Prejudice: biolocial, or cultural?

I agree with all of you, if we were talking about race issues, the reason i added the definition of prejudice is because i anticipated responses of this nature. My original idea was that prejudice is biological, (due to the way our brains automatically categorize similar stimulus; for better or worse)
racism is the cultural byproduct of prejudice. Race is just a noticeable difference. Even in societies where the race is homogeneous, there is always a noticeable attempt at ethnic superiority, (see china) or tribalism(see Africa). We as humans tend to 'need' to see a difference between things, and put it into order of better and worse, and will create sub categories to fit such a system if a noticeable difference arises.

Once again i'm not saying racial prejudices is biological, and the cultural aspect of racism was going to encompass another post, i should have added more on this, generally when people think of injustice/pre-judegment, they think of race.

If you are truly interested in the topic, re read my post (with the definition or prejudice include at the end) and then logically rebut, i hope the replies don't turn into a broken record on a subject that i did not even intend to touch.

thats why i said omelets and not people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

I don't understand why you think prejudice involves disliking others that are the same as us? I would have thought it was more of just the opposite.

But I have to side firmly on cultural and social origins for prejudices. I guess you could make a very weak case for genetics playing a role, but even then its always a mixture of genetics and environment that constitute behavior.

Even with regard to your own example concerning omlettes, the subject remembers back to his own traumatic encounters with omlettes in his childhood. I don't see the biological bias, I see a learned bias because his mom was a bad cook. Could you flesh that out?

---

I'm going to give you list answers, no disrepect, just in a rush

1. 'Same as' meaning humans. racial nad culutral (it even breaks down into sub culutres) have a cultural basis, i agree. But i must admit even though i try to make that argument sound logical, it was a typo, it is supposed to be 'different then us.'

Thats true, about the omlette situation, but the mans tramtic experince has nothing do with the situation now.

his mom was a bad cook
20 years ago

This diner has a reputation for good omlettes, and the man is in a situation where he has nothing to lose, but would rather pay more money to recive something he does not need (lack of hunger) but is used to.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.

I'm not saying my idea is right, after all, we will never really know, i just wanted some people on the other side of the fence to rebut my ideas in a logical manner.:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrappie

This diner has a reputation for good omlettes, and the man is in a situation where he has nothing to lose, but would rather pay more money to recive something he does not need (lack of hunger) but is used to.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.

I'm not saying my idea is right, after all, we will never really know, i just wanted some people on the other side of the fence to rebut my ideas in a logical manner.:thumbsup:

---

But that's still socialization and learned behavior, with regards to what the man is used to.

And I'd like to disagree with a point you make that the man's earlier experiences have nothing to do with it. They have a great deal to do with it. They're the psychological material through which this man may very well approach omlettes for the rest of his life. You can't just throw out past experiences as irrelevent. This can't be a logical exercise because prejudices are inherently illogical. So the psychology must be pertinent.

I still don't see how you're plugging it into a biological bias...

My impression has always been that prejudice is more cultural than biological, too. People somehow learn it from the exposures they get. It's not biologically inherent. Those attitudes can be passed along or taught in families and passed down from generation to generation, which some might argue is somehow biological, but that, too, is really cultural/environmental. The prejudice that results is learned behavior in the environment or culture of a family. The family itself just happens to be biologically connected.

Preferences are, to me, a different thing. My preference for scrambled eggs over fried eggs doesn't signal a prejudice against fried eggs. Just a preference for scrambled. In nature, animals often choose mates based on a preference for symmetry and will often ostracize asymmetrical animals from their flocks or herds. There's a biologically driven preference for symmetry, but the ostracization of asymmetrical animals isn't based on prejudice because, of course, those animals don't have a preconceived notion and aren't making an unreasonable judgment. They're acting on a different, no doubt evolutionarily driven level and indicating a preference that, to them, is imminently reasonable because symmetry in nature signals good genetic health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

My impression has always been that prejudice is more cultural than biological, too. People somehow learn it from the exposures they get. It's not biologically inherent. Those attitudes can be passed along or taught in families and passed down from generation to generation, which some might argue is somehow biological, but that, too, is really cultural/environmental. The prejudice that results is learned behavior in the environment or culture of a family. The family itself just happens to be biologically connected.

Preferences are, to me, a different thing. My preference for scrambled eggs over fried eggs doesn't signal a prejudice against fried eggs. Just a preference for scrambled. In nature, animals often choose mates based on a preference for symmetry and will often ostracize asymmetrical animals from their flocks or herds. There's a biologically driven preference for symmetry, but the ostracization of asymmetrical animals isn't based on prejudice because, of course, those animals don't have a preconceived notion and aren't making an unreasonable judgment. They're acting on a different, no doubt evolutionarily driven level and indicating a preference that, to them, is imminently reasonable because symmetry in nature signals good genetic health.

---

Good Post! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

There's a biologically driven preference for symmetry, but the ostracization of

Quote:

---

asymmetrical animals isn't based on prejudice because, of course, those animals don't have a preconceived notion and aren't making an unreasonable judgment.

---

thanks bg, this is the type of response i was hoping for.

I too subscribe to the idea of prejudice being something that you learn, though i like to see thinking on both sides of the fence, and i was hoping this topic would bring about more people from various sides to a friendly debate, though ended up being one sided.

I guess i have to try harder.
This is by no means me saying that i wish people to stop talking about the topic, i encourage it. To be honest, i was expecting people to question animals ability to make reasonable judgments, which is the true meat of the conversation me and my professor held.

I love you guys, so i figured i should contribute almost as much as i read.
Toke on guys. Hopefully my next thread will offer more for varied responses!

I think its a conditioned response, as can be seen with twin studies. The reason we dont like asymmetrical animals is because of what I think is called the good gene theory, which means that we choose our mates based on who we think has the best genetics.

I hate post were I have to think...

what I forgot to say is that being asymmetrical is a sign of poor genes.

i have been told in two seperate classes that it is a learned behavior and that that much is proven. i havent seen the proof but i dont see either of these teachers lying so im going to go with learned