4 ms·
> [stereotypes] are effectively a useful heuristic that just happens to sometimes misfire They don't happen to sometimes misfire. They are a very poor predicto
by mithr 4y ago
> [stereotypes] are effectively a useful heuristic that just happens to sometimes misfire
They don't happen to sometimes misfire. They are a very poor predictor of the behavior of individuals within the group you're stereotyping. And in your day-to-day life, you're pretty much always dealing with individuals rather than an entire class of people.
This is significantly complicated when considering that stereotypes weren't created in a vacuum, either. Sometimes they are the result of some statistical phenomenon (which still doesn't mean they are good predictors of individual behavior), but often they are the result of historical prejudice. One easy example is that there are lots of stereotypes about Jewish people, many of which involve money or some sort of secret societal control. Those are categorically false, and have been tied to age-old antisemitic sentiments and humans' natural fear of groups of "others".
Some are also self-fulfilling. If 50 years ago a bunch of the population believed that a certain class of people were more likely to commit crimes, and as a result more of those people tended to be arrested, then looking at those statistics today in isolation seems to "prove" the point that this segment is more dangerous. Whereas in reality the reason the statistics are this way is largely because of the prejudiced belief.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoI disagree vis-a-vis stereotypes. I personally subscribe to the idea that in a society constructs do tend to serve a specific evolutionary purpose. That is true for god, society, or stereotypes. They exist in ways that may obscure their purpose, which is ( was? ) tribe survival. <<This is significantly complicated when considering that stereotypes weren't created in a vacuum, either. Absolutely correct, they exist as a result of observed facts and carried down as memes throughout society at large. You can question their accuracy, but there is a reason they exist and thrive. << which still doesn't mean they are good predictors of individual behavior They are good enough for an individual predictions, which is all an individual is concerned with. The issue starts when it is being used more broadly. << If 50 years ago a bunch of the population believed that a certain class of people were more likely to commit crimes, and as a result more of those people tended to be arrested, then looking at those statistics today in isolation seems to "prove" the point that this segment is more dangerous. Ok. Lets say we forget history for a moment. There is indeed an argument to be made that data may not be.. accurate ( but that also opens the question of.. is that accuracy zero ?). What about current statistics of shooting incidents in Chicago? Are those also biased, because they happen to show similar pattern ( I think we can agree shooting people is a bad thing and likely dangerous and those involved likely belong in prison -- self defense and similar being excluded )?