Recognising the otherness of another body is not to 'recoil'. You are polarizing unnecessarily.

The otherness of a twin is just an illustration that even a body that is almost exactly the same in its physiology and physiognomy as the self is recognised as other. There is no 'trigger'. Just recognition of the obvious.  The point I am making is that the 'Othering' is often grossly overstated. To recognise another body as another body is so natural and inevitable that it scarcely needs stating. To frame that natural and unavoidable recognition into 'triggered to recoil from the Othering' is framing the issue in a grotesquely overstated manner. Of course another body is another body. There is no recoiling being triggered.


In group and out group is constantly shifting depending on context of the grouping, classification. This is scarcely remarkable, either.
Zoological classification can be Linnean or it can be in as in the Chinese Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge.

And how do non-racists control the amygdala's initial response?  And how do racists choose not to control their dastardly amygdala's initial response?

You are slipping from is to ought without realising it. You have forgotten your Hume.

So the recoil is an automatic, Pavlovian reflex neural response. In racists and non racist. The latters'  super ego then slaps the amygdala on the wrist by way of a moral corrective while the formers' superego says attaboy instead.

Quote:


Pavlovian reflexes are taught not innate.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 2^nd, 2025 at 1:25pm:

Automatic.

There is an unconditional stimulant component to Pavlovian reflex - food = saliva. Other =recoil.

Don't try to elude the point.

Are you saying that the recoil from a picture of another from an outgroup - race, class, ethnicity, subculture, sporting team, political party,  whatever - is natural and automatic?

In which case race recognition is automatic and cannot be helped.

But how can there be an automatic recoil if races do not exist and therefore there cannot be a racial outgroup at the preconscious, nerve-to-amygdala level?

Frank wrote on May 2^nd, 2025 at 2:37pm:



Outgroup perception is instinctive and automatic. The process of recognising ingroup begins in infancy - those who look and act like immediate family are ingroup. From then, the ingroup generally expands over formative years into adulthood.

The amygdalic response is triggered by differences/deviations from ingroup features/actions - something that exposes the lie to those who believe they are blind to skin colour or physical features, or to any disfiguring damage.

Being preconscious, the amygdalic response has no intellectual label, such as 'race' - that is part of a conglomeration of higher brain functions, including moral injunctions, personal experience, upbringing, etc.

So recognising out-group characteristics is instinctive and automatic.  Black babies will instinctively and automatically prefer black faces and recoil from white or Chinese faces. White babies similarly prefer white faces and recoil from non-white faces.

Well before they have words, let alone words like in-group or race or ethnicity, breed, etc.  They just recognise obvious differences which cannot be wished away or simply declared non-existent.