Stereo types and statistics

[sebbysteiny]

I think the argument posed by Hydrogen Bond is slightly tougher than people think. It goes like this.

Steriotyping is assuming traits about all individuals based on a higher probability of having that trait from their race. This is morally wrong, unreliable and irrational.

Statistics often assumes outcomes about individual data points based on a higher probability of having that outcome from the type of data point.

Therefore, so the argument goes, statistics is morally wrong too, unreliable and irrational.

Most people here seem to be tackling this from the point of view that statistics are accurate. Whilst this is true, it does not directly break Hydrogen's argument. Instead, we must find the distinction between steriotyping (wrong) and statistics (right).

My first attempt is to say that steriotyping is fundamentally bad statistics born out of deliberately ignoring more important factors and also possibly drawing false conclusions as a consequence of cultural ignorance.

[sebbysteiny]

x

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

This is morally wrong, unreliable and irrational.

Okay, but define those this for me in a way that is not relative to your own viewpoint and applies equally to all observers. Morally wrong? What the ___ is that?

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by Me

Steriotyping is assuming traits about all individuals based on a higher probability of having that trait from their race. This is morally wrong, unreliable and irrational.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Okay, but define those this for me in a way that is not relative to your own viewpoint and applies equally to all observers. Morally wrong? What the ___ is that?

Well since steriotyping is essentially identical to racism, I didn't expect too many people to question its lack of moral validity. I agree that somebody who has shwazstiker posters on every wall of their house might feel steriotyping is a morally correct tool to judge a fellow human being. Sorry about the dodgy assumption.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

Well since steriotyping is essentially identical to racism

I know what you are attempting to say, but your point is not accurate. I could stereotype based on gender. That could be analogous to sexism, but does not have to be. I could stereotype based on age, which might, but does not have to be analogous to agism. I could stereotype based on hair color. That could be analogous to chromafolliclism...

The distinction is important though... to stereotype is to assume traits by generalizing on an incomplete set of attributes, where making something into an "ism" tends to imply a negative generalization. The stereotype is not in and of itself negative. I think the portion of the word that's most relavant is the "typing" portion.

Sorry about the dodgy assumption.

No worries. I will, however, occastionally ask you to clarify. Here again, you still haven't answered how we define "morally wrong" in a way that is not subjective to the observer. Then again, I'm not sure anybody can.


Cheers.

[HydrogenBond]

If we did a statistical study between men and women connected to physical strength, the study would say that men are stronger than woman. This would be considered a sexist stereo type. There are some very strong women and some very weak men. This statistical stereo-type sort of creates a false sense of reality. Reality is case by case and not a stereo-type.

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

If we did a statistical study between men and women connected to physical strength, the study would say that men are stronger than woman.

This is where you are wrong. The statistics would say that men are stronger than women IN GENERAL. That implies that there are exceptions. The added words are essential in understanding the statistics. I think once you add those necessary words, the point that you were making falls into the abyss.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

This would be considered a sexist stereo type.

Everything sebby said, and also this would be considered an individual's interpretation of study data, not a sexist stereotype.

[EWright]

First of all, this is a very poor thread on the subject of stereotypes. There is a significant difference between generalities and stereotypes, as stereotypes tend to be more harmful despite this post:

Originally Posted by Ananke

Stereotypes always have a basis in truth. People dont have the time or inclination to treat everybody as an individual, so we use shorthands, clumping people together on the basis of a shared custom or habit. The problem, if it is one, comes when the steroetype becomes outdated. A group may find itself stuck with a steroetype that simply does not fit, not because the steroetype is wrong per se, but because it is outdated.

so NOT always have a basis in truth. Some stereotypes are CREATED as a means to be degrading or hurtful. As a person of color, I'll point to the example of black people eating watermelon and imagery in American history that surrounded this fashioned stereotype. This imagery was meant to portray black people as ignorant characatures of less-than-human watermelon sucking animals.

This sort of stereotyping is meant to keep a social group "in its place" and to keep a group from achieving better things for themselves, by persons who are hateful or fearful of it. There were many such examples inthe early part of last century, and unfortunately many of those still exist.

Now generalizations are usually based moreso in truth but can be perceived in greatly exagerated ways that then become stereotypical in themselves. One post stated as fact that black people can run faster than other people. I would say that sort of thinking is problematic. As far as speed it may be that the at the very top levels, the fastest black athletes usually outperform whites, but I don't think that among "average" blacks and whites that is always true.

It is also not necessarilly "bad" to generalize. As the post I quoted above points out, there are reasons for grouping people in order to simplify our perceptions and there's really no way around it. If you're alone on a dark street and you become uncomfortable when a certain type of person or group of persons is around, that may be a mechanism that causes you to take measures to keep yourself safe, such as leaving the area. The unfortunate side is that is may also be a perfectly respectable person or persons who recognize the fact that their appearance caused you to be afraid, and end up being the ones who are hurt by the situation. An important point here is that stereotypes can lead to this sort of fear in an individual which can cause a cycle of problems in a society.

Myself, I play cards for a living. I often make generlizations about the way people play based on their race and sex and age. "In general" I'll assume black men are more likely to bluff (but certainly not always); women are more likely to call bets, so you don't want to bluff at them, but you will often be more assured of getting their money if you have a hand; and retired white men do not bluff and they won't even raise you unless they have the absolute nuts. Now these generalizations can and do cost me money at times, because they're not anywhere near 100% and must be adjusted according to other factors at the table, but they help to a certain degree and can be given a certain amount of value in weighing decisions.

So to summarize, since I'm rambling on much longer than I intended to, I think stereotypes tend to be more harmful. Some do have some basis in truth, but it is often exagerated in a way to be additionally harmful. Some generalizations are also blown out of proportion and can lead to ignorance by those who choose to believe them to such an inflated degree... and they can also lead to becoming harmful stereotypes... certainly the line blurs at some points. But overall, be careful about latching on to ideas that are spouted by others, especially when they seem to be demeaning... there's probably exagerated meaning there, with some ill-will to boot.

[HydrogenBond]

The point I was making is that statistical studies are very similar to stereo types in that they create generalizations that do not apply to everyone but are often sold that way. The exceptions to the rule are built into the study but are usally left nebulous to the layman. The average becomes the stereo-type. This interpretation may not be true to the scientists and mathematcians because they know better, but it is true for most average people.

If one looks at commercials peddling the latest drugs, they present the data, with marketeers pumping in the sunshine, with the hope that the average statistical stereo-type will be swallowed. If they presented the data, like a scientiist to scientists, it would be wasted advertising.

The alcohol blood level and the law is a good example. The statistical study has an average with respect to cost/benefit. From the point of view of a scientist the data also shows exceptions on both sides of the average. Yet society will market this study based on the stereo type average, making no provisions for those outside the average. I would think science would speak up and tell leadership they have butchered the interpretation of the statitisical math into a stereo-type. A stereo-type that can cause harm to people who are not part of the average, just like other negative stereo types do.