How to overcome our biases

An excellent talk by Verna Myers on overcoming biases (particularly racial bias).

70% 50%

words are weapons

30% 50%


hatred is color blind

100%

In my own opinion racial tension is derived from fear. Very much fear. If we took two of my best friends...time and effort, the word would be entirely different. I believe that if we removed certain ways of thinking from our vocabulary we can start it there. I am training my son not to use words in certain ways. My favorite is " people" when people see the hate... when groups are removed and the word people is inserted without labels it tends to give more responsibility to the individual. that's one of my goals in life, to teach individual responsibility. To own it. My dream...is to hear one day some one say on TV or in a group..
Mr so and so has done this, in place of any racial generalization.

carlos.martinez3 wrote: In my own opinion racial tension is derived from fear. Very much fear. If we took two of my best friends...time and effort, the word would be entirely different. I believe that if we removed certain ways of thinking from our vocabulary we can start it there. I am training my son not to use words in certain ways. My favorite is " people" when people see the hate... when groups are removed and the word people is inserted without labels it tends to give more responsibility to the individual. that's one of my goals in life, to teach individual responsibility. To own it. My dream...is to hear one day some one say on TV or in a group..
Mr so and so has done this, in place of any racial generalization.

this is a fantabulous post !
every line in the above post is excellent quality
thank you for sharing this!

i would like to help build on this concept if i may

first that time and effort as you say are excellent friends

much more productive than say comfort or expectation as counterparts (not that theyre bad - they are necessary in their own rightz but its a useful comparision for illustrattive purposes)

but especially what i want to say
is about how we frame language

first and formost ones internal language
literaly helps us to create the rules by which we live

generally speaking
"always say yes"
is a more open and courageous way of thinking
than
"never say no"

they may appear to say the same thing but that is only appearance

"never say no" is always what one is not allowed to do
so the view is one of restriction and limitation
"always say yes" may sound reckless but its not

if someone asks you to smoke crack
the idea is to say YES
to health
and to personal responsibility
as far as im.concerned if a jedi decides to smoke crack
he or she is perfectly within the bounds of appropriateness to do so
however
the frame of reference by which one lives
makes it unlikely that they would

because the choice isnt so much SAY NO TO DRUGS
but SAY YES TO HEALTH

say no/say yes juxtaposition works with every subject
and every time the results vary greatly between the two

if you look at an hateful person
from a SAY NO TO HATE point of reference
then what you see is a threat and an enemy

if you look at a hateful person
with a SAY YES TO LOVE point of reference
then you automatically understand what it means to heal hate with love

this understanding extends to all things

disclaimer - I'm at work so the video doesn't pull up. I'm just responding to Carlos' post.

carlos.martinez3 wrote: I believe that if we removed certain ways of thinking from our vocabulary we can start it there. I am training my son not to use words in certain ways. My favorite is " people" when people see the hate... when groups are removed and the word people is inserted without labels it tends to give more responsibility to the individual. that's one of my goals in life, to teach individual responsibility. To own it. My dream...is to hear one day some one say on TV or in a group..
Mr so and so has done this, in place of any racial generalization.

I have felt this way from a very young age, although I didn't know it. I remember being young and I couldn't remember Ernie Hudson's name. I just kept saying 'He's in Ghostbusters' and it took people forever to get it. It didn't occur to me that he was the only black guy in the movie and saying 'the black guy from Ghostbusters' would have made it simpler. I just didn't see the difference. He was a Ghostbuster, that's it.

Imagine reading headlines like "man shoots man" instead of "White cop shoots black man" or "people kill people in office building" instead of "Islamic terrorists kill french journalists" Do you think we'd look more at the facts of the case? The headlines are way more boring which is why that'll never happen, but it's a better world view.

I love the idea of using "people." Take any sentence containing groupings and substitute the word "people" for group terms and things begin to look a lot different.

Yes! I concur, just imagine of we started speaking as such. I know I have lol. I love this Temple truly we are like minded! Thanks guys!

I can't help but point out that the speaker automatically assumes that Brown was a victim rather than the subject in this case. I personally don't know either way, I don't have a bias towards either Brown or Wilson. How could I possibly have it without proper evidence? Even the feds can't charge him because there is nothing to prove his story over the oppositions. So I'm not taking sides.

I get she recognizes her own biases, but in order to communicate overcoming similar bias, she shouldn't toot another prominent bias.

Anyways, if anyone is interested, this is the link to the test she talks about: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

I'm not too fond of the methodology myself. I don't feel it's an accurate measure- BUT it can help you improve on reaction/processing skills, which is equally valuable.

Alethea Thompson wrote: Anyways, if anyone is interested, this is the link to the test she talks about: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

Thanks, Alethea! I spent a couple hours on the site and found the results interesting. For the majority of the tests I had "no automatic preference" (gender, sexuality, disability, Native Americans, Arab Muslims, etc.), but apparently I have a "slight preference" for black people over white people and young compared to old, as well as a "slight association" of European Americans with 'American' and Asian Americans with 'Foreign'. I think that's all pretty fair and realistic, though I'll probably get a slight kick in the head by one of my oldest and closest friends due to the results of that last one.

I was also fairly neutral where religious discrimination was concerned. Essentially, the test reported that I have no religious prejudices, but my preferences were still ranked (highest to lowest): Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, then Christianity. This was interesting, as I don't often think about Judaism or have positive or negative feelings about the religion. Maybe that played into the results, I don't know.

I appreciate you posting that link, Alethea. I think taking the tests is worthwhile for any Jedi, even if they aren't completely accurate. As you suggested, they might at least help you think about things (that you probably didn't even realize needed to be considered) from additional angles.