You said, "Imagine if you met a 'janitor'. What would you assume about this person? A 'professor'? What if you found conversation with the 'janitor' far more engaging and insightful than the 'professor'? Would that surprise you? If so, what set up the assumptions that set the stage for perceptual bias?"
Can you make the assumption that I would climb that ladder of inference? I don't really see where you and I have a difference of opinion. My point about people about people giving out cards with job titles means that someone can identify the work they do. That has nothing to do with their other abilities nor does it imply that if someone says I work as an a librarian that other people will assume this person has no other interests in life. If I tell you that I work as a facilator do you assume that that occupys every waking hour in my life?
If a person chooses to speak in language that reflects conveniency, then I say, stick to standard english. E-prime encourages you to speak with specifics. If you want people to know you have many talents then what prevents you from identifying these talents other than laziness? Why make people guess?
I agree that labels do 'pidgeon hole' people, but if a person takes ownership of a label, then I believe he has that right. I don't believe we have the right to label others without validation. I need to put clarity on 'accurately labelling others'. When a person hands me a card, or tells me their job description, then I can label that person. I would not just go out and call someone a _______without having validation of that title.
Lets continue this, I do enjoy writing to you. Karen
|