Despite my best efforts to be open-minded and accepting I’m more than a little prejudice – that’s what I realized this morning.
It’s 12 : 00 PM on day 2046 of my journey towards independence and I managed to pray, read Proverbs 16, have breakfast, learn one new thing – Monogamy is rare in mammals. Approximately only 3-5% percent of mammals are considered monogamous (Nair and Young), compared to about 90% of birds (Alcock, 366).– and work on my 25 Smiles Campaign – raised $5 506 only $744 more to raise by 10 Jan 2017 (SO SO SO GRATEFUL to everyone who has supported this campaign so far 
).
This morning it made me uncomfortable to realize that despite my best efforts to be open-minded and accepting I’m more than a little prejudice I guess all I can do is learn about the things that make me feel uneasy and hope that knowledge will crush my fear.
Nisha:
hope and crush don’t sit very well together.
Crushes can make hope bigger – or they can shrink it. What is the effect you are searching for?
Unless you eventually have a crush on the things you fear – which does happen.
[Approach/avoidance, you see].
Pairing the rational with the emotional can help. Things you know you won’t hurt or won’t hurt you.
We do seem to be wired to avoid uncertainty and unpredictability and our socialisation reinforces this way too much.
So maybe put a break or change a prejudicial habit or expectation.
Think about what primes you; what provokes you.
Yes, a lot of animals are multi- or polygamous. 95% of them!
It made me wonder about birds and their brains. And if species who take long migratory journeys are more likely to be monogamous.
What about insects and their reproductive habits?
Maybe think about the difference between bias and prejudice.
Bias is how we think about a fact.
Prejudice is how we feel about a set of facts or impressions or ideas.
Very often this set is a fixed set.
You want more growth in your sets. Or potentially unlimited growth.
[all this unsolicited advice – I wonder if your discomfort was asking too quickly – or perhaps the ways in which we/you/I think about prejudice].
Regarding monogamy.
The humble chipmunk shall never be troubled by the dilemma of Schroedinger’s cat. Nor shall the field mouse’s life depend upon his preponderance of the curvature of the arc of justice that stretches across human history as seen from a barn loft in Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. Nor shall they hope to know and see the face of God.
There is no Brothers Karamazov, no Aristotle, no Aquinas, no Screwtape Letters, no Einstein and no Romeo and Juliet in their stars. And no defying the stars as Romeo meant to do as he shouted to the night sky. Simply put, fewer resources are required for the raising of their offspring. QED (quod erat demonstrandum): monogamy is not required in their “selection” – natural, supernatural or otherwise.
Regarding prejudice…
Just as our desires best serve us when they are subject to reason, virtue and God, the mechanism of prejudice is instrumental to survival, success and good judgment but it can help or hinder us. In other words, you can not stop the mechanism without stopping your life, but you can make prejudice subordinate to love and other higher values.
subordinate prejudice to love I love that
I’m hoping to be free of fear