Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Text Size

 Galaxy Veracity

 Reality and Truth on Planet Earth

Search This Site


Human Behavior

Stereotyping Is Very Natural And Okay

Parent Category: Human Behavior Category: Psychology

Many people proclaim that stereotyping  other people  and events is wrong.  They say that it is prejudice.  If one is caught stereotyping they are immediately chastise and rebuked.

It use to not be that way.   But, as time went on, the left and progressives steadily pushed for rebuking people who stereotyped others.  They have a political agenda for doing that.  First, let's show why stereotyping is natural and it's okay to stereotype others and events.

The following is an article from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute that shows one of the reasons that it is okay and natural to stereotype.  It is by Ninos P. Malek.  It will help to prove the issue.

Stereotyping Defended

Most people feel that stereotyping is wrong and unfair.

Why should one person be affected by the actions or qualities of the rest of his or her demographic? Of course, people are individuals with their own moral values (or lack of), intelligence, and talents. Stereotyping is, however, a method that people use, consciously or subconsciously, as an efficient way of economizing on information costs.

For example, if somebody offered you $1 million to solve a complex mathematical problem and, furthermore, you could choose anybody on a university campus to help you, I doubt you would choose the Paris Hilton–type sorority girl or the Abercrombie and Fitch–wearing fraternity boy. Now consider the young man wearing glasses and a pocket protector in his short-sleeve, button-down shirt: would you not think that he is a better bet?

If you were a soccer coach and had to draft a player for your team and the only information you had was that Player A is from Brazil and Player B is from the United States, who would you choose?

Finally, assume that you are walking down the street and you have only two choices — either walk on the left side of the street or the right side of the street. Before you choose, you notice that on the left side there are ten tattooed, muscular men with shaved heads walking and talking together, while on the right side you see ten "clean-cut" men wearing dress shirts and ties carrying Bibles. Now, what would you do?

If you chose the "nerdy" student with the pocket protector in the first scenario, the Brazilian player in the second scenario, and the right side of the street in the third scenario, are you being immoral or "prejudiced"? In fact, what does the word "prejudice" really mean? One of the definitions that is normally overlooked is "a preconceived preference or idea." In other words, prejudice simply means pre-judging.

Of course you may not be correct in your judgment, and your later judgments will be affected by the success or failure of the accuracy of your forecasts. But the alternative is to use a completely random basis on which to make pre-judgments, which is very silly and probably impossible.

In his article "Non Politically Correct Thinking", my former professor and economist Dr. Walter Williams argued

"… that going to the word's Latin root, to pre-judge simply means: making decisions on the basis of incomplete information. Here's an example. Suppose leaving your workplace you see a full-grown tiger standing outside the door. Most people would endeavor to leave the area in great dispatch. That prediction isn't all that interesting but the question is why. Is your decision to run based on any detailed information about that particular tiger or is it based on tiger folklore and how you've seen other tigers behaving? It's probably the latter. You simply pre-judge that tiger; you stereotype him. If you didn't pre-judge and stereotype that tiger, you'd endeavor to obtain more information, like petting him on the head and doing other friendly things to determine whether he's dangerous. Most people quickly calculate that the likely cost of an additional unit of information about the tiger exceeded any benefit and wouldn't bother to seek additional information. In other words, all they need to know is he's a tiger."

Acquiring information is costly. Moreover, we assume that rational people economize. As beings who want to get the "biggest bang for their buck," people will apply this rational behavior to information as well. Assuming that I am that person who, when he sees a tiger running at him, gets scared and tries to run to safety, am I being unfair or prejudiced? If I hear there is a murderer in my neighborhood, am I prejudiced if I start looking around the neighborhood for a suspicious looking male rather than a female?

This topic of course has implications when it comes to social policy. After 9/11, the Transportation Security Administration agents at airports, to show that they were impartial, would pull aside old ladies and little children to make sure that they were not carrying dangerous items that could lead to terrorism.

I can recall that one time when I was traveling, a TSA agent pulled aside a young blond girl for additional screening rather than checking the adult men that were going on that flight. Did it make me feel safer to know that politics and not security was foremost on the mind of the screeners? Not particularly.

Providing security requires the use of scarce means. In a world of imperfect knowledge, economizing on information is a tool that should not have to be defended.

In another important area, government's interventionist policies in the labor market can make the bad kind of discrimination we normally think about more prevalent. For example, European Union countries have very strict laws on firing people compared to the United States. Because of this, it is more costly for a firm to hire somebody.

Now, if I am an employer and I know that I am stuck with a worker once I hire him, don't you think I will be more likely to economize on information (i.e., discriminate) before I hire him? Conversely, in a free-market, I will be more likely to take a risk on somebody and give him a chance (and not indulge my initial "prejudices") because I know if he ends up being a poor selection, I can easily fire him. Those who advocate "fair labor laws" had better be careful what they ask for.

Economics affects our everyday lives. Economics can be viewed as the study of individual human actors making choices. Of course, people should not be rude to others based on looks, race, or gender. I also know that there are a lot of ignorant, mean-spirited people who assume things about others that are completely baseless. But in the market economy, they also pay a price for being wrong.

Let us remember that we live in a world of scarcity, that economizing on information can be efficient, and that sometimes the reason stereotypes exist is because, well, they're true.

So what do you think so far?  Starting to get the point?  Now if you still don't understand the logic that stereotyping is really natural and ok, then why don't you take a ride in the ghettos of Detroit on a hot summer night with the car windows open and see if you feel better in that neighborhood than others.

As the true saying goes: "If it is a true fact, then it is NOT politically incorrect." 

Most people with an average IQ have seen and still see, everyday events and people that deserved to be stereotyped.  All you have to do is follow the news on a regular basis.

Your's as well as others own life experiences, over time, demonstrate the reality of stereotyping.

People pay good money to go hear comedians tell funny stories about stereotypes.  People laugh at the stereotypes not because they are false, but because they know that they are true.   They have repeatedly experienced and seen the stereotype over and over in the real world.  The comedian does not have to convience the audience about the stereotype.  They already know.

It is a known fact, that anyone can verify with the U.S. Department of Justice, that certain races and cultures that compose of only 12 percent of the total U.S. population commit almost half of the total violent crime.  And, that does not include the non-violent crime of shop lifting, vandalism etc.  It is even more.

So, are you going to let some liberal, left wing, progressive tell you that it is wrong for you to stereotype certain types of races, individuals or countries.  Give yourself a break and don't be stupid.

Typically, those people who chastise you for stereotyping are the worst offenders of it.  They have an agenda.  They want you to be an egalitarian.  It is a form of social engineering and mind control.  The liberal, left wing, progressives want to change society to Socialism.  The left wing socialist elite want to be in charge with power.  They can't do it if you have a mind of your own and think what you want to think.  If something is fact and the real truth, don't hold back.  You are only hurting yourself and others close to you in the long run.  Tell it like it really is.   

So, you start now, right now!  Stand up for what is fact and the truth.  Don't be a dummy. 

Guess what?  Go back and read what I have written.  I really didn't tell you anything you already didn't know.  You intuitively knew this.  All I did was help you solidify it in your mind.

Selwyn Duke in an article from the Internet tells it in another competent way:

In a racial profiling lawsuit against the Maryland State Police (MSP), a plaintiff’s attorney named Eliza Leighton said that some training documents contain “startling examples of racial stereotypes about Hispanics.” (Just so you know, when leftists use the word “startling,” it usually means, “Man, this truth hurts!”) According to the Associated Press:

For example, one document cautions that Hispanics generally do not hold their alcohol well. They tend to drink too much and this leads to fights. And it notes, Hispanic males are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised to be subservient. Other stereotypes [sic] include the assertion that the weapon of choice for Hispanics is a knife and that Hispanics are reluctant to learn English.

Regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, we can now expect such information to be purged from the training documents. But, as I wrote about Dr. James Watson’s comments regarding Africans, intelligence and genetics, this is part of a very distressing pattern. Everyone fixates on the fact that such comments constitute generalizations (about groups that are supposed to be immune from such things), as if this is an offense in and of itself. Yet, no one seems to ask the only relevant question.

Are the generalizations true?

Before anyone waxes stupid, please don’t tell me that all generalizations are invalid because not every member of the given group will conform to a generalization. Intelligent people understand that legitimate generalizations are statements about a group’s general characteristics, not individuals’ specific ones. For example, if I say that men are taller than women, I don’t mean that every man towers over every woman; nevertheless, it is an accurate relation of a general difference between the groups.

This brings us to an important point: While we must judge everyone as an individual, we must also judge every individual group as an individual group, for there are differences within groups but also differences among them. Thus, it makes no more sense to paint every group with the same brush than it does to paint every individual with the same brush.

My response to those who cannot or will not accept this is that if they can’t understand commentary written for adults, they shouldn’t read it. Besides, not all generalizations can be invalid simply because the statement that all generalizations are invalid is itself is a generalization.

In reality, implicit in leftist ideology is concurrence with this belief. Think about it: Modern dogma holds that diversity is one of the greatest qualities a society can enjoy, that it bestows many advantages. But what does this imply? Well, by definition “diversity” refers to differences among groups. Now, not only is it illogical to assume that every one of these differences will be flattering, the supposition that diversity is beneficial implies otherwise. After all, if diversity is beneficial, it is only because certain groups bring qualities or strengths to the table that others do not. And, if a given group possesses a certain unique strength, then other groups are wanting in that area relative to it.

Any which way you slice it, this is a corollary of diversity dogma.

So, ironically, despite the fact that the diversity dogmatists would eschew stereotyping, a version of it imbues their ideology. So it’s not that they don’t have biases relating to generalizations, only that their understanding of group differences is clumsy and primitive, sort of like Archie Bunker but with advanced degrees, the illusion of intellectualism and the inability to be honest with themselves and others. So let’s be honest now.

Stereotypes often arise because they have a basis in reality. For example, it was always said that Irishmen liked to drink. Once again, intelligent people know this doesn’t mean that every Irishman is a drunkard, but informed people might know something else: Ireland ranks number two in the world in per capita alcohol consumption next to Luxemburg (both people who live there can really tie one on).

Another difference among groups is that some are more patriarchal than others. We know that Moslem societies are quite so, as women are usually afforded fewer legal rights. In fact, Westerners will often emphasize and lament this difference as a way to burnish their credentials as a believer in women’s liberation.

In light of this, let’s now analyze the MSP’s statement that “Hispanic males are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised to be subservient.” Since some groups are more patriarchal than others, this can be true; and I venture to say that anyone who has had great contact with Hispanic people and possesses eyes and common sense will know it’s true.

As to these matters, Raul Caetano, Catherine L. Clark and Tammy Tam, three Ph.Ds who received a government grant to study common sense, implicitly vindicate two of the MSP’s assertions. They write in their paper, Alcohol Consumption Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities:

“One traditional explanation for heavy drinking patterns among Hispanic men, particularly Mexican-Americans, is the concept of ‘exaggerated machismo.’”

While these researchers didn’t accept or reject this explanation, they didn’t question the suppositions that Hispanic men drink too much and are “macho.” So then why are the Maryland State Police probably going to have to pay money for saying what these academics got money to say? Well, it neither serves the left’s agenda to sue a few eggheads nor can cash be extracted from them.

Besides, there is another factor: If a truth hurts, since you can’t destroy the Truth, you destroy the truth-teller.

And here is another truth. I have only one thing to say about the idea that Hispanics are reluctant to learn English: I’ve never been asked if I wanted to press two for German.
Stereotypes aren’t just woven into flawed leftist ideology (please forgive the redundancy) and million-dollar research substitutes for common sense, but also entertainment. Just think about all the times that whites are characterized as nerdy, lacking rhythm or liking mayonnaise (as to this, watch the movie Undercover Brother or Al Yankovic’s music video “White & Nerdy”). Yet, golfer Fuzzy Zoeller was practically clubbed to death for quipping that Tiger Woods shouldn’t request fried chicken or collard greens after the latter’s record-setting performance at the 1997 Masters tournament. (I was “startled” myself; since Woods’ mother hails from Thailand, I would have thrown in phat gapow). Seriously, though – or almost seriously – if whites can be smeared with mayonnaise, other groups can be coddled with their cuisines.

This isn’t to say that every stereotype or generalization – or what is known as a “profile” in the realm of law enforcement – is completely accurate. But when one is found wanting, it simply warrants the alteration of its flawed elements, not the throwing out of the baby with the bath water. If a difference is frivolous and fun, it should be a source of mirth; if it indicates greater ability, it should be applauded; and if the difference is damning, remedy should be sought.

But this standard won’t be embraced until we accept what is perhaps the most valid generalization of all: The leftist thought police are a menace to civilization and free speech. They are turning us into an ideological state, a place where ideology isn’t rejected when it departs from Truth but Truth is rejected when it departs from ideology.

As for remedy, the best antidote to political correctness is its opposite. We don’t have to speak and joke and talk and think in a way that pleases those who prove that infantilism doesn’t always peak in infancy. Instead, we should stand up for truth – be it in the form of wit, policy or paradigm – and those who speak it. Do this en masse and “startle” those thought police enough, and we just might be rid of them after all. That is, if they actually do have hearts.

More articles of real truth, like this and others, are at GalaxyVeracity.com.  Check back with us for new articles.

The Galaxy People.

Don't think we know what we are talking about?  Then why don't you login and leave a comment so you can set us straight.  - The Staff


Submit to FacebookSubmit to Twitter


Top Headline

Subversion Takeover of the USA

Ever wonder what is behind all of the Socialistic changes in the United States?  Where did it come from?  Who designed all of this? Read the following from a defected KGB agent from Soviet...


You Are Being Fooled By Illusion Of The Media

  Following is a part of the script from the movie "Network".  The movie won 4 academy awards in 1976.    The following script really hit home very much.  It was so true...


Many Democrats Are Socialist

Many of the Democrat Party in the United States are Socialist.  One of the many objects on the Socialist Agenda List is to confiscate private property of value and redistribute the...


Fabian Socialist Are Ruthless

The Fabian socialist is one of many flavors of political Socialism. Who are they? The main thing about the Fabian school of Socialist thought is to not use direct violence to implement Socialism...


Limousine Liberal Enclaves - Where Rich Socialist Live

  "



Top Headline

Guess Who Has A Psychopathic Personality?

Have you ever heard of Psychopathic Personality?
What is it? Well, it’s been around for a long time. It’s a mental disorder that was first identified in the early 19th century By a British Physician,...


Stereotyping Is Very Natural And Okay

Many people proclaim that stereotyping  other people  and events is wrong.  They say that it is prejudice.  If one is caught stereotyping they are immediately chastise and rebuked. It...


Cognitive Dissonance: Or How One Can't Admit They Made A Mistake


Human Intelligence Measured - Low IQ Parents have Stupid Kids

Yes, we are talking about IQ, the Intelligence Quotient.  Human culture revolves around IQ.  Low IQ means many problems in the human society.  The higher the IQ, means less problems. ...


Quotes & Facts

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have." -- Thomas Jefferson

If it is a fact, then it can't be known as "politically incorrect"

     "To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child. For what is man's lifetime unless the memory of past events is woven with those of earlier times?"     -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

     “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
  —John Adams

"Who controls the past controls the future.....
Who controls the present controls the past."
-- O'Brien in  Nineteen Eighty-Four
from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell


DMC Firewall is a Joomla Security extension!