Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Truth in stereotypes

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#41

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

I think that this article highlights the left's version of climate change deniers. The climate change deniers on the right perceive that if climate change were true it would require significant government intervention in the economy (carbon tax, cap and trade, subsidies for clean energy, etc). Because that outcome is something they do not want, they try to deny the truth of climate change.

On the left, because they perceive these stereotype validating social studies as supporting racists, deny that stereotypes have any truth in them often against overwhelming evidence.

One side is not more rational than the other. For both, truth has become a casualty to goals. This is a very bad place to be in for the following reasons:

1) If instead of truth standing on its own, you are willing to suppress it to support an agenda (even if it is good), you remove your ability to morally object when someone with a different agenda suppresses a truth you would rather not see suppressed. You are in essence guilty of doing the same thing as the church did to Galileo.

2) It is ultimately counterproductive to your goal. Your suppression of the truth will be used against you by your opponents to good effect. People hate being treated like children with facts suppressed to support an agenda. Once, people realize what is going on, they have a natural urge to support the opposite of the agenda. Think about how atheists use the history of the church suppressing Galileo to persuade people of the danger of religion.

So, if the evidence supports that many stereotypes are generally true, let us accept that what the evidence says. However, that does not mean that we are automatically racists, sexists, etc. As the article says "In situations where one has abundant, vividly clear information about an individual, the stereotype becomes completely irrelevant". By getting to know people as individuals and not just as exemplars of a group can we truly overcome injustice. In addition, by acknowledging the truth in stereotypes we can then work to remedy underlying causes for some of the negative stereotypes.

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#42

Post by steanne »

whack wrote: post #19

Considering the great amount of statistical research the author has done, it's surprising that he's drawn some dreadful conclusions. He seems to be saying that in the face of incomplete/ambiguous information, people should form judgements on other people on the basis of racial/gender/physical stereotypes. The problem with stereotypes isn't that they have no basis in reality. The problem with stereotypes is that they…

> One where women refuse to date engineers because they're socially incompetent boring dorks?

...one where women and engineers are considered to be two separate categories?

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#43

Post by jomamaxx »

adrianN wrote: post #37
jomamaxx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that African Americans, on average, might be significantly less likely to be creditworthy - is not racist per-sey, it's just a fact. But denying someone credit on the basis of their race is probably racist. Why? Because having 'black skin' does not make you less credit worthy. It's a correlating factor. In fact - the 'dangers of stereotypes' are exactly that: making prejudiced decisions based on race etc.. C…

All the factors you listed are also just correlated with paying back a loan. You'd be hard pressed to find something truly causal, human brains are pretty complex.

Having a job vs not having a job + savings is pretty close to 'causal' when it comes to determining the ability to pay back a loan :)

Far, far more so than skin colour :) which is absolutely not causal.

I agree with your point theoretically, but pragmatically ... not so much :)

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#44

Post by whack »

jasode wrote: post #30
whack wrote: post #19

Considering the great amount of statistical research the author has done, it's surprising that he's drawn some dreadful conclusions. He seems to be saying that in the face of incomplete/ambiguous information, people should form judgements on other people on the basis of racial/gender/physical stereotypes. The problem with stereotypes isn't that they have no basis in reality. The problem with stereotypes is that they…

>He seems to be saying that in the face of incomplete/ambiguous information, people should form judgements on other people on the basis of racial/gender/physical stereotypes. It looks like "He seems...people should..." is overlaying a prescription that Lee Jussim didn't write anywhere in the essay. Instead, he explicitly wrote the opposite: "Nothing in this essay should dissuade anyone from continuing efforts to comb…

The following sentence from the essay is what I found very concerning:

"If people relied on their stereotypes more or less rationally, they would rely on them to inform judgments when they had little or no definitive information, but ignore them when they had definitive information."

The implication seems to be that as a rational person, in the absence of definitive information, you should discriminate against people on the basis of stereotypes.

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#45

Post by Klockan »

steanne wrote: post #42
whack wrote: post #19

Considering the great amount of statistical research the author has done, it's surprising that he's drawn some dreadful conclusions. He seems to be saying that in the face of incomplete/ambiguous information, people should form judgements on other people on the basis of racial/gender/physical stereotypes. The problem with stereotypes isn't that they have no basis in reality. The problem with stereotypes is that they…

> One where women refuse to date engineers because they're socially incompetent boring dorks? ...one where women and engineers are considered to be two separate categories?

No, (s)he is saying that women are socially incompetent boring dorks and thus refuses to date engineers of both genders.

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#46

Post by Sohakes »

jomamaxx wrote: post #20

Wow. Amazing that someone would dare publish this in today's PC world. That said, when stereotypes are wrong - they are very wrong, right from the article: "2. Older people are generally more __________ and less __________ than adolescents. A. Conscientious; open to new experiences B. Neurotic; agreeable" Old people are WAY more 'conscientious' than young people. Old people vote, they plan, they don't overspend, they…

But the "right" answer is A, indeed.

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#47

Post by Klockan »

whack wrote: post #44
jasode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He seems to be saying that in the face of incomplete/ambiguous information, people should form judgements on other people on the basis of racial/gender/physical stereotypes. It looks like "He seems...people should..." is overlaying a prescription that Lee Jussim didn't write anywhere in the essay. Instead, he explicitly wrote the opposite: "Nothing in this essay should dissuade anyone from continuing efforts to comb…

The following sentence from the essay is what I found very concerning: "If people relied on their stereotypes more or less rationally, they would rely on them to inform judgments when they had little or no definitive information, but ignore them when they had definitive information." The implication seems to be that as a rational person, in the absence of definitive information, you should discriminate against people…

He doesn't say that you should discriminate, just that you probably shouldn't buy a dildo to a guy.

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#48

Post by js8 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #41

I think that this article highlights the left's version of climate change deniers. The climate change deniers on the right perceive that if climate change were true it would require significant government intervention in the economy (carbon tax, cap and trade, subsidies for clean energy, etc). Because that outcome is something they do not want, they try to deny the truth of climate change. On the left, because they p…

I am leftist and I agree with the last paragraph, and I think many leftists would. And that's the point - the stereotypes are useless in policy and decision making, and studying them is unscientific. They are factoids perhaps good for cocktail parties.

I don't think that existence of correct stereotypes poses a great risk for ideology of the left, unlike global warming, which actually is a risk for completely free market ideology, because there is no way free markets can deal with externalities. It's only if you accept naturalistic fallacy (that stereotyping is natural, therefore ethical) you get these problems.

I think left has ideological problem (and thus bias), but somewhere else. Left cannot very well deal with people who perceive risk differently. Which is actually kinda connected to the existence of stereotypes.

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#49

Post by taejo »

iopq wrote: post #26
lomnakkus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's usually much more variation between individuals within a group (say, all white people) than between groups (say, white vs. asian people), nevermind individuals from different groups. Judging individuals based on aggregate statistics about their group would be foolish in the extreme. (Not to mention morally dubious, at best.) Or course it depends on the size of the group, and you can construct artificial group…

Let's break it down by gender, a woman is an order of magnitude less likely to mug you than a man. The difference between groups (female or male) is MUCH larger than the difference in the groups (white male vs. black male or white female vs. black female)

> white male vs. black male or white female vs. black female

These are still groups. I (a male) am much less likely to mug anyone (let's say 1 in a million chance this year) than certain individual women. Within the group of men and within the group of women, the "mugging probability" varies from almost zero to almost one.

Re: Truth in stereotypes

#50

Post by jasode »

whack wrote: post #44
jasode wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He seems to be saying that in the face of incomplete/ambiguous information, people should form judgements on other people on the basis of racial/gender/physical stereotypes. It looks like "He seems...people should..." is overlaying a prescription that Lee Jussim didn't write anywhere in the essay. Instead, he explicitly wrote the opposite: "Nothing in this essay should dissuade anyone from continuing efforts to comb…

The following sentence from the essay is what I found very concerning: "If people relied on their stereotypes more or less rationally, they would rely on them to inform judgments when they had little or no definitive information, but ignore them when they had definitive information." The implication seems to be that as a rational person, in the absence of definitive information, you should discriminate against people…

Your finger is too quick on the trigger with the word "should" and therefore attributing malice to the author without justification. Are you sure you're not _stereotyping_ authors that have written about "stereotypes" as being closet racists instructing all of us to discriminate?!? That would be so meta.

In any case, in the paragraph immediately before your extracted quote, he wrote: "To deal with the complexity, ..."

He's saying that in absence of information we humans conduct a Bayesian prior. It's a cognitive coping mechanism. The excerpt of text that bothered you is just describing how our brains work. He's not prescribing any of the racist actions you listed. The distinction seems very clear.[1]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact%E2%80%93value_distinction

Post reply on HN