What Is a Stereotype?

What Is a Stereotype?^[1]
Feisty. Seductive. Intelligent. Used to describe individuals, these adjectives pose no particular problem. Used to describe groups of people, however, these adjectives may constitute stereotypes. What is a stereotype? Stereotypes are qualities assigned to groups of people related to their race, nationality and sexual orientation, to name a few. Because they generalize groups of people in manners that lead to discrimination and ignore the diversity within groups, stereotypes should be avoided.

Stereotypes vs. Generalizations
While all stereotypes are generalizations, not all generalizations are stereotypes. Stereotypes are oversimplifications of people groups widely circulated in certain societies. In the United States, racial groups have been linked to stereotypes such as being good at math, athletics and dancing. These stereotypes are so well-known that the average American wouldn’t hesitate if asked to identify which racial group in this country has a reputation for excelling in basketball. In short, when one stereotypes, one repeats the cultural mythology already present in a particular society.

On the other hand, a person can make a generalization about an ethnic group that hasn’t been perpetuated in society. Say a woman encounters individuals from a particular ethnic group and finds them to be excellent parents. Based on her encounters with these folks, she may oversimplify and conclude that anyone from this ethnic group must be an excellent parent. In this instance, she would be guilty of generalizing, but an observer might think twice about calling her conclusion a stereotype since no group in the U.S. has the distinction of being known as excellent parents.

Stereotypes Can Be Complicated
While stereotypes may refer to a specific sex, race, religion or country, often they link various aspects of identity together. A stereotype about black gay men, for example, would involve race, sex and sexual orientation. Although such a stereotype targets a specific segment of African Americans rather than blacks generally, it’s still problematic to insinuate that black gay men are all a certain way. Too many other factors make up any one black gay man’s identity to ascribe a set list of characteristics to him.

Stereotypes are also complicated because when they factor in race and sex, members of the same group may be pegged very differently. Certain stereotypes apply to Asian Americans generally, but when the Asian-American population is broken down by sex, one finds that stereotypes of Asian-American men and Asian-American women differ. Stereotypes involving race and gender may peg the women of a racial group as attractive and the men as the exact opposite or vice versa.

Even stereotypes applied to a racial group become inconsistent when members of that group are broken down by national origin. A case in point is that stereotypes about black Americans differ from those about blacks from the Caribbean or blacks from African nations. Such discrepancies indicate that stereotypes make little sense and aren’t useful tools by which to judge others.

Can Stereotypes Ever Be Good?
Both negative and positive stereotypes exist, but even the latter do harm. That’s because all stereotypes are limiting and leave little to no room for individuality. Perhaps a child belongs to a racial group known for being highly intelligent. This particular child, however, suffers from a learning disability and struggles to keep up with his classmates in school. Because his teacher buys into the stereotype that this child is supposed to excel in class because “his people” are highly intelligent, she might assume that his poor marks are because he’s lazy and never do the investigative work needed to discover his learning disability, saving him from years of struggle in school.

Is There Truth in Stereotypes?
It’s oft said that stereotypes are rooted in truth, but is this a valid statement? People who make this argument often want to justify their use of stereotypes. The problem with stereotypes is that they suggest that groups of people are inherently prone to certain behaviors. Arabs are naturally one way. Hispanics are naturally another. The fact is, science doesn’t back up these kinds of assertions. If groups of people have historically excelled at certain activities, social factors no doubt contributed to this phenomenon. Perhaps a society barred a group of people from practicing certain professions but welcomed them in others. Over the years, members of the group became associated with the professions they were actually allowed to practice. This came about not because of any inherent talent in these fields but because they were the professions that allowed them to survive. Those who spread stereotypes ignore social factors and make links between groups of people and certain skills, activities or behaviors where none inherently exist.

Wrapping Up
The next time you’re tempted to stereotype a group of people, think about the groups to which you belong. List the stereotypes linked to those groups. Does each of those stereotypes apply to you? More than likely you’d disagree that all of the qualities commonly attributed to those of your gender, racial group and sexual orientation describe you. That’s why it’s important to judge specific individuals rather than the groups of which they’re part.

Not that I didn't know what it is, but it seems to happen here a lot more than we like to admit. For instance, one need not look any further than the discussion on Sithism^[2] to see it in action. I'm not saying that anybody should be disregarded for it because we all go through some development while we're here. Perspectives are enhanced, changed, or broadened because of discussion, but there are times when we tend to stereotype and generalize. I think it shows a good sense of self-awareness when one catches themselves doing it, though. So the point of my posting this was to bring some awareness to what and how we post in response to each other. May you engulf me in flames for this with peace. :silly:

[hr]1. Nittle, N. K. (nd) What Is a Stereotype? Retrieved from About.com http://racerelations.about.com/od/understandingrac1/a/WhatIsaStereotype.htm

2. Chinesealan (2012) sithism. Temple of the Jedi Order. Retrieved from http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Confused-Ask-for-help/52509-sithism

i dont support believing in stereotypes
but i dont deny the validity when it exists either
the HOW or the WHY of a thing is important

but how ever or why ever the olympic basketball team is almost always almost all black is secondary to the fact that it IS, in fact, almost all black

is it unfair to present reality?

if you dont like stereotypes then break out of them with your own behavior

if you dont want people to think that sith are selfish prigs then dont be one

im not saying you particularly are

im saying that i for one will judge based on what i observe, not based on what im told i ought to believe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrX63d_qxrA


https://studentrnd.org/build/why-asians-are-better-than-americans-at-math


from the above link

Since elementary school, we learned basic mathematics skills as little children. As we grew older, our math improved as we learned new concepts. Yet have people ever wondered why Americans lag behind Eastern Asian countries, such as China, in math? The answer might not easily be what you think:

The answer lies not only in the practice that Asian students receive but also, surprisingly, in the language we speak. Examine the following numbers: 8,2,4,6,7,5,1. Now look away for twenty seconds, and try to memorize the order of the numbers presented. Research has shown that you have a 50% chance of accurately memorizing that sequence perfectly, if you speak English.

Yet for those who speak Chinese, it is almost assured that you will get that sequence right. The reason is not due to intelligence, but actually the phonetics of our languages. Our brain is programmed to store numbers in a repetitive loop that lasts for only a short period of time. Chinese speakers are able to fit those 7 numbers into that span of time, while English speakers cannot. Hence, the Chinese speakers can memorize those numbers at a much more efficient rate than English speakers. How is this important?

According to The Number Sense, at the age of 4 years old, a child living in the United States who speaks English on average has the ability to count to 15. The same age child living in China has the ability to count to 40, based purely on their efficiency of memorization. To count to 40, a child living in the United States on average would be 5 years old. This means that already, at the age of 5, American children are already a year behind their Asian counterparts in basic arithmetic fundamentals, in which a study done by the European Journal of Psychology of Education in 1998 concluded is essential to future mathematical development.

Furthermore, the complex language in which we pronounce our numbers hinders our ability to do the very easiest of mathematical tasks, such as addition and subtraction. Take a number like 23 (twenty-three). Notice how our language adds an additional part to the tens place? 20 becomes twenty, 30 becomes thirty, 50 becomes fifty. etc.

In the Chinese language, 20 is pronounced two-tens, 30 is pronounced three-tens, 50 becomes five-tens, etc. This is a much simpler, straight-forward, and easier way to deal with numbers.

In order to add 23 + 45, an American child would have to convert 23 to twenty-three, and 45 to forty-five, then add those two together. A Chinese child would just add two-tens-three and four-tens-five together, equaling six-tens-eight. The answer is in the way the language is phrased – much easier for children to learn.

The ease at which these Asian counterparts learn basic mathematics allows these kids to learn math at a much more rapid pace, which over the countless years of school, compounds into more knowledge and better math skills for these Chinese children.

This isn’t the only example where underlying systems impede a culture’s long-term success. The United States is the only first-world country that still uses the Imperial standard as a standard unit of measurement. Even though scientists in America generally use metric, the Imperial standard slows down science in multiple ways. One of NASA’s space probes disintegrated when one team used metric and another used Imperial units. Students need to learn metric before they can fully participate in science courses. Again, these disadvantages compound, putting the United States’ education system behind.

I’m sure there are many other examples of this in different cultures and countries around the world. I’d like to ask the readers to put some comments below: what are some other examples of this phenomenon, and what strategies can communities take to mitigate underlying disadvantages? Or is it unavoidable, like some sort of cultural Innovator’s Dilemma?

The answer lies not only in the practice that Asian students receive but also, surprisingly, in the language we speak.

This doesn't necessarily prove that Asians are more intelligent, but that the Chinese system is more efficient. One can be Chinese-born and American-raised, thus making them just as smart as Americans and not as smart as Chinese. So, this doesn't necessarily prove that Asians are smarter, just that people are only as efficient as the system of thought and calculation they learn.

i agree

stereotypes are convenient because they often summarize a genuine occurrence

that they exist really isnt a problem, its inevitable actually

the problem is when people view the world through the lens of the stereotype as if it itself is THE truth rather than that it simply directs our attention to A truth

i think in general we do well to note the distinction between THE truth and A truth - its common to confuse them

True, however ...

It's one thing to state an observation of a perceived trend (generalization) and it's another to state things that aren't true across the board, taking away their humanity, and making them an object to categorize (stereotyping).

If you live in a community and have been living there for the majority of your life, or perhaps long enough to see the cultural trends, you may find yourself judging anybody from a certain part of the neighborhood as being one way, while judging others from other parts as being another way. Is that right? Perhaps. There are always exceptions . Perhaps the exceptions got tired of being the exceptions and decided that it was easier to blend in with their surroundings to avoid being pigeonholed with something that they're not. Seems backwards, but it probably happens more than we can observe. Perhaps it happened because they got tired of being judged for something they've never done. Is that their fault? Partially. Should they be judged by their environment? No. Most of our circumstances in adulthood can be attributed to our choices. Most of our circumstances in childhood cannot be avoided. If one isn't given the tools to assess themselves and become what they want to become, it may prove more difficult a path to change while transitioning to adulthood. Therefore, if you see the exception doing exceptionally well, you can bet that they either came a long way to get to where they are, or they got lucky. All this can be found out if one takes a moment to get to know the person behind the stereotype. I'm not saying that everybody's life story is worth listening to, but at least know that there's a story behind the façade.

I think you already knew all of that, though. *shrug*

Wikipedia has some interesting words about related concepts;

"In printing, a stereotype, also known as a cliché, stereoplate or simply a stereo, was originally a "solid plate of type metal, cast from a papier-mâché or plaster mould (called a flong) taken from the surface of a forme of type" used for printing instead of the original."

"A stereotypy is a repetitive or ritualistic movement, posture, or utterance. Stereotypies may be simple movements such as body rocking, or complex, such as self-caressing, crossing and uncrossing of legs, and marching in place. Stereotypy is sometimes called stimming in autism, under the hypothesis that it self-stimulates one or more senses. Related terms include punding and tweaking to describe repetitive behavior that is a side effect of some drugs."

More broadly I've found the concept of stereo-something to mean a master copy to be reproduced or mimicked....

But in social use it just seems to be a form of approximation. So the cliche might be the observation of repetitive elements from that approximation. The approximation itself being formed through repeated exposure to that set of elements or limited interpretation of the most obvious (or useful) elements.

Or is it as an attempt to implicate order where there is none?