Bigotry and Semantics (or Gaddmanned Frogs)

Great Debates
41

I was referring to your “Generalizations can be valid when they are applied to groups” post.

Actually, I hadn’t; it struck as something of a revelation (if an obvious one) while I was writing it, that your habit of categorizing the elements of a problem might somehow parallel your habits of categorizing people.

This I don’t quite get: that you break down intellectual problems as you analyze them seems to me to be a fairly obvious fact, and not a conclusion of mine. That it may be related to your categorization of people is presented pretty clearly, I think, as a conclusion that I reached on my own. (I really must refuse to preface every single statement that is obviously an opinion with “this is just my opinion.”)

Pattern recognition has been suggested by some as an evolved human trait; as such I agree with you that it’s difficult sometimes to avoid it. It behooves us nonetheless, in some circumstances, to try to do so.

This astonishes me.

I’m trying to imagine by what chain of thought you arrived at the conclusion that I placed Shodan into any particular category. I went back and read my post very carefully, twice, and remain bewildered. I spoke directly to him as an individual about his post, and referred to you by name, as an individual. Nowhere in that post did I make any type of sweeping generalization, to judge him (or you) through or by.

Needless to say, I’m as subject to knee-jerk generalization as the next human, so if you combed through my entire body of SDMB posts you’d probably be able to find me doing such a thing, but I’d hope that if it were pointed out to me I’d acknowledge it and use it as reminder of my responsibility to be more diligent about such impulses. But the post you quote is not such an example.

No; assumptions are just the first step.

The human tendency to grasp at perceived patterns as a way to learn about and understand unfamiliar things is, by and large, a good thing. As you point out, Scylla, there are many examples of its usefulness. But the thing that all your examples have in common is that the individual components that when viewed as a group make up the perceived pattern are not individual human beings. Stock quotes and photons do not have a “right” to be seen and judged as individuals, and lumping them together in order to understand a pattern does no harm to them as individuals and does not have a negative impact on the life they have only one chance to live on this planet.

When you apply the same principles to questions of human behavior you fail to take this into account. A photon does not have free will, and is not capable of seeing itself as an individual human being who wants perhaps to make the most of his life, and reject societal prejudices against his group and assert his individuality and right to determine his own future.

Every time a cabdriver passes up a fare because the fare is black (or green :rolleyes: ) he refuses that individual human being the right of self-determination.

Every time you apply your principles of pattern recognition to an artificial, arbitrary group made up of individual human beings, you refuse each of them the same right.

In addition, to group people together according to perceived patterns of behavior and then to reach unscientific conclusions as to the cause of those perceived patterns is, well, unscientific. “Many black people (at least the ones showed to me by the media) seem to be prone to crime; therefore their race is at the root of this tendency” is, quite obviously, an absurd statement. The variables and factors that it fails to take into account are too numerous to list here, and are probably obvious to anyone reading this. Even so, this is the paradigmatic logical construction by which any–any–human-subgroup-associated behavior stereotype is arrived at.

When one begins to notice what may be a pattern, the first step for a thinking human being should be to form a hypothesis, not reach a conclusion. A Pavlovian dog no doubt thinks (for the purposes of this discussion) that a bell causes food to appear, as we used to think from our observations that the sun traveled around the earth. There’s a series of steps between hypothesis and conclusion, however, that we sometimes fail to take.

42

Lissener:

Interesing. I wish we could have had this discussion from the outset. Allow me to chew on it first before responding.

43

Lissener:

While I’m thinking, is it your assertion that all categorization of humans is bad, or only potentially harmful ones?

Though I may be in error, I saw no harmful categorizations in the “generalizations can be valid” post.

Demographics, which is almost a science of generalization is an extremely useful tool, and its use in ethical circumstances can be beneficial to all concerned. The opposite of course is also true.

44

All categorization of humans is at the expense of acknowledging their individual humanity. This is bad when you’re dealing with the tree, but not always when you’re dealing, legitimately, with the forest.

Demographics is an application of categorization that is, in a way, the opposite (or the inverse or converse; I can never remember which is which) of categorization: the stereotyping that is the subject of this thread is to make specific assumptions about an individual based on unproven hypotheses about the group that is perceived to include this individual, and demographics makes assumptions about a group, or usually a market segment, based on data gathered from (or about) a number of individuals.

Demographics does not attempt to address the behavioral traits of individual human beings: to say that data suggests that 60% of this age group will want to see this movie does not really make any specific assumptions about any individual member of that age group. And again it’s the converse of the stereotyping we’re discussing, which concludes unscientifically that an individual is likely to behave in such and such a way because he is a member of this group; demographics makes no attempt to explain why individual members of a group may or may not act in a certain way, it simply gathers data that they do. Demographics says (making this up here, but it’s something like what I’m sure I’ve read) “Urban black males between the ages of 15 and 30 are XX% more likely to die by gunshot wound than rural white girls under 6.” Period, end of demographics. It’s not demographics or science or even logic, but stereotyping, to add, “. . . this is because they’re black.”

Similarly, it’s not stereotyping individuals, but merely defining a collective noun, to say “Creationists don’t accept the scientific validity of Darwinian theory.” It would not be stereotyping to say “Americans identified as Black are mostly of African descent.” As long as it’s largely tautological, in other words, it’s probably not stereotyping. “Gay people are more attracted to members of their own sex.”

The horse is beginning to complain of the beating; surely I’ve made myself clear at this point.

Oh, and I almost forgot: the “harmful categorizations in the ‘generalizations can be valid’ post.” They are harmful in that they may cloud your vision; they can lead you to picture a forest when you’re talking about a tree. They are harmful without exception, to the extent that, if that’s what you think of when faced with an individual member of one of those groups, you are not thinking about that individual but about an abstraction that may or may not include him. This is why even stereotypes that you may see as “complimentary” are harmful: to assume that a black man is a good basketball player is to fail to consider his individuality; it’s to fail to honor his individual humanity as much you would expect to have your humanity honored; it’s to deny his free will and uniqueness, which uniqueness surely each of us values and feels should be worthy of mutual acknowledgment.

They are not necessarily harmful to the individual, though they may be cumulatively so for some; but they are always harmful to the relationship, and always harmful to you in that they diminish the truth, and therefore the value, of your interactions with the people in your life.

45

The reason I have started from scratch and used precise examples is to avoid misunderstanding.

I don’t think we are using all our words the same way. According to your definition of categorization, you are quite right you neither categorized Shodan nor myself.

Let me think a little more.

46

My definition of categorize? You did not propose in your OP a thread-specific definition of the word, and you used it describe my post about Shodan. Should I not have assumed we were using the English definition of the word categorize?

Webster’s says it means: “To put into a category or categories; classify.” W’s further defines category thus: “A specifically defined division in a system of classification; a class.”

It seems a near synonym with the verb stereotype as used in this thread.

How did your usage differ from this?

I have this to say, as well, after re-reading your OP more closely in an attempt to make sense of your last post. What’s sad to me, and what is I hope the focus of your self-examination as regards this issue, is that I get from your OP an overwhelming sense of these “green” people as being entirely different from, and utterly, utterly separate from you. I read an overwhelming division between greens and non-greens, and an attempt to find a way to navigate rather than close the gulf.

It seems to me that these issues will always be difficult for you until you shift your paradigm to include both groups of people under the rubric people, and work at reminding yourself that perceived differences are all included within the vasty array of variability to be found under that umbrella. Your paradigm really seems to one of “We have group A, and group B: how can we avoid fighting with each other?” rather than “We have a large group, artificially perceived sometimes to be two separate groups: how can we fight this misperception?”

Your OP is all Us & Them, with tragically little {{Us}}.

(Note: I’m not saying this makes you a bad person; your efforts to examine this argue against that conclusion. Only that, to me, your approach needs more overhauling than fine-tuning.)

47

Lissener:

Some housekeeping first, You said:

“continued
[quoting Lissener] “Unfortunately, his practice of approaching a problem by breaking it down into its mathematical parts actually
helps to perpetuate the very habit of he is trying to examine and, one would hope, overcome. . . .”
[quoting me]
I understand. You’ve said it before, and I recognize the possibility that it is correct. . . .
Actually, I hadn’t; it struck as something of a revelation (if an obvious one) while I was writing it, that your habit of categorizing the
elements of a problem might somehow parallel your habits of categorizing people.”

You earlier opined concerning my reductionism:

“Scylla, your practice of trying to reduce every problem to something that can be communicated with flash
cards is not always helpful, and sometimes entirely misses the essence of the matter.”

True, you hadn’t connected it directly with what you perceive the problem to be before, so that justifies the redundancy. Thanks for clearing it up.

You also said that you didn’t understand my criticism which was meant constructively about stating your conclusions as fact. Let me use a hyperbole. In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy the penultimate computer, Deep Thought is asked if he can solve THE Ultimate Question of Existence, Life, The Universe, and Everything. He responds yes. After ten million years of consideration or so, he supplies the answer “42.” He then explains that we weren’t phrasing the question correctly.

I’m going to assume that we missing each others’ meaning quite a bit. You answer “42,” but it doesn’t help because I don’t understand what went into your arriving at that answer. Let’s assume it’s my fault and move on.

“'I’m trying to imagine by what chain of thought you arrived at the conclusion that I placed Shodan into any particular category. I went
back and read my post very carefully, twice, and remain bewildered. I spoke directly to him as an individual about his post, and referred
to you by name, as an individual. Nowhere in that post did I make any type of sweeping generalization, to judge him (or you) through or
by.”

Thank you for seeking to understand my point in spite of what must have seemed an insult. I assure you it wasn’t, and appreciate your forbearance. I in no way meant to imply that you were unfair in either case. You were however forced to "categorize (as I use the term,) in deciding how to respond. I would assume that you categorized his post as blatantly transparent (which it seems to me as well,) and responded suitably. Based on his post you made assumptions that again placed him in a category of someone you perceived as sharing a misconception that you believe I share as well. You used judgement, but I would not say you were judgmental (well maybe a little.) It was necessary for you to categorize the post in order to respond, but I would not say your response was categorical. Do you see the difference? Nevermind.

“The human tendency to grasp at perceived patterns as a way to learn about and understand unfamiliar things is, by and large, a good
thing. As you point out, Scylla, there are many examples of its usefulness. But the thing that all your examples have in common is that
the individual components that when viewed as a group make up the perceived pattern are not individual human beings. Stock quotes
and photons do not have a “right” to be seen and judged as individuals, and lumping them together in order to understand a pattern does
no harm to them as individuals and does not have a negative impact on the life they have only one chance to live on this planet.”

Well said! I agree.

“When you apply the same principles to questions of human behavior you fail to take this into account.”

Perhaps. I’m still thinking about this. Did you read or have any disagreements concerning my hypotheticals? It’s possible you might not be giving me credit I deserve.

“Every time a cabdriver passes up a fare because the fare is black (or green ) he refuses that individual human being the right of
self-determination.”

Let me return to that as the final hypothetical.

“Every time you apply your principles of pattern recognition to an artificial, arbitrary group made up of individual human beings, you refuse
each of them the same right.”

I think I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree with it. As stated it is ambiguous.

For example there is a clear pattern of resistance to disease based on innoculation of children. These innoculations carry slight but potentially devastating risks. Each individual parent has the right to choose.
However, based on this pattern, through no fault of the children’s own they may legally be deprived of their right to an education because their parents have chosen not to accept the risks of innoculation. The child has no choice. It has been deprived, and it’s rights superseded for the good of the group (thanks to the stupid parents in my opinion)

These are hard choices, and there is no easy answer.

“When one begins to notice what may be a pattern, the first step for a thinking human being should be to form a hypothesis, not reach a
conclusion.”

I strongly agree. I would go further and say that a person has a responsibility not to an act on a potentially harmful hypothesis until it has been very rigorously PROVEN. (see my grass response) One must first explore the more reasonable and less harmful hypotheses, and be very careful not to confuse cause and effect.

“There’s a series of steps between hypothesis and conclusion, however, that
we sometimes fail to take.”

Indeed.

“All categorization of humans is at the expense of acknowledging their individual humanity. This is bad when you’re dealing with the tree,
but not always when you’re dealing, legitimately, with the forest.”

Yes.

I’m pretty sure you are mistaken concerning categorization and demographics though. What you think of as demographics is actually just “sampling,” the process by which information is garnered from individuals to describe their representative groups. Demography is the study of societal groups and involves both “sampling” and categorization to arrive at statistical conclusions. Sampling of course tells statistical information about larger group, but it also works the other way. This is called profiling. Based on your demographic categories it is possible to make some surprisingly precise educational guesses about you as an individual. I work with this stuff quite a bit and would be glad to get into it with you if you like.

Based on your demographics I might be able to tell with 70% accuracy whether you like Coke or Pepsi, for example.

I see nothing wrong with this in and of itself.

The mistake that is made is if I assume that BECAUSE of the demographic, you ARE a Pepsi drinker, and treat you that way, especially if you told me you preferred Coke. I also make a mistake if I assume that because you drink Pepsi, you therefore conform to a specific demographic. In such ways I would not be respecting your individuality, and I would be demeaning you.

I’m not so sure that the categorization itself is demeaning to the individual (certainly it can be.) What’s done with it is what’s dangerous.

“They are not necessarily harmful to the individual, though they may be cumulatively so for some; but they are always harmful to the
relationship, and always harmful to you in that they diminish the truth, and therefore the value, of your interactions with the people in
your life.”

Again they surely can be. It might even be true MOST of the time. However, this information and categorization can also be used to be kind. I will stress again that the problem lies in forcing people to fit categories or vice-versa. Then, you do not respect their individuality.

To the final exam.

The taxi example:

This is so classic, that the “green” example seems disingenuously transparent. I’m going to stay green anyway, in the hopes that that makes it less sensitive.

It’s late at night in the bad part of green town. A young green man hails the taxi. The taxi driver refuses to pick him up because he is green.

Right off the bat, the taxi driver has made demeaning assumptions and generalizations concerning the green person, and clearly denied him his individuality.

The taxi driver has made a potentially fallacious judgement.

Without trying to pass judgement on this, which is frankly beyond me. I would think that the heart of the question is as follows.

Did the taxi-driver use the fact that it was late at night in the bad part of town as an excuse to pass the young man down BECAUSE he was green?

Was it more charitable, and did he pass him by, only after weighing the young man’s rights to equal treatment against personal well-being?

If it’s the latter, does it make it any better?

Was the young man conforming to a stereotype that would be bound to set off the taxi-driver’s instinct for self-preservation?

Is it incumbent upon the young man to attempt not to so conform?
“The horse is beginning to complain of the beating;”

Yes.

Dead horses don’t complain.

I doubt we’ll ever kill this one.
P.S.

Regarding the us and them thing, you are correct. I am focussing on the problems, resolving conflicts rather than the larger and more worthy goal of true unity. Being green should be no more important than whether you have a mole on your ass or not. Sadly, that is not the world we live in. I’m not sure what to do with that fact.

48

All right, then…

Assuming for the moment that we were really talking about blacks in America, not greens, I asked the question if it is racist to point out common characteristics of blacks that are considered dysfunctional.

Consensus seems to be from the thread that yes, it is.

OK, what if every one of the statements I posted is demonstrably true?

I asked, for instance

Currently, according to the Census Bureau, about 12.8% of the American populace is black.

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt

However, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, they commit far more than 12.8% of crimes.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_98/98crime/98cius22.pdf

And as far as illegitimate birth is concerned, here is what the Center for Disease Control has to say.

Currently, about 5% of the state in which I live is black, and about 22% of those on welfare for more than two years are black. I cannot locate a citation for this at the moment, but I will if necessary.

I pulled the figure for the NBA out of the air, as I am not a basketball fan.

We have found an example of what I consider to be a subtle but increasingly serious problem.

If making true statements is racism, how do we distinguish between racism and truth?

I reiterate that I have not said (and do not believe) that blacks are inferior. There are, however, social pathologies in the black community that must be remedied. If those who point out these problems are dismissed as racist, how can we address the problems?

49

Did you read my grass response to you? Did you read the Op?

Your post is proof positive of the dangers of demographics.

What do you think those statistics mean?

What do they tell you?

I give up. Not only have I failed to communicate with Lissener, who is clearly intelligent and making extreme efforts here (don’t worry I’ll remember to throw in an insult or two later) but you are missing the MOST BASIC points of this thread, that I have tried so very hard to convey.

Except for you, and the taxi example, the greens are not black.

Not that it matters, but I modelled the greens specifically so I could hash out some issues concerning gay people.

That does not matter though, because I made the greens as generic as I could.

The greens are not black, they are not gay, they are not Amish, or anything else.

The greens are people.

Good night.

50

Scylla says, “I want to talk about trees.”

I say, “Fine. Consider a tree. Try to engage with a tree.”

“How about we stand way back, and look at a forest in the distance?”

“How about we look at a tree?”

“What if we fly over a forest in a helicopter?” Scylla says.

“Why? Aren’t we talking about individual trees?” I say.

“O.K., here’s an electron microscope. Let’s look at a cell from a tree.”

“Look, Scylla, when you’re ready to talk about trees, let me know.”

It’s my conclusion, Scylla, that your paradigm is so deeply flawed that you may never reach any real understanding of this issue. That’s a judgmental statement: I could’ve said that our paradigms are so different that we’ll never reach mutual understanding, but that’s honestly the way I feel. Though your efforts are noble, your paradigm is as flawed as Shodan’s, who insists that others prove his hypotheses wrong for him. You insist that the problem be made to fit your paradigm, rather than the other way around.

There is only one forest (and we’re all trees); any attempt to view it from a distance is a hollow intellectual exercise (especially since that abstracted view is at the very heart of the issue at hand). Such an exercise can be useful on the way to an understanding, but it’s become the endless end point of this debate. You’re trying to make me understand your paradigm (which I feel sure I do) rather than making any real attempt to change it. You’re under no obligation to change it, of course, but that’s where the solution to your confusion lies. The debate has become a goal in itself rather than a means of understanding and change.

I may not be making myself clear here. You identify a problem and say you want to find a solution. The solution, I’m convinced, lies in your need to change to some extent your view of the world. As far as my further involvement in this process is concerned, if you still insist on stalling in the first part of the process and refuse to progress into whatever comes next, I’m not interested in bogging down with you.

I don’t mean to pompously say, “I withhold my participation until you agree to change.” I am talking very specifically about my subjective understanding–my judgment–and my own interest in continuing involvement. I mean to say: “Please excuse me from this thread: the further it bogs down, the less it progresses, the less interested I am in continuing with it.”

51

There is an awful lot of truth in that statement.

In this thread I have gone to a great deal of trouble to ensure that I only consider trees and not “a tree” as you put it.

I have done this very deliberately for reasons that should seem readily apparent, and are worthy of consideration.

I am somewhat dismayed that you came into this thread primarily (as I see it) to disagree with the way I was going about it. I did not wish to bring the old arguments or baggage here, but to start to again, and approach it differently. Perhaps this is not valid, but I would have liked to try. While it is not for me to tell you what you can and can’t do, I would have hoped that had you thought it without merit, you simply would not have participated.

I even went so far as to offer to stop if you asked me to.

While it’s vey possible that this thread might not pursue what you think of as the crux of the problem, it’s possible that there might be something worthwhile here in and of itself.

As it’s been, I feel as if I’ve been trying to paint a picture, and somebody has been standing over my shoulder telling me my colors are all wrong, my lines aren’t straight, my picture doesn’t look at all like the model, and that I’ll never be an artist anyway, so why bother? That person then tells me I should learn to paint more like them.

That’s not an accusation. It’s how I feel.

At any rate, though I was unable to paint my picture, I did figure out some stuff about “trees.”

Quite frankly Shodan has brought me pretty close to despair, and I meant it when I told I told him I give up.

You said:

“You’re trying to make me understand your paradigm (which I feel sure I do)”

That may be true, but I would sincerely and personally appreciate it if you would put that assumption out of your head the next time we discuss something. C ya around, and my very best wishes until then.