At least some of them turned out to be statistically sound.

http://www.significancemagazine.org/det ... ments.html

Yes they do, i'm extremely prejudiced, against the prejudiced. I'm also intolerant, of the intolerant.

james1v wrote:Yes they do, i'm extremely prejudiced, against the prejudiced. I'm also intolerant, of the intolerant.

This proves the existence of only one prejudiced person - yourself. And you are prejudiced against yourself. Are there any other prejudices?

I responded to this question in another forum. My view is that the Milgram experiment was deeply flawed. Accepting a handshake as a measure of friendliness is stupid. In cities, people get approached by others wanting to sell something - goods, religions, political views etc - with outstretched hand. Of course they are suspicious of the handshake. Not accepting the hand is a sign they are not stupid - not a sign they are not friendly. In smaller communities, there is less of the "selling" and so less suspicion of the insincere handshake.

In fact, small communities may or may not be friendlier, but they certainly are more dangerous in terms of the chances of being murdered.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/230766

Dickens wrote:At least some of them turned out to be statistically sound.

http://www.significancemagazine.org/det ... ments.html

Validity, statistical or otherwise, doesn't make a prejudice any less of a prejudice.

Loren Michael wrote:Validity, statistical or otherwise, doesn't make a prejudice any less of a prejudice.

The dictionary defines prejudice as an irrational thing which is not based on experience. If it is statistically valid, it is not a prejudice by definition.