Talk:Stereotype

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg

This Sociology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

I think it says "all" far too many times. You don't have to believe that every single member of particular group conforms to a type to have a stereotyped view of them. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:10, 1 February 2009 (EST)

What it is[edit]

Changing "all" to "most" or "tend to" doesn't make it any less stereotypical. E.g.: "All Jews are money hungry", "Most Jews are money hungrey" and "Jews tend to be money hungrey" are all equally stereotypical.-212.123.158.42 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Stereotyping is not a bad thing. A stereotype is a probability estimation. It emerges from the cumulative experience of many encounters because it's useful. Think of a savanna tribe not stereotyping all lions as "man eaters" and the consequences it would have for their survival. — Unsigned, by: 199.48.147.41 / talk / contribs
Yes, but we're talking about the "all black people are dumb, violent criminals" stereotypes.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for another example[edit]

"All MRAs are misogynists". It's a perfect example, and it's quite prevalent to boot. WittyUsername (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's all right, I'll just chuck that in. Nobody's said anything against it. WittyUsername (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's shit and just because no one said anything doesn't mean there's tacit approval. Not everyone looks at these pages and sees that you're a reactionary shitting them up.—Ryulong (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
How is it shit? Also, I didn't think that being a centrist made one a conservative. WittyUsername (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You're not a centrist. All of your edits have been to JAQ off on pages concerning reactionary movements and advocating on behalf of the reactionaries' POV.—Ryulong (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Explain further, please. And try to be sensical. WittyUsername (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No. Read the fucking article. And don't do the bullshit tone policing. MRAs exist solely to attack women and feminism. That's what the page "Men's rights movement" covers.—Ryulong (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not tone policing. I was just wanting you to be sensical. Your tone isn't bad, but your sensicality is. WittyUsername (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You're the reactionary libertarian douchebro coming to an obviously liberal website pretending to be a centrist. Not me.—Ryulong (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason stereotypes exist[edit]

Since when are useful heuristics "bad reasoning skills"? — Unsigned, by: 151.77.131.63 / talk

Since when did stereotypes ever accurately portray a group of people numbering in the millions, each of them obviously individually unique? Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 11:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Rationality doesn't require perfect accuracy, it just requires that the cost of an inaccurate assesment multiplied by it's likelyhood is lower than the cost of a marginal increase in accuracy. The whole point of heuristics is that their inaccuracy is compensated by their cheapness and quickness, hence why we evolved biases. It's better to use a rule that's correct 80% of the times, than a rule that's correct 100% of the times but costs 500% as much.151.77.163.84 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)