The human race cannot be free of biases. It's not a grand statement that I have devised (though, that would be really cool!), but is, actually, a verified fact.
Since the beginning of time, man has always preferred one particular thing over the other. Be it selecting which patch of land to use to grow which vegetable in the Neolithic age or the modern choices of choosing a partner. While some choices have defied logic (like Deepika Padukone and Siddharth Mallaya, um, he looks like her younger brother, doesn't he?), others have very subtle depths of cloaked logic in them (like SRK not choosing Dada in IPL 4. For his sake, I hope his choice has logic. Or, the people of Kolkata can be pretty nasty, you know).
Some of us make choices based on mass conformity, like wearing a particular colour on a particular day, or even, sneezing at a particular time (now that is kinda funny). Most of these decisions are not prejudiced. They are induced by a third party source, thus, negating the decision making will of the individual. Meanwhile, there are a handful of people who stick to the choices and opinions they make, even in the face of adversity and potential social ostracism. These individuals, contrary to the popular belief, are not prejudiced (or biased, if you might call it so).[1] Their choices are not based on irrational thoughts. There's a highly sophisticated, and subtle thought process, often at such staggering mental speeds, that the individual also doesn't realize it. This is what I call "selective (un)reasoning". So named because:
a.) it is selective, as in choosing one over another; and b.) It is based on logic and reasoning (which in many cases is not quite discernible). But, it is based on some sort of reasoning nonetheless.
Here is a scenario in which my own Selective (un)Reasoning was in play.
Scenario One:
“Why don’t you ever try chick-flick romances?” asked a friend, still fresh after a mushy Mills & Boon novel.
“For the same reason you don’t read Bond novels,” was my reply.
I could say she was rather surprised, if not offended by my supposedly ‘sexist’ quip. “There’s no comparison between the two,” she declared. “Your stupid Bond novels just glorify sex and murder, that’s all.”
“The only difference,” I said, “is that my hero carries a Walther PPK, and your knight-in-shining armour carries a, um, they do have knights in M&B, don’t they? I mean, they don’t have Aston Martins for sure!”
Well, what more can I say…to me, I won the argument, but, to be chivalrous, I kept mum. (Well, that should’ve impressed her, since M&B guys are known to be chivalrous. Aren’t they?)
As you can see from the above scenario, my friend is biased in "un-favour" of Bond novels. This is a classic case of prejudice, as her opinions are not based on facts, but just stupid generalizations she gathered from watching half a Bond movie.
My reaction, on the other hand, is that of Selective (un)Reasoning. I have limited knowledge of the working of an M&B novel (yes, I once happened to ruffle through a few pages. Just some innocent curiosity, I assure you). And, in no way am I putting Bond novels at a higher literary position that the M&B ones (but, tell me this, exactly how many M&B novels are made into movies?!)
So, point in case, my logic is partially, but scientifically nevertheless, validated as being selective and (un)reasonable.
So, the next time some once accuses you for being particularly prejudiced, make sure you're at you Selective (un)Reasoning best.
Or just try cooking up some new term...you never know, I might end up reading your note on that!
Do Say: "There is, after all, 'logic' in the 'illogical'."
Don't Say: So, where does the 'Pride' part feature in Pride and Prejudice? Er, or was that 'Bride' by any chance?
[1] Some post-modern theorists have stated that true objectivity doesn't exist. Yet they yap about being value-neutral and all that. What a paradox!
