Watching runner runner a few months ago on one those satellite channels fond of showing ‘old’ movies…. These words stood out: Dean Monroe telling the protagonist, “what you touch, touches us.” And this is why muslims from Arab countries may get extra attention at Western airports because of some association with terrorism.
Stereotypes are powerful. They tell us what to see, how to see, how to behave….
Foreigners who commit crimes stand out. If it happens often enough and the crimes are usually of a particular kind, it gives grounds for locals and law enforcement to stereotype…. Additionally, news of major busts of foreigners could be like plane crash events. With the consequent help the media, this news helps fix the idea in the minds of locals that the average Nigerian in their country is very likely a scammer.
In an international social gathering, a Nigerian attempted to initiate a conversation with a Briton. The Brit asked him pointedly, ‘do you want to dupe me?’ That would’ve been okay if he asked only once. But he soon started sounding like a broken record. And the conversation that was not, ended. The Nigerian understood where the Brit was coming from; whether from direct experience or from hearsay….
A happy as usual Nigerian once passed through two airports in a connecting flight, happy as usual. He passed through the scans in Dubai without any alarm. In the UK, however, their body scanner was triggered by who knows what. He was asked to go to the side to get patted down. There was amusement clearly on his face but they weren’t smiling. He was left thinking about why he was given special treatment. Because he smiled too much, he hoped. He still had on the exact same clothes in London as he had in dubai—with nothing remotely metallic on. Perhaps their scanners were more sensitive to ‘je ne sais quoi’. Could they be manually triggered? Nigerians are now getting suspicious of ….
Do you currently associate some stereotypical behaviours (good, interesting, bad, or ugly) with Nigerians. Have you ever met ‘not the stereotypical Nigerian.’ Replace ‘Nigerian’ with some other country of interest.
It was night.
The old white lady held her bag more tightly because a black man in a hoody came close. If she were black, and she saw some ‘any-coloured’ dude that fit the description of the stereotypical ‘snatcher,’ she’d do the same.
The white lady might be thinking: dark, black, hoody, therefore….
And the black lady thinking: dark, hoody, therefore….
Is it racist to act in ‘commonsense’ from real collective experience that resulted in some form of negative stereotyping of specific demographics?
Scientific results and associated recommendations do not always align on the same issues. That’s part of the beauty of academia. In cases like these, some people take sides, assuming different opinions.
It is interesting to think of personal science: my science versus your science. This thought coming from arguments about the relativity of truth and morality: ideas that speak of truth as truths that may vary from person to person — that my truth about a certain issue could be different from yours.
For differing ideas on the same issue and in the same domain to be true at the same time, however contadictory, truth has to be personal. In the same vein, for contradictory scientific opinions to be valid at the same time, they have to be personal. But in the case of science, this sounds particularly funny — almost unscientific.
The teacher opens the door
Interesting that the door is open
Do I like the teacher, or not
The presentation and delivery
What a door
And the door frame
Okay, let’s enter
But through another door
That’s what it feels like sometimes, some days, with my students. As it appears, getting us to ‘know’ requires that we go through several other rooms in class (or life) that we find more interesting or easier to enter into—whether or not directly relevant to the teacher’s teaching end. All in order for us to develop the mind that finally enters the room the teacher meant for us to enter from the beginning.
“… especially when it comes to pleasure.” An ‘o so true’ statement by Levitt and Dubner in Superfreakonomics.
It got me thinking…
Knowing and doing are two different things, especially when it comes to [a] pleasure:
Have you ever known the pleasure of pride or ignorance, or of ‘happiness’ or an addiction, etc, to prevent some one (I, for instance) from seeing/following the ‘truth?’ Likely yes, at least on television.
Knowing and doing are two different things, especially when it comes to [a] pain:
Have you ever known the pain of future responsibility or success, or of failure or ridicule, or of losing a pleasure or a happiness, etc, to prevent some one (I, for imstance) from doing the ‘truth?’
Knowing and doing are two different things, especially when ….
[Complete the statement for you, then move—on/off—as you please.]
And you might find that knowing and doing are two different things, especially when it’s not inconvenient for them to be so.
So, if I want change, it would be helpful to make it inconvenient for knowing and doing to be different.