Hello, my name is Andrew Hart and I am prejudiced

Before reading on, pick a subject area, race or religion is an easy one, but you can pick any other, and answer these questions: 

1. What percentage of people is prejudiced and what percentage is unprejudiced? 
2. Are you prejudiced? 

---

Peoples opinions are like a oil supertanker.  Once you are thinking in a certain direction, its near impossible to change course.   It seems that all human beings are programmed to filter new information that we receive, giving more weight to things that agree with our current views and dismissing things that don't.

A possible example of this was the early UK sitcom  "Till death us do part" featuring Alf Garnett a foul mouthed white racist.  My family were Jamaican and it was obvious to us that the author was poking fun at the ignorant racist views and belittling the main character.   However, I've been told by white fiends that racists viewed Alf Garnett as a hero and the series as "anti-Paki".

From a psychological viewpoint this makes sense, after all a big part of who we are is what we believe.  We defend our beliefs as we defend our physical body.  From an evolutionary point of view it also makes sense.  Changing our beliefs at the drop of a hat would leave us directionless and in chaos.  

So, this trait is a good thing ... unless you call it by the name "prejudice".   

I'll bet that in answer to the 2 questions, you stated that a significant but small minority as unprejudiced, and place yourself firmly in the unprejudiced group.  Of course I am just prejudging that, but I maintain that you are just kidding yourself.   We necessarily pre judge all the time.  Prejudice is part of being human, and an essential part at that. 

So how can we stop prejudice reinforcing our ignorance and getting in the way of us taking valid knowledge and information on board?  

Most people fight prejudice with prejudice.  To prove to themselves and others that they are not prejudiced, they take on board a countering set of views and defend those.  But this is just compounds the problem.  Better to admit to your prejudices and use that knowledge to make better decisions about what information you value and dismiss.  

As an example, lets take the recent Wikileaks saga.   I consider Wikileaks to be a good thing.  I believe that knowledge/information is power and I think that Wikileaks adds substance to democracy by redressing an imbalance in power.  I think that in a world of ever increasing centralisation of power and the western recent moves to trim civil liberties Wikileaks is perhaps one of the most important vehicles to safeguard democracy.

I can rationalise this view: I have a distrust of people in power because I believe that preservation of their own power quickly becomes a prime motivator.  I have a distrust of the media, both in terms of the validity of their sources such as news agencies, and in terms of editorial independence.

But I also have prejudices.  A relevant one for Wikileaks is my dislike the USA. I think it is an arrogant, hypocritical bully, and it feels good and just when the USA gets taken down a peg or two.  

With this in mind, I think that I am less inclined to promote Mr Assange to saint-hood, and take more seriously important issues of security etc, and credit the USA with more positive motivations than I would otherwise be inclined to.  It also encourages me to try an back up my views with a bit of research.

Of course I still believe that I am right!