>'As someone who grew up in a cheaper part of the country, I was tempted to be offended by that comment (and particularly by the subsequent suggestion that people from cheaper parts of the country were more likely to be prejudiced).'
I appreciate that you've show restraint from that snap judgment and given me the benefit of the doubt then.
>'I felt like you were pre-judging me based on where I was born - something I had as little control over as the color of my skin or my religious and cultural background.'
That's not at all my intent.
Even though I'm noting some after the fact correlation (as opposed to presumption) between requests for cheaper professional services talent and those incidents it would be a pretty silly to pre-judge based on it.
In fact, I think that sort of negative-bias thinking is a common and costly mistake in both anecdotal observations or reported statistics. Even if something is 'more likely' the positive outcome is often even more likely.
The context of these charts is a pretty good example. It would be foolish for someone to focus on the suggested 10-12.5% for some state rather than the 87.5-90%.
It's particularly important in the case of human interactions where a default posture of respect and consideration regardless of the perceived odds costs little if anything at all.
>'But then I realized you're probably not always aware of your own prejudices, any more than I am.'
Sure.
I tend think prejudices and predilections are something we all have, but the key is try and be as aware and objective as possible - to treat people as individuals in spite of those notions.
I appreciate that you've show restraint from that snap judgment and given me the benefit of the doubt then.
>'I felt like you were pre-judging me based on where I was born - something I had as little control over as the color of my skin or my religious and cultural background.'
That's not at all my intent.
Even though I'm noting some after the fact correlation (as opposed to presumption) between requests for cheaper professional services talent and those incidents it would be a pretty silly to pre-judge based on it.
In fact, I think that sort of negative-bias thinking is a common and costly mistake in both anecdotal observations or reported statistics. Even if something is 'more likely' the positive outcome is often even more likely.
The context of these charts is a pretty good example. It would be foolish for someone to focus on the suggested 10-12.5% for some state rather than the 87.5-90%.
It's particularly important in the case of human interactions where a default posture of respect and consideration regardless of the perceived odds costs little if anything at all.
>'But then I realized you're probably not always aware of your own prejudices, any more than I am.'
Sure.
I tend think prejudices and predilections are something we all have, but the key is try and be as aware and objective as possible - to treat people as individuals in spite of those notions.