Generalisations = Stereotyping?

[Jaguar]

Look at how often the person objecting to the generalization and claiming it's an unfounded stereotype is a member of the group being generalized about.

I'm not black.
I'm not homosexual.
I'm not female.

I object to stupidity.

 

[teslashock]

I'm not black.
I'm not homosexual.
I'm not female.

I object to stupidity.

You realize that you're kind of helping to prove Sim's point, right?

 

[disregard]

Stereotypes are limiting where generalisations are helpful.

 

[Lark]

Does generalising a certain group mean one is stereotyping? If not then why does one accuse someone else of stereotyping when they generalise?

Examples of generalisations:
- Usually, women suck at computers
- Usually, women don't know how to drive
- Usually, men are idiots while women are smart
- Usually, men only care about sex when trying to hook up with a woman
- Usually, a child doesn't know any better than an adult

Cancel out the 'usually' then we have stereotyping. But doesn't generalising have some truth in it? If I go somewhere and the people at the place treat me in a certain way I will generalise saying the people over at this place treat me like 'this and that'. It wouldn't necessarily be stereotyping would it?

I would think many confuse generalisations with stereotyping. (if they of course aren't the same)
Any views on the matter?

I think they are confused, they arent the same thing though.

I also think people generalise about things that they shouldnt, for instance generalising their own experience to everyone else, sometimes unconsciously, when they shouldnt and that can give rise to stereotypes.

 

[simulatedworld]

I'm not black.
I'm not homosexual.
I'm not female.

I object to stupidity.

Translation: "I'm a single counterexample so your point is ruined!"

 

[Qre:us]

A lot of the time generalizations are accurate whereas stereotypes are often driven by emotion and are overly negative.

Nope, that would be prejudice. Attaching an emotional reaction to stereotypes = prejudice. Acting on them = discrimination.

Generalizing is kinda like observing a group and seeing what traits they have in common, whereas stereotyping is (imo) more like trying to find ways to discriminate against a group that you don't like.

Nope. See above.

When we stereotype, we stick people into a mold into which they may not fit. Stereotyping is typically done blindly and carries a more narrow-minded view with it. Perhaps we see a general trend and attempt to associate a causal relationship with the character trait and the character.

Yes.

Stereotyping seems to have a snowball affect and be less susceptible to change. Stereotyping is forming a rather narrow mold (rashly based on our experience and/or indoctrination) and [unconsciously?] sticking people into that mold prematurely.

Yes.

When we generalize, however, we are grouping data based on some sort of reality, and the data does not carry any extra weight with it. Though we often may not have tangible statistics on an issue, we can gather information from our own experience and realize that we have indeed noticed that women are typically less likely to be interested in automobiles, so we say something to the tune of "It seems that women are less likely to enjoy automobiles" (while making no corollary claims as a result of that initial observation).

Yes.

Stereotyping is (forcefully?) cramming someone into a rather arbitrary mold, while generalizing is creating an everchanging mold that is subject to tweaks based on our experience.

Yes.

To put it more specifically, the way these definitions are differentiated is by thinking of generalization as the beginning point, and stereotyping as the end point.

Meaning, generalization makes a comment on the trends observed, while stereotyping is a conclusion, that boxes someone in, given only the general trends observed.

Generalization leaves it at the "general" level, to allow for further investigation, while stereotyping applies it at a personal level, and calls it truth.

All Asians must be good at math. (stereotype)
Asians tend to be good at math. (generalization)
Lee is Asian so he must be good at math. (stereotyping)
Lee is an Asian, maybe he's good at math? (generalizing)

 

[ajblaise]

Poignant generalizations are a good thing. We need them. And science relies on them.

A stereotype is basically an oversimplified or poor generalization.

 

[Jaguar]

Translation: "I'm a single counterexample so your point is ruined!"

You still don't get it. Jesus.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Generalizations are accurate observations given a certain sample size that describe trends.

Stereotypes are the same thing, but they just make people feel bad, and thus, are wrong.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Examples of generalisations:
- Usually, women suck at computers
- Usually, women don't know how to drive
- Usually, men are idiots while women are smart
- Usually, men only care about sex when trying to hook up with a woman
- Usually, a child doesn't know any better than an adult

The word "usually" is not much of a disclaimer because it is rather imprecise. Placing it in front of a stereotype does not transform it into a rationally based generalization. A generalization needs to be backed up with some sort of statistical data and the statement should reasonably relate to that data. What makes these above statements less useful is that even though they have the disclaimer, "usually", the content of the statement is too extreme, too absolute, and many are not supported by any sort of data.

I understand a generalization to be more like, "women are more often employed as nurses than men" or something like that. What about the following:

Women in general do have not as much training or knowledge in the computer field as men do.

Car insurance for women tends to be less expensive because they are involved in fewer accidents than men, so women generally are safer drivers than men.

etc.

 

[Jaguar]

Generalizations are accurate observations given a certain sample size that describe trends.

Stereotypes are the same thing, but they just make people feel bad, and thus, are wrong.

"Certain sample size" is wide open to interpretation.
Frequently, someone will make a generalization based upon nothing more than one encounter with an individual.
There are people in this forum who have made inane generalizations about a certain type based on nothing more than what they observe at their job.

Worse yet, they carry that irrational garbage with them into this forum and use people as a surrogate punching bag.
"Waaaaaaah, the INFP at work did X, so I will come here and shit on ALL INFPs."

It's as ridiculous as a woman who gets beat up by her husband and subsequently claims, "All men beat women."
A couple of the worst offenders are actually in this thread.

"Typical INTJ!"
"Typical Fi!"

Poppy, an INTJ, once made this comment:

What's your rationale for making a statement about "INFJs generally". Do you know 50% or more of the world's INFJs?

Her voice of reason was refreshing.

 

[JocktheMotie]

"Certain sample size" is wide open to interpretation.
Frequently, someone will make a generalization based upon nothing more than one encounter with an individual.
There are people in this forum who have made inane generalizations about a certain type based on nothing more than what they observe at their job.

Worse yet, they carry that irrational garbage with them into this forum and use people as a surrogate punching bag.
"Waaaaaaah, the INFP at work did X, so I will come here and shit on ALL INFPs."

It's as ridiculous as a woman who gets beat up by her husband and subsequently claims, "All men beat women."
A couple of the worst offenders are actually in this thread.

"Typical INTJ!"
"Typical Fi!"

Poppy, an INTJ, once made this comment:

What's your rationale for making a statement about "INFJs generally". Do you know 50% or more of the world's INFJs?

Her voice of reason was refreshing.

This is all true, but not an indictment of generalizations as a tool so much as an indictment of those who use them incorrectly in typology or don't know what they are .

I'm a cognitive function "believer," so I do think that certain types will be predisposed towards certain paths of behavior, but it's never set in stone. Part of my attraction to function theory was that I thought it enabled any person any range of behavior, just differentiated how they arrived at their conclusions. When you start assigning traits to functions, you get in trouble.

Also, typical Te from Poppy, for telling someone their opinion isn't valid because they lack the empiricism to justify it

 

[teslashock]

Poppy, an INTJ, once made this comment:

What's your rationale for making a statement about "INFJs generally". Do you know 50% or more of the world's INFJs?

Her voice of reason was refreshing.

That's a voice of confusion, not reason.

The generalizations we make about personality types are based on the definitions of the personality type. Any generalizations beyond that may fall under the realm of "stereotype", but it remains a generalization so long as the claim is corollary (or reasonably tangential) to the way we define type.

Generalization: INTPs acquire and analyze information and fit the information into a logically consistent (yet arbitrary) model, and they continually revamp their models to ensure that everything remains logically consistent.

Stereotype: Most INTPs can't get laid.

Do you see the difference between the two? One is easily backed by the way we define INTPs, and the other is just some random nonsense that we associate with geeky guys who spend their days typing in code.

When we generalize about INTPs, we look at the functions that make up the definition of INTP (Ti --> checking for logical consistency and Ne --> creating an analogous model), we see how they work together cognitively, and we make a generalization about how this cognition would be expressed as a cohesive unit. The second one, again, is not easily backed by our definition of INTP. Ti and Ne are not defined by a lack of social skills, zero physical attractiveness, or a disinterest in sex, nor do I think anybody could lay out a reasonable argument for why INTPs, by definition, would have trouble getting laid. Therefore, the latter is a stereotype.

Admittedly, other more detailed and tangential generalizations are made, ie: Most ENTPs enjoy debating. While this may not be a completely accurate claim to make (we don't empirically know if the majority of ENTPs like to argue...nor could we ever know), we can still support that claim with a short stream of reasoning based on how we define ENTPs in function theory (Ne --> explores different possible answers/solutions to a question/challenge, Ti --> evaluates the possibilities for logical consistency), so it's not a completely preposterous assertion.

So long as we remain open to the idea that there are some ENTPs who don't enjoy arguing/debating and don't attempt to predict that every labelled ENTP we meet will enjoy debating whether God is left or right handed, then there's nothing inherently wrong with making this more detailed generalization. The more detailed our generalization becomes, the more open we need to be to the fact that it may indeed be a false generality.

 

[Jaguar]

That's a voice of confusion, not reason.

Seeing how you are one of the biggest offenders, I can see why you'd disagree with what Poppy said.

 

[teslashock]

Seeing how you are one of the biggest offenders, I can see why you'd disagree with what Poppy said.

Pff, way to completely ignore the argument. What an ENTJ thing to do.

 

[simulatedworld]

You still don't get it. Jesus.

No, you don't get it, and you never have. You never understand any conclusions arrived at through Ne and you probably never will, so I'd just throw in the towel at this point if I were you.

Poppy, an INTJ, once made this comment:

What's your rationale for making a statement about "INFJs generally". Do you know 50% or more of the world's INFJs?

Her voice of reason was refreshing.

It's a matter of inference.

Here's a little metaphor for you:

Let's say I have a bag containing 1,000 marbles of unknown color. I draw one marble from the bag and find that it's green. I draw another from the bag and find that it's also green. I continue doing this until I've drawn 25 marbles from the bag and find that 23 of them are green, and 2 are blue.

Now, I've only seen 2.5% of the marbles in the bag at this point, but I can still reasonably infer that there's a good chance the majority of the marbles in the bag are green. Every time I draw another green marble, the chance the majority of marbles in the bag are green increases a little bit more.

Now, is it possible that there are only 23 green marbles in the bag, and I just happened to get a really biased sample by drawing all of them? Sure, but it's very, very unlikely, and every time I draw another green marble it becomes even less likely. I don't need to see 50% or more of the marbles to be able to infer that it's probable that the majority of the marbles in the bag are green. The accuracy of such estimation gradually increases as the sample size expands. This is how most studies are done--scientists take a sample of, say, 1,000 people (which constitutes roughly .0000001% of the planet's population) and infer from the trends within the small sample what trends are likely to be shown by the total group. If this method were invalid, no scientific studies about characteristics of people would ever have any merit at all because none of them have ever been performed on over 50% of the world's population.

Nobody is ever going to meet 50% of the INFJs on the planet; that's ridiculous. But if I've met 25 INFJs and all of them are good at reading the emotions of others, it can be reasonably inferred that INFJs in general are probably good at reading the emotions of others. Statistically, if this were not true, it's highly unlikely that every INFJ I've met would be good at that.

Granted, I could have met a really biased sample of INFJs and gotten the wrong idea, but the more INFJs I meet who show the characteristic in question, the less likely that becomes.

I'd like to ask you if you understand now, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[Mad Hatter]

In any case, I think stereotypes are always related to people, or rather groups thereof, whereas generalizations don't have to be. At least I can't think of a single example right now where a stereotype doesn't refer to people in one way or another.

I agree with that. Stereotyping is within the set of {generalizations} (nice Ti ). But that Germans = hard-working stereotype easily spirals into a negative correlation. Germans = hard-working because they are cold, dry, and way too serious to know how to have any real fun (ie, because they have "no sense of humor").

Stereotypes, whether positive or negative, are problematic because they perceive a group of people as a group, and not as individuals, and impose a general value attachment where there is no necessary connection. It's induction fail in a sense.
I quite agree with what you've said because even if stereotypes are positive, the perception of the others as a uniform "group" with specific attributes that apply to every individual member of it still persists without breaking it down to the invidivual members of that group itself.

I'd steer clear of this way of thinking, whether or not it's overtly negative.

I don't think if it can be completely avoided, and I'm not sure whether it doesn't actually have some positive aspects (I can't think of any right now, but maybe others).
In any case, where stereotypes become apparent as such, they usually become much less dangerous (at least publicly because they are not considered "p.c."), but gaining awareness where there has been none is a difficult process, at least if there is no external view that might offer comparison.

 

[Jaguar]

But if I've met 25 INFJs and all of them are good at reading the emotions of others

That's the story you are going with?
I'm to believe you know 25 INFJs and they would allow you-of all people-to get close to them?

Nice try, kid.
Classic.

 

[Little_Sticks]

A generalization is an observation. For example, "After all my years working here I've seen that most of the German tourists at the bar are boisterous, rude, and aggressive drunks."

A stereotype assumes the observation to be true for all occasions for the whole of a group of people and sometimes changes the observation slightly to make it personal. For example, considering the quote above and creating a stereotype from it, "Thus Germans are self-absorbed unpleasant drunks."

So, in conclusion, I would say a stereotype is a generalization made personal that follows the rule of first-impression to exemplify the whole from the partial.

Schizophrenic Teacher: And so what did we learn today kids? <crickets chirp> That's correct, kids! Stereotypes are the basis of statistics. If you want to learn how to present stereotypes as facts and get paid a ton of money doing it, this is the profession of your dreams.

<waits for a statistician to rationalize why it's possible to be accurate enough so that it doesn't matter and try to suggest that that is what statistics does most of the time>

 

[HeyHey]

That's the story you are going with?
I'm to believe you know 25 INFJs and they would allow you-of all people-to get close to them?

Nice try, kid.
Classic.

Hahaha, you just dodged all of his major points and focused on the most MINOR issue to refute.

And then you argue your point with a personal attack rather than logic? Brilliant.

Nice try, kid.