
The Unbearable Accuracy of Stereotypes [pdf] - networked
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf
======
AndrewKemendo
This is an academic exercise, as it implicitly accepts that there are natural
"groups" in which members share the same attributes and as a result
individuals within those groups can be expected to either 1) act together or
2) if apart act in a similar way as individuals. In fact there is nothing of
the sort, groups are a creation of the social mind and the individual elements
may or may not behave similar as individuals.

The brain naturally makes heuristics and clusters items that it finds similar
into the same group. "Stereotypes," which may be globally common traits but
are attributed with higher weight to certain socially constructed groups, can
memetically reinforce those groupings by making them more cognitively
"available."

There is no rational solution to this - as it's a biological process. Like
Beer, pattern matching and grouping is the cause of and solution to all of our
problems.

------
linhchi
I think the population is a distribution and stereotype is the (estimated)
mean of that distribution. So it has its right and wrong.

~~~
throwawayaway
The most innocuous stereotype I can think of, is the 'typical' French
stereotype of a man in beret and a black and white striped jumper cycling
around with a baguette, an onion garland necklace, smoking gauloisies. Some
stereotypes bear no relation to the estimated mean.

~~~
vanattab
Except no one actually thinks that stereotype is true or still relevant. And I
am certain at least some aspects of that stereotype were rooted in french
fashion of the era.

~~~
linhchi
yeah, i watch some old french film, wearing beret was a real thing, especially
for artists. anyway, fashion comes and goes, that stereotype might have become
obsolete.

------
ZenoArrow
Whilst personally I believe stereotypes can be accurate (mostly as the outcome
of self-fulfilling prophecies), I would question this research. Take a look at
the studies listed on page 10, each of the studies looks at a different
question about stereotypes, with the answer based on the response of a few
hundred people (maximum was around 700). Furthermore, the people used for the
studies are all college students. I wouldn't trust the scientific accuracy of
any data on human opinion that relied on such small data sets, especially when
the people being questioned are from a non-representative slice of society.

~~~
Asbostos
Not trying to be offensive, but did you feel the need to add the statement
abut self-fulfilling prophecies because making a bare claim like "I believe in
some stereotypes" is so politically sensitive that you're afraid of being
judged as a racist or sexist? This is similar to the sort of complains the
author has about older research into stereotypes assuming they were inaccurate
without testing them - no doubt they made that assumption to protect
themselves from allegations of racism/sexism/etc.

The self-fulfilling prophecy argument is a way to say "OK, they might be true,
but the blame lies with some other group of oppressors and it's still not an
innate quality of the subjects themselves, so it's still not really
fundamentally true.". Why shouldn't it be an innate quality? Maybe women
really do earn less than men because of something different in how men and
women earn money, not because men oppress women with their stereotypes.

Without research, I don't think it's any more reasonable to say "stereotypes
are mainly accurate because they're self-fulfilling prophecies" than to say
"stereotypes are mainly accurate because groups of people are naturally
different.".

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Without research, I don't think it's any more reasonable to say
> "stereotypes are mainly accurate because they're self-fulfilling prophecies"
> than to say "stereotypes are mainly accurate because groups of people are
> naturally different."."

First of all, calm down, I'm not here to argue with you.

I made a statement about what I believe. I assumed that using the word
'believe' would make it clear that I was stating a personal opinion, it seems
that wasn't clear enough.

An important difference between my personal opinion and the science in the
linked article is that I never attempted to pass off my opinion as
scientifically proven. If the linked article had merely stated some compelling
evidence to consider, then I wouldn't have bothered replying. My argument
against it is that it makes large claims based on very limited evidence.
Perhaps that's the best evidence we have so far, but I certainly wouldn't say
it's in any way strong enough for the conclusions being pointed to.

As for my own beliefs, I don't think they're controversial, nor am I
attempting to hide anything. I believe that stereotypes can (note: not in all
cases) be true because they become a self-fulfilling prophecy. How so? By
setting expectations on accepted behavior.

Consider the following: It is a common stereotype that men are more prone to
have stronger sexual urges, and this is used to excuse many different
behaviours. Sexual objectification of women is one such behaviour, we see this
as normal because of the stereotype that men are overwhelmed by such stimulus,
and so cannot be held as responsible for such behaviour. The more common the
stereotype becomes, the more people use the stereotype to set expectations,
which influences what becomes normal for the group in question, regardless of
whether it was originally true or not.

~~~
Asbostos
It's OK to argue. That's how we learn to see different viewpoints, rather than
pretending to agree for sake of making everyone happy.

I see you're talking about what I would call culture or customs, rather than
the broader range of qualities that stereotypes can include - things that
might (if they were true) apply to those same groups across different
cultures.

There's a kind of moral leap people are making if they say "Men have a harder
time controlling their sexual urges, therefore it's OK for men to objectify
women." You could still have the same stereotype with a different conclusion
by saying "Men have a harder time controlling their sexual urges, so we should
be more vigilant about men when we're trying to catch somebody objectifying
women." This seems to be how it ended up with blacks and crime. I'd say the
outcomes that we don't like don't require the stereotypes, so the stereotypes
themselves aren't harmful and it's OK if they turn out to be fundamentally
true.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "It's OK to argue. That's how we learn to see different viewpoints, rather
> than pretending to agree for sake of making everyone happy."

Discussion is fine, disagreement is fine, but arguing is more than just
disagreement. If we can discuss respectfully then we can continue.

> "This seems to be how it ended up with blacks and crime. I'd say the
> outcomes that we don't like don't require the stereotypes, so the
> stereotypes themselves aren't harmful and it's OK if they turn out to be
> fundamentally true."

Regarding blacks and crime, which statistics is this backed up by? I suspect
the truth may be more nuanced than a simple correlation, but lets start with
the statistics.

------
yaloiseau
The authors want to introduce pure binary logical reasoning into social
science. Therefore, from a logical point of view, if a statement or belief
about a group is accurate, the it must old for all members of the group.
Following their pseudo logical reasoning, it follows that a single counter
example imply that the belief is not true, and thus inaccurate. Which
invalidate any further statistical analysis.

~~~
Asbostos
They said that in the first couple of pages. I know it's long and wordy, but
it gets more practical and down to earth the further into it you go. They have
addressed your concern in quite a lot of detail.

~~~
yaloiseau
My point is that they kind of dismiss previous approaches using this only
logical argument, which is not applicable anyway. Using such a rigorous
logical reasoning in the realm of social science demonstrate either a
misunderstanding of logic or a purpose to mislead the reader.

~~~
Asbostos
I agree that whole argument seemed quite artificial. I took it as a way to
complain about other researchers who apparently had assumed that all
stereotypes are somehow false, whatever false means. I'm sure they didn't mean
it must hold for each individual in the group to be accurate.

~~~
roninb
But the definition that they use is "a stereotype is a set of beliefs about
the personal attributes of a social group." How can that be interpreted as
anything but something that holds true for each individual of a group?

