First impressions are very important. We judge so much from what we see of a person at the begginning, and them impressions are generally hard to shift. You see we trust ourselves, we have to really. Who else do we really have to rely on? We are with ourselves all the time, we have to trust our own judgement. We have to decide who to trust, who not to. To be fair these things aren't built up on first impressions but they are the basis, they are what starts are thoughts off on this person, what we base our feelings on, so they are very important. I'm sure we would all like to think that we are open minded individuals that will give people the benefit of the doubt, and to a degree this the case. We are only human though, we live in a society that stereotypes are stuffed down our throats, that we do presume things because we are told it's a certain way in the media, we do generalise, because it's quicker and easier to do that than to really get to know a person. Peoples lives are sometimes so busy, that is all we can do. We don't have a choice but to presume, and hope we are right, it's sad that we have so little time for each other anymore.
There was a show on a while ago called Without Prejudice, I didn't really understand the point of it at first, I really didn't, it looked like some boring debating show, and I kind of judged it I guess, which ironically was the point of the show! They got these four people from all different occupations, doctors, teachers, hairdressers, all people from different walks of life and let them play god as it were. They were put on a panel. Then there were these five other people who were to be 'judged'. Their prize was a life changing amount of money, and the panel in a short time were to decide who was the most deserving of this money. They had categories that they could choose the group to speak on, such as eductaion, sexual orintation, religious beliefs, all kinds of stuff. As each category went on, they got rid of one peson whos answers they didn't like, until they were left with two people. Now up until this point they never met the contestants. It was all showed via video links, then at the end they were allowed to interview the final two and ask them questions, the only question they weren't allowed to ask was what would they do with the money. I think they even did a morality test, where they set them up in a situation, like finding a mobile phone in a car, and what they would do with it. It was all very interesting to watch.
So what became of these people. It was amazing to see just how easily we do write people off, even as a viewer of the show I could feel myself doing it. Oh he doesn't deserve the money because he's to young and won't appreciate it, or he cheated on his wife, why should he get it. All these judgements we make and we don't even know all the circumstances. What amazed me even more was the self importance the panel got about themselves. It knocked me sick actually that power can go to ones head so easily, and it really can. They thought they had never made a mistake in their life, that they would always do the right thing, and that their lives in comparison were just perfect, I mean there was a reason they were the panel, right? I think that is the ironic thing, because the program was showing them for who they really were to. It was showing them arguing about why a gay man didn't deserve the money, just because he was gay, it showed them saying because he dresses like that he shouldn't get it. What was their excuse for these harsh judgements? That they had to pick someone, so why not them? Which is true, the way of the programme was that they had to make harsh rash decisions, and they didn't have alot of choice about it, but it definetly shows you how the mind works, when making quick judgements on people.
One of the biggest factors was Education. Education is important I agree, but it was a difficult subject when it comes to giving money out, the panel always seemed to be split on this. The more educated people, they suggested had more of a chance making the money themselves and finding their own way, where the less educated, it might be giving them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. The other side of that is well one worked hard, and spent years learning and working hard, and the other didn't. There are so many arguments, but without meeting the person and talking to them, I doubt a valid decision can be made. It's amazing to see how much education is a factor in so many things, there are other ways to measure intelligence, if we had the time of course.
The brilliance of this programme was summed up on one thing, the question they weren't allowed to ask, what you would do with the money? The decison they had was who the most deserving was, and who would use it wisely. Now this programme basically set these good folks up, they had a good guess at the trail of thought they would have, what the most common judgements they would make would be, are we really that predictable? Nine times out of ten, the person they picked, was going to waste the money in some way, like partying with their friends for weeks on end till it was blown, where as the person they turned down, was going to donate it to some charity or something. Now both are valid causes I'm sure to different people, but the point the programme was making is clear. It wasn't possible to be without prejudice. Not always in real life is this the case, it is just magnifying the fact. I think it sent out a good message to those that gave it the time.