Racial Stereotypes

Racial stereotypes are extremely prevelant in our society, despite the progress that has been made in that regard since the civil war. Mostly, though, the evidence isn’t there for a biological cause. At best, these stereotypes amount to a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: blackness tends to preceed lower standardized test scores, so blackness causes lower standardized test scores. But there are many mitigating factors and reasons to doubt this conclusion.
-There are innumerable people of all races that defy theses stereotypes. But if these traits are to be understood as inherent in a race’s biology, such exceptions would not be expected.
-There are many other common ties that could equally-well or better explain the perceived correlation: culture and economic standing are the most salient.
-The concpet of race is poorly defined at best. According to the conclusion from this article(which I’ve only skimmed but will read more carefully before I post again), “data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogenous and that genetic variations tend to be shared widely among populations.”

For these reasons, racism and racist stereotypes that link race and modes of though biologically are simply in contrast with the evidence. Clearly, there are racial divisions in society, but they are self-fulfilling: certain discriminatory treatment will yield specific differences.

Stereotypes are useful in everyday life when you have to work with and be friends with everyday people.

For example, if you see a man in overalls who looks like a farmer, it’s good to have a farmer stereotype to lean on. It will help you to know what sort of things to say and not to say to him. The more accurate your stereotypes are the more success you’ll have in making friends and in avoiding hurting people’s feelings.

It’s also good to have good stereotypes for what a bad person is like. This will help you to avoid getting hurt or tricked by them.

There are many people in the world and we can never know exactly how people will react to us, so we have to make generalizations based on our past on how people will be in the future when we meet them. The better and more accurate our generalizations are the better off we are.

Also, life moves quickly and stereotypes do too, so it’s important to update our stereotypes as often as possible. What may be true for one group one day, say the modern teenager, may not be true the next.

One of the things that gives me pause for thought about the racial stereotypes thing, RE: black people, is the countries that black people are native to. You couldn’t pay me enough to move to any of the ones I can think of, though there may be some small island nation, predominantly black, that isn’t an underdeveloped hell hole of violence and disease. But clearly it would be the exception and not the rule.

Now, since I don't want to be racist, (and indeed the black people I meet are as capable as any other kind of people), what's my answer to this situation? It would be a huge stretch to get me to believe that these countries are this way because of white people (or whomever) persecuting them. It would just beg the question of why the white people were in the power position to do so, however long ago that was.

Stupid generalisation sterio types that take one a few detail to make their assumtion about what the person is like are the problem, if you can break away from general sterio types and start looking at all the typical aspects in detail and the probabilities that cross over trhoughout then there is no problem with that.

Can you do that for them and yourself ? is it that hard ? or is it that i have super analysis abilities and most people are super stupid next to me ?

Descrimination is the problem anyway.

You nead power (money) to make power and the powerfull can only get more powerfull by taking more and more power from the poor.

Thats why poor people are stuck.

If there was a country populated by black people which wasnt raped, enslaved or anything along those lines and it was still in the same condition of those that had been then you may be able to then come some rational conclusion of probability about the race being a certain way, it could still be the culture but seeing as theirs not, you dont have.

Guns Germs and Steel does a good job at attempting to explain why Europe reached ascendence without relying on racist notions.

I also think that when a country becomes civilized vs. how technologically advanced they are plays a major role. History has shown, time and time again, how uncivilized barbarians have perfected various technologies which leads to them solidly trouncing civilized nations. After all, for the barbarian, war is the reality of life whereas the civilized society shifts itself away from the warrior model. Satyr’s thread, “The Feminization of Man” actually has a lot of salient points on this topic.

Africa, however, is a special case because it is the cradle of humanity. To use an example, the protist phytophthora, the organism responsible for the potato famine, has very very many sorovars, and species in South America, but outside of that area (where potatos come from), there are a much more limited variety of the organism. In the same way, Africa is absolutely sick with human pathogens. Very, very nasty ones. So, because of its special place in the history of humanity it carries with it a very special set of problems.

Stereotypes are not inherently a bad thing.

Not true. Genetic freaks occur.

So you agree blacks are different than whites? What is it that you don’t like about blacks? What self fulfilling prophecies do they succumb to that you see?

Oni:

My problem with your explanation is that you’re starting it too late. If you say that black-populated countries are they way they are because powerful white nations did something, then my question just becomes why were the white nations powerful, and the black ones not? I could be asking this same question in the 1400’s, and that’s the problem.

Xunzian:

I like your explanation with the pathogens, but not so much the guns and steel one. After all, Japan and China did fine- all these things they either invented or traded for. A consider a lack of innovation part of the question, not the answer. When it comes to disease and other biographical factors, do these limitations apply to places like New Guinea and old Australia? In those places, too, you have dark-skinned people who showed no signs of moving out of the Stone Age.

I think guns were the difference maker. We couldn’t have colonized Africa if they had big ass guns. I mean what if the blacks had the machine gun back in 1600. No one would have put them on a ship. Things would be much different.

Technology is a big deal.

I would argue that China and Japan were a good deal more civilized that Europe when they encountered each other! At least from the perspective of a developed beurocratic system, perosnal hygine, eating habits, education (especially availability of), farming techniques, ect.

I think it would be a gross mistake to think that technology pertains to civilization, after all, the Mongols had developed both a bow and riding system that allowed them to conquor the world, but they would hardly be considered ‘civilized’. Likewise, the Arabs had a technological advantage over the Persians, but the Arabs only became civilized after the conquest of Persia. The Turks conquored Byzantium, and I don’t think there is any argument about whether the Seljuk’s were more civilized than the Eastern Roman Empire! Speaking of which, what would Rome be without Greece? Aggression and conquest are antithetical to civilization, not a mark of it. Which is more civilized – using a tool for aesthetic purposes to increase one’s sense of wonder in the world or using a tool to kill? Because that is what happened with cannon. The Chinese had had fireworks and cannon for ages, but their use as a weapon had been fairly limited because of the overall stability of the area. Then the Europeans came and said, “Holy crap! I can totally kill a lot of people with this way more effectively!” Hardly the mark of a civilized mind, eh?

As for New Guinea, since it is in the tropics there are going to be a sufficient diversity of life that something is bound to figure out how to make human life miserable (consider the amount of diseases found in the tropics as compared to more temperate climates). The difference between tropical diseases and diseases related to animal-husbandry (wihch is what the Europeans had) is that animal husbandry is a more limited environment in terms of diversity so there is consistant exposure to one or two things. While they may be rather leathal, within a generation or two, there is a strong selective pressure for humans that are relatively immune to it, as opposed to tropical diseases that are constantly jumping between hosts.

And the Aborigines, I do believe, had severly limited resources. The Bush is hardly a fecund area. The trick is to find a balance. Also, I’m not sure what animals are available for domestication in Australia (or New Guinea for that matter). Hard to have a kangaroo pull a plow.

I didn’t say technology made you civilized. I don’t even know what civilized means except ‘good’ as opposed to ‘bad’. I just think technology, guns, are a big deal.

It’s really luck. Technology is the result of a creative spark. Someone somewhere just happens to notice something and the light bulb goes off.= and the gun is made.

Though, you could argue that some cultures are more likely to be creative than others. Blacks definitely don’t lack in creativity. Look at all the comedians and musicians.

Satyr predict people of the future will lack the creative spark ability. I haven’t been able to wrap my head around that.

Stereotypes can be useful, but they can also be detrimental. It is important to analyse the stereotype and not to follow it blindly. Let me give some examples:
-In a job interview, a stereotype that says “persons of group X are unintelligent and lazy” is useless when you’re evaluating someone from group X who went to a top university and has started 3 companies single-handedly. In fact, the stereotype is rarely useful in such a circumstance, because you are faced with much more information about the individual than the stereotype can compete with (the article I lilnked states that individual variation accounts for 90% of genetic variatiog, meaning that individual characteristics are almost always going to overrule stereotyped group characteristics).
-When you’re walking down a dark alley at 2 am and you see a member of group X, a stereotype might seem to say “people of group X are dangerous in this situation”. But almost anyone in such a circumstance is suspect, and it is the circumstance that is dangerous, detached from any specific group. The stereotype is not useful.

Stereotypes are simplifications of the truth, both in terms of what the truth is, and even moreso in terms of what the truth means, i.e. what conclusions to draw from it and how to relate it to practice.

As to why the disparities exist, there are any number of reasons. Xunzian has pointed out one, that humans in africa are in their native climate. While his example was good, a more famous one may be non- native frogs in Australia, who have flourished in an area where they have no natural predators. The move from Africa was probably initiated by the need for greater resources, and the lands in which people settled likely supplied resources beyond those of which the land of origin was capable. So though racial divisions and a derth of human advancement occured simultaneously, there is not necessarily a causal connection between the two, and evidence suggests that there is no such connection.

Australia. It’s a bit like Britain, a bit like California, a bit like South Africa, but isn’t really like any of those.

Most of those countries have poor climates for agriculture, and as such the need to provide for a basic need like food has crippled their ability to make the advancements in technology (military and otherwise) mentioned so far in this thread. It also makes civil war more common. Britain had only the one civil war, as have the Americans, neither have had what you’d call a true political revolution.

I don’t really know, I’m just sketching an idea or two.

I perceive a dumbing-down of man, as specialization limits individual human knowledge to a finer and finer focal point, creating authorities on a tiny piece of understanding but unable to combine knowledge into grander perspectives, and social necessity creates a more docile, accepting and pampered mind, eliminating the aggressive creativity intolerance breeds.
A world of bureaucratic cogs.

If population pressures persist and resources dwindle this dumbing-down will evolve a human being no more innovative and aware than a worker bee.

Jung, whom I am currently exploring, mentions that fantasy is a basic factor of creativity and Christianity sought to limit individual fantasy by imposing a common, central myth which replaces fantasy with dogma.
If fantasy is suppressed, retarding imagination, then human creativity will atrophy.

If the decline in human creativity is prevented by inventing machines that will correct this dumbing-down by taking it over, this innovation will be taken over by machines.
This possibility is what nurtures the feelings of insecurity with growing machine civilization, producing fantasies of intelligent machines enslaving and controlling human destiny.

Stereotypes are not necessarily incorrect but a simplification of actual phenomena and patterns.
We can say that a generalization is incorrect or correct but not that it is flawed just for being a generalization.
That human beings, as animals fall into distinctive behavioral patterns and genetic possibility, is a given.

The only thing that can surpass nature is intellect and so only the mind can overcome its own nature and become more than its biological predisposition.

Simple minds and stupid people usually fall into stereotypical human behavior and only the intelligent are more complicated and indefinable.

A type usually points to a common ancestry which implies a shared potential and behavioral pattern.
That humans can break away from their past, is obvious, that humans rarely do, is also obvious.

Would you say that many words themselves are stereotypes or that all words are stereotypes? Take the words, ‘grey’, ‘fun’, ‘smile’, and ‘ham’, for example. To me, they’re all stereotypes, since they’re are infinite forms grey, fun, a smile, and ham can take.

Would you say that use of stereotypes is inevitable and necessary for survival, and if that is the case is it not important to cultivate our stereotypes to make them as accurate as possible?

SIATD:

Australia is a pretty bad example: To the extent that it's like the places you listed, it's because of the Europeans that settled there.  Now, all I have to go by is television, but my impression of the aboriginal culture is that it consisted of squatting naked in the desert, eating bugs and lizards, and never really got past that stage except to the extent it was absorbed by the Europeans.  I don't know much about growing seasons though, that explanation has potential.

I would say any word is a general proposition of an appearance as it appears.
It is a simplification of a phenomenon.
Grey, in all its myriad shades is called grey and all comprehend the general concept of greyness.
We might use other words or compound words to express nuances of grey or subtle shades of it but the general appearance of grey is assumed to be common and shared.

A concept is used for efficiency sake and it facilitates survival and a quick understanding and response/reaction.

Greyness exists. That’s heavy.

There is the drinking too, drinking is a big part of the Abo culture these days. But, more seriously, the Abos had it worked out - they lived a nomadic, semi-tribal existence, it seems (and still do, to an extent). They rarely fought wars over territory (living in a land of rich natural food resources probably helped) and preserved many of their traditions over time.

The Europeans just used America as a sort of dumping-ground for criminals. To be honest, I’m not sure we can give them that much credit for what’s good about Australia today.

I find this fuss about stereo types a waste of time, typical of audiophiles who have too much cash and like to think their sound system generates more closely detectable fidelity to live performance than one costing a little less. It’s just a lot of oneupmanship and snobbery. The money wasted on expensive stereos of whatever type, could be allocated to educational programs fighting such pernicious social ills like racial stereotyping.

I think it’s important too. That’s why I posted my own stereotypes of blacks so I could analyze them. Presenting them in a provocative matter makes it easier for people to read and gets me more attention, which I like. I hate when no one reads what I have to say.

You said what I wrote was hate speech. A lot of people might read it that way, but they weren’t the people I was interested in talking to. I was interested in talking to blacks and people who know blacks well to confirm or reject my ideas, not other whites to join in on hate mongering. There are probably not a lot of blacks on this website, though, cause I don’t think they’re into this kind of stuff. That’s just my experience.

The idea that black businesses are less organized I didn’t think of because I want to ridicule blacks. I got it from reading a black author’s book about his white mother. It was his mother who taught him that and at the time of his book he agreed. I’ve also come to that conclusion from being in the Greyhound bus station in Philadelphia, then being in the one in State College PA. The organization and sense of order is much different from the first one, all black, and the second, all white. It’s not necessarily a black thing, if I were to go to Bombay India, I’m sure their train stations are equally chaotic, still I believe there are differences between black and white businesses. It could be the location, and that businesses in more crowded areas are more chaotic, or it could be racial. This was the discussion I would have liked to have prompted.

As far as style goes, that’s from my own personal experience. When I go out in a town. I notice that blacks dress much more flamboyantly and pay closer attention to their appearance than whites. Whites will dress up for a night on the town, but the styles are different. I don’t know if it’s a cultural thing, or a genetic thing. It could be either. You talked about test scores. I don’t place value in test scores. Even if one race got lower test scores genetically, it wouldn’t matter to me.

Fear of snakes and wild animals was also a personal observation. I’ve noticed in my experience with blacks that they are more sensitive to wild animals. My theory is that they don’t get much exposure to them from living in cities, so they won’t be able to have experiences catching snakes like whites in the suburbs have.

My stereotype for you is you’re an oversensitive champion of civil liberties. You support equality for races and religions, but you don’t really know many people of a different race than you, so you’ve never formed stereotypes because of this. If you spent enough time with people that were different, you would eventually form stereotypes about them. You’d then realize that it’s natural and that some negative stereotypes do apply, but it’s okay because you still like those people and they’re still your friends and that they don’t mind when you point these things out to them because they know you like them and it doesn’t matter to you.