Stereotypes

[Zero]

I find it surprising that stereotypes are such a negative thing. Stereotypes are a matter of categorizing people, as is trait theory from my understanding. It helps us cope with other people, approach them, make sense of them.

Stereotypes are everywhere. So "nerd" is a stereotypes, and prep, etc.. But then so is "badass" even though it's more of a "good" stereotype. Take Bruce Wayne for instance, and I feel geeky for using him, but his character is blatant. Here you have this millionaire, playboy, bastard. His arrogance follows him even as batman at times, but he's a different character as Batman, we see the stereotype isn't true. Non-the-less he continues to flaunt the Asshole Millionaire to keep up appearances. Of course, we find him amusing, because we know his secret.

But consider reality, don't stars get stereotyped? Don't we throw stereotypes back and forth and everywhere all the time to make the world easier to deal with?

In anime there are several archetype/stereotype characters that are integrated into animes over and over again. It as if they never die, but the truth is that the Japanese (not only the Japanese, but for example) have a group mentality.

Wasn't MBTI created around the idea of a group mentality?

My point being, I still see stereotypes in what is meant to be group mentality and in trait theory (albeit a simple explanation). Stereotypes do not come off to me as this negative thing. I suppose I've ignored, for I find the use of Stereotyping, as I understand it, useful.

I hope there are others who do not understand stereotyping as only a negative word, because I have a question.

If you were to label yourself any stereotype, what would it be?

If I were to label myself, it would probably be as a geek. I would take bookworm over that, but I'm often too distracted to read, so I don't think I could label myself as a true bookworm.

In anime terms: I have glasses and they're shifty and catch the light sometimes (like when I'm thinking of something secret or evil-like). And I like wearing (lab) coats, but can fade into the background if need be.

 

[Sparrow]

Average Joe.

 

[Adymus]

Yes, Stereotyping is a negative thing, and I would not consider Personology as stereotyping, but that is because my approach is very different from yours.

Stereotyping is a means to an end, as soon as you ascribe a stereotype on someone you're search to understand them has come to an end. This is neither good nor useful, there will never be a time when a person fits completely into a stereotype, none the less contain nothing less then what the stereotype implies.

The way I approach personality psychology is with an awareness that a person's personality is infinitely variable. Finding their personality type is actually the beginning of the search for understanding this person. There is still so much information about them that is unaccounted for: How well developed are their cognitive functions? how do they use their functions for everyday tasks? How has their culture, gender and upbringing effected their personality?
This is not labeling a person, this is in fact honoring that person in that you are attempting to understand and relate to them.

 

[The_Journey]

I find it surprising that stereotypes are such a negative thing. Stereotypes are a matter of categorizing people, as is trait theory from my understanding. It helps us cope with other people, approach them, make sense of them.

Stereotypes are everywhere. So "nerd" is a stereotypes, and prep, etc.. But then so is "badass" even though it's more of a "good" stereotype. Take Bruce Wayne for instance, and I feel geeky for using him, but his character is blatant. Here you have this millionaire, playboy, bastard. His arrogance follows him even as batman at times, but he's a different character as Batman, we see the stereotype isn't true. Non-the-less he continues to flaunt the Asshole Millionaire to keep up appearances. Of course, we find him amusing, because we know his secret.

But consider reality, don't stars get stereotyped? Don't we throw stereotypes back and forth and everywhere all the time to make the world easier to deal with?

In anime there are several archetype/stereotype characters that are integrated into animes over and over again. It as if they never die, but the truth is that the Japanese (not only the Japanese, but for example) have a group mentality.

Wasn't MBTI created around the idea of a group mentality?

My point being, I still see stereotypes in what is meant to be group mentality and in trait theory (albeit a simple explanation). Stereotypes do not come off to me as this negative thing. I suppose I've ignored, for I find the use of Stereotyping, as I understand it, useful.

I hope there are others who do not understand stereotyping as only a negative word, because I have a question.

If you were to label yourself any stereotype, what would it be?

If I were to label myself, it would probably be as a geek. I would take bookworm over that, but I'm often too distracted to read, so I don't think I could label myself as a true bookworm.

In anime terms: I have glasses and they're shifty and catch the light sometimes (like when I'm thinking of something secret or evil-like). And I like wearing (lab) coats, but can fade into the background if need be.

Stereotyping is using a group's common or perceived characteristics to describe an INDIVIDUAL of that group. It is a fallacy and illogical. That is why stereotyping is wrong. You can't say a person is this or that just because he is in a certain group.

 

[wadlez]

In psychology they teach that stereotyping is not inherently negative, people make good and bad stereotypes. They are due to how humans categorize the world in order to understand it. The word stereotypes most common usage is for explaining why racists perceive people of different race to share characteristics, hence why people assume negative connotations for the word. Only the proletariate see it as bad, the more scientific minded do not.

Wasn't MBTI created around the idea of a group mentality?

No

 

[BigApplePi]

A sterotype is a generalization. It could be good or bad, flattering or insulting. Yet who wants to be put in a category? It may partially fit sometimes and not another time. As Amydus says, "as you ascribe a stereotype on someone you're search to understand them has come to an end."

 

[Claverhouse]

You can't say a person is this or that just because he is in a certain group.

Quite: many racists have high intellectual prowess and are good decent people; many leftists do not want to implement control over their fellows; and many devout catholics believe that all will go to Heaven, not just catholics.




Claverhouse

 

[pjoa09]

I wouldn't say stereotyping is bad. It is inaccurate. It can be made a joke out of, be used to make a guess albeit a non educated guess. for purposes of defining an individual its very inaccurate to define the individual through the collective it belongs in.

 

[Incessantly Introspective]

A sterotype is a generalization. It could be good or bad, flattering or insulting. Yet who wants to be put in a category? It may partially fit sometimes and not another time. As Amydus says, "as you ascribe a stereotype on someone you're search to understand them has come to an end."

Generalisations and stereotypes seem like different forms of classification to me.

In a generalisation the common trend that has been observed is perceived to be as such- something that is common or "mostly true". The formation of generalisations may be considered as necessary activity in individuals to establish a list of expectations. The presence of the words: typically,mostly,generally, et cetera; usually denote a generalisation.



Another way to differentiate between the two is to consider the individual a painting. With a generalisation, you expect to observe certain features, however should you observe that your expectations were erroneous, you may me more apt to discard it in this particular instance. In a stereotype, however, the individual attempts to plaster an image onto the painting - the person- and may more tenaciously hold onto it, regardless of how false it may be.

On a more personal note, due to the negative social implications and the extent to which people may be hurt or inconvenienced by stereotypes, I view them as " wrong" .
Stereotypes, however, takes a common trend and assumes it or states it to be ubiquitously true. They are more inaccurate.

 

[BigApplePi]

Generalisations and stereotypes seem like different forms of classification to me.

In a generalisation the common trend that has been observed is perceived to be as such- something that is common or "mostly true". The formation of generalisations may be considered as necessary activity in individuals to establish a list of expectations. The presence of the words: typically,mostly,generally, et cetera; usually denote a generalisation.



Another way to differentiate between the two is to consider the individual a painting. With a generalisation, you expect to observe certain features, however should you observe that your expectations were erroneous, you may me more apt to discard it in this particular instance. In a stereotype, however, the individual attempts to plaster an image onto the painting - the person- and may more tenaciously hold onto it, regardless of how false it may be.

On a more personal note, due to the negative social implications and the extent to which people may be hurt or inconvenienced by stereotypes, I view them as " wrong" .
Stereotypes, however, takes a common trend and assumes it or states it to be ubiquitously true. They are more inaccurate.

We could say, generalizations are quoting, 'the common trend that has been observed is perceived to be as such- something that is common or "mostly true".' So they are presumed accurate.

Stereotypes are ALSO generalizations but they are from something OUTSIDE what they are being applied to. So they are inaccurate and that is their shortcoming.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Generalizations denote a trend in some commonly held trait or belief in a group of people. Generally speaking, INTP's have a habit of procrastinating; if a poll was taken, the majority of INTP's would report that they procrastinate. A stereotype would be meeting an INTP and because they are an INTP, we automatically assume that they procrastinate - it's making a prejudgment, hence stereotyping and prejudice are often seen as very similar.

As for the OP, I would probably most often be stereotyped as a bit of a loser. I'm not particularly attractive, I don't dress stylish, I strange mannerisms, I have tics due to tourette syndrome, I'm quiet and often very short with people (one word responses to their queries) and I could go on about how much of a scrub I am. The point is, most people avoid contact with me, and this generally works out in my favor, as I'd just assume be by myself.

It's always amusing to me when, on the off chance I do have a conversation with someone, they mention how surprised they are that I'm actually very different than they had first imagined. For this reason, I try not to judge anyone too heavily on my limited knowledge of them - especially if all I've done is seen them. We only get a small facet of what a person is like from an initial impression of them, and we can only broaden the different facets of someones personality until we get a better approximation of who they are in order to build our mental model of what that person is to ourselves.

Stereotyping is negative because it's taking a cobbled together template and attempting to force someone into it. Confirmation bias causes us to reinforce this expected behavior when it happens and disregard the "anomalous" behavior that doesn't coincide with this preconceived notion of the person (or animal or object, perhaps). It's an expectation that someone fits this mold and will therefore continue to fit the mold, allowing us to predict their behavior and predict the intentions and motivations of past behavior (ie, so-and-so did this because it's typical of women).

This is why stereotyping is the resort of the simple minded, because the vast variability of reality is too much for the small mind to handle. My introversion does not make me isomorphic to the rest of the people on this forum, it's comparing apples and oranges - both are fruit, but their fruit-ness doesn't describe them fully. This orange is not the same as that orange, so because they are both oranges does not describe them fully. To me, INTP (or any MBTI type) is a simple jumping off point - two people of the same type (or even two people of different types) can start from there and work towards a better understanding of each other through this facet of themselves; it's no different really (in principle) than starting from enjoying the same music or having gone to the same school or something.

I get mildly annoyed at all the claims that "INTP's are the smartest type" or "do INTP's act this way?" for this reason. People begin to doubt their type if they don't fit this mold (or doubt someone elses INTPness), as if they have to fit the stringent guidelines of being INTP, or that being INTP will define them in some way that they would be lacking if they lost the INTP ID.

Anyway, enough of my self indulgent babbling.

 

[Da Blob]

The human brain is set up to stereotype, not just people but most other phenomena in the objective world. However, the division of the people of the world into groups of "US" and "THEM" is an immature, simple-minded approach that needs to be discarded as one matures. I see those who still stereotype as adults as being immature and perhaps lacking in intelligence.

Again, though, the process of stereotyping is neutral in itself, it is just a primitive, inefficient method of processing information.

 

[Anthile]

Without any reliable source at hand, I'd say that stereotyping and generalization are an evolutionary mechanism after the motto "Better safe than sorry". Apparently it turned out to be effective and arguably it still is.

 

[Weliddryn]

Objectives, keep in mind not all types or people pursue truth. Their Objectives, thus mannerisms may differ from yours but that doesn't necessarily equate them to being simple minded or immature.

 

[Moocow]

Actively stereotyping people closes your doors to ever understanding them, or yourself.

 

[Da Blob]

Hmmm, An afterthought.
As a Christian, I am somewhat dismayed at the level of stereotyping that occurs within the Church. This seems especially prevalent in the man-made traditions of many of the established denominations. Although there is a bit of Biblical precedence for dividing the world into 'US' and "THEM' groups based on belief or non-belief, there have been some obviously non-Christian stereotyping involved in too many cases of prejudice and bigotry within religion. The value of negative stereotyping for a 'hypocritical' Christian, is that it provides a lame excuse not to fulfill the Lord's commandment "to love one's neighbor as one's Self" or at the very least "to pray for one's enemies"

So what happens if one's neighbor is a homosexual, atheist or else wise "One of THEM"?

 

[BigApplePi]

Stereotypes are good, proper and wise when we must take action at a distance. (Note INTPs are not noted as action people). We had to form some sort of attitude when our tribe had to deal with that tribe way over there and they once did us wrong or were kind to us.

Spoiler

DISTANCE is the fourth step in understanding --Re: How To Understand Anything.

Once that action is taken, however small, we are now up close, no distance, and we'd better trade out our stereotype for a new one.

Possible example -- the people we are doing this to --.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece

 

[BigApplePi]

I just realized stereotyping is a good technique for creating distance because it's an insult!

 

[violetblue]

i think it's probably true, stereotyping is a tribal/survival instinct (which often goes awry.) first impressions and generalizations are probably what we use most when in fight-or-flight mode. so maybe they're not really the most reliable things upon which to base everyday interactions.

that having been said: i'm most likely a geek.

 

[violetblue]

i think it's probably true, stereotyping is a tribal/survival instinct (which often goes awry.) first impressions and generalizations are probably what we use most when in fight-or-flight mode. so maybe they're not really the most reliable things upon which to base everyday interactions.

that having been said: i'm most likely a geek.

 

[Zero]

My goodness. What a laugh.

What is this extreme issue of ethics? What great humanitarians grace this forum. I apologize for being so unethical. Pardon me for my so uneducated way of thinking. Shall we simply change the word to "generalizations".

It's merely a reflection, an exercise. May I use your own word "light-hearted"?

PLEASE, take it with a grain of salt. Or would you like a barrel?

For those of you who have participated. Thank you. Although can I say that? You've all participated. Not in the way I had hope or expected, putting it as clearly as I could, however, the response it telling.

My opinions of you will never be erased. I thank you for the antics. It tickles my "off" sense of humor.
--

In psychology they teach that stereotyping is not inherently negative, people make good and bad stereotypes. They are due to how humans categorize the world in order to understand it. The word stereotypes most common usage is for explaining why racists perceive people of different race to share characteristics, hence why people assume negative connotations for the word. Only the proletariate see it as bad, the more scientific minded do not.


No

It is from psychology that I approach stereotyping, though they gave it a more accurate name, which I have forgotten.

"The original developers of the personality inventory were Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers. They began creating the indicator during World War II, believing that a knowledge of personality preferences would help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time identify the sort of war-time jobs where they would be "most comfortable and effective."

I misunderstand this as a tool to see how these woman would fair in the working community and in communities? Is the MBTI not continually used in business and school as a way to evaluate how people will work together?
--

AI- Your post is interesting in that you don't only claim to be a loser, but you qualify what that is. According to you, a lot of people are losers, maybe most of the world.

Stereotypes are subjective, but sometimes collective. After all, who decided a loser was this? Movie stars? Airbrushed photos? The idiot screenwriter obsessed with Lara Croft.

Also, who is it that decided for all of you goodie-goods, what is good and what is bad and what is ethical?

 

[Moocow]

Maybe this is why you "find no comfort and no kin among people."

Because you think stereotyping is great and your opinions "will never be erased."

 

[Zero]

Indeed. Not erased, but not set in stone.

I think it's odd for people to proclaim something is evil while having never experimented with it. I think that is closed minded, but, apparently, I'm quite an unethical bastard.

Oh no, my horns are showing.

 

[Moocow]

You're like a cartoon character.

 

[Cavallier]

If you were to label yourself any stereotype, what would it be?

This is hard because it means I need to not see myself as an individual but as an icon. I have to look at myself as someone outside my head might see me after only a surface interaction with me. Worst of all I have to see the negative with the positive and not sugar coat any stereotype I think I fall into. Hmmm...

Okay, its depends on the day but here are a few Stereotypes I fit into:

Aloof Book Snob.
Distrustful Bitch.
Stupid Nervous Self Conscious Girl.
Angry Red Head<---I get this one without even having to open my mouth whether or not I'm currently fitting that stereotype.

Stereotypes are handy in that they allow me to quickly make a value judgment. Yet, that is diametrically apposed to being an introspective INTP yes? We like the details of things. Then we like to see how these details affect the whole. Then we like to...Well you get the idea. Since we like to analyze analyze analyze and stereotypes are useful for making quick determinations of a person's character I can see why people in the forum reacted negatively. Yes, it was kind of like an Irish jig in here with all the knee jerking but I don't think that's all there was.

Meh. Bored now.<----I also fall into the Flippant Doesn't Give a Shit Bitch stereotype too.

 

[Zero]

You're like a cartoon character.

That's quite an odd way to stereotype me, but alright. What is a "cartoon character"?

Are you saying I irritate you so much (or that my way of thinking is so unreal) that you have no other way of dealing with me, but to simplify my behavior (etc) as that of a mere cartoon character? If so, you've displayed the greatest ability to use stereotyping. You've taken something you refuse or cannot understand and have put it is a box for your own dismissal?

Congratulations, You seem to be an idiot.

I seriously hope you will enlighten with another reason.

Cavallier, Those are interesting as they are all more descriptive and intricate than say the one worded "nerd" or "geeky". And they all have negative words.

If you're such a book snob, you must agree with me about how Twilight should be burned. I do not understand why everyone is so angry. I bet I could use a hammer to break in someone's skull. A hammer is unethical.

 

[Moocow]

You aren't irritating, you're just kind of silly. With the anime avatar and over-the-top, dramatic, self-flattering posts, I can't help imagining most of what you write as some cheesy anime dialogue. Or is that what you call self expression?

And stereotyping only applies to groups of people. I'm only talking about you here.

 

[Adymus]

I bet I could use a hammer to break in someone's skull. A hammer is unethical.

This analogy is not quite matching up to our situation.

You are suggesting that the stereotype is a useful tool, and that it is only unethical when used negatively.

There are applications, statistics for example, that the generalization could be useful, but in the application we are using it in (Understanding the personality of an Individual), it will do more harm than help.

Whether the stereotype about said group is a positive one or negative one is irrelevant, you still could never expect a person to fit into it entirely, if at all.

I am an American.

With that label, what can you tell me about myself? Do you now know me? Do you know what I am interested in? Do you know how I approach people? Do you know how I view the world?

Perhaps knowing of my nationality will allow you a better idea of how to understand me, but ascribing something else that you think it implies is putting you in an even worse position than if you didn't know that about me.

A Stereotype is a negative thing when all that it implies is taken for granted.

People share tendencies, but none of us fit into a single category in every way. It is essentially like being Normal. The concept of normal is created by certain criteria that many people when combined share, but not a single person can be defined entirely by.

 

[Zero]

You aren't irritating, you're just kind of silly. With the anime avatar and over-the-top, dramatic, self-flattering posts, I can't help imagining most of what you write as some cheesy anime dialogue. Or is that what you call self expression?

And stereotyping only applies to groups of people. I'm only talking about you here.

You don't take me seriously? That is fine.

I think you're dismissive, but that I can't stop.

My drama may be explained. I pick up "accents" when I've been reading.

You are... personally attacking me? Why? Should I respond to you?

Adymus, if you understand my analogy then you understand exactly how I understand stereotype. It is not innately negative and I could tell quite a bit about you from being an American, or do you deny that you are influenced by this culture?

You may deny it and you may your opinion on what stereotypes are and their lack of use.

You will not change my opinion or enlighten me to your way of thinking, which I think is influenced. I use stereotypes and I think they're useful. I don't think stereotypes are threatening, some are certainly too much or not true, but some have reason to be stereotypes in the first place. But I will not convince you of this. So why do you remain? Is there a purpose?

 

[Words]

My current answer for this, and similar answer to many, is balance. An open mind but with an initial weak thought of preparation on predicting people's behavior. To stereotype is to not necessarily be stupid enough to enclose an unproven theory. Still, balance is key. Everything else, I leave to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

 

[Zero]

Indeed, Wikipedia is the fountain of knowledge. Thank you for posting that.
Apparently what I'm looking for is an entirely different word. Though I forget what it was, I thought it was stereotype. Oh well.

I was hoping to wrap this up soon. I didn't imagine it would go into such a direction. If it's a very interesting topic I do hope someone will make a better discussion about stereotypes.

Are we done here? I hate to see in such a hurry, but this thread has clearly outlived its purpose, etc... I don't want to offend anyone by leaving something unanswered.

 

[jhbowden]

Stereotypes are a matter of categorizing people, as is trait theory from my understanding.

I agree-- I think of stereotyping as a form of inductive shorthand.

 

[Moocow]

You don't take me seriously? That is fine.

I think you're dismissive, but that I can't stop.

My drama may be explained. I pick up "accents" when I've been reading.

You are... personally attacking me? Why? Should I respond to you?

Adymus, if you understand my analogy then you understand exactly how I understand stereotype. It is not innately negative and I could tell quite a bit about you from being an American, or do you deny that you are influenced by this culture?

You may deny it and you may your opinion on what stereotypes are and their lack of use.

You will not change my opinion or enlighten me to your way of thinking, which I think is influenced. I use stereotypes and I think they're useful. I don't think stereotypes are threatening, some are certainly too much or not true, but some have reason to be stereotypes in the first place. But I will not convince you of this. So why do you remain? Is there a purpose?

I'm a little put off that the responses I've received to genuine questions and arguments amount to melodramatic "you wouldn't understand" kind of replies. I can see the tendency to pick up accents, and I used to do that too if I'd been watching some movie or something for hours beforehand.
I'm not really trying to make personal attacks, but it's frustrating trying to hold a debate with someone who posts like a dramatic fictional antagonist.

None of your arguments come out to anything because all you do is try to refute the conclusions without even bothering to acknowledge the rational support behind them. If you refuse to debate properly, then no, I'm not going to take you seriously.

I guess this is going a bit off topic because I'm referring more to your posts in other threads.

 

[violetblue]

what is the point in taking things so personally---on either side? we're INTP's. someone is bound to want to explore stereotypes from one angle---others from a completely different one. (and maybe i've contradicted my earlier post by generalizing about INTP's... but oh well.)

(actually, i suspect i'm a closet INTFP. thus the ethicist factor, and the overwhelming desire to defuse this fight. )

 

[Zero]

jhbowden- Yeah, guess that's not technically right though.

Moocow- I guess I just fail to understand you. My apologises. There are great number of people here far more intelligent than I who could provide you with the stimulating debate you seek. I know that if you haven't yet, you'll most definitely find what you're looking for.

V.b.- Exactly, this little fight is pointless and this thread has gone on such a tangent.

It's silly to continue here. But thanks everyone for contributing and giving insight on your ideas about stereotype. Obviously, I should've made my intentions clearer and avoided using "stereotype" as shorthand.

 

[Moocow]

what is the point in taking things so personally---on either side? we're INTP's. someone is bound to want to explore stereotypes from one angle---others from a completely different one. (and maybe i've contradicted my earlier post by generalizing about INTP's... but oh well.)

(actually, i suspect i'm a closet INTFP. thus the ethicist factor, and the overwhelming desire to defuse this fight. )

God forbid anyone try to argue rationally for their statements. If everyone just wanted to get along, we'd all be filling each others brains with completely unchecked fallacious logic. Does that really help people at all?

 

[Zero]

I think the point is that we've had a misunderstanding. We're not communicating properly. More importantly, a debate was never the purpose of this thread. This thread doesn't serve any purpose at this point. If people want to know what is going on in this thread they'll have to catch up with everything and that wasn't t point and I don't think it's fair to them. It would be better to bring up this topic in the debate forum for a good debate.

Additionally, we're arguing semantic. I clearly described my notion of what a "stereotype" is and asked for a very specific response. This was taken the wrong way and has offended a number of people and lead the thread onto a tangent. I admitted that my use of "stereotype" is not the proper literal definition and that I didn't take caution in using it.

I don't see that there is anything to debate here.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus, if you understand my analogy then you understand exactly how I understand stereotype. It is not innately negative and I could tell quite a bit about you from being an American, or do you deny that you are influenced by this culture?

Yes, stereotypes are not innately negative, but the way you have been using them has been (Such as in that discussion about Bluesquid being an INFJ), is very unwise. You can take that however you like.
You are missing my point, yes I am American, but there is nothing certain that you can tell about a person's personality or character based on that alone. There could be a possibility that I act according to your stereotype in someway, but the fact that you can't be certain about this makes it's use on an individual illogical. There is just no way a person will act exactly as your stereotype suggests, so wouldn't it be smarter to get to know them, as opposed to applying a template?

You will not change my opinion or enlighten me to your way of thinking, which I think is influenced. I use stereotypes and I think they're useful. I don't think stereotypes are threatening, some are certainly too much or not true, but some have reason to be stereotypes in the first place. But I will not convince you of this. So why do you remain? Is there a purpose?

Influenced by what? Experience? I supposed you would be right; ultimately my opinion is my own, but I couldn't have formed it if I had not let myself be influenced by the experience of seeing poorly used stereotypes.

But I will not convince you of this. So why do you remain? Is there a purpose?

I stay because a discussion is meant to be an exchange of ideas that helps promote the growth of further understanding, not a contest of who can brainwash the other person. If you are uncomfortable with having your ideas challenged then I might recommend telling them to less opinionated people.