[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of
postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous
postings. Of late, the blog has been
looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their
subject. It’s time to post a series of
such summary accounts. The advantage of
such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a
different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and
arguments. This and upcoming summary
postings will be preceded by this message.]
For one thing, people tend to hold a
“parental” loyalty to those concepts, and they lead people to save time. But since people do not give them sufficient
thought, these conceptions have a tendency to lead them to false conclusions
and that eventuality can and does result in serious consequences.
Even
among disciplined scientists, who do think about these ideas and go about
defining them, reductionist thinking can lead to less than useful conceptualizing
as those constructs convert to factors and variables. Scientists are well aware of this problem and
go to meaningful lengths to account for it.
But regular folks, by and large, do not take any steps to rectify any
resulting mal judgements. And as hinted at
above, they lead to prejudices and, in turn, to serious behavior patterns
against people who are seen as “others.”
These
last biased results happen or are augmented by other associated human tendencies. One, they appeal of faulty reasoning,
particularly believing that correlations necessarily indicate cause and effect. Two, they encourage people to view others as
being either members of one’s identity groupings or not belonging to them. This is often based on groupings such as
race, nationality, and ethnicity. By so
doing they engage in counterproductive Us vs. Them thinking.
And
when confronted by some messaging that points this out, the reaction is usually
to somehow ignore the implied challenge or cite rational but morally
reprehensible supportive information. As
just mentioned, for example, citing correlational statistics can support
negative beliefs about members of some groups.
Then, unjustly, the belief is used to negatively judge a member of such
a group and/or support policies that deny rights to members of those groups.
Yes, crime does exist in greater
frequency in disadvantaged neighborhoods, but it is inaccurate to attribute
that crime to any identity groupings that inhabit those neighborhoods. Instead, the more accurate judgement is that historical
developments affecting those groups have led to their members experiencing the
conditions that cause crime.
For example, they have lacked economic
opportunities, experienced maltreatment by those in the majority, and have been
subject to those conditions that placed members of that minority where they
find themselves (in the case of blacks, the whole history of slavery and Jim
Crow laws are causal realities).
And when one ascribes to an individual of
such a group a negative characteristic, e.g., he/she is a criminal or likely to
be one, that is unjust as well as likely inaccurate. And on an associated level, it has been
observed, “This ‘compensation effect,’ which occurs when we compare people
rather than evaluating each one separately, … ‘If someone is competing with
you, you assume they’re a bad person,’ [Amy] Cuddy says.”[1]
This last factor has relevance
today. As jobs are being lost to low-wage
countries – China, Vietnam, and others – or to automation, racial images become
intertwined in these judgements.
Generalizing inaccurately, the racial factor becomes heightened by
perceived competitive conditions. Among
the newly un or under employed, one might hear, “Those others – non whites –
are stealing our jobs.”
This becomes, for example, fertile
ground for bigoted propaganda that bases its messaging on such inaccurate and
immoral prejudices toward individuals who happen to be members of other racial groups. The individuals of those groups fall victim
to being unjustly, inaccurately, and counterproductively classified. And as such, serve as fuel for the current
state of polarized politics.
[1] Marina Krakovsky, “Mixed Impressions: How We Judge Others on Multiple Levels, Scientific
American, January 1, 2010, accessed December 9, 2020, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mixed-impressions/ . Amy Cuddy is
a prominent American social psychologist.
