Prejudice and discrimination are usually classified as behavioural attitudes towards a certain group or individual based on a multitude of reasons [according to different psychological theories]. The main reasons for prejudice are believed to be rooted in individual psychological processes related to groups, social influence and/or upbringing.
One plausible explanation for prejudice is the authoritarian personality, which suggests that those belonging in the category are concerned with status and upholding conventions, are very conformist and tend to be obsequious to those they see as holding a higher status – while treating those ‘below’ with contemp. Authoritarian personality is believed to be the result of strict and punitive upbringing which later leads to hostility being directed towards disliked [justified or unjustified] groups through the process of « displacement ». Adorno et al (1950) found strong and positive correlations between respondents’ scores on the F-Scale and scores on other measures intended to assess anti-semitism (AS scale) and ethnocentrism (E scale). However, the PEC-scale (Political and economic conservatism) was not strongly related, which only led to the conclusion of how people who are anti-Semitic are also « likely » to be hostile towards most « out-groups ».
The Adorno et al (1950) test only consisted of agreement that could only be geared towards anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism and fascism, which might have led to the problem of acquiescent response. The fact that the interviewer knew the interviewee’s F-score might have also led to experimenter bias; and the theory also falls short in the explanation of mass changes in behaviour: “Antisemitism in Nazi Germany grew during a decade or so, which is much too short a time for a whole generation of German families to have adopted new forms of childrearing practices giving rise to authoritarian and prejudiced children (Brown, 1988)” [not plausible]. The reality is that anti-Semitism may have been the result of a more sinister social and economic problem caused, inflicted by or related to the jews powerful Zionist business associations on the German economy at a time where the country was suffering [people, culture, identity, economy…].
Another form of prejudice is stereotyping, which plays a major part in the process of inter-cultural [note: culture may refer to groups defined by language, geography, religion, and other common similarities] prejudice where the root of its cause has proven to be fairly ambiguous in explanation. Groups founded on the behavioural patterns based on a particular geography [usually] tend to stereotype each other negatively [out-group(s), i.e. the other group(s) with petty differences in the way they go by their daily activities as all human primates on this planet, as the chart below suggests].
It is believed that the process of stereotyping is the result of minimising mental effort, reminiscent of Carl Jung‘s quote:
« Thinking is difficult, that is why most people judge. »
Stereotyping is linked to psychological processes within the individual and is assumed to be connected to environmental influences that lead to a prejudiced mind; where out-groups and there members are defined unrealistically by single characteristics (negative usually). Stereotyping can sometimes [at least when dealing with members of the public who may not be deemed as « intelligent or smart », even bordering on plain « stupid »] play a role in the legitimisation of prejudiced and discriminatory treatment of other individuals who simply [consciously or unconsciously] made the choice to live by different modes of group-oriented behaviour (culture).
Rational reasoning and the humane ability to understand each group’s choices while also respecting each group’s boundaries [geographical, social, economic, psychosocial, linguistic, etc] are surprisingly never considered by individuals and authorities in the quest to correct the mistakes of a world designed on outdated ideologies [e.g. the scientifically poor logic of global communism] to design a new one based on creative scientific reasoning, evolutionary logic & progressive innovation.
Another reason why some individuals resort to stereotyping others may be insecurity. That is, some individuals may be frustrated at their inability to conquer other(s) who are above their league in terms of abilities and achievements, and may stereotype these individuals in their quest to compensate for their own lack of abilities and feeling of inferiority when faced with these individuals who are more talented than them. Arguably, it may also be that these petty common brains who stereotype, simply fear that their competitors may be able to excel and deliver a superior performance/output than them if not distracted and slowed by insignificant acts of stereotyped behaviour.
Prejudice as an Illusionary Cure to Low Self-Esteem/Insecurity
The Social Learning Theory, on the other hand, assumes prejudice as the result of maintaining self-esteem of both the individual and the in-group (individuals with the same behavioural patterns as the individual/tribe) members – where one tends to be biased towards glorifying the group whilst also paying particular attention to criteria that make the group look better. This is related to our sense of identity being determined by the groups we belong to and thus tend to be biased towards favouring them. Tajfel et al (1982) showed how schoolboys chose the strategy to allocate more points to their own group at the expense of getting least overall – showing bias in the absence of competition. The two main problems however are the fact that  the tendency for favouritism might be group-oriented and not universal (Wetherall, 1982), and also how  most studies show bias towards in-group (which could not only be prejudice but stereotyping or other influences).
Unrealistic Conflict? Competition for the same Resource(s) while presuming in-group members to be « unconditional benefactors »
Finally, the realistic conflict theory suggests that prejudice arises when two or more groups compete for the same resource which in turn leads to a tendency to favour in-group members, while being hostile and denying resources to out-groups. This was proven in Sherif et al (1961) where the artificially stimulated competitive conflict lead to negative stereotyping towards out-group which persisted even after the competition. However, the validity was questioned over the artificiality of the situation and the samples (US American boys only?); as Tyerman & Spencer also showed how competition does not always cause prejudice – where UK scouts co-operated instead. Furthermore, individuals with different upbringing and philosophical orientations had not been considered, which in turn affects the ecological validity of the finding where inferences from generalisation would likely lack precision – with a world in constant social evolution with more psychological research being constantly published to guide society towards a more harmonious design.
Conclusion and Reflections
Together, the theories seem to offer a plausible explanation for prejudice but cannot be ranked; as they compensate each other’s weak points. A sensible application of each theory – depending on the situation – seems like the rational method forward, since factors such as group-based behavioural patterns (culture), climate and norms remain vital considerations when researching about prejudice, its causes & a more direct approach to solutions.
Furthermore, the world has made such leap socially with the technological era, and people have been inclined towards knowledge, discoveries and innovation with social media contributing towards a more educated humanity [with its cultural barriers & linguistic differences as the main organising factors along with belief systems – e.g. religion, ethics, philosophy, national feelings, etc – in each groups identity].
A new and strong global inclination towards a realistic synchronised unity [where the world’s population can live harmoniously in their own geographical location with their chosen units, laws and lifestyle], may shape intellectual thought in the decades to come now that the experience learnt from psychosocial disasters due to badly managed population shifts [that turned out to be destructive to the safety of Western nations] can be considered in future policies. [Visit the website of the Banque Mondiale for more precise population statistics].
Organisms who do not want to/cannot assimilate, should consider a relocation to an environment that is adjusted and more suited to their evolutionary needs, as this seems like the most rational solution, such as the growing number of sensible Negro people nowadays who are gradually shifting back to their homelands in Africa to help it grow economically and culturally with the world developing at a speed never seen before in this era partly accelerated with modern technology.
A great example of environmental and socio-psychological synchronisation is India, with 94% of Hindus being the native Hindi-speaking population of India who also live there, although Hinduism and its various branches of philosophy [explored by one of the most influential Western philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, and also many others such as Aldous Huxley, Alfred North Whitehead, Arnold Toynbee, François Voltaire, Rudolf Steiner, Wilhelm von Humbolt & Will Durant] – as other major religious cultures such as Christianity – also spread in influence globally.
The Climate Collapse disaster has also made Civilization aware of the importance of « synchronised unity » in matters of global human advancement – future research surrounding prejudice and discrimination would likely benefit the human world more if applied in intra-group scenarios – should the world’s population be managed and geographically engineered according to each group’s evolutionary logic [to fit their respective psycho-social and organic environments to further refine group evolution and guide society towards a harmonious pattern of living] for each group by their respective identities, collective beliefs, values & vision.
As for exceptional organisms who have migrated to a new society [geography] to create themselves and build their lives, it would certainly be helpful for them to see themselves as singular and individual units with the power to reshape their whole being if they intend to be able to live a life that is not restrictive and is in complete synchronisation with the new society they choose to be a part of; thus assimilation seems to be the only reasonable and humane option.
It is also fundamental for all to understand that geographical groups have evolved and have gained and maintained a structure because each region on earth and its respective organisms [of a particular type of organic composition – what some refer to as “race”] have created societies and behavioural patterns that led to a group with some form of synchronisation and organisation.
However, it is also important to consider that from the perspective of the universality of life on Planet Earth, any human organism of whatsoever type of organic composition can procreate with one another. This simple but fundamental scientific observation means that if the laws of evolution and nature that contain and govern all life on this planet had different intentions, then organisms of different organic compositions would not be able to create new life. This does not mean that countries should be encouraging uncontrolled savage communist/zionist invasion policies in terms of migration to disrupt their own stability, since preserving a sense of synchronisation and organisation for all groups involves promoting national agendas with organisms that have evolved in their environment and have the characteristics to support the continuity and productivity of their group & society.
But it is also very important for all groups [around the world] to consider the never-ending and ongoing process of evolution and natural selection that affects all organisms on planet Earth similarly.
All societies should be asking the question of whether some select superior organisms [whatever the field in which they may excel / See: Scientists discover 1,000 new “intelligence genes”] would enhance them as a group [i.e. upscale their organic composition], since we are now in 2018 and are part of a generation that has the scientific knowledge that previous generations before us did not have. Because after all, the choice of partnership should always remain that of the individual, and since the criteria in partnership selection differs from one individual to another [e.g. some may look for physical attributes, others for emotional intelligence, or philosophical sensibilities, or typical personality traits, etc], this may lead some individuals to choose from a range of organic compositions.
Hence, human organisms that have chosen to shift their geography to be part of a new society along with its heritage do not seem to have any other concrete option but to fully « assimilate » and prove their genetic fitness/health and abilities, and hence become an asset to the new group by becoming a part of it to help maintain its stability and sense of synchronisation. If the new organisms lack genetic fitness/health, then they should consider adopting children of the similar organic composition of the respective societies they moved to and live in, as this will not cause any instability for the future continuity of the group.
So for organisms who do change their mode of existence, i.e. organisms that have the potential and have taken the decision to and do assimilate in Western European societies, the best option seems to “see, think, breathe & live” [as a way of speaking] like the new society they chose to be a part of, and also “feel” the new group’s pain, joy, values and heritage [even religion if possible], i.e. to see the members of their new community as their own « blood », just like those from avant-garde French schools of thought do, as it will be in their best interest in living fully [although it is vital for all organisms to also consider the problems of « bad blood », since social incompatibility or a lack of chemistry – which is not necessarily hateful – within organisms of the same geographical environment are common due to a range of factors (e.g. intelligence, philosophy, values, sensibility, personality, character, etc)]
Any society that cannot add highly talented organisms with exceptional genes that have the potential to enhance and sharpen them as a group through the process of assimilation, would be missing out and will forever have a weakness over avant-garde societies that can. However, it is important not to take the process of assimilation lightly as it is not a costume party. Assimilation is not an easy process as we have found.
The large majority of organisms who change geographic locations do not seem to have the abilities or the desire to assimilate, since it involves focusing their loyalty and dedication to the new society, its heritage and people while also adopting [e.g names that are sycnhronised with the society’s heritage as it is commonly done in France] and mastering new behavioural and communicative patterns [as Nicolas Sarkozy also pointed out], which requires learning & adaptation. Hence, the diplomatic deportation and relocation of incompatible organisms along with campaigns to help them settle still remain the best solution to alleviate the burden of mass migration and psycho-social disruption to Western European societies, because assimilation requires skills and dedication and the majority of foreign organisms fail to master them.
We should also take note that there are some [not many] “incredible” individuals who manage to assimilate and become fully part of their new societies, and promote it passionately.
These individuals who have made the tremendous effort to become fully part of their new society where they have moved to and have the potential to enhance, guide and promote it should be applauded and encouraged because these individuals who have proven their genetic fitness/health, abilities and national loyalty are not in a new society simply for economic gains [as a leech] but see themselves as part of the national community/family, and have taken the sensitive personal decision to completely blend in [assimilate] and be similar to the natives of their new societies where it reflects in their values, thoughts, behaviour, nationalistic feelings & perception.
Boakes. R (1984) From Darwin to behaviourism: Psychology and the minds of animals. Cambridge University Press
Cohen D. (1979) J.B Watson: The Founder of Behaviourism. London, Boston and Henley
Gross. R (2005) Psychology: the science of mind and behaviour. London, Hodder and Stoughton Educational
Updated 18th of November 2018 | Danny J. D’Purb | DPURB.com
While the aim of the community at dpurb.com has been & will always be to focus on a modern & progressive culture, human progress, scientific research, philosophical advancement & a future in harmony with our natural environment; the tireless efforts in researching & providing our valued audience the latest & finest information in various fields unfortunately takes its toll on our very human admins, who along with the time sacrificed & the pleasure of contributing in advancing our world through sensitive discussions & progressive ideas, have to deal with the stresses that test even the toughest of minds. Your valued support would ensure our work remains at its standards and remind our admins that their efforts are appreciated while also allowing you to take pride in our journey towards an enlightened human civilization. Your support would benefit a cause that focuses on mankind, current & future generations.
Thank you once again for your time.
Please feel free to support us by considering a donation.
The Team @ dpurb.com