RE: Critique of Critique
We size people up and decide (usually subconsciously) how much faith-trust-time-resources we're willing to risk on them. And then we "roll-the-dice". Just a note here, a good con-artist will give a rube at least 2 solid "wins" (sometimes 3) before pulling the rug out from under them.
Some people are instantly repulsive. Some people are instantly boring. Some people are instantly fascinating. Some people seem like they might be interesting if you get to know them better.
Is this "prejudice" or "guilty until proven innocent"?
You don't have enough time to interact with everyone in the entire world (actually humans have evolved to be able to maintain a maximum of about 150 human relationships at once, which just happens to be the typical size of an ancient village or tribe).
And (I'm trying to put this as gently as possible) "the law" most certainly treats the accused as guilty before trial (and the poorer you are the guiltier it treats you).
I come from a corner of fairness here. Less, of past unfairness. My question is more of a fundamental nature. You meet a woman, fall in love... you get a new colleague at work, you go to a party and meet all sorts of people. and so on. - Do you always distrust them at first? That was the question. You can also understand the more reserved, wait-and-see way as a kind of trust, where you first try to get an unbiased picture.