This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Are they synonyms?
1
1
In reply to john arran:
They can be, but you can also have gut feelings that aren't prejudice.
Attraction to someone, fear of heights.
They can be, but you can also have gut feelings that aren't prejudice.
Attraction to someone, fear of heights.
4
6
In reply to john arran:
an example.
You could go to a meeting full of prejudice (everything pre-judged) and so not really listen to and respond to what is being said. Perhaps this prevented you from developing a gut-feeling for the direction in which the meeting was going and as a result you ended up being outnumbered and isolated.
You could go to the same meeting open mindedly and without prejudice and during the meeting you are lucky that, despite the complexity and multiplicity of all the voices seeking to have their say (which makes it very difficult to logically see what is happening), you develop an intuition (or gut-feeling) for what the various parties want and respond appropriately.
an example.
You could go to a meeting full of prejudice (everything pre-judged) and so not really listen to and respond to what is being said. Perhaps this prevented you from developing a gut-feeling for the direction in which the meeting was going and as a result you ended up being outnumbered and isolated.
You could go to the same meeting open mindedly and without prejudice and during the meeting you are lucky that, despite the complexity and multiplicity of all the voices seeking to have their say (which makes it very difficult to logically see what is happening), you develop an intuition (or gut-feeling) for what the various parties want and respond appropriately.
In reply to john arran:
Gut feelings are very often based to some, or a considerable, degree on past experience whereas prejudice is what it says it is.
Gut feelings are very often based to some, or a considerable, degree on past experience whereas prejudice is what it says it is.
2
In reply to john arran:
Gut feelings are usually an early warning signal based on accumulated experience that flags up either potential danger or which path to take (in my industry we are told to stop and step back and reevaluate if things don't "feel" right)
If part of your life experience involves long exposure to a predjudice with an element of fear attached then your gut feeling in certain situations will reflect your predjudice.
Gut feelings are usually an early warning signal based on accumulated experience that flags up either potential danger or which path to take (in my industry we are told to stop and step back and reevaluate if things don't "feel" right)
If part of your life experience involves long exposure to a predjudice with an element of fear attached then your gut feeling in certain situations will reflect your predjudice.
5
In reply to john arran:
Prejudice is of the mind so presumably can be monitored and moderated.
Gut feeling is largely physiological, heart rate, adrenal dumping etc. So can only be moderated to any extent with considerable training.
Prejudice is of the mind so presumably can be monitored and moderated.
Gut feeling is largely physiological, heart rate, adrenal dumping etc. So can only be moderated to any extent with considerable training.
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
There is also a 'brain' in your gut:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-second-brain/
There is also a 'brain' in your gut:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-second-brain/
2
In reply to john arran:
No I don't think they are.
I might meet someone who seems shifty and have a gut feeling about them based on a few seconds input. It's not quite *pre*-judging, it's judging on very little information, but information that's very specific to that individual.
If on the other hand I meet a gay man and assume - just because he's gay - he has sex with strangers in bushes all the time when he's not out drinking flavoured vodka and dancing to hard house remixes of Madonna, I'm pre-judging him because he belongs to a certain group.
I guess here we're also touching on the sensitive issue of the statistical truth behind stereotypes; it might be fair to say that a certain group generally does x,y, and z so long as care is taken not to judge an individual according to those trends about the group they belong to.
No I don't think they are.
I might meet someone who seems shifty and have a gut feeling about them based on a few seconds input. It's not quite *pre*-judging, it's judging on very little information, but information that's very specific to that individual.
If on the other hand I meet a gay man and assume - just because he's gay - he has sex with strangers in bushes all the time when he's not out drinking flavoured vodka and dancing to hard house remixes of Madonna, I'm pre-judging him because he belongs to a certain group.
I guess here we're also touching on the sensitive issue of the statistical truth behind stereotypes; it might be fair to say that a certain group generally does x,y, and z so long as care is taken not to judge an individual according to those trends about the group they belong to.
3
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I think you could just as easily switch those around, though it still doesn't mean they are synonyms; 2prejude would possibly need a qualification e.g. "irrational" or "unjustified" to get close.
> Gut feelings are very often based to some, or a considerable, degree on past experience whereas prejudice is what it says it is.
I think you could just as easily switch those around, though it still doesn't mean they are synonyms; 2prejude would possibly need a qualification e.g. "irrational" or "unjustified" to get close.
In reply to john arran:
Some good responses so far. My view is that gut feeling doesn't have to be based on prejudice, but may be so more often than we may like to admit.
Gordon's point about gut feelings being based on past experience is a good one, but won't those past experiences also include media reports, which are well understood to be misleading indicators upon which to base good judgements? That could end up being classic prejudice.
Wercat, that seems reasonable but the difference you're describing sounds more like confirmation bias at play, inhibiting a rational (rather than gut) assessment of the meeting.
Gut feeling boils down to having an opinion or response and not being aware of how that opinion was formed, which would often cover both prejudicial opinions and gut feelings - an example maybe being more nervous passing a black guy in the street at night than passing a white guy. I suppose a difference arises where new information emerges that you don't have time to evaluate, in which case any prejudice might inform the gut feeling but it could also be informed from all sorts of other experience.
In any case I'm very suspicious of any decision that claims to be due to gut feeling. It may be a very useful mechanism for immediate response situations or to highlight possible issues for further thought, but as a justification in itself it's literally making decisions for no 'reason'.
Some good responses so far. My view is that gut feeling doesn't have to be based on prejudice, but may be so more often than we may like to admit.
Gordon's point about gut feelings being based on past experience is a good one, but won't those past experiences also include media reports, which are well understood to be misleading indicators upon which to base good judgements? That could end up being classic prejudice.
Wercat, that seems reasonable but the difference you're describing sounds more like confirmation bias at play, inhibiting a rational (rather than gut) assessment of the meeting.
Gut feeling boils down to having an opinion or response and not being aware of how that opinion was formed, which would often cover both prejudicial opinions and gut feelings - an example maybe being more nervous passing a black guy in the street at night than passing a white guy. I suppose a difference arises where new information emerges that you don't have time to evaluate, in which case any prejudice might inform the gut feeling but it could also be informed from all sorts of other experience.
In any case I'm very suspicious of any decision that claims to be due to gut feeling. It may be a very useful mechanism for immediate response situations or to highlight possible issues for further thought, but as a justification in itself it's literally making decisions for no 'reason'.
Post edited at 14:42
In reply to Thrudge:
and your pants. Mine has made some terrible decisions in the past...
> There is also a 'brain' in your gut: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-second-brain/
and your pants. Mine has made some terrible decisions in the past...
7
In reply to john arran:
No.
Gut feeling is about your perception of an individual based on their personaility or actions, prejudice would involve making a judgement based solely on race, religion, gender etc.
> Are they synonyms?
No.
Gut feeling is about your perception of an individual based on their personaility or actions, prejudice would involve making a judgement based solely on race, religion, gender etc.
1
In reply to timjones:
Apart from having much wider scope than assessing individual people, I thought the whole point of calling it a gut feeling is that you aren't aware of why you have that feeling. So a negative response could be due to an observed character trait (e.g. shiftiness), but equally it could be the result of prejudice, explicit or otherwise.
> No.Gut feeling is about your perception of an individual based on their personaility or actions, prejudice would involve making a judgement based solely on race, religion, gender etc.
Apart from having much wider scope than assessing individual people, I thought the whole point of calling it a gut feeling is that you aren't aware of why you have that feeling. So a negative response could be due to an observed character trait (e.g. shiftiness), but equally it could be the result of prejudice, explicit or otherwise.
1
In reply to john arran:
Possibly but on a personal level I'm reasonably sure that I've been around long enough to have noticed if there was any particular bias in my gut feelings.
> Apart from having much wider scope than assessing individual people, I thought the whole point of calling it a gut feeling is that you aren't aware of why you have that feeling. So a negative response could be due to an observed character trait (e.g. shiftiness), but equally it could be the result of prejudice, explicit or otherwise.
Possibly but on a personal level I'm reasonably sure that I've been around long enough to have noticed if there was any particular bias in my gut feelings.
1
In reply to timjones:
I would like to think that about myself too. But I'm pretty sure I'd be wrong!
> Possibly but on a personal level I'm reasonably sure that I've been around long enough to have noticed if there was any particular bias in my gut feelings.
I would like to think that about myself too. But I'm pretty sure I'd be wrong!
2
In reply to aln:
I've heard a few references lately on the radio, to people having opinions or voting 'instinctively', and it occurred to me how flawed a reasoning that is, given the opportunity to think something through properly rather than relying on highly questionable instinct.
> Interesting question, why are you asking?
I've heard a few references lately on the radio, to people having opinions or voting 'instinctively', and it occurred to me how flawed a reasoning that is, given the opportunity to think something through properly rather than relying on highly questionable instinct.
In reply to john arran:
If your really interested go on radio 4 , listen again "the uncommon senses" 24:3:17.
Physiological basis for gut feeling was a large part of it if I remember right.
If your really interested go on radio 4 , listen again "the uncommon senses" 24:3:17.
Physiological basis for gut feeling was a large part of it if I remember right.
In reply to john arran:
On reflection I do have to confess that I can think of at least one profession that I would instinctively mistrust
> I would like to think that about myself too. But I'm pretty sure I'd be wrong!
On reflection I do have to confess that I can think of at least one profession that I would instinctively mistrust
In reply to john arran:
It depends on the context.
I had mixed feelings or feelings of surprise about somebody my bro bought a house with, a friend of his, and he turned out to be problematic, I didn't know the guy but he 'didn't feel right'. I don't know what it was that I sensed.
On the other hand, I won't lie and say that as a middle class white person, that I've not made assumptions based on the class or race of other people, or a mixture of the two, which is a human trait I try and be (self) aware off. It's something we all do to some degree about anybody not quite like ourselves. We must aim to be better.
It depends...
It depends on the context.
I had mixed feelings or feelings of surprise about somebody my bro bought a house with, a friend of his, and he turned out to be problematic, I didn't know the guy but he 'didn't feel right'. I don't know what it was that I sensed.
On the other hand, I won't lie and say that as a middle class white person, that I've not made assumptions based on the class or race of other people, or a mixture of the two, which is a human trait I try and be (self) aware off. It's something we all do to some degree about anybody not quite like ourselves. We must aim to be better.
It depends...
Post edited at 18:05
3
In reply to john arran:
I agree. Our ability to be logical is flawed, too, with us often coming up with reasoning which seems logical, but actually is reasoning which ties in with what our 'gut feeling' is. I read about that in New Scientist a while ago.
It seems like being 'more logical' is generally as far as we can get.
Edit: I remember once walking out of a news agent trying to convince myself I was 'meant to buy the magazine because it was the last one' before I realised what I was doing. I found it quite interesting.
> I've heard a few references lately on the radio, to people having opinions or voting 'instinctively', and it occurred to me how flawed a reasoning that is, given the opportunity to think something through properly rather than relying on highly questionable instinct.
I agree. Our ability to be logical is flawed, too, with us often coming up with reasoning which seems logical, but actually is reasoning which ties in with what our 'gut feeling' is. I read about that in New Scientist a while ago.
It seems like being 'more logical' is generally as far as we can get.
Edit: I remember once walking out of a news agent trying to convince myself I was 'meant to buy the magazine because it was the last one' before I realised what I was doing. I found it quite interesting.
Post edited at 18:28
In reply to Timmd:
Is there a precise definition of gut feeling that everyone agrees on? Surely they (prejudices and gut feelings) really amount to the same thing - the upshot of unconscious biases and carefully shaped schemas that we use all the time in our decision-making, all that 'thinking fast and slow', no?
Prejudices are crazy things and those of us with an appropriately developed superego / moral mind are endlessly managing both our basic instincts and our more simplistic prejudices because we understand the problem with stereotyping and that it's something to be avoided, generally. But those schemas are only the product of our environments, as John says, part way down.
Having said that, the concept of the second brain and the gut feeling actually driven by neuronal processes relating to interactions in the gut is an interesting concept. But I'm not sure that's really what most people are referring to when they mean gut instinct.
Is there a precise definition of gut feeling that everyone agrees on? Surely they (prejudices and gut feelings) really amount to the same thing - the upshot of unconscious biases and carefully shaped schemas that we use all the time in our decision-making, all that 'thinking fast and slow', no?
Prejudices are crazy things and those of us with an appropriately developed superego / moral mind are endlessly managing both our basic instincts and our more simplistic prejudices because we understand the problem with stereotyping and that it's something to be avoided, generally. But those schemas are only the product of our environments, as John says, part way down.
Having said that, the concept of the second brain and the gut feeling actually driven by neuronal processes relating to interactions in the gut is an interesting concept. But I'm not sure that's really what most people are referring to when they mean gut instinct.
1
In reply to Timmd:
The whole discussion seems to have veered towards a free will / determinism / causation debate. Many would argue that the 'slow thinking', reasoning mind really is an illusion.
The whole discussion seems to have veered towards a free will / determinism / causation debate. Many would argue that the 'slow thinking', reasoning mind really is an illusion.
In reply to sg:
I have no idea. It might be that I was feeling some unconscious prejudice about the friend of my brother who turned out to be problematic, or it could have been that I was unconsciously picking up on signals, which is an ability which is the result of human evolution, with us being able to read one another being important for our survival?
Something about emotions I read was that they can be seen as a rudimentary way of the body telling the brain what it needs to be happy. Perhaps similar can apply to 'gut feelings' too, in that the brain picks up on things and the body reacts, and feeds back to the brain with a 'dodgy person' signal?
> Is there a precise definition of gut feeling that everyone agrees on? Surely they (prejudices and gut feelings) really amount to the same thing - the upshot of unconscious biases and carefully shaped schemas that we use all the time in our decision-making, all that 'thinking fast and slow', no?Prejudices are crazy things and those of us with an appropriately developed superego / moral mind are endlessly managing both our basic instincts and our more simplistic prejudices because we understand the problem with stereotyping and that it's something to be avoided, generally. But those schemas are only the product of our environments, as John says, part way down.Having said that, the concept of the second brain and the gut feeling actually driven by neuronal processes relating to interactions in the gut is an interesting concept. But I'm not sure that's really what most people are referring to when they mean gut instinct.
I have no idea. It might be that I was feeling some unconscious prejudice about the friend of my brother who turned out to be problematic, or it could have been that I was unconsciously picking up on signals, which is an ability which is the result of human evolution, with us being able to read one another being important for our survival?
Something about emotions I read was that they can be seen as a rudimentary way of the body telling the brain what it needs to be happy. Perhaps similar can apply to 'gut feelings' too, in that the brain picks up on things and the body reacts, and feeds back to the brain with a 'dodgy person' signal?
Post edited at 19:18
In reply to john arran:
Yes, that could indeed be the case, but I was trying to put an example where conscious rationality has difficulty in catching the drift.
Actually I don't think that it is fair to think that a gut feeling is irrational. The gut may be communicating to the conscious self the fact that subconscious rationality has found something that the consciousness hasn't caught up with (perhaps it is too busy with something else) and is using hormonal and other communication to make itself known.
I know this to be true as subconscious rationality interrupted an evening walk beside Loch Kishorn many years ago (1983) to tell me I needed to increase a CP/M file extent marker to solve a program error I hadn't been able to fix.
> Wercat, that seems reasonable but the difference you're describing sounds more like confirmation bias at play, inhibiting a rational (rather than gut) assessment of the meeting.
Yes, that could indeed be the case, but I was trying to put an example where conscious rationality has difficulty in catching the drift.
Actually I don't think that it is fair to think that a gut feeling is irrational. The gut may be communicating to the conscious self the fact that subconscious rationality has found something that the consciousness hasn't caught up with (perhaps it is too busy with something else) and is using hormonal and other communication to make itself known.
I know this to be true as subconscious rationality interrupted an evening walk beside Loch Kishorn many years ago (1983) to tell me I needed to increase a CP/M file extent marker to solve a program error I hadn't been able to fix.
In reply to john arran:
No. Gut feeling is instinct - a critical part of being human and evolved to be a deep part of our brain.
Prejudice can happen when some instincts are followed blindly, for example the instinct to trust others who are like yourself. Instinct can be important in moments where you have to make a rapid decision. When you have the luxury of time then the risk of prejudice can be reduced by critical thinking and evidence based thinking.
No. Gut feeling is instinct - a critical part of being human and evolved to be a deep part of our brain.
Prejudice can happen when some instincts are followed blindly, for example the instinct to trust others who are like yourself. Instinct can be important in moments where you have to make a rapid decision. When you have the luxury of time then the risk of prejudice can be reduced by critical thinking and evidence based thinking.
Post edited at 19:37
1
In reply to john arran:
To me, gut feeling is muscle memory of the brain. I like to think of myself as very rational but i tend to succeed more in many situations when going by instinct. Of course the counter is that maybe I'm *over* thinking things in the other instances but i don't think i am.
On the other hand if someone says "common sense", what they mean is "based on nothing".
To me, gut feeling is muscle memory of the brain. I like to think of myself as very rational but i tend to succeed more in many situations when going by instinct. Of course the counter is that maybe I'm *over* thinking things in the other instances but i don't think i am.
On the other hand if someone says "common sense", what they mean is "based on nothing".
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I'll always remember the 'Yorkshire definition*' I heard in primary school from a teacher in Sheffield - in response to a child almost saying as much, that if you have to ask what common sense is you probably don't have any.
It was years before I twigged what she was talking about.
*This is not a slight...
I'll always remember the 'Yorkshire definition*' I heard in primary school from a teacher in Sheffield - in response to a child almost saying as much, that if you have to ask what common sense is you probably don't have any.
It was years before I twigged what she was talking about.
*This is not a slight...
Post edited at 20:43
In reply to john arran:
I use gut feeling a lot.
It's just a short-cut. I can pause and dismantle it and analyse it - it generally consists of an evaluation of risk, assessment of the motivation of other involved parties, judgement of previous simiar experiences, and reflection on how the whole situation fits with what I may be trying to achieve. I've never not been able to dissassemble it into a sensible set of arguments and so have come to trust the short cut.
That's true whether it's a situation in the mountains or at work.
Of course, I also have the scar tissue from developing it!
I use gut feeling a lot.
It's just a short-cut. I can pause and dismantle it and analyse it - it generally consists of an evaluation of risk, assessment of the motivation of other involved parties, judgement of previous simiar experiences, and reflection on how the whole situation fits with what I may be trying to achieve. I've never not been able to dissassemble it into a sensible set of arguments and so have come to trust the short cut.
That's true whether it's a situation in the mountains or at work.
Of course, I also have the scar tissue from developing it!
1
In reply to john arran:
Are you displaying your own here? Walking down the street in Burkina Faso I'd expect to pass lots of black guys. What's your point?
> prejudicial opinions and gut feelings - an example maybe being more nervous passing a black guy in the street at night than passing a white guy.
Are you displaying your own here? Walking down the street in Burkina Faso I'd expect to pass lots of black guys. What's your point?
1
In reply to Deadeye:
I'm left handed, which apparently helps with problem solving (due to a capacity for divergent think - all I know is I take after my Dad, who also happens to be left handed), and thought 'elastic tent peg band' today while working out how to hold up my make shift curtain in my front room, and went to get it without knowing how I was going to use it, and after five minutes I'd fixed my curtain up with my window open, which is what I wanted to happen.
I think gut feeling might (collectively) only be a loose term for 'acquired and unconsciously stored knowledge' and 'information we absorbed and act upon without knowing exactly what it is at the time'?
Perhaps this is drifting away from gut feeling...
I'm left handed, which apparently helps with problem solving (due to a capacity for divergent think - all I know is I take after my Dad, who also happens to be left handed), and thought 'elastic tent peg band' today while working out how to hold up my make shift curtain in my front room, and went to get it without knowing how I was going to use it, and after five minutes I'd fixed my curtain up with my window open, which is what I wanted to happen.
I think gut feeling might (collectively) only be a loose term for 'acquired and unconsciously stored knowledge' and 'information we absorbed and act upon without knowing exactly what it is at the time'?
Perhaps this is drifting away from gut feeling...
Post edited at 21:18
In reply to aln:
My point is that gut feeling may sometimes be confounded with prejudice. My example is the kind of thing I might catch myself doing occasionally, before thinking more effectively and realising the instinct was actually misleading.
> Are you displaying your own here? Walking down the street in Burkina Faso I'd expect to pass lots of black guys. What's your point?
My point is that gut feeling may sometimes be confounded with prejudice. My example is the kind of thing I might catch myself doing occasionally, before thinking more effectively and realising the instinct was actually misleading.
1
1
In reply to john arran:
It's good that you catch yourself doing it, not so good that it happens in the first place.
It's good that you catch yourself doing it, not so good that it happens in the first place.
1
In reply to wintertree:
I think gut feeling goes beyond instinct, also including intuitive analysis carried out unconsciously based on experience. It can also be prejudice. To use gut feeling effectively one has to rationalise or be mindful as to whether it is likely to be trustworthy.
I think gut feeling goes beyond instinct, also including intuitive analysis carried out unconsciously based on experience. It can also be prejudice. To use gut feeling effectively one has to rationalise or be mindful as to whether it is likely to be trustworthy.
1
In reply to aln:
Completely agree. Despite what we may like to think, none of us is immune to the effects of media stereotyping and press bias. The best we can do is to be alert to its influence.
> It's good that you catch yourself doing it, not so good that it happens in the first place.
Completely agree. Despite what we may like to think, none of us is immune to the effects of media stereotyping and press bias. The best we can do is to be alert to its influence.
2
In reply to john arran:
This programme is really interesting. A part of it is where an Asian woman does a test, and is perturbed to find she has a certain unconscious bias against black people. Then does some experiment with mirrors where she gets her mind to see a black hand as being her own, and does the test again and the bias disappears, which she finds reassuring - in it suggesting that the mind can change to do with this kind of thing. Her own take on why she might have the bias is also to do with the messages she's absorbed in the media and press etc.
youtube.com/watch?v=oIumpEePL_M&
You can find the test she did with a little bit of googling.
This programme is really interesting. A part of it is where an Asian woman does a test, and is perturbed to find she has a certain unconscious bias against black people. Then does some experiment with mirrors where she gets her mind to see a black hand as being her own, and does the test again and the bias disappears, which she finds reassuring - in it suggesting that the mind can change to do with this kind of thing. Her own take on why she might have the bias is also to do with the messages she's absorbed in the media and press etc.
youtube.com/watch?v=oIumpEePL_M&
You can find the test she did with a little bit of googling.
1
In reply to wercat:
I can remember finding certain adults scary as a child, and with my adult mind looking back, they possibly had a 'vibe of hate' around them., or some kind of negative energy, to use a vaguely hippy term. When I look back and think of their body language and mannerisms and expressions etc, I can see them as not being friendly and open and things. I can remember being a child, and gravitating towards Dick Turnbull who owns Outside while he was talking about tents to somebody in the shop (Quasars IIRC), I was probably about door handle height more or less, and later I encountered him as a teenager in an non salesman role, and he was very friendly and nice. Things like the second experience make me wonder how much is down to instinct.
> I think gut feeling goes beyond instinct, also including intuitive analysis carried out unconsciously based on experience. It can also be prejudice. To use gut feeling effectively one has to rationalise or be mindful as to whether it is likely to be trustworthy.
I can remember finding certain adults scary as a child, and with my adult mind looking back, they possibly had a 'vibe of hate' around them., or some kind of negative energy, to use a vaguely hippy term. When I look back and think of their body language and mannerisms and expressions etc, I can see them as not being friendly and open and things. I can remember being a child, and gravitating towards Dick Turnbull who owns Outside while he was talking about tents to somebody in the shop (Quasars IIRC), I was probably about door handle height more or less, and later I encountered him as a teenager in an non salesman role, and he was very friendly and nice. Things like the second experience make me wonder how much is down to instinct.
Post edited at 15:44
1
In reply to Timmd:
I'm sure you are right - instinct would certainly be part of gut-feel (I suppose we mean emotive reaction by this) and emotive reaction can be in be based on instinct, experience (involving subconscious analysis, as the conscious being is easily overwhelmed) or even internal recollection. The important thing is to be aware of and try to question the validity of gut reactions, providing circumstances allow...
I'm sure you are right - instinct would certainly be part of gut-feel (I suppose we mean emotive reaction by this) and emotive reaction can be in be based on instinct, experience (involving subconscious analysis, as the conscious being is easily overwhelmed) or even internal recollection. The important thing is to be aware of and try to question the validity of gut reactions, providing circumstances allow...
In reply to john arran:
Strange question. It depends on the context, like most words. If I'm mountaineering and I get a gut feeling that a certain slope is dangerous, and I don't traverse it as a result but take some other route, I don't see much sense in describing that as being 'prejudice' on my part.
A 'gut feeling' that an prospective employee of a minority race 'might not fit in', on the other hand, is in a rather different category.
jcm
Strange question. It depends on the context, like most words. If I'm mountaineering and I get a gut feeling that a certain slope is dangerous, and I don't traverse it as a result but take some other route, I don't see much sense in describing that as being 'prejudice' on my part.
A 'gut feeling' that an prospective employee of a minority race 'might not fit in', on the other hand, is in a rather different category.
jcm
2
In reply to john arran:
I suppose that depends whether you believe in intuition or sub conscious, evolutionary developed traits. Either way it seems fishy to me.
I suppose that depends whether you believe in intuition or sub conscious, evolutionary developed traits. Either way it seems fishy to me.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
It seems clear to me also that prejudice could be behind a gut feeling but that not all gut feelings will be based on prejudice. Reading some of the responses on this thread, this doesn't seem to be widely agreed.
> Strange question. It depends on the context, like most words. If I'm mountaineering and I get a gut feeling that a certain slope is dangerous, and I don't traverse it as a result but take some other route, I don't see much sense in describing that as being 'prejudice' on my part.A 'gut feeling' that an prospective employee of a minority race 'might not fit in', on the other hand, is in a rather different category.jcm
It seems clear to me also that prejudice could be behind a gut feeling but that not all gut feelings will be based on prejudice. Reading some of the responses on this thread, this doesn't seem to be widely agreed.
In reply to Morty:
I wouldn't have thought intuition and sub-conscious to be things you need to 'believe in'. In any case it's clear we arrive at very quick opinions or decisions without having had time to consciously consider them, or arrive at opinions without being aware of the underlying facts we're basing them on, so whatever mechanism is responsible for that is what we're talking about.
> I suppose that depends whether you believe in intuition or sub conscious, evolutionary developed traits. Either way it seems fishy to me.
I wouldn't have thought intuition and sub-conscious to be things you need to 'believe in'. In any case it's clear we arrive at very quick opinions or decisions without having had time to consciously consider them, or arrive at opinions without being aware of the underlying facts we're basing them on, so whatever mechanism is responsible for that is what we're talking about.
In reply to john arran:
I think of it as your brain very quickly making a complex, sophisticated decision based on all your knowledge and experience. The more "conscious" decision-making is a clunkier version where you attempt to articulate and justify your decision. Maybe it's just applying language to decision-making. I'm sure it can be coloured by prejudice, but not always of course.
I think of it as your brain very quickly making a complex, sophisticated decision based on all your knowledge and experience. The more "conscious" decision-making is a clunkier version where you attempt to articulate and justify your decision. Maybe it's just applying language to decision-making. I'm sure it can be coloured by prejudice, but not always of course.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Except, in the example I gave, clearly it wasn't using ALL my knowledge and experience, because after conscious thought I would revise my opinion. Therein lies the question: exactly what IS it using, and how much trust can we put in it as a result? It seems some people are happy to justify decisions based solely on gut feeling, which I find a little unsettling.
> I think of it as your brain very quickly making a complex, sophisticated decision based on all your knowledge and experience.
Except, in the example I gave, clearly it wasn't using ALL my knowledge and experience, because after conscious thought I would revise my opinion. Therein lies the question: exactly what IS it using, and how much trust can we put in it as a result? It seems some people are happy to justify decisions based solely on gut feeling, which I find a little unsettling.
In reply to Timmd:
Thanks for the link. It's a shame there was so much bad science in there with tiny sample sizes; the outcomes may well have been very representative but asking the viewer to form an opinion based on such tiny 'evidence' doesn't help the cause of science in the mind of joe public.
> This programme is really interesting. A part of it is where an Asian woman does a test, and is perturbed to find she has a certain unconscious bias against black people. Then does some experiment with mirrors where she gets her mind to see a black hand as being her own, and does the test again and the bias disappears, which she finds reassuring - in it suggesting that the mind can change to do with this kind of thing. Her own take on why she might have the bias is also to do with the messages she's absorbed in the media and press etc.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIumpEePL_MYou can find the test she did with a little bit of googling.
Thanks for the link. It's a shame there was so much bad science in there with tiny sample sizes; the outcomes may well have been very representative but asking the viewer to form an opinion based on such tiny 'evidence' doesn't help the cause of science in the mind of joe public.
1
In reply to john arran:
Good point. Maybe it's a good way of making quick decisions to stay safe. And sometimes, in doing so, highlights your inherent prejudices. I'm sure Steve Peters in his book the Chimp Paradox would illuminate.
Good point. Maybe it's a good way of making quick decisions to stay safe. And sometimes, in doing so, highlights your inherent prejudices. I'm sure Steve Peters in his book the Chimp Paradox would illuminate.
In reply to john arran:
This is the basis of Jonathan Haidt's thesis, which I have previously referred to.
Essentially it is that most decisions, from most people, are arrived at very quickly, on an essentially subconscious or semi-instinctive basis, the arguments to support those decisions are ex-post-factum rationalisations of conclusions already drawn and clung to with ardent dogmatism. There are probably good evolutionary reasons for this, in that in a world full of dangerous predators, decisions had to be fast and clear, if you waited too long to analyse a situation fully, you would probably have been eaten. So any decision, even the wrong one, was probably mostly better than no decision at all.
Haidt uses the metaphor of the elephant and the rider, where the elephant is the much more powerful, instinctive and above all vastly faster decision making system, the rider is the intellectual reasoning part of the process - slower, more muddy and vague. But the rider exists to serve the elephant, as the elephant is much more powerful and dominant, so the clever rider produces logical justifications for the decisions that the stronger and quicker elephant has already reached on an emotional, instinctive basis, not the other way around.
It was clear for example during Brexit arguments that the passion, the emotiveness and the venom with which both sides held their position, also the rigidity, dogmatism and inflexibility of both sides that these were visceral views, not logical ones. 2 (or more) tribes were chanting war-cries at each other, proclaiming their own virtue, power and rightness, rather than debating the most logical policy for the UK to pursue with regard to the EU. The campaign, for the very slight degree to which it influenced the end result, was essentially a process of parallel straight lines never meeting.
Tribalism and group think are natural to humanity, detached intellectual thought is foreign and secondary. Haidt argues that this can be a source of strength if one is aware of the fact and does not fall into the trap of believing that repeating ones own sacred chants ever louder will convert or frighten the opposition - all it in fact does is to strengthen their tribal reaction in the opposite direction. If you actually wish to change opinion and persuade the other tribe, you have to work WITH their elephants and not continually attack their elephants with your riders. The elephants will always win, so your riders will just annoy them not change them.
But that would require self-knowledge and some familiarity with the art of persuasion, which is conspicuous by its rarity.
> it's clear we arrive at very quick opinions or decisions without having had time to consciously consider them, or arrive at opinions without being aware of the underlying facts we're basing them on
This is the basis of Jonathan Haidt's thesis, which I have previously referred to.
Essentially it is that most decisions, from most people, are arrived at very quickly, on an essentially subconscious or semi-instinctive basis, the arguments to support those decisions are ex-post-factum rationalisations of conclusions already drawn and clung to with ardent dogmatism. There are probably good evolutionary reasons for this, in that in a world full of dangerous predators, decisions had to be fast and clear, if you waited too long to analyse a situation fully, you would probably have been eaten. So any decision, even the wrong one, was probably mostly better than no decision at all.
Haidt uses the metaphor of the elephant and the rider, where the elephant is the much more powerful, instinctive and above all vastly faster decision making system, the rider is the intellectual reasoning part of the process - slower, more muddy and vague. But the rider exists to serve the elephant, as the elephant is much more powerful and dominant, so the clever rider produces logical justifications for the decisions that the stronger and quicker elephant has already reached on an emotional, instinctive basis, not the other way around.
It was clear for example during Brexit arguments that the passion, the emotiveness and the venom with which both sides held their position, also the rigidity, dogmatism and inflexibility of both sides that these were visceral views, not logical ones. 2 (or more) tribes were chanting war-cries at each other, proclaiming their own virtue, power and rightness, rather than debating the most logical policy for the UK to pursue with regard to the EU. The campaign, for the very slight degree to which it influenced the end result, was essentially a process of parallel straight lines never meeting.
Tribalism and group think are natural to humanity, detached intellectual thought is foreign and secondary. Haidt argues that this can be a source of strength if one is aware of the fact and does not fall into the trap of believing that repeating ones own sacred chants ever louder will convert or frighten the opposition - all it in fact does is to strengthen their tribal reaction in the opposite direction. If you actually wish to change opinion and persuade the other tribe, you have to work WITH their elephants and not continually attack their elephants with your riders. The elephants will always win, so your riders will just annoy them not change them.
But that would require self-knowledge and some familiarity with the art of persuasion, which is conspicuous by its rarity.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...