5 ms·

I actually explained "how so" in my post, not sure what extra details you want: A. At a personal level: do I need to go into details how being presumed "by def

I actually explained "how so" in my post, not sure what extra details you want: A. At a personal level: do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opportunities? B. At a group level: the instinctual response to criminals is to avoid &"isolate" them; this creates ghettos. It doesn't help that they also have a tendency to auto-isolate themselves. I fail to see how this response is any of help towards actually solving the problem (well, short of the "final solution", I guess, if you're willing to seriously consider that).

mpweiher 9y ago
You "explained" nothing, you just asserted. >do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opportunities? Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with. Also, please try to incorporate this into a model of the real world with tradeoffs. So for example weigh my/your/his/her right not to be victimized, and everyone's duty to take care of themselves and others, with the right of someone not to be viewed with suspicion. > the instinctual response to criminals is to avoid &"isolate" them Citation needed. > tendency to auto-isolate themselves Citation needed. Aren't you stereotyping here? > help towards actually solving the problem What is "the problem" you refer to? What would you see as a solution?
- virgilp 9y ago
  What did you last slave die of? I'm not sure whether there's something you actually disagree with - or you just want to "be right" by creating unreasonable burdens of proof. If so - here: you're right, I'm just a random dude making baseless affirmations, please ignore me. > Aren't you stereotyping here? Yes I am. I thought you're a supporter of the idea that stereotypes are true more often than not? [edit] And to clarify, because it seems to be needed: by 'harmful', I mean harmful to the victims of the stereotype. If you discriminate someone, you're not necessarily harmed - but the other one may be. This isn't a "slavery was harmful to ranch owners" argument - it's not even a "slavery was harmful for the US society" argument. It's just a "slavery was harmful for black people" argument. I'm honestly flabbergasted that someone would honestly demand proof for that sort of statement.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    > stereotypes are true more often than not Yes, more often than not. Sometimes they're wrong. For example, the now common stereotype that stereotypes are mostly wrong is wrong. > Slavery What does slavery have to do with it, except nothing? Let's give a more realistic example: Say there's a woman walking alone at night. She notices a large man walking behind her. She crosses the road. Now she knew nothing of this man, so she just used her stereotypes (large men=possibly dangerous) and the situation (late at night) to inform her decision. Evil stereotype or prudent decision? Has he been "victimized" by the (almost certainly) incorrect assumption of her's that he is a danger?
    - virgilp 9y ago
      > What does slavery have to do with it Analogy - I was hoping that might help you understand what I meant by "harmful" (ie "who is the one being harmed?"). I didn't mean that you were harmed by it. > Let's give a more realistic example But I never stated that all stereotypes are harmful, or all create victims, or whatever. I stated that SOME do, and gave a specific example that you challenged. And now you move to a different example to prove.... what?
      - mpweiher 9y ago
        OK, so you agree that stereotypes are largely accurate and largely beneficial. Good, glad we cleared that up (it wasn't clear from your previous posts). You still haven't at all expanded how you got from a stereotype about the Romani, which others in the thread have noted is quite useful, to slavery. Do you think slavery was the result of inaccurate stereotypes and implicit bias? I think you would find it very hard to reconcile that hypothesis with the actual history of slavery.
        virgilp 9y ago
        > and largely beneficial. In some circumstances. While being incredibly harmful to some people/ in some other circumstances. These are not mutually exclusive!! You know, kinda' how atomic energy can be beneficial while at the same time being incredibly harmful. These properties can be simultaneously true. > You still haven't at all expanded But I did... again, in the message you are replying to. Here, I'll try again to convey the same message, without analogy this time: Do you believe that the stereotype "gypsy = criminal" would/should be perceived as "largely accurate and largely beneficial" for a (honest) person of Roma ethnicity? Because that's what you were challenging me to dis-prove. Slavery was indeed "largely beneficial" to the slave owners. Even to some empires/ nations. Seldom to the slaves. See how "largely beneficial" has multiple facets? That's what I meant, I was hoping that for slavery you wouldn't find it hard to believe that it was NOT largely beneficial, for the slaves themselves.
- euyyn 9y ago
  > >do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opportunities? > Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with. Not OP, but it's easy to come up with examples: in Spain it's very probable that after interviewing two candidates with otherwise the same qualifications, the one without the gipsy accent will get the job offer over the one with a gipsy accent. The same has been shown to be true in the US for resumes with typically African-American names vs the same resume with a typically Caucasian name. I don't really know where your skepticism is coming from, as it's not even surprising that these things happen.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    > after interviewing two candidates ... This contradicts the evidence that: "When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent." After the interview, you have individuating information. In fact, you probably have individuating information beforehand, such as the resume, maybe references etc. So your claim contradicts this study. As I haven't seen any evidence for your claim, my tendency is to believe the study. But certainly something that probably warrants further study.
    - euyyn 9y ago
      Your quote refers to idividuating information that is, in the mind of the interviewer, unambiguous and certain. To take the example from the paper, "the person was seen punching an adult". I don't know if you've ever interviewed someone for a job, but I wish the information I gather from interviews were at the same time unambiguous, relevant, and certain. The very same paper is littered with examples of cases in which stereotypes affect the judgement of people when your clause ("only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with") doesn't apply. So I'm not sure if you're being intellectually honest, or cherry-picking the most extreme circumstances examined in the paper and generalizing them. Just one of a multitude of examples cited: > a child from a high socioeconomic background who displayed a mixed performance on an ability test was rated as higher in ability than a child from a low socioeconomic background with the same performance (p. 293, citing two different studies) So if you honestly believe that the stereotypes associated with gipsies cannot impact their lifetime opportunities in a harmful way, please do read in detail the Kunda & Thagard paper. And by all means believe the paper.
- meebs 9y ago
  > Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with. You have two resumes and one last interview spot. They're fairly equal but one is Asian and the other is White. You pick Asian because Asians in general are better at technology and mathematics (that is abstract though). At least, that's the stereotype.

mpweiher 9y ago

You "explained" nothing, you just asserted. >do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opportunities? Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with. Also, please try to incorporate this into a model of the real world with tradeoffs. So for example weigh my/your/his/her right not to be victimized, and everyone's duty to take care of themselves and others, with the right of someone not to be viewed with suspicion. > the instinctual response to criminals is to avoid &"isolate" them Citation needed. > tendency to auto-isolate themselves Citation needed. Aren't you stereotyping here? > help towards actually solving the problem What is "the problem" you refer to? What would you see as a solution?

virgilp 9y ago
What did you last slave die of? I'm not sure whether there's something you actually disagree with - or you just want to "be right" by creating unreasonable burdens of proof. If so - here: you're right, I'm just a random dude making baseless affirmations, please ignore me. > Aren't you stereotyping here? Yes I am. I thought you're a supporter of the idea that stereotypes are true more often than not? [edit] And to clarify, because it seems to be needed: by 'harmful', I mean harmful to the victims of the stereotype. If you discriminate someone, you're not necessarily harmed - but the other one may be. This isn't a "slavery was harmful to ranch owners" argument - it's not even a "slavery was harmful for the US society" argument. It's just a "slavery was harmful for black people" argument. I'm honestly flabbergasted that someone would honestly demand proof for that sort of statement.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > stereotypes are true more often than not Yes, more often than not. Sometimes they're wrong. For example, the now common stereotype that stereotypes are mostly wrong is wrong. > Slavery What does slavery have to do with it, except nothing? Let's give a more realistic example: Say there's a woman walking alone at night. She notices a large man walking behind her. She crosses the road. Now she knew nothing of this man, so she just used her stereotypes (large men=possibly dangerous) and the situation (late at night) to inform her decision. Evil stereotype or prudent decision? Has he been "victimized" by the (almost certainly) incorrect assumption of her's that he is a danger?
  - virgilp 9y ago
    > What does slavery have to do with it Analogy - I was hoping that might help you understand what I meant by "harmful" (ie "who is the one being harmed?"). I didn't mean that you were harmed by it. > Let's give a more realistic example But I never stated that all stereotypes are harmful, or all create victims, or whatever. I stated that SOME do, and gave a specific example that you challenged. And now you move to a different example to prove.... what?
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      OK, so you agree that stereotypes are largely accurate and largely beneficial. Good, glad we cleared that up (it wasn't clear from your previous posts). You still haven't at all expanded how you got from a stereotype about the Romani, which others in the thread have noted is quite useful, to slavery. Do you think slavery was the result of inaccurate stereotypes and implicit bias? I think you would find it very hard to reconcile that hypothesis with the actual history of slavery.
      - virgilp 9y ago
        > and largely beneficial. In some circumstances. While being incredibly harmful to some people/ in some other circumstances. These are not mutually exclusive!! You know, kinda' how atomic energy can be beneficial while at the same time being incredibly harmful. These properties can be simultaneously true. > You still haven't at all expanded But I did... again, in the message you are replying to. Here, I'll try again to convey the same message, without analogy this time: Do you believe that the stereotype "gypsy = criminal" would/should be perceived as "largely accurate and largely beneficial" for a (honest) person of Roma ethnicity? Because that's what you were challenging me to dis-prove. Slavery was indeed "largely beneficial" to the slave owners. Even to some empires/ nations. Seldom to the slaves. See how "largely beneficial" has multiple facets? That's what I meant, I was hoping that for slavery you wouldn't find it hard to believe that it was NOT largely beneficial, for the slaves themselves.
euyyn 9y ago
> >do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opportunities? > Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with. Not OP, but it's easy to come up with examples: in Spain it's very probable that after interviewing two candidates with otherwise the same qualifications, the one without the gipsy accent will get the job offer over the one with a gipsy accent. The same has been shown to be true in the US for resumes with typically African-American names vs the same resume with a typically Caucasian name. I don't really know where your skepticism is coming from, as it's not even surprising that these things happen.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > after interviewing two candidates ... This contradicts the evidence that: "When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent." After the interview, you have individuating information. In fact, you probably have individuating information beforehand, such as the resume, maybe references etc. So your claim contradicts this study. As I haven't seen any evidence for your claim, my tendency is to believe the study. But certainly something that probably warrants further study.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    Your quote refers to idividuating information that is, in the mind of the interviewer, unambiguous and certain. To take the example from the paper, "the person was seen punching an adult". I don't know if you've ever interviewed someone for a job, but I wish the information I gather from interviews were at the same time unambiguous, relevant, and certain. The very same paper is littered with examples of cases in which stereotypes affect the judgement of people when your clause ("only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with") doesn't apply. So I'm not sure if you're being intellectually honest, or cherry-picking the most extreme circumstances examined in the paper and generalizing them. Just one of a multitude of examples cited: > a child from a high socioeconomic background who displayed a mixed performance on an ability test was rated as higher in ability than a child from a low socioeconomic background with the same performance (p. 293, citing two different studies) So if you honestly believe that the stereotypes associated with gipsies cannot impact their lifetime opportunities in a harmful way, please do read in detail the Kunda & Thagard paper. And by all means believe the paper.
meebs 9y ago
> Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with. You have two resumes and one last interview spot. They're fairly equal but one is Asian and the other is White. You pick Asian because Asians in general are better at technology and mathematics (that is abstract though). At least, that's the stereotype.