Walter E Williams Prejudice & Stereotyping
Summary
TLDRThe speaker discusses human preferences, especially related to race, sex, and prejudice. They argue that preferences, whether for race or sex, are no different from preferences for things like wine or fruit. Using examples, the speaker explains that people make decisions based on incomplete information, often leading to stereotypes and prejudgment. These decisions are not necessarily driven by dislike but are an attempt to economize on information costs. The speaker also highlights the need to be cautious when interpreting people's actions as discriminatory, as they may simply reflect rational decision-making based on limited knowledge.
Takeaways
- 🤔 Preferences based on race or sex are not fundamentally different from preferences for other things like fruit or wine.
- 🧐 Human beings make decisions based on incomplete information, leading to prejudging or forming stereotypes.
- ⚖️ Economists suggest that people must economize on information costs, and this often leads to stereotypes.
- 🏃 Stereotyping is a method of making quick decisions when detailed information is unavailable, such as running from a tiger without knowing its temperament.
- 📊 Choosing individuals for tasks based on race or sex without deeper knowledge isn't necessarily prejudice but a calculation of potential outcomes.
- 🏀 When asked to pick a basketball team from a group with no other distinguishing factors, people may choose based on perceived associations, such as selecting black males due to the stereotype of athleticism.
- 💡 Prejudice, in its original sense of 'pre-judging,' is about making decisions with limited data, and isn't always rooted in dislike or malice.
- 🎯 Many behaviors labeled as discrimination may actually be decisions to reduce uncertainty, not necessarily rooted in negative preferences.
- 👩🦰 A person might select men or black males for tasks requiring strength or athleticism, but this doesn't imply dislike for women or white males.
- 🔍 It's important to be cautious about inferring personal biases or preferences just from observing decision-making behaviors.
Q & A
What is the central argument the speaker makes about racial preferences?
-The speaker argues that racial preferences are no different from other kinds of preferences, like choosing between types of fruit or wine. He suggests that it's arbitrary to label preferences for race, sex, or nationality as morally different from other preferences.
How does the speaker define prejudice in its original Latin sense?
-The speaker defines prejudice by its Latin root meaning 'to prejudge.' He argues that prejudice is simply the act of making decisions based on incomplete information, which can lead to the formation of stereotypes.
Why does the speaker believe people form stereotypes?
-The speaker believes that people form stereotypes to economize on information costs. When people have incomplete information, they use stereotypes to make quicker decisions rather than gathering detailed information.
What example does the speaker use to illustrate prejudging based on incomplete information?
-The speaker uses the example of encountering a tiger outside a room. People would likely flee based on preconceived notions about tigers being dangerous, without stopping to gather more information about that specific tiger’s behavior.
According to the speaker, how do economists view prejudging or forming stereotypes?
-Economists view prejudging as a rational decision-making process where people make choices based on incomplete information. It is seen as a way to reduce information-gathering costs.
How does the speaker suggest one might pick a basketball team with no information other than race and sex?
-The speaker suggests that someone might choose a basketball team based on the stereotype that black males are generally better basketball players. This decision, however, is based on association, not causality, and reflects a strategy to win the game rather than personal bias against other groups.
What point does the speaker make by mentioning Governor Wallace and Jermaine Greer in the context of selecting a basketball team?
-The speaker uses these examples to highlight that discrimination or preferences may not reflect dislike or bias. For example, if someone avoids picking certain groups for strategic reasons, it doesn’t necessarily mean they dislike those groups.
What is the speaker's stance on inferring preferences from observed behavior?
-The speaker argues that we should be cautious when inferring preferences from behavior. He suggests that decisions made based on stereotypes or associations don't always reflect personal bias or dislike for other groups.
How does the speaker relate stereotypes to economizing on information costs?
-The speaker relates stereotypes to economizing on information costs by explaining that people use stereotypes to make quicker decisions when gathering more information would be too costly or time-consuming.
Does the speaker believe that preferences for race or sex are inherently wrong?
-No, the speaker argues that preferences for race or sex are not inherently wrong. He suggests that they are just another form of preference, similar to other choices we make in life, and shouldn't be seen as morally different.
Outlines
🤔 Should We Be Concerned About Preferences Based on Race or Sex?
The speaker questions whether people should be upset or concerned when individuals make decisions based on race, sex, or sexual preference. He suggests that preferences for these characteristics are no different from preferences for other things, like fruits or wines. He asserts that there's no argument that people should like each other equally by race or sex, viewing these as personal preferences. The speaker challenges the idea that it's inherently wrong to have preferences based on these characteristics.
🧠 The Misunderstanding of Prejudice and Stereotypes
The speaker delves into the concept of prejudice, arguing that it is often misunderstood. He explains that prejudice, based on its Latin origin, simply means 'to prejudge.' He connects this to the idea that people must often make decisions with incomplete information and, as a result, rely on stereotypes. Using the example of encountering a tiger, he explains that people act based on limited information, applying stereotypes to make decisions efficiently. This type of prejudgment, he argues, is not inherently bad but is a rational response to incomplete knowledge.
🏀 Decision-Making Based on Limited Information
In this scenario, the speaker presents a hypothetical situation in which someone must choose a five-person basketball team from a group of people differentiated only by race and sex. With no other information available, the speaker suggests that most people would choose black males due to a general association between race, sex, and athletic performance, even though this is not a causal relationship. He argues that this behavior is not necessarily driven by discrimination but rather by an attempt to make the best decision with the available information. The speaker cautions against drawing conclusions about a person’s preferences from such behavior, as it may not reflect deeper biases.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Prejudice
💡Preferences
💡Stereotypes
💡Discrimination
💡Information Costs
💡Incomplete Information
💡Economizing
💡Racial Preferences
💡Operational Definition
💡Expected Costs and Benefits
Highlights
The speaker questions whether we should be upset when individuals make arbitrary choices based on race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual preference.
The speaker compares racial preferences to other types of preferences, suggesting that they are not fundamentally different.
The argument is made that economists do not judge preferences, such as those for one race over another, any differently than preferences for oranges over apples.
The speaker asserts that no argument can justify that people should like each other equally based on race, sex, or nationality, as these are just preferences.
The speaker explores the idea of prejudice and argues that it is often misunderstood, especially when people make decisions based on incomplete information.
Prejudice is defined according to its Latin root, which means 'to prejudge,' emphasizing that people form stereotypes based on limited information.
The speaker uses the analogy of encountering a tiger to explain how people form judgments or stereotypes based on prior information rather than specific details.
The speaker highlights that stereotypes help people economize on information costs, making quick decisions when further information gathering is impractical.
In a hypothetical situation of choosing a basketball team based only on race and sex, the speaker suggests that most people would pick black males, based on stereotypes and general associations.
The speaker contends that making such choices does not necessarily reflect dislike for other groups, but rather an attempt to make the best decision with limited information.
The speaker criticizes inferring people's preferences based on observed behavior, as it may not always accurately reflect their true preferences or biases.
An example is given where a woman might pick men for a basketball team without that implying she dislikes women or white males.
The speaker cautions against concluding someone's preferences based solely on behavior, as behavior is often driven by practical concerns rather than personal biases.
The idea is proposed that behavior labeled as discrimination may not be based on malice or preference but on practical decision-making strategies.
The discussion closes by urging careful consideration when interpreting behavior related to race, sex, and preferences, suggesting that assumptions may be misleading.
Transcripts
should we be
upset because one individual does not
like another individual because of his
race or ethnicity
uh should we be upset when people make
arbitrary choices based on skin color
sex
or sexual preference if you will or
things like that
now let's delve into that those things a
little bit or or let me just ask another
question should we be concerned that
people are prejudiced
and if so why
um
my ideas
suggests or at least some of my thinking
on the subject suggests that when we
talk about racial preferences they're
really no different from any other kind
of preference
that is
at least an economist is not in position
to say that it is somehow uh more
righteous to prefer oranges to Apples
I mean how can we say that you know it's
or we should like them equally
uh we just say well uh we just take the
human preference as a given well can we
distinguish or is anything uh about race
or sex for that matter to say that
people should not have preferences with
regard to race and sex
uh is it uh somehow different
from a person having preferences for uh
Bordeaux wine versus uh uh California uh
wine I assert that there's no difference
that is there's no argument at all that
one can present in my opinion that says
that we should like each other equally
by race or sex or nationality
Etc et cetera that is those are just
preferences
now
um
[Music]
we want to think
if you accept my hypothesis or my
argument well
do we really care is that the thing that
that we should be concerned with when we
look at racial or sexual relationships
well what about prejudice
people say that you should not be
prejudiced or if you read sociology
books uh you get the impression that
prejudice represents some form of
pathology that's needs uh curing by the
sociological uh profession
well I think that prejudice is a very
very good word when we talk about
racial or sexual relationships but it's
it's misused and and or we don't give it
an operational definition
uh that is I think that prejudice would
be a very very good word if we stuck
with the it's Latin derivative
as Latin derivative is just to prejudge
now
um maybe an economist can best
understand this is uh when people make
decisions on the basis of incomplete
information they pre-judge or they form
stereotypes
uh
uh now you might ask well what's wrong
with prejudging or what's wrong with
forming stereotypes or what is what what
are stereotypes really well
when when economists economists
recognize that people must pre-judge
that is people must make decisions on
the basis of incomplete information
and whenever you make decisions on the
basis of incomplete information you
prejudge and you try to find stereotypes
to help you economize an information
costs to give you a flavor of this
um suppose after our meeting here you
were to leave and go to the cafeteria
and as you're leaving the room you step
out of the door and you see a full-grown
Tiger standing there
well what would you do
well the uninteresting prediction is
that most people would Endeavor to leave
the area in great dispatch
but but that's not a very interesting
prediction but if we ask why do you do
that
why
is your decision to run
based on any detailed information that
you have about that particular tiger
or is your decision to run based on
what you've seen of other Tigers about
tiger folklore or what your friends have
told you about tigers
probably your decision your decision is
based on that kind of information
that is you are prejudging that tiger
you are using stereotypes
okay now some people might say well I
don't use stereotypes well that person
would go before he he would not
pre-judge tiger he would try to get more
information
and he would go up to the tiger saying
here kitty kitty tried to establish
whether he's friendly or not and then
only and only then if he behaved in a
menacing fashion then the purse would
run
but most people make a a quick uh
calculation they make uh they weigh the
expected cost of an additional unit of
information about that tiger versus the
expected benefit and you just find out
that the expected cost exceeds the
expected benefit so they don't search
for any more information
thank you
so uh
so now if you say you have to be kind of
careful
if you said that that person was
behaving that way because he did not
like tigers
but he's really behaving in a way to
economize on information costs let me
give you another example of it
now suppose I had
I suppose there were uh a group of
people in the room
[Music]
and there were uh five five white males
if I need this okay five white males
five black males
and five white females and five
uh
a black females
20 people
and if I had 20 people standing up here
and you could not differentiate between
those people except by race and sex
that's the only way you could
differentiate among those 20 people
that is you had zero information about
any other characteristic and I suggest
to you pick a five-person basketball
team among those people and if you win
the game
you get a million dollars
now how would you choose
now you have
you have zero information about their
basketball playing productivity
professionally and they all appear to
you to be equal and you can only
distinguish between but among them by
race and sex
well a good base in he would probably
confine a lot of his choices to the
black males
knowing that there is an association
between race and sex not necessarily A
causal one but at least an association
at least in the United States
now even Jermaine Greer
would not say well I'm not going to pick
man and and suppose she did suppose she
chose to discriminate against men
well would we care
or suppose you had a guy like Governor
Wallace saying well look I'm not going
to give the blacks any chance
to be picked I would love to play uh uh
against Governor Wallace's team we clean
them up all the time yeah
so
so what I'm saying here
is that
is that
a lot of behavior that is called
discrimination or preferences may not in
fact be that that is you could if I
asked the woman in the audience to if
she knows anything about basketball to
pick out a five-person team she would
probably confine her choices to the men
and the and their and her choice would
be dominated by the black males but a
man from Mars observing her behavior
would he be safe in concluding that she
does not like females neither does she
like white males
no he couldn't
that is you want we have to be very very
careful about inferring preferences
from watching people's behavior
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)