This is a series of questions I posed to Vix, I hope this is the right sort of place to post it. It's more of a general question, but I'm not sure if it fits really into the everything else main forum so I put it here. This has been a major topic I've been mediating on for a while.

Why do we judge people on traits they can't help? How can a human being judge another, because they were born of a certain culture, ethnicity, sex and/or sexuality? It's not as though these traits (with the possible exception of sexuality) are choices a person can control. Why do we place so much importance in such traits?

It's because we've been conditioned by billions of years of evolution and by society to seek certain traits, I'd presume.

good questions, and I'd love to know the answer, but it's baffling to me, the best I can say is that religion and it's 'morals' likely had something to do with it, I think it's probably got a very long complex history this stuff that you'd need to go into to answer it

We judge humans on traits they can help just as well. Lifestyles, social groups, music they listen too etc. As to why the judgement happens, well it helps to have general guidelines by which a person can get a quick estimate about the person. May be true, most of the time it is false but having that rubric is a useful tool, on several levels.



For starters thats a loaded question fallacy.

People who judge others based on culture are people who more often then not have had limited contact with that culture(the racist epidemic in rural quebec, the rise of ultra nationalism in europe). They see the people in that culture not as individuals but as a collective whole bearing certain traits. If one's enviroment leads to the individual reaching this conclusion he will see his beliefs mirroed in reality. The other words you mentioned can be inserted and still be more or less valid.
In short these things happened when the person refuses the see the individual as an individual and part of a collective that possess certain properties. This prevents any empathy from forming, and therefore blocks understanding.



Well for starters you just performed the same fallacy i described above. You think i am (as we implies all in this case) am part of a collective that places importance in the above mentioned traits. You gave a collective a property (we place importance in these traits) and then applied it to every individual in that collective and assumed it to hold true.

edit:500 posts yay!

Perhaps then I should be more specific with my term of we. I use we to represent human kind in general, rather then it applying to simply those on the bukkit or reading this post. I think I understand your what your stating (though it may be that I'm tired and getting mixed up thanks to four hours of sleep), and I can see how placing culture and ethnicity as a natural trait doesn't really work. I would argue, however that it is safe to assume that we all all (at least physically) share the trait of being human, and that this the most important characteristic among human kind because it is universal (this might sound redundant but I feel it is worth noting). I'm aware that my questions are flawed ones, but I'm more interested in the social theory behind them determining there the absolute philosophical accuracy.

All human beings are judgemental of each other, though the degree and application of this judgement varies. Most of these judgements are ones that we don’t naturally recognize. Not all judgement of others are necessarily a bad thing either though. For example being able to evaluate whether or not someone seems dangerous can prevent dangerous situations. Then again I'm not that familiar with the field social psychology, so you'll have to forgive my short comings in these areas (which is why I am asking these questions).

My major question, (or rather perhaps concern is a better term) revolves around why certain people judge others based upon on base traits that can't be easily altered (I guess it's hard to argue that all aspects of culture, and that ethnicity fit into this category). For instance it is common that many assume that a persons gender is the same as their physical sex (which can’t be changed without major surgery and hormone therapy), and in fact many people don't understand the difference between ones gender and sex. The problem with this sort of judgement is that some people identify themselves gender-wise as androgynous, or as the opposite sex.

I agree with the interpretation that certain groups of people, for whatever reason, become feared by others, or certain traits become seen as undesireable by the common masses. Why or for what purpuse, I have no clue, but that's about as close as I can come up with.



I somehow find that unlikely. Religion can't be the sole cause for racism/sexism or other extreme forms of judgement, although there may be factors from religious practice contributing or perhaps reinforcing already present judgements.

didnt c this earlier.



Thats just being false, religion while correlated to bigotry and the like isn't the cause of it. You gotta dig deeper in your understanding of history to see the difference between what is correlated to an event and what caused it. Religion more often then not is a means, a conduit for events to transpire.



The method of judging as i expressed earlier is a method of removing individuality and seing that person as part of a collective with certain properties. The reasons for this though are be myriad.

In cases of total ignorance about a collectivity it help to have some basis, some preconceived ideas in order to conceptualise them and deal with them. In fencing i classify oponents based on certain rubrics (does he present blade, is he heavy on footwork, what distance does he like etc). This helps me deal with the individual because those traits have advantages and disadvantages that i can take advantage. This isnt always the case however because it removes individual ability which is a greater determinant. Just because his style is advantageous to me doesn't mean i can beat him.
for the sake of argument: one's fencing style is not something you have control over. Some acts, some motions and method just flow easier for the individual when he learns and those become a part of him.

It allows the individual to place himself in distinction from other groups. This can have several reasons, from reinforcing ideas of superiority, to distancing oneself from a group that has a perceived flaw or advantage attached to it.

"thank god im not a a gay, because we all know how effiminate they are" could be one such example. Another one "i'm not as good of a person as he because hes a natural athlete and i'm not"

It can also be due to an individuals enviroment. He learns that certain groups behave a certain way and makes that conclusion (the movie americain history x comes to mind)

Theres others but those are the big ones in my mind.



Yes but ideas of gender and self-identified gender are relatively new. Its only recently i've seen that option on medical forms, and that is out of medical necessity. Sex changes have only become known phenomena for a few years. Seeing this depicted on television is quite rare for example, and these are the exception not the rule.

Considering the distribution of the population in regards to age, only a small percentage of it will know of these concepts due to being in the age demographic where knowledge is present and discussed. Its something that pertains to our generation more then any others. Other generations will consider this a foreign concept and won't become aware of it unless they have some sort of contact with it (an individual, tv show etc). The only other way someone not in our generation could be aware of it is if they themselves are subject to it, and they are an exception, one that is far from the mean.

Good show Gothmog those are so interesting and detailed responses. ^>^ Thanks for the clarification in your answer.

Why do people judge each other for things the other has no real control over?
Well this is a question which really plagues man kind.
Some schools of history believe that societies have a fundamental need for some sort of tangible opposite that confirms and strengthens the values on which they are built ( In simplest terms they are bad we are good ) thus it simply is a case of calling someone a name before he calls you another, this sort of formula works both ways. The rather stringent failure of the multi culture formula serves as an example of this as both sides need one another to define their identity and support their systems.
On a human level I believe the simplest answer is pure sloth. It is much easier to say this person is so and so just because rather than give the space and effort to understand that he or she is just as human and may in some ways be better than yourself. The hatred for work is what defines true racism as the masters never do any such "degrading" tasks. This is only an example but it speaks to the reason of negative judgement. so instead of actually trying most people prefer to put labels and move on, it's much much easier. At least this is what I've noticed with most people I've talked too and come into contact. Even those who say they're open minded actually judge quite harshly anyone who steps out of the set of values they have. With that I must say that i do judge, not so much on characteristics though as on actions, which low and behold has me sort of an exile. Sure I'd like to say I give people chances but when I see someone doing something I consider reprehensible ( like use illegal substances for example ) I'm rather harsh which of course makes me a jerk who doesn't let people have fun. Like I said the mechanism works both ways.
In a more darker sense I believe it is just another reflection of man kind' deep rooted defects in that it needs some sort of target to hate, fear or despise which in our world means the neighbors, the people who are different or who act or look outside our norms. It's the reason why people go off cheering to war, why there are serial murders. There is something very badly broken within our own humanity which cannot be fixed in a system obsessed by profit and efficiency. We have as national heroes genocidal murderers in some countries , or deranged individuals as idols, folk songs that commemorate massacres and movies that exploit sher violence just for it' own sake. I live in a country where Dracula, in his real historical deranged self, is viewed as a hero. The fact that we judge people for uncontrollable and impossibly stupid things is just another testament to this. As long as profit comes before mankind then the latter is doomed.
This is just my two cents. I'm most likely totally wrong.