Explorations of confinement.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Heh.

Rat, I think Cram seems to be saying (to me, at least)* that for him, the concept of "prejudice" is similar to the "Reality Grids" of RAW.

That is, in order to function and survive as humans, we have to make assumptions, and employ pre-conceptions when we encounter a new situation.

Some of these are based upon rational thought and experience, and could be considered "good".

Some of these are based upone hearsay, ignorance, and misinformation, and could be considered "bad".

*How's that for E-Priming a motherfucker?

I agree with what you're saying.

The only bit I disagree with, seems to me the concept that assumptions and pre-conceptions are necessarily prejudging (prejudice). It seems to me that I can make an assumption about X without prejudging NotX, or a decision about X without prejudging NotX.

I don't think all prejudice is bad (except, perhaps in the way that I think 'belief' is not good)... but I don't think prejudice is necessary either.

PS: 23 points for the use of E-Prime on that LMNO!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Discrimination is modifying your behavior based on your judgment. Prejudice is a set of assumptions which influences your judgment.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Discrimination is modifying your behavior based on your judgment. Prejudice is a set of assumptions which influences your judgment.

Those seem like good definitions to me.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Discrimination is modifying your behavior based on your judgment. Prejudice is a set of assumptions which influences your judgment.

Those seem like good definitions to me.

Well then, as Cram pointed out, prejudice must have a presence in every decision.

So it is necessary.

The question I find myself asking is, what are my assumptions and prejudices in a particular situation and do they serve my goals?

[Golden Applesauce]

Prejudice is judging something before encountering it or having all the relevant information.

Discrimination is choosing or differentiating between two or more things.

A person who tries two wines and notes differences is discriminating.  A person who chooses to drink one wine over the other is discriminating.  A person who comes to a conclusion about a wine before drinking it is pre-judging.  The reasons for his prejudice could be reasonable ("Every other wine I've tasted from that company has been subpar/really good") or not ("Wine from region X is the best/worst.")

So, going back to the OP, of course LMNO is discriminating - he has to.  He's selecting the people he thinks would work best in his band, by definition discriminating against the people he does not think would fit and for the ones he does.

The prejudice comes in when (if?) he judges someone as a good or bad band member before the audition or interview.  It's true that many traits associated with Christians might make him less attractive as an applicant, but pre-judging that the person in question has those traits solely on the basis of college is unreasonable.  Maybe he chose that college because it offered him the best scholarship?  Maybe his family pressured him?  Maybe he's one of those Reasonable Christians™ who has carefully considered his viewpoints and arrived at his own personal brand of Christianity?

[Daruko]

It was either Wilson or Wilson quoting someone else ( just remember it was in Coincidance:a Head Test) who said:       One should never ascribe predicates to a people.

Maybe it was Korzybski.    An additional Korzybskian note:  It's not just our linguistic concepts that affects our decisions, but our sensory/nervous mediations.    I may be attracted to dark hair/dark eye girls due to the contingent features of the filters, but ultimately, booooooiiiinngg.

Is this clear?  It reminds me of a conversation between David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti about beliefs.  When you have a toothache, says K, is that experience a result of your belief that you are in pain?  In another conversation, Bohm expresses his intolerance with the spiciness of Indian peppers, and K comments about how much he enjoys the experience of eating something that cleanses the body.

Korzybski developed General Semantics to counter the negative side of prejudice.  For me personally, some sort of balance between self-analysis and intuition seems to keep society's brain distortions in check.   Reimprinting can help to thwart the deeper prejudices that are harder to recognize.  This falls into to the "serving my goals" realm.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Discrimination is modifying your behavior based on your judgment. Prejudice is a set of assumptions which influences your judgment.

Those seem like good definitions to me.

Well then, as Cram pointed out, prejudice must have a presence in every decision.

So it is necessary.

Prejudice must have a presence, but ONLY (I think) if we are making judgments about something based on assumptions (pre judging it). Making a selection for one option, doesn't require that I judge all the other options. That may happen, but it doesn't seem necessary to all decisions.

I make a decision to hang out here, not because I have prejudged all other Discordian sites, but because I like posting here with you spags (so I'm masochistic, so wut?). If, however, I posted here because "All other Discordian sites suck Eris' balls" then I would be basing a decision on pre judging, making assumptions etc.

Prejudice is judging something before encountering it or having all the relevant information.

Discrimination is choosing or differentiating between two or more things.

A person who tries two wines and notes differences is discriminating.  A person who chooses to drink one wine over the other is discriminating.  A person who comes to a conclusion about a wine before drinking it is pre-judging.  The reasons for his prejudice could be reasonable ("Every other wine I've tasted from that company has been subpar/really good") or not ("Wine from region X is the best/worst.")

So, going back to the OP, of course LMNO is discriminating - he has to.  He's selecting the people he thinks would work best in his band, by definition discriminating against the people he does not think would fit and for the ones he does.

The prejudice comes in when (if?) he judges someone as a good or bad band member before the audition or interview.  It's true that many traits associated with Christians might make him less attractive as an applicant, but pre-judging that the person in question has those traits solely on the basis of college is unreasonable.  Maybe he chose that college because it offered him the best scholarship?  Maybe his family pressured him?  Maybe he's one of those Reasonable Christians™ who has carefully considered his viewpoints and arrived at his own personal brand of Christianity?

This Is The Correct Motorcycle, I think.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It is not possible to be free of assumptions (OH HAI BIP).

So you also must be prejudiced, according to the definition you agreed to.

But, this isn't necessarily bad, even though in common usage it is pejorative.

[atrasicarius]

I think people are lumping together two different kinds of prejudice here. You can judge people based on something like skin color, which they cant change about themselves, and which doesnt effect them except in their appearance anyway. You can also judge them based on something someone chooses about themselves, like religion. Now, obviously there are all different kinds of Christians, but if a person goes to a special Christian university, it seems  likely that he's closer to the fundie side than to the moderate side. Declaring yourself to be a religion is making a statement of your beliefs to the world. If someone says their a Christian, it says something about them, just like if someone says their a Discordian.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It is not possible to be free of assumptions (OH HAI BIP).

So you also must be prejudiced, according to the definition you agreed to.

Only if those assumptions are permitted to influence your judgment.

One of main reasons I like RAW's oft expressed point of view, model agnosticism, maybe logic and e-prime directly relates to this discussion. One can make assumptions and allow those assumptions to influence their judgment (prejudice) for good or ill, or one can process available data and hold tentative positions based on the data currently available. I try (don't always succeed) to do the latter.

I also think this very closely relates to the Cosmic Schmuck principle. We are all (at least occasionally) Cosmic Schmucks, basing our decisions on unfounded assumptions (pre-judging)... however, this doesn't seem to me as the only, or even preferable way to make decisions. So maybe I would agree that by default we most humans seem inclined to make assumptions and pre-judge data, but I would also hold that this doesn't appear to be a required nor all that great a way of making decisions.

A Cosmic Schmuck I am, less a Cosmic Schmuck I become...? 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

How do you know you've made a decision that is entirely free of assumptions?

(Assuming that is possible.)

[Daruko]

You don't.

[Golden Applesauce]

I agree, everyone is prejudiced.


The questions then are:

1.) How reasonable are your prejudices (assumptions?)

and

2.) How much do you examine your prejudices (assumptions?)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I agree, everyone is prejudiced.


The questions then are:

1.) How reasonable are your prejudices (assumptions?)

and

2.) How much do you examine your prejudices (assumptions?)

Those are the questions, alright.

E/O/T.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

How do you know you've made a decision that is entirely free of assumptions?

(Assuming that is possible.)

Restate the decision in E-Prime... corny, sure... but it helps.

If we base a decision on the data at hand, that doesn't mean that we must make assumptions about the data 'not at hand'. We can make our decisions in a tentative manner, based on 'currently available information' and changeable based on 'new information'. This doesn't require assumption or pre-judgment of anything.

In LMNO's initial example, He can form an opinion based on the current level of information:

• person appears able to play instrument
• person appears to like the sort of music that the band plays
• person identifies as a student of, what LMNO perceives as a 'very christian' college

No prejudging yet.

Then he can form a tentative decision based on the above information:

It appears that this person could perform as we would need him too, but his religion may cause friction in our group.

If he interviews the guy and he says "Praise Jesus" every two or three chords... then a more definite decision can be made, based on data, not assumption. If the guy performs well and seems cool, then a more definite decision can be made... if he plays meh, and he's kind of lame, then a more definite decision could be made.