Yes indeed
It’s really a picayune. I included it as part of a fairly comprehensive screed about the weakness of the study. In aggregate, I find the study to be sorely lacking for all the reasons I stated. I would never use a study like it to support my contention that “the majority of stereotypes are factually true.”
Never.
So – as I’ve said upthread – relying on studies like that one to support a position is an excellent argument for the innumerable risks associated with extrapolating from the few to the many.
You seem highly focused on this consensual- vs. personal- thing, but it doesn’t matter. Both effects are incredibly strong, and so it doesn’t much matter how you average them together or how the data is mixed–the weakest the data could be is that of the personal type, which is still robust.
No. They really aren’t both strong.
What I say about myself (whatever the hell it is that they studied – it matters (enough that I’ll just repeat it as often as need be)) is dramatically stronger than what others say about me and my kind.
That’s incorrectly acting on a stereotype, not the stereotype itself. Stereotypes are definitionally beliefs about groups.
Good article there, and there is a sentence in there that I think gets to the heart of why this question is actually interesting and important.
”Stereotyping begets many social problems, but you seldom solve a problem by mischaracterizing its nature.”
I’ll be brave and give an example that I think illustrates the point. Take the stereotype of black people being especially angry or quick to seek retribution. Obviously there are plenty who aren’t, and this stereotype does them harm by leading to negative expectations or snap judgements by those who don’t know them. Acknowledged. And of course, the politically correct retort would be to say that this just isn’t true and should be ignored, or that if there is any truth to it, it’s the result of racism and therefore justified. But that reaction shuts down further inquiry. What if there’s something else going on? My conversations with actual black people about their childhoods, and observations of how some of them treat their own children, make me think there might be. Emotional regulation and behavioral norms start being learned in childhood, from your parents, and it wasn’t that long ago that the current generation’s great-great-grandparents were being abused as slaves. So sure, maybe it is ultimately a result of racism. But the parent-to-child transmission route is different, and would require a different remedy, than the society-to-child route that the politically correct dogma assumes. This is just speculation on my part, and it’s obviously a complex topic, but I do think that not being allowed to talk about it is probably more harmful than helpful.
If you don’t think the personal stereotype correlations are strong, then you should dismiss virtually all the rest of the social sciences, since most researchers would die to find effect sizes that strong.
But they gave me the other kind of stereotype (“consensual”) to compare it to.
I couldn’t help but see it and compare the two.
Dead horse thoroughly beaten. The article is linked upthread. My comments are cogent and are all also upthread.
No, if I show them to the door of my shop because I assume they can’t afford what I’m selling, then I’m acting on a stereotype. But I might assume that they’re poor without doing anything based on that information at all. The assumption that that particular person is poor is, itself, the stereotype.
Again, a stereotype is a belief about groups. A belief about an individual is some other thing. Unless the group belief was universal (which few would ever claim), going from the group belief to the individual belief would be in invalid inference and a misapplication of the stereotype.
I suppose the latter was an incorrect assumption based on association with banking and money lending (which as already discussed are real things), and I’ve seen the former as a conspiracy theory based on the relatively high proportion of boys vs girls suffering sexual abuse. It was especially noticeable in the Catholic priest scandal, where it seemed to be almost exclusively boys being abused. I would guess opportunity is a big factor here, at least when the abuser is not related to the child.
‘Nugget of truth’ is the wrong way to put it here. There’s some real disparity that people observed, and then they made unjustified assumptions to try to explain it.
If you are going to take that attitude, stereotypes about women cannot be bigoted either. Nor can stereotypes about races or ethnic groups. This is obviously not the usual definition. But I think my example would clearly be considered bigoted if you switched out the groups considered more and less violent: it’s just usually thought okay to be bigoted against privileged groups.
This is mostly the correct position, given how small the average effect sizes and how common p-hacking and other methods of finagling data.
I presume it’s much rarer for an adult male to be given unsupervised access to groups of girls than groups of boys.
What people say about themselves is subject to all kinds of biases, and it is therefore often useful to compare what people around them say about them.
A better criticism of the research is that if you ask people to rate themselves, they may be influenced by the same stereotype, thus producing a spurious correlation. However, in many cases there are more objective ways of the measuring the accuracy of a belief.
Yes, exactly. And bad people may take advantage of power over others even if those others are not their preferred age or gender.
“Blacks are better at basketball” may seem “innocuous” to you. That’s your privilege talking. It’s definitely NOT an “innocuous” stereotype.
So sorry having the systemic racism in your “innocuous” statements brought into sunlight is “tedious” for you. Maybe now you know just a tiiiiiny fraction of what constantly being exposed to racist stereotypes like Black Athletic Superiority can be like for Black people. Tedium doesn’t begin to cover it.
I didn’t say that was an example of a stereotype that’s beneath notice. It’s obviously the opposite. “Adults are taller than children” would be one, though. Something can be a stereotype whether or not it’s noticed.
Then why the fuck are you giving us grief for objecting to it?
Because “being noticed” shouldn’t be the determining factor in whether a stereotype is bad or not. Whether it’s true or not should certainly play a role, though.
As has been pointed out, repatedly - this one is NOT true. It only can seem true if it passes without comment, if “everyone knows what I really meant”.
Well, no, I don’t know you from Adolf, why am I supposed to know you mean some “innocuous” form of the extremely racist stereotype you’re repeating?
That doesn’t seem to be at all supported by the ‘consensual’ stereotype accuracy data provided in Table 2 of that PDF you provided.
I don’t actually think that is a “better criticism” of the research, but – since it appears to further weaken the basis for your reliance on that paper – I appreciate you pointing it out.
I decided to spend three minutes drilling down on that paper just a wee bit while enjoying my coffee. Wow:
National-character stereotypes are often inaccurate. Big Five personality inventories have been administered to thousands of people worldwide (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 2008) and have been used as criteria to assess the accuracy of national-character stereotypes. Empirical reports based on independent samples from around the world (e.g., McCrae et al., 2013) have consistently found little national-character stereotype accuracy (see Jussim, Crawford, Anglin, et al., in press, for a review). Consensual accuracy correlations hovered around zero, and discrepancies were high. However, high accuracy in national-character stereotypes has been found using behavioral rather than self-report criteria (Heine, Buchtel, & Norenzayan, 2008). This observed difference in accuracy when measured against self-reported Big Five versus behavioral criteria is currently poorly understood.
Wanna’ know what the Big Five are?
- openness (O) measures creativity, curiosity, and willingness to entertain new ideas.
- conscientiousness (C) measures self-control, diligence, and attention to detail.
- extraversion (E) measures boldness, energy, and social interactivity.
- amicability or agreeableness (A) measures kindness, helpfulness, and willingness to cooperate.
- neuroticism (N) measures depression, irritability, and moodiness.
Yet … 34 of the studies reflected high accuracy in self-report Big Five scores related to gender:
For example, an international study of accuracy in consensual gender stereotypes about the Big Five personality characteristics found that discrepancy scores for all five reflected accuracy
So … people’s perception of themselves … using the above Big Five criteria … were deemed to be highly correlated to fact … ? How were those Big Five criteria objectively measured – an oscilloscope? A Scanning Electron Microscope? A Magic 8 Ball?? Or did they validate the data by repeating the question to the test subjects?
It’s almost impossible to believe that these five ‘stereotypes’ would also (in other categories) result in low consensual and personal stereotype accuracy scores [SARCASM], but I do love the last part from the paper:
This observed difference in accuracy when measured against self-reported Big Five versus behavioral criteria is currently poorly understood.
To the authors of the paper: I believe I can help you out with this one :rolleyes:
Oh. Wait. They later redeemed themselves a bit:
An empirically based resolution to this apparent conflict would be advanced by research using criteria other than the Big Five {…}
Ya’ think?
Which just begs that recurrent question: what kind of “stereotypes” were used in an attempt to quantify “accuracy” across all of the studies they reviewed?