I’ve been thinking about this idea ever sense I scolded Argent in this thread. To summarize, he said something to the effect that Jews are brainy and ambitious, and I responded that if you accept those stereotypes to be true, then you have to accept the bad ones too (e.g., Jews are unscrupulous bastards).
Like I said, I’ve been thinking and trying to figure out if this is really true. On the face of it, it sounds right. Certainly sounds like something a progress-thinker would believe. If you accept the premise that a stereotype is a deeply-entrenched generalization of a certain group and that it is always a distortion of reality, if not a downright lie, then I think it would be safe to say that accepting only the truth behind the positive stereotypes, but not the negative ones, is wrong and potentially self-serving.
However, not all stereotypes are equal distortions of reality. The grains of truth contained in many stereotypes are not of equal size. And it is possible to separate the wheat from the chaff. So in the case of the Jews, you may be able to say they are brainy and ambitious, but of course all that clap-trap about them having horns and drinking Christian blood during Passover are just crazy lies.
So…what do you believe? Safer not to make any judgments and statements predicated on any stereotypes, good or bad? Or pick and choose which ones seem “more true”, using best professional judgment (my favorite workplace jargon) to discount the bogus ones?
Your position is golden mean rubbish. The only valid reason to believe something is true is because it’s what the balance of evidence indicates is true (the “best professional judgement” you mention), not out of some some ridiculous attempt at even-handedness.
If the factors leading to the establishment of all stereotypes were the same every time, them it would make sense to accept or reject them all en bloc, however, I don’t. Think that’s the case.
For example, observational humour may establish one stereotype, political propaganda another and a third may arise from the culture of a competing community. There’s no particular reason why there should be a consistent level of truthfulness in these three scenarios, or for that matter, two that originate in the same place.
So… I’d say no. They might be useful sometimes, but need handlng case by.case.
I don’t see any constructive purpose of judging people by which cultural group they belong to. Treat each person as an individual (while respecting* their culture), and you won’t have any use for stereotypes.
Having said that, it certainly makes sense to be aware of cultural differences, especially where I live (Silicon Valley). If I meet someone from Japan, I generally won’t reach out, grad their hand, and give them a vigorous handshake. If I invite a practicing Jew over to my house for dinner, I probably won’t serve pork unless I know a little about what brand of Judaism they practice.
*Of course, that is not to say we should respect things like FGM, using young boys as sex objects, treating women as second class citizens, or sentencing gays to death.
Stereotypes come from somewhere. Some are a result of what is seen to be as a common tend or observation. Some are just ridiculous, and like Mangetout said, come from propaganda or hate speech.
I don’t think that Jews drinking the blood of babies is really a stereotype in the U.S. Jews being greedy bastards is a stereotype, and a bad one, but there are reasons for that one, too. What Argent said is not entirely untrue, but that’s a result of Jewish culture flourishing in the Western world.
The idea that Jews were smart has been around for centuries. It used to be said that Jews were so smart, they planned to take over the world and murder all the Christians.
I think what Argent said is less offensive than All Hispanics are lazy or Black people are violent or Muslims hate women or deaf people are dumb.
I doubt that Swedish girls reject the stereotype of being hot or Asian kids hate it that white people think they’re potential geniuses or whatever. It’s when someone doesn’t fit into a positive stereotype that they may not like it.
So there are some situations where it’s necessary to apply a generalization when interacting with members of a different ethnic group. Sometimes generalizations are unavoidable because it’s impossible to know everything about everyone who is liable to hear your words.
And it’s not always about how you treat people on an individual, face-to-face basis. If I were giving a talk and I referred to a sticky situation as a “tar baby”, I might be told, “Hey! Don’t you know that black people tend to be hypersensitive and are liable to get upset over innocuous phrases due to misdirected associations?”. This is also an example of a recently-emerged stereotype.
Also, when dealing with a large group you might struggle with whether or not to apply certain generalizations. If you were a policymaker charged with addressing the problems facing the African-American community, you might need to confront certain tendencies/generalizations/stereotypes even if you know that not all–or even a majority–of the members do not contribute to them, but which still may need to be addressed on a group-wide basis.
It’s all well and good to say Jews are smart (though I’ve met some dumb-ass Jewish people in my life, Lord knows). But what about the other stereotypes? Like, that Jews are money grubbers and exploitative? I can look at recent history and find examples of this being “true”. Why should I be convinced that Jews are smarter than everyone else, while not believing that they more likely to be stingy or unscrupulous? This may sound like a strange question, but what stops me from sliding down that slippery slope when we’re talking about diffuse generalizations. Wouldn’t it just be easier not to place any importance on stereotypes in the first place?
And I can’t say that all postive stereotypes are harmless or inoffensive. Let’s look at the positive stereotypes for black people. Black people are physical strong and athletic. Black people are soulful and emotional. Harmless, you say? Well, no one ever associates strong intellect with physical prowess (so to say Jews are brainy is to also say they are “nebbish”). No one ever associates emotionality with rationality and depth. If you say one group is “sexy” (like Asian females), then you’re implicitly saying that they are sex objects.
Not all positive stereotypes work like this, but a lot of them do. Not to mention, if you are a member of a group and you fall short of a “positive” stereotype (like all Asians being good at math), I’m sure you’re not going to feel too good broadcasting this to the world. I’ve gotten ribbed by both black and white people my over lack of rhythm. It’s a minor thing, but an annoying thing too.
False. Stereotypes are not inherently bad things, but are often misapplied, or created for malicious reasons. They can be quite useful when traveling in mixed company, in foreign countries, or when dealing with someone you don’t know at all for the first time. Let’s use a fairly harmless example; Timeliness:
Germans are punctual. Most Germans I know are, and all that I have met have also placed a priority on timeliness. So if I was a person who was habitually tardy, I might make a special effort to be on time to meet That consultant from Berlin. He MIGHT be tardy too, but it doesn’t hurt to not offend. On the other hand, Mexicans often have a reputation for being rather lax in regards to punctuality. I might well remember to be slightly more gracious than usual about the consultant from Tabasco being a half hour tardy to our business lunch. He might well be right on time, but if he isn’t, it doesn’t hurt not to offend in this case either.
In both cases, the stereotype is rather harmless, and it serves me well to remember and consider it in my actions. It’s not always some evil, maliciously intended concept.
You have unfortunately presented the classic informal fallacy called the “Straw Man”
The validity of their stereotype, no matter if it is correct does not imply and or even suggest they will claim other stereotypes that have been cast on a group.
This means that you are misrepresenting their argument and using that to disprove their original statement.
The same way you know if anything is true. And I’m not saying that to be unhelpful - your whole argument is based on a refusal to treat “Jews are brainy” the same way you’d treat “lawyers are brainy” - as a claim that may be supported or refuted by the available evidence.
But are these stereotypes, or are these simply cultural attributes? Cultural attributes are not distortions of reality like stereotypes are. Stereotypes are more like, “Germans stink to high heaven” or “Mexicans are lazy.” (Or positive ones, like “Germans are very organized” and “Mexicans are comical.”)
To make the point even further, would you agree with the two stereotypes: “White people are punctual” and “Hispanics are not punctual?” Let’s say you accept that both are true. But if someone says, “White people are ill-mannered”, on what moral or rational highground can you stand on? You can’t just say “Well, I’m not ill-mannered, and neither are my Ma and Pa” because you’ve already acknowledged that there’s a grain of truth to every stereotype, and you’ve accepted the “reality” of one that favored your group. Why should we give you credit for being punctual, but not take away a point for being ill-mannered?
Again, it seems to me it’s much easier to operate using no stereotypes or relying too much on generalizations, and just to treat people as individuals. If you know a person is from a certain culture, you follow the customs of that culture. But you do not “follow” the stereotypes (like serving fried chicken and watermelon-flavored Kool-Aide to your black in-laws, for instance.)
It’s not so much that if you accept (and promulgate) one stereotype, you have to do the same for others. Rather, if you promulgate one stereotype but reject others and the one you accept just happens to be self-servingly positive while the others are negative, you lose ground when you demand to be seen as an individual later on, when others start trying to view you through a negative stereoptypic lense.
“Jews are smart and ambitious” on the stereotype scale is not that far different than “Jews are clever and cunning businessmen”, which is not that far away from “Jews are shrewd, greedy, and clannish”. Two or three leaps later you get “Jews know how to plunge that knife in your back so deep that it will come out of your chest and stab a Chinamen without leaving a visible mark”.
The main difference between the first stereotype and the last is not truthfulness, in my opinion, because the so-called grain of truth is present in both extremes. The difference is the bias of the person who believes in either one. All of too often, though, people pretend as if they aren’t biased, and assume that it’s okay to accept positive stereotypes because those are inherently more truthful or something. Not necessarily, though.
Person B: how dare you think that Asians have small reproductive organs
There is absolutely no reason that any one stereotype or perception effects the untruthfulness of any other stereotype.
In even claiming there is in any discussion you are putting forth assumptions that a person believes something they have never claimed.
You claimed that because he claimed that Jews are brainy and ambitious that he had to also believe that Jews are unscrupulous.
This is a typical straw man, if you can not see this I would recommend a logic course ASAP
Thanks for the condescension. I was short of the recommended daily amount before I encountered your post.
I disagree that your “logic” represents mine. The logic I am presenting is as forth:
Person A: “I belong to a group that is smart, attractive, and suave.”
Person B: “This group that you belong to is also said to be immoral, neurotic, and selfish.”
Person A: “I don’t believe those things to be true. Only those things I mentioned before are true. They just happen to be good.”
Person B: “What the hell?”
The point of this thread is to find out if “What the hell?” is an appropriate response to Person A’s line of thinking. Why should a person uphold the positive stereotypes that have been constructed about their group, but automatically discount the negative ones? It seems to me by believing any of the stereotypes, you give credence to stereotypes in general and invite criticism and debunking. If there’s a grain of truth in the positive ones, then why shouldn’t we say the same about the negatives?
You will find plenty of people who will pound their chests proudly about the positive qualities attributed to their group. You will find plenty of people who are indifferent or accepting of “neutral” stereotypes (like “Italians talk with their hands a lot.”) But I have never seen many people who acknowledge the accuracy of the negative stereotypes for their group. Do you think this is just a coincidence? I don’t think it is. Just like I don’t think it’s a coincidence or rational justification behind the fact that some groups have more negative stereotypes than others.
That’s why while I think my admonition to Ardent was school-marmish and annoying, it’s not a wrong way of thinking.
(Flipping it around, let’s say Ardent was a member of another ethnic group, one without a homeland, and his thread was talking about where they could create one. And let’s say this ethnic group was so stigmatized it that had more negative stereotypes attached to it than positive. Would Ardent allow someone to say, without rebuttal, “Well, your people are a bunch of so-and-so’s who aren’t able to fight their way out of a paper bag, let alone found an entire country!” I don’t think so, and I don’t think very many Dopers would allow that kind of attack to go unanswered. So if we posit that Ardent would be justified in being offended, I don’t know why we would have to agree with him taking the completely opposite approach.)
Click through to the discussion he referenced, my proof was not complete but he used a misstatement of the other persons argument to attack the argument.
So to finish my proof that does end in a straw man he said
Because we know asians don’t have smaller genitals your argument is invalid.
So to even use your wikipedia refrence.
In this case, Person B has transformed Person A’s position from “Jews are Smarter” to “Jews are smarter and intrinsically evil”, which is easier for Person B to defeat.
The proper method would be to attack the claim that Jews are smarter, even the cited IQ test this is fairly easy to defeat.
Vs the way it went down:
P1 = treis
P2 = mostro
X = Jews are smarter
Y = Jews are smarter and evil
P1 Claims X
P2 Claims P1 must also believe Y
P2 uses Y to attack P1’s claim X
That is classic straw man as I was taught it and as documented on wikipedia.
And for the record I think all of the involved stereotypes in the OP’s referenced thread have everything to do with socioeconomics vs any perceived idea of “race”
I will drink coffee before posting in the future though.
A straw man is pretty straightfoward as far as fallacies go, so the fact that you have to explain yourself twice means you’re reaching in accusing the OP of such.
A straw man involves someone attacking an argument that no one is advancing, to give the illusion that they are really attacking the true argument being advanced. Usually the misrepresented argument is very easy to refute, while the true argument is not.
monstro wasn’t attacking Argent Towers’s assertion about Jews being brainy by attacking a misrepresentation. If she committed a fallacy, it was the slippery slope fallacy.
So I ask for a cite on your side, plus straw man vs slippery slope is not a mutually exclusive.
She was making the original person’s statement absurd by saying they had to also accept the other stereotypes, without providing any reason they should be linked. She did so in order to make the argument seem more absurd.
