The Effect of Prejudices

A prejudice is an idea or opinion that we form without evidence for its truth or usefulness. Usually, prejudice only includes beliefs that are tied to strong emotion, despite weak evidence. In law, prejudice requires harm or injury to also occur as a result of the belief. In law this seems restricted to physical or financial harm. However, we now know it can cause psychological trauma and “microtraumas”. Consequential prejudicial beliefs include racism, climate-denial, distrust of science, social class, feelings about politicians, or conspiracy theories. Such beliefs are very resistant to change, and lead to an automatic distrust of anyone who voices opposition.  

Prejudice is a Human Tendency that Hurts

There is an addage that “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me.” This is not true! The negative effects of prejudice on the receiver of prejudice have been large.  Psychiatric studies mainly focus on victimization.  There are emotional, physical, financial, psychological, and social impacts.  Victimization may add to risk of certain psychiatric illnesses like depression.  Victimization effects self-esteem and teaches learned helplessness. 

It is human nature to become anxious when others don’t agree with us. When we are anxious or uncomfortable, we defend ourselves (see Psychological Defenses). We may become argumentative or neutralize the opposing side so we don’t have to listen to them. We make up “alternative facts” (although there should be only one set of facts that can be interpreted many different ways). At an extreme, we may even become steeped in conspiracy theories that use convuluted logic and out-of-context evidence (delusional denial). What is often not recognized is that prejudiced people who hurt others are also anxious and their behaviors also reflect psychological defensiveness. Their overt behaviors are triggered by their perception of threat and hate. They are steeped in delusional denial of facts and use convoluted explanations for their illogical beliefs.

A 350 BC Solution

The solution to combat wild hypotheses is known as Ockam’s Razor. In the 14th century, William of Ockham said the simplest answer that fits the facts, is probably the correct answer.  William of Ockham was a scholar whose beliefs were traced back to earlier philosophers that included Aristotle (384–322 BC).

GW Bush once said “I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don’t always agree with them.” Of course one can’t question everything. So, the answer to the question, when should I use Ockham’s razor? is whenever our actions, based on our beliefs, don’t feel right, seem bad to observers, or most telling, seem bad to the victim. First consider the reason is for your view, then question if the reason is really reasonable and justified. Finally apply Ockham’s razor to see if there are other simpler explanations that fits the facts better.

Universal Human Tendencies

Nicholas Epley, in his book Mindwise (https://www.amazon.com/Mindwise-Misunderstand-Others-Think-Believe/dp/030774356X), discussed universal human tendencies that underlie our misunderstanding and dehumanization of others.  He talked about being able to read people, or yourself, like a book if you applied these insights. The insights, simply put, are psychological defenses people use all the time to reduce their anxiety of uncertainty and threat and defensive behaviors which are listed below:

Blind Loyalty to One’s Own Social Group

First, we tend to show blind loyalty to one’s own social group while distancing ourselves from outside groups.  The explanation is probably that since we can’t experience everything by ourselves, we have to learn from others. 

An example of this is that we teach our children not to talk to strangers but trust us.  If we allowed our children to learn about fear of strangers through conditioned learning, many would not survive (How Prejudices are Learned).  So we need to make some decisions about threats before they have become reality. We trust and believe our own social group and show xenophobia (fear of outsiders) as we learn what is safe and what is not. We seem to automatically turn to a trusted source for information as our starting point.  Nevertheless, we need to keep an open mind to the possibility that our trusted source may have gotten things wrong. 

Acting Irrationally with Very Little Information

Second, we often act irrationally with very little information.  When we only have partial information and need to make a quick decision, we guess.  We use the non-emotional stereotypes that we have from limited knowledge to choose (How Stereotypes are Learned).  Stereotypes are generally “truthy” but may not be “true.”  The good thing is that stereotypes are not emotional. We know our views are just assumptions, and seem more willing to correct them compared to prejudices. 

Anthropomorphizing – Dehumanization

Third, we tend to anthropomorphize anything important to us.  That is, we give human attributes to things we love, like our pets feeling guilty about chewing your slipper, or imagining Mother nature can be nurturing or angry.  On the flip side, we dehumanize things that we hate.  Humans of other races become sub-human or worse than an animal. 

We Apply Cognitive Dissonance

Fourth, once we make a decision, we overvalue it.  We need to convince ourselves that we made the best decision and shouldn’t change our minds.  This is called cognitive dissonance (Psychological Defenses and Cognitive Dissonance). For example, if you aren’t sure if Joe is safer than Donald, once you choose you become certain you made the right choice and wonder why it was a hard decision. The value of cognitive dissonance is it prevents us from flip-flopping or becoming immobilized by uncertainty, however, the bad part is it prevents us from accepting new or contradictory facts when it is better to change. 

A 350 BC Solution and Mindfulness

The solution to combat wild hypotheses is known as Ockam’s Razor. In the 14th century, William of Ockham said the simplest answer that fits the facts, is probably the correct answer.  William of Ockham was a scholar whose beliefs were traced back to earlier philosophers that included Aristotle (384–322 BC).

GW Bush once said “I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don’t always agree with them.” This is the answer to the question, when should I use Ockham’s razor? If our actions due to our beliefs don’t feel right, we should first see if our reason to act is justified, and apply Ockham’s razor if our reason is is not the simplest answer that fits the facts.

The solution to most issues covered in these blogs is to become aware of possible biases based awareness of contradictions in our minds. This occurs mainly by taking the time to reflect. Dealing with prejudice, based on what is currently available to us, is developing the capacity for mindfulness (Mindfulness Meditation). We must be aware, and not defensive, about an issue before we can try to resolve it.  There are now many websites and articles that focus on mindfulness.  A Google search for “Mindfulness” got 1,230,000,000 hits (that is 1.23 billion hits) in less than a second (0.23 seconds).  Mindfulness is being in a state of mind where you feel relaxed and open, not fixated, or preoccupied.  Once you are in a mindful state, you are better able to see your psychological defenses, the issues you want to avoid, reflect on things, and see a path for change.  The goal is to develop traits known as wisdom (Agism vs Wisdom). These traits are the same as traits that lead to psychiatric hardiness (a future link).