Why is one thing so much like another? Why are stereotypes and generalities true?

I do, I’m just like “wow, um… you… fit the bill.”

Of course when you get to know them (or anyone) no one fts the bill 100% but people who at face value act in an almost completely consistent-with-stereotype manner make me double take a bit.

Anyway, stereotypes and “archetypes” exist because the human brain can only reasonably hold a set number of distinct individuals. For most people, the garbage man isn’t really a “man” he’s “that thing that makes the trash go away.” (see the article I linked below) That doesn’t mean you would deliberately hurt “it” or that if “it” gets hurt by your house you won’t call an ambulance, or won’t say “hi” when you pass “it” it just means that you can’t process every human as a human and holding generalities makes sorting easier. They end up being true because indexing in such a manner is useful. Sure you can’t certain any given person will act a certain way just by looking but hearing them talk and watching them a bit often gives you a reasonable approximation useful for brief communication (though not a relationship). When stereotypes stop being true to at least some small extent they’re often changed or discarded (or at least subject to extensive parody, but that occurs when they ARE true), because the quick recognition tool they are have become useless. Stereotypes aren’t inherently evil, some are bad or outdated at best (i.e. All Jews are not greedy) but many of them, especially if they’re a tad bit more specific, make some sense (if you see a teenager dressed like 50 cent and his speech is laced with profanity you can probably guess they’re into rap and have potential to be a problem kid, again, as a general rule). Or that someone who acts like they’re a tycoon from NYC may expect or like business to be conducted a certain way. It’s always useful to keep in mind that appearances can be deceiving, and that you shouldn’t file them as being bad until something is actually done wrong if they fit a negative stereotype, but stereotypes will often be partially true because the stereotype ceases being useful if it’s not.

See: What is the Monkeysphere? (it’s from a comedy site, but it cites at least a few claims and is generally logical)

P.S. Looking at Wikipedia, stereotype seems to concern a broader brush than I realized, and I may be looking more at a demographic (on preview I see the previous post mentioned this). But I still think at least part of my explanation holds true in some respect.

Here’s one: this is a parody thread.

Aww, but treating parody threads seriously is part of the fun!

:stuck_out_tongue:

Curses! Foiled again!

DT’s post clearly drew a distinction between stereotypes and generalities. To take a comment he made about the latter and insert the former into it seems at best to show an unintended lack of reading comprehension, and at worse malicious. Knowing you, Zoe, I’m assuming the former.

Alrighty. The other thread complaining about scrambledeggs ‘s posts in IMHO has derailed and I didn’t feel done with it yet. I’ve been annoyed (not righteously, but thoroughly) with the abundance of poorly constructed (premise-wise) questions coming from him/her. The thread title is a composite of his/her thread-making tactics. I’ve also been wondering about the big ol’ efforts to answer these largely unanswerable pseudo-questions. I threw this together in the Pit for a reason, expecting either nothing or a haw, haw. But, here we have a lot of attempts to make something of my own gibberish. It’s a strange feeling.

Never mind and nevermind.

The human brain is (so far as we know) the greatest pattern recognising machine ever devised, TR. We’re not going to stop trying to make sense of something, merely because it contains no sense!

Carry on then. And, say howdy to Dave Chalmers for me. Just a guess, but there aren’t a lot of people who use the phrase “pattern recognising machine.”

I don’t know who Dave Chalmers is.