5 ms·

Stereotyping has a lasting negative impact, new research finds

15 points by toni 16y ago

pasbesoin 16y ago
There are reasons it's done. An increasing number and/or vocal portion of the population may not like it (myself included), but that does not preclude its effectiveness and the social role it plays. Similarly bullying, with which I have more experience (particularly on the receiving end).
- bbq 16y ago
  Out of curiousity, what are the social justifications for stereotyping and bullying?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Basing decisions on stereotypes is often statistically optimal in the absence of other information. For example, to get home, you must pass through one of two dark alleys. Dark alley 1 has a black man in it, dark alley 2 has an asian woman in it. If you base your decision of which dark alley to walk through on stereotypes ("blacks are mostly criminal", "asian women are good at math"), you are far less likely to be robbed than if you choose an alley at random. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_informatio...
  - pasbesoin 16y ago
    I meant, those who exercise prejudice and bullying place their targets at a disadvantage. We are learning that this has long term implications that can persist beyond the immediate events and even absent continued experience of that behavior. They disadvantage what they perceive as competition (I guess that's my statement/presumption). At least in the more immediate geographical and sociological (if that's the right word) context, this places them at a relative advantage. An advantage that may, as this article helps to demonstrate, persist over time and independent of further, continued action on their part. How it plays out in/for larger society, over time and with changing/advancing sociological and anthropological conditions? Well, I'm of the opinion that collaborative cooperation is increasingly needed and therefore these behaviors are, in the larger, developing context, counter-productive. But I don't have scientific evidence nor an argument based upon same to offer. EDIT: I.e., it's not simply "evil" that is "absent of logic/rationale/purpose" (whether conscious or not). Many may consider it evil, but it does not simply spring from the mind of a madman. And understanding how it works is useful in addressing it. I hope this clarifies what I meant. I don't condone it. But I get frustrated with people who refuse to understand how it works and that it does have real and persistent consequences. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is not an adequate redress, of itself.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Interesting. In the face of certain types of adversity, women perform worse on many measures. If these results are true, and assuming a rational hiring policy devoted solely to maximizing performance [1], a comparably qualified man should be preferred to a woman in roles where popular stereotypes suggest women may perform worse. After all, the woman may be exposed to stereotypes outside the workplace, return to the workplace and perform poorly and become aggressive. (If the result generalizes to men, then we should avoid hiring men in counter-stereotypical roles as well.) [1] I'm discussing purely the theoretical rational bayesian policy which maximizes worker performance and ignores things like legal liability. In practice, you must sacrifice some expected performance to reduce risk of lawsuits (i.e., add a lawsuit cost term to your objective function).
viggity 16y ago
all research studies are bullshit

15 points by toni 16y ago

There are reasons it's done. An increasing number and/or vocal portion of the population may not like it (myself included), but that does not preclude its effectiveness and the social role it plays. Similarly bullying, with which I have more experience (particularly on the receiving end).

bbq 16y ago
Out of curiousity, what are the social justifications for stereotyping and bullying?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Basing decisions on stereotypes is often statistically optimal in the absence of other information. For example, to get home, you must pass through one of two dark alleys. Dark alley 1 has a black man in it, dark alley 2 has an asian woman in it. If you base your decision of which dark alley to walk through on stereotypes ("blacks are mostly criminal", "asian women are good at math"), you are far less likely to be robbed than if you choose an alley at random. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_informatio...
- pasbesoin 16y ago
  I meant, those who exercise prejudice and bullying place their targets at a disadvantage. We are learning that this has long term implications that can persist beyond the immediate events and even absent continued experience of that behavior. They disadvantage what they perceive as competition (I guess that's my statement/presumption). At least in the more immediate geographical and sociological (if that's the right word) context, this places them at a relative advantage. An advantage that may, as this article helps to demonstrate, persist over time and independent of further, continued action on their part. How it plays out in/for larger society, over time and with changing/advancing sociological and anthropological conditions? Well, I'm of the opinion that collaborative cooperation is increasingly needed and therefore these behaviors are, in the larger, developing context, counter-productive. But I don't have scientific evidence nor an argument based upon same to offer. EDIT: I.e., it's not simply "evil" that is "absent of logic/rationale/purpose" (whether conscious or not). Many may consider it evil, but it does not simply spring from the mind of a madman. And understanding how it works is useful in addressing it. I hope this clarifies what I meant. I don't condone it. But I get frustrated with people who refuse to understand how it works and that it does have real and persistent consequences. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is not an adequate redress, of itself.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Interesting. In the face of certain types of adversity, women perform worse on many measures. If these results are true, and assuming a rational hiring policy devoted solely to maximizing performance [1], a comparably qualified man should be preferred to a woman in roles where popular stereotypes suggest women may perform worse. After all, the woman may be exposed to stereotypes outside the workplace, return to the workplace and perform poorly and become aggressive. (If the result generalizes to men, then we should avoid hiring men in counter-stereotypical roles as well.) [1] I'm discussing purely the theoretical rational bayesian policy which maximizes worker performance and ignores things like legal liability. In practice, you must sacrifice some expected performance to reduce risk of lawsuits (i.e., add a lawsuit cost term to your objective function).

viggity 16y ago

all research studies are bullshit