Instinct & Prejudice

Thor 2

Philosopher
Thor 2
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
7,174
Location
Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Sam Harris interviewed one Gavin de Becker recently who spoke at some length about our inbuilt self defence mechanism ... instinct.

Gavin de Becker is a three-time presidential appointee whose pioneering work has changed the way the U.S. government evaluates threats to its highest officials. He is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on the prediction and management of violence.
Click to expand...


Gavin suggested that instinct is something we all have but perhaps is under-utillised for various reasons. One of these reasons he suggested was to avoid being thought of as prejudiced. He gave as an example the following:

A woman is waiting alone for a lift and when it arrives the door opens to reveal a lone man of middle Eastern appearance. Her instinct tells her to turn away but her moral sense is saying get on board so as not to be seen as prejudiced. Gavin suggested she should listen to her instincts.

The story rang a bell with me as I recalled time I was in Cairo some years ago with my wife. We were walking down some back streets looking for a shop to buy a hair drier, that my wife was determined to have. There were a number of men just standing around, (no women), looking at my wife and some trying to talk to her. My instincts screamed at me to get out of there but my wife seemed not to sense any danger.
 
Thor 2 said:
Sam Harris interviewed one Gavin de Becker recently who spoke at some length about our inbuilt self defence mechanism ... instinct.




Gavin suggested that instinct is something we all have but perhaps is under-utillised for various reasons. One of these reasons he suggested was to avoid being thought of as prejudiced. He gave as an example the following:

A woman is waiting alone for a lift and when it arrives the door opens to reveal a lone man of middle Eastern appearance. Her instinct tells her to turn away but her moral sense is saying get on board so as not to be seen as prejudiced. Gavin suggested she should listen to her instincts.

The story rang a bell with me as I recalled time I was in Cairo some years ago with my wife. We were walking down some back streets looking for a shop to buy a hair drier, that my wife was determined to have. There were a number of men just standing around, (no women), looking at my wife and some trying to talk to her. My instincts screamed at me to get out of there but my wife seemed not to sense any danger.
Click to expand...
How are we to distinguish between instinct and prejudice? What in fact was the outcome of the situation in Cairo; your story seems incomplete. Was it instinct, or prejudice against Egyptians, or reasonable prudence that motivated you? ... you haven't given us enough information to decide.
 
The "Your gut feeling is some sort of latent superpower" argument is one that gets trotted out in some form or another every once in a while (See also "The Gift of Fear" published in 1998 and Malcolm Gladwell's anti-intellectual Holy Work "Blink" in 2007) and I'm not a huge fan of it.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
How are we to distinguish between instinct and prejudice? What in fact was the outcome of the situation in Cairo; your story seems incomplete. Was it instinct, or prejudice against Egyptians, or reasonable prudence that motivated you? ... you haven't given us enough information to decide.
Click to expand...


I am not asking you to distinguish between instinct and prejudice.

As it turns out we did not come to any harm in Cairo but that doesn't mean my instinct was wrong. I am not asking you to decide if my feelings were justified or not, just that we have these feelings and Gavin expressed the opinion that we should listen to them.
 
JoeBentley said:
The "Your gut feeling is some sort of latent superpower" argument is one that gets trotted out in some form or another every once in a while (See also "The Gift of Fear" published in 1998 and Malcolm Gladwell's anti-intellectual Holy Work "Blink" in 2007) and I'm not a huge fan of it.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily a "latent superpower" but a sense we all perhaps have that can be analysed. As we all have a well of experience to draw from when making decisions, perhaps this is were the instinct is mainly fed from. Perhaps there is something else in there too and not woo.
 
As someone who is likely to be the subject of this sort of prejudice under some circumstances, I say go ahead and be prejudiced against me as soon as such an occasion arises. You'll also be safe.
 
Delvo said:
As someone who is likely to be the subject of this sort of prejudice under some circumstances, I say go ahead and be prejudiced against me as soon as such an occasion arises. You'll also be safe.
Click to expand...


If you can accept this and be philosophical about it I applaud you.

It is important we acknowledge that some, as defined by there origins, gender, and perhaps the presence of a swastika on their arm, can be identified as potentially more dangerous than others. I suggest to do this is not exhibiting prejudice but prudence.

Contrary to what it seems a couple of posters here assume, this thread is not about defining instinct as something alternative to prejudice, but something we may not pay heed to as much as we should, because we may not want to be defined as prejudiced, even by ourselves.
 
Thor 2 said:
I am not asking you to distinguish between instinct and prejudice.

As it turns out we did not come to any harm in Cairo but that doesn't mean my instinct was wrong. I am not asking you to decide if my feelings were justified or not, just that we have these feelings and Gavin expressed the opinion that we should listen to them.
Click to expand...
If you felt uneasy in the presence of people in Cairo, was that an example of instinct, or was some other cause included, or predominant? For example, some trustworthy person may have told you that Cairo is a dangerous place, and your concern might then have been caused by informed prudence. Nobody is disputing the value of that as motive for behaviour. It would have been justified, whatever in fact it was that you did.
 
As Craig is saying here.... How much of “instinct” in such cases is in fact subliminal processing?
You’ve been warned this may be an “iffy” place.
The men have a demeanor and an attitude that tells you, on some level, that these are unsavory characters and perhaps a source of danger.
That they are being “aggressively flirtatious” even with the husband/protector present would further reinforce this feeling of unease.

I think of “instinct” as hard-wired, genetically-conferred behaviors. Having “gut” feelings is the result of subliminal perceptions.
 
Bikewer said:
As Craig is saying here.... How much of “instinct” in such cases is in fact subliminal processing?
You’ve been warned this may be an “iffy” place.
The men have a demeanor and an attitude that tells you, on some level, that these are unsavory characters and perhaps a source of danger.
That they are being “aggressively flirtatious” even with the husband/protector present would further reinforce this feeling of unease.

I think of “instinct” as hard-wired, genetically-conferred behaviors. Having “gut” feelings is the result of subliminal perceptions.
Click to expand...


Yes of course it's difficult to separate one thing from another when trying to establish the reason for ones unease in certain situations.

In the OP I mentioned that Gavin de Becker believed we were all equiped with instinct as some kind of sensing mechanism. I am open to the idea and don't think it is necessarily some kind of woo but there may be something explainable here.

Sure I think there are other things than pure instinct feeding into our feelings when we sense danger, and prejudice would be one of them. I freely admit to some prejudice and would say further, if you show me someone who claims they are totally without it, I will show you a liar.

What I thought interesting about my Cairo experience, is my wife did not experience the same degree of unease I did, although being more vulnerable.

This Gavin de Becker dude incidentally seems to have a very successful practice selling security and claims to rely heavily on instinct when assessing risks.
 
I think it is a common theme in fiction that good people can be lured into obviously bad situations by playing on their need not to offend. Being alert to such situations can be considered a type of instinct. But, instinct is the home of bias, so it is a bit of a double edged sword.
 
We can also open up the can of worms, there are some human instincts but there is a whole lot more learning, association and conditioning.
 
Thor 2 said:
Yes of course it's difficult to separate one thing from another when trying to establish the reason for ones unease in certain situations.

In the OP I mentioned that Gavin de Becker believed we were all equiped with instinct as some kind of sensing mechanism. I am open to the idea and don't think it is necessarily some kind of woo but there may be something explainable here.

Sure I think there are other things than pure instinct feeding into our feelings when we sense danger, and prejudice would be one of them. I freely admit to some prejudice and would say further, if you show me someone who claims they are totally without it, I will show you a liar.

What I thought interesting about my Cairo experience, is my wife did not experience the same degree of unease I did, although being more vulnerable.

This Gavin de Becker dude incidentally seems to have a very successful practice selling security and claims to rely heavily on instinct when assessing risks.
Click to expand...

What you are talking about is described well in the book Thinking Fast and Slow, as "system 1", the fast thinking system that forms the basis of first impressions, intuition, rapid responses, and what you are calling "instinct". To be sure it is not woo, but is a normal feature of human brain function. The "fast" system is, however, prone to systematic biases many of which are well described in the book which I highly recommend everyone read. Clearly your "instinct", (the instantaneous response of system 1) is guided by preexisting knowledge, including incorrect prejudices based on racial profiling. The "system 2" (or slow system), which reasons, may overcome the rapid response system for any variety of reasons, including not wanting to offend people because it recognizes the fallicy of profiling based on appearance alone.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I think it is a common theme in fiction that good people can be lured into obviously bad situations by playing on their need not to offend. Being alert to such situations can be considered a type of instinct. But, instinct is the home of bias, so it is a bit of a double edged sword.
Click to expand...


Yes I have seen that theme played out in books and films, but perhaps it's not just something that happens in fiction also. On a slightly different tack I have a feeling of special deep disgust, for those bad guys doing harm to good guys showing them kindness. This often happens in real life.
 
MuDPhuD said:
What you are talking about is described well in the book Thinking Fast and Slow, as "system 1", the fast thinking system that forms the basis of first impressions, intuition, rapid responses, and what you are calling "instinct". To be sure it is not woo, but is a normal feature of human brain function. The "fast" system is, however, prone to systematic biases many of which are well described in the book which I highly recommend everyone read. Clearly your "instinct", (the instantaneous response of system 1) is guided by preexisting knowledge, including incorrect prejudices based on racial profiling. The "system 2" (or slow system), which reasons, may overcome the rapid response system for any variety of reasons, including not wanting to offend people because it recognizes the fallicy of profiling based on appearance alone.
Click to expand...


Had a look at it on Amazon and it looks interesting, thanks.

On a similar note it is interesting to reflect on how ones first impressions about someone, compares with the impression one forms after a longer association.
 
Just thought of another example of instinct (well perhaps a little more than this), coming into play in a different situation where no racial prejudice is in play.

This is a hypothetical situation proposed by Bill O'Reilly when interviewing Christopher Hitchins.

O'Reilly suggested a scene when walking along a street at night and a group of young men were coming towards you. He asked of Hitch "Would you feel more comfortable if you saw that they had just come from a Church than if not?"

I have to admit I would have to have answered in the affirmative although with some reluctance ... being an atheist.

As it happened Hitch fended the question quite well.
 
Thor 2 said:
Just thought of another example of instinct (well perhaps a little more than this), coming into play in a different situation where no racial prejudice is in play.

This is a hypothetical situation proposed by Bill O'Reilly when interviewing Christopher Hitchins.

O'Reilly suggested a scene when walking along a street at night and a group of young men were coming towards you. He asked of Hitch "Would you feel more comfortable if you saw that they had just come from a Church than if not?"

I have to admit I would have to have answered in the affirmative although with some reluctance ... being an atheist.

As it happened Hitch fended the question quite well.
Click to expand...

I would enjoy seeing this! Do you have a link. Googling produced too many results. :blush:
 
Thor 2 said:
Just thought of another example of instinct (well perhaps a little more than this), coming into play in a different situation where no racial prejudice is in play.

This is a hypothetical situation proposed by Bill O'Reilly when interviewing Christopher Hitchins.

O'Reilly suggested a scene when walking along a street at night and a group of young men were coming towards you. He asked of Hitch "Would you feel more comfortable if you saw that they had just come from a Church than if not?"

I have to admit I would have to have answered in the affirmative although with some reluctance ... being an atheist.

As it happened Hitch fended the question quite well.
Click to expand...


That isn't really an instinct, more association and conditioning.
:)
 
Thor 2 said:
Just thought of another example of instinct (well perhaps a little more than this), coming into play in a different situation where no racial prejudice is in play.

This is a hypothetical situation proposed by Bill O'Reilly when interviewing Christopher Hitchins.

O'Reilly suggested a scene when walking along a street at night and a group of young men were coming towards you. He asked of Hitch "Would you feel more comfortable if you saw that they had just come from a Church than if not?"

I have to admit I would have to have answered in the affirmative although with some reluctance ... being an atheist.

As it happened Hitch fended the question quite well.
Click to expand...
Suppose they had been coming from a chess club, rather than a bar. That would reassure me a bit too.
 
Thor 2 said:
Oh I admit it can be difficult to separate one thing from another in these situations. On the other hand we attribute so many things animals do are as a result of instinct, so as animals ourselves why should we not share this ability?
Click to expand...
We most certainly do share it. But unlike other animals we exchange information verbally and act on it. We do have instinctive fears, of darkness and snakes for example, which we have encountered since before we existed as a species, but we have no instinctive fear of motor cars. It hasn't had time to become established. Caution about them has to be learned.

Fear of strangers may well be instinctive, but fear of Cairo in particular is probably learned.
 
MuDPhuD said:
What you are talking about is described well in the book Thinking Fast and Slow, as "system 1", the fast thinking system that forms the basis of first impressions, intuition, rapid responses, and what you are calling "instinct". To be sure it is not woo, but is a normal feature of human brain function. The "fast" system is, however, prone to systematic biases many of which are well described in the book which I highly recommend everyone read. Clearly your "instinct", (the instantaneous response of system 1) is guided by preexisting knowledge, including incorrect prejudices based on racial profiling. The "system 2" (or slow system), which reasons, may overcome the rapid response system for any variety of reasons, including not wanting to offend people because it recognizes the fallicy of profiling based on appearance alone.
Click to expand...

The reason for system 1 thinking is that the brain is a very resource-hungry organ, something which produces a quick answer that's generally good enough, and saves energy, will tend to be selected by evolution. The problem comes when the environment changes, or for some other reasons the rough-and-ready answers don't apply to corner cases.
 
Craig B said:
We most certainly do share it. But unlike other animals we exchange information verbally and act on it. We do have instinctive fears, of darkness and snakes for example, which we have encountered since before we existed as a species, but we have no instinctive fear of motor cars. It hasn't had time to become established. Caution about them has to be learned.

Fear of strangers may well be instinctive, but fear of Cairo in particular is probably learned.
Click to expand...


Yes to a large extent most likely so. On the other hand the manner of the men we were encountering was I think what I found most disconcerting.

In the aforementioned interview, in the OP, Sam Harris spoke of a recent experience he had.

Sam claimed a man came to his house claiming to be a representative of some authority and checking the status of some equipment. He gave his name at the same time as pointing to his name tag on his shirt. The manner he did this was such that Sam thought he was using the name tag to prove his identity. Sam was suspicious and became even more so, when he saw the guy paying attention to items around him that had nothing to do with his supposed work.
 
Interesting concept, I am a big believer in following that gut feeling.
But have always thought that simply reflected the fact that my subconcious has picked up and registered details that I am not clever enough or too constrained to do outright, HOWEVER, I travel a lot and apart from one experience in India have never felt unsafe, yet often hear people talking about being in exactly the same place and feeling so unsafe. So which if us was right? Goodness knows,
 
Thor 2 said:
Yes to a large extent most likely so. On the other hand the manner of the men we were encountering was I think what I found most disconcerting.

In the aforementioned interview, in the OP, Sam Harris spoke of a recent experience he had.

Sam claimed a man came to his house claiming to be a representative of some authority and checking the status of some equipment. He gave his name at the same time as pointing to his name tag on his shirt. The manner he did this was such that Sam thought he was using the name tag to prove his identity. Sam was suspicious and became even more so, when he saw the guy paying attention to items around him that had nothing to do with his supposed work.
Click to expand...
I can't see any instinct at all reflected in Sam's behaviour. He studied the evidence, and came to rational conclusions. He assumed the worst, because the worst was more dangerous and (nature selects for this propensity in a big way) to make a false positive identification of danger is preferable to a false negative.

But observation and reason brought him to his conclusion, not the instinctive fears that might have assailed him had a snake slithered into his home.
 
Craig B said:
I can't see any instinct at all reflected in Sam's behaviour. He studied the evidence, and came to rational conclusions. He assumed the worst, because the worst was more dangerous and (nature selects for this propensity in a big way) to make a false positive identification of danger is preferable to a false negative.

But observation and reason brought him to his conclusion, not the instinctive fears that might have assailed him had a snake slithered into his home.
Click to expand...


OK you don't but Sam thought it was an example of his instinct at work hence he related the incident.

Sure we can rationalise and find other reasons to explain phenomena, but perhaps we do have some instinctive sense also. It would be odd if we had none given that some of our animal cousins have it in spades.
 
Thor 2 said:
OK you don't but Sam thought it was an example of his instinct at work hence he related the incident.

Sure we can rationalise and find other reasons to explain phenomena, but perhaps we do have some instinctive sense also. It would be odd if we had none given that some of our animal cousins have it in spades.
Click to expand...
I've already said I believe we have instincts, and in my post I suggested that if a snake had entered his house Sam would have probably responded instinctively, but his perceptions and thoughts about a suspicious human caller looked like an exercise in rational prudence.

In other words your reply is hopelessly out of touch with the opinions I have expressed and the examples I have used to sustain them.
 
Craig B said:
I've already said I believe we have instincts, and in my post I suggested that if a snake had entered his house Sam would have probably responded instinctively, but his perceptions and thoughts about a suspicious human caller looked like an exercise in rational prudence.

In other words your reply is hopelessly out of touch with the opinions I have expressed and the examples I have used to sustain them.
Click to expand...


So our instincts are confined to our feelings about snakes and things like that, so Sam Harris and I have got it wrong, when we think our instincts are coming into play when we feel uneasy about other people. OK got it.
 
Thor 2 said:
So our instincts are confined to our feelings about snakes and things like that, so Sam Harris and I have got it wrong, when we think our instincts are coming into play when we feel uneasy about other people. OK got it.
Click to expand...
Are you unable to respond seriously with a defence of your understanding of Sam Harris? A suspect caller appeared and Harris was suspicious of the way he looked at his name badge, and of how he seemed to be interested in things irrelevant to the alleged purpose of his call. All of that was entirely sensible observation. Harris's apprehensions were based on reason.

If you want to call "instinct" any process in which we derive assumptions from small amounts of uncertain data, then do so; but I think it's a misuse of the word. It's just a colloquial expression, not a precise or accurate meaning of the term.
 
Thor 2 said:
instinct
Click to expand...
In your example, the so-called "instinct" would be simply common life experience, nothing inborn.

Oukay, edible animals such as antelopes are super-scared of everything. But they are theoretically tameable, if they live in a zoo and people take care of them since young age.

Humans are rather tame in the safe countries. Depending on the circumstances where we have lived, and maybe earlier near-miss situations in life, we behave less or more like a scared antelope when encountering other humans of a different skin colour late at night.

Still I would use the word "common sense / life experience", not any specific separate "ability" that would be based on anything else than our normal thinking processes, which would therefore deserve a name of its own, "instinct".

Okay, if we call it "fear", we can admit that it can have a subconscious component, not fully controllable by our conscious thinking-process. Even then it would be simply "fear", not an "instinct".
 
I'm somewhat perplexed that others can speak with such authority and certainty on a topic such as this. My position is not that instinct is the definite cause of a feeling, but am prepared to accept the possibility that instinct plays a part.

When I listen to someone like Gavin de Becker, who is so highly regarded by many as an expert in the prediction and prevention of violence, and he mentions instinct as something to be taken notice of, I am prepared to listen. I'm not converted but the mind is open.

The theme of this thread is about the internal conflict felt, when confronted with a situation where we feel danger, but are reluctant to take the defensive action. The reluctance may be due to distrust of our feelings and/or reluctance to cause offence by seeming prejudiced.
 
Thor 2 said:
The theme of this thread is about the internal conflict felt, when confronted with a situation where we feel danger, but are reluctant to take the defensive action. The reluctance may be due to distrust of our feelings and/or reluctance to cause offence by seeming prejudiced.
Click to expand...
That may be the theme, but the examples you have given of the behaviour of Sam Harris don't tally with this theme. He was not instinctively prejudiced against a possibly fake caller to his house. He made rational and relevant observations of the person's behaviour and came to conclusions that reflected his prudence. What "instinctive prejudice" does he have about people pointing to their name badges? None is even imaginable.

If you want to pursue the theme of prejudice, then find some prejudiced behaviour to describe, and we can discuss if it instinctive in motivation.
 
Craig B said:
That may be the theme, but the examples you have given of the behaviour of Sam Harris don't tally with this theme. He was not instinctively prejudiced against a possibly fake caller to his house. He made rational and relevant observations of the person's behaviour and came to conclusions that reflected his prudence. What "instinctive prejudice" does he have about people pointing to their name badges? None is even imaginable.

If you want to pursue the theme of prejudice, then find some prejudiced behaviour to describe, and we can discuss if it instinctive in motivation.
Click to expand...


Your dogged persistence in pursuing this line is beyond tedious. Mind you it must be great to have such clear perception you can know this stuff with such certainty.:rolleyes:
 
mikado said:
Interesting concept, I am a big believer in following that gut feeling.
But have always thought that simply reflected the fact that my subconcious has picked up and registered details that I am not clever enough or too constrained to do outright, HOWEVER, I travel a lot and apart from one experience in India have never felt unsafe, yet often hear people talking about being in exactly the same place and feeling so unsafe. So which if us was right? Goodness knows,
Click to expand...


There may be many reasons for those so called "gut feelings" that I am quite prepared to acknowledge. As a big believer in following these feelings can you recall occasions when you have and it has paid off or not. These do not have to be situations where fear is felt.

It would be interesting to hear of others experiences. Especially if those experiences are such that the possibility of other influences coming into play are small.

Regarding the fear aspect. I have to admit that seldom in my life have I felt in fear of death or injury at the hands of others. If I were a female I think there is a good chance this would be different. Women are far more vulnerable than men, so perhaps would be more cautious and listen to the directions coming from their brains, from whatever primary source.
 
Thor 2 said:
Your dogged persistence in pursuing this line is beyond tedious. Mind you it must be great to have such clear perception you can know this stuff with such certainty.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So you can't give us any examples of prejudice by Harris, which we can analyse. Very well. We'll have to do without. Thank you for the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom