Bigotry is a major discussion amongst human beings, and always will be. Our mental systems have evolved to favor efficiency — laziness, if you like. I do not mean this to be an accusation or a pejorative. From an objective point of view, it does not make sense to walk a zigzag when you could walk a straight line. It does not make sense to climb a dangerous embankment if there is a set of stairs to one side.
But the knife of efficiency cuts both ways. When we speak of bigotry, what we really mean is the use of stereotypes that are efficient only on the surface. They classify people in a way that just doesn't make sense. It’s a shortcut that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, doesn’t carry intellectual weight.
When we speak of bigotry in a rational way — not when we’re throwing around emotional accusations to enjoy the feedback of self-righteousness — we’re not talking about describing an adherent of the Islamic State as a terrorist, or noticing that Indian culture tends to place less emphasis on personal space than Canadian culture does, or running into someone from the UK and immediately offering them a cup of tea. These are useful stereotypes, in that we can make an assumption that is neither intentionally insulting nor harmful. ‘Knowing’ these things about other people is a good thing. It helps us empathize and increase the comfort of the other.
(An aside: broad cultural knowledge and ease of adaptation are one of the hallmarks of charisma, or attractiveness. Confidence is infectious, which reduces anxiety, which is how we feel comfortable. Part of this is knowing that our differences are skin-deep.)
Crucially, our assumptions are still safe because they are flexible. If we are aware of our assumptions and their limitations, we will not be surprised to find that the ISIS supporter is a fool whose only danger stems from their delusion, that the person from India values a meter of distance, or that we’ve found a Briton who prefers tap water. This is not bigotry; we’re using stereotypes, but they can be instantly updated with new information, because we are aware that internal diversity outweighs external diversity. In statistics, the Central Limit Theorem and Law of Large Numbers tell us that everything forms a bell curve in the end.
Bigotry, in contrast, is rigid. A bigot does not listen, adapt, or tolerate. They prefer simple answers, rejecting complexity in groups other than their own. “Black/White/Asian/Gay/Christian Males/Females are all the same,” they say. This viewpoint is, frankly, boring and uninformed. Like most emotional conversation, it serves no purpose other than to find like-minded people and enjoy acceptance, or find the unlike and enjoy self-righteousness.
Some voices cry that all stereotyping is wrong. This is foolish. Stereotyping is a useful shortcut. You are pretty safe saying ‘hola’ to someone from Colombia, assuming an Aussie is not particularly religious, or guessing that a person from China knows how to use chopsticks. Most of us claim our own stereotypes because we want the people we speak with to have that baseline information. We exchange these labels — from nationality to religion to political affiliation — to speed up the process of understanding. Imagine starting from zero every single time you met a new person.
The problem arises when the shortcut is based on bad data. "You look Asian, so I brought you chopsticks." This is bigotry. Why? Because "looking Asian" is an incredibly low-quality, insufficient data point. The person could be from the Philippines where chopsticks aren't traditional, they could be adopted and culturally Mexican, or the meal could be steak. The assumption is rigid and based on a lazy visual cue.
The Principle of Consent
What all these examples of failed shortcuts — of bigotry — reveal is a fundamental distinction we must make in our thinking. The error lies in treating involuntary traits as if they carry the same information as chosen identities.
Think of it this way. A person's skin color, ethnic appearance, or place of birth are involuntary. They have no control over them. These traits tell you something about genetics or geography, but they tell you virtually nothing about a person’s beliefs, culture, language, or skills. A Black man in America could be a fifth-generation jazz musician from New Orleans, a visiting Nigerian professor who is an expert in Yoruba culture, or a tourist from Papua New Guinea. His appearance gives you almost zero actionable data in this case. There are still places in the world where it can help, but modern Western countries are a melting pot of connectedness.
On the other hand, identities like being a Roman Catholic, a conservative, a fan of the Toronto Raptors, or even a Canadian citizen are, to varying degrees, chosen or "opt-in" identities. A person actively participates in or consents to these labels. Therefore, making a baseline assumption that a self-identified Catholic knows who the Pope is, or that a Raptors fan knows about the NBA, is a reasonably safe and efficient starting point. The stereotype is tethered to a choice the person has made and is not, therefore, insulting or ignorant.
The Efficient Mind
The core mistake of the bigot is to confuse these two categories. They treat an involuntary physical trait as if it were a chosen cultural identity. They see a skin color and believe it gives them the same quality of information as a national passport or a declaration of faith.
This is not just a moral failure; it is an intellectual failure. It is the mark of an undisciplined mind, and likely an angry and resentful one. That’s understandable when you’re human — we all start out primitive, from the genetics on up, and there are, after all, plenty of reasons to be angry in an uncaring, unfair reality. Staying that way, however, is less interesting (and more antisocial) than the alternative.
True mental efficiency is not about finding the quickest answer, but the most reliable one. Festina lente, to use the Latin. It's about using the best available data to make a flexible assumption. An involuntary, physical trait is almost always the worst possible data point to use as a shortcut to understanding a person's culture, beliefs, or various other aspects of ‘they’ — if you will.
Education, for example, or more specifically the knowledge of just how many other ways of being there are, can change anyone. The most misogynistic, ardently religious person can change given enough experience. They might even find some convoluted way to reconcile their new understanding with their closely held spiritual myths. A chimera of dissonant tolerance. They’re all over the place.
So, if we want to navigate the world intelligently, the principle is clear. Anchor your assumptions to a person's choices, not their circumstances. And even then, hold those assumptions lightly, ready to discard them the moment better information comes along. This is not about political correctness. It's about being correct. Bigotry isn't just wrong; it's stupid. We’ve got one life, and from our point of view it happens all at once. We should try to see it as clearly as possible.
