Are stereotypes really missleading?

[Technosoul]

Does stereotyping a group of people really create a false image of that group (totally), or is it only harmful to a few individuals within that group that might be an exception of the majority (of the targeted group)?

[Matt W]

Quote by: Technosoul Does stereotyping a group of people really create a false image of that group (totally), or is it only harmful to a few individuals within that group that might be an exception of the majority (of the targeted group)?

Stereotyping is so often a load of BS it isn't funny anymore.

[Compugasm]

Are stereotypes really missleading?

No, but I am tired of hearing about it. Especially in comedy. It seems like every comedian reaches into the bag of racial humor as a crutch, with a segway into airline food. Even just getting a glimpse of an advertisement for Carlos Mencia was starting to irratate me. Thank goodness he's no longer the poster-boy on Comedy Central. I used to find Sarah Silverman funny, but now it's obvious being a "jew" is all shes got.

[Flip Jackson]

Of course stereotypes aren`t misleading. Stereotypes are a vital brain function that is desinged to help us avoid repeating errors.

For example, I see a guy with a knife, but I treat him like a normal person. He stabs me and robs me. My brain creates a stereotype that I should avoid men with knives, because they might stab me again.

The problem comes from, not making steroetypes, but sticking to them too strictly and for too long, or perhaps when we create stereotypes that are too broad.

Let`s say the dude with the knife is Mexican. I decide to avoid all Mexicans. Then my stereotype is far too broad, I have created a stereotype that didn`t really look into the cause of the problem.

Stereotypes aren`t bad or wrong. However sometimes the way we implement them is.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Flip Jackson Of course stereotypes aren`t misleading. Stereotypes are a vital brain function that is desinged to help us avoid repeating errors.

Apparently, though, stereotypes emanate from an aggressive part of the brain. They can be real killers and end up jeopardizing our survival.

Grandpa h.

[Kite]

Stereotypes are just a form of laziness. Lumping someone into a group based solely on a belief or ethnicity or whatever is just you deciding you don't want to take the time to get to know the person fully. Sure its true that there are a lot of people within a group that does conform to its stereotype, but you should always take the time to get to know the individual.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Kite Stereotypes are just a form of laziness. Lumping someone into a group based solely on a belief or ethnicity or whatever is just you deciding you don't want to take the time to get to know the person fully.

In many instances, I'd even sompare it to a dangerous form of mental illness.

Grandpa h.

[Tycoon]

Stereotypes are just a form of laziness. Lumping someone into a group based solely on a belief or ethnicity or whatever is just you deciding you don't want to take the time to get to know the person fully. Sure its true that there are a lot of people within a group that does conform to its stereotype, but you should always take the time to get to know the individual.

Sure, there are similarities with laziness. But I think it's much more than that. People my age refer to a lot of things as gay when they don't like said things. I wouldn't look at that as laziness.

[Flip Jackson]

Allow me to explain more thorughly. Stereotyping isn`t as simple as it is appearing in this thread, nor does it always have a negative connotation. Here is an article in the good old wikipedia.

Stereotype inevitability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are a few quotes from the article.
"Contrary to Renaissance ideology and liberal humanism, (Pinker 2002) holds that stereotypes are not the product of society, but rather a tool the mind uses to navigate its complex environment."

"By using a stereotype an individual could then make quick assumptions that would improve their ability to survive."

"Stereotypes operate as a fundamental part of human social interaction. Their activation in the majority of cases is automatic and inevitable. In a minority of cases their activation may be thwarted."

Stereotyping is normal. Not always does stereotyping involve racist or sexist jokes. Often it is how we understand things and people until we take the time to learn more about them.

Stereotyping is not lazy, a mental illness, or an aggresive part of the brain. It is a natural, quick way that our brain functions. It does not need to be our final assessment. But it is how we as humans work.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Tycoon Sure, there are similarities with laziness. But I think it's much more than that. People my age refer to a lot of things as gay when they don't like said things. I wouldn't look at that as laziness.

Referring to things they don't like as "gay" is just a lazy manner of speaking. People that are unable to translate their thoughts into words effectively use all sorts of catch-all words and phrases. The usage of "gay" in this manner is no different than the prevalence of the term "like" amongst some young people or the term "cool" amongst some people of my generation. They are examples of lazy communication just as stereotypes are examples of lazy thought processes.

Many people take communication for granted. I suspect this is due to texting, emails, and other forms of "short" communication. There also seems to be a built in "you know what I mean" in much of the interpersonal communication of our time. The fact of the matter is that we don't know what other people mean unless they put the time and effort into communicating it effectively to us.

I went a little off track but "you know what I mean." Oh wait. I mean that the laziness of replacing the lazy word "suck" with the lazy word "gay" is the same sort of mental laziness we see with stereotypes.

[Technosoul]

Hmm? For example if we stereotype all snakes as dangerous because of a fear of rattlesnakes.

People might run away from or kill all snakes because of they stereotyped them as potential rattlesnakes, even the harmless ones.

So one problem with stereotyping is that it blinds us to the individualisms within a large group of snakes, or in this case, people (based on race or nationality, gender, etc.).

I used to think that all asians do not know how to drive cars properly. So if someone ahead of me was driving like they did not know what they were doing, I might utter "must be an asian". Or some old person, or a woman driver. ( everyone might come up with remark of their own ).

[Tycoon]

Referring to things they don't like as "gay" is just a lazy manner of speaking. People that are unable to translate their thoughts into words effectively use all sorts of catch-all words and phrases. The usage of "gay" in this manner is no different than the prevalence of the term "like" amongst some young people or the term "cool" amongst some people of my generation. They are examples of lazy communication just as stereotypes are examples of lazy thought processes.

You're trying to make it look like said people use the word gay with a completely different definition. It's not really the case. I'm sure you'd have to take it out of context but in most cases the people know they're referring to homosexuals.

Imagine somebody says "this test is really gay." You would say that they mean "this test really sucks." But really they are voicing the opinion that gays suck by using this stereotype.

[Technosoul]

So we can stereotype everyone who uses a catch-all word as being lazy thinkers? Or is that a lazy way to classify people use such words?

[Flip Jackson]

I swear no one seems ot be paying attention here. Nor have you all studied psycology much.

Stereotyping is not lazy. It is an automatic brain function that we use to make a complex world more simple. But, like I said, it does not have to be our final assessment of a situation.

Let`s look at Technosoul`s example on snakes, but let`s try to understand it better.

Let`s pretend that when I was young, I was bitten by a rattlesnake. I create the stereotype that sankes are dangerous, and hence I avoid them. This could turn into a phobia, an irrational fear of all snakes. Or it could turn into prejudice, where I treat all snakes differently, such as killing them all. But the stereotype in and of itself was only created to protect me from getting hurt again.

Sterotypes allow us to classify things that we do not yet know personally. If we choose to know a subject or person better, then our stereotype of a group doesn`t necessarily need to interfere, it just no longer applies to the person or subject we have studied.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Flip Jackson I swear no one seems ot be paying attention here. Nor have you all studied psycology much.

You should reconsider that comment.
I'm at least somewhat aware of psychology.

Like I said before , stereotypes can be dangerous -- particularly to their targets. Human reactions to snakes could be examined here. Plenty of people stereotype snakes as evil creatures, due both to their poisonous strikes and to Biblical serpent imagery. In Texas they even have festivals where they round up rattlesnakes and skin them, presumably to showcase human superiority in classic, primal "chest-thumping" fashion. Stereoptypes have also been used to commit cruel deeds to humans, as anyone can learn. So I'd say the reasonableness of a stereotype is largely a question of degree and intent.

Grandpa h.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Technosoul So we can stereotype everyone who uses a catch-all word as being lazy thinkers? Or is that a lazy way to classify people use such words?

There is a difference between stereotype, which is based on primarily unfounded prejudgement, and passing mental judgement based on facts present at the time.

Notice that I did not say that people who use words like "suck" or "gay" as catch-all terms are lazy thinkers. I said that the use of such words is a lazy manner of speaking.

If I met someone and every fifth word out of his/her mouth was the word "gay" then I would be building my mental case that, because of the lazy manner of speaking, this person may also be a lazy thinker in general, but I would need more proof before I made a mental judgement. And my judgement is always open to change based on what that person says or does in the future. Although, if I was interviewing the person for a job that required a precise manner of speaking then I probably would not hire him/her.

A stereotype for the same situation would be if I assumed the person used the term "gay" as every fifth word because he/she appeared young. If I had the stereotype that young people have lazy manners of speaking then I would be applying this judgement to the potential employee before he/she even greeted me. If I was a lazy thinking stereotyper then I would not modify my judgement about the person even if he/she didn't use a single catch-all term in our entire discussion.

Letting the application of stereotype cloud judgement before there is any valid evidence, and not changing judgement based on new evidence, is lazy thinking.

We do use stereotypes every day as a basic part of human survival, as Flip points out, but we also validate these stereotypes with a constant flow of evidence and ultimately make our choices based on the evidence and not the stereotype.

Extreme Example:
I am thirsty and I see a plastic bottle of clear liquid on the table. It fits my initial stereotype of water. I pick it up and drink the whole thing.

Now, a lazy thinker is doing the equivalent of guzzling what they think is water even if they are getting conflicting information. For instance, they notice the liquid isn't labelled. They notice the liquid has a strong smell. They notice the liquid has an unpleasant taste. The lazy thinker drinks it anyway.

The danger of stereotypes is just that. Some people will adhere to the initial judgement of their stereotype regardless of the presence of other evidence and they will not actively seek out additional evidence because their mind is already "made up."

Critical thinkers are primarily analyzing evidence, searching for new evidence, and changing their internal judgements based on the evidence at hand. A critical thinker may smell the liquid even if it is in a bottle labelled water. They may take a tiny sip first even if the bottle is factory sealed. Critical thinkers primarily base their judgements and actions on evidence.

[Flip Jackson]

Grandpa, no offense, but I`ll reconsider my comment once I see evidence that people realize what they are really discussing. If we are going to discuss a psycological function, such as stereotyping, I would expect some psycological understanding and terms.

For example, killing snakes because you don`t like them isn`t stereotyping, it has moved to prejudice. Stereotypes aren`t dangerous. Prejudice is.

For example, here are some good stereotypes. I`ve found that people with Asian decent are often intelligent. Black people tend to be naturally athletic. Women are generally more emotional, which means they tend to be more caring. Men are more rational, so they are often more efficient. Are these stereotypes? Yes. Are they dangerous? No Are they true for everyone? Also no. You can find stupid Asians, weak black people, cold-hearted women, and irrational men. But these just happen to be quick ideas that come to given categories.

And I most certainly wouldn`t class stereotyping with a mental illness. That`s absurd. Stereotyping is a natural brain activity for every human being. Mental illnesses generally are results from a lack of certain chemicals in the brain. They are nothing alike.

Muck I both agree and disagree with some of what you said. I do not feel that stereotyping is based primarily on unfounded prejudgement. Stereotyping is what we have whenever we encounter a new situation. We have to form an opinion right away and our stereotypes help that. However that opinion could change based on additional information. I don`t consider stereotyping lazy in any way. It`s natural.

However, as you said, when our stereotypes cloud our judgements and we do not change them under the light of new evidence, we could be "lazy thinkers" or just stubborn. Stereotypes are starting places, not final decisions. And anyone who claims to be completely free of stereotypes doesn`t understand the way their own brain works.

[Kite]

Quote by: Tycoon You're trying to make it look like said people use the word gay with a completely different definition. It's not really the case. I'm sure you'd have to take it out of context but in most cases the people know they're referring to homosexuals. Imagine somebody says "this test is really gay." You would say that they mean "this test really sucks." But really they are voicing the opinion that gays suck by using this stereotype.

You are right, but its still just lazy linguistics. I admit that I say on a frequent basis, "Man this is gay.". One of my vices. However, I never mean it in the sense that I don't like homosexuals. Think about it. Gay seems to have largely replaced the word stupid. Stupid, two syllables, and many people have trouble pronouncing the S sound consistently. Gay, one syllable, and the G sound is easy to form. Just an easier, lazier way of saying stupid. That isn't to say however that it should be any less offensive to gay people.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Flip Jackson Grandpa, no offense, but I`ll reconsider my comment once I see evidence that people realize what they are really discussing. If we are going to discuss a psycological function, such as stereotyping, I would expect some psycological understanding and terms.

So, when did you become king of the thread? The topic is about the extent to which sterotypes are misleading. Psychology is certainly relevant to the discussion, but to discredit people merely because they're not using certain terminology is a bit pointless.

I agree that sterotyping is not a useless thing, and can be positive to a point. But it can easily become a negative thing. If I were to suggest all stereotypes were good, it would practically make me a masochist.

Grandpa h.

[Flip Jackson]

I never claimed to be king of the thread. My only claim was that many who have replied do not understand psycology well. I said I expected psycological understanding and terms. Not just terms. Though terminology that is relevant to a certain topic generally shows such understanding.

Many statements have shown minimal understanding of what stereoyping really is. Stereotypes have been called "lazy," "misleading," "aggresive," "a mental illness," "dangerous," and "unfounded." None of these words really has anything to do with stereotypes. Sterotypes are automatic, natural files that our brain creates based on pass experience.

This is a debate thread, you know. So I do not feel bad debating my point. I am the only one who has used any kind of source, or based my ideas on anything besides my own opinion. Is it wrong of me to expect others to do the same?

What seems to be the real problem here is not streotyping, but prejudice, judging, racial slurs, andother such things.