Can prejudice ever be a good thing?
-
0:01 - 0:03When we think about prejudice and bias,
-
0:03 - 0:05we tend to think about stupid and evil people
-
0:05 - 0:08doing stupid and evil things.
-
0:08 - 0:10And this idea is nicely summarized
-
0:10 - 0:12by the British critic William Hazlitt,
-
0:12 - 0:15who wrote, "Prejudice is the child of ignorance."
-
0:15 - 0:17I want to try to convince you here
-
0:17 - 0:19that this is mistaken.
-
0:19 - 0:21I want to try to convince you
-
0:21 - 0:22that prejudice and bias
-
0:22 - 0:26are natural, they're often rational,
-
0:26 - 0:28and they're often even moral,
-
0:28 - 0:30and I think that once we understand this,
-
0:30 - 0:32we're in a better position to make sense of them
-
0:32 - 0:33when they go wrong,
-
0:33 - 0:35when they have horrible consequences,
-
0:35 - 0:38and we're in a better position to know what to do
-
0:38 - 0:39when this happens.
-
0:39 - 0:42So, start with stereotypes. You look at me,
-
0:42 - 0:44you know my name, you
know certain facts about me, -
0:44 - 0:46and you could make certain judgments.
-
0:46 - 0:49You could make guesses about my ethnicity,
-
0:49 - 0:52my political affiliation, my religious beliefs.
-
0:52 - 0:55And the thing is, these
judgments tend to be accurate. -
0:55 - 0:57We're very good at this sort of thing.
-
0:57 - 0:58And we're very good at this sort of thing
-
0:58 - 1:01because our ability to stereotype people
-
1:01 - 1:04is not some sort of arbitrary quirk of the mind,
-
1:04 - 1:07but rather it's a specific instance
-
1:07 - 1:08of a more general process,
-
1:08 - 1:10which is that we have experience
-
1:10 - 1:11with things and people in the world
-
1:11 - 1:13that fall into categories,
-
1:13 - 1:15and we can use our experience
to make generalizations -
1:15 - 1:17about novel instances of these categories.
-
1:17 - 1:20So everybody here has a lot of experience
-
1:20 - 1:22with chairs and apples and dogs,
-
1:22 - 1:24and based on this, you could see
-
1:24 - 1:26unfamiliar examples and you could guess,
-
1:26 - 1:27you could sit on the chair,
-
1:27 - 1:30you could eat the apple, the dog will bark.
-
1:30 - 1:32Now we might be wrong.
-
1:32 - 1:33The chair could collapse if you sit on it,
-
1:33 - 1:36the apple might be poison, the dog might not bark,
-
1:36 - 1:39and in fact, this is my dog Tessie, who doesn't bark.
-
1:39 - 1:41But for the most part, we're good at this.
-
1:41 - 1:43For the most part, we make good guesses
-
1:43 - 1:45both in the social domain and the non-social domain,
-
1:45 - 1:47and if we weren't able to do so,
-
1:47 - 1:50if we weren't able to make guesses about
new instances that we encounter, -
1:50 - 1:52we wouldn't survive.
-
1:52 - 1:55And in fact, Hazlitt later on in his wonderful essay
-
1:55 - 1:56concedes this.
-
1:56 - 1:59He writes, "Without the aid of prejudice and custom,
-
1:59 - 2:01I should not be able to find
my way my across the room; -
2:01 - 2:03nor know how to conduct
myself in any circumstances, -
2:03 - 2:08nor what to feel in any relation of life."
-
2:08 - 2:09Or take bias.
-
2:09 - 2:11Now sometimes, we break the world up into
-
2:11 - 2:14us versus them, into in-group versus out-group,
-
2:14 - 2:15and sometimes when we do this,
-
2:15 - 2:16we know we're doing something wrong,
-
2:16 - 2:18and we're kind of ashamed of it.
-
2:18 - 2:20But other times we're proud of it.
-
2:20 - 2:21We openly acknowledge it.
-
2:21 - 2:23And my favorite example of this
-
2:23 - 2:25is a question that came from the audience
-
2:25 - 2:28in a Republican debate prior to the last election.
-
2:28 - 2:30(Video) Anderson Cooper: Gets to your question,
-
2:30 - 2:34the question in the hall, on foreign aid? Yes, ma'am.
-
2:34 - 2:37Woman: The American people are suffering
-
2:37 - 2:39in our country right now.
-
2:39 - 2:43Why do we continue to send foreign aid
-
2:43 - 2:44to other countries
-
2:44 - 2:48when we need all the help we can get for ourselves?
-
2:48 - 2:50AC: Governor Perry, what about that?
-
2:50 - 2:51(Applause)
-
2:51 - 2:53Rick Perry: Absolutely, I think it's—
-
2:53 - 2:55Paul Bloom: Each of the people onstage
-
2:55 - 2:57agreed with the premise of her question,
-
2:57 - 2:59which is as Americans, we should care more
-
2:59 - 3:01about Americans than about other people.
-
3:01 - 3:04And in fact, in general, people are often swayed
-
3:04 - 3:08by feelings of solidarity, loyalty, pride, patriotism,
-
3:08 - 3:10towards their country or towards their ethnic group.
-
3:10 - 3:13Regardless of your politics, many
people feel proud to be American, -
3:13 - 3:15and they favor Americans over other countries.
-
3:15 - 3:18Residents of other countries
feel the same about their nation, -
3:18 - 3:21and we feel the same about our ethnicities.
-
3:21 - 3:22Now some of you may reject this.
-
3:22 - 3:24Some of you may be so cosmopolitan
-
3:24 - 3:27that you think that ethnicity and nationality
-
3:27 - 3:29should hold no moral sway.
-
3:29 - 3:31But even you sophisticates accept
-
3:31 - 3:33that there should be some pull
-
3:33 - 3:36towards the in-group in the
domain of friends and family, -
3:36 - 3:37of people you're close to,
-
3:37 - 3:39and so even you make a distinction
-
3:39 - 3:41between us versus them.
-
3:41 - 3:44Now, this distinction is natural enough
-
3:44 - 3:46and often moral enough, but it can go awry,
-
3:46 - 3:48and this was part of the research
-
3:48 - 3:51of the great social psychologist Henri Tajfel.
-
3:51 - 3:54Tajfel was born in Poland in 1919.
-
3:54 - 3:56He left to go to university in France,
-
3:56 - 3:58because as a Jew, he couldn't
go to university in Poland, -
3:58 - 4:01and then he enlisted in the French military
-
4:01 - 4:02in World War II.
-
4:02 - 4:04He was captured and ended up
-
4:04 - 4:05in a prisoner of war camp,
-
4:05 - 4:08and it was a terrifying time for him,
-
4:08 - 4:09because if it was discovered that he was a Jew,
-
4:09 - 4:11he could have been moved to a concentration camp,
-
4:11 - 4:13where he most likely would not have survived.
-
4:13 - 4:16And in fact, when the war
ended and he was released, -
4:16 - 4:18most of his friends and family were dead.
-
4:18 - 4:20He got involved in different pursuits.
-
4:20 - 4:22He helped out the war orphans.
-
4:22 - 4:24But he had a long-lasting interest
-
4:24 - 4:25in the science of prejudice,
-
4:25 - 4:28and so when a prestigious British scholarship
-
4:28 - 4:30on stereotypes opened up, he applied for it,
-
4:30 - 4:31and he won it,
-
4:31 - 4:33and then he began this amazing career.
-
4:33 - 4:36And what started his career is an insight
-
4:36 - 4:38that the way most people were thinking
-
4:38 - 4:40about the Holocaust was wrong.
-
4:40 - 4:42Many people, most people at the time,
-
4:42 - 4:44viewed the Holocaust as sort of representing
-
4:44 - 4:47some tragic flaw on the part of the Germans,
-
4:47 - 4:51some genetic taint, some authoritarian personality.
-
4:51 - 4:53And Tajfel rejected this.
-
4:53 - 4:56Tajfel said what we see in the Holocaust
-
4:56 - 4:58is just an exaggeration
-
4:58 - 5:00of normal psychological processes
-
5:00 - 5:01that exist in every one of us.
-
5:01 - 5:04And to explore this, he did a series of classic studies
-
5:04 - 5:06with British adolescents.
-
5:06 - 5:07And in one of his studies, what he did was he asked
-
5:07 - 5:10the British adolescents all sorts of questions,
-
5:10 - 5:12and then based on their answers, he said,
-
5:12 - 5:14"I've looked at your answers,
and based on the answers, -
5:14 - 5:16I have determined that you are either" —
-
5:16 - 5:17he told half of them —
-
5:17 - 5:20"a Kandinsky lover, you love the work of Kandinsky,
-
5:20 - 5:23or a Klee lover, you love the work of Klee."
-
5:23 - 5:25It was entirely bogus.
-
5:25 - 5:27Their answers had nothing
to do with Kandinsky or Klee. -
5:27 - 5:30They probably hadn't heard of the artists.
-
5:30 - 5:33He just arbitrarily divided them up.
-
5:33 - 5:36But what he found was, these categories mattered,
-
5:36 - 5:39so when he later gave the subjects money,
-
5:39 - 5:40they would prefer to give the money
-
5:40 - 5:42to members of their own group
-
5:42 - 5:44than members of the other group.
-
5:44 - 5:46Worse, they were actually most interested
-
5:46 - 5:48in establishing a difference
-
5:48 - 5:51between their group and other groups,
-
5:51 - 5:53so they would give up money for their own group
-
5:53 - 5:58if by doing so they could give
the other group even less. -
5:58 - 6:00This bias seems to show up very early.
-
6:00 - 6:03So my colleague and wife, Karen Wynn, at Yale
-
6:03 - 6:04has done a series of studies with babies
-
6:04 - 6:07where she exposes babies to puppets,
-
6:07 - 6:09and the puppets have certain food preferences.
-
6:09 - 6:11So one of the puppets might like green beans.
-
6:11 - 6:14The other puppet might like graham crackers.
-
6:14 - 6:16They test the babies own food preferences,
-
6:16 - 6:19and babies typically prefer the graham crackers.
-
6:19 - 6:22But the question is, does this matter to babies
-
6:22 - 6:25in how they treat the puppets? And it matters a lot.
-
6:25 - 6:26They tend to prefer the puppet
-
6:26 - 6:30who has the same food tastes that they have,
-
6:30 - 6:32and worse, they actually prefer puppets
-
6:32 - 6:35who punish the puppet with the different food taste.
-
6:35 - 6:38(Laughter)
-
6:38 - 6:41We see this sort of in-group,
out-group psychology all the time. -
6:41 - 6:43We see it in political clashes
-
6:43 - 6:45within groups with different ideologies.
-
6:45 - 6:49We see it in its extreme in cases of war,
-
6:49 - 6:52where the out-group isn't merely given less,
-
6:52 - 6:54but dehumanized,
-
6:54 - 6:56as in the Nazi perspective of Jews
-
6:56 - 6:58as vermin or lice,
-
6:58 - 7:02or the American perspective of Japanese as rats.
-
7:02 - 7:05Stereotypes can also go awry.
-
7:05 - 7:07So often they're rational and useful,
-
7:07 - 7:08but sometimes they're irrational,
-
7:08 - 7:10they give the wrong answers,
-
7:10 - 7:11and other times
-
7:11 - 7:13they lead to plainly immoral consequences.
-
7:13 - 7:16And the case that's been most studied
-
7:16 - 7:17is the case of race.
-
7:17 - 7:19There was a fascinating study
-
7:19 - 7:21prior to the 2008 election
-
7:21 - 7:24where social psychologists looked at the extent
-
7:24 - 7:27to which the candidates were
associated with America, -
7:27 - 7:31as in an unconscious association
with the American flag. -
7:31 - 7:32And in one of their studies they compared
-
7:32 - 7:34Obama and McCain, and they found McCain
-
7:34 - 7:38is thought of as more American than Obama,
-
7:38 - 7:40and to some extent, people aren't
that surprised by hearing that. -
7:40 - 7:42McCain is a celebrated war hero,
-
7:42 - 7:44and many people would explicitly say
-
7:44 - 7:47he has more of an American story than Obama.
-
7:47 - 7:49But they also compared Obama
-
7:49 - 7:51to British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
-
7:51 - 7:53and they found that Blair was also thought of
-
7:53 - 7:56as more American than Obama,
-
7:56 - 7:58even though subjects explicitly understood
-
7:58 - 8:01that he's not American at all.
-
8:01 - 8:02But they were responding, of course,
-
8:02 - 8:05to the color of his skin.
-
8:05 - 8:07These stereotypes and biases
-
8:07 - 8:09have real-world consequences,
-
8:09 - 8:12both subtle and very important.
-
8:12 - 8:14In one recent study, researchers
-
8:14 - 8:18put ads on eBay for the sale of baseball cards.
-
8:18 - 8:20Some of them were held by white hands,
-
8:20 - 8:22others by black hands.
-
8:22 - 8:23They were the same baseball cards.
-
8:23 - 8:24The ones held by black hands
-
8:24 - 8:27got substantially smaller bids
-
8:27 - 8:29than the ones held by white hands.
-
8:29 - 8:31In research done at Stanford,
-
8:31 - 8:36psychologists explored the case of people
-
8:36 - 8:39sentenced for the murder of a white person.
-
8:39 - 8:42It turns out, holding everything else constant,
-
8:42 - 8:44you are considerably more likely to be executed
-
8:44 - 8:46if you look like the man on the right
-
8:46 - 8:48than the man on the left,
-
8:48 - 8:50and this is in large part because
-
8:50 - 8:53the man on the right looks more prototypically black,
-
8:53 - 8:55more prototypically African-American,
-
8:55 - 8:57and this apparently influences people's decisions
-
8:57 - 8:59over what to do about him.
-
8:59 - 9:01So now that we know about this,
-
9:01 - 9:02how do we combat it?
-
9:02 - 9:04And there are different avenues.
-
9:04 - 9:05One avenue is to appeal
-
9:05 - 9:07to people's emotional responses,
-
9:07 - 9:10to appeal to people's empathy,
-
9:10 - 9:11and we often do that through stories.
-
9:11 - 9:14So if you are a liberal parent
-
9:14 - 9:16and you want to encourage your children
-
9:16 - 9:18to believe in the merits of nontraditional families,
-
9:18 - 9:20you might give them a book like this.
["Heather Has Two Mommies"] -
9:20 - 9:22If you are conservative and have a different attitude,
-
9:22 - 9:24you might give them a book like this.
-
9:24 - 9:26(Laughter)
["Help! Mom! There Are Liberals under My Bed!"] -
9:26 - 9:29But in general, stories can turn
-
9:29 - 9:31anonymous strangers into people who matter,
-
9:31 - 9:34and the idea that we care about people
-
9:34 - 9:36when we focus on them as individuals
-
9:36 - 9:38is an idea which has shown up across history.
-
9:38 - 9:41So Stalin apocryphally said,
-
9:41 - 9:42"A single death is a tragedy,
-
9:42 - 9:44a million deaths is a statistic,"
-
9:44 - 9:46and Mother Teresa said,
-
9:46 - 9:47"If I look at the mass, I will never act.
-
9:47 - 9:50If I look at the one, I will."
-
9:50 - 9:52Psychologists have explored this.
-
9:52 - 9:53For instance, in one study,
-
9:53 - 9:56people were given a list of facts about a crisis,
-
9:56 - 10:00and it was seen how much they would donate
-
10:00 - 10:02to solve this crisis,
-
10:02 - 10:04and another group was given no facts at all
-
10:04 - 10:06but they were told of an individual
-
10:06 - 10:08and given a name and given a face,
-
10:08 - 10:11and it turns out that they gave far more.
-
10:11 - 10:13None of this I think is a secret
-
10:13 - 10:15to the people who are engaged in charity work.
-
10:15 - 10:18People don't tend to deluge people
-
10:18 - 10:19with facts and statistics.
-
10:19 - 10:20Rather, you show them faces,
-
10:20 - 10:22you show them people.
-
10:22 - 10:25It's possible that by extending our sympathies
-
10:25 - 10:27to an individual, they can spread
-
10:27 - 10:30to the group that the individual belongs to.
-
10:30 - 10:33This is Harriet Beecher Stowe.
-
10:33 - 10:35The story, perhaps apocryphal,
-
10:35 - 10:37is that President Lincoln invited her
-
10:37 - 10:39to the White House in the middle of the Civil War
-
10:39 - 10:41and said to her,
-
10:41 - 10:43"So you're the little lady who started this great war."
-
10:43 - 10:45And he was talking about "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
-
10:45 - 10:48"Uncle Tom's Cabin" is not
a great book of philosophy -
10:48 - 10:51or of theology or perhaps not even literature,
-
10:51 - 10:53but it does a great job
-
10:53 - 10:56of getting people to put themselves in the shoes
-
10:56 - 10:58of people they wouldn't otherwise be in the shoes of,
-
10:58 - 11:01put themselves in the shoes of slaves.
-
11:01 - 11:02And that could well have been a catalyst
-
11:02 - 11:04for great social change.
-
11:04 - 11:06More recently, looking at America
-
11:06 - 11:09in the last several decades,
-
11:09 - 11:13there's some reason to believe
that shows like "The Cosby Show" -
11:13 - 11:15radically changed American attitudes
towards African-Americans, -
11:15 - 11:18while shows like "Will and Grace" and "Modern Family"
-
11:18 - 11:20changed American attitudes
-
11:20 - 11:21towards gay men and women.
-
11:21 - 11:23I don't think it's an exaggeration to say
-
11:23 - 11:26that the major catalyst in America for moral change
-
11:26 - 11:29has been a situation comedy.
-
11:29 - 11:30But it's not all emotions,
-
11:30 - 11:32and I want to end by appealing
-
11:32 - 11:34to the power of reason.
-
11:34 - 11:36At some point in his wonderful book
-
11:36 - 11:37"The Better Angels of Our Nature,"
-
11:37 - 11:39Steven Pinker says,
-
11:39 - 11:42the Old Testament says love thy neighbor,
-
11:42 - 11:45and the New Testament says love thy enemy,
-
11:45 - 11:47but I don't love either one of them, not really,
-
11:47 - 11:49but I don't want to kill them.
-
11:49 - 11:51I know I have obligations to them,
-
11:51 - 11:54but my moral feelings to them, my moral beliefs
-
11:54 - 11:56about how I should behave towards them,
-
11:56 - 11:58aren't grounded in love.
-
11:58 - 12:00What they're grounded in is the
understanding of human rights, -
12:00 - 12:02a belief that their life is as valuable to them
-
12:02 - 12:04as my life is to me,
-
12:04 - 12:06and to support this, he tells a story
-
12:06 - 12:08by the great philosopher Adam Smith,
-
12:08 - 12:10and I want to tell this story too,
-
12:10 - 12:11though I'm going to modify it a little bit
-
12:11 - 12:13for modern times.
-
12:13 - 12:15So Adam Smith starts by asking you to imagine
-
12:15 - 12:17the death of thousands of people,
-
12:17 - 12:19and imagine that the thousands of people
-
12:19 - 12:21are in a country you are not familiar with.
-
12:21 - 12:25It could be China or India or a country in Africa.
-
12:25 - 12:27And Smith says, how would you respond?
-
12:27 - 12:29And you would say, well that's too bad,
-
12:29 - 12:31and you'd go on to the rest of your life.
-
12:31 - 12:33If you were to open up The New
York Times online or something, -
12:33 - 12:36and discover this, and in fact
this happens to us all the time, -
12:36 - 12:38we go about our lives.
-
12:38 - 12:40But imagine instead, Smith says,
-
12:40 - 12:41you were to learn that tomorrow
-
12:41 - 12:44you were to have your little finger chopped off.
-
12:44 - 12:46Smith says, that would matter a lot.
-
12:46 - 12:48You would not sleep that night
-
12:48 - 12:49wondering about that.
-
12:49 - 12:51So this raises the question:
-
12:51 - 12:53Would you sacrifice thousands of lives
-
12:53 - 12:55to save your little finger?
-
12:55 - 12:58Now answer this in the privacy of your own head,
-
12:58 - 13:01but Smith says, absolutely not,
-
13:01 - 13:02what a horrid thought.
-
13:02 - 13:04And so this raises the question,
-
13:04 - 13:06and so, as Smith puts it,
-
13:06 - 13:08"When our passive feelings are almost always
-
13:08 - 13:09so sordid and so selfish,
-
13:09 - 13:11how comes it that our active principles
-
13:11 - 13:13should often be so generous and so noble?"
-
13:13 - 13:15And Smith's answer is, "It is reason,
-
13:15 - 13:17principle, conscience.
-
13:17 - 13:19[This] calls to us,
-
13:19 - 13:22with a voice capable of astonishing
the most presumptuous of our passions, -
13:22 - 13:24that we are but one of the multitude,
-
13:24 - 13:26in no respect better than any other in it."
-
13:26 - 13:28And this last part is what is often described
-
13:28 - 13:32as the principle of impartiality.
-
13:32 - 13:34And this principle of impartiality manifests itself
-
13:34 - 13:36in all of the world's religions,
-
13:36 - 13:38in all of the different versions of the golden rule,
-
13:38 - 13:41and in all of the world's moral philosophies,
-
13:41 - 13:42which differ in many ways
-
13:42 - 13:45but share the presupposition
that we should judge morality -
13:45 - 13:48from sort of an impartial point of view.
-
13:48 - 13:50The best articulation of this view
-
13:50 - 13:53is actually, for me, it's not from
a theologian or from a philosopher, -
13:53 - 13:54but from Humphrey Bogart
-
13:54 - 13:56at the end of "Casablanca."
-
13:56 - 14:00So, spoiler alert, he's telling his lover
-
14:00 - 14:01that they have to separate
-
14:01 - 14:02for the more general good,
-
14:02 - 14:04and he says to her, and I won't do the accent,
-
14:04 - 14:06but he says to her, "It doesn't take much to see
-
14:06 - 14:07that the problems of three little people
-
14:07 - 14:10don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."
-
14:10 - 14:14Our reason could cause us to override our passions.
-
14:14 - 14:15Our reason could motivate us
-
14:15 - 14:17to extend our empathy,
-
14:17 - 14:19could motivate us to write a
book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin," -
14:19 - 14:21or read a book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin,"
-
14:21 - 14:23and our reason can motivate us to create
-
14:23 - 14:25customs and taboos and laws
-
14:25 - 14:27that will constrain us
-
14:27 - 14:29from acting upon our impulses
-
14:29 - 14:30when, as rational beings, we feel
-
14:30 - 14:32we should be constrained.
-
14:32 - 14:34This is what a constitution is.
-
14:34 - 14:37A constitution is something
which was set up in the past -
14:37 - 14:38that applies now in the present,
-
14:38 - 14:39and what it says is,
-
14:39 - 14:41no matter how much we might to reelect
-
14:41 - 14:44a popular president for a third term,
-
14:44 - 14:46no matter how much white Americans might choose
-
14:46 - 14:50to feel that they want to reinstate
the institution of slavery, we can't. -
14:50 - 14:52We have bound ourselves.
-
14:52 - 14:54And we bind ourselves in other ways as well.
-
14:54 - 14:57We know that when it comes to choosing somebody
-
14:57 - 15:00for a job, for an award,
-
15:00 - 15:03we are strongly biased by their race,
-
15:03 - 15:05we are biased by their gender,
-
15:05 - 15:07we are biased by how attractive they are,
-
15:07 - 15:10and sometimes we might say,
"Well fine, that's the way it should be." -
15:10 - 15:12But other times we say, "This is wrong."
-
15:12 - 15:14And so to combat this,
-
15:14 - 15:16we don't just try harder,
-
15:16 - 15:19but rather what we do is we set up situations
-
15:19 - 15:22where these other sources
of information can't bias us, -
15:22 - 15:24which is why many orchestras
-
15:24 - 15:26audition musicians behind screens,
-
15:26 - 15:28so the only information they have
-
15:28 - 15:30is the information they believe should matter.
-
15:30 - 15:33I think prejudice and bias
-
15:33 - 15:36illustrate a fundamental duality of human nature.
-
15:36 - 15:39We have gut feelings, instincts, emotions,
-
15:39 - 15:42and they affect our judgments and our actions
-
15:42 - 15:44for good and for evil,
-
15:44 - 15:48but we are also capable of rational deliberation
-
15:48 - 15:49and intelligent planning,
-
15:49 - 15:52and we can use these to, in some cases,
-
15:52 - 15:54accelerate and nourish our emotions,
-
15:54 - 15:57and in other cases staunch them.
-
15:57 - 15:58And it's in this way
-
15:58 - 16:01that reason helps us create a better world.
-
16:01 - 16:03Thank you.
-
16:03 - 16:07(Applause)
- Title:
- Can prejudice ever be a good thing?
- Speaker:
- Paul Bloom
- Description:
-
We often think of bias and prejudice as rooted in ignorance. But as psychologist Paul Bloom seeks to show, prejudice is often natural, rational ... even moral. The key, says Bloom, is to understand how our own biases work — so we can take control when they go wrong.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
closed TED
- Project:
- TEDTalks
- Duration:
- 16:23
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Can prejudice ever be a good thing? | |
![]() |
Morton Bast approved English subtitles for Can prejudice ever be a good thing? | |
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Can prejudice ever be a good thing? | |
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Can prejudice ever be a good thing? | |
![]() |
Morton Bast edited English subtitles for Can prejudice ever be a good thing? | |
![]() |
Madeleine Aronson accepted English subtitles for Can prejudice ever be a good thing? | |
![]() |
Madeleine Aronson edited English subtitles for Can prejudice ever be a good thing? | |
![]() |
Madeleine Aronson edited English subtitles for Can prejudice ever be a good thing? |