I thought of a scenario that raised some question for me, consider you:
[A] Face prejudice because of X -->
[B] Makes you more inclined to assume the next person who mistreats you is doing so because they are prejudiced (need less evidence before presumption of guilt)-->
[C] presume more people are guilty (of being prejudiced against you)--> [B].
Circular reasoning occurs when: the proposition (that someone is being predjudiced against me) is supported by the premise (that a portion of the population are predjudice against me), which is supported by the proposition. In this context this leads to a positive feedback loop.
Question: to clarify, is this assesment correct- this is a form of circular logic?
Question: is it fair to say this thinking is not necessarily fallacious?- these logical steps represent how past experiences help us spot patterns. The positive feedback loop only really becomes an issue when people are too quick to see patterns, i.e. [B] is disproportionately large relative to [A].
Note: Just want to highlight that the focus of this post is on the philosphical concepts - not a discussion on societal prejudices etc.
Would really like to here what you guys think!