Okay, I’ll accept this rather than argue with you. But let’s take the clarification you cited:
“the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing”
Is it possible to go through a process of forming an opinion including both discerning and comparing, in a snap? Is it fair to call the result of a momentary consideration a ‘judgement’? Would not this definition, as offered, make ‘snap judgement’ an oxymoron?
You told me the source provided ‘authority’. Hence, you are implicitly arguing that psychologists constitute an authority, which I would fundamentally dispute.
You didn’t. You implicitly argued that they are an authority, or rather, that premise is obliged by and implied by your argument.
You brought psychology into this as an authority. So let’s argue it here thank you very much.
Claims you never stated, perhaps, but nonetheless claims your argument requires to be true.
Perhaps because I’ve met people (and am such a person) who as a result of having their initial expectations and impressions radically confounded by people’s actual behaviour stopped making what you call ‘snap judgements’.
Which ‘you’ are you referring to? Me personally? The general you? The self-referring you?
You take in plenty of information about them, but as to making judgements, I’m not so sure. Shortly before Christmas I was out shopping in a local city and bumped into an old friend of mine and it being Christmas he insisted on plying me with alcohol. We careered around from pub to shop to pub to shop to pub, eventually running into some other friends of his who I’d never met before. One was a relatively young lady, I’m guessing mid to late 20s, reasonably attractive in a well-rounded sort of way, dressed in the typical black leggings black top (+bunch of other gubbins) that seems to be the uniform of women in my part of the world. She was nice enough, seemed an attentive mother to her young child who was also sat with us, didn’t say anything that particularly struck me one way or another. After she’d left, I found out she is a professional pornographic actress, not exactly a porn ‘star’ but something of the ilk. Because I don’t go round sizing people up and trying to guess if they work in porn this information hasn’t altered my impression of her. I can only assume you would have felt otherwise in the same circumstance.
I take responsibility for what I think about people, you shirk your responsibility by declaring your reactions ‘automatic’.
You may think so, but since your counterarguments have amounted to a whole lot of bitching I feel justified in simply re-asserting my existing position.
Which principle of charity? The one that says if people are saying something that isn’t true, and saying it in manner that has clearly been learnt from a documentary or textbook that you should magically assume they are actually right all along and not say anything about it?
I note that you haven’t responded to a single one of my criticisms of the psychological study, so here’s another one for you. The study apparently found that people tend to stick by their initial judgements about a person even when shown their picture for a longer period of time. However, the test provides no indication as to why this is, whether it’s down to people not wanting to be seen flip-flopping or whether people actually go through a genuine process each time they see a picture, or something else.
The implicit assumptions in this test made the result almost inevitable.
