Stereotypes

Off Topic
1

Has anyone heard about the Hillary “gaffe” concerning making a joke about Gandhi running a gas station in St. Louis during a fund raising speech in Missouri? Personally, I always thought the stereotypes for Indians were computer geeks or convenience-store operators (per Apu on the Simpsons), not gas-station attendants, so I don’t think the joke was even funny. However, it has become “Gandhi-gate.” (BTW, sub-note: What is it about Baby Boomers that makes them attach the word “gate” to every scandal. I was barely born when Watergate occurred. I’m almost 30. They need to move on.).

What I want to know is what you all think about stereotypes? I think the only inherent problem is when they are demonstrably false – the same as would be with any other type of belief. In application, I think the main problem is that people don’t understand logic: generalizations, or stereotypes if you will, can be very valid for a group, while not valid at all in individual cases. It’s the whole-to-part common logical fallacy that describes how people believe something that must be true for a group must also be true for an individual who belongs to that group – i.e., that all bodybuilders are stupid. I think we can agree that as a group, bodybuilders are more likely to be idiots than are physics professors. One can argue about comparisons to the general population. But that “stereotype” did not just arise from thin air.

What do you all think?

Here’s a link to the story: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040106_1188.html

Here are John Derbyshire’s comments from The Corner, which I include for their common-sense value: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_01_04_corner-archive.asp#022243

GANDHIGATE [John Derbyshire]

“… More than anything, though, this little incident illustrates the depths of dishonesty and unreality to which we have been dragged by the taboo on mention of any kind of group differences at all, even the most voluntary and innocuous ones. It is a simple, easily observed fact, that in the New York area, disproportionately many diners are run by Greek immigrants and their families, disproportionately many barbers are of Italian origin, and so on. I used to have to interview computer programmers for a Wall Street firm. I interviewed hundreds of applicants for these jobs through the 1980s and 1990s. They broke down roughly as: 30 per cent East Asian (Chinese and Korean), 30 per cent subcontinental Asian (Indian and Pakistani), 30 per cent Russian Jews, 10 per cent Other. Why is it unacceptable–let alone “incredibly hurtful”–to mention such simple, easily-observed facts about our society, even in levity?”

2

I believe we all have ideas, beliefs, and suspicions about one another based on a variety of factors. When we see, read or hear of certain behaviors by certain “types” of individuals, it tends to reinforce these things. Whether a particular stereotype seems valid or not is truly in the eye of the beholder.

However, keeping Miss Manners in mind, I believe that as a general rule, one is better off not voicing one’s opinions about groups of people publicly or in “polite company” (an exception is granted for discussions between close family members, friends and confidantes - even those who happen to belong to the group that is being “stereotyped”). To do otherwise is simply a provocative act that needlessly stirs the pot for no valid reason.

3

Actually, I disagree. I think that’s just it. The validity of certain “stereotypes” is not in the eye of the beholder, although obviously some are based on ancedotal observations or are not well documented, such as my example about a prevalance of stupidity among bodybuilders or sub-Asians (Indian, Pakastani, Bengali, etc.) working at convenience stores. These would fall into the opinion category simply because there is no substantive body of data that one could site to say “see, this is a proved fact,” even though it may be observationally obvious (assuming certain things about sample size, geographical limitations, etc.). But really, as I said, they didn’t arise from thin air, and one cannot completely discount observational data simply because it hasn’t been documented in some funded study. Gravity existed before Newton came up with the proof.

There is a whole other type of stereotype that is based on statistical fact. These, actually, I am more likely to see as “harmful,” even though they are true. For example, that Asians tend to be better students as measured by either GPA or standardized test scores, or the converse that certain groups are worse students based on those same measures. These are “stereotypes,” but they are true (as constrained by their definitions). While it may be more comfortable to ignore these stereotypes, that risks ignoring the problems they illuminate, or not treating the root cause because it would make people uncomfortable to do so. Certain discussions are necessary in the public arena, even it they make others uncomfortable (I’ll grant you that there is a time and place for everything, but that is a digression).

Finally, I just want to reiterate my main idea, which is that it is the misunderstanding of the relationship between something generally true of a group and something specifically true of an individual that is the problem. Just because it is more likely (grant me the assumption for my point) that bodybuilders are of sub-par intelligence does not mean John Berardi or TC is stupid. It is when people apply the general to the individual where problems arise. In the case of the above “statistically true” stereotypes, the harm would occur if a teacher treated his or her Asian students as bright while treating his or her African American or Hispanic students as sub-par.

4

As a lawyer you should be well aware that a bit of truth is in every lie.

5

Actually, if there are valid data that suggest certain factual information about a certain group (or groups of individuals), then I consider that information “factual” as opposed to “stereotypical.”

My definition of “stereotype” is similar to the one I found at dictionary.com:
ster?e?o?type ( P ) Pronunciation Key (str–tp, st?r-)
n.
A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.

Clearly, issues of public policy should be discussed, debated, and implemented based upon factual information to the extent that valid factual information exists. Oftentimes, it’s the demagoguery associated with sterotyping, rather than the facts themselves, that derail objective attempts at understanding and problem solving.

Maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but I tend to equate the term “stereotype” with the term “opinion,” even if the opinion happens to be shared by a gazillion people, thus my previous comment about “in the eye of the beholder.”

While stereotypes may actually reflect factual information to varying degrees, in my experience, oftentimes one’s personal observations, experiences, and upbringing tend to shape one’s opinions (rightly or wrongly)long before one becomes aware of any data that may actually “validate” (and I use this term loosely)" one’s views of a particular group.

6

Boston Barrister said:

An excellent point. There have been several famous studies where teachers have been instructed that their students have been tested and several of them have been shown to be on “the verge of genius” or words to that effect. In reality, these students were a random sample from the teacher’s classroom. The teachers were instructed to treat the students no differently. When the researchers retested the class, the students who were pointed out to be “on the verge of genius” had improved in most areas that the researchers were testing, and moreso than the rest of the class. Just labeling the students as “geniuses” or “almost geniuses” changed the way that the teacher saw them, and therefore treated them. The label itself changed their performance. This result has been confirmed in other studies as well.

This brings up several other interesting points. One is that the teachers were conciously trying NOT to treat their students any differently. They were trying to give every student equal attention. So even if they were trying to treat their Asian and White students in the same way as their Black and Hispanic students, they might still fail to do it, knowing the results of the statistics that say that Asians have high GPAs, etc. This perpetuates the inequality, even without the teacher attempting to perpetuate it!

Second, I think one of the problems with “statistically true” stereotypes is that they don’t examine where this effect is coming from. I have a friend who gets off the boat with genetics: he thinks that Black people have “less intelligent” genes than Asian people. In fact, I think that most people think: “Well, it’s in their blood. Asian people are smart,” end of story. But this is overly simplistic. What are the cultural effects of growing up Asian vs. growing up Black? (I can think of a few.) What are the economic differences?

Further, even though the cultural and economic effects might be part of the cause, I don’t think it’s the whole enchilada. If you look again at the results of the study, think about that effect multiplied by every person you see every day. So if the stereotype is: “Asians are smart,” then everyone treats you like you’re smart… and you become a little smarter. Again, this is sub-concious treatment. A stereotype is self-perpetuating. I’m not saying that it’s inescapable, but it’s definitely there.

Further, I’m not discounting the fact that genetics, may, in fact, be part of the package. As best as psychologists can figure, about a third of our intelligence is based in our genetics. This, clearly, shows a difference. But I think that this difference is exacerbated by economic, societal and cultural effects. In addition, this intelligence isn’t something you can attribute race-wide. Not every black person is a world class runner (or could be). Not every white guy is a world class powerlifter (or could be). Or whatever. There is individual variation that needs to be taken into account. And, just as I believe that everyone should train their bodies to become the most that they can be, I also think that everyone should train their minds–and further, be free of the influence that says that they can never be as smart as the other guy.

Will that ever happen? No. But by being aware of it, I think everyone might be able to make some small changes and make this world a little better place.

I guess I’m an optimist.

Dan “Holy Crap that was a Long Post.” McVicker

7

Cardinal:

I believe you are right. Our difference is symmantic.

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition:

Main Entry: stereotype
Function: noun
Etymology: French st?r?otype, from st?r?- stere- + type
Date: 1817
1 : a plate cast from a printing surface
2 : something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

I had in mind the part above before the word “especially” under definition 2. I think “stereotype” has lately (read that as during my lifetime) acquired that negative connotation through usage norms. I guess it’s hard to fight the usage tide (for instance, I doubt there will be anyone left who knows how to use “whom” in 2 generations…).

8

I agree w/ Hillary, kinda. I see Indians and Indian-Americans all the time when i go to a liqour store or gas station. Therefore, there is a slight bit of merit to that joke, but she is heavily understating the contribution that Indians have made to the US , and to the rest of the world - lot more than kama sutra baby - . India has all kinds of high-tech people coming over here and helping out american companies, lots and lots of grad students coming over to enhance their education, and the us has sent lots of high-tech jobs via outsourcing over to india - like microsoft’s tech support - . I beleive that if you have the serious statistics to back it up, even racist remarks are somewhat acceptable ( about crime, poverty or whatever ) , because thats life bumps bruises and all but in this case its pretty dumb -Clay

9

Dan:

I completely agree. I actually had those studies in mind when I wrote the above.

Thomas Sowell has some very interesting writings on how culture correlates to achievement. He examines a broad range of cultures in various cultural settings (e.g. German immigrants in Brazil and in the U.S., Chinese immigrants in Malaysia and in the U.S., Irish immigrants in the U.S. and Irish in Ireland), and basically comes to the conclusion that some cultures actively promote economic success via academic and/or business achievement, whereas some cultures are a barrier to such achievement.

10

To whom [BB - I couldn’t resist :-)] - this may concern:

I certainly agree that stereotypes can presage the ol’ self-fulfilling prophecy scenario. I also believe that blind acceptance of a stereotype is sorta the lazy-brained person’s way of not thinking about (and sometimes not accepting) any obvious deviations from, or contradictions to the stereotype. Again, this isn’t to say that any given stereotype may not accurately portray some percentage of a particular group at some particular moment - it simply means that a wiser individual will deal with another based upon individual behavior, regardless of what stereotypes may be floating around in his or her head.

11

Boston,

That’s what I was trying to say without coming across as offensive in my post. To say that some people have cultures that help them succeed while other people have cultures that tend to hold people down might be seen as offensive. But I think it’s true.

Dan “This space intentionally left vague” McVicker

12

I see it as

  1. A shortcut/bias of the mind towards the most common occurence. A belief related to the most visible critical mass that automatically reinforced each time one sees proof of the previous encounters.

  2. A contradiction, at best:

a) Each case/individual is different
b) Like attracts/like, youve seen one of them, youve seen them all, there`s no smoke without fire.

You can only sort between the two extremes by investing time, analytical thinking, energy and possibly even conversations to move between the two extremes and know your subject.

People are lazy, hence using the visual proof easy way of sustaining their beliefs.

But, that too, is stereotyping.

Fuck it, everybody is biased. We all are, just the degrees that differ.

And, if you are in the media, stereotypes actually feed your way of living, without them and the controversy, youd revert to thinking which, GOD, doesnt sell at all.

Its like a baby whos covered in shit. There`s no way to handle the issue without painting yourself in the process.

13

I’ve yet to hear of a culture that holds its own people “down”. Political and social institutions - certainly. Don’t confuse the two.

It should go without saying that what Americans may view as a marker of success or a value held dear means squat in another culture, and vice-versa.

14

What do I think…I don’t give a shit. Nothing Hillary does is redeamable in my book. The best thing Bill ever did was cheat on that woman.

15

I think Stereotypes are fine coming from an Chinese american everyone ask or asumes that I know Martial Arts. Which I don’t and the other thing is that I am good in mathematics. I am okay in math but not great. Also all asians are chinese especially, in NYC.

I find this comical that people think this way. But, thats apart of life.

But, I thought Hillary’s comments were sarcastic and was not done the right way. It made her look like she’s a fake. Also the aplogy at the end when she realize the comment that she made was bad. Was a crock of Sh*t!

She was even snickering through the aplogy like she didn’t have to aplogize to the people she offend.

16

No Kuri,

I was specifically referring to the culture. Cultures that do not value certain behaviors as highly as other cultures – behaviors such as scholastic achievement, frugality, innovation, etc. There are definitely legal and social institutions which can also function to hold certain individuals back, e.g. apartheid in South Africa or Jim Crow in the Southern States in the previous century, but I was referring to the actual cultures themselves.

See, generally, Thomas Sowell’s “culture” trilogy (but most specifically the first book):

  1. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465067972/qid=1073566222/sr=5-1/ref=cm_lm_asin/002-8725073-6695229?v=glance
  2. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465045898/qid=1073566222/sr=5-1/ref=cm_lm_asin/002-8725073-6695229?v=glance
  3. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465014003/qid=1073566222/sr=5-1/ref=cm_lm_asin/002-8725073-6695229?v=glance
17

Cardinal:

Precisely my point. Good to see your a person with whom I can agree. =-)

18

DAN C:

I think people actually need stereotypes because classifications are how we make sense of the world. Our brains generally work by sorting things into similar or different categories, based upon our experiences.

Just look at how one generally classifies different things by how one describes something. Say for instance I told you I am wearing dark-grey, wool, cuffed slacks. You immediately have a picture, from those details, of the pants. But I merely told you three generalities, which your brain put together to form a specific picture. You wouldn’t picture a pair of blue jeans from what I told you, nor would you picture a pair of shorts. Further, you would again categorize the pants into something such as “dress pants” or “slacks” in your mind, to distinguish from casual pants, shorts, etc. That’s how our brains work: we categorize based on generalities, and group based on shared generalities.

In other words, we need generalities to get to the specifics. I think we define specific things as nothing more than a larger and larger collection of different generalities that we understand and with which we are familiar. It is a function of the need to communicate with others that we need to rely on categories of general experience in order to describe anything in specific.

As was pointed out above, the problem isn’t with generalizations per se, but thinking that you know all about the specific because you see one trait for which you have a general impression, and then stopping there in the analytical process and assuming that you know the individual fits the “stereotype.” [That’s even assuming such a person is using correct general knowledge, but that is another matter].

19

BTW, Kuri,

I should say that of course the success measured in the cultural comparison is relative success. In this case, I’m specifically thinking of cultures where immigrants and/or others who hold on to traditional mores are more likely to succeed in other environs than merely within their own culture (assuming one could even wall one specific culture off from the influences of others today). And this is highly important if one is going to bang the drum about why people of certain backgrounds seem not to compete well within the American culture, as measured by such markers as income inequality, wealth inequality, education, etc.

20

how come nobody is in an uproar about this being so racist? imo it is more insulting than anything fatty rush said- yet nobody is jumping down her throat for it…