MagiStream

Stereotypes are a human way of categorizing people. We all, whether we admit it or not, expect certain behaviors from people based on which group we have mentally placed them in. Those who can accept that these expectations will not always be met are not hampered by such stereotypes.
I admit I do make stereotypical comments and occasionally jokes about men and about blondes. The blonde thing is mostly because my blonde son has a tested IQ of 136, so I tell him they took 4 points off for being blonde.

MistyoC wrote:Stereotypes are a human way of categorizing people. We all, whether we admit it or not, expect certain behaviors from people based on which group we have mentally placed them in. Those who can accept that these expectations will not always be met are not hampered by such stereotypes.
I admit I do make stereotypical comments and occasionally jokes about men and about blondes. The blonde thing is mostly because my blonde son has a tested IQ of 136, so I tell him they took 4 points off for being blonde.

Whenever me or my best friend have one of those 'derp' moments where we say or do something surprisingly dumb/stupid we call it having a blonde moment. And we're both blonde. Honestly, I can laugh at those jokes since I take them for what they are, jokes.

I don't like stereotypes if they're meant to be offensive. If they're all in good fun, like blondes making blonde jokes, okay, I can deal with it.

I'm on the receiving end of several stereotypes. I'm a Chinese girl with glasses - smartypants Asians, check. I'm Hawaiian - grass-skirt wearing hula dancers, check. I'm a karate student - ooh, scary ninja person, check. I lived in England for nine years - tea and crumpets?, check.

The thing is, stereotypes can be really hurtful. The other thing is, they're kinda part of our society now. To change that, we'd need a whole lot of people to stand against stereotypes, not just a few here and there. It's hard to change human nature - we categorize people anyway. You see the kind with glasses and you assume they're a nerd, or the kid with lots of kids hanging around and they're cool, or an athlete and they're stuck up and popular.

Ahhh...that didn't make any sense to me. What I'm trying to say is, stereotypes can be okay and they can be bad, but I don't think they're really 'good,' ever. If they're true, okay, you might get away with it with minimal offending, but if they're not, or you're being mean about it, then you're a twit. My two cents

Stereotypes are also commonly known as "Judging a book by it's cover" or making an assumption before getting to know the person in question. It is unfortunate that humans can be so superficial in that way. I always want to shout at people: "Why don't you open that book to find out what is really inside?!" *sigh...*

MoriyuriSenpai wrote:"Why don't you open that book to find out what is really inside?!" *sigh...*

I usually do

MoriyuriSenpai wrote:"Why don't you open that book to find out what is really inside?!" *sigh...*

Because my lifetime is limited .... unfortunately it is as easy as this!

I think your book comparison is a good one.
Do you really think that you can't get any information about a book from it's cover? Please imagine the following book: The book's cover is in pink with dark red letters; the title is "How to seduce Mister Right in 7 failproof steps". Below the title you can see the face of a Paris-Hilten-Wanna-be grinning a toothpaste bright smile.
Do you really expect that there could be a thriller on the following pages? Or a textbook about Islandic culture? Even if you could not read the title, there are a few hints in which categorie this book belongs. If I would find the book on the floor in the middle of a bookstore, I had a guess where to find the corresponding pile.

I don't need to read the book to have an idea about the context. On the otherhand I could not say if it is a good book or if it is funny or clever written. To get this information I have to read this book. However, as my lifetime is limited that probably won't happen. In fact in a book store are thousands of books I will never read just because I take a look and put them in the "not my taste" category.

Obviously people don't have a "cover" and deserve a closer look (at least in my opinion). But beside this it is pretty much the same. We use categories and stereotypes to save time and manage our expectations.

Therefore I wouldn't condemn the ability to categorize in general, as this is a necessary function of our mind. We never take all information into account when we judge a situation or a person. We unconsciously focus on the "meaningful" bits of information to save time. We screen our own experiences in order to make a prediction. Additionally we try to taking into account what friends and other important people told us about similar situations or persons.

Even if I try hard not to get influenced by stereotypes and categories my first impression will be biased by my subconscious mind. Don't misunderstand me, that is not an excuse for bigotery or prejudices (or sexism/racism in the worst case). Having a first impression and taking this impression for granted are two complete different things.

Therefore, the problem is not the existence of categories, even if these are based on stereotypes. It is just like a very superficial first impression, in the worst case based on second hand experience. The problem arises when our stereotype based first judgment is irrevocable.

Cheers
MiGo

MiGo wrote:

MoriyuriSenpai wrote:"Why don't you open that book to find out what is really inside?!" *sigh...*

Because my lifetime is limited .... unfortunately it is as easy as this!

I think your book comparison is a good one.
Do you really think that you can't get any information about a book from it's cover? Please imagine the following book: The book's cover is in pink with dark red letters; the title is "How to seduce Mister Right in 7 failproof steps". Below the title you can see the face of a Paris-Hilten-Wanna-be grinning a toothpaste bright smile.
Do you really expect that there could be a thriller on the following pages? Or a textbook about Islandic culture? Even if you could not read the title, there are a few hints in which categorie this book belongs. If I would find the book on the floor in the middle of a bookstore, I had a guess where to find the corresponding pile.

I don't need to read the book to have an idea about the context. On the otherhand I could not say if it is a good book or if it is funny or clever written. To get this information I have to read this book. However, as my lifetime is limited that probably won't happen. In fact in a book store are thousands of books I will never read just because I take a look and put them in the "not my taste" category.

Obviously people don't have a "cover" and deserve a closer look (at least in my opinion). But beside this it is pretty much the same. We use categories and stereotypes to save time and manage our expectations.

Therefore I wouldn't condemn the ability to categorize in general, as this is a necessary function of our mind. We never take all information into account when we judge a situation or a person. We unconsciously focus on the "meaningful" bits of information to save time. We screen our own experiences in order to make a prediction. Additionally we try to taking into account what friends and other important people told us about similar situations or persons.

Even if I try hard not to get influenced by stereotypes and categories my first impression will be biased by my subconscious mind. Don't misunderstand me, that is not an excuse for bigotery or prejudices (or sexism/racism in the worst case). Having a first impression and taking this impression for granted are two complete different things.

Therefore, the problem is not the existence of categories, even if these are based on stereotypes. It is just like a very superficial first impression, in the worst case based on second hand experience. The problem arises when our stereotype based first judgment is irrevocable.

Cheers
MiGo

I do agree, but I disagree with a couple of things you said.
1) Your comparison to books. You could find the category, surely. But you wouldn't find any context details. Or, in other words, you wouldn't see any personality traits. These are the best way to sort people. If you're basing someone off their "cover," then you would sort a person into race, gender, age, etc. You could even go on to assume that because they are male and dress flamboyantly in pink and black, that they're homosexual/bicurious (which depends on how someone judges someone else. But you can't say "This person has a good life at home," or "This person is generally depressed." It's difficult, which is why you have to "read the book," or at least "skim" it, if not completely get to know the person more than an acquaintance.

2) Saying people don't have a "cover." I think people do have a cover. This would be, what they look like on the outside. This includes race, gender, appearance, and even the way they dress. You can assume things about them, like my example about them possibly being gay because of how they dress. Maybe they aren't, maybe they are. But you can never be certain until you get to know them.

I do agree that people shouldn't categorize people based on past experience with their "cover." They may have met a couple of tipsy Jamaicans (a common stereotype where I live). That doesn't mean that people from Jamaica are constantly high. They may be very well-advocated against it, and are going to Yale right now. You can't judge them based on people you met before. The covers may be the same, even the titles, but the book could be totally different. That's my big problem with stereotyping.

I do agree, but I disagree with a couple of things you said.
1) Your comparison to books. You could find the category, surely. But you wouldn't find any context details. Or, in other words, you wouldn't see any personality traits. These are the best way to sort people. If you're basing someone off their "cover," then you would sort a person into race, gender, age, etc. You could even go on to assume that because they are male and dress flamboyantly in pink and black, that they're homosexual/bicurious (which depends on how someone judges someone else. But you can't say "This person has a good life at home," or "This person is generally depressed." It's difficult, which is why you have to "read the book," or at least "skim" it, if not completely get to know the person more than an acquaintance.

It sounds like you are not really disagreeing.
Maybe I have expressed my opinion in a little bit clumsy/arkward way, because this is what I wanted to say. Your first impression will be according to your prior experiences and stereotypes, but it is a flawed and highly imperfect summary of the other person. It might even be complete wrong. That probably depends on how general the stereotyp is.

2) Saying people don't have a "cover." I think people do have a cover. This would be, what they look like on the outside. This includes race, gender, appearance, and even the way they dress. You can assume things about them, like my example about them possibly being gay because of how they dress. Maybe they aren't, maybe they are. But you can never be certain until you get to know them.

The cover of a book has one purpose. You shall get a little bit of information about the content and - obviously - you shall buy it. With people it is a little bit more complicated. Sometimes we want that people get some information about us, sometimes we want just to blend in (or at least not attract unwanted attention). Most books don't need this kind of balanced cover.

I do agree that people shouldn't categorize people based on past experience with their "cover." They may have met a couple of tipsy Jamaicans (a common stereotype where I live). That doesn't mean that people from Jamaica are constantly high. They may be very well-advocated against it, and are going to Yale right now. You can't judge them based on people you met before. The covers may be the same, even the titles, but the book could be totally different. That's my big problem with stereotyping.

I totally agree with that, but again it is the problem of "group-view" vs. "individual-view". If you are not aware that an individual might turn out to be completely different that what you suppose to know just by your categiories and stereotypes, your categories are more a hinderance.
I am a Bavarian. Most people believe Germans (Bavarians in particular) are disposed to drinking alkohol, lots of alcohol (a very common stereotype). Of course there a lots of Germans who are not constantly drinking or who don't like alkohol at all. On the otherside statistics show that Germans on average drink more than other fellow European. Therefore the stereotyp is defenitifly a bad advisor if you meet a particular German, but there is a good reason for the stereotyp.

However, I must admit that there a lot of stereotypes which are based on nothing but bigotry and which are used just to offend the other. Thats mankind at it's worst.

Cheers
MiGo

Stereotypes are a popular belief about a grouping of people.

Many people confuse stereotypes with prejudice. A lot of that has already happened in this thread.

I challenge anyone that thinks stereotypes are wrong to go to the gang-ridden side of their town at 2am and get to know the gang bangers. Wear expensive clothing and nice jewelry and let them know that they shouldn't rob you because that's a stereotype and that's just plain wrong. Don't forget to talk to the guy halfway passed out on the bench drinking from a paper bag with white powder stuck to his nose and get to know what a wonderful guy this is. Let me know how this works out for you.

There are stereotypes for a reason. It's a popular belief because there is a truth to it.
-Asians are short. Why yes, most Asians are short. Just because Yao Ming breaks the mold (both literally and figuratively) doesn't make the stereotype any less valid. He is just an exception. There is always an exception and you can't overturn a general consensus based on a few exceptions.

I'm not really sure what I think about stereotypes. I'm Chinese, and I get all kinds of remarks at school. Some of them I find hilarious, but others easily anger me. The thing about stereotypes is that most people don't realize that many of the stereotypical traits are shared among other races or groups of people.

I was born and raised in America, and my English is pretty fluent; I'm far from the stereotypical Asian accent. However, occasionally an "Asian accented' word will slip out, and people always laugh or mock me for it with "harro!". I've become so self-conscious about this that over the years I've developed a deep fear of public speaking, just because I'm subconsciously afraid of what people will think of my slight accent.

One stereotype that I don't really mind is the stereotype that all Asians eat cats and dogs. This used to bother me very much, until I realized that many races eat animals that are discouraged in other countries. Nowadays, when somebody makes a joke like this, I usually just play along. In fact, one of my Asian friends and I share an inside joke about us eating various animals.
The stereotype that Asians are extremely cruel to animals? That bothers me.
I always see these ignorant rants in forums about animal cruelty, usually starting off with a gruesome video of an Asian market. These videos often show Asians skinning animals alive, or using cruel devices to slaughter them. The topic usually leads to people writing offensive comments about how all Asians should die, or how they don't deserve to own any pets or animals, etc. etc. Sure, I sympathize for the poor animals, and I do agree that it's cruel. But to classify that all Asians are cruel, and that we are the only race to abuse animals? That's overdoing it.
I know for a fact that these videos show only the worst of the slaughterhouses. I know that not every Asian slaughterhouse is so cruel, and I also know that there are cruel slaughterhouses in other countries. But no matter how much you argue, "Asians are disgusting and sick", "Asians are cruel", "Asians don't deserve the right to live". How come I never see a rant topic about American slaughterhouses? Who knows?

That stereotype about Asians having small eyes? I laugh at it. When I was a low-esteem thirteen year-old, I considered this stereotype hurtful, but over recent years I've realized that there are quite a few non-Asians who have 'small' eyes as well (you'd be surprised how some girls look if you wash off all their makeup), and that everyone looks beautiful in any way they are. Now, whenever friends pull their eyes into tiny slits to tease me, I widen my eyes and push them inwards to mock them back, making myself look hilariously bug-eyed. My good friend and I do this all the time just for laughs.

This isn't exactly a stereotype, but one huge thing that irks me is when someone (usually a Caucasian) refers to themselves as American, and then points to me and classifies me as Asian. Sorry kid, but if I'm classified Asian, then you are European; if you refer to yourself as American, refer to me as American as well. It's also really bothering when someone asks me what part of Asia I was born in.

Eclaire wrote: -Asians are short. Why yes, most Asians are short. Just because Yao Ming breaks the mold (both literally and figuratively) doesn't make the stereotype any less valid. He is just an exception. There is always an exception and you can't overturn a general consensus based on a few exceptions.

This stereotype doesn't really bother me, but don't tell me that you've never seen a short Caucasian or non-Asian before. In fact, most of the Asians I've met are around the same height, or taller than other races, and most of the shorter than average people I've met are Caucasian. I do realize that you said "most", but that depends on what you compare them to. Like I said earlier, people tend not to realize that stereotypes often fit many groups of people, not just that one; therefore, most stereotypes are invalid and quite hypocritical.

Stereotypes also heavily depend on the majority of the people in that area. In America, you'll rarely find a stereotype against Caucasians, but stereotypes about other races are everywhere. Many stereotypes are also based on comparison. If, for example, I said, "Asians are smart compared to Caucasians", I wouldn't get too many complaints, as it is seemingly "well-known" that this is "true". However, if I said the reverse example, "Caucasians are stupid compared to Asians", I'd immediately get shot down. When you make a stereotype that pinpoints the majority of a population, you have to be careful. Would a non-Asian dare state an offensive Asian stereotype in the middle of Asia? I sincerely hope not.

/end rant