Racism Rooted in Our Evolutionary Past

[bigdog 376]

Psychologists have long known that many people are prejudiced towards others based on group affiliations, be they racial, ethnic, religious, or even political. However, we know far less about why people are prone to prejudice in the first place. New research, using monkeys, suggests that the roots lie deep in our evolutionary past.

Yale graduate student Neha Mahajan, along with a team of psychologists, traveled to Cayo Santiago, an uninhabited island southeast of Puerto Rico also known as "Monkey Island," in order to study the behavior of rhesus monkeys. Like humans, rhesus monkeys live in groups and form strong social bonds. The monkeys also tend to be wary of those they perceive as potentially threatening.

To figure out whether monkeys distinguish between insiders (i.e. those who belong to their group) and outsiders (i.e. those who don't belong), the researchers measured the amount of time the monkeys stared at the photographed face of an insider versus outsider monkey. Across several experiments, they found that the monkeys stared longer at the faces of outsiders. This would suggest that monkeys were more wary of outsider faces.

However, it is also possible that outsiders simply evoke more curiosity. To rule this out, the researchers took advantage of the fact that male rhesus monkeys leave their childhood groups once they reach reproductive age. This allowed the researchers to pair familiar outsider faces (monkeys that had recently left the group) with less familiar insider faces (monkeys that had recently joined the group). When presented with these pairs, the monkeys continued to stare longer at outsider faces, even though they were more familiar with them. The monkeys were clearly making distinctions based on group membership.

....

Some researchers believe prejudice is unique to humans, since it seems to depend on complex thought processes. For example, past studies have found that people are likely to display prejudice after being reminded of their mortality, or after receiving a blow to their self-esteem. Since only humans are capable of contemplating their deaths or their self-image, these studies reinforce the view that only humans are capable of prejudice. But the behavior of the rhesus monkeys implies that our basic tendency to see the world in terms of "us" and "them" has ancient origins.

Psychologist Catherine Cottrell at the University of Florida and her colleague Steven Neuberg at Arizona State University, argue that human prejudice evolved as a function of group living. Joining together in groups allowed humans to gain access to resources necessary for survival including food, water, and shelter. Groups also offered numerous advantages, such as making it easier to find a mate, care for children, and receive protection from others. However, group living also made us more wary of outsiders who could potentially harm the group by spreading disease, killing or hurting individuals, or stealing precious resources. To protect ourselves, we developed ways of identifying who belongs to our group and who doesn't. Over time, this process of quickly evaluating others might have become so streamlined that it became unconscious.

Psychologists have long known that many of our prejudices operate automatically, without us even being aware of them. Most people, even those who care deeply about equality, show some level of prejudice towards other groups when tested using the IAT. Despite this overwhelming evidence that our brains are wired for bias, our society continues to think about prejudice as premeditated behavior. Our current laws against discrimination, as well as the majority of diversity training programs, assume that prejudice is overt and intentional. Rarely do we teach people about how automatic prejudices might taint their behavior towards others.

The fact that prejudice often occurs automatically doesn't mean we can't find ways of overcoming its negative effects. For example, there is evidence that when people are made aware of their automatic prejudices, they can self-correct. And when we are encouraged to take the perspective of an outsider, it reduces our automatic prejudice towards that person's group.

more...

http://www.scientifi...rejudice&page=2

Bias prejudice, how you were raised, your experiences, maybe your psych.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i agree. but, the meaning of that word has been bastardized here on VJ. its been used (wrongfully) to describe a fear of people of color. when it actually means an abnormal fear of foreigners, strangers, or of their politics and or culture.

The conventional meaning of the word has changed as with a lot of words in our language. I had long thought a racist to be someone who consciously believed that some races are inferior to other races.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i agree. but, the meaning of that word has been bastardized here on VJ. its been used (wrongfully) to describe a fear of people of color. when it actually means an abnormal fear of foreigners, strangers, or of their politics and or culture.

Xenophobia is a fear of strangers and foreigners. Racism is the belief that a person's traits are defined by their race. People struggle with the race part, because it covers nationality as well as ethnicity.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Xenophobia is a fear of strangers and foreigners. Racism is the belief that a person's traits are defined by their race. People struggle with the race part, because it covers nationality as well as ethnicity.

gawd, i'm gonna have ask you to quit saying things i agree with...it just seems so unnatural.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Racism is a form of prejudice, but not all forms of prejudice are racist. The research makes logical sense - that primates (humans included) thrive by forming groups and familiarity is a natural attraction. Think beyond people and about the last time you encountered something completely new to you. How did you react to it?

I thought evolution was good, and God was bad. Sheeesh! Hippy know-it-alls!

[SMOKE 1,426]

The conventional meaning of the word has changed as with a lot of words in our language. I had long thought a racist to be someone who consciously believed that some races are inferior to other races.

no it hasn't. i just check 3 online dictionaries. fish & myself are correct.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It does mean that, but "race" is open to interpretation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

no it hasn't. i just check 3 online dictionaries. fish & myself are correct.

Conventional vs. dictionary meaning can be worlds apart. Take the word 'faggot' for example.

[Danno 1,228]

Xenophobia is a fear of strangers and foreigners. Racism is the belief that a person's traits are defined by their race. People struggle with the race part, because it covers nationality as well as ethnicity.

But isn't this what we are told?

In order to have a more diverse campus we must set aside spots for people based on race as it will magically (and automatically) add what ever it is Blacks have to offer.

We actually count up black faces to see how we are doing in this regard.

The same black neighbors I grew up next must somehow are different enough to warrant special placement, if their race has nothing to do with it.... why are we using that as a handy marker?

-It;s called having it both ways.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Conventional vs. dictionary meaning can be worlds apart. Take the word 'faggot' for example.

wow. i never knew that had another meaning.

[Zero Sum 305]

But isn't this what we are told?

In order to have a more diverse campus we must set aside spots for people based on race as it will magically (and automatically) add what ever it is Blacks have to offer.

We actually count up black faces to see how we are doing in this regard.

The same black neighbors I grew up next must somehow are different enough to warrant special placement, if their race has nothing to do with it.... why are we using that as a handy marker?

-It;s called having it both ways.

I think treatment, as has been explained before, has more to do with historical context and its consequences to present day. Some people will be obstinate about ignoring that. Hence, its not about having anything both ways, but more about putting things into the relevance they belong in.

[Danno 1,228]

I think treatment, as has been explained before, has more to do with historical context and its consequences to present day. Some people will be obstinate about ignoring that. Hence, its not about having anything both ways, but more about putting things into the relevance they belong in.

I do get the "historical" angle but every time this issue is discussed, especially in the university context, it's always about adding "diversity" to the college campus, in fact this is the basis for defending their policies in court.

If people have no genetic dispositions... why is a genetic marker such as skin color the primary marker as to what social traits one would automatically add to an environment?

Since no one seems to be willing to list what exactly these attributes might be.... would you care to offer a few?

I for one would like to know exactly what social traits Blacks (or other races) might individually add?

Your list please?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But isn't this what we are told?

In order to have a more diverse campus we must set aside spots for people based on race as it will magically (and automatically) add what ever it is Blacks have to offer.

We actually count up black faces to see how we are doing in this regard.

The same black neighbors I grew up next must somehow are different enough to warrant special placement, if their race has nothing to do with it.... why are we using that as a handy marker?

-It;s called having it both ways.

That's a different argument entirely - defining what racism is has nothing to do with attempts to correct social disparities.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I do get the "historical" angle but every time this issue is discussed, especially in the university context, it's always about adding "diversity" to the college campus, in fact this is the basis for defending their policies in court.

If people have no genetic dispositions... why is a genetic marker such as skin color the primary marker as to what social traits one would automatically add to an environment?

Since no one seems to be willing to list what exactly these attributes might be.... would you care to offer a few?

I for one would like to know exactly what social traits Blacks (or other races) might individually add?

Your list please?

You know... this doesn't have a whole lot to do with the OP article.

wow. i never knew that had another meaning.

It actually has three different meanings:

A slur against homosexuals

A bundle of sticks

A type of meatball

[Danno 1,228]

You know... this doesn't have a whole lot to do with the OP article.

And the word "Faggot" does?

Look if you can't list the traits or qualities campus diversity enhances ... just say so.