The mechanics of discrimination

Mainpage

 

The mechanics of discrimination

Popular notions

The popular understanding of discrimination can roughly be summed up as follows: a person or group acting in a negative way versus another, motivated by race, religion, sex or political beliefs. The 1^st defenition in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary matches this understanding: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Racism is the well know derivative of discrimination based on race. 

We often mark this behavior as bad, evil, reprehensible. There is no need for debate, discrimination so obviously is a character fault of the group or individual. The same clarity of concept that applies to good versus evil seems to apply to discrimination versus tolerance. A person or group exhibiting this behavior can be publicly shamed in just about any free society. If we do want to discriminate and get away with it, there is a need to demonize the intended target first, or hide the evidence. Otherwise the behavior will not be accepted. The black race for instance has been lifted from its former demonized status as a lazy, backward, primitive form of human life. It can no longer publicly be discriminated against in the western world. Those who do, such as the Ku Klux Clan, are ridiculed. Ofcourse, many people privately still hold on to the old views. Discrimination against black people is now practiced in less obvious ways, such as the law against voter fraud in the United States.

Examples

The Hutu claimed that the Tutsi were worthless cockroaches. Based on this notion they claimed the right and duty to exterminate them. They did not claim the Tutsi had bad idea's or practiced faulty politics. They claimed they were different people, and had a bad nature. Thousands were killed as a result. In world war one, the Germans were marked as the brutal Huns. This message resonated with the public. The message that the Kaisers policies were flawed did not. Millions went willingly to the slaughterhouse thinking the otherside was bad. The most well know example of course are the Jews. The Nazis claimed they were like rats, with hooked noses, a crooked demeanor and a bad smell. Millions were gassed as a result.
If you look at the current political race in the United States anno 2015, you see many would be presidents exhibiting the same behavior when speaking about Mexicans, Muslims and other aliens. And it works. They are creating big groups of protractors and detractors in the process. Quite a few voters now agree that Muslims are dangerous fanatics, rejecting our way of life. Mexicans only cross our borders in order to commit crimes and steal our jobs.
In these examples we can clearly see the unjust and prejudicial treatment of different groups. Do note that in these examples, the broadcasted difference between the groups was largely imagined. The Brits and the Germans are both of the white race, and the Hutu and the Tutsi even of the same original tribes. Yet each marked the other down as being a different kind of human, with very bad characteristics. The Jews and the Nazis are different groups, yes, but the differences used to justify treating them differently were imaginairy. This is a major component of the unjust in the definition of discrimination. Usually the reasons seem complete nonsense.

The right questions

Everything around discrimination seems clear cut. It is a destructive behavior that comes from subjective notions. People that engage in it are bad. Is this really the case? Did we ask ourselves the necessary questions regarding this behavior? Let's take a moment and ask a few.

What actually is discrimination?

How does it work?

Who engages in it and under which circumstances?

Is discrimination really bad?

Why do individuals and groups discriminate against other individuals and groups?

How do groups actually work?

Why do most conflicts between groups seem to revolve around disliking would be specific physical or behavioral characteristics supposedly intrinsic to a would be separate lesser species of humans? In other words, we claim our target to be less than human, possessing a number of bad traits. Why do we do this? 

Why do some politicians act so divisive? Aren't they supposed to know better? 

Why are simple messages more popular that complex ones?

Why are divisive messages seemingly more popular than messages that bring people together?

Lets start with the first question. What actually is discrimination?

Definition

Eyes, ears, nose and mouth

Animals and plants have many senses. The primary function of which is discrimination: to make sense of the world in order to select the appropriate behavior for a given encounter. Friend or foe, food or not food, mate or competitor. To discriminate actually means to tell the difference between one thing, and another.

Life and discrimination

Discrimination is programmed into the DNA of every species. It is essential to life. For us conscious animals discrimination is the very essence of being. Even our cells discriminate between various types of substances traveling our bloodstream via the cell membrane. Food, building materials, unwelcome guests.. As for us, without discrimination we could not distinguish between the self and another.

In summary: discrimination is the process we use to make sense of the world. It simply means to tell the difference between one thing and another

So how does it actually work? Let's take a look in the next few texts about the mechanics, the qualities of information and group identity.

The Mechanics

The process of discrimination is subject to a number of factors. Two of them are information and the salience of features. Let's first take a look at salience.

Relative Salience

Salience means that which stands out, is most noticeable. Suppose all you know as fruit are banana's. You eat them everyday. All the shelves in fruit section of the supermarket only have banana's. Suddenly, there is an apple placed in front of you. The most salient feature is: it's round. A round fruit! Who would have thought it possible. Let's try it again. If you know apples and banana's, but not oranges the following would happen if you were suddenly confronted with an orange: hey, look, an orange fruit! What happened to being round as the most salient feature? Well it's still there. But when it comes to apples and bananas versus oranges it is color that is the most salient, since apples and oranges are both round and you can't tell them apart this way. Of course when you compare bananas and oranges, shape and color are equally salient. One is arc shaped and yellow, the other round and orange.

Human senses discriminate by examining aspects of an object like shape, color, smell, touch, taste, weight etc. There is an order of precedence in these aspects we can detect. Shape for instance takes precedence over color. We discriminate between two objects by order of the most precedent salient aspect in which they differ. Apples and oranges are both round, so we discriminate by color. Banana's and apples have different shapes, so we discriminate by shape.

You might at this point wonder, are our senses the only way by which we discriminate? Do they solely determine salience? Well no. Let's take a look at the role information plays when it comes to telling things apart.

Information

Concepts

We build mental pictures of objects called concepts. They tell us what an object is and is not. I have seen that an orange is round and orange. I have experienced that it tastes a certain delicious way, has a certain weight and a certain texture of the skin. I have been taught it grows on certain trees in certain climates and has a lot of vitamin C. This is what i know of oranges, this is my mental picture of them. Via this mental picture, i can easily discriminate between oranges, apples and any kind of known and unknown fruit in the future. 

 Our whole world is made sensible via concepts. We have concepts of the moon and the sun, water and air, trees and butterflies. Our concepts don't just include tangible objects, but really anything that crosses our minds. Abstract ideas like freedom, maths, etc. Or fear and love, hate and revenge. Interpersonal relationships, religions, political ideals, you name it. It's all been boxed up in a concept (*for reasons of ease, in this text the word object is meant to apply to any and all things).

 The main benefit of a concept is speed. We don't have to re-examine an object each time we encounter it, but rather rely on stored data. In this way our minds can deal quickly with a world filled by objects, animals and people and the relations between them.
 Salient features are amongst the data that is stored in our concepts. They make an orange an orange, and not a lemon. Not only do salient features lie at the basis of how we conceptualize an object, often it is the most salient features in which objects differ from another which influences strongly how we conceptualize them. If all fruit was orange, it would not be a salient feature of the fruit we call ''an orange''. It would probably have another name. Concepts are both a tool for discrimination in the moment.. telling stuff apart ..and are influenced by the end results of the discrimination process.

Concepts and data

Concepts rely on various data sources for their formation and alteration. Among these are live sensory input, experience, teaching and imagination.

Sensory input

Fire is hot and ice is cold. Air is light and invisible, water a visible and heavy. The sun provides light and heat, the moon just a little bit of light. Data from our sensors is stored in our concepts. If we encounter a liquid that is very light, we will know it's not water.

Experience

My concept of an orange includes delicious. It's based on my experience of many oranges having been delicious. Suppose you have never seen an orange and the first one you eat is very sour, worse than a lemon. Your concept might become: a round orange sour fruit. Best to be avoided. If i ate your orange, i would know that this specific specimen differs from the group. Bad luck. I will still eat them. You might change your initial concept to match mine after having eaten several. However, you are less likely to try another one based on your first experience. If there are also strawberries to chose from, you might opt for one of those. Each new experience gets stored in our concepts, reinforcing them, or altering them.

Teaching

Teaching is also an important source of information that helps us form our concepts. If no experience is available, we rely on the experience of others to form our concepts. The same mechanics are at work. If 50 people told you oranges contain vitamin C (which is correct), and just one that it's actually vitamin B, you will know they contain vitamin C and tell others, although you can't see detect these vitamins with any of your senses. A salient feature becomes vitamin C. If it was 2 versus 1, you might not be so sure as to tell others.

A great example of the influence of teaching on our concept formation is of course formal education. Our concepts of our homelands and neighbors are partly formed via history classes. The same goes for numbers and equations, words and sentences, atoms and electrons, cells and animals, you name it.
Do note in this text a teacher can mean anyone or anything in any type of situation. A person in the street yelling help! is a teacher. He teaches you that something bad is going on. Politicians, the media, street signs, books, etc. All teachers.

Imagination

Another source of information is our own imagination. We humans have the natural tendency to make up the rest of the data if we are presented with an incomplete set. The conscious variant in an argument is often referred to as speculation. However we mostly do it unconsciously and automatically. Suppose you are a housewife and find a foreclosure sign on your front door. You know your husband never talks about finance much. In your mind you make a story. Things have been going bad apparently, and now you are in real trouble.

People like their realities to be as complete as possible in order to predict what might happen. They like to create closed concepts or complete stories when it comes to anything. A picture that covers any and all possible outcomes from A to Z. If there is not enough information from sources like experience and teaching, we make up the rest with our imagination. This is a natural survival instinct. Any form of live strives for as much control as it can get. Information is control. If you can predict a situation, you can act effectively. The unknown makes us fearful, we lack control. Hence religion, doctrine and dogma. Any missing data in our concepts, opinions and beliefs is automatically and eventually completed by our imagination.

We humans thus strive to get a complete picture, even if this means filling in some gaps with our mind. Usually we are right. However it never crossed your mind that the employee from the bank simply misread the house number. You might be scolding your husband for no valid reason. 

Reinforcement or alteration

Concepts get reinforced or altered by information. The more you receive information of one kind, the stronger the concept gets and the more resistant it becomes to different information. Concepts also increase their effect on our behavior when more of the same information is received. You probably will still try another orange after eating the first sour one, all though hesitatingly. However, if you ate three sour oranges in a row, you might never touch them again. Even the order of precedence of features might be altered by your experience when discriminating. Instead of oranges are orange, round and sour you might conceptualize oranges as being sour, orange and round, while apples remain red, round and delicious.

Example

Let's look at an example. My grandmother died in hospital. I was 6 at the time. We went to say our goodbyes while she still was in a coma. I had never been to a hospital before. I remember seeing her lying in a bed, all blue and veiny. All kinds of machines hooked up. I remember most of all the smell, the famous hospital smell. From that single moment hospitals were in my mind places of extreme negativity, best avoided. When my father was in hospital for a hernia, this image was again confirmed. In most cases hospitals are places of hope and healing. They are institutions build to preserve and extent life, to enhance it's quality. However my mind made this rule and reinforced it: hospital bad, avoid. To this day, i do my utmost to stay away from hospitals. In contrast; army bases are good. I had a good time visiting bases, admiring military hardware. It makes no sense. It is sad they need to exist. Guns and tanks destroy life. 

Discrimination and concepts 

When we discriminate, we do not solely rely on direct sensory observation. We also rely on our concepts. Concepts help to determine the relevant salient features for telling apart objects. If you already know an orange is delicious and a lemon sour, and somebody offers you a choice, you will pick an orange. No need to taste them both beforehand. The data is stored in your concepts.

The discrimination process thus relies on 2 essential sources of data. Live sensory input and the data stored in our concepts. When our senses detect an object we subconciously check if there is a stored mental picture that has the same sensory image. If one exists, we load the data of that concept. This data then helps us to determine how this object we detect is different from another, or in other words which features are salient. 


Offered choice: eat a round orange object or a yellow football-shaped. 


The sensory perception of orange + round matches the concept of an orange. We are looking at an orange. Eating?? Loading relevant concept data... an orange tastes delicious.

The sensory perception of yellow + football-shaped matches the concept of a lemon. We are looking at an lemon. Eating?? Loading relevant concept data... a lemon tastes sour.

The relevant feature is taste. Delicious vs sour. We can now make a choice.We can discriminate.


If there is no mental image, we create one based on how the new sensory image compares to stored sensory images that share one or more features. We load data from those concepts to start to create a new one. Suppose you know apples and lemons but oranges. When you first see an orange, you detect that it is round like an apple, has skin like a lemon, and a color unlike either. Since both apples and lemons are fruit, an orange is most likely a fruit. The new concepts becomes: an orange and round fruit with lemon like skin. Taste unknown. The data of this new concept is then expanded via experience, teaching and imagination. For instance when we eat the orange, taste will be added.

Concepts are influenced or created by discrimination and are used as a basis for discrimination. This process never stops. Our concepts are continually added to, altered, reinforced or devalued by new cycles of the discrimination process in the same way experience, teaching and imagination change them. It is a continual feedback loop. Previous outcomes of the discrimination process will influence future outcomes.
Oranges and apples are delicious, lemons and oranges have similar skins and lemons are football shaped instead of round. However if we suddenly eat a banana, our concepts change. Bananas are solid. Oranges, apples and lemons now have a thing in common: they are juicy. This is an extra features by which we can tell oranges, apples and lemons apart from other fruit. 
Suppose a movie teaches you that bearded vegans smoke weed, as opposed to regular people. Your concept includes information on how they can be told apart from other people: bearded plant eating weed smokers. If you then meet bearded plant eaters and discover they don't all smoke weed your concept is altered. Weed smoking becomes less salient when it comes to telling them apart from other people.

Discrimination and automation

Discrimination occurs either automatic or manual. For simple life reflexes follow sensory input. The rules for discrimination are part of the DNA program. When a shadow hovers over it a frog jumps away. The frog can discriminate between steady shadows and sudden ones.

For more advanced life rules for discrimination can be taught. Once in place these rules also provide automatic results. A tiger cub learns what is edible from its mother, a human child is taught to obey and trust persons labeled teachers but not an ordinary stranger. This automation saves us a great deal of time.

Humans posses the ability to consciously evaluate a discrimination rule, adopt or reject one, alter it, and even to deliberately create new rules. After meeting a lot of Muslims, I decided to no longer approach them with suspicion. This however is rare. Most rules are learned subconsciously from our environment and subconsciously maintained. Our brains evaluate masses of data and make determinations and alterations without us knowing it. If we ever switched off this automation, we would not be able to function. Imagine having to examine each piece of fruit in the supermarket, every time you went there.

Summary

The most salient features in which objects differ determines how we discriminate between them. This salience is influence by preexisting concepts. These in turn rely on various sources of information such as sensory input, experience, teaching and imagination. Concepts can get reinforced or devalued by new information, and thus have a stronger or weaker effect on behaviors such as discrimination. Concepts are both created by telling things apart, and influence the proces of telling them apart. This whole process is a largely automated subconscious feedback loop. Each discrimination cycle influences the next one.

The qualities of information

As we have seen previously, information plays a significant role when it comes to discrimination. So you might wonder, what characteristics of information might be important? When it comes to discrimination information can be either relevant or irrelevant, negative or positive, simple or complex, marked or unmarked, easily obtained or hard to get and consciously gathered or subconsciously.

Relevance

As pointed out previously, the relative salience of features is important when it comes to discrimination. When you have to choose between an orange and a banana, you will choose between sour and sweet, juicy and dry, and though skinned and easy to access. The fact that a banana is yellow will not matter much, even though it's an important part of the whole concept of the banana. Similarly when it comes to making concepts data that does not strike us as salience can be left out all together. I knew apples contained fiber, but it actually took looking up 10 facts about to remember it.

Marked or unmarked

Information can be marked by a teacher or left unmarked. If you continually press home that oranges contain vitamin C, people will choose it over a banana. Did you know bananas contain large amounts of vitamin B6 and vitamin C? I bet you did not. Less innocently this teacher can be a politician, proclaiming that Syrian contains a lot of terrorists. The civilians blown up by the USA in Vietnam or Iraq are just barely mentioned collateral damage..

Negative or positive

Orange is generally viewed as a beautiful color (as a dutch person I happen to know this is not merely a subjective view, but and objective fact). Sourness is viewed as a negative quality. A sour orange is beautiful but bad eating.

The mechanics of how we process information can in part be found in by looking at our primal survival instincts. Reward or danger, food or predator, mate or competitor, etc. When confronted with danger, we usually need to act fast in order to survive. Failure is not an option, because failure means death. The end of our existence. However, when presented with an opportunity failure is an option. Since we won't die, there is almost always a next time. Our evolution determined that we process negative information more quickly and act upon it more strongly and more immediate. Speed is achieved by bypassing our consciousness (if you want to know in detail of how this works i suggest you read up on brain research, specifically about the prefrontal cortex versus the lymbic system).

Our flight or fight instincts usually have a stronger hold over us than our needs and curiosity. Anything that could diminish our situation gets priority over anything that could improve it. There are of course exceptions. If you are a well fed hunter gatherer and you spot a large bear in the distance, you will give it a wide berth. Going after a bear after all is ludricous. The chance of injury is great. Better pick a reindeer. However if you are very hungry and there are no reindeer for miles, it could become an option.

But what happens if you are suddenly confronted with a bear? Most likely you would run. No matter if you are hungry. The need to live immediately overrides the need to feed. The only way a bear sighting is interpreted as positive, is indeed when you spot it at a distance. Only then, given that you are very hungry, will you consider hunting it. And you will do so at your leisure, with careful planning.

In most cases we humans are more strongly motivated by negative information than positive. When we encounter a new phenomenon, whether it be an object, a situation or a person, any hint of possible danger initially overrides any desire to explore potential benefits. Only a conscious will to examine things further will override the initial negative information.

Simple or complex

Information about an object can be categorized as simple or complex. We react much faster and much stronger to simple information than complex. This is due to the same primal mechanics. In nature we need to know what is going on fast, in order to act quickly. Our survival depends on it. We are geared towards selecting simple information and processing it quickly. Only a conscious will to examine things further will override lead us to overwrite simple understandings and gather complex ones.

A number of Muslims have blown up buildings and killed people, in the name of jihad against the west. If you call Muslims dangerous terrorists you will get a fast, strong reaction. On the other hand if you try to explain that Islam is a complex religion with many factions, and that like in any religion extremist groups can occur, and the west has been meddling in the middle east forever, and, and, and....... you will loose your audience quickly, except for the few willing to think and evaluate.

Ease of access

Iran is part of the Axis of Evil. We all know this. It was in the news constantly. A study showing Irans people to be very warm and friendly was not. A traveler such as Rick Steves could attest to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYoa9hI3CXg). Ease of access is vital when it comes to the mechanics of discrimination. The information sources of experience and teaching rely heavily on it.

Conscious or subconscious

Concepts can be the result of reasoning. Arriving at some conclusion after careful consideration of the available data. However most information is gathered and processed subconsciously. As humans we need a great many concepts to order our world. Too many to form via conscious study.

Suppose you visit Whole Foods for the first time and you have a bad time. What then does Whole Foods become to you? Bad. Just a bad store. Did we gather the data consciously? Did we have a plan to examine every aspect of the store? Did we create our concept consciously? Well... after careful consideration of all the available products, the speeds of service and the indoor climate, i concluded that....No. We just experienced the store. Our data was subconsciously gathered via incidental exposure. Another store or another time might have given us a completely different concept. Our concept was also created subconsciously. We were not aware of any of it. Our new concept only revealed itself when we discussed our shopping trip with our family back home.

A way to save time is the unconsciously formed concept. Our need is not to find truth, which takes time, but rather to be able to interact with the world efficiently (which usually means quickly). A concept just has to be accurate enough. In other words, it's good as long as it seems to work and there seem to be no negative consequences. And once a concept is formed, we rarely go back to consciously examine things. If we had to do that for every concept we formed, we would never have time for actually doing something. Our concepts are only reinforced or altered via more exposure to data.

Accurate or inaccurate

We have seen that some of our major data sources are experience, teaching and imagination. What we left our is their relative reliability. How can we ever know the true information content of any object, let alone another soul?

 Experience has a clear advantage here. It's direct. We deal with real data, the direct observation of an ''object'' such as another persons behavior. This is called empirical evidence. We might still be hindered by our own concepts, beliefs and world view, through which we interpret what we experience, however the other two sources have even more weaknesses. 

 Teaching for instance is indirect. Not only our own concepts might hinder the accuracy of the data processing, but also those of the teacher. Next to this, the teachers might have motives that we do not know about when they relay information. We could be dealing with propaganda!

 Imagination is also indirect. The difference between experience and imagination is that while during an experience the incoming data might be shaped by our concepts and beliefs, when we imagine the data is the sole product of our existing concepts and beliefs!

Summary

Negative and simple information have a stronger impact on our behaviors than positive complex messages. The same goes for information that can be easily accessed and does not require conscious thought. Whether or not information is made salient by the teacher is also of great importance when the main source of information is teaching. 

 The qualities of information play a significant role in our discrimination process since it is entirely information based. It is thus more likely that we will make negative and/or simple concepts than complex and/or positive ones, given that all types and variants of information are available. The type of data source determines the accuracy vulnerability of our concepts. While our imagination can be correct, and while teachers can be unbiased, it is more likely that concepts based upon these two concepts contain errors. It is also more likely that our concepts contain information that can be easily accessed and subconsciously gathered.

Examples 

Black versus white

Suppose it is 1600 AD. You are a white trader. You have never met a black person. And you just stepped off the boat in Africa. You would immediately notice the lack of stone buildings, written text, clothing, etc. The closest thing you would know are the gypsies. But these people seem a far cry from those. No wagons, no metal working, no money. These black people must be less than you. A primitive version of mankind, subhumans perhaps. A concept will form in your mind. Most salient features: black skin, black hair, half naked, primitive language and customs, no technology, poor.
This concept might get reinforced a lot, after all there is a language and culture barrier that prevents you from getting to know the people really well. Your stay is also limited. After having formed a strong initial concept, you might not bother to do any research. After all, you are here just to trade.
You will take this concept home with you and teach others. Historically the European concept of Africans was just that, even though less than a hundredth of a percent of the population ever met a black person. The consequence of course is the following: do you protest if these primitive good for nothing animals are put to work on farms? No, it's probably good for them.
  Suppose it's 1990. You are a white student in a public school in London. Half the population is colored. You meet black, brown and white every day. Would you have a concept of black? Black might simply be one of the many different features on which individual humans might differ, with no special salience at all. You might discriminate between your classmates based on completely different features. Those that are salient to you. There is height, color, smell, behavior, shape of the face, strength, intelligence, behavior, social group, etc. Behavior for instance is usually the most salient feature between people that know each other. You might classify John, a black male, as a social terrorist, because he is big and a bully. You might classify Carson, another black male, and Simon a white male, as computer nerds, being both short, meek and into computers.

Muslim vs American

Suppose it is 2011. Muslims just attack the twin towers. You are an American. You have never met a Muslim, and only vaguely noticed they existed somewhere in the world. What would you be more susceptible to? Do note you were just attacked! All Muslims are bad -or- There are 1 billion Muslims, the vast majority are peaceful, living their lives like we do. It is splinter groups created by American and European meddling, and local dictators, that misinterpret Islam. Where would you even get the whole picture? All the TV is telling you is that people in the Middle East are hostile. You would need to read books or talk to travelers in order to get more information.

  Suppose it is 1989. You are a Syrian citizen. You have never met a person from the West. What you hear on TV is that the West is decadent. People there have no morals. They have premarital sex, consume alcohol and don't believe in Islam. How would you conceptualize a western person? You have very little to go on. What does decadent even mean? Besides the sex and alcohol? Your imagination will fill in the gaps. In the West there is total chaos, people do what they want when they want is. There are murders everywhere all the time. People are drunk on the streets and women offer themselves to anyone.

Of course there is sex and violence.. anywhere. People do get drunk sometimes in the West. However most people follow morals any Muslim would recognize. Work hard, take care of your family. Enjoy but not too much. Most men and women do not randomly have sex all the time. Most are in committed relationships. But you would never know this, unless you went to the West. 

Me and black people
I am a white male. Until my 27th birthday, i have never had any contact with black people. They simply were not present. At university there were a scarce few but not at the beta-department. I relied on information from the outside. It was never positive. Africa: a big mess of hunger and violence. This is not true, but it was reported as such. America: violent drug gangs, gangster rappers that adore violence and hostility. I am still scared of black people. When i meet a black person, i am automatically suspicious and cautious. I know on an intellectual level, that black people are just people. I also know now by experience that this is the case. But deep in my brain it seems there are automated responses still active that i can't correct with concious reasoning. It is all the years of negative propaganda that made very strong concepts.

Conclusion

The popular understanding of discrimination covers just a tiny facet of the subject matter the process works on. It just about the telling people apart on the basis of skin color, religion or ethnicity. Discrimination is actually an essential process to any form of life. It both regulates our physical lives and creates our mental world via the formation of concepts. It is so common, automatic and so subconscious we barely notice it.

  Concepts play a big role in the discrimination process. They are both the results and the input.

Sensory perception, experience, teaching and imagination are the main sources of information for our concepts. They determine what is salient, by which features objects are perceived to differ. Our concepts can get reinforced or altered by new information via the discrimination process itself. The discrimination process is essentially a feedback loop. Previous cycles influence new ones.

  The qualities of information matter a great deal. We process negative and simple information in a different way from positive and complex information. Our discrimination process is vulnerable to these differences. We are more likely to fear and dislike, than to love and understand. We would sooner perceive and object as simple than complex. Combined with ease of access this makes the simple mass media like television and twitter for instance potentially dangerous sources of information. Naturally they will focus on the negative and the simple, and they are readily available. Only a formal education can counter this. Here an environment is created where people have to take time to consider things, and can thus gather positive and/or complex information (which takes time).
  When we take all that has been stated into account, all of the sudden the popular negative meaning of the word discrimination, racism, does not seem so strange a behavior. In fact, it is far more amazing that we are aware of this problem, than that we engage in something so natural. It shows our capacity to think beyond the immediate and automatic.

In the next part we will look at how the mechanics of discrimation shape groups.

Group identity

Humans are group animals. We automatically seek each other out for support and company. We have a feeling called loneliness that proves this. However, we all have our individual minds with their individual content. You might like hospitals and wish to visit as often as you can, i do not. You might like rock and roll, i prefer jazz. How then do we cooperate? Well, the first thing a group of people do when they meet for the first time, is to create a group identity. Via the formation of this identity we agree on beliefs, opinions and behaviors. This identity tells us who we are, and who we are not. It determines our attitudes and behaviors versus other groups and individuals. Of course first a group needs to be established. Let's take a look at how individuals meet, how the group identity is formed and which types of groups there are. 

The search
We automatically seek out people most like us. When choice is available, we use our powers of discrimination to determine which people are most like us. When you go to a sports bar, you might automatically seek out the people that root for your team. Even if you have never met them. At a municipal meeting, we might choose to sit with the other Muslims, atheists or baptists if we can identify them by their dress.
Of course not all groups are made voluntary. At work and at school for instance, we are forced to interact with those that are there. Yet within these groups, subgroups often appear.

Let's take a look at an example before we examine the formation of the group identity.

Example 
Suppose it's you first day at a high school. You are a young male aged 14, with a keen interest in computers. You have a benign social nature, but you are socially awkward. What do you do? Whom do you seek out? Automatically you will select people most like yourself. You will discriminate via looks and behavior and the concepts you have of people types, such as nerds and jocks. You will end up sitting with those that most fit the description of nerds.
You will get to know each other quickly, exchanging personal information, likes and dislikes. Of course the topic of jocks will pass the venue at some point. And girls, teachers and parents. You might all agree that jocks are mindless automatons. At the end of their school career they will know how to throw a ball around. Definitely the enemy. Stoners are not useful for anything, but hey at least they don't harm anyone. The art people are pretty decent if a little flaky. At least they are out for the same things, to know more and better yourself. Pretty girls are hard to approach, and for some reason always attracted to the jocks, who couldn't possibly provide them with a future. Good girls are the ones with a mind of their own, who do not follow the jock-loving group. Some teachers are OK, but others are just not as smart as you are. Specifically the computer teacher, who couldn't tell the difference between Ubuntu and Linux. When the gym teacher gives a lecture about how a healthy body creates a healthy mind, implicitly praising the jocks, your group might counter with how a healthy mind could earn hard dollars via programming and then hire a personal trainer.

Group identity formation

When we meet we automatically determine through interaction what our likes and dislikes are as a group. We synchronize our beliefs, opinions and behaviors. In this negotiation process we discover where all the members stand, and what the mean value in the group is. Once these mean values are known, members will modify theirs beliefs and behaviors (on most subjects) towards the mean value. If your group really likes football, you might not speak out against it, and even watch games with them and in time adopt a liking. Of course the nature of the needs plays a big role in what is discussed and which behaviors and beliefs are synchronized. 

Leaders

Leaders within the group are often more influential than others in molding the group identity. There might be this really cool guy, who is very vocal and engages with everyone in group. His opinion about jocks will carry more weight than those of others. 

The nature of identity

The nature of a group identity is much the same as that of the individual. There is a concept of the self; an internal narrative of who and what we are, and most importantly of who we are not. The identities of our more permanent groups provide us with a safety and purpose. The identities determine our attitudes and behaviors versus others and amongst ourselves. Our world view is wrapped up in these.

Group identity types

Relevant needs
Grouping depends on the situation. In situation X where we have needs Y, we will seek out those that also posses the needs labeled Y. These needs have several attributes. A need can be immediate or long term, it can can cover single objective or multiple and can have a high or low priority. Based on our needs and the situation groups are permanent or incidental, important or casual, and cover a single need or be comprehensive.
A group formed at work might be based upon a great many needs and would be long term. These are the people you depend upon for support in any situation for as long as your employment lasts. It is important for your well being to maintain these types of group relations. If there is an accident in your neighborhood you would seek out your neighbors in to stand next to. These people are familiar to you and the best option for a casual chat about the goings-on as the ambulance arrives. Your need would be immediate, low priority and cover a single goal.

Permanence
As we have seen above, needs can be permanent or temporary. The same goes for the groups based on these needs. Some groups, like your family and your country might last a life time, while others just a career and some might even vanish as soon as an event is over. 

Variable membership
From the above we can gather that people are not just part of one group, but a great many at the same time. These groups can also be permanent, semi permanent or indicental. Membership can come and go. You might be a permanent member of your family and your country. You could also be a member of the sales department, the volunteer fire brigade, your neighborhood, and a sports team. Incidentally you might find yourself a member of the not guilty faction in a jury, or part of the housewife section in a self help seminar.

Group identity activation

So if we are part of multiple groups, where and when do we behave as members of which group?

Relevant context
We only behave according to a specific group identity when taking part in a context that is related to that group. At home you behave according to different rules than at school. How your family looks at the world is also different from that of your school group. Though not necessarily conflicting, different things matter. You might not like football much, if you are a computer nerd, but when England plays Germany you cheer for your countrymen all the same. After all your are English, and the context is England vs Germany and not jocks vs nerds. We can even find ourselves conflicted. Suppose there is a local football match between your high school team and the next. Do you support your football team as a member of your school, or disregard the event as part of the nerds?

Group identity defense

A group identity provides us with what we seek as humans, security, a home, a purpose and a world view. Thus the identities of our more permanent, comprehensive and high priority groups are not lightly given up. We will defend them against them against any enemies, foreign or domestic, that we might perceive. Together we stand against the jocks, the school board, and someone in our group that has been seen socializing with the jocks. 

The sufficient self

Healthy individuals can not accept another as completely superior to themselves. Even when the evidence is clear. It's a defense mechanism. Motivation for any action (for instance self preservation) becomes troublesome if you think of yourself as less. You think of yourself, when all things are considered, as equal or better. Even if you admire a certain quality in someone else. Imagination can play a big part when it comes to forming concepts to support this notion.

The only way you can safely think of someone as better, is to assign God status. A commonly accepted concept of better than anyone that includes the clause of exemption of the self from competition due to unreachability for mere morals. A person with God status exempts yourself from the need to feel better. The status can be partial, as evidenced by actors and athletes. 

The sufficient group

The sufficient self also holds true for groups. By nature, all groups consider themselves superior to any other group. This provides a potent source for conflict when dealing with other groups. The needs of the home group will aways have to come first. Individuals however can change their own mind, and leave the group for one they consider better. 

Example

A good example are the Lutherans. Back in the day, people all over Europe were unhappy with Rome's rule of the Catholic Church. Various oppositions formed. In Germany Martin Luther gave voice too many commonly held misgivings. People started to seek each other out, identifying each other via an exchange of thoughts. Eventually a permanent group called the Lutherans was established with Lutheranism as their core belief. All members synchronized their behavior to adhere to its guidelines. Of course the competing group, the Catholics had to go. They were deemed inferior. So the Lutherans build new and re purposed old Catholic churches, printed new bibles, and recruited new members.

Summary

The creation of a group identity happens everywhere, at school, at work, in the gym or on the streets. It happens in any size. A household, a school, a company, a town, a city, a nation or a continent. It happens whether the grouping is voluntary or not.

In every situation we seek out those most like ourselves, with similar needs and goals. We begin the process of creating a group identity by exchanging views and behaviors. In the formation process we synchronize these beliefs and behaviors, creating a standard. Leaders can have a big influence as they are often the most vocal and are held as examples.

After formation the identity tells us who we are and who we are not. A group identity provides the individual with a sense of identity, a world view and security. Therefore we defend it fiercely. A potential source for conflict is the sense of superiority inherent to a group identity.

Based upon the situation and our relevant needs, groups can be permanent or fleeting in nature, cover a single need or multiple and be important to us or just casual. It is the context which determines the group identity that is activated.

-end of rewrite 2017- ill do the rest later.

Groups and discrimination

The same laws as mentioned earlier for individuals are in effect when discriminating between groups: the most salient features in which they differ plus the amount and quality of information available. For our information we again rely on direct experience, imagination and what we are taught. The source of the data that falls under teaching can be anything. A television show, a neighbor, a blog like this one, or an add in a magazine depicting a specific race as superior. For the salient features, well these can be anything. Perhaps some groups are very good crafstsmen, others might stand out as warriors, etc.
So what decides group vs groups, which become our friends and which our foes?
We now know that we automatically form groups with the people most like ourselves in whatever situation. We make up a collective mind about our own identity and at the same time the identity of other groups. We decide on our purpose and nature, and that of others, classifying them into friend or foe. Strong factors in all these classifications efforts are our perceptions of relative power, wealth, familiarity, similarity and the compatibility of goals. Of course classification is just a fancy word for a type of discrimination, fed by salient features, experience, imagination and what we are taught. Based on the perceptions for these factors we decide who we like and who not.
Do note, in the absence of direct experience and factual teachings our imagination plays an important role.

Let's look at an example.

Suppose you live in a red state in the south of the US, having never met a Chinese person. You might very well feel the them versus us feeling based on all the news of China outgrowing the US, and about their communist system which lacks the essential American ingredients of liberty and God. A threat. You might imagine that Chinese people are mindless, godless automatons that would make the entire world into a gray, bleak, lifeless place. They all look the same, they are just copies. We as Americans are good liberty loving Christians. Based on the salient features in which we differ, and the information available we can clearly determine there are two groups, Chinese and Americans. We differ significantly from these Chinese people. We find ourselves competing for the same resources and for world domination. Our group has the right to win, because the Chinese are bad. To hell with them.

However if you live in San Francisco and your neighbors are Chinese, you might know them as very respectable individuals. You can tell the difference between one Chinese person and another. Their physical appearance is no longer salient, no longer sets them apart. You might conceptualize the them versus us quite differently. The Chinese system is at fault, it differs in a negative way from the American system, the Chinese themselves are good people. We still differ from China, but not the Chinese. They believe in communism, we in liberty. We still have the right to win, however we might want to educate and liberate the Chinese rather than destroying them.

Group identity is an important factor in the discrimination between groups, and a both a contributing and necessary factor to competition between groups. When faced with limited resources, we have to fight for them. In order to fight group versus group, there must be a difference, real or not, between you and the competition. Luckily, we usually have formed group identities in advance. It not only provides a save home, an identity, but also the required basis for competition. They are not us, they are different. Group identity makes the occurrence of conflicts likely, especially when competing for resources.

When competing we need to demonize the opposition. We need to explain to ourselves why the us is better than the them. Why we have the right to the resources. What we do is instill our opponents with negative basic characteristics. This is automated behavior. We are geared towards selecting and  processing simple information and react strongly to the negative. When observing the enemy, it is more natural to draw conclusions about their basic characteristics based on their immediate behavior, than to consider their motivations from a neutral and wider view. Suppose you are an Indian farmer. When you see a tiger in your area, you become suddenly aware of a great danger, by automatically assuming it wants to eat you. After all it's a murderous and agressive species. You will not take the time to observe its behavior. Perhaps it was just tracking a mate. No, you go out and shoot it. This is why most conflicts between groups and individuals seem to revolve around disliking specific physical or behavioral characteristics. If not at first so simple, often conflicts devolve to this level. I am sure the Russians now have specific cursewords for their Ukrainian neighbours by now and vice versa.

Discrimination takes place on all the levels that grouping does. In an USA national election northerners might discuss the backwardness of southerners amongst themselves. New Yorkers might ''diss'' the Chicago style pizza. After all, only New Yorkers know how to make good pizza. That's a well known fact. In New York..

Discrimination can even help to create new group identities. When the white sailors met the black Africans for the first time, automatically a new identity was spread in Europe. We, the white race. Before colonization and trade started in the early enlightenment period, Europeans didn't really think of themselves as white. Just as Christians, and not heathens (Muslims or barbarians).
In summary, group identity is an elementary factor in discrimination between groups. When discriminating, groups instill eachother with basic negative characteristics. The need for discrimination in enhanced when competing for resources.


The Monkey Sphere

Group identity has no limits. We can be members of various groups at the same time. Groupsize can range from 3 to infinite. What does have a limit is the number of people we can see as people. According to Dunbar there is room enough in our brains for active relations with about a 150 individuals (for inactive relations there is no limit). Any more and the social group would be unstable. The research is mainly based on monkeys with an important factor being the amount of time they can spend on social grooming. With 50 individuals monkeys already need to spend 40% of their time grooming in order to maintain social relationships with each other, and thus social cohesion in the group. Brainsize was also found to limit how many individuals we can percieve before we need to generalize. It was extrapolated that humans, with larger brains and using language for grooming, can form cohesive groups up to about a 148 individuals. Other scientists propose different numbers, however, the range is between 100 and 350.
David Wong described The Monkey Sphere. We can percieve a certain number of people as real persons, with feelings, vices, skills, etc. These people are part of our immediate social group. We can not have meaningfull connections with more than that. People outside our own sphere become faceless stereotypes, just like we are to them. While we care about what happens to those we know, we have little regard for people outside the sphere. This mechanic is supposedly found everywhere, at every level.
David Wong futher explains that today humans depend on very large groups in order to survive. However most people that we need for supplying our daily needs are part of the faceless masses. The whole reason stereotypes are necessary is to deal with larger numbers. We need to generalize. These stereotypes can have various content. Good, bad, neutral. Friend or foe. Industrious or lazy. And so on. Our actions follow the stereotypes. The rich stereotype the poor, and the poor stereotype the rich. Since these stereotypes are negative, either is capable of harming the other without feeling much guilt. Their actions simply depend on the content of their stereotypes, and, the needs of their own Monkey Spheres.
Group identity has no limits, while the Monkey Sphere does. The individuals within our Monkey Sphere might be part of competing groups. We might not even like them. Our group identity might be the overriding factor in our actions. We might harm people within our Monkey Sphere. However, the threshold to do so is much higher. We know these people, they are real to us. Their suffering is felt. And this is the point where The Monkey Sphere influences large scale group behavior. Namely 1) the suffering of people outside the sphere is not felt. And 2) the automatic stereotyping of anyone outside our own sphere is an important mechanic in the competition between groups, and the cooperation within a group. While it might be hard to attack or help a person you know, and like or dislike, it is easy to act against the interests of the faceless members of a competing group (bad guys) and easy to assist the faceless members of our own (good guys). 

Discrimination and understanding

Discrimination is an essential natural feature of living organisms. Among the laws that govern this process are the salience of features and information. There are different hazards to being taught and to having experienced. Negative information is stonger than positive. The process often happens subconsciously. Discrimination is not only part of the individual but also the group. Group identity is automatically formed via the need for cooperation, and the needs for security and a home. Because the identity provides these features, it is also strongly defended. Cooperation between groups suffers as a result. When competing for resources, conflict is easy to provoke. We like to instill our opponents with negative basic characteristics and keep the message simple.

If you are a student of man, you might come to the analysis given above. You might realize that black and white are arbitrary differences. People might as well have been orange and purple, the same situations would occur. It is a simple matter of behavioral laws. You can justifiably abstract the discrimination process between black and white as a behavioral function with the variables group A and group B, where A and B can have any information content, and A and B compete for resource X.

You realize that the differences that members of one group percieve of the other are also arbitrary in the same way. Who is to tell if the jogs are really good or bad, or if the nerds are really good or bad? There are of course functional differences, but are they really important in the end? Jogs are generally physically stronger than nerds. Is this strenght relevant to the discrimination process, or is the simple fact that they differ on an salient variable important? The same animosity and resulting behaviors between jogs and nerds might occur between factory workers and administrative workers within a car company. After all, white collar works use their heads to get ahead in life, they own the future. Blue collar works are mindless beasts, their only value and skill lies in physical labor. Administrative workers however are rarely former nerds. Nerds are to be found in IT. In other words, discrimination is a natural behavior and it's content arbitrary.

Understanding and choice

Those who understand the laws of discrimination and group identity can make choices. And here lie both danger and salvation. People can choose to enlighten others, to ease tensions, to enhance the level of knowledge that one individual or group has of the other. However, you can also choose to abuse this understanding for your own personal profit. You could play groups against each other via propaganda. If you have an arms factory, this would be a good business decision.

Government

In any society, various jobs need doing to make it work. From the mundane to the fabulous. We can't all be industry leaders or superstars. We can't all go to college. Cars need building, plumbing needs laying, busses need driving. Dentists and docters are needed, dock workers and lorry drivers.

When individuals form a group we recognize that we all need certain things, food, shelter, transportation, etc. If we work together, greater results can be achieved than working alone. But who will do which job? How do we trade resources? The importance of organization is recognized. Somebody will have to organize things. You can't build a street hap hazard as individuals, everyone laying cobblestones where they want. Subsequently the importance of leadership is recognized. Groups need organization to be effective, organization needs leadership. Thus government is born. An important job that makes any society work is that of government employee. From president of the country to local administrative clerk.

Most of us do not have time to think about how to govern let alone be in the government. We have jobs to do. We would like to task an adequate number of people to carry out this essential function for us. Most of us do not posses the intelligence or education to deal with the complexities of government. Who would you want to be in government? Ideally we want a government that is the most effective in organizing our society. A government that brings us as individuals the most benefits, and secondary to the group. We would like to select the smartest individuals with the best intentions to do the job. We expect our leaders to be smarter and more capable than we are, for else what would be the point of their leadership? They would add nothing we couldn't do ourselves.

Government and politics

Despite our group identities, various opinions on how to govern can exist within one group, often due to the existence of sub-groups, and sometimes due to individual differences. Debate is needed to finalize the group behavior and identity. Thus politics is born.

Those very smart individuals we select as our political leaders often are aware of some of the mechanics of human behavior, like discrimination and group identity. Invariably some would choose their own interests above that of the group, and attempt to further them by influencing the group, playing the strings as puppet masters, with the stings existing of 'information'. Something we know as propaganda. We know that information plays a crucial role in group identity, group behavior and in the process of making sense of the world called discrimination. If you can control information, you can control the group. The fight that goes on in the United States between the supporters of 'social justice', best represented by Jon Stewart, and 'the 1%', best represented by Dick Cheney, is essentially a fight for information control (best is based on the salience of both figures during the bush years, and their opposing views).

Two characteristics of politics are trade and competition. Those very smart individuals who know how the human game works, trade with each other for positions, or fight each other via propaganda. Positions of power are often the result of either behind closed doors horse trading or public fights. This has a negative consequence for the group. Not the individual with the best intention is selected by default, but the most skillful player. This player can be one of three things.

Politicians and discrimination

Three kinds of politicians exist. Stupid politicians, good politicians and bad politicians.

Stupid politicians are people that are not the smartest individuals in a group. Their selection to positions of power seems at first strange. However, this can be the result of puppet masters playing behind the scenes, with the individual in public view exhibiting certain attractive qualities such as physique, demeanor, likability etc. Example: George W. Bush. A stupid politician might also simply be a stronger individual than a smart well educated competitor. They might be louder in their propaganda and more forceful in their actions.

Good politicians are those very smart individuals with the best intentions for their group. Example: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. With the new deal he saved the great masses of the United States from poverty. With his pre war policies towards Japan he brought on world war 2 starting with the attack on Pearl Harbor. He cut Japan off oil, knowing they would attack. Japan could either give up its Empire or start a war. He knew the American public did not want a war, but he also knew that war would come eventually if Japan and Germany were let to fester. Publicly he paid lip service to isolationism, deceiving the American public in their own interest. The played the role of puppet master to the benefit of the group. Example: Gandhi. This very smart individual understood group mechanics. He succeeded in liberating India from the British but failed in his attempt to create peace and understanding between Muslims and Hindu's. Though not due to lack of effort. He attempted to bring people together. He tried to show similarities between the groups, and the arbitrary nature of their distinctions. But his message was much more complex than the simple message based on hatred of a supposedly lesser kind of human. In essence good politicians harmonize.

Bad politicians are those very smart individuals possessing only self interests and a willingness to use the group to further them. Example: Ronald Reagan. While seemingly having the best intentions towards the American public, behind the scenes he setup the conditions for what we now know as the one percent. He secured their privileges and power. Another example would be Dick Cheney. While his public imagine was that of defender against terrorism, the whole terrorism adventure resulted in the loss of public freedoms and privileges, and a substantial increase in power and wealth of the one percent, with whom he can directly be linked on the golf course. Think of expenditures in arms and surveillance. Think of the target surveillance agencies: everybody. Consider their power: the rights of total invasion of privacy. All your communications and all your actions are now subject to their review.
These bad politicians often use the mechanics of discrimination and group identity in a negative way. They create or enhance them versus us attitudes. They stimulate the awareness of differences, giving them salience. Decent hard working white people versus dangerous black hip hop gang bangers. Americans versus Muslims. Muslims of course dress differently, act differently, and most importantly follow a hostile primitive religion. Or so the propaganda claims. In essence, bad politicians divide and conquer.

In summary, those with the understanding can make a choice. Whether to act in the interest of the group, or in their own interest, using the group. Bad politicians can be categorized as those who use their understanding of the mechanics of discrimination in order to divide and conquer. Good politicians can be categorized as those who use the knowledge to harmonize. Perhaps this categorization can function as a logical basis for selecting leaders.

Conclusions

Discrimination is not a clear cut phenomenon. It is not a question of good and bad. It is a complex natural mechanic that we employ to make sense of the world. Salience of features in which objects differ and information about them play key roles. Discrimination between individuals and between groups is a natural phenomenon. The automatically created group identities play a key role in the discrimination process between groups and in the competition between them. Conflicts arise more readily when groups compete for the same resources. We automatically instill our opponents with negative basic characteristics because of the way we select and process information.

Individuals with knowledge of these mechanics can either choose to exploit them, or benefit the group. Those who choose the first option have an advantage. Fear and hatred are created more easily. Humans are more susceptible to simple and negative messages than complex messages that bring understanding. Bad politicians are divisive because it works.

(+take question list and cross out)

Addendum: Discrimination and amazement

Given what we know about human behavior, a bleek future seems to be looming. However, if you take a look at history a different picture arises. The number of wars decreased sharply the past few centuries. We have developed human rights, anti discrimination laws, an international court of justice. It is quite amazing realizing we come from a past where the wholesale slaughter of enemy tribes was common place. A big potential fault line however might be limited resources due to global warming. This is quite unnecessary, since we have the technology to provide everyone with clean food and energy. We currently simply lack the will to use it. Doing so would erode some of the powerbase of those that seek to divide and conquer.

Mainpage