3 ms·

> and largely beneficial. In some circumstances. While being incredibly harmful to some people/ in some other circumstances. These are not mutually exclusive!!

> 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
    - virgilp 9y ago
      All I see there is some study unrelated to your claim [1], except maybe in the hypothetical square-chickens-in-vacuum case ("when individuating information is clear and relevant"). Now, in real life, when is information clear? Have you heard of, say, "blind auditions" for orchestras? I guess the people who developed that (and got results!) were stupid, because if clear and individuating information was present, there would be no problem at all. [1] your claim: > stereotypes (I) mention are (not) "incredibly harmful" to those negatively affected. Because the research shows that that is not the case I.e. your claim is basically that research shows people negatively affected by stereotypes are not harmed much by them. There is and can be no such research.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        The trouble is there is no individuating information at the first meeting. This makes the hiring (like most hiring) subject to prejudice. Which may or may not be justified or accurate. What was measured was difference in hiring rather than performance. Unsurprising at all. The cure is either blind auditions or extended trial periods. Or impartially designed tests. Tricky question is who is supposed to bear the cost. That is if they problem really is of big magnitude and worth solving in the specific case. Which is done by measuring the magnitude and outcomes rather than detecting presence of prejudice. Then investigating the causes by hard analysis rather than politically biased guesswork.

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
  - virgilp 9y ago
    All I see there is some study unrelated to your claim [1], except maybe in the hypothetical square-chickens-in-vacuum case ("when individuating information is clear and relevant"). Now, in real life, when is information clear? Have you heard of, say, "blind auditions" for orchestras? I guess the people who developed that (and got results!) were stupid, because if clear and individuating information was present, there would be no problem at all. [1] your claim: > stereotypes (I) mention are (not) "incredibly harmful" to those negatively affected. Because the research shows that that is not the case I.e. your claim is basically that research shows people negatively affected by stereotypes are not harmed much by them. There is and can be no such research.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      The trouble is there is no individuating information at the first meeting. This makes the hiring (like most hiring) subject to prejudice. Which may or may not be justified or accurate. What was measured was difference in hiring rather than performance. Unsurprising at all. The cure is either blind auditions or extended trial periods. Or impartially designed tests. Tricky question is who is supposed to bear the cost. That is if they problem really is of big magnitude and worth solving in the specific case. Which is done by measuring the magnitude and outcomes rather than detecting presence of prejudice. Then investigating the causes by hard analysis rather than politically biased guesswork.