I’ve never heard of Jews being stereotyped as brainy. Isn’t that the steretype people associate with Asians?
rat avatar: That’s not a strawman. It might be a non sequitur or a statement contrary to fact, but it’s not a strawman.
That, folks, is called a false dichotomy.
Whatever you say:rolleyes:
Follows me wherever I go. I tell you.
Safer to pick ones that seem true based on evidence.
Safer for what? In a forum like GD, a stereotype is on the level of an anecdote. It’s not so much that if you accept one you need to accept them all, it’s that you don’t get to accept one in the first place.
If you don’t know what a false dichotomy is, fine. But you shouldn’t pretend that it’s incorrect when in fact, it is. Frankly, I think that fallacy is crystal clear from the name alone.
I dunno. It could be argued that some generalities have a sort of historic and cultural truth to them: how that truth in interpreted (assuming of course it exists) is a matter of opinion or attitude.
For example, if it is in fact the case that Jews are, as a group, more likely to be really good at things like business and lawyering, is this: (a) admirable, or (b) evidence of dishonourable characteristics? The exact same reality may be characterized as either good or bad.
I see nothing that requires one to accept a negative characterization, if one accepts the positive one. One person may in all sincerity admire (for example) the types of characteristics that go into making one a good lawyer - hard work, education, tenacity, etc. - while another person could go with the just-as-common perception that all lawyers are scum. Same reality, different characterization.
Like for personal safety for instance, you might be careful letting a toddler play with a pitbull rather than a pug.
I’m in agreement with John. In what situations would you need to accept the truthfulness of a stereotype?
Are you saying that if you’ve got a Jewish and a gentile candidate up for a position, all things being equal, you’ll pick the Jewish one based on the “brainy and ambitious” stereotype?
Are you saying you’d choose a Jewish doctor over a gentile one? Or a Jewish lawyer over a gentile one?
If you wouldn’t do any of the above without having more information, then I’m wondering just what use the “good Jewish” stereotype is doing for you. And if you would let the stereotype guide your decision-making, then I’m wondering what makes you different from someone who would discriminate against a black person for fear of them being stupid or against a Hispanic person for fear of them being lazy? I don’t see any difference. Obviously some people disagree, and I’d like to hear their reasoning.
If anyone is interested, Malcolm Gladwell talks about the “grain of truth” behind ethnic stereotypes in Outliers. The whole book is interesting, but that section is really the most compelling part of his thesis.
It is also a false dichotomy
It is also a Red Herring, (I would not call it a slippery slope)
And it is a straw man, because she is attacking a position that the opponent doesn’t hold, or that we do not know they hold.
The way she is changing the argument is irrelevant to the logic flaw.
She is saying to accept N you need to also accept N[1…∞] and in so pushing it to the Extreme and the absurd, an attempt to weaken the argument without addressing the claim that was originally made.
But no matter what it is called the logic of saying (you can not posit X unless you believe Y) puts a very very large burden of proof on the person proposing Y to show that it is related.
The funny part is that IQ tests are pretty easy to discount, especially when trying to use them to compare people in the flawed context of “race”.
We’re talking about people. Please try to keep up.
Would you let a toddler play with a white male (doncha know those white guys are all perverted child molesters?) or a black man (those black men are nothing but rapists who love them some white ass)?
Would you let a toddler play with a white woman (tsk, tsk, tsk…everyone knows how neurotic and self-centered they are) or a black woman (honey no, everyone knows black women are hot-tempered and will beat that child within an inch of his life just for say “niggardly”)?
Would you let a toddler play with a Jewish boy (I dunno…the Jewish boy may hurt their ego with his superior intellect, and may also turn him into a commie-pinko) or a gentile boy (I dunno about that either…gentiles aren’t as intelligent as Jews, and they may turn the child into an ardent creationist! Oh laws no!)
We’re talking about people. Let’s play with people-based analogies, not animal ones.
Where did you specify that stereotypes can only be about people? That doesn’t make much sense. In fact, it’s more useful to use animal examples because people can be more objective about them.
Actually, if you read the OP, she’s talking about her own statement. And she’s asking whether it’s true or not. If you ask whether “x” is true, then you’re not engaging in a straw man argument.
I agree that there are no “good stereotypes”. Even those of positive qualities still prevent you from seeing people as individuals. You would be making judgments based preconceived ideas that are more likely wrong than right.
Although the Jewish = smart stereotype is a common one, it still limits the way people see the individual and as a whole, that just can’t be a good thing.
ETA: Even if you get away from stereotypes and in to accurate population stats, the data falls apart at the level of the individual.
Sorry once again, I am talking about the linked thread.
What is the name of the logical fallacy for simultaneously beating a dead horse and not even addressing the question posed in this damn OP?
I don’t know, but my example of a pitbull with a toddler addresses your question about stereotypes posed in your OP. Also, it has the added advantage of not bringing in tribal emotion. No need to react angrily. If you just want to talk about human stereotypes that is fine, but your original post invites discussion about any stereotype.
The practicality of using a generality as a guide to behaviour is a different issue from whether of not it has some truth to it.
I’d not use any generality as a practical guide - personal and individual characteristics ought to predominate in decision-making such as choosing a doc.
However, that’s quite aside from the question in the OP, which was whether if you accept one stereotype as having some truth, you must accept them all.
I wasn’t talking about you.
I know I haven’t been 100% clear in my writing, but that has not been what I have been advocating.
More simply (hopefully):
Stereotypes are deeply-entrenched generalizations drawn across a group, self-identified or not. They are usually distortions of reality (aka “containing a grain of truth”), but frequently they are based on lies as well. This applies both to positive and negative stereotypes.
If one accepts that one stereotype is a true representation of reality, then on what basis can they negate the “truthfulness” of other stereotypes? If I say, “Asians are good at math”, then on what foundation can I refute “Asians are horrible drivers.” Both are based on anecdotal observations, at best, and lump diverse arrays of individuals together for no meaningful reason beyond “they all look the same.” On what basis can we say one stereotype is true but others are not? The fact that the ones we accept are all positive is not a rational reason, IMHO, especially if those just happen to be the ones we apply to ourselves.
I’m not saying you “must” do anything. I’m only asking how you can accept one and then distance yourself from another rationally.
I agree- I dint think one can. It’s the fallacy of positive stereotypes that makes one think it’s ok to accept them. But they are based on the same flawed logic.