The thing we all do, called Judging

[inside the sun]

People judge based on what they have heard from others.

Goths, whorship satan-shown on tv, read in book/magazine, said from someone who has hung out with one person considred gothic, or one person who saw 666 on a shirt and made the assumption.

 

People judge based on what they themselves had once done,

(example: One time i dyed my hair all kinds of colours, wore the leather braclets with giant studs, did whatever i could to stand out, why, well, for attention probably?) Now for me to assume all people who wear this kind of clothing, is for attention reasons, is this kind of judging.

 

People judge based on what they know. (kind of goes with the second one)

 

Whats the difference between judging and observing? is a main question i have. And judging also, the whole "what we know," i dunno. We are getting frsutrated, angry at others for "judging the book by its cover." Why are we getting angry, because it affects us (because we care what others think of us), or because we are annoyed they want to close their minds, and they ASSUME they know who or what we are, but they dont. Judging seams to really bother people with my personality, people who thrive on the mystery, not letting people in, or not letting them know everything, because your afraid, afraid that mystery is all you got. I dunno, i know one thing, the more you resist, or i should, the more i resist to showing who i am, being who i am, the more people will judge me for what i am not?

 

A lot of questions, ideas, opinions in there, sort out, and enjoy. :(

[Tormod]

Whats the difference between judging and observing?

 

That was a good post, IMHO! Thoughtful stuff.

 

I'm no expert on human behaviour but I think that making judgements is part of our nature. We instantly do it. The wise among us keep their judgement of others for themselves and consider it and even change it before they act upon it (if necessary), while some are not so intelligent and just can't see past the clothes people wear.

[Fishteacher73]

I think it is part of an animals survival instincts. In the natural world one must calculate potential hazards as well as potential profits. Hazards, such as a preadator, must be assesed quickly. The gnu cannot wait to see if the lion is really hungry or not, for survival it MUST assume that it is a threat and act to reduce the threat. (Just as the lion must weigh if she is close enough, the animal is a viable target, etc. and balance that with the probablity of capture(a positive energy imput) vs. the probablity of escape or injury(energy expenditure w/ no gain, a loss)).

 

This snap judgement is till around in humans, although societies have evolved beyond the initial fight or flight responses needed for wild survival. We are hard wired to observe and conclude. We have learned that there are other factors involved than the first impression, but that does not mean that we always listen to logic.

[sanctus]

Yes, Judging, our daily friend! At least for me I'm almost as you described those people above I judge people on their appearance. For example, every time I see someone I don't know (that's important) wearing a tie I automatically think that guy works in some bank and is real capitalist, that means I judge him badly. It would be hypocrite if I said I do not judge badly those people.

 

Now the big difference is that I tell myself every time I'm conscient that I just judged badly someone to give them a chance: I tell myself I think this guy is a real capitalist but maybe I'm wrong, maybe he has family and the only job he found was in a bank, but actually as soon as he can go working in something more social he leaves for it. By behaving like this I was often surprised in the good way, which wouldn't have been possible if I judged only without giving a chance.

 

Don't you guys judge as well?

 

Now, for this reason I don't get angry if people judge the book by its cover, but only if they don't give the book even a chance.

[Tormod]

Now, for this reason I don't get angry if people judge the book by its cover, but only if they don't give the book even a chance.

 

Guilty as charged. I read so many books that I feel quite justified in ditching a book if the cover sucks. :(

[RiverRat]

Now the big difference is that I tell myself every time I'm conscient that I just judged badly someone to give them a chance: I tell myself I think this guy is a real capitalist but maybe I'm wrong, maybe he has family and the only job he found was in a bank, but actually as soon as he can go working in something more social he leaves for it. By behaving like this I was often surprised in the good way, which wouldn't have been possible if I judged only without giving a chance

 

Now …. What if you found out this man was a TRUE capitalist and yet was quite philanthropic? The capitalist system enabled him to acquire wealth and he distributed it as he sees fit.

[sanctus]

It was an example, one can be capitalist and have good sides I like of him/her.

[RiverRat]

Oh ... I got the impression from you post that all capitalists are bad. Sorry

 

:o

[motherengine]

'its judgement that defeats us'. honestly i firmly believe this. if i see someone dressed in a certain manner i may make assumptions concerning his/her life style (though personally i rarely if ever do this) but to judge them i need an action that directly or indirectly provokes me emotionally. though i have found myself emotionally responsive and often name calling others [he's an a**hole/he's evil] this has always been in the heat of emotional conflict. however when the engines are cooled i have such an distain for judgement that i have often found myself in a heated debate in which i am defending people who are generally concidered to be social monsters: people who rape, molest or kill others. i was even physically attacked (though not brutally) in one such debate. i often find the actions of humans, including myself, to be reprehensible but never the people themselves. this probably puts me in a minority but this viewpoint has been with me since before i could justify it intellectually. the reason i believe that judgement is the great destroyer is because it is a brick wall for reason when dealing with social problems. to be satisfied with 'hitler was an evil bastard' is to allow others to aquire the mantle. the judgement must be broken down before any progress can be made that might prevent future evils from occuring. condemning people for, and labeling people as their actions gives the sense of and end or a justification which prevents anyone from finding essential facts that can help deal with the problem itself. though i guess i am getting off track here as i think you were talking more about assumptions than judgement.

[Morphyous]

Its impossible not to judge and cannot be a bad thing but predujice is the negative aspect of judging. Predujice would lead you to believe that all Capitalists are bad, or all blacks, or all gays. If for instance we had been hit by a black person we could live our life thinking that all black people are gonna hit us and therefore all blacks are violent. We know this isn't true. Judging is something that all intelligent people do. Predujice is practised by the stupid.

[geko]

Judging is something that all intelligent people do. Predujice is practised by the stupid.

 

Predjudice is also practised by intelligent people. In fact, i think we could go as far as to say that predjudice is an intelligent thing to do. For example, let's say you're the bank manager and you've got to hirer a new HR rep to grow your new plc in the publics eye. Now, who do you hire? Let's say only 2 people applied (your company's new and you have bad BO...). 1 of them is a confident, good looking young woman with all the qualifications and experience a rooky MD could want. The other is a tramp that's been living on the streets for the past 10 years and their BO makes yours smell like it's summer in a bowl. Who do you hire?

 

The motivation behind whoever is hired is based on a particular predjudice. Some will say that the decision is based around judging that one will be able to do the job more competantly than the other. But this is still predjudice because you're victimising (being predjudice towards) the other on the grounds that they wont be as competant.

 

Predjudice is healthy and necessary, but it's watched in case it's ever inaccurate.

[Morphyous]

Predjudice is also practised by intelligent people. In fact, i think we could go as far as to say that predjudice is an intelligent thing to do. For example, let's say you're the bank manager and you've got to hirer a new HR rep to grow your new plc in the publics eye. Now, who do you hire? Let's say only 2 people applied (your company's new and you have bad BO...). 1 of them is a confident, good looking young woman with all the qualifications and experience a rooky MD could want. The other is a tramp that's been living on the streets for the past 10 years and their BO makes yours smell like it's summer in a bowl. Who do you hire?

 

The motivation behind whoever is hired is based on a particular predjudice. Some will say that the decision is based around judging that one will be able to do the job more competantly than the other. But this is still predjudice because you're victimising (being predjudice towards) the other on the grounds that they wont be as competant.

Predjudice is healthy and necessary, but it's watched in case it's ever inaccurate.

 

Not offering someone a post because they are clearly unsuitable is hardly predujice. That is a matter of judgement. My judgement would be that anybody who allowed themselves to become a tramp and become smelly is clearly not emotionally qualified or suitable for a job like this. Offering someone a job that would not be suitable to them, would make them unpopular or vilified and this would not be fair on the person either.

The meaning of predujice is, An opinion or judgment formed without due examination.

[motherengine]

this may or may not be appropriate to the thread but in the state of virginia a bill has been past that allows a fine (fifty dollars i think) to be set against anyone dressed so that there undergarments are visible. this is a fad i personally find ridiculous aestheticly but i find a big differance between disliking what i see and forcing others to comply with what i would like to see through monetary punishment.

[geko]

Not offering someone a post because they are clearly unsuitable is hardly predujice..... Offering someone a job that would not be suitable to them, would make them unpopular or vilified and this would not be fair on the person either.

 

I didnt say they were unsuitable, i said they were living on the streets and had bad BO. It's prejudice as you wouldnt offer them the job on the grounds that they're a tramp (and therefore "clearly" unsuitable). This tramp might be great at this job. Qualifications arent necessarily needed. In fact they might outstrip the other candidate in productivity because they've got a great knack for it, whereas the other has not. But yet we'll never know because we didnt give them that chance. The decision was based on the fact that they're a tramp and from this it was concluded they werent suitable.

 

The meaning of predujice is, An opinion or judgment formed without due examination.

 

...and incomplete facts.

 

So it is prejudeice after all, yes? It's also victimisation and discrimination.

[Morphyous]

"Quote" "I didnt say they were unsuitable, i said they were living on the streets and had bad BO."

This MEANS they ARE unsuitable for the job. The fact that the person smells would preclude them from working with other people in a banking environment. This judgement isn't made on the basis of predujice because if it were a different job they were applying for, I may well consider the person. I think that you will have to try understand the meaning of predujice.

[geko]

"Quote" "I didnt say they were unsuitable, i said they were living on the streets and had bad BO."

This MEANS they ARE unsuitable for the job.

 

It doesnt mean that they're unsuitable at all, it means they smell and live on the streets. One doesnt imply the other. Drawing the conclusion that they're unsuitable "because" they live on the streets and smell is defunct and highlights your own prejudice.

 

You think i should try and understand the meaning of prejudice? Let's have a look. Prejudice is when an opinion is formed beforehand, ie. before all relevant information is known.

 

Now, you havent given this person the job because they're a tramp. You havent witnessed them attempting the work, have you? You dont know anything about them before they were a tramp, do you? You dont know what qualifications they have. You dont know whether they'd be good at this job or not [or do you?]. You dont know any of their abilities, you didnt give them any time or thought. But yet you've still dismissed them outright. You decided not to give them a chance because they smell like a tramp, didnt you?

 

Now you tell me. Is this opinion of yours based on complete information of this persons strengths and abilities? Is this opinion of yours unfavourable to them? Have you formed this opinion of yours on first impressions only? Of course you have. You're response highlights your prejudice towards tramps.

 

Tell me, have you ever heard of soap? A shower? An advance on wages (for a bond and deposit on rent)?

 

Do you also think you're not victimising and discriminating?

[Morphyous]

Long quote deleted

No

 

Note from the admin: please don't use quotes that are longer than your reply.