My brother and I attended a Youth Retreat when I was 14 and he was 16.

One night during a camp lecture, I put my brother's head on my shoulder and patted his head after he complained about a headache.I think he even fell asleep there.

The next day some gossip started circulating about a young couple who was making out during camp lecture.

I was later to discover that the horny couple was my brother and I

It seems to be a popular practice to see or hear ONE THING, and come to a FIXED conclusion afterward.

A teenaged girl is spotted ONE TIME at night,walking with a group of boys, and she could be labelled a slut or boy-crazy.

A person says they only want to date inside their race , and they are labelled racist

A guy hasn't slept with the woman he is dating after a month, and he is labelled impotent or gay

Maybe if the people from my camp had asked my brother and I a few logical questions, or even if they had attempted to come up with a few deductive questions in their own heads, they might have come up with at least 3 other viable conclusions other than their final verdict of my brother and I being LOVERS

Question:

What is the main reason/s behind people jumping to final conclusions ? Is it that ...

A. They lack critical thinking/deductive reasoning skills?
B. They are too lazy to consider alternative possibilities?
C. They are just close-minded/intolerant/judgmental regarding certain issues?
D. They want to entertain themselves with juicy perceptions/notions that THE TRUTH often wont provide. ?
E. Other reasons that you wish to share?

I say at the start that the example about race is out of place, as the definition of racist is decisions acquired based only about race. There are racist decisions, but calling someone a RACIST is a different level because our culture assigns to that word the character of a monster, which is not always true,but people shy away from the label anyhow due to that connection.

as to the rest,


someone patting someone on the head is not evidence of sex
walking with people is not evidence sex is occurring
not having sex is not evidence of impotence, but by definition, only abstinence


I think there are logical conclusions and conclusions that people 'jump to'

because it is how our brain works, to find an answer or a solution, we are presented with variables and do our best to define them.


illogical conclusions are usually the result of lazy thinking or intolerance

Humm a lot of the excample's you have used I have seen happen more then once.

My brother is 4 years older then I'm. I was his shadow no telling what some would have to say now days. Back then people did not seem so quick to judge or they just keep their mouths shut one and minded their own business...

As far as reason's why they seem to I think you pretty much covered them all pretty good... I say all above~~~

Those are 3 very different things.


Natural law?
Coming to conclusions more quickly means quicker decisions and behavior.
The concept of "better to ask forgiveness than permission" is based on it.
Or "A poor plan well executed is better than a perfect plan not executed at all."

People naturally jump to conclusions based on the information they have.

They stick with or maintain those conclusions, even in the face of contradictory evidence, for all sorts of different reasons.


Other than that, this thread is ironic, as it's practicing exactly what it seems to be asking.
Like "why do people keep calling others nerds? Is it because they are jocks? Is it because they are retarded? Is it because they are racists? Is it because they are trash?"

Yes, I'd have given this same answer but couldn't find the words

I say at the start that the example about race is out of place, as the definition of racist is decisions acquired based only about race. There are racist decisions, but calling someone a RACIST is a different level because our culture assigns to that word the character of a monster, which is not always true,but people shy away from the label anyhow due to that connection.

as to the rest,


someone patting someone on the head is not evidence of sex
walking with people is not evidence sex is occurring
not having sex is not evidence of impotence, but by definition, only abstinence


I think there are logical conclusions and conclusions that people 'jump to'

because it is how our brain works, to find an answer or a solution, we are presented with variables and do our best to define them.


illogical conclusions are usually the result of lazy thinking or intolerance





MsH..

I will deal with the other issues you addressed in a separate post from the one I am presently addressing on race becuse the message is too important to be overshadowed by the other things.

The message is NOT about racism . It is about arriving at fixed conclusions without using an EFFICIENT and FAIR process of deduction.



Definition of Racist ( Oxford dictionary)

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

The portion I will stress on is this "the belief that one's own race is superior."

Racism is NOT characterised by decisions based only on race ALONE. Racism is ALSO characterised by the belief that one's race is SUPERIOR.

What is YOUR proof that a person who is deciding to date their race only , is inspired by the belief that their race is superior? What is your logical process of deduction?

In my post ,I talked about asking questions to come up with alternative viable conclusions before deciding on a FINAL verdict.

So let's reflect and consider some other viable conclusions on this issue OTHER than a person only dating within their race because they think that their race is superior.

1. They have only dated their race thus far and enjoy that experience so much that other races dont interest them. ( That is close -mindedness, NOT superiority


2. They feel deeply connected to the history/legacy/culture associated with their race and are convicted that only someone in their racial group can effectively pass that legacy on to their children. ( That is practicality , NOT superiority)

3. They do not want their future offspring to deal with the common challenges that bi-racial children are faced with (That is maternal/paternal compassion, NOT superiority)

4 . They've been personally romantically rejected /scorned by other races more than they have been rejected /scorned by their own race (That's practicality, NOT superiority)

I have just offered 4 viable conclusions as to why someone would only want to date inside their race , and NONE of them have to do with superiority.

Can people mask their belief about their race's superiority BEHIND the reasons I offered above? Ofcourse they can, but WHAT IS YOUR PROOF THAT THEY ARE? What questions are you coming up with to come to your fixed conclusion?

Saying that you don't want to date another race or that you are not attracted to another race is NOT the equivalent of categorising your race as superior or their race as inferior..

Just like saying you want to eat oranges alone is not the equivalent of saying that oranges are superior or that all other fruit are inferior. You might just personally like oranges so much that other fruit just dont interest you.

with all respect

as the english language is complex and evolving,, there is more than one definiton of 'racist'


there is not only the definition that involves belief in superiority
but also the portion that involves making a discrimination based upon race

another oxfored definition(online): A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.


therefore, if one has a mandate 'against' being involved with another race, it is a RACIST mandate

This was a thread on people jumping to conclusions?... how did racism find its way in?

why does racism find its way in?... all the time

It had nothing to do with racism... nothing.

it does not ALWAYS find its way in

the OP introduced in in her example of 'jumping to conclusions'

Ms H is right Greeneyes.

I gave an example of the label of racist in illustrating my point about jumping to conclusions

None of us is perfect and we all have our own mind. Within it, we form many views and opinions, often, these can be prejudices. Whilst kept in the mind they remain just that, prejudices. Now often these prejudices can be around issues of gender, sexual orientation, religion and racial differences, to name a few. These views can change through investigation, research, discussion etc or they can be held dear to the individual. Now whilst these prejudices are kept to oneself, they'll likely be only of detriment to the one holding them. However, once acted upon, whether physically or verbally, they have the ability to cause others offence or even harm. When someone acts upon their racial prejudices, that might be attack or avoidance, they are indulging in racism and can be rightly deemed racist.

I appreciate that the definitions of terms are changing Ms H, but just so you know ...


The definition of the word "prejudice" , which popped up in your alternative definition of racism, is " Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." ( the 4 examples I offered in my first response to you are all based on very credible reasons or personal experiences )

And the definition of "discrimination ", which also popped up in your alternative definition of racism, is

"The UNJUST or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

How is dating only within your race unjust if the other races are not being insulted or victimised in any way by that decision, and if their reasons like the ones I offered are perfectly practical , logical and without malice ?

It seems like no matter how much the term of racism evolves Ms h, it is characterised by a couple of elements ie injustice and degradation of one kind or another .

We could sit around dissecting semantics all night long, but the bigger issue for me is the EDIFYING and CAREFUL use of words.

Its wonderful that we have the power to use words as we deem fit and to change its meaning as we see fit, but we both know that words are containers of painful histories and debilitating cultures/mindsets , that dont just disappear because we are empowered enough to re define painful words and put fresh paint on it.

Power and freedom to use our our words as we deem fit are wonderful ,but the only thing better than that ,is excercising wisdom and responsibility with that freedom and power.

Labelling somebody a racist , even if you find ONE definition that supports it semantically ,is the unedifying use of a word because its a blood-stained word that tarnishes the entire character of anyone you impose it upon, whether you intend it to or not.

It is not good enough to be right in the use of our words anymore .

Lets try to careful about how we use volatile and historically blood stained words.

That's all I'm saying...

very true... It's like 5 people looking at a cloud, and seeing 5 different things... It's just how people perceive things...

You brought up a good point TXGAL.

Even if we have fore-gone conclusions in our minds, at least we could keep it to ourselves until we ask a few questions and consider some other viable conclusions.

Ouvertly labelling or gossiping about those foregone conclusions are so unfair , and sometimes downright dangerous

its a semantic argument

as discrimination and prejudice ALSO have more than one definition


this is why I try to include the CONTEXT in which I use a word that may be considered volatile

its a semantic argument

as discrimination and prejudice ALSO have more than one definition


this is why I try to include the CONTEXT in which I use a word that may be considered volatile

Some people have no life or pitiful ones and want to make something out of nothing. Sad really. Can't change them though

something else we agree on,,,

Yet, previously it was deemed improper for a young woman to meet a man without a chaperone present. Have we gone full circle?

Agreed, and I have no problem with labelling someone a racist if enough evidence is there, but because it is a blood stained word that tarnishes the entire character of anyone it is put upon, it's crucial that we use it SRICTLY for the people who are truly guilty of it.

And I think the current labelling criteria of taking one fact in isolation , without examining motive, history, and individual circumstances is unfair and dangerous