Generalisations = Stereotyping?

[Oaky]

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?

 

[teslashock]

In the way that most people use the terms, stereotyping has a negative connotation, while generalizing is a way of impersonally (yet broadly) grouping data.

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. For example: I've personally noticed that women are less likely to be interested in automobiles, so I form a stereotype that women are too mechanically inept to ever be interested in that kind of mechanical system and perhaps I even go so far as to say that women should not be hired at an auto shop.

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.

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).

It would be a flaw in the way that we interpret reality if we completely ignored trends, so we have to give them some merit. However, it's also important to realize that our generalizations are susceptible to "exceptions", and we should not use generalizations to predict the traits of women and cast them into a mold before indeed finding out that an individual woman dislikes automobiles.

Stereotyping is generalizing with a muffin top.

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.

 

[Oaky]

Yes, I see. Then those who accuse one of stereotyping when they are in fact generalising are at fault.

 

[entropie]

The amount of stereotyping one does use reflects his lack of own thoughts he had on the matter or his lack of capability to even have own thoughts. While generalisation is a measurement on how far someone has been brainwashed by society and lost his ability to think on his own at all.

In the light of that generalisation: it's always as easy like that .

Man just the plain thought that we couldnt live without generalisations or stereotypes, it would make so many people think on their own, society would die of contaminated air coming from all the smoke steaming from human heads !!!!

 

[Randomnity]

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

The "generalizations" in your OP are stereotypes. Putting "usually" in front of it doesn't mean it isn't a stereotype. I would call it a generalization if it were true in roughly 80%+ of cases, which is clearly not the case for almost all of your statements.

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.

 

[Oaky]

The amount of stereotyping one does use reflects his lack of own thoughts he had on the matter or his lack of capability to even have own thoughts. While generalisation is a measurement on how far someone has been brainwashed by society and lost his ability to think on his own at all.

In the light of that generalisation: it's always as easy like that .

Man just the plain thought that we couldnt live without generalisations or stereotypes, it would make so many people think on their own, society would die of contaminated air coming from all the smoke steaming from human heads !!!!

That'd be awful. But yea. I see what you mean. So one would be less brainwashed by society if their generalisations are on a much smaller scale. Interesting.

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

The "generalizations" in your OP are stereotypes. Putting "usually" in front of it doesn't mean it isn't a stereotype. I would call it a generalization if it were true in roughly 80%+ of cases, which is clearly not the case for almost all of your statements.

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.

The idea now is if generalisation is a fact or a belief. If it is a fact then you would indeed be correct. I stated it as a belief so it would be more void of what you have said.

 

[teslashock]

The amount of stereotyping one does use reflects his lack of own thoughts he had on the matter or his lack of capability to even have own thoughts. While generalisation is a measurement on how far someone has been brainwashed by society and lost his ability to think on his own at all.

In the light of that generalisation: it's always as easy like that .

Man just the plain thought that we couldnt live without generalisations or stereotypes, it would make so many people think on their own, society would die of contaminated air coming from all the smoke steaming from human heads !!!!

So you are using a generalization to support your claim that generalizations suck?

Hume is glaring down on you with belligerent angst.

*awaits impending implosion...*

 

[entropie]

So you are using a generalization to support your claim that generalizations suck?

Hume is glaring down on you with belligerent angst.

*awaits impending implosion...*

You know if you keep trieing hard to find ways to piss on people, you'll either become master of stating the obvious or master of ruining stylistic devices.

You really have to learn surfing !

 

[teslashock]

You know if you keep trieing hard to find ways to piss on people, you'll either become master of stating the obvious or master of ruining stylistic devices.

You really have to learn surfing !

I wasn't trying to piss on you...

I was just pointing out the same thing that you implied in your post in a tag-team manner, from when you said:

In the light of that generalisation: it's always as easy like that

The obvious: entropie is easily brought to chaotic reactions. Or is that a generalization?

 

[entropie]

ah ok, sorry then. Hadnt had coffee yet today

 

[teslashock]

ah ok, sorry then. Hadnt had coffee yet today

Don't worry; I don't actually think your ability to logically reason through shit is that inexistent. I'd only think that if you were an NFP or something. Err, wait...I'm stereotyping now...

Honestly, I just wanted to bring Hume into the equation because he's ballin'.

 

[entropie]

Ok I'll skip the coffee and directly start with beer...

 

[teslashock]

Ok I'll skip the coffee and directly start with beer...

Because all Germans love beer, right?!

Typical...

 

[entropie]

I had a bottle of whiskey here and while I drank I felt ultimatively noble. But then someone came and told me its spelled whisky not whiskey. That ruined it for me and since then I am stuck with 0.35 cent beer -.-

 

[Quinlan]

I tend to think of it as it's a generalisation if you have some facts or evidence to back it up and it's a stereotype if it's some kneejerk assumption you just pulled out of your arse to make yourself feel better/superior.

 

[teslashock]

I tend to think of it as it's a generalisation if you have some facts or evidence to back it up and it's a stereotype if it's some kneejerk assumption you just pulled out of your arse to make yourself feel better/superior.

Generalization connotes empirical summary while stereotype connotes (offensive?) oversimplification.

 

[Randomnity]

The idea now is if generalisation is a fact or a belief. If it is a fact then you would indeed be correct. I stated it as a belief so it would be more void of what you have said.

Please explain.

I said that because I think you're using the term "generalization" in a way that most people would not agree with. Ie, closer to actual stereotypes.

Examples of more typical generalizations:

winter in northern countries is cold and there is snow
people from england have a british accent
people like to be in relationships
people will get emotional when you attack them verbally

 

[Mad Hatter]

Generalization connotes empirical summary while stereotype connotes (offensive?) oversimplification.

I think stereotypes are a certain form of generalization that always includes a value judgment - that doesn't necessarily have to be negative, e.g. Germans = no sense of humor and Germans = hard-working are both stereotypes.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yes, I see. Then those who accuse one of stereotyping when they are in fact generalising are at fault.

Yup. 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.

This suggests an emotional component that leads people to erroneous conclusions about the nature of the generalization.

For instance, if I say, "Women are not usually as good as men at auto-mechanics", frequently some offended woman will respond with an angry counterexample of her lesbian auntie who fixes cars for a living, and then point out some male friend she knows that absolutely sucks with cars, as if offering two singular counterexamples somehow invalidates the entire broader trend.

In fact, if we added up the total auto-mechanic proficiency of all men, it would probably exceed the total auto-mechanic proficiency of all women, but the only people who seem to object to this generalization are women who have misinterpreted it as an individualized description of each member of the group, when in fact it's merely an observation about the average trend. The person who points this generalization out is not saying that all women suck with cars, or that all men are good with cars, but invariably the person who takes offense to the generalization/attempts to discredit it is a member of the group being negatively generalized about (women, in this case.)

Funny how it works like that.

 

[teslashock]

I think stereotypes are a certain form of generalization that always includes a value judgment - that doesn't necessarily have to be negative, e.g. Germans = no sense of humor and Germans = hard-working are both stereotypes.

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").

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