In an argument, you can say ‘most people’ who have this characteristic also have this characteristic. For example, I can say that if you go to Chula Vista, south of San Diego and near Mexico, and you see a man wearing a plaid shirt, chances are he is Mexican. Statistically it seems I am correct, as this is almost always the case, but the person you are debating with can say ‘yes, but not everyone’. Who has the upper hand here? Am I stereotyping if it is statistically correct, or will I need to actually have those statistics? Doesn’t common knowledge merit itself?
What i’m really looking for is a way to present the idea to an argument without it being labeled as a stereotype. If the idea exists, and it is a fact, such as “most guys in the Navy have short hair”, how can I use it in an argument without it getting quickly shot down by “your such a stereotypical bastard!”
Finally, I am wondering, how does applying a seemingly commonly known characteristic to a group of people fit into logical fallacies? Is it fallous to do it, or is it fallous to use ‘well yes, but not everyone’ as a rebuttal? (also, which fallacy?)
If there wasn’t some measure of truth to the stereotype, it wouldn’t be a stereotype, would it?
“In my experience,”(that get’s me off the hook, right?) stereotypes exist for a reason.
~S
Americans are stereotypically stupid, ignorant, obnoxious, loud, and rude. Are you suggesting that you really are all these things? Because stereotypes exist for a reason right?
Reasoning that goes from the specific to the general is called inductive reasoning. The reasonableness of the induction is basically tied to the scope of the sample. You can reason that sailors have short hair without induction, and so a deductive argument (reasoning from the general to the specific) will be better:
Sailors are required to have short hair. Bob is a sailor; therefore, Bob likely has short hair.
But you run into trouble when you try to reason that the man in the plaid shirt is Pedro and not Bob. That’s because there is no antecedant that can guarantee only Mexicans wear plaid shirts south of the border. Tourists do, too.
Just try to remember this: all squirrels are rodents, but all rodents are not necessarily squirrels .
The problem is that statements of stereotype tend to imply universals (“Gay people talk with a lisp”, “Women are dangerous drivers”) and therefore the ‘well, yes, but not everyone…’ can be a valid rebuttal.
The situation is avoided by qualifying the statement; your example of “most men in the navy have short hair” is a good one, to which the only valid lines of argument (that I can think of) are:
-Factual demonstration that the significant majority of men in the navy actually have hair that is rather long
-Nitpicking over precise definition of ‘short’
-Nitpicking over precise definition of ‘most’
If someone responds to your example statement with “Well, you’re wrong because I knew this one sailor who had pigtails”, you just need to point out that your statement addresses the significant majority, not the handful of exceptions.
It’s a bit of a sensitive issue, this question, because it addresses issues that people are understandably sensitive about - like racism, in the Mexican example.
However there’s also a sort of mathematical side to it - like I argued once at school that we could be entirely certain that in the past few seconds someone, somewhere in the world had died. Cue “aha but they MIGHT not have done, eh?”
Would one be forced onto “by any sensible approach, someone must have died in the past few seconds”, or is it justifiable to say “oh shut up, of course they did.” Or does it just depend on the circumstances - ie. during a hypothetical discussion over brandies we can start kicking remote possibilities around, but when we’re in our statistics class we have to dismiss blips?
(nb the uses of the terms “statistics” and “mathematical” in the above post are clearly those of an amateur doofus, and might well be better replaced with “monkeys” and “big monkeys” respectively)
The example is a non sequitur – Mexicans wearing plaid shirts and men in the navy having short hair are different statements. The first is a stereotype, a broad generalization of a cultural group. The second is, as far as I know, a property of men in the navy. It’s similar to “All doctors have studied medicine”, “Most farmers live in rural areas”, or “Most businesspeople own a suit.” Or “Most Mexican citizens in Chula Vista have a green card.”
I see your point, to a point. Where is that the stereotype for Americans, as I’ve never heard it (living in America, as I do)? I have to assume that stereotype exist only or at least mostly in foriegn countries, where there view of Americans is limited to the Americans the see ie the tourists, military etc. In that case, the small sample of the Americans they deal with probably are all of those things–to them (due to the difference in cultures). In which case the stereotype does exist for a reason. That doesn’t make it COMPLETELY true of ALL Americans, but it certainly explains the stereotype existing for the people doing the stereotyping.
Stereotyping is classified as a hasty generalization. Unfortunately, in debate, “It’s common sense!” doesn’t fly. Even if it is common sense you will be attacked on your form. This is why those damn liberal college kids are so fricking annoying.
I think these are good questions that demonstrate a desire to think critically. I think the biggest problem is that you are not clear about the differences between facts, opinions, logic and statistics.
Let’s consider the following statement:
“…if you go to Chula Vista, south of San Diego and near Mexico, and you see a man wearing a plaid shirt, chances are he is Mexican.”
This is actually a statement of fact. I’m not saying it is true, I am saying it is not a logical argument and the “chances are” bit doesn’t make it an opinion. This statement, as it is written, is purporting to be a fact. It is either true or false depending on the percentage of men in Chula Vista wearing plaid shirts that are Mexican. In other words, you can make a statement of fact, but there is no reason to assume that your fact is true unless you have the research to support it.
If you change the statement to “It seems to me that most men wearing plaid shirts in Chula Vista are Mexicans” then you have stated an opinion and no further qualification is necessary.
Now let’s tackle the logic for a minute. Logic can be tricky because we all use it to some degree every day and we all tend to believe we understand how it works, but these statements are a good example of how you can get tripped up by it.
Here is an example of a valid logical argument:
All guys in the Navy have short hair. John is a guy in the Navy, therefore John has short hair.
It is still valid if you toss in statistics. 80% of guys in the Navy have short hair. John is a guy in the Navy, therefore John has an 80% chance of having short hair. The use of statistics actually has no bearing on the validity of the argument. It is valid or not by its structure.
Trying to work this argument backwards is where most people get into trouble. This is a false argument:
All guys in the Navy have short hair. John has short hair, therefore John is in the Navy.
When you throw in statistics, then you can really screw up.
80% of guys in the Navy have short hair. John has short hair, therefore there is an 80% chance John is in the Navy.
Again, statistics have no bearing on the validity of any logical argument. It is the structure of the argument alone that determines if it is a valid argument or not.
Oh yeah let’s be clear about another characteristic of logical arguments. They are either valid or false, there is no in between and statistics can’t help. If you want to bring statistics into your argument you would have to do it like this.
80% of guys wearing plaid shirts in Chula Vista are Mexican. John is a guy in Chula Vista wearing a plaid shirt, therefore there is an 80% chance that John is a Mexican.
Now while this is a perfectly valid logical argument, it is built on the premise that you know something about the actual statistics involved. If you don’t, then logic built on hot air is still hot air.
Many books have been written on how people get messed up with statistics so I will just mention my favorite example. People love to talk about “the odds” of something happening and draw all sorts of conclusions from that one fact alone but you often need to know much more to make an informed decision. The odds that my one lottery ticket will hit the big money are one in many millions. With odds that great how could anyone ever win the lottery? Well the odds that someone will win the Lottery here average about one in three so you need to be very careful when trying to generalize statistics. Most times it is a recipe for disaster.
*Finally, I am wondering, how does applying a seemingly commonly known characteristic to a group of people fit into logical fallacies? *
I see two main areas where people get in trouble with this. The first is forgetting that good logic can be built on bad premises and that will often lead you astray. As soon as you start purporting to know what is true about a group of people, you had better be sure you know what you are talking about. The other is jumping from most to all.
Wrong: Most Mexicans have brown eyes. John is a Mexican, therefore John has brown eyes.
Right: Most Mexicans have brown eyes. John is a Mexican, therefore John probably has brown eyes.
Again, just becuase the logic is valid, doesn’t mean the argument as a whole is valid. It may very well be that most Mexicans don’t have brown eyes and one certainly can’t make any conclusions about a causal relationship between brown eyes and being Mexican.
It’s a stereotype in other countries. Reasonably prevalent in Australia and New Zealand; though most intelligent, non-insular people recognise it as baseless. Personally I’ve never met a loud, obnoxious american. I also reckon that many young people tend to be pretty loud when overseas, it’s exciting afterall.
I’d say that it’s appropriate to stereotypes populations but not individuals. It’s a fact that Americans as a whole are more stupid, ignorant, obnoxious, loud, and rude than Europeans or Japanese. However if you extend this to the individual Americans you come in contact with, that’d be a poor application. Likewise, I can say that Europeans don’t bathe as frequently and that they like to eat brains and other unappetizing organs. But that doesn’t mean that I get a clothespin and serve headcheese/chitlins when an European friend visits.
Wow. Is it then appropriate to stereotype Blacks being lazy or Mexicans being thieves as an objective fact?
While living overseas, I met more than a few loud, stupid, rude, obnoxious Americans that fit the stereotype. However, it would be a mistake to assume that because I saw those people that the stereotype had a factual basis. People unconsciously tend to notice and give more credence to observations that reinforce preexisting stereotypes, and to ignore or downplay those that don’t.
