Do stereotypes have some basis in truth?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Political correctness frowns upon stereotyping but could there be some scientific reason for why those stereotypes come about? Could there be some small kernel of truth in it and it is society that has just overextended them.

Comedians know how to pen a joke using stereotypes, and the jokes only register with the listeners because they recognize the stereotype point within the joke. Isn't it the examination of the stereotype and the overexageration of it into the absurd that brings about the humor? Had the kernel of truth not existed, then the overexageration would not be possibe and hence no humor.

Of course, though, we all know that stereotyping in humor can go too far.

Away from humor though, how about a simple:

Girls like pink. Boys like blue.

That, too, is a stereotype but researchers are finding truth in that.

Do you totally dismiss stereotypes? Which are some that you think there is some truth in? Are you offended by them or do you find them humorous?

[DougP]

Well I can't dance and I can't jump soooo

[dk]

I'm sure there's generally at least a little truth in stereotypes, but some are just downright false.

Black people generally make better basketball players than white guys. It's true! Every now and then you find a white guy who dominates, but seriously, who was the last white Michael Jordan?

Depending on the context, I tend to find stereotypes at least a little humorous. It goes back to the N word thread. If someone uses a stereotype to attack someone.... well, you've read my post in that thread.

[dk]

Well I can't dance and I can't jump soooo
Me too man... :thumbup:

[DougP]

I'm sure there's generally at least a little truth in stereotypes, but some are just downright false.

Black people generally make better basketball players than white guys. It's true! Every now and then you find a white guy who dominates, but seriously, who was the last white Michael Jordan?

Who was the first?:D

[DoctorP]

I'm sure there's generally at least a little truth in stereotypes, but some are just downright false.

Black people generally make better basketball players than white guys. It's true! Every now and then you find a white guy who dominates, but seriously, who was the last white Michael Jordan?



Larry Bird?

[Boost]

Larry Bird?

That would've been my guess as well.

[DoctorP]

I think to an extent, everyone believes some things about stereotypes! I mean seriously I have to believe that everyone here believes some bit of some stereotype is true.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Have you (or anyone else) ever been offended by any stereotypes, or comments based on those?

I would expect that minorities may be more sensitive to them. [Oops...I geuss that, too, is a stereotype.]

[dk]

Larry Bird?
Can Larry Bird even slam dunk? :ohmy:

[dk]

Have you (or anyone else) ever been offended by any stereotypes, or comments based on those?

I would expect that minorities may be more sensitive to them. [Oops...I geuss that, too, is a stereotype.]
Sure!

He's American. He must be military.

:thumbdown:

[DoctorP]

Can Larry Bird even slam dunk? :ohmy:

He's like 60...I doubt it! :w00t:

[DougP]

Hmm I wonder if "Americans are loud and don't care about other cultures." is a stereotype?

[DoctorP]

I hate it when people assume I am hung like a horse just because I am a short white guy! Really steams me up! :mad:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Sure!

He's American. He must be military.

:thumbdown:

That doesn' offend me so much -- but it is annoying.

[atb35]

He's like 60...I doubt it! :w00t:

He is like 6'8" or something, even at 60 im sure he could jump one foot and dunk it. He rarely did when he played, but I seen him slam a few. Granted, was just normal dunks, nothing spectacular or jordanesque....

[P_chan]

I think Larry was more into 3 pointers then dunking.

[atb35]

I think Larry was more into 3 pointers then dunking.

Very much so, he was the best in the league for many years. Im just answering the question of whether he could dunk.

[P_chan]

I was answering that question as well.

[ProtoEVO]

Have you (or anyone else) ever been offended by any stereotypes, or comments based on those?

I would expect that minorities may be more sensitive to them. [Oops...I geuss that, too, is a stereotype.]

I find myself to become more offended when I hear stereotypical comments about others.

[P_chan]

I have been offended by sterotypes before, even in the military. I posted something similar to this in the racisim in the military thread.

[ststephen65]

i def think that sterotypes have some truth in them. BUT, i try not to dwell on a streotype or use it for a judge on any one individual

[ststephen65]

i def think that sterotypes have some truth in them. BUT, i try not to dwell on a streotype or use it for a judge on any one individual

ok, ok, ill use an example that im familiar with hearing,

ok "hippies" all stink. of cours ethats not true, BUT, that sterotype come from when the grateful dead was touring and people would hit the road and live out of their cars for months on end, not having a motel every single night,living in their car, dancing all night, well your going to run into a stinky hippi! and when the dead would come to town so would 50,000 people so you odds of running into a few "stinky" hippies our very likely.

[socalheart]

I think that stereotypes have a basis in truth in regards to a certain percentage of the type that is publicly known.

Personally, I'm half Asian and am 95% inept at mathematics. I'm also half Caucasian and am 95% unable to (uhm) play Polo.

I never had a problem with the use of stereotypes in humour. I'm the first of my friends to make a stereotypical joke about Asians and Caucasians. Considering I'm half, I can only be half offended, right? heh. :D

My biggest problem with stereotypes was when someone assumed I'm Filipina. So many people did it over time, that I chalked it up to their ignorance. It only happened here. Unless I hear an Asian person speaking another language, I guess that they're Japanese/Okinawan. Afterall, we're on Okinawa, Japan. It's a more polite assumption.

I was also guilty of stereotyping, but flipped it another way. I was offended by their assuming I'm Filipina, because 98% of the Filipinas I ever met were bargirls (some with "side work"). I used to literally stand on my tiptoes and get in people's faces to set them straight. Of course, to my credit, that was fifteen years ago. I'm not that sensitive about it now. Although I did do it to some GI who insisted my friend was a bargirl he had just left in "juicy" bar. That was fun. :D

[dk]

ok, ok, ill use an example that im familiar with hearing,

ok "hippies" all stink.
LMAO! I was just about to tell you that you stink!

[socalheart]

ok "hippies" all stink. of cours ethats not true...

That's right! They all smell like patchouli and sandalwood. ;) I "dated" a couple boys in school who were "hippies". They smelled like cigarette smoke and Drakkar Noir. :) Heh.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I am just going to throw some stereotypes out there that surely most of us have heard and know about. Not saying they are true, so don't rag on me for them. But, of the ones listed, which ones do you think have some or no basis in truth whatsoever? Try to give a reason why you think that stereotype has come about, or even why you think it has no truth to it whatsoever.

Marines aren't very intelligent.
Air Force personel are more intelligent than other branch servicemen
Women get hysterical during their period
A man is 'macho' when they have many sexual partners
A woman is a whore when they have many sexual partners
Orientals are good at math
Americans are loud and obnoxious
Blacks like water melon and fried chicken
Jews love money
Southerners have more incenstuos relationships than northerners

Add some more for discussion if you can think of any.

[P_chan]

Women get hysterical during their period

100% true:thumbup:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Hmm I wonder if "Americans are loud and don't care about other cultures." is a stereotype?

It sure is a stereotype. Why is that such an ingrained one in many people? Geesh, even most Americans are aware of this and some believe it true.

Sure are a lot of loud Americans in Okinawa.

Maybe it is genetic... along with the genetic fat arses from obesity that a large number of Americans have. Wait, that is just undisciplined gluttony and not caring about eating empty calories.

Now, where is the outrage that is going to come from these stereotypes we've been talking about? I think they are all fair for discussion and this thread had gone so smoothly in discussing them.

[kombu_kid]

I think stereotypes are only bad when people start assuming that someone from a particular group has that stereotypical trait just because they're from that group.

But I don't think all these stereotypes just fell out of the sky......I'll betcha most people actually do believe most of them and just don't admit it. (I also think there will be objections if some of us were to start collecting data to prove the accuracy of the stereotypes.)

I really don't trip out too much at all about stereotypes about myself; I guess I don't view myself as a full blown, card-carrying member of the white race, and people who judge me right off the bat without getting to know me are just showing their ignorance. I give everyone I meet a fair shot at showing me what they're all about.

BTW, who doesn't like fried chicken and watermelon? (other than ARists):)

[Isaak Brodsky]

Political correctness frowns upon stereotyping but could there be some scientific reason for why those stereotypes come about? Could there be some small kernel of truth in it and it is society that has just overextended them.

Lots of reseach has been done already on stereotypes.

Probably the most famous work was done by George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley linguistic.

His book "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind" is probably the best work that explains why people create categories in order to cope with the world's cornucopia of creatures and phenomena.

The theory basically is that stereotypes (categories) help us survive and thrive.

The danger is that certain categories can create some anxiety in us, and we can't help but react more with our reflexes than our faculties when confronted by creatures of a certain class.

What's really amazing about humans that no other creatures come equipped with is that our brains have the ability to go offline as well as to run online.

That is, our thoughts and emotions are not connected directly to our reflexes, like, say, a gazelle's or a water buffalo's.

We have the ability to reflect on categories and respond thoughtfully as well as to react instantly to threat without having to think.

If we find ourselves in a boxing match and have been properaly trained to respond reflexively, then our reactions to a jab our thoughtless and the jab misses its mark, our face.

The trouble with stereotypes is that people can respond to creatures of a number of categories with a range of thoughtless reactions. Human experience, ethics, and education converge in unpredictable ways when we weigh the phenomena we perceive.

Sometimes, stereotypes are rooted in reason, other times not.

[okisteve]

When you start talking about "the small kernel of truth", you are on a slippery slope. Thinking a bit about Ian's post which uses the model of stereotypes being a defense or survival mechanism, doesn't satisfy me that it should be used to justify human behavior. It's just too arbitrary.

A: White guys can't jump, is a positive stereotype in favor of blacks, ditto about dancing, rhythm, sex, whatever. (Of course you don't often hear, "white guys don't make good neurosurgeons")

B: Lots of "melanin-deficient" :first: people will cross the street or go around the block to avoid coming into proximity with a black youth in some situations. The stereotype there is of course negative, that they are likely to be mugged.

Isn't it possible for A and B to be stereotypes in the same person's mind?

[Asshat]

Is stereotype another way to describe the ethnic tendancies of a particular ethnic group?

From a legal issue, it is only when stereotypes are used to make decisions on an individual do they become illegal.

From a humanistic standpoint however, it is only the ignorant who will assume the characteristics of a particular ethnic group will exist in each member of that group.

[DocTurtle]

Well said uminchu. I couldn't agree more.

[TheNoNamedOne]

When you start talking about "the small kernel of truth", you are on a slippery slope. Thinking a bit about Ian's post which uses the model of stereotypes being a defense or survival mechanism, doesn't satisfy me that it should be used to justify human behavior. It's just too arbitrary.

I agree with you here, Steve. And I don't think stereotypes should be used to justify behaviour. However, it could be used to explain behaviour, even if what it is explaining is based on prejudice or some other strong influencing factor.

For example, let's look at a hypothetical situation in a short run using a stereotype influenced by outside behaviour causing prejudice and then another kind of behaviour resulting from that:

In Nigeria City there has been a rash of purse snatchings by white men on elevators and their victims are black. This has been going on for quite some time with intense media coverage on the problem. It is now that whenever a white man gets on an elevator, all the black women instinctively hold their purses a little tighter.

Are the women justified in taking extra action merely because the new passenger is a white man? No. But, are their actions explainable? Yes. So, while a kernel of truth is a slippery slope, I do think it is there in some small way. Our human minds however have the capacity to magnify it.

A: White guys can't jump, is a positive stereotype in favor of blacks, ditto about dancing, rhythm, sex, whatever.

Not if you are a white guy who can jump but and want a position on the team, too, or at least the exact same consideration of time spent by scouts going to even predominantly white highschools to look for good jumpers. The prejudice that comes about from this stereotype creates a negative simply at another location.

B: Lots of "melanin-deficient" :first: people will cross the street or go around the block to avoid coming into proximity with a black youth in some situations. The stereotype there is of course negative, that they are likely to be mugged.

Agreed. But while perhaps not justified, is explainable, or could be done so by taking into the overall environment of the situation. I don't think the situation exists within a vacuum.

Isn't it possible for A and B to be stereotypes in the same person's mind?

Yes.

[Isaak Brodsky]

...doesn't satisfy me that it should be used to justify human behavior. It's just too arbitrary.

A: White guys can't jump, is a positive stereotype in favor of blacks, ditto about dancing, rhythm, sex, whatever. (Of course you don't often hear, "white guys don't make good neurosurgeons")

B: Lots of "melanin-deficient" :first: people will cross the street or go around the block to avoid coming into proximity with a black youth in some situations. The stereotype there is of course negative, that they are likely to be mugged.

Isn't it possible for A and B to be stereotypes in the same person's mind?

I'm not sure that I said that stereotypes justify human behavior.

Stereotypes (categories) are merely the result of how the brain organizes and makes sense of the complex and myriad phenomena that people must contend with each day.

Neither have I suggested that all stereotypes are rooted in truth. They are rooted in our perceptions. What we perceive is not always a truth. Since we are - on the cognitive level - inclined to generalize the phenomena we contend with, the categories we set up in our minds sometimes contain over-generalized subjects.

Of course, suggesting that white guys can’t jump amounts to an over-generalization arising, though, from a fairly accurate generality. Since we sometimes speak in absolutes such as these and fail to qualify our remarks, we create all sorts of unfair or imprecise assertions.

It would be more accurate to say something like white guys tend not to be the best high jumpers.

[Asshat]

Neither have I suggested that all stereotypes are rooted in truth. They are rooted in our perceptions. What we perceive is not always a truth. Since we are - on the cognitive level - inclined to generalize the phenomena we contend with, the categories we set up in our minds sometimes contain over-generalized subjects.

I will suggest that stereotypes "are" rooted in truth....and as you say, "[we tend] to generalize the phenomena we contend with," is proof that stereotpes are at least rooted in, or perhaps based loosely upon truths.

Obviously, I am over simplifying. I am ignoring societal values that enter into it- White guys can't jump- but then that was a film title, and that venue goes a long way towards perpetuating (and oft times destroying) stereotypes generally causing us to laugh at ourselves.

Your comment about speaking in absolutes is spot on. We do that to simplify perhaps, and perhaps this whole subject has a direct relationship to prejudisms that are slowly working their way out of our psyche.

[DougP]

As requested: a copy of my post in eel's thread...

Furthering the tale of stereotypes and supporting segregation is a good way to feed the already noticeable intolerance we have amongst our kind. Human kind that is. Hell wouldn't all this energy be better spent enriching bonds and creating new ones. Breaking down the virtual walls of social and racial divide.

Maybe humans in general have a hard time looking past the first visual layer of contact and are unable to appreciate one another. Kind of makes me doubt that we as humans could ever truly adopt the vision some others here have. A vision of allowing all living things to thrive without exploitation. An ethical living. I find it hard to imagine such a thing when we can't even take the first step in doing so as a species. Why am I so skeptical? Go figure:argh14:

[Isaak Brodsky]

Yeah, I guess my point was that since the mind innately creates categories so as to simplify and make sense of the extreme complexities of life that we deal with day in and day out, it is therefore only natural that our attitudes take shape from the memories of our experiences which we tuck away into these categories.

Trouble is, as you say, the ignorant rely more often on an incomplete understanding of, say, other people or other places precisely because of their partial experiences or knowledge. So, it is only natural that the ignorant espouse views in keeping with this partial knowledge or experience.

Don Imus, though an eloquent but irascible curmudgeon, is a good example of the sort of ignorance I’m talking ’bout. He could not possibly have known very much about human beings on the interpersonal level, nor have much experience with empathy, nor have much awareness of the varieties that exist in hair color, curl and texture. Perhaps, too, because of some unfounded arrogance he couldn’t even perceive of these interesting differences in others. Maybe he thought and still does that everyone else should be like him or look like him.

The trouble we get into, I think, usually comes when we communicate wholly negative or wholly positive stereotypes which, invariably, cover all of the members of an entire group. Besides being a fallacious way of thinking, stereotypes only cover part of the story of the individual. They are not entirely fair portraits of individual people because, as I said earlier, they are grounded mostly in what we are able to perceive.

Our perceptions sometimes betray our ability to accurately assess certain truths or realities. This is why magicians are able to make their money. Had Don Imus actually known an African American woman, he could not possibly have thought or said something that moronic.

[TheNoNamedOne]

As requested: a copy of my post in eel's thread...

Furthering the tale of stereotypes and supporting segregation is a good way to feed the already noticeable intolerance we have amongst our kind. Human kind that is.

I heartily agree. For example, it is furthering a stereotype (and or segregation to some degree) when one says, "Inner city blacks are hoodlums, drug dealers, gang members, and murderers," (disregarding the reality that members of the white race, latino, asians etc..., too, do all that). However, it is not furthering a stereotype to ask why that belief is held and look for its beginnings to examine. If the stereotype is unfounded, the best way to dispel it is to not ignore it and hope that it goes away or making the topic taboo, but to bring the topic of "why" and "how" about it out for scrutiny. If it is based on ignorance, then what better way to dispel it than with knowledge and reasoned discussion on it?

One also has to act about entertainment, particularly humor. Even ethnic groups amongst themselves and to outsiders exploit the stereotypes for their own benefit -- either amongst themselves as a way to relieve tension and or to have fun, or on the stage for getting big laughs from larger circles of society. Have Red Fox, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, etc...with their use of stereotypes created more intolerance or broke it down? Hell, even that is a stereotype within a stereotype!:

"Black comedians pander to their audience by using stereotypes about their race to get laughs."

Well, don't they?

The point is, even the targets of stereotypes do not, or should not, even make the topic of discussing them off limits because that is what relieves the pressure about them and can dispel their nonsense if, indeed, they do rest on nonsense. But the discussion is not nonsense. The discussion about them is serious, and even the comedian takes some serious green to the bank because of them.

There is a difference between launching a stereotype at a person and examining and discussing one. The difference is huge, but some are so emotional about it they can't see that. But their inability should not set the agenda on them as being topics to not be fair play for discussion and study.

Hell wouldn't all this energy be better spent enriching bonds and creating new ones. Breaking down the virtual walls of social and racial divide.

Discussing stereotypes that may lead to dispeling them does just that! Letting them lay around unchallenged keeps them alive.

Is there a bigger danger and risk that exists or would exist if it came from study that a stereotype does indeed rest on truth and could hurt society more than could help it? Perhaps. But I think society, while not egalitarian, would try with compassion to balance things out to address the overabundance of one's group in something and the underabundance of another's through a variety of tools at their disposal.

I'll answer the rest of your post in a follow-up so as to keep it from becoming way tooooo long. Perhaps you and I will be the only ones reading these long answers of mine. Sorry for the length.

[DougP]

Great post! I agree with addressing topics such as this with an intent to discover origin and hopefully eradicate them. Also just to add a tidbit to the topic I think coincidence sometimes plays a part in stereotypes. Not a great deal but it doesn't take much to get the ball rolling on certain old wives's tales.:)

These topics like so many others are difficult to approach and to address. At times due to their nature they can often repel readers/ listeners and in a sense throw a wrench into anything beneficial that may come of such a discussion. The further exploration or enrichment of one person's topic or ideal is very much dependent on who receives it and how it is received. That is often reliant on how it is presented to the audience or in our case fellow posters.

Regardless of how it is brought about. Whether its through discussing topics such as these and dispelling the untruths surrounding stereotypes. When we are finally able to put it all to rest and never again have to circle an ethnicity when filling out paperwork we might have a little bit of equality among us. Time will tell.:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Maybe humans in general have a hard time looking past the first visual layer of contact and are unable to appreciate one another. Kind of makes me doubt that we as humans could ever truly adopt the vision some others here have. A vision of allowing all living things to thrive without exploitation. An ethical living. I find it hard to imagine such a thing when we can't even take the first step in doing so as a species. Why am I so skeptical? Go figure:argh14:

What an interesting paragraph from the post in retrospect to the number of back and forths you and I have shared in past discussions about "ethics, exploitation, and all living things"!

But, just why do you think it is that "humans in general have a hard time looking past the first layer of contact and are unable to appreciate one another"? I would suggest not because stereotypes exist, which in some ways are constructed in minds to give general familiarity to what is unfamiliar through our penchant for catagorizing, but because they have been left to stand unexamined so that they can be swept away.

Ignoring them, making them taboo, or making them off limits for discussing because some are bothered by them IS NOT dispelling, destroying, or sweeping them away. What happens when one does those superficial things is to just put a cover on them or stick them in the closet. But we all know that anyone can pull a blanket from something or open just about any closet and find what lays under and behind, and then pickup once again to use.

Now, I honestly have to say it is rather disingenuous of you to insert the points about ethics, all living things, and exploitation, when you have defended eating meat and exploiting animals not only on a "we will get to them after we fix our problems," but more definitely on the right to continue doing what we wish to them for our pleasure of palate or on the law of nature.

However, here is the paradox you find yourself in, Doug; man is beholden to biology but you find yourself wanting to escape all those things that entail that, such as chemicals, blood, nerves, DNA, genetics, etc... and all those add up to create behaviour at the whole self, but then you exhort us to be altruistic to one another, but then also announce your skepticism of ever achieving that by breaking away from our behaviour.

This combination of exhorting, then basically not believing we cannot take the first step toward that exhorted goal and previously infusing the "animals will come later point" is what turns the whole point you are making as a disingenuous one. You can't honestly say you would like to see animals ever reaching a point where they, too, are afforded the same considerations of freedom from the traditional view another species has of them. Yes, you should be skeptical if you are disingenuous on the point you are making. I wouldn't hold that against anyone in such a case.

[DougP]

Is it possible to prefer a certain outcome yet still be skeptical of it?
When I said: Kind of makes me doubt that we as humans could ever truly adopt the vision some others here have. A vision of allowing all living things to thrive without exploitation. An ethical living. I find it hard to imagine such a thing when we can't even take the first step in doing so as a species. I was more or less pondering if we as humans could really graduate towards a more altruistic existence. One that you and some others have mentioned and that we have discussed. It seems unlikely however favorable, that it might happen based on how we as a species coexist with one another.

Now I know in the past I've said things like "Let's worry about our own kind first." But perhaps that isn't the smartest thing to do. When dealing with multiple problems you often can come to a standstill on one but that shouldn't keep you from progressing on another. Not sure if I'm making any sense by saying that but that's more or less my method of thinking these days. I'm open for change and have always looked upon differing views and ideals with hungry eyes. Never know when they might be fulfilling or not.:)

Now with the other topic we've gone back in forth on feverishly at times I can say the following: I don't discredit what you have said before on the ethics of the topic. More or less a living thing's right to live. Now the whole our rights their rights thing can turn into a cluster... well you know the rest.:) Ethics are at best subjective and only through collective agreement on what is right can it become more widely excepted as truth. Hence the "movement" you speak of. I can at least agree that it would seem that having an environment where all living things could live free of exploitation and humans could coexist with one another without prejudice would surely be one grand world.

man is beholden to biology but you find yourself wanting to escape all those things that entail that, such as chemicals, blood, nerves, DNA, genetics, etc... and all those add up to create behaviour at the whole self, but then you exhort us to be altruistic to one another, but then also announce your skepticism of ever achieving that by breaking away from our behaviour.

This part hits it home pretty well. It touches upon other conversations we've had in the past concerning ethics. I think quite a few of us are attempting to separate from our own biology. Just as there are many out there who choose not to eat meat even though it has been a part of mankind for a long time. Not all of course like you have pointed out. There are plenty of things that seem to be ingrained in us all that I wish were not there. War, murder, hate, xenophobia, racism etc... They do seem to be some very recognizable traits of human kind. Perhaps these traits, mans desire for meat and stereotypes have some substantial biological roots in us all. As you suggested further discussion of such probabilities could open up doorways for discoveries of origin and solutions:)

[Isaak Brodsky]

Not sure how DougP's points are disingenuous.

I'd take more care in conflating negative stereotypes of human beings with negative stereotypes of other classes of creatures. Your questions here seem to be an effort to blur the lines and distinctions among all creatures and to ignore the range and unique complexities of humans.

We don't have a "penchant" for creating categories. This seems to suggest that we are entirely aware of the cognitive processes of categorizing at work in our brains.

Once my leg has been humped a few times by some stray canine quadrupeds, I'm likely to conclude that dogs are warming up to me for more than affection. Is this a negative stereotype that is, nevertheless, accurate? If accurate, is it necessarily a bad thing and related directly to the ways in which I view human beings?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Great posts, Doug! All fair enough and as always enjoy discussion with you.

I don't really see any need to reply and draw this out between us. I think we both understand where we are and see each other's views. And besides, I am pleased, that while you do not agree with my views, in this post you seem to have hinted at that some of the things I have said in the past during the course of our discussions have registered (though not meaning you have adopted those ideas).

Again. Thanks for the well thought out posts.

[Asshat]

Once my leg has been humped a few times by some stray canine quadrupeds, I'm likely to conclude that dogs are warming up to me for more than affection. Is this a negative stereotype that is, nevertheless, accurate? If accurate, is it necessarily a bad thing and related directly to the ways in which I view human beings?

One man's stereotype is another man's prejuduce.

The dog doesn't know any better. It's just something in the air.

[Isaak Brodsky]

One man's stereotype is another man's prejuduce.

Yeah, I'd agree wit' dat.

Yours seems a much more succinct way of putting my earlier point: stereotypes have roots in our perceptions.

[Asshat]

stereotypes have roots in our perceptions.[/SIZE][/FONT]

........and are the manifestations of our prejudices.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Not sure how DougP's points are disingenuous.

Doug explained himself, and he knew my thought on the point of his post here rests in our past conversations, which I think he addressed. IF you did not view those past conversations then it could be that is why you are "not sure" about what I said.

I'd take more care in conflating negative stereotypes of human beings with negative stereotypes of other classes of creatures.

IN some ways, yes, and in some ways no. Different races have often stereotyped other races with negative images of them to other creatures whom they have given the same stereotype to. I am not saying those are true or appropriate -- just saying that they have done so. Stating a fact.

Your questions here seem to be an effort to blur the lines and distinctions among all creatures and to ignore the range and unique complexities of humans.

Correct in the former in some ways, totally incorrect in the latter. As for the former I not only want to blur the line in some aspects, I want to erase it completely -- hence animal rights in the view of working toward removing them as targets with the status of property for exploitation.

As for the latter, I know a cow will never write a novel or play the violin. But I do know a cow does not want to live a tethered life as a machine, and that they have maternal instincts for their calves and suffer emotionally when their calves are taken from them only a few days after birth.

Surely you are not misrepresenting what common sense I have and we both know I have on the point of biological and ability differences, Ian, are you? That is how I took your comment.

We don't have a "penchant" for creating categories. This seems to suggest that we are entirely aware of the cognitive processes of categorizing at work in our brains.

Why does having a "penchant" have to mean we are aware of it? IF you do not like that word then "propensity" would do just as well. Surely a natural or inherent ability does not have to be concious , and we sure as hell are a species that catagorizes our surroundings, if not formally in an academic sense, then automatically as a means to help us make sense of the data streaming into us from our senses.

Once my leg has been humped a few times by some stray canine quadrupeds, I'm likely to conclude that dogs are warming up to me for more than affection. Is this a negative stereotype that is, nevertheless, accurate? If accurate, is it necessarily a bad thing and related directly to the ways in which I view human beings?[/SIZE][/FONT]

I think it would depend on the prudishness of the person being humped. If they are so ignorant as to give agency to the dog's mental capacity, then to them the stereotype of sexual devient behaviour would transcend across species. I've heard immature people and some children exclaim, "Eeeew, get off me you perverted dog." and that "Labradores are perverted and hump everything,." And likewise, so stereotypes of perversion or being at an age in life for young men of "high energy", other fathers view them distrustingly as they go out with their daughters.

Haven't you ever heard, "Men are like dogs"? I think in that there are some stereotypes lurking in both "men" and "dogs" and that the similarities, although perhaps innacurate, are at work in creating the negative phrase.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Surely you are not misrepresenting what common sense I have and we both know I have on the point of biological and ability differences, Ian, are you? That is how I took your comment.

Of course, I'm not mis-representing your ideas. Surely you must know by now that I never aim to antagonize anyone. Rather, I may have mis-interpreted your intended meaning.

At this point, though, I'm not entirely certain whether we differ on the original question you'd posted.

To recast briefly my earlier points, mental categories (or stereotypes) are an entirely innate consequence of human cognition.

In a less technical way, we are not entirely aware of our own stereotypes until other people challenge us and our flawed ways of thinking and drawing conclusions.

This kind of awareness is known as tacit knowledge - the sort we use each day but hardly ever reflect on or talk about.

We can't be blamed for having stereotypes, much like we can't be blamed for having an ability to walk upright; however, we can be blamed for using faulty reasoning to maintain any irrational or otherwise unfair stereotypes, such as "All men are dogs."

I resist the disappearing lines among creatures of certain categories because of each creature's uniqueness.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Fair enough, Ian.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

http://www.ejop.org/archives/2007/08/stereotypes_rev.html

A little bedtime reading for ya, TP.

[Mad Hatter]

This is why I love the South<3

[Isaak Brodsky]

huuummmm, interesting.

nice mammaries too.

[Crazysix]

huuummmm, interesting.

nice mammaries too.
Funny she dont look like a Mammy to me:w00t::w00t:

[Isaak Brodsky]

Is that a port-o-john she's standing in front of??

[Crazysix]

Is that a port-o-john she's standing in front of??
Well at she doesnt have to worry about Senator Craig making any advances on her.

[kombu_kid]

You got that right.....safe as a baby in it's mother's arms.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Whoa! Perhaps many stereotypes concerning intolerance in religion are true.

Listen to this to laugh your @ss off at a particular family's stereotype they have fully embraced:

Jewish prank call

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaNRSZ-Ga-w

[okisteve]

This one is a little more subtle, but not too much more: (hey, it's OK - I can do this)

The year is 2016 and the United States has elected Susan Goldfarb, the first woman president as well as the first Jewish president.

Susan calls up her mother a few weeks after election day and says, 'So, Mom, I assume you will be coming to my
inauguration?''I don't think so. It's a ten hour drive and my arthritis is acting up again.''Don't worry about it Mom, I'll send Air Force One to pick you up and take you home. And a limousine will pick you up at your door.'

'I don't know. Everybody will be so fancy-schmantzy, what on earth wouldI wear?''Oh, Mom' replies Susan, 'I'll make sure you have a wonderful gown custom-made by the best designer in New York.''Honey,' Mom complains, 'you know I can't eat those rich foods you and your friends like to eat.'The President-to-be responds, 'Don't worry Mom. The entire affair is going to be handled by the best caterer in New York, kosher all the way. Mom, I really want you to come.' So Mom reluctantly agrees and on January 20, 2017, Susan Goldfarb is being sworn in as President of the United
States. In the front row sitsthenew president's mother, who leans over to a senator sitting next to her.'You see that woman over there with her hand on the Torah, becomingPresident of the United States?'


The Senator whispers back, 'Yes, I do.'


The mother says proudly, 'Her brother is a doctor.'