4 ms·

> 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 d

> 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.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    "Nicht alles was hinkt, ist auch ein Vergleich" So your analogy was "something that is beneficial to one side but not to the other"? Nothing to do with stereotypes at all? Because that is so distant that I don't see how it is an analogy of anything. So "being stabbed in the gut is not beneficial to the stabbee, so don't you see that stereotypes are harmful"? We all operate with stereotypes that are largely accurate and largely beneficial, not to single groups (as you seem to imply), but to everyone (obviously different stereotypes etc.). In fact, without stereotypes (=generalizations) we would not be able to function and the world would be a terribly dangerous place. Now are they all upside with no downside? Of course not. But that's a straw man, because what thing is there with no downsides? And I also don't see that you've actually supported your assertion that the stereotypes you mention are "incredibly harmful" to those negatively affected. Because the research shows that that is not the case, meaning the real data about the individual replaces the stereotype very quickly. Do you have evidence that this is incorrect?
    - virgilp 9y ago
      > Because the research shows that that is not the case Please quote this research, you're just being obnoxious and I don't understand why. No such research can possibly exist, since it defies the most basic common sense.
      - mpweiher 9y ago
        "The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. 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. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.” http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res... "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Albert Einstein

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.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  "Nicht alles was hinkt, ist auch ein Vergleich" So your analogy was "something that is beneficial to one side but not to the other"? Nothing to do with stereotypes at all? Because that is so distant that I don't see how it is an analogy of anything. So "being stabbed in the gut is not beneficial to the stabbee, so don't you see that stereotypes are harmful"? We all operate with stereotypes that are largely accurate and largely beneficial, not to single groups (as you seem to imply), but to everyone (obviously different stereotypes etc.). In fact, without stereotypes (=generalizations) we would not be able to function and the world would be a terribly dangerous place. Now are they all upside with no downside? Of course not. But that's a straw man, because what thing is there with no downsides? And I also don't see that you've actually supported your assertion that the stereotypes you mention are "incredibly harmful" to those negatively affected. Because the research shows that that is not the case, meaning the real data about the individual replaces the stereotype very quickly. Do you have evidence that this is incorrect?
  - virgilp 9y ago
    > Because the research shows that that is not the case Please quote this research, you're just being obnoxious and I don't understand why. No such research can possibly exist, since it defies the most basic common sense.
    - mpweiher 9y ago
      "The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. 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. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.” http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res... "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Albert Einstein