Policy Vs Prejudice

Another page of limited life expectancy. Given that it is now (Oct 2004) the silly season, I have had ample opportunity to contemplate this. It would be so much easier if I were ignorant and apathetic. (Followed by the silly rejoinder "... but I don't know and don't care.")

I once worked for an outfit that had a standing policy: "No chronically ill person shall be appointed to any position in finance or treasury."

When I started working there, I thought, "Wow, what callous prejudice!" Years later, and dozens of financial rescues and cleanup operations later, I mused "Holy cow, what insight!"

From this and other contexts, I have gradually (and occasionally rapidly) arrived at several "living rules" or "guiding principles" (these are, in fact, personal policies). In the exercise of these policies, I have often been called up short for "prejudice".

And, since it's once again the silly season in the USA, and since I haven't sense enough to not care, I have this brick cast my way rather frequently of late.

I've been asked repeatedly how I can make a judgment call like "that" (for various values of "that") without "having all the facts" and "making allowances" and so on.

I've tried to express this idea in such discussions, but uniformly the adverse verdict is "guilty of prejudice".

I have a few (all right, several) "prejudices" that have been formed from hard experience (thankfully not always my own).

Some of these have saved my life. Some, my sanity. Others, simply significant quantities of time. And others are the sad consequence of bad judgment.

I doubt that the rest of the world will agree with their wisdom (inasmuch as it cares at all), but they don't live my life or pay my bills, so the world can just keep its opinion.

The thing about policies is that they are strategic decisions rather than tactical ones. (More on this at LifeVectors.)

I'm acutely aware that policies can easily become prejudices, thus I continually re-evaluate them in light of new evidence. Nonetheless, they don't often change.

There are certain arguments that just get no traction with me, and aren't ever likely to.

Some examples:

• I won't hire the chronically ill into executive or fiscally critical positions. And I won't discuss it. I've put out too many fires to try that again.
• I won't sign a contract involving my money and my trust with someone who takes pains to tell me what a "good Christian" he is. It has cost me too much in time, money, and grief to repeat.
  • I HaveThisPattern, too. To me, it appears that such statements are preface to a scam, proving honesty.
• I won't hire an angry person. I will most certainly never put one in charge of anything important.
• I don't care what color you are, where your ancestors came from, what relationship your ancestors and mine may have had; if you confer upon yourself the status of "victim", you will receive no sympathy from me and no help for that cause.
  • Where does "disadvantaged-because-historically-discriminated-against" end and "victimhood" begin?
  • IndividualResponsibility applies. I've seen plenty of HistoricallyAdvantaged? people trash their lives. I've seen plenty of HistoricallyDisadvantaged? people do quite well, thank you. It won't fix until a guy can GetOverIt. That may be harsh, but it's the thing that works. No not harsh, just plain reality.
• If you must be "taken care of" because you "can't provide" for yourself, you will be shown the door.
• If you want my vote, don't promise to "take care" of me. And don't tell me you'll look after me with money you took from some guy who makes more - I want to be the guy who makes more.
• IndividualResponsibility is not optional. If you aren't responsible for where you are and the way you are, I don't want to know you.

If I worried about my popularity, I would be reluctant to voice such convictions. Happily, I have few people whose approval I must secure.

The point isn't my list of convictions, it is that policy is not about prejudice, it's about knowing the patterns of consequences.

Some people prefer the term "principles" and that's okay. What are called principles are often prejudices simply because the reasoning for their adoption is lost.

I have learned to ask "how did you arrive at that conviction?" when confronted with a "prejudice" that doesn't align with my own. Most of the time the answer contains fatal FallaciousArguments ("everybody knows ..." or whatever). Occasionally the reasoning is sound, given the circumstances. And, rarely, I find I have to revise my own policies to account for new evidence.

I strive to be prejudice-free, and I know that policy is vital. Keeping them sorted is critical.

I hope there is value in these musings. -- GarryHamilton

---

When *does* policy become prejudice? This is a slippery slope. And by the way, Libertarianism is nice, if you're already in a position of privilege. -- AndrewMccormick

(foo)ism is nice if you're already in a position of privilege. One might argue the principal distinction between political systems is how privilege is allocated (and thereby defined).

Good point.

---

policy is not about prejudice, it's about knowing the patterns of consequences.

Using patterns as an indicator of (perhaps unrelated) behaviour is exactly what prejudice is. Prejudice - cf. "prejudge". Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that. -- MarkTilley

Prejudgment without recourse to merit, that is, based on opinion alone, is how I qualify "prejudice" in my usual usage. If the rule goes, "My granddaddy hated 'em, my daddy hated 'em, and I hate 'em," with no reference to the merits of the case, you're almost certainly dealing with prejudice. If the rule goes, "Whereas every time I invite one of (foo) into my life, bad things happen that emanate directly from (foo), now therefore (foo) are no longer welcome," then this is "policy" in the "rules that keep my life on the rails and avoid catastrophe" sense. Failure to recognize and act on patterns in life will lead to unnecessary repetitions of old catastrophes.

It is appreciated that policy can "calcify" into prejudice if the merits are not periodically reviewed. -- GarryHamilton

It seems today that the problem isn't periodic review of merit, it's deciding what constitutes merit in the first place. People differ greatly on what patterns are relevant to the consequences or the behaviour at hand. Proven causality is a legally and socially acceptable pattern, but mere correlation often is not, regardless of the level of correlation.

'Mere' correlation is sometimes all you have to go on. And usually a good rule of thumb. The exceptions which are so troublesome when reward/punishment is brought into the picture are simply irrelevant when society has already decided that certain things are completely out of the realm of legal/social acceptance. I don't need to befriend the pot-smoker at work; they tend to be nice people and all, but things tend to go wrong around them. Likewise, I know a couple drivers who have more accidents than most. Without special effort on their part, their fault in an accident is generally judged to be well below fifty percent; regardless, I don't drive with them, because I don't trust people who put "being right" ahead of "being safe", when those two values are demonstratably in conflict. (Perhaps this last bit is the key?)

You don't put your most accident prone guy in charge of the lathe, even though he's brilliant and talented. The observation that "things tend to go wrong around" certain people may not go far toward their rehabilitation, but it can help you avoid disaster. Similarly, certain people "have problems" in practically any climate. Anything given to them to be managed will magically "have problems" that, after a while, may seem surreal.

prejudice (n)

1. (a) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. (b) A preconceived preference or idea.

2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.

3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

"... formed ... without knowledge or examination..."; "...holding unreasonable preconceived judgements..."; "Irrational suspicion or hatred...";

There is no conflict with the first 3 (or all 4, if one believes that they elided the clauses of the previous 3 for the sake of brevity). In fact, it highlights the distinction between policy and prejudice. _However_, one needs to be careful when inheriting policy, lest one drifts into a RulesWithForgottenReasons? issue; if not the very definition of prejudice, then this is at least a quick path to it.

Contributors: GarryHamilton, MarkTilley, WilliamUnderwood [or is there still some useful thread mode left?]

Each one reading this page would have personally held policies and prejudices that could be related, but in seven years, none have been given, so the answer must be no.