6 ms·

The title could have a hint that the paper is about social psychology in particular. Here's my abstract of the abstract: "Interpersonal expectations relate to

The title could have a hint that the paper is about social psychology in particular. Here's my abstract of the abstract: "Interpersonal expectations relate to social reality primarily because they reflect rather than cause social reality. This is the case not only for teacher expectations, but also for social stereotypes, both as perceptions of groups, and as the bases of expectations regarding individuals. The time is long overdue to replace cherry-picked and unjustified stories emphasizing error, bias, the power of self-fulfilling prophecies, and the inaccuracy of stereotypes, with conclusions that more closely correspond to the full range of empirical findings." I'm a layman when it comes to this but I'd be very interested in any refutations of this paper.

danieltillett 9y ago
You will be waiting a long time.
virgilp 9y ago
> I'm a layman when it comes to this but I'd be very interested in any refutations of this paper. I doubt there can be refutation in the sense that "its conclusions are obviously wrong".... the catch is how you interpret/act on those conclusions. Yes, stereotypes become stereotypes because they are, or at least recently were, "largely true" (in the statistical sense - i.e. not always but "too often to ignore"). E.g., in my country, a lot of the petty criminals are gypsies - it would be foolish to reject that truth. However, the stereotype "gypsy = criminal" is still incredibly harmful (despite being grounded in truth), both at the individual level (producing harm to innocents) and at the group level (doesn't solve the problem, only contributes to making it worse). The bigger problem is that people are ill-equipped to handle these thoughts in the brain simultaneously: that a stereotype can be largely true, and yet it's harmful/a bad idea to act instinctively based on the information it provides. The correct responses to a stereotype are complex/should be based on reason - those based on instincts/reflexes are very often wrong. But it's so hard to resist the instincts, that often it's simpler to just dismiss the stereotype as "false".
- danieltillett 9y ago
  I am curious how ignoring the connection between being a Roma and your likelihood of engaging in criminal activity is beneficial to anyone? It most certainly doesn’t benefit the Roma.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    You don't have to ignore it, but you need to take into account that a stereotype that's say 60% accurate is still wrong 40% of the time. That difference can affect the optimal course of action tremendously. E.g. if the appropriate response to seeing a criminal is to call the police, applying the "gypsy = criminal" stereotype would lead to the prosecution of many innocent people. Of course if you are able to accurately take probabilities and uncertainty into account when making decisions, you can make good use of observed correlations; but most people tend to be better at dealing with deterministic rules (I certainly am) and need to consciously remind themselves not to overestimate the accuracy of a stereotype.
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      It seems like you are arguing against stupidity, not ignoring empirical evidence. Does anyone with an half a functional brain think all Roma are criminals or the alternative that if a dozen Roma children descend on them on the street that they are just wanting to say hello? I try to treat everyone as an individual, but when I don’t have the opportunity to do this I have no choice but to fall back on my life’s experience. Sometimes this means I avoid people I wouldn’t if they looked or acted differently, but I have no desire to be a victim to prove a point.
      - virgilp 9y ago
        People are stupid all the time. I am stupid. You are stupid. I'm sure even von Neumann was being stupid all the time. Do not over-estimate your own rationality - our instinctual responses are so frequent, that even if they're right 90% of the time, they still make us behave badly/stupidly far more often than we think we do. > I have no desire to be a victim to prove a point. This is not a dig against you. Humans - myself included - are incredibly flawed (while being incredibly awesome at the same time). I just find it helpful to keep this in mind. Personally, applying the stereotype as you say is a very reasonable (even "rational") choice. I do it too. But, at the same time, we should recognize the limitations of it - both you and I have probably treated a gypsy unfairly. That's ok, I'm fine with that, I've given up hope that I can be perfect - but, I still find that it helps to remind me that I'm not. And what I'm doing is not helping them. I don't know how I could _personally_ behave better (without harming myself) - but, that only means that I don't believe a solution can be found at the "personal" level. I believe "more of the same" will only work to reinforce the stereotype - so at a policy level, I believe that policies are needed to actively help them raise above their conditions (yes, maybe even positive discrimination is justified - at least, it's _something_ ), while at the same time working to fight against the symptoms (prevent the formation of "ghettos"/ their isolation in roma-only communities). But, I digress. This was about our own weaknesses, and how the stereotype, even when grounded in truth, can be harmful, because of the positive feedback loop it creates (which is very hard to break). In particular, a stereotype tells you that e.g. gypsies used to be petty criminals (in large proportions), but it does NOT tell you that they have to be so in the future. It does not tell you the "why" - maybe it's coded in their DNA. But what if (more likely, IMO) it's actually coded in our social norms? Because those, we can change! It takes effort, and time, but it's doable.
asddkk 9y ago
Group versus individuals. Stereotypes can be accurate on average between groups but inaccurate for individuals. The accuracy versus bias distinction of the paper kind of overlooks this, even though it's the crux of the issue in many ways.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Individual is a part of the group. The paper attacks more than just accuracy or let's call it pertinence and persistence of stereotypes. It also attacks the specific arguments on how this is still true, when and how important. All of which is underresearched as "There is prejudice" headline sells better than "There is 10% prejudice in rating football matches by students". See, the whole idea of treating everyone as special is a fancy individualist invention that has currency in some countries. It also matters how much said person is special and how many of them are. Then you can call it a problem or not. Or by tracking outcomes of people subject to prejudice with strong statistical tools which do not involve cherry picking by hand.
AstralStorm 9y ago
When you cannot refute, ignore it. Wasn't it the standard practice so far? (Mentioned in the paper.) Instead keep the fancy unexpected results published and cited, even if irrelevant or wrong.

danieltillett 9y ago

You will be waiting a long time.

virgilp 9y ago

> I'm a layman when it comes to this but I'd be very interested in any refutations of this paper. I doubt there can be refutation in the sense that "its conclusions are obviously wrong".... the catch is how you interpret/act on those conclusions. Yes, stereotypes become stereotypes because they are, or at least recently were, "largely true" (in the statistical sense - i.e. not always but "too often to ignore"). E.g., in my country, a lot of the petty criminals are gypsies - it would be foolish to reject that truth. However, the stereotype "gypsy = criminal" is still incredibly harmful (despite being grounded in truth), both at the individual level (producing harm to innocents) and at the group level (doesn't solve the problem, only contributes to making it worse). The bigger problem is that people are ill-equipped to handle these thoughts in the brain simultaneously: that a stereotype can be largely true, and yet it's harmful/a bad idea to act instinctively based on the information it provides. The correct responses to a stereotype are complex/should be based on reason - those based on instincts/reflexes are very often wrong. But it's so hard to resist the instincts, that often it's simpler to just dismiss the stereotype as "false".

danieltillett 9y ago
I am curious how ignoring the connection between being a Roma and your likelihood of engaging in criminal activity is beneficial to anyone? It most certainly doesn’t benefit the Roma.
- yorwba 9y ago
  You don't have to ignore it, but you need to take into account that a stereotype that's say 60% accurate is still wrong 40% of the time. That difference can affect the optimal course of action tremendously. E.g. if the appropriate response to seeing a criminal is to call the police, applying the "gypsy = criminal" stereotype would lead to the prosecution of many innocent people. Of course if you are able to accurately take probabilities and uncertainty into account when making decisions, you can make good use of observed correlations; but most people tend to be better at dealing with deterministic rules (I certainly am) and need to consciously remind themselves not to overestimate the accuracy of a stereotype.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    It seems like you are arguing against stupidity, not ignoring empirical evidence. Does anyone with an half a functional brain think all Roma are criminals or the alternative that if a dozen Roma children descend on them on the street that they are just wanting to say hello? I try to treat everyone as an individual, but when I don’t have the opportunity to do this I have no choice but to fall back on my life’s experience. Sometimes this means I avoid people I wouldn’t if they looked or acted differently, but I have no desire to be a victim to prove a point.
    - virgilp 9y ago
      People are stupid all the time. I am stupid. You are stupid. I'm sure even von Neumann was being stupid all the time. Do not over-estimate your own rationality - our instinctual responses are so frequent, that even if they're right 90% of the time, they still make us behave badly/stupidly far more often than we think we do. > I have no desire to be a victim to prove a point. This is not a dig against you. Humans - myself included - are incredibly flawed (while being incredibly awesome at the same time). I just find it helpful to keep this in mind. Personally, applying the stereotype as you say is a very reasonable (even "rational") choice. I do it too. But, at the same time, we should recognize the limitations of it - both you and I have probably treated a gypsy unfairly. That's ok, I'm fine with that, I've given up hope that I can be perfect - but, I still find that it helps to remind me that I'm not. And what I'm doing is not helping them. I don't know how I could _personally_ behave better (without harming myself) - but, that only means that I don't believe a solution can be found at the "personal" level. I believe "more of the same" will only work to reinforce the stereotype - so at a policy level, I believe that policies are needed to actively help them raise above their conditions (yes, maybe even positive discrimination is justified - at least, it's _something_ ), while at the same time working to fight against the symptoms (prevent the formation of "ghettos"/ their isolation in roma-only communities). But, I digress. This was about our own weaknesses, and how the stereotype, even when grounded in truth, can be harmful, because of the positive feedback loop it creates (which is very hard to break). In particular, a stereotype tells you that e.g. gypsies used to be petty criminals (in large proportions), but it does NOT tell you that they have to be so in the future. It does not tell you the "why" - maybe it's coded in their DNA. But what if (more likely, IMO) it's actually coded in our social norms? Because those, we can change! It takes effort, and time, but it's doable.

asddkk 9y ago

Group versus individuals. Stereotypes can be accurate on average between groups but inaccurate for individuals. The accuracy versus bias distinction of the paper kind of overlooks this, even though it's the crux of the issue in many ways.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Individual is a part of the group. The paper attacks more than just accuracy or let's call it pertinence and persistence of stereotypes. It also attacks the specific arguments on how this is still true, when and how important. All of which is underresearched as "There is prejudice" headline sells better than "There is 10% prejudice in rating football matches by students". See, the whole idea of treating everyone as special is a fancy individualist invention that has currency in some countries. It also matters how much said person is special and how many of them are. Then you can call it a problem or not. Or by tracking outcomes of people subject to prejudice with strong statistical tools which do not involve cherry picking by hand.

AstralStorm 9y ago

When you cannot refute, ignore it. Wasn't it the standard practice so far? (Mentioned in the paper.) Instead keep the fancy unexpected results published and cited, even if irrelevant or wrong.