Mark Cuban in the news again for saying things that the collective consciousness has termed "controversial". It's still unclear to me why stating things that are true is controversial, but I guess that's just another one of those words that has lost any practical meaning in the modern world.
The gist of his statement was something along the lines of "Bigots are bad, but I'm a bigot, you're a bigot, we're all a little bit of a bigot." Something like that.
I'd like to wonder, based on his examples, if Mark Cuban really understands what a bigot is:
"Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
Being a bigot certainly sounds bad. Now as far as Cuban's example goes, is crossing the street to avoid a black guy in a hoodie or a tatted-up white guy a bigoted move? Maybe by the "new" definition it is, but I didn't think so when I heard it. (I'd say it's also not racist, but I'm not sure what that word means anymore, either.) But, more importantly, is it the wrong thing to do? Uh, no. Wrong might be being dumb enough to hang around these kinds of people when you actually value your life or property.
In case you forgot, let me remind you that humans evolved to learn by pattern recognition. It's programmed into our brains so they run in the most efficient way possible. Sweeping characterizations are good for you! This way, the brain can learn and remember things about broad classes of individuals. It's a skill we get better at as we practice. Conversely, do some thinking and I'm sure you'll recognize people in your life that don't posses this ability. We all know them. We call them suckers. Or naive. Or out-to-lunch.
Imagine living your life without pattern recognition leading to stereotyping. What if you were shopping for a used car? "Well, that last Ford Probe I looked at was a piece of junk but since I don't want to make any generalizations about Ford Probes, I will investigate every Probe I see without remembering what the last one was like. Sure, it may be easier to just avoid them based on all the information I have, but I don't want to be a bigot about Ford Probes!"
Well, though it may be obvious by now, I'll just own up to my "bigotry": I constantly categorize people and things based on appearance, behavior, hearsay, rumor, news, etc. Anything that gets me more information goes into the pot. More reliable information, like firsthand experience, gets a heavier weight. Combing all my data, I cross-reference them with personal tastes and beliefs and form opinions about my categorizations. Some categories I will love, some categories I will hate. And yes, you may not like how I've formed my categories.
Here are a few examples of categories combined with opinions:
Asians are annoying and don't respect personal space.
Hondas are pieces of shit and rip off German aesthetics.
White basketball players usually suck but tend to have higher basketball IQ.
Prius drivers are clueless, narcissistic, and have poor driving abilities.
Black people like to be the center of attention more than most races.
Apple products are for women and people that don't know anything about computers.
The more minorities are in a section of town I am in, the more safety-conscious I should be.
Women have shorter attention spans than men.
Black people tend to be more sexually promiscuous and disrespectful to women. (So I wouldn't want my daughter dating one.)
Liberals are unbearable to talk to but have better taste in art and music than conservatives.
Homosexuals are very intolerant of people who disapprove of their lifestyle (notice I said "lifestyle", not "existence").
I could go all day.
You know the difference between me and almost everyone else? I actually realize I'm doing this.
But you know what? If I meet a Prius driver, I'm not a dick to him. I'm open, respectful, and generally desire to get along with him. Same goes for every group on that opinions list above. I may tell my daughter that it's not a good idea to date black guys, but if she brings one home, I will politely and fairly assess him and perhaps find him a good match for my daughter.
The point is this: truisms at a group-level do not guarantee truisms at an individual level. Averages are not individuals and by construction averages do not account for variance within a group. So there's no need to treat every person I meet as if they are average. Therefore, it's quite possible to dislike a group, but like an individual from that group. Second, I will likely still find the average Prius driver to be an idiot and if my goal in life is to avoid as many idiots as possible, I should avoid Prius drivers. Remember, it's about efficiency! Just as averages cannot be readily applied to individuals, an individual observation does little to an average of a large population.
I think approaching individuals in this way makes me a decent person. You likely vehemently disagree. But since your only interaction with me on a personal level will involve me being nice to you, how will you know? And really, what difference does it make? Donald Sterling (God love him 'cause no one else does) may have category-opinions you disagree with, but did it functionally matter? He made a black guy the most highly-paid coach in the country. In fact, he made lots of black families very wealthy. He seemed to get along with most people he was intimate with, regardless of race. Now perhaps he is an asshole, I don't know. He is an old, white, rich Jew, so naturally I have some category-opinions about him, but since none of those opinions involve an asshole-rating I guess I'll never know.
No comments:
Post a Comment