Philosophical: There is no "stereotypical thinking". There is only "knowledge of human nature".

[Trenchfriend]

What do you think about?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Most of what we think of as common stereotypes today arose out of literary or theatrical conventions, not real life -- the taciturn Yankee, the gallant Southerner, the loudmouthed Texan, the effete Englishman, the cheap Scot, the pugnacious Irishman, the romantic Frenchman, the stern German, the volcanic Russian, etc. etc. etc. were basically the cartoon characters of their time, exaggerated representations of supposed cultural traits which, thru sheer ubiquity, became established in the minds of many who'd never actually met any real-life examples.

There's a lot of that that still goes on today -- the stereotypes were established for so long and penetrated so deeply into popular consciousness that many people are still subconsciously influenced by them.

The danger of assuming "human nature" is always an accurate guide to thinking can be easily disproven by the fact that every single one of us has our inconsistencies, and anyone who believes they always act in a consistent, logical manner dictated by a specific set of attitudes and beliefs is either deluded or has never really looked at themselves in a mirror. Even the kindest person in the world tells someone to go to hell once in a while. Even the rudest, crudest, most vicious rat you'll ever meet lets someone get in front of them in a line once in a while. The most important part of human nature is its consistent inconsistency.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Human nature does play a role in the construct of stereotypes. One perfect example is that of modern day bullying. When I was young, I was taught bullying builds character. Now there are of course extremes and cut off limits to anything, but if you really think on it, this occurs across the natural world. It's a territorial instinct. It is no different than telling the jealous girlfriend not to stalk her man, or act so possessive...

There are behaviours across the spectrum of society that can be attributed to what you refer to as the natural order or "human nature".

It is the job of social leaders to help discern which should be better understood, suppressed or even made 'illegal'. This does not occur currently though with ANY sense of Ethical or Moral Philosophy, much less a profound understanding of human nature.

That, is indeed where MAJOR human error occurs.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Most of what we think of as common stereotypes today arose out of literary or theatrical conventions, not real life -- the taciturn Yankee, the gallant Southerner, the loudmouthed Texan, the effete Englishman, the cheap Scot, the pugnacious Irishman, the romantic Frenchman, the stern German, the volcanic Russian, etc. etc. etc. were basically the cartoon characters of their time, exaggerated representations of supposed cultural traits which, thru sheer ubiquity, became established in the minds of many who'd never actually met any real-life examples.

I've met an awful lot of loudmouthed Texans.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Stereotypes are a cultural & social necessity, they allow people to look down on the 'other' & are thus reassured in their superiorty.

Two Irishmen are talking & Paddy says to Mick, " Christmas is on friday this year " & Mick replies " Let's hope it's not the 13th then."

 

[HudsonHawk]

Stereotypes are a cultural & social necessity, they allow people to look down on the 'other' & are thus reassured in their superiorty.

Two Irishmen are talking & Paddy says to Mick, " Christmas is on friday this year " & Mick replies " Let's hope it's not the 13th then."

I think this hits on the difference between "stereotypes" and broad cultural generalizations. We can generalize, warranted or not, about a particular group based on culture, religion, whatever, but it not really affect how we perceive and interact with individuals of that group. For example, we may say that "Southerners are friendly", based on our own experience or from watching Hee Haw. That's a cultural generalization. But if it becomes the fixed notion of how you perceive, and subsequently interact with, everyone from that group, then it becomes a stereotype. It's the rigidity of perception that makes something "stereotypical".

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's the fine line between "You're a friendly Southerner" and "You're friendly *because* you're a Southerner."

 

[philosophygirl78]

It's the fine line between "You're a friendly Southerner" and "You're friendly *because* you're a Southerner."

Yeppers... Its a red herring in 'disguise'

 

[Fading Fast]

Two thoughts. I know stereotypes have lead to some very bad behavior and outcomes, but does no one ever see groups of people that have common characteristics (in that a meaningful number of that group acts in a certain way) that are different from other groups of people? Is it a stereotype - is it wrong - to think that men make up a larger fan base of boxing than women do?

And two, I have no doubt that what you say is very smart, and sometimes I get it, but philosophygirl78, half the time, I have no idea what you are saying - I can't connect the flow of logic from one sentence to the next. Let me, repeat, I am sincerely sure it is my limited intelligence that is the problem.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Two thoughts. I know stereotypes have lead to some very bad behavior and outcomes, but does no one ever see groups of people that have common characteristics (in that a meaningful number of that group acts in a certain way) that are different from other groups of people? Is it a stereotype - is it wrong - to think that men make up a larger fan base of boxing than women do?

This is my point about "generalizations" vs "stereotypes". One, we tend to think of "stereotypes" in terms of characteristics we find objectionable, so is it really a stereotype if it's a characteristic we don't? Secondly, does the perceived characteristic change the way we think of individuals in that group? Does the fact that you perceive men to be boxing fans change the way you interact with men?

 

[philosophygirl78]

Two thoughts. I know stereotypes have lead to some very bad behavior and outcomes, but does no one ever see groups of people that have common characteristics (in that a meaningful number of that group acts in a certain way) that are different from other groups of people? Is it a stereotype - is it wrong - to think that men make up a larger fan base of boxing than women do?

And two, I have no doubt that what you say is very smart, and sometimes I get it, but philosophygirl78, half the time, I have no idea what you are saying - I can't connect the flow of logic from one sentence to the next. Let me, repeat, I am sincerely sure it is my limited intelligence that is the problem.

Which specifically here? The red herring comment?

 

[LizzieMaine]

This is my point about "generalizations" vs "stereotypes". One, we tend to think of "stereotypes" in terms of characteristics we find objectionable, so is it really a stereotype if it's a characteristic we don't? Secondly, does the perceived characteristic change the way we think of individuals in that group? Does the fact that you perceive men to be boxing fans change the way you interact with men?

Or, for that matter, does it lead one to assume that a woman *can't* be a boxing fan? Joyce Carol Oates would like a word with you in the hall.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Which specifically here? The red herring comment?

I didn't get the red herring comment either.

 

[philosophygirl78]

A 'red herring' is a term that utilizes an idea or argument as a means of misleading or distracting. Lizzie made an excellent point distinguishing the fallacy that exists with most 'stereotypes'.

Ex: When people say you are a 'friendly southerner", it is indicative that you are friendly bc you are a southerner, or sometimes, the reverse, that you are friendly and it's shocking bc you are a southerner... Both, are fallacious.

Such is the recurring development witnessed in most stereotypes in society, which often evolve as a result of base rate fallacies. Hence, a red herring in disguise.

Make sense?

 

[GHT]

the effete Englishman.

The effete Englishman indeed! Anymore of that and I will slap you with my handbag. Effete, the English? Puh-leaze!

 

[Fading Fast]

Which specifically here? The red herring comment?

It was post #3 in this thread, but it happens to me on several of your posts. But some I get, and they are smart, some I just don't.

 

[HudsonHawk]

A 'red herring' is a term that utilizes an idea or argument as a means of misleading or distracting. Lizzie made an excellent point distinguishing the fallacy that exists with most 'stereotypes'.

Ex: When people say you are a 'friendly southerner", it is indicative that you are friendly bc you are a southerner, or sometimes, the reverse, that you are friendly and it's shocking bc you are a southerner... Both, are fallacious.

Such is the recurring development witnessed in most stereotypes in society, which often evolve as a result of base rate fallacies. Hence, a red herring in disguise.

Make sense?

I know what a "red herring" is, and it's meant to be intentionally misleading or to distract from the relevant issue. I didn't see where you were going with it respect to stereotypes, even if they are fallacious.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The effete Englishman indeed! Anymore of that and I will slap you with my handbag. Effete, the English? Puh-leaze!

For maximum impact, your monocle has to fall into your drink.

 

[Fading Fast]

This is my point about "generalizations" vs "stereotypes". One, we tend to think of "stereotypes" in terms of characteristics we find objectionable, so is it really a stereotype if it's a characteristic we don't? Secondly, does the perceived characteristic change the way we think of individuals in that group? Does the fact that you perceive men to be boxing fans change the way you interact with men?

It does to the extent that I - and I've noticed men and women do this all the time - will direct certain conversations toward men or women based on the topic. Most sport conversations are directed toward men, to stay with the example, and more times then not, the men will go on talking about sports and the women will talk about something else.

To me, where it becomes wrong is if a woman joined in and was excluded or dismissed. I have a friend who is in to music and his wife is into football. I clearly remember the first time football came up and he fell out of the conversation and she didn't - now she and I email about games all the time. So did I start with a "stereotype" - yup, but once it was clear she was into football - she became my football friend.

But maybe I'm wrong for even initially directing the sport conversation toward men. That's where I struggle to understand what is right or wrong on the stereotyping issue. I know many things about it that are wrong (for example, to Lizzie's point, no, I don't assume no women are into sports or boxing, but I do assume less are than men), but what I don't know is if any realization of group characteristics are wrong. To emphasize, I don't mean by "group characteristics" that everyone in that group is the same or has that characteristic, but that a noticeable number tend to. Is even noticing that wrong?

 

[Trenchfriend]

"Sport-enthusiasts", oh yeah. That's really one thing on which I'm distancing myself from such sport-buddys. I don't like this ideological thing on sports, generally.