Is there a difference between 'informed stereotypes' and prejudice judgements?

Great Debates
1

I’m regularly in a dilemma. To ‘stereotype’ or not to ‘stereotype’. When meeting people, the first things I notice are their physical appearance (gender, age, race, height, body shape, hairstyle, clothing, grooming, facial features). Followed by their speech (pitch, accent, induction) and how those two interact with. Finally it’s the content of what they say and how it interconnects with the former two. Basically (To put it simply), how we perceive someone is related to all of this.

Now we’ve probably been told that racist stereotypes are bad; Blacks are criminals, , Muslims are terrorists, Whites are racist ’ . This is true. It’s shows a lack of intelligence to apply a stereotype like this to an individual because without any current information from that person, it’s not arrogant but stupid to make any judgments of who they could be.

However, the fact is in life, physical appearance, body language, and speech usually tell a specific thing about behavior, personality, beliefs, and thoughts. Mass shooters in the United States are usually described as ‘emotionally blank’ very calm spoken individuals who are extremely quiet. Rapists are sometimes known for being charming and pleasing to be around. Obviously there is no rapist look or profile but there are perhaps minor but distinct characteristics which separate them from other individuals.

I for example will instinctively assume that if I meet a 5ft 8 in young woman with long hair who wears high heels and gets nervous around guys generally will be exclusively attracted to ‘conventionally’ masculine men. Most women prefer masculine men but there are some who would get really turned off by ‘feminine’ men.

Most people given two choices of who would commit violence; a feminine biracial black guy or a bald, tall, serious and masculine looking African guy, would pick the latter. They wouldn’t believe a feminine black guy who’s well spoken and likes listening to ‘girly’ music would be as capable as the very quiet, bald, and serious African guy. Even if they both did nothing to arouse suspicion, people would most likely assume that the blacker guy was the rapist.

But back to the question. Do you think all stereotypes are bad or just ones based on no evidence?

2

If there’s any basis for it it’s not really a stereotype. The only thing you can tell for sure from a person’s appearance is what they look like. There are no subtle characteristics of rapists or mass shooters that can identify them. At best there are some reasonable assumptions that can be made based on appearance of specific practices, such as the appearance of people wearing particular clothes such as the Amish or Orthodox Jews, but even then you have no idea if such a person is a member of those faiths or just wearing a costume, nor do you know anything significant about their personality of background. However you may look, even if you fit what you consider a stereotypical profile of the person you are, there is some place in the world where someone will look at you and not recognize that stereotype and make assumptions about you that are entirely misplaces. How would you feel under those circumstances?

3

Purely based on my own experience in watching people and animals. It seems most living creatures will automatically distrust anything they don’t know. This is a basic survival strategy. We also are able to fairly quickly determine if this unknown creature is dangerous or not. For instance if something is eating grass it is most likely not going to eat me. The Mexican American community is a good example of this. 50 years ago Mexicans were more feared and trusted less than they are today. A sufficient number of them have been able to integrate into mainstream society as to alleviate any types of fears based on stereo types. The black community is still struggling with this as high crime and violence has persisted in the ghetto’s. So we tend to be leery until we feel safe instead of the other way around. I doubt color has as much to do with it as many suggest it does.

4

Good point; most of the commentary about black community that I hear from older white people and other ostensible racists tends to center around feeling threatened by black men due to media-fueled stereotypes and aggressive, if harmless dress and behavior by black men.

Meanwhile, Hispanic men don’t get painted with the same fearful brush; the general perception is that some are criminals, but that most aren’t, and that they’re not inherently threatening in a way that black men apparently are.

Stereotyping has to be some kind of inherent mental categorization system in human brains; we do it about all sorts of things unrelated to people or race- movies, books, foods, etc… Where it becomes problematic is when it’s taken beyond its context.

5

It is not bad to have stereotypes, they do not arise spontaneously and are almost all based on truths. However it is wrong to treat individuals as stereotypes. For instance the stereotype of a good basketball player is a tall black guy. That is true because almost all of the best basketball players are tall black guys. However it is wrong to deny medium sized Asians the opportunity to play basketball because he does not meet the stereotype.
There are rare occasions where the stereotype is the only information we have and so it may be necessary to act on that information but that is very rare.

6

Jews as greedy and deceitful is based on truth? Black men as animalistic and threats to white women is based on truth? Black women as either mammies or oversexualized harlots is based on truth? Polish people as stupid is based on truth?

Are you frickin’ serious?

7

I’m out as genderqueer so I deal with this question as it applies to the sexes all the time.

We humans generalize; we recognize patterns, we categorize things; it’s a critically central part of how we make sense of the world in which we live.

The bad stuff comes in when we cease to be aware that a generalization is a generalization and start treating it as an absolute truth. But that makes it sound like the bad stuff “just happens”, like “oops, forgot this was just a generalization”. I don’t think that’s the case. I think what actually happens is that people in stressful and conflicted situations end up with an emotional investment in seeing things a certain way.

8

In the middle ages Jews were forbidden in many countries from owning land and thus being farmers. In many of those countries Christians were banned from banking by usury laws. Thus Jewish people became the bankers of these countries. Bankers who are bad at handling money do not stay bankers for long. Greedy and deceitful is a pejorative and bitter way of saying the truth which is that Jews are better with money than gentiles. The median household net worth for Jewish Americans is five times what it is for gentile Americans.
Black men commit one third of the forcible on rapes in this country but are only 12% of the population.
Black women were historically discriminated against and not allowed an education. This left domestic work such as nannies one of the few jobs they could take and were over represented in domestic work of all kinds.
Polack jokes originate in Germany which was the most educated and scientifically advanced country in Europe and Polish people were comparably less sophisticated and educated.

9

You said “based on truth”, not “based on complete fiction mixed with extreme exaggeration of the truth”. None of those stereotypes are based on anything but vile mangling of truth. That’s not truth.

10

We often perceive patterns where none exists. This is a fundamental basis of predjudice.

11

Hmm. It may be a factor. Are you saying people accidentally perceive nonexistent patterns and then make subsequent decisions and value judgments on them, and that their original cause, therefore, was random happenstance?

I do think we sometimes perceive patterns we expected to perceive, but the well was already doctored if not outright poisoned by that point. And the well-poisoning is due to a prior generalization and so on, tracing back, until you get to an actual pattern. Whatever pattern it was, it existed for a reason, but the reason was not perceived and an oversimplification was embraced.

There are often emotionally charged issues of power and/or vulnerability. Threatening concepts. Defensive equivocations.

But back to what you were saying. Are you splitting off from that kind of thing to say that some of it (or even a lot of it) is just plain error?

12

I find that misperceptions of human behavior to be quite common, as much among those with some background in psychology as those without, including mental health and (so-called) human resources professionals.

Based on my (admittedly non-scientific) perceptions, which come from experience, individuals with introverted personalities are often seen as having bad attitudes, often sometimes to the point of being viewed by others of a more outgoing nature as misanthropic. Again, this is my observation and interpretation. I

It has also been my experience that this is untrue, and that introverted or, if you will, inner directed individuals are often quite fond of others and have no bones to pick with what one might call humanity in general. They simply prefer to spend more time alone pursuing interests that do not require being with other people, such as partying and attending sporting events.

On the other hand, and this is VERY much a part of my life experience, people of a more extroverted, chatty-gregarious seemingly “life affirming” disposition are often cunning, so as to make them come off as more concerned about the welfare of others than they truly are, have agenda that they pursue by literally “using” others, which they are well defended against by some personal quality, such as humor, an easy smile, even advocating for causes that enable them to come across as “concerned citizens”.

The aforementioned may seem a tad (or maybe to some, a lot) OT, but I think it’s worth adding to the mix of discussion here as what I’m bringing up are stereotypes and prejudices of everyday life that are for the most part race and gender neutral, as what I have been describing can be male or female, young or old, white or just about any race, and is deeply rooted in human nature; and also, from what I’ve seen and experienced in my life, seldom discussed except in “rogue instances” of, say, a quiet, retiring person being highly idealistic, hence admired, or an outgoing, gladhanding sort known for his treachery.

13

Bullshit. “Polack” jokes is just a subset of jokes picking on a minority or a neighboring country. They generally don’t rise out of an actual difference in sophistication.

14

That sounds a lot like my friend Tracey. Tall, well-dressed, very feminine. Her wife is very “butch” and I kid them a lot about being cliches.

15

Relying on stereotypes to characterize individuals is shoddy-thinking, but there is a gradient of “badness”.

If I’m walking on a street and a guy dressed in raggedy clothing approaches me, I’ll probably tense up a little. But I’d probably not tense up if the guy is dressed in a three-piece business suit.

I’m not proud of these reactions, but I’m not ashamed of them either.

I don’t find stereotypes to be all that useful when dealing with individuals. I may assume the white male Millennial I’m speaking with is still living with his parents and codes in his spare time–and perhaps this does describe a disproportionate number of folks in this demographic. But it is likely inaccurate for any particular individual, so why not withhold judgment until more information is provided?

I’m actually struggling to imagine a case where a stereotype (“Jews are greedy and stingy”, “Women are sensitive”, “Asians are math geeks”, “Blacks are prone to criminality” etc.) WOULD be helpful. Certain generalizations, yes. For instance, if you’re a teacher who works at a school in a poor neighborhood, it makes sense to assume that any random kid who walks into your classroom is probably going to be poor. But that’s not stereotyping.

16

You’re making a false dichotomy. “Based on truth” doesn’t mean “is completely true”. It means “has some basis in truth”.

17

In normal conversation, I don’t think “barely a shred of truth, if that” counts. If those stereotypes are “based on truth”, then Luke Skywalker’s life is “based on being an amputee”. “Based on truth” at least implies they’re mostly true.

18

I don’t want to argue semantics. You have to look at the context of puddleglum’s overall point.

19

His overall point doesn’t require such rhetorical strangeness as insisting that stereotypes like black people are dangerous and criminal are “based on truth” when the overwhelming majority of black people are neither dangerous nor criminal.

20

A further note about that particular stereotype (that black people are dangerous, aggressive, and criminally inclined) – it long precludes any actual disparity in criminal statistics, and went hand in hand with justification for slavery and other forms of brutal repression against black people in America.