|
|
|
|
|
|
by exceptione
3222 days ago
|
|
|
Patterns do fit stereotypes perfectly. They are oversimplified concepts of something real; some samples are outside the pattern and that is perfectly fine for pattern-discovery. So stereotypes and patterns aren't distinct concepts in essence. «Datasets generated by humans are going to be invariably flawed and far from reality, unless we take careful steps to ensure otherwise.» If the data in the wild is not real, we can only adapt it to your reality to make it real. That's not necessarily my view of reality. You can't just pluck objectivy out of the air and fresh up fake real data. |
|
|
No they don't. "Stereotype" is a psychological concept, and therefore by definition incorporates human subjectivity. There are various conflicting definitions, but most include the possibility or likelihood that many overstate or even completely falsely construct generalizations.
Or, as Wikipedia[1] states,
> By the mid-1950s, Gordon Allport wrote that, "It is possible for a stereotype to grow in defiance of all evidence."
> Research on the role of illusory correlations in the formation of stereotypes suggests that stereotypes can develop because of incorrect inferences about the relationship between two events (e.g., membership in a social group and bad or good attributes). This means that at least some stereotypes are inaccurate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype#Accuracy