Paul Bloom: Can prejudice ever be a good thing?

Paul Bloom: Can prejudice ever be a good thing?

When we think about prejudice and bias, we tend to think about stupid and evil people doing stupid and evil things. And this idea is nicely summarized by the British critic William Hazlitt, who wrote, “Prejudice is the child of ignorance.” I want to try to convince you here that this is mistaken. I want to try to convince you that prejudice and bias are natural, they’re often rational, and they’re often even moral, and I think that once we understand this, we’re in a better position to make sense of them when they go wrong, when they have horrible consequences, and we’re in a better position to know what to do when this happens. So, start with stereotypes. You look at me, you know my name, you
know certain facts about me, and you could make certain judgments. You could make guesses about my ethnicity, my political affiliation, my religious beliefs. And the thing is, these
judgments tend to be accurate. We’re very good at this sort of thing. And we’re very good at this sort of thing because our ability to stereotype people is not some sort of arbitrary quirk of the mind, but rather it’s a specific instance of a more general process, which is that we have experience with things and people in the world that fall into categories, and we can use our experience
to make generalizations about novel instances of these categories. So everybody here has a lot of experience with chairs and apples and dogs, and based on this, you could see unfamiliar examples and you could guess, you could sit on the chair, you could eat the apple, the dog will bark. Now we might be wrong. The chair could collapse if you sit on it, the apple might be poison, the dog might not bark, and in fact, this is my dog Tessie, who doesn’t bark. But for the most part, we’re good at this. For the most part, we make good guesses both in the social domain and the non-social domain, and if we weren’t able to do so, if we weren’t able to make guesses about
new instances that we encounter, we wouldn’t survive. And in fact, Hazlitt later on in his wonderful essay concedes this. He writes, “Without the aid of prejudice and custom, I should not be able to find
my way my across the room; nor know how to conduct
myself in any circumstances, nor what to feel in any relation of life.” Or take bias. Now sometimes, we break the world up into us versus them, into in-group versus out-group, and sometimes when we do this, we know we’re doing something wrong, and we’re kind of ashamed of it. But other times we’re proud of it. We openly acknowledge it. And my favorite example of this is a question that came from the audience in a Republican debate prior to the last election. (Video) Anderson Cooper: Gets to your question, the question in the hall, on foreign aid? Yes, ma’am. Woman: The American people are suffering in our country right now. Why do we continue to send foreign aid to other countries when we need all the help we can get for ourselves? AC: Governor Perry, what about that? (Applause) Rick Perry: Absolutely, I think it’s— Paul Bloom: Each of the people onstage agreed with the premise of her question, which is as Americans, we should care more about Americans than about other people. And in fact, in general, people are often swayed by feelings of solidarity, loyalty, pride, patriotism, towards their country or towards their ethnic group. Regardless of your politics, many
people feel proud to be American, and they favor Americans over other countries. Residents of other countries
feel the same about their nation, and we feel the same about our ethnicities. Now some of you may reject this. Some of you may be so cosmopolitan that you think that ethnicity and nationality should hold no moral sway. But even you sophisticates accept that there should be some pull towards the in-group in the
domain of friends and family, of people you’re close to, and so even you make a distinction between us versus them. Now, this distinction is natural enough and often moral enough, but it can go awry, and this was part of the research of the great social psychologist Henri Tajfel. Tajfel was born in Poland in 1919. He left to go to university in France, because as a Jew, he couldn’t
go to university in Poland, and then he enlisted in the French military in World War II. He was captured and ended up in a prisoner of war camp, and it was a terrifying time for him, because if it was discovered that he was a Jew, he could have been moved to a concentration camp, where he most likely would not have survived. And in fact, when the war
ended and he was released, most of his friends and family were dead. He got involved in different pursuits. He helped out the war orphans. But he had a long-lasting interest in the science of prejudice, and so when a prestigious British scholarship on stereotypes opened up, he applied for it, and he won it, and then he began this amazing career. And what started his career is an insight that the way most people were thinking about the Holocaust was wrong. Many people, most people at the time, viewed the Holocaust as sort of representing some tragic flaw on the part of the Germans, some genetic taint, some authoritarian personality. And Tajfel rejected this. Tajfel said what we see in the Holocaust is just an exaggeration of normal psychological processes that exist in every one of us. And to explore this, he did a series of classic studies with British adolescents. And in one of his studies, what he did was he asked the British adolescents all sorts of questions, and then based on their answers, he said, “I’ve looked at your answers,
and based on the answers, I have determined that you are either” — he told half of them — “a Kandinsky lover, you love the work of Kandinsky, or a Klee lover, you love the work of Klee.” It was entirely bogus. Their answers had nothing
to do with Kandinsky or Klee. They probably hadn’t heard of the artists. He just arbitrarily divided them up. But what he found was, these categories mattered, so when he later gave the subjects money, they would prefer to give the money to members of their own group than members of the other group. Worse, they were actually most interested in establishing a difference between their group and other groups, so they would give up money for their own group if by doing so they could give
the other group even less. This bias seems to show up very early. So my colleague and wife, Karen Wynn, at Yale has done a series of studies with babies where she exposes babies to puppets, and the puppets have certain food preferences. So one of the puppets might like green beans. The other puppet might like graham crackers. They test the babies own food preferences, and babies typically prefer the graham crackers. But the question is, does this matter to babies in how they treat the puppets? And it matters a lot. They tend to prefer the puppet who has the same food tastes that they have, and worse, they actually prefer puppets who punish the puppet with the different food taste. (Laughter) We see this sort of in-group,
out-group psychology all the time. We see it in political clashes within groups with different ideologies. We see it in its extreme in cases of war, where the out-group isn’t merely given less, but dehumanized, as in the Nazi perspective of Jews as vermin or lice, or the American perspective of Japanese as rats. Stereotypes can also go awry. So often they’re rational and useful, but sometimes they’re irrational, they give the wrong answers, and other times they lead to plainly immoral consequences. And the case that’s been most studied is the case of race. There was a fascinating study prior to the 2008 election where social psychologists looked at the extent to which the candidates were
associated with America, as in an unconscious association
with the American flag. And in one of their studies they compared Obama and McCain, and they found McCain is thought of as more American than Obama, and to some extent, people aren’t
that surprised by hearing that. McCain is a celebrated war hero, and many people would explicitly say he has more of an American story than Obama. But they also compared Obama to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and they found that Blair was also thought of as more American than Obama, even though subjects explicitly understood that he’s not American at all. But they were responding, of course, to the color of his skin. These stereotypes and biases have real-world consequences, both subtle and very important. In one recent study, researchers put ads on eBay for the sale of baseball cards. Some of them were held by white hands, others by black hands. They were the same baseball cards. The ones held by black hands got substantially smaller bids than the ones held by white hands. In research done at Stanford, psychologists explored the case of people sentenced for the murder of a white person. It turns out, holding everything else constant, you are considerably more likely to be executed if you look like the man on the right than the man on the left, and this is in large part because the man on the right looks more prototypically black, more prototypically African-American, and this apparently influences people’s decisions over what to do about him. So now that we know about this, how do we combat it? And there are different avenues. One avenue is to appeal to people’s emotional responses, to appeal to people’s empathy, and we often do that through stories. So if you are a liberal parent and you want to encourage your children to believe in the merits of nontraditional families, you might give them a book like this.
[“Heather Has Two Mommies”] If you are conservative and have a different attitude, you might give them a book like this. (Laughter)
[“Help! Mom! There Are Liberals under My Bed!”] But in general, stories can turn anonymous strangers into people who matter, and the idea that we care about people when we focus on them as individuals is an idea which has shown up across history. So Stalin apocryphally said, “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic,” and Mother Teresa said, “If I look at the mass, I will never act. If I look at the one, I will.” Psychologists have explored this. For instance, in one study, people were given a list of facts about a crisis, and it was seen how much they would donate to solve this crisis, and another group was given no facts at all but they were told of an individual and given a name and given a face, and it turns out that they gave far more. None of this I think is a secret to the people who are engaged in charity work. People don’t tend to deluge people with facts and statistics. Rather, you show them faces, you show them people. It’s possible that by extending our sympathies to an individual, they can spread to the group that the individual belongs to. This is Harriet Beecher Stowe. The story, perhaps apocryphal, is that President Lincoln invited her to the White House in the middle of the Civil War and said to her, “So you’re the little lady who started this great war.” And he was talking about “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” is not
a great book of philosophy or of theology or perhaps not even literature, but it does a great job of getting people to put themselves in the shoes of people they wouldn’t otherwise be in the shoes of, put themselves in the shoes of slaves. And that could well have been a catalyst for great social change. More recently, looking at America in the last several decades, there’s some reason to believe
that shows like “The Cosby Show” radically changed American attitudes
towards African-Americans, while shows like “Will and Grace” and “Modern Family” changed American attitudes towards gay men and women. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the major catalyst in America for moral change has been a situation comedy. But it’s not all emotions, and I want to end by appealing to the power of reason. At some point in his wonderful book “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” Steven Pinker says, the Old Testament says love thy neighbor, and the New Testament says love thy enemy, but I don’t love either one of them, not really, but I don’t want to kill them. I know I have obligations to them, but my moral feelings to them, my moral beliefs about how I should behave towards them, aren’t grounded in love. What they’re grounded in is the
understanding of human rights, a belief that their life is as valuable to them as my life is to me, and to support this, he tells a story by the great philosopher Adam Smith, and I want to tell this story too, though I’m going to modify it a little bit for modern times. So Adam Smith starts by asking you to imagine the death of thousands of people, and imagine that the thousands of people are in a country you are not familiar with. It could be China or India or a country in Africa. And Smith says, how would you respond? And you would say, well that’s too bad, and you’d go on to the rest of your life. If you were to open up The New
York Times online or something, and discover this, and in fact
this happens to us all the time, we go about our lives. But imagine instead, Smith says, you were to learn that tomorrow you were to have your little finger chopped off. Smith says, that would matter a lot. You would not sleep that night wondering about that. So this raises the question: Would you sacrifice thousands of lives to save your little finger? Now answer this in the privacy of your own head, but Smith says, absolutely not, what a horrid thought. And so this raises the question, and so, as Smith puts it, “When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble?” And Smith’s answer is, “It is reason, principle, conscience. [This] calls to us, with a voice capable of astonishing
the most presumptuous of our passions, that we are but one of the multitude, in no respect better than any other in it.” And this last part is what is often described as the principle of impartiality. And this principle of impartiality manifests itself in all of the world’s religions, in all of the different versions of the golden rule, and in all of the world’s moral philosophies, which differ in many ways but share the presupposition
that we should judge morality from sort of an impartial point of view. The best articulation of this view is actually, for me, it’s not from
a theologian or from a philosopher, but from Humphrey Bogart at the end of “Casablanca.” So, spoiler alert, he’s telling his lover that they have to separate for the more general good, and he says to her, and I won’t do the accent, but he says to her, “It doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.” Our reason could cause us to override our passions. Our reason could motivate us to extend our empathy, could motivate us to write a
book like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” or read a book like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” and our reason can motivate us to create customs and taboos and laws that will constrain us from acting upon our impulses when, as rational beings, we feel we should be constrained. This is what a constitution is. A constitution is something
which was set up in the past that applies now in the present, and what it says is, no matter how much we might to reelect a popular president for a third term, no matter how much white Americans might choose to feel that they want to reinstate
the institution of slavery, we can’t. We have bound ourselves. And we bind ourselves in other ways as well. We know that when it comes to choosing somebody for a job, for an award, we are strongly biased by their race, we are biased by their gender, we are biased by how attractive they are, and sometimes we might say,
“Well fine, that’s the way it should be.” But other times we say, “This is wrong.” And so to combat this, we don’t just try harder, but rather what we do is we set up situations where these other sources
of information can’t bias us, which is why many orchestras audition musicians behind screens, so the only information they have is the information they believe should matter. I think prejudice and bias illustrate a fundamental duality of human nature. We have gut feelings, instincts, emotions, and they affect our judgments and our actions for good and for evil, but we are also capable of rational deliberation and intelligent planning, and we can use these to, in some cases, accelerate and nourish our emotions, and in other cases staunch them. And it’s in this way that reason helps us create a better world. Thank you. (Applause)

Author: Kevin Mason

91 thoughts on “Paul Bloom: Can prejudice ever be a good thing?

  1. You have underscored the way so many people, ostensibly moral, religious people, can prevent themselves from actually understanding what they see before themselves in the world. From there comes so much selfishness and ignorance. To stop thinking is to fail at your own humanity. Thank you.

  2. hmm… I think I may have trouble applying previous experience into a prejudice or bias. I find new things terrifying and don't know what to do, even when it's something simple. I also have a tendency to not really process things like skin color and end up treating them as a default person that's good until I have experiences with them to base things on. I never really thought much about it, but those two things are probably linked. That means it's one more social issue that my brain just doesn't process well. Cool.

  3. "Prejudice and Bias are natural, they're often rational and are often even moral". Camera shoots to a black woman

  4. It's a very interesting talk but also all over the place in a way. I think I need to re-watch it to fully understand.

  5. Wow! I have taken his online course on moralities of everyday life and it was an eye opener. It is so great to see him talk in TED, he's a wonderful speaker!

  6. Not mentioned is over compensation out of guilt for being superior in an attempt to correct the higher calling of equality. When a conservative sees a poor black man he suspects a difference in up-bringing or intelligence. He takes it for granted there's a difference.  When a liberal sees a poor black man, he can’t help but feel guilty for being superior to the black man.

  7. I thinks it's useful to operationally define key terms within the context of a speech. Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. As in "English prejudice against foreigners". I disagree with the way this person explains it, especially when most people only understand the word in its most common usage. He seems to be oversimplifying and confusing the difference between prejudice and preference.

  8. Okay, I am seriously bored. I started watching the talk because I wanted to know how prejudice can ever be a good thing, 13 minutes in and he never touched that question.

  9. Excellent talk! This feels like he took the truths that are everywhere, but no-one really talks about, and then turned it into a speech – which is what my favourite TED talks seem to do. 

  10. Freaking yes!!!! Always said that and people would bash me saying that I was all sort of things! prejudice is mostly statistics, many people get it wrong, but most of them are right

  11. I realized at an early age the prejudice against my color, i used to tell my parents "i feel like I'm under a microscope" so i promised myself i would mind my own business, get the education i needed and move to Africa.  That's what i did and it is by far the best decision I've ever made.  You can complain about prejudice and expect people with a LONG track record of hate, conquests and pillaging to change or you can take your 5 minutes in this world somewhere where you will feel like a king every day.  Your choice really.

  12. I can't help but agree AND disagree on this topic. See, when it comes to prejudice it's almost always going to result in a negative consequence once the individual takes it further so that it provides him/her more benefit. At the same time, acknowledging the fact that prejudice has its limitation in bringing one's understanding to the truth whether it's about culture, race, gender, orientation, or religion can be a positive thing but not necessarily good. I guess it has to do with the fact that in history there's more evidence that shows how much prejudice brought separation or hostility between different groups of people. I'd say prejudice supports a individual or like-minded individuals' selfish goals in one way or another.

  13. I liked the concept of the orchestra interviewing musicians sight unseen.  The same general concept should be extended to college applicants to eliminate bias based on race.  However,  that would of course eliminate affirmative action and force everyone to compete equally.

  14. We are closer emotionally to people who are closer physically.

    If you're not near the one you love, love the one you're near.

    This is just human beings being human.

    "Love your neighbor as yourself," for he interacts with you unlike those non-neighbors.

    'Twas ever thus.

    The neighborhood is growing by leaps and bounds. We are emotionally involved with those like us around the world now. Their stories are our stories. We can see, yes we are like them. We like people who are like us, and we like people who like us.

    How big is your neighborhood?

  15. Very interesting talk. It's fascinating to think that something that is so vehemently hated and called evil is really part of normal human emotion.

  16. Ethnic prejudice can almost be measured by the amount of immigration in a state. Especially if the there is a large cultural gap between the local and immigrating population.
    Too bad politicians can't figure this out, but I guess they have their own agenda, placing two competing groups up against one another is politically devious.
    If you want to crush worker rights and lower the minimum wage without taking the blame for it, then that's the way to do it.

  17. Even after watching this video twice, I still don't see the point of the talk. Mr. Bloom uses a lot of stories and examples about categorization and prejudice, with sometimes positive and sometimes negative consequences. finally at the end of the talk he explains that we use our reason to overcome prejudice. 

    All these seem to be platitudes, well known to most people who watch TED talks. I am not sensing new ideas here. What am I missing?

  18. I'm not sure what the point of the apple/chair/dog thing was. In the context of prejudice against other people, this analogy makes no sense. Inanimate objects, and even animals, are almost always going to be more predictable than humans.

  19. I agree that prejudice is often useful and natural, however these claims of it being "moral" or "good" is a bit of a stretch. Saving your kin over another just is what is and nothing more. Lol btw I love how they cut to the black chick round the :40 second mark

  20. I've always thought prejudice was an entirely natural and (to some extent) uncontrollable thing – it's just how a person acts on their prejudices which can be good or bad. That's what tolerance means – an understanding and acceptance that there are differences between people (whether major – like gender or race, or more trivial – like musical tastes or favourite foods) without any feeling of superiority, animosity, envy and the like.

  21. The essence of freedom is choice.  Out of choice comes prejudice.  It is our right to decide the things that are beneficial to ourselves.

  22. Wait…didn't the end of his talk refute all that he claimed he would prove and that his talk was about? Reason is what one uses to combat prejudice, as he said. And so by ending his talk by talking about combating prejudice and then praising reason, he was doing the opposite of what he said he would so at the beginning of his talk. Now I'm simply wondering what I am supposed to take away from this

  23. I think its small minded to ever, group any concept into a generalization, good and evil are simple concepts. Better simply to accept that they are and there is no way to erase them forever.

  24. I find it amusing how you use the term 'dehumanize" to describe prejudice, Capitalism promotes the same treatment of employees to business's. Whats that business quip, "control cost maximize profit" we are relegated to numerical comparisons, not individual people. Btw thanks for posting vid.

  25. ~laughs~ Obama isn't American? How is a black or mixed any less American then a white or Mexican, this is an immigrant country, people are massively misinformed.  Read the inscription on the stature of liberty. I find it amusing that anyone can hate obama, he is a perfect human cipher designed to appeal to as many groups as possible. As long as negative connotations are attached to color and racial/class prejudice is passed hereditary from parent to child, the cycle never ends. Its impossible to convince someone other then they have been raised, even if people have the capacity for change it never comes without a lasting impression. Ever notice how you always remember your worst and best moments, but not what u ate a day ago? Prejudice is protected by freedom, and upheld by ignorance.  Ignorance is freedom to be oblivious.

  26. I have an idea to end this stupid discussion: Im 23 im white, and if one day i meet a girl like Halle Berry or something, i will marry her and i hope my kids will be all brown!!! stop this stupid discussion and do the same!

  27. I'm not liberal, yet I retain no means of racism within me. What does that say about Mr. Bloom's mockery of those not within his political party? How about citing facts instead of spewing b/s at your opposite political party. That's the only way we can move forward in all ways, shapes and forms.

  28. this speech barely touched upon the key idea, which brought most of you here.  it did not clearly explain how prejudice in the right context can be helpful. 

    his little thing there with the pictures of the chair, apple and the dog was pretty much it.  however, notice that these subjects….none of them were people.  no person would be harmed or offended by making those kinds of quick judgements about those things.

    it is almost %100 bad/harmful to express prejudicial thoughts towards people however.

    ok, the rest of what i am about to say, may not make any sense, if you do not know people such as myself.  people who can agonize over the tiniest details, and let many opportunities in life pass them by because of being so hesitant to make quick, decisions.  without poring over the details and trying to think of the ramifications of my potential actions from as many different angles as i can.  life assaults people like me with an onslaught of details to think about, and decisions to be made.  and i can quite often be crippled by indecision, and thus a lack of corresponding actions/reactions.

    part of the POSITIVE aspect of the human thought process, is how we can make quick, snap judgements about situations, with very little, or very poor quality information.  computers have all the weight of (practically) perfect logic to work through in order to solve problems.  but humans can do crazy amounts of imperfect calculations every second. 

    but this is ALSO a very NEGATIVE trait in certain contexts.  like when judging other people based on simplistic patterns (such as skin color).

    but people like me should be quicker to go with gut feelings and quick snap judgements about things that are not people oriented.  in cases where no people will be harmed by careless thinking.  our snap judgements in the right context can be quite beneficial in seizing fleeting opportunities, or in avoiding bad situations that can develop quickly through inaction.

    we just got to know how to contextualize our behaviour.  and realize that we need to pull away from our impulses, when our prejudicial thoughts are involved in people-oriented decisions/situations.  

  29. Not a new concept. Read Sociobiology by Wilson and it gives you an in depth scientific and mathematical system to prove the levels of altruistic behaviour towards others. Which also defines the levels of prejudice we should feel towards one another- it is genetic.

  30. it could be true that you don't feel an unconditional belonging or love to the system or your neighbors..but to assume that thats generally the case is a prejudice…if it was so we wouldnt have been here…I understand we all have boundaries of us vs others but striving to constantly expand that boundary is an important part of striving to be a human..and that's what great leaders have always done to expand that boundary…But you can still argue still they were "prejudiced to say a religion nationality or humanity itself"…but looking on the other side to have a strong national identity  they had to good grow out of their identity as a family …they were serving the community of earth because they could expand their identity from a nation to the world..So if prejudice is looking at difference …when we start looking at what is in common we are constantly growing out of prejudice..and in this way we can extend the boundary of us vs others to the whole universe itself or may be even more if we assume so..

  31. I guess that a person could show "prejudice" while having differing degrees of knowlege about the thing/person they are "prejudiced" towards? Say I have met 10 Chinese people and they all treated me badly, then I meet a new Chinese person, I might be prejudiced towards him, based on some facts, even though I might be completely wrong and he might be a lovely person. Or on the other hand, I could just have a dislike of anyone who looks racially different to me, and have never met a Chinese person before, and experience the same prejudice. In the first case there's more justification than the other. Even if the second reaction could be understood to  be due to the common habit of people to like their "in" groups and people who resemble them (which is useful to be aware of, so as to watch out for having such reactions and to know they are not usually justified). 

  32. I call shenanigans:  He say all religions teach an impartial morality.  No, They all teach some dictates of a dictator, or very specific morals and behaviors.

  33. What a refreshing talk. 
    Feels great to finally get some good articulation and information about subjects that I have been pondering a lot on lately myself. 🙂 

  34. I have prejudice against the speaker moving like a pendulum. But it's a bad one, I guess I should use reason to control myself.

    All fun aside, he did a good job on his last phrase. Use reason to increase goodness so that we wont be bad. This guy is smart, actually. More than I expected.

  35. The irony here is that all uneducated people already know and agree with the premise of this talk. They realize that prejudice is natural, rational and absolutely necessary to function in the world. All non-lhuman animals "know" this as well. Only the sort of educated human who would listen to a TED talk would be misinformed on the topic.  

  36. All religions are impartial and reason can create a better world. One of the best talks I've heard!

  37. Prejudice and discrimination cannot be a 'good' thing because the word itself has negative connotations, just like how the words 'evil', 'bad' and even 'negative', just like 'sexist', 'racist' and 'homophobic'.

  38. I love learning, but some scholars, like this guy, take a real, sensitive issue and turn it into a purely academic pursuit. I don't that's a good way to understand something like prejudice, as it's not an intellectual topic.

  39. This is a completely bogus lecture; it's failure based on its collectivist premise.
    The morality story at the end is designed to make one feel conflicted. It entirely ignores why you should have a moral obligation towards the actions committed by others, implicitly suggesting it as a given, whilst making you feel shallow for valuing yourself over those lives, hence the implied insignificance of a "little" finger. There is no rational conflict here.

  40. Prejudice is very natural. We all have that, but once you're educated, your prejudice is more educated, or may be gone.

  41. Seems I'm not the only one who thinks the premise of this video was never addressed. I suspect because the answer is no, prejudice can never be a good thing. If it ever could be that would make prejudice morally relative and then any prejudice could be justified.

  42. I don't agree with the beginning of that video, I know this teacher is a nice guy, but I am afraid he is making a mistake back there, prejudice is not really that good at all, it is very bad and it brings sorrow to people.

  43. all of these studies and what is referred to as natural etc are all encased within cultures with myriad factors that shape us all constantly – think of all the ways division is promoted and reinforced in the culture you live in – competition, sports, nation, ideology, philosophy, education, class, economic – the ruling class have used divide and conquer to fight other such groups across the globe for centuries to gain some temporary delusion of power and control-

    how do we heal the culture to make the way for human behavior to have a chance to thrive not be forced into constant battle with each other by the ruling classes.

  44. what was this all vedio about i hardely get the idea of discussion . was it prejudice a good thing ? whats new to learn in all

  45. the Harriet Beecher Stowe example , that is the conversation with Lincoln is complete & total propaganda & secondly Uncle Tom's Cabin was not looked with the morality you think among the working classes . Do your homework buddy .

  46. I can not be prejudice, I hate all idiots equally. "Prejudice is a child of ignorance" EXACTLY! I hate IGNORANCE the most.


  48. The idea that people thought Obama was un-American based solely on his skin doesn’t address his actual anti American past, his affiliations and his beliefs.

  49. In writing about this in school and I'm having trouble because I didn't get it because I didn't understand if he answered his own question or not

  50. Bloom teaches intellectual nonsense. No profound thinker argues nonsense about morals. Ecclesiastes destroyed morals 3000 years ago. Humans like something’s he likes, makes them moral.

  51. Leiam o livro "Em defesa do preconceito" de Theodore Dalrymple.

    Read the book "In Praise of Prejudice" of psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple

  52. A younger, hairier, more Beatles-y Paul. 🙂 He's a top notch psychologist, do read his book Against Empathy. He also has some lectures on youtube from Yale which are very good. D.A., JD, NYC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *