make it easier for us to make quick decisions in novel situations. But it doesn't mean they aren't prejudices. Hopefully, in the comfort of our safe environments sitting behind our computers we can be more rationale about it. Though, i think with insufficient information, we may still have to rely on the simple rules. Yes, a False positive is better than false negative.
The generalisation which leads you to believe that the woman is more likely to be a nurse (or that a nurse is more likely to be a woman?) and the bloke is more likely to be a copper, are probably statistically safe. The issue arises when the prejudices are used to say that the woman would be a better nurse and the bloke a better copper, or that those sexes are better suited to each profession, and then to rationalise it and so avoid accusations of sexism. Yes, interesting if we had the 'blank slate' if only we knew where we could find a Zen Buddhist or childish morons... 😯
Molgrips, I can see the logical approach and I'm more of a logician than I am am a psychologist. But I think there may be the some psychologists argument about determinism which is tied in with your argument about logic. And yes we all believe we are right, or adjust our world views until we are. But often we try to be open-minded about many things. I'm wondering if that open minded-ness is "just an illusion" [i](Ashley Ingram, Steve Jolley, Leee John & Tony Swain - Imagination © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, Universal Music Publishing Group)[/i]
If our minds are only open in the direction of evidence aligned with our early experiences. TJ may well be right we he talks about people struggling to see his point of view, because his experiences and (therefore) values are so different form others here. The thing is, this probably applies to everyone else as well. The fact that we have agreement at all may just be happy coincidence.
I'm not sure what the lesson is, it might be that we need to be aware that things we think may not always be right, but also things that we 'know', in terms of ideas and concepts, may not be any more true either. I think.
Why oh why are people debating this rather than the article?
You don't have to read so much and you don't have to think too much.
I think this is obviously true and I do think alot of people do actually recognise it but we cant recognise it to a large degree or society does nt work.
I have definitely had arguments about a subject and when people have really pushed me as to why I believe something. I just say well there has to be 2 sides to an argument and Im clearly the sort of person who should be on "THIS" side of the argument and generally the other person sees that.
Obviously there are some people who really cant see the other side of the argument at all and are total obviously to their bias.
If everyone could see both sides of an argument I dont think we'd actually come to the right conclusion or the middle or the road. I think every point on the spectrum would seem just as valid as any other.
Taking the example giving above
For example i went to x town and got mugged at 2 am by a black male
we could conclude
dont go to that town it is dangerous
dont go out at 2 am it is dangerous
dont go out at 2 am in that town it is dangerous
only black men are dangerous
only men are dangerous etc
only black men are dangerous in that town
etc the trick is to make the most accurate one
But if you really could see every side of the argument you could also conclude
The wealth is more evenly shared between the three people
I've never met the bloke.. but last night I dreamt that Elfinsafety came round to my house and successfully intimidated me by showing off a bizarre array of cycling accessories that he was using on a touring bike..
One of these accessories was a toy farm affixed to a map board on the handlebars..
grum - Member
This just proves how very right I am about everything really.
I thought that was Fred?
But often we try to be open-minded about many things. I'm wondering if that open minded-ness is "just an illusion"
Not sure. The process of making a judgement involves gathering evidence and assessing it. How you asses it is crucial. If you are intelligent and critical you might spot when you are being blatantly prejudicial in some cases - in others you might not. Therefore open-mindedness is a sliding scale. How much effort you put into assessing the evidence and how much weight you attach to your preconceived ideas determines how open minded you are imo.
I think every point on the spectrum would seem just as valid as any other
That's why you have to evaluate against certain criteria, such as "the greater good" which John Stewart Mill tried to quantify. Of course what constitues the greater good varies a lot depending on who is in charge...
we need to be aware that things we think may not always be right, but also things that we 'know', in terms of ideas and concepts, may not be any more true either
Spot on my good fellow.
I normally resist the urge to jump in on this type of thread but I'm bored so I'll make an exception.
It's a classic piece of "No Sh!t Sherlock" analysis...... to which my response is "so what?"
Of course people try to explain away their preferences in a manner that fits the relative political correctness or other sensibilities of their audience.
Therefore open-mindedness is a sliding scale. How much effort you put into assessing the evidence and how much weight you attach to your preconceived ideas determines how open minded you are imo.
Yes, this make sense, but it would seem that there is another layer of 'prejudices' which we are not aware of, environmental ones, and almost by definition we are not aware of them. I guess it means we can't change them. But then there has to be a balance between this and the idea of 'universal truths' and again moral relativism.
it would seem that there is another layer of 'prejudices' which we are not aware of, environmental ones, and almost by definition we are not aware of them
Hmm.. perhaps.. but all or many of them can be discovered by the application of critical thought and introspection. This of course takes effort which is what we mean when we talk about the effort required to be a 'good person' I feel. And why we criticise certain reactions as lazy or feeble minded I suppose.
CharlieMungus - Member
NEVER EVER use cut and paste, mate!
Why?
It's my unwritten rule - it's usually dross or leads to it and/or folk saying "I'm not reading all that" etc.
[quote=cynic-al]
[b]NEVER EVER use cut and paste, mate![/b]
[quote=charliemungus]Why?
[quote=cynic-al]It's [b]my[/b] [u]unwritten[/u] rule .
😀
Hmm.. perhaps.. but all or many of them can be discovered by the application of critical thought and introspection.
The problem is that may well be circular. I'm not sure anymore!
Ultimately, perhaps, but if you really put the effort in you can learn a lot...
This is an argument however for giving yourself a wide range of experiences in life. The more you travel*, try different things and take the time to get to know people from different places and walks of life, the more you will learn and therefore the better you will be able to criticise yourself.
* as long as you don't just act like a useless tourist.
another layer of 'prejudices' which we are not aware of, environmental ones, and almost by definition we are not aware of them. I guess it means we can't change them.
I'm not convinced that we're entirely unaware of them or that you can conclude that you should necessarily want/need to change them. All it means is that people are seldom 100% objective in their assessments but are instead conditioned by their beliefs etc.
Is it reasonable to expect that they should be anything else?
In reality, the police chief example may be self regulating in that the better candidate may be the one who better understood and could play to the belief system of those that would select him.