learntoquestion ltq discussions

I'll start with this: I have always been an indecisive person. I think about all my choices deeply, whether it be as trivial as what cereal to purchase or as major as should I break off a relationship. Sometimes, I choose not to choose at all, and give the responsibility/burden of choosing to someone else. You would think I hate choosing, as it is time consuming and draining for me. But no, weirdly enough, I love having choices. I think choice is beautiful, despite the psychological torture it puts me through. Maybe that attests to the way American culture has brainwashed me.

But, we must choose and we must discriminate and judge. Choosing, discriminating, and judging are all survival mechanisms you need for this day and age. It is all necessary to our survival, whether that survival be social or economic, we must always choose. This can be choosing a health plan that works for you, choosing a college to go to, choosing whether or not to have children, etc. Life shouldn't be a one size fit all where we aren't given choice. We must make choices for ourselves, it is a matter of judging what works best for you and making that decision.

As for judgement, I think judgement can both keep you safe and harm you. I see judgment as protective barrier when I'm outside. I'll make snap decisions on whether or not I should choose to sit next to someone on the train, or choose whether or not to engage with a stranger. For example, I would rather sit on the train next to a woman or a girl than to sit next to a man. My snap decision stems from judgement. I want to think that making these judgements protects me. However, I acknowledge that at the same time, this judgement can hurt my mindset and worldview, and lead to stereotyping and othering. From the Us vs Them article, othering can hurt minorities and put them in danger as people in power can suggest or even blatantly shun a group of people. The article goes on to provide a solution to othering, through building bridges and connecting people. When we are connected, we don't villainize each other into stereotypes, rather everyone belongs. Judging others makes me feel safe, but perhaps it is that I don't understand others is where my initial fear came from. So.. must we judge? Well, no. I believe we should work towards building bridges and preventing othering, in a way where everyone can belong. When you know about someone or where they come from, you don't need to judge when you already know. Knowing is safe. Knowing and respecting others is true safety.

I won't be blind to say that choice is the greatest thing in the world and oh my god where would I be without it. But I will say the having choice is a gray area between good and evil. In reference to Iyengar's Ted Talk, we, in America, think choice is great, and attribute it to freedom and liberty, and as result happiness. But Iyengar also reveals in her study that the parents who chose to take their infant of life support, were more unhappy than those who weren't given a choice. Ironically, these parents still would have wanted to make the choice rather than have their doctor do it for them. We were conditioned to believe that the grass is greener on America, that we must value the great amount of choices that were given. In Japan, seen with Iyengar's study of children choosing anagrams, the Japanese children performed better when they were told that their mother chose for them. The Japanese make their choices a collective act. It builds their community, the very idea that they trust another enough to make a challenging, potentially, life changing decision. Choice is neither good nor bad, but it is necessary, whether this choice comes from you or someone you respect. There is always a choice to be made in every aspect of your life. Having choices lets you be open to more things. Choice is essential to making society function. If everything was all laid out for us, no choice necessary, we wouldn't be open to other things. I think we'd be close minded, used to our everyday activities that was already set in stone, and wouldn't have exposure to anything else.

It is impossible to live in a world without discrimination and judgement. I think it is naive to think so. In my previous paragraph where I talk about judgement, I talk about how we need to build bridges with each other in order for us to not judge anymore. In theory this sounds great. But in practice, I know that I will go about my life continuing to judge others as a safety mechanisms rather than build bridges. Life isn't that clear cut or fantastical and bad things happen. Humans must judge to save themselves.

My lingering question is this: If mankind stops judging others, would we be safer that way? In other words, if we always gave that stranger the benefit of the doubt, would we be safer not judging them and be more connected as a community? Is judging a necessity to have to protect ourselves or does that very notion stem from stereotypes and othering?

Originally posted by UnKnown on November 12, 2020 01:10

My question is, how do you think we can control when to judge and choose in order to see less discrimination and judging in this country?

If everyone takes a small step each day to notice their implicit bias and judgement, we can start to curb the discrimination in this country. Doing something just as small to acknowledging that you could be unconsciously judging someone for their religion, race, or whatever it may be, can help you prevent taking action that is racially charged. I also think they way we choose our leaders can help us to control our judgement. In the Us vs Them article, politicians are huge factors in affecting our mindset when it comes to minority groups. Choosing a leader that represents belonging and bridging the gap between everyone, will bring us far.

Sheena's TED Talk in regards to choice was certainly an interesting one, the way she touched upon how our own socialization of the environment around us can affect our choices so drastically, as shown by the Asian-americans being much more inclined to do something if instructed by their mothers compared to the other children. It definitely provided me with another perspective with which to think when observing people make decisions that I myself would find questionable. It's all a matter of our socialization, and even brings the nature versus nurture argument into question. Which, actually kind of leads into my next point of implicit bias being a matter of nature that may not be able to be "fixed". When you think about it, things like implicit bias could actually even be some type of genetic ~thing~ we picked up along the way as human beings, as our origins do begin with us being hunter-gatherers for a very long time. In that tenure, people clearly came across threats and such that they otherwise wouldn't have thought were, you know, threats. So along the way we had to pick up the ability to develop a quick-witted, preconceived notion of anything that surrounds us, and then pick out the potentially threatening/prominent signs (like stereotypes), and then use that to make a judgement. Perhaps. Just as we made quick-witted decisions as to which pepper was the best, solely based on their appearance, and in some cases, some background pepper knowledge!

Even so, there have been studies conducted where they'd show babies certain dolls of certain skin tones, and most babies described the lighter-skinned dolls as prettier, while also describing the darker-skinned ones as ugly. A blatant implicit bias such as this, from a child, no less, could not possibly be written into the nature of a child who doesn't know any better. Biases, judgements, and discriminations similar to that, must be socialized into the human mind at some point; for children, this is most likely when doing something as seemingly harmless as watching TV. That's where Powell's "Us vs them" article comes into play, and I completely agree that things such as the semantics played by politics and politicians has a crucial role in inadvertently birthing these biases people's heads. It doesn't stop as politics, though. With the way we have embedded media into the daily necessities of our lives, the division will continue and impressionable people such as children, people who are uneducated, or whoever else, will fall prey to the internalization of these biases and judgements. For that reason, I don't think it is possible to build a post-othering society with the systems and values we hold as people, not only in this nation, but globally. We clearly wouldn't be able to transition to a time of no biases or presumptive judgements in the state we are in as a species at this current moment, unfortunately.

What do you think? Is there a way to eliminate preconceived notions and implicit biases from everyone? Is such a society possible? And furthermore, would such a society be the first steps to possible global peace/a utopia? Since baseless presumptions about one another seem to be most of our problems nowadays...

Originally posted by TraderJoe's on November 12, 2020 01:16

I'll start with this: I have always been an indecisive person. I think about all my choices deeply, whether it be as trivial as what cereal to purchase or as major as should I break off a relationship. Sometimes, I choose not to choose at all, and give the responsibility/burden of choosing to someone else. You would think I hate choosing, as it is time consuming and draining for me. But no, weirdly enough, I love having choices. I think choice is beautiful, despite the psychological torture it puts me through. Maybe that attests to the way American culture has brainwashed me.

But, we must choose and we must discriminate and judge. Choosing, discriminating, and judging are all survival mechanisms you need for this day and age. It is all necessary to our survival, whether that survival be social or economic, we must always choose. This can be choosing a health plan that works for you, choosing a college to go to, choosing whether or not to have children, etc. Life shouldn't be a one size fit all where we aren't given choice. We must make choices for ourselves, it is a matter of judging what works best for you and making that decision.

As for judgement, I think judgement can both keep you safe and harm you. I see judgment as protective barrier when I'm outside. I'll make snap decisions on whether or not I should choose to sit next to someone on the train, or choose whether or not to engage with a stranger. For example, I would rather sit on the train next to a woman or a girl than to sit next to a man. My snap decision stems from judgement. I want to think that making these judgements protects me. However, I acknowledge that at the same time, this judgement can hurt my mindset and worldview, and lead to stereotyping and othering. From the Us vs Them article, othering can hurt minorities and put them in danger as people in power can suggest or even blatantly shun a group of people. The article goes on to provide a solution to othering, through building bridges and connecting people. When we are connected, we don't villainize each other into stereotypes, rather everyone belongs. Judging others makes me feel safe, but perhaps it is that I don't understand others is where my initial fear came from. So.. must we judge? Well, no. I believe we should work towards building bridges and preventing othering, in a way where everyone can belong. When you know about someone or where they come from, you don't need to judge when you already know. Knowing is safe. Knowing and respecting others is true safety.

I won't be blind to say that choice is the greatest thing in the world and oh my god where would I be without it. But I will say the having choice is a gray area between good and evil. In reference to Iyengar's Ted Talk, we, in America, think choice is great, and attribute it to freedom and liberty, and as result happiness. But Iyengar also reveals in her study that the parents who chose to take their infant of life support, were more unhappy than those who weren't given a choice. Ironically, these parents still would have wanted to make the choice rather than have their doctor do it for them. We were conditioned to believe that the grass is greener on America, that we must value the great amount of choices that were given. In Japan, seen with Iyengar's study of children choosing anagrams, the Japanese children performed better when they were told that their mother chose for them. The Japanese make their choices a collective act. It builds their community, the very idea that they trust another enough to make a challenging, potentially, life changing decision. Choice is neither good nor bad, but it is necessary, whether this choice comes from you or someone you respect. There is always a choice to be made in every aspect of your life. Having choices lets you be open to more things. Choice is essential to making society function. If everything was all laid out for us, no choice necessary, we wouldn't be open to other things. I think we'd be close minded, used to our everyday activities that was already set in stone, and wouldn't have exposure to anything else.

It is impossible to live in a world without discrimination and judgement. I think it is naive to think so. In my previous paragraph where I talk about judgement, I talk about how we need to build bridges with each other in order for us to not judge anymore. In theory this sounds great. But in practice, I know that I will go about my life continuing to judge others as a safety mechanisms rather than build bridges. Life isn't that clear cut or fantastical and bad things happen. Humans must judge to save themselves.

My lingering question is this: If mankind stops judging others, would we be safer that way? In other words, if we always gave that stranger the benefit of the doubt, would we be safer not judging them and be more connected as a community? Is judging a necessity to have to protect ourselves or does that very notion stem from stereotypes and othering?

While I don't think judging and preconceived notions can't be directly chocked up to stereotypes and othering, I believe they play the greatest role in doing so. I believe that the origins of our judgements and biases as people come from a natural and biological need for assurance that we are, in fact, safe from any harm. However, I do think that if, somehow, all these stereotyping, judgements, implicit biases, and such come to a halt, that we, as humans, will be able to reach the closest thing to peace we've seen. All that negative energy just gotta go, you feel? We would certainly be more connected as a community, likely consolidating trust with strangers as opposed to feeling distrust.

Humans are hardwired to discriminate among things, and discrimination and choice are not necessarily bad. The ability to judge people and things originally was a survival tool. It was vital to know which foods would not kill you, and which people would be effective leaders.

Even nowadays, I doubt that anyone would say that it is horrible for someone to discriminate between, say, a green mug and a red mug when shopping for kitchen supplies. And choosing between different brands of cereal is certainly not morally wrong.

But discrimination and judgement becomes a terrible thing when one tries to find differences between groups of people and then acts with beliefs of bigotry and inequality in mind. It is the intention of “Othering”—or as John Powell puts it, “the conscious or unconscious assumption that a certain identified group poses a threat to the favored group”—that makes discrimination of people based on perceived differences such a powerful tool of oppression and abuse.

I would argue that some choices are necessary to making society function. Choice allows individuality to flourish. There is a reason why free will has been so valued throughout the entirety of history. Without it, society would stagnate, and the world would surely be a dreary place.

But actively discriminating against someone? I would argue that such a thing is not necessary for society to function, and is, in fact, damaging towards it. Bigotry and hate have caused countless wars and conflict. The Civil War come to mind. So does the 9-11 attacks. And such acts often have even longer-lasting effects, as the lingering tensions between Korea and Japan demonstrate.

While a perfect world might be completely free of discrimination, we are definitely far from living in a perfect world. As such, the best that we can hope for is to educate people, teach them that one should never look down upon others for their differences. The progress might be slow at first, but one by one, I do believe that the world can change, and for the better at that.

@TroutCowboy

I think that “negative” forms of judgement are those that make one look down at another person or group of people as a result. Classic examples include racism, sexism, etc. “Positive” forms of judgement, in my opinion, are those that occur when we celebrate the differences between people while not looking down on them in any way. For example, I believe that there is nothing wrong with celebrating Black culture, and the accomplishments that they have made throughout history.

It is difficult to know if we ourselves are not biased or discriminatory, because that involves a great deal of self-reflection that many are not fond of. I think that the best anyone can do is to make their best effort, especially in educating themselves (in a respectful manner) and in examining their own feelings and beliefs.

My question is this: Is it okay to feel judgmental towards a person or group of people without ever acting on that feeling, and how might one try to banish that feeling completely?

It isn't ground breaking to say that discrimination is based on human nature, as it is something that exists in the nature of more than just humans. It is a defense mechanism to be weary of the unfamiliar, even hostile towards it. It's why some dogs growl when you walk by their yard, and why some cats don't like to be approached. This applies to people as well, but just because it is natural for a human to be weary or hostile towards something that is unfamiliar does not mean it is okay. Sometimes too much worth and value is given to what is perceived as natural. While it is comforting to know that some actions have some precedence in our instincts, instincts should not be trusted. Really, that's the moral of a lot of kid shows, so this really isn't that hard hitting. Learn to share, be kind to others, don't judge a book by its cover, don't be racist. Easier said than done, but it can be done. It is actually quite easy to get rid of discrimination that is spawned on an animalistic, instinctual basis, the discrimination that is fueled by societal pressures is much harder to push past. This is compounded when there is no real societal push to move past discrimination. All that in mind, I believe that it is possible to create a society with no societal discrimination. Human nature will cause people to be weary of the unknown, but that can be taught out. People can be informed of the ways in combatting discrimination within themselves, and in a society that encourages and fosters critical thinking about oneself discrimination could be brought to a minimum.

Like last time, this is long. Brace yourself. I absolutely enjoyed Iyenger’s TED talk. It was so perfectly crafted (along with the casual jokes every once in a while).

In class, the peppers assignment was absolutely marvelous. It actually brightened my day because of how hilarious it was. Anyway, it really helped demonstrate the idea of group polarization, where based on a certain topic, people will automatically drift to opposing sides. You could see some people choosing pepper three because it was the “OG pepper,” and some people hating pepper 5 because it was the “absolute worse,” and then the contrasts occurred, where more people gravitated towards one side or not, based on the intensity of opinions.

The idea of group polarization is only a fraction of social psychology, and it ultimately relates to the idea of “othering”—the idea that we, as humans, adore to separate and discriminate things. By placing these differences on objects (this thing is large versus small, tall versus short, etc.), it leads us to the concept of othering, mentioned by Powell/Garza. When we distinguish, we’re more likely to separate and place a new level of bias towards both objects. Those separations and biases lead then to discriminations, then acts of discrimination towards those objects. This is where “othering” takes its place, and why, to this day, we still see racism occurring.

Relating this to the idea of choosing, presented by Iyenger, it has everything to do with othering. Look at the news. Racism still occurs worldwide—it’s not single to the US—but it absolutely does NOT occur at the rate or level it does here in the US. We choose what’s better and what isn’t. Similar to what Iyenger said, America is the land of choice. We have the freedom to choose on our own. Based on how we grow up, with the access we have to the whole internet, we observe what happens in the world. And we decide—do we “other” or do we treat people equally? Most students at BLS are activists and support equality because we grew up surrounded by these things. We grew up surrounded by the idea that equality is a must. And we propagated that idea. Other people may not have had that privilege in other parts of the US, thus “choosing” that other path, of, well, “othering.” And in other cultures around the world, children base their choices more on what their parents choose. Say their parents grew up believing in inequality? Then the children will most likely follow that idea. The interconnectedness is crazy, but that’s psychology for you. And it’s sad that it happens in this world.

For the questions posed, though, discrimination among people must occur, but not in the way you think. Let’s put it more in the idea of a “gut feeling.” Say two different people would be following you at night. One is well dressed, one isn’t. Which one would you be more worried about following you? Most discriminations are more survival instincts, than anything, but then we reach the fatal flaw of the bias seen with police. These “survival instinct” biases are implicit biases, and we do them unconsciously. But, again, they are placed based on how we grow up and what we experience. The same happens with police officers. Judgment is necessary, but it can still be trained. Most police officers now go through training to ameliorate their implicit biases, to avoid the white v. black issues that is plastered across media whenever they talk about the police. Discrimination will always exist. It’s how we can choose. If we cannot differentiate, then it is harder to choose. If we go back to Iyenger’s TEDTalk and focus on the examples posed with the Soviet Union, they still discriminated. Soda versus no soda. That is still a discrimination. Although they wouldn’t discriminate the choices like we would, such as Pepsi or Coke, they still discriminated between the presence of soda. And using that knowledge, they could then choose: do they want soda or not? Discrimination will be present, no matter how much you limit it. It is the only way we can choose things. And discrimination cannot exist without judgment. Judgment can only occur with past experiences. Again, the interconnectedness is present. Without one, the idea of cognition behind choices falls apart. They all need to be present for choices to occur, regardless of culture, number of choices, etc. It is absolutely necessary.

And, @cabbage, to your question of “Do you think there is a right answer to this question or if there has to be one? Will history just have to play our or do we need to do something about this now?”:

I don’t believe there will ever be a right answer. History will still play out, no matter what. Things change all the time, and the way we see things change. We went from a country that depended upon slaves, to then intense discrimination against African Americans in a time that tried to combat such an act, to only finally beginning to alleviate (yet still immensely dealing with) that same issue that persisted. Times change, but there is always a whisper—a memory of what used to be. And because of that, there will never be a right answer. Because things change too quickly for the answer to remain static.

Anyway, as I am the last person to post, I will end this discussion with my own lingering question for Ms. Freeman to ponder upon: if we were indeed to build a post-othering society, how would you envision it? Better yet, how would you make and what would you implement in your own post-othering society?

Originally posted by mellifluously on November 22, 2020 23:27

Anyway, as I am the last person to post, I will end this discussion with my own lingering question for Ms. Freeman to ponder upon: if we were indeed to build a post-othering society, how would you envision it? Better yet, how would you make and what would you implement in your own post-othering society?

Oh gosh. I wish I had the answer to that (which is of course why I posed the question in the first place...)

I do think that eventually we will all be mutts. That is, generations from now will all be so mixed in our ethnicity/race/heritage/outlook that it will be hard(er) to categorize us (though surely, given what we know is the human propensity for categorization, we will anyway)...

Will we still discriminate? As these posts overwhelmingly show, we are hard-wired to do so. But will discrimination simply be about choice /preference without any of the harmful aspects of that attached to it? Maybe... We can hope. Certainly it's clear that generation Z has its antennae up and they sense bias/harmful impacts more fluently than any generation that I've known on this planet.

That gives me hope.