What your calling prejudice I would call assumption. If I assume it's going to rain I'll take my umbrella. Actually I don't have an umbrella but you understand. Your basketball example I would call an assumption. A prejudice for me would be like the word says, to pre judge and usually involves a mental preset. I really see little difference between bias, prejudice and assumption.
Why do bias' have to be negative. Isn't our interpretation of reality (phenomenon) predisposed by our bias'? It seems to me few see the world without filtering it first through our expectations, prejudices, assumptions. Aren't people that can't filter phenomenon called nuts?
Good counterpoints!
I agree, it is impossible to see the world without some kind of filter, expectation, prejudice, or assumption. If we woke up in the morning without any of those things we would have no idea how to dress, no idea how to drive, no idea what people we would meet, no idea how to do our job...etc. When I examine patients I attempt to remove all types of prejudice and judgments so I can best treat them. However, I immediately start to filter into categories. Did this person have a stroke? A seizure? Is this depression? Is this pseudodementia? Is this bipolar? I care very little for the actual diagnosis but I use my knowledge, education, and experience to filter things in and out. If I looked at every new pt. without these things it would take me forever and I would make a lot of mistakes. What makes a good doctor different from a bad one is the ability to back the filter up and acknowledge when one made a mistake. But, I digress.
I don't think bias is negative. It simply is...kind of a zen thing. However, to interpret data without acknowledging possible bias is a negative thing. Good research articles will briefly mention the types of bias in their paper to make the reader more aware.
I disagree with your definitions of assumption vs. prejudice vs. bias. I think prejudice is intimately tied to preformed constructs of the world. I think assumptions are not necessarily so. Let us take the theoretical example from my other thread and break down the three.
Bias: Availability bias: people use most recent examples as the norm. Sandy Hook killer may have been schizo, the pt. in the theoretical example is schizo. Both of these schizophrenics are violent; therefore, most schizophrenics are violent. (This is fundamentally wrong, most schizophrenics are not violent.)
Assumption: Pt. in example is schizophrenic, pt. will most likely walk into a school and kill kids. No, in fact, pt's violence is directed towards pt's boss and pt's self.
Prejudice: Pt. is schizophrenic. Therefore, she is probably homeless. Again, false, pt. has a job.
People that can't filter phenomenon are indeed nuts...I cite Bill and Spartacus as examples.
