Surviving Prejudice, Not All Bad
Gregg Zegarelli Esq.
Managing Shareholder at Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC
We seem to talk about prejudice constantly, but let us take a short moment to try to understand one form of it, which I will coin as "natural prejudice."
Like siblings who love each other—yet rival each other—some human conditions are natural, and these conditions are better to be contemplated and managed than to be dysfunctionally denied or repressed as inherently wrong.
Prejudice is a manner of thinking, so, as "rational beings," let us start with a simple high-level framework of how we think, using the logical process of rational deduction:
All men (M) will die (D); Socrates (S) is a man (M); therefore, Socrates (S) will die (D). Stated another way, all members of class Men have the Death attribute. Socrates is a member of class Men; therefore, Socrates will have the Death attribute. This logic must always be true, by deduction, which is the process of progressing from the general known fact to the particular known fact. We concluded, therefore, that Socrates, being a man, in the class of men, will die.
But, let us make just a little subtle change in logic, with a major change in result:
All men (M) will die (D); Socrates (S) is dead (D); therefore, Socrates (S) is a man (M). Like the logic above, all members of class Men have the Death attribute. We also know that Socrates has the Death attribute; therefore, we concluded that Socrates must be a member in class Men. But, here, our "conclusion" just got lucky. Indeed, Socrates is a man, but the logic is flawed, and I will prove it to you, using exactly the same logic:
All men (M) will die (D); my cat Socrates (S) is dead (D); therefore, my cat Socrates (S) is a man (M).
The simple reason for the bad logic is that two different things may share a common attribute and not be in the same class. This is induction (not deduction), which is the process of progressing from the particular known fact to induce a categorical generalization. Using induction, we concluded (wrongly), therefore, that our cat is a man.
Bad logic, bad knowledge. Bad knowledge, bad education. Bad education...well, you know...we sort of all fall into the ditch for lack of proper guidance.
Now, let me explain why this latter induction—though logically flawed—is both important and necessary:
Survival. Pure and simple survival. Without induction, right or wrong as it is, we might die. We don't want to die, so we induce with generalizations.
Let me give an example:
It is the year 1650. Two natives on the African continent see a group of white men for the first time. Being friendly, the two natives approach the white men to welcome them as friends. The white men throw a net and attempt to capture the natives as slaves. The natives run away and escape.
On a later day, it so happens that the two same natives see another group of different white men. Perhaps these white men are not bad slavers, but missionaries. However, having the bad particular experience, one native runs away having learned to fear the context, inducing perhaps that all white men are bad, but the other native goes up again to be friends and is captured as a slave. For the native who ran away in fear, it was an inductive prejudice, but that prejudice helped that native to survive.
Prejudice and fear are evolved natural siblings, and that fact is not inherently bad or wrong, it is developed instinctual human nature.
Yes, prejudicial induction is flawed logic in the pure form, but survival accepts flawed logic for a warning of potential danger.
It is not worth determining right or wrong, survival is a higher priority. Indeed, the prejudice of induction does not even need to be universal; that is, it might not be "All white men are bad," but only, "Some white men can be a threat, those persons are white men, therefore, those white men might be a threat." It's the old saying, "Well, I'm not sure if that dinosaur is a vegetarian, but I'm not waiting around to find out."
Inductive reasoning, as a natural prejudice, is everywhere: spiders, snakes, sharks, lawyers, doctors, motorcycle riders, car salesmen, etc. Taking one bad experience to a categorical generalization. Prejudicial generalizations have helped us to survive, because any particular instance is a warning, and, over the course of time, evolution pushes warnings into our DNA as part of the fear instinct.
So, we often talk about inductive prejudice wondering why it occurs so often, why it is so hard to eradicate, and why it is so difficult to control. The reason is basic: animals that exist have survived, and animals that have survived have evolved instincts to have accomplished that survival. It's 1650, on the African continent, and another group of white men come off of a ship; yes, perhaps they are missionaries.
Natural prejudice is a form of inductive reasoning that is not necessarily correct. Inductive reasoning is "rational" in that the thought-process is part of evolved survival management, which is a function of fear.
Civilization and social culture evolve faster than a change in the hard-wiring of human DNA instinct. Some instincts are stronger than others, but survival is first. The fear instinct is part of the survival instinct, and inductive prejudice is part of the natural fear instinct. Fear or fight is powerful. In fact, the fear instinct is even stronger than the sex instinct, because sex is to preserve the specie, not to preserve the self.
Why is this understanding important? Because we cannot get control of what we don't see. We cannot combat and conquer a constant bombardment of natural ambushes. We must isolate the exact condition first, so that we can choose and apply the corrective tool.
The question is not "Why is there prejudice?" but, rather, "Why is there fear?"
领英推荐
It starts with education, it is followed by self-discipline, and it is concluded by selflessness. Civility always tends to fall into the same space.
* Gregg Zegarelli, Esq., earned both his Bachelor of Arts Degree and his Juris Doctorate from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His dual major areas of study were History from the College of Liberal Arts and Accounting from the Business School (qualified to sit for the CPA examination), with dual minors in Philosophy and Political Science. He has enjoyed Adjunct Professorships in the Duquesne University Graduate Leadership Master Degree Program (The Leader as Entrepreneur; Developing Leadership Character Through Adversity) and the University of Pittsburgh Law School (The Anatomy of a Deal). He is admitted to various courts throughout the United States of America.
Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.,?is Managing Shareholder of Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC.?Gregg is nationally rated as "superb" and has more than 35 years of experience working with entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including startups,?INC. 500, and publicly traded companies.?He is author of One: The Unified Gospel of Jesus, and The Business of Aesop? article series, and co-author with his father, Arnold Zegarelli, of The Essential Aesop: For Business, Managers, Writers and Professional Speakers. Gregg is a frequent lecturer, speaker and faculty for a variety of educational and other institutions.
? 2024 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
? 2018 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.?Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.
You might also like:
#GreggZegarelli #justice #love #survival #prejudice #naturalprejudice #fear #harmony #Zegarelli #GRZ_73