[whack]

> But you're cherry-picking stereotypes that are mostly incorrect (and look outright archaic). Whereas Lee Jussim (for example) has found that most stereotypes are mostly accurate.

So your position is that if the stereotypes about Women/Blacks/Jews/Southerners/Gays were mostly accurate, it would be ok to discriminate against those groups on the basis of those stereotypes?

In my previous post, I never claimed that stereotypes were false. I stated that discrimination on the basis of stereotypes were damaging to society, and morally repugnant.

My feelings are not relevant, but the fact that you seem to be in favor of stereotypes, because you belong to a group that won't be strongly affected by it, is not relevant either. In order to form a defensible moral position, you have to look at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't know which group he will belong to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance). And it's hard to imagine any external rational person forming the conclusion that he would like to live in a society that I described earlier.

[ysavir]

> the fact that you seem to be in favor of stereotypes, because you belong to a group that won't be strongly affected by it, is not relevant either

Either I missed where the poster listed their group, or you're stereotyping people that don't consider stereotyping abhorrent as people who aren't affected by stereotyping.

[ebalit]

I find the guideline described in the article to be quite good. If the decision is important (as for hiring), you should get as much information as you can.

It would be interesting to know if people are good at guessing the uncertainty of a stereotype and if they approximate a Bayesian integration of information.

It is the case for visual, spacial and sensorimotor information. I wouldn't be surprised if it was also the case for social information.