[sevenless]

Let me quote Daniel Kahneman in "Thinking, Fast and Slow"

"The social norm against stereotyping, including the opposition to profiling, has been highly beneficial in creating a more civilized and more equal society. It is useful to remember, however, that neglecting valid stereotypes inevitably results in suboptimal judgments. Resistance to stereotyping is a laudable moral position, but the simplistic idea that the resistance is costless is wrong. The costs are worth paying to achieve a better society, but denying that the costs exist, while satisfying to the soul and politically correct, is not scientifically defensible. Reliance on the affect heuristic is common in politically charged arguments. The positions we favor have no cost and those we oppose have no benefits. We should be able to do better."

–Daniel Kahneman, Nobel laureate, in Thinking, Fast and Slow, chapter 16

[0134340]

>neglecting valid stereotypes

That's where the problem arises. Some stereotypes aren't based on truth but of individuals or groups fearing what they don't know. As I mentioned before in the thread, many stereotypes, especially those perceived as supernatural and being shunned or killed because of real medical issues, were outright false and started and perpetuated because man fears what it doesn't know. Epileptics were stereotyped as possessed, people who floated after death were stereotyped as witches, those with large canines stereotyped as vampires, albino Africans stereotyped also as witches and so on. Some stereotypes are started because of bias, not truths. The main issue with stereotyping is not because of benign stereotypes you keep to yourself or inner circle but when you act upon false stereotypes or mention your stereotype in a large public forum as the internet and it turns out to be untrue for those individuals. When you hear people say that it's impolite to use stereotypes, this is typically what they're talking about. Most people know enough to know that it's rude to use general stereotypes in a general (public) forum.

[junko]

Yep. Stereotypes are almost always being debunked too, either by a new generation with a new culture/outlook, or someone belonging to a stereotyped group steps out with unique enough traits that conflict with the stereotype itself - but of course those with the stereotype would fling their hands in the air and proclaim "Of course I don't mean to say that about all of them." Damage's done though.

We all inevitably stereotype, even the most liberal can't claim otherwise. But history has never shown anything less bleak and painful when one stereotype is carried loudly and by a growing mass of hysteria. It's not worth it, imo, to debate so much of the validity of a stereotype, particularly when it involves lots of lives as you risk dehumanisation.

[T2_t2]

I think this is exactly what the article set out to disprove.

> particularly when it involves lots of lives as you risk dehumanisation.

The article stated:

> If people relied on their stereotypes more or less rationally, they would rely on them to inform judgments when they had little or no definitive information, but ignore them when they had definitive information. And it turns out this is just what most people do.

The idea that stereotyping is dehumanising, or used is some way to deny others, or put them in a box is specifically what the article says people don't do.

Instead, the article claims, people use stereotypes to improve the odds when there is no other information. To call that dehumanising is a pretty long bow to draw IMHO.

[Klockan]

The stereotypes people usually mean are things like "Asians are good at maths", "Africans are good at running", "Girls likes dolls" and "Boys likes trucks".

[markdog12]

I can't think of a book that has me analyzing my own thoughts for faults, and so longer after reading it.