Progressives hold that stereotypes promote arbitrary, random and generally false beliefs about groups of people. But then why do these stereotypes remain stable across generations? And why don’t people ever get their stereotypes mixed up?
For example, if some said that he didn’t mind having registered sex offenders as neighbors because their presence wouldn’t hurt property values and his community’s reputation, you wouldn’t praise this guy for his lack of stereotypical thinking. Instead you would question his judgment.
Ironically progressives don’t have a problem at all with promoting stereotypes which put rich people and businessmen in a bad light. The popularity of Ayn Rand’s alternative humanism pisses them off because she got some market share in reversing these stereotypes, and again in defiance of progressives’ central planning to reshape the human mind like clay,.
But then why do these stereotypes remain stable across generations?
Not defending the progressives in general here, but there are two very simple explanations for your question.
1) Some stereotypes don’t remain stable across generations.
For example, I heard that in the past, pink was considered a “boy color” and blue was considered a “girl color”; or that it was believed that black people would be bad at sport. So, some stereotypes change and some don’t; and we would need a meta review to find out whether there is something special about those unchanging stereotypes, or whether it just means that if you flip a coin two or three times, sometimes you will get the same result repeatedly.
2) If a stereotype already exists, it is more easy to keep believing in the existing one (confirmation bias) than to invent a new one.
(Disclaimer: None of this is meant as a general proof that all stereotypes are incorrect. It’s only an explanation of how a stereotype that happens to be wrong could remain stable across generations.)
But then why do these stereotypes remain stable across generations?
Rational expectations equalibria are a thing. To take a somewhat exagerated example, if everyone thinks that girls suck at math, so no one teaches girls to do math, then no one will ever find out whether or not girls actually suck at math.
“Throwing like a girl” is a prime example of that sort of thing. Throwing like a girl turns out to be throwing like someone who’s inexperienced with throwing.
If a boy throws like a girl, he’s taught and/or shamed out of it as quickly as possible. If a girl throws like a girl, well, what did you expect?
I’ve phrased this in the present tense, but the culture’s improved on the subject.
Strength is determined by biology and behavior; the stereotype reflects both biological reality and cultural expectations. Note that boys are/were expected to be stronger than girls even before puberty actually creates a meaningful biological gap...
I don’t think most progressives assume stereotypes are arbitrary or random. The standard progressive view seems to be that the stereotypes were based on the fundamental attribution error: attributing negative traits that a group has to their innate nature rather than to negative influences.
Example: Members of group A enter region dominated by group B. The educational system in region B focuses on entirely different languages and historical periods than the educational system in region A. Group B considers intelligence to be demonstrated by a mastery of language and history. Group B then assumes that members of Group A are inherently unintelligent, instead of assuming that there’s a good reason why otherwise competent members of Group A are completely inept at Group B language and history.
Group C denies group D access to certain types of training for reasons that are, at the time, valid. The reasons become invalid. Group D asks for access to those types of training. Group C points out that Group D currently has no demonstrated skill at those types of tasks. Group D is being stereotyped as inherently bad at something, when in fact they are merely untrained.
Why don’t progressives put the same effort into dismantling insulting stereotypes of their political opponents (certain types of rich people) in the same way that we do for other groups? Presumably, because rich people can afford to hire PR agents, and are not suffering harm from stereotypes*, and because people generally do not make their political opponents look better.
*I haven’t seen evidence for rich people being harmed by stereotype threat, but if some study shows they are, please link me to one.
The standard progressive view seems to be that the stereotypes were based on the fundamental attribution error: attributing negative traits that a group has to their innate nature rather than to negative influences.
Not sure what is the “standard” progressive view, but the one I see a lot says that stereotypes are tools of oppression and domination.
I’m sorry if this is a rude request, but I’m very new to the LW commenting process, so if anyone knows why my comments here were downvoted, I’d really appreciate it if that person would tell me, so I can improve my future participation on this site.
At the moment, all your comments seem to be net-upvoted, so there seems no evidence of a systematic objection to your participation. As I’ve observed elsewhere as well, comments that can be taken as supportive of progressive positions have lately garnered a few downvotes early on, which tend to get reversed by subsequent upvotes over the next few days. I wouldn’t worry about it.
I suppose there isn’t really a standard progressive view, but I attend Young Democrats meetings, my school voted with something like a ⅔ majority for Obama in the last mock election, and I read newspapers and magazines that target a progressive audience, so I encounter a lot of progressive viewpoints.
I thought that the “tools of oppression and domination” was a reference to how stereotypes are used, not how they are formed. I don’t really picture a bunch of people in positions of power deciding that the best method to oppress people was to assume insulting things about them, instead of, say, passing harmful legislation, so I assumed that other progressives would agree with me on that point.
Also, I wanted to discuss stereotype origins without using phrasing that made the originators of those stereotypes look immoral, because I thought that doing so would distract for advancedatheist from the point I was trying to make, so I shied away from that explanation.
I thought that the “tools of oppression and domination” was a reference to how stereotypes are used, not how they are formed.
If you are into that kind of thing, you can view stereotypes as soldiers in memetic warfare. If you want to win, you want to shape your soldiers and not just pick whichever ones happen to come along.
The standard progressive view seems to be that the stereotypes were based on the fundamental attribution error: attributing negative traits that a group has to their innate nature rather than to negative influences.
The problem is that progressives consider it evil to attribute negative traits to innate nature and will refuse to update in that direction even if changing influences doesn’t improve the trait.
Thus if a negative trait happens to actually have an innate cause, progressives end up going on witch hunts trying to find the witch oppressor whose evil spells micro-aggressions are causing the negative influences.
Progressives hold that stereotypes promote arbitrary, random and generally false beliefs about groups of people. But then why do these stereotypes remain stable across generations? And why don’t people ever get their stereotypes mixed up?
For example, if some said that he didn’t mind having registered sex offenders as neighbors because their presence wouldn’t hurt property values and his community’s reputation, you wouldn’t praise this guy for his lack of stereotypical thinking. Instead you would question his judgment.
Ironically progressives don’t have a problem at all with promoting stereotypes which put rich people and businessmen in a bad light. The popularity of Ayn Rand’s alternative humanism pisses them off because she got some market share in reversing these stereotypes, and again in defiance of progressives’ central planning to reshape the human mind like clay,.
Not defending the progressives in general here, but there are two very simple explanations for your question.
1) Some stereotypes don’t remain stable across generations.
For example, I heard that in the past, pink was considered a “boy color” and blue was considered a “girl color”; or that it was believed that black people would be bad at sport. So, some stereotypes change and some don’t; and we would need a meta review to find out whether there is something special about those unchanging stereotypes, or whether it just means that if you flip a coin two or three times, sometimes you will get the same result repeatedly.
2) If a stereotype already exists, it is more easy to keep believing in the existing one (confirmation bias) than to invent a new one.
(Disclaimer: None of this is meant as a general proof that all stereotypes are incorrect. It’s only an explanation of how a stereotype that happens to be wrong could remain stable across generations.)
Except as you’ve just pointed out:
Identifying a mechanism pushing towards outcome X is not inconsistent with observing that sometimes the outcome not-X happens.
Rational expectations equalibria are a thing. To take a somewhat exagerated example, if everyone thinks that girls suck at math, so no one teaches girls to do math, then no one will ever find out whether or not girls actually suck at math.
“Throwing like a girl” is a prime example of that sort of thing. Throwing like a girl turns out to be throwing like someone who’s inexperienced with throwing.
If a boy throws like a girl, he’s taught and/or shamed out of it as quickly as possible. If a girl throws like a girl, well, what did you expect?
I’ve phrased this in the present tense, but the culture’s improved on the subject.
Now consider a similar-sounding stereotype: “Men are physically stronger than women”. Think that’s fixable by different expectations?
While some stereotypes reflect cultural expectations, some reflect biological reality.
Strength is determined by biology and behavior; the stereotype reflects both biological reality and cultural expectations. Note that boys are/were expected to be stronger than girls even before puberty actually creates a meaningful biological gap...
I don’t think most progressives assume stereotypes are arbitrary or random. The standard progressive view seems to be that the stereotypes were based on the fundamental attribution error: attributing negative traits that a group has to their innate nature rather than to negative influences.
Example: Members of group A enter region dominated by group B. The educational system in region B focuses on entirely different languages and historical periods than the educational system in region A. Group B considers intelligence to be demonstrated by a mastery of language and history. Group B then assumes that members of Group A are inherently unintelligent, instead of assuming that there’s a good reason why otherwise competent members of Group A are completely inept at Group B language and history.
Group C denies group D access to certain types of training for reasons that are, at the time, valid. The reasons become invalid. Group D asks for access to those types of training. Group C points out that Group D currently has no demonstrated skill at those types of tasks. Group D is being stereotyped as inherently bad at something, when in fact they are merely untrained.
Why don’t progressives put the same effort into dismantling insulting stereotypes of their political opponents (certain types of rich people) in the same way that we do for other groups? Presumably, because rich people can afford to hire PR agents, and are not suffering harm from stereotypes*, and because people generally do not make their political opponents look better.
*I haven’t seen evidence for rich people being harmed by stereotype threat, but if some study shows they are, please link me to one.
Not sure what is the “standard” progressive view, but the one I see a lot says that stereotypes are tools of oppression and domination.
I’m sorry if this is a rude request, but I’m very new to the LW commenting process, so if anyone knows why my comments here were downvoted, I’d really appreciate it if that person would tell me, so I can improve my future participation on this site.
Thanks in advance!
The request is not rude and actually fairly common (but is not guaranteed to bring responses).
Note that LW up/downvoting is a noisy process and you shouldn’t attempt to find meaning in every single vote. Also, this.
At the moment, all your comments seem to be net-upvoted, so there seems no evidence of a systematic objection to your participation. As I’ve observed elsewhere as well, comments that can be taken as supportive of progressive positions have lately garnered a few downvotes early on, which tend to get reversed by subsequent upvotes over the next few days. I wouldn’t worry about it.
I think LW just hates progressives
I suppose there isn’t really a standard progressive view, but I attend Young Democrats meetings, my school voted with something like a ⅔ majority for Obama in the last mock election, and I read newspapers and magazines that target a progressive audience, so I encounter a lot of progressive viewpoints.
I thought that the “tools of oppression and domination” was a reference to how stereotypes are used, not how they are formed. I don’t really picture a bunch of people in positions of power deciding that the best method to oppress people was to assume insulting things about them, instead of, say, passing harmful legislation, so I assumed that other progressives would agree with me on that point.
Also, I wanted to discuss stereotype origins without using phrasing that made the originators of those stereotypes look immoral, because I thought that doing so would distract for advancedatheist from the point I was trying to make, so I shied away from that explanation.
If you are into that kind of thing, you can view stereotypes as soldiers in memetic warfare. If you want to win, you want to shape your soldiers and not just pick whichever ones happen to come along.
The problem is that progressives consider it evil to attribute negative traits to innate nature and will refuse to update in that direction even if changing influences doesn’t improve the trait.
Thus if a negative trait happens to actually have an innate cause, progressives end up going on witch hunts trying to find the
witchoppressor whose evilspells micro-aggressions are causing the negative influences.