From: ST402341@brownvm.brown.edu (Gary Byma)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: What is Prejudice (was: Re: Tastes and Prejudice)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:52:34 EDT
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <1992Sep1.194909.3770@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess
Anderson) said:
>
>>Could you provide a similar definition for taste, Jess?
>
>Only fairly weakly, I think.  It's a value statement about
>an instance and _a posteriori_.  Such classes as may exist
>are far more likely *not* to exhibit the kind of variability
>that human beings do, so may for these purposes be thought
>of as a collection of instances, for example: chrome and
>glass furniture seems too hard and cool for my tastes, or
>something like that.  But I think connoisseurship enters
>into taste, the _a posteriori_ ingredient; you can't prefer
>Louis XVI to Louis XIV (furnishings, not kings) unless you
>know what you're talking about.
>
With respect to this whole thread on prejudice, preference and taste
it is important to take into account the nature of the human brain.
Unlike a computer, which can only arrive at exact and precise
conclusions when all relevant facts are available to it, the human
brain is especially good at arriving at conclusions with a paucity
of information available to it. One consequence of this fact
is the ability to generalize based on instances. As Arnold Z.
can attest this ability accounts at least in part for the speed
with which children acquire language. Furthermore, our adult
competence with our native tongue relies on the generalizations
we have made concerning the grammar of our language.
   The ability to form an  opinion, arrive at a conclusion, i.e.
inferencing, is a necessary survival skill. Combine this with
episodic memory and pattern-matching skills and you can see the
advantage gained from being able to apply past knowledge and
experience to the present situation. Very often the ability to
do this may mean the difference between life and death. In the face
of imminent danger, you cannot wait for more data but must act on the
sample of information available to you and attempt to find a pattern
match with past experience. If we survive, we add the new information
from our most recent experience to our store of information and, possibly,
revise our conclusions.
    I believe that this feature of the human brain is responsible for
what we perceive as prejudice. As long as another's experience and conclusions
coincide with our own experience, we see their conclusions as valid. However,
when we have facts and experiences not available to them, or our
experiences differ, markedly, we see the incompleteness of their
conclusions and call it prejudice. (It should also be apparent that
we may not share their negative experiences and therefore may not
recognize how they might have arrived at their conclusions.)
    But I believe further, that because we still possess a human brain
capable of taking in new information, that our opinions should be
constantly changing to incorporate current experience. As long as
a person continues to be open to revising their brain states I
do not believe they are fundamentally prejudiced, only behaving
naturally in the face of insufficient data. However, should that
individual continue to hold erroneous opinions in the face of
contradictory data, they are very likely prejudiced. I say 'very
likely' because with contradictory data they are faced with the
conflict of rejecting past experience or rejecting current
experience, and are perhaps weighing the evidence in favor of
each view. The truly prejudiced person, I believe, is one who
doggedly clings to erroneous, views despite overwhelming evidence
to the contrary and very little supporting evidence. Such a
person is evidently unwilling to learn and is arguably a waste
of a brain, because they don't allow it to do what it does best.
   If I believe that someone holding a particular viewpoint is in
error, then it is my responsibility to share with them facts not
in their experience in an effort to bring them around to my way
of thinking (assuming of course, that my opinion is valid or
correct). I don't think I will be very successful in this endeavor
if I bludgeon anyone with my opinions. Something my father told
me many years ago is germaine, I believe "A wise man learns from the
mistakes of others, but a fool can't even learn from his/her own
mistakes."
   As to why I left in that quote from Jess: Given the nature of
my brain, I need know very little about Louis XIV or XVI furnishings
in order to form an opinion about it, only one or two
encounters with it. I become a connoisseur or an expert as my
opinions become based on more and more encounters and experiences.
    In conclusion, I believe that soc.motss ought to be a forum for
people to voice their opinions whether they are based on one
experience or many. Should someone disagree, I would hope they
would bear in mind that perhaps all that person needs is more
information. Brow-beating, arguing, name-calling are not likely
to achieve the objective of changing anyone's mind, only make
them dig in for a long (and wordy) skirmish. In the short time
that I have been reading the net, I have profitted the most
from careful cogent reasoning and from people sharing their
experiences. I have profitted least from the diatribes, the
biliousness and name-calling.
Newsgroups: soc.motss