Stereotypes not all the same (No spam)

[CM]

I was reading the thread by WR and CE's comments in them and i was struck with the fact that people state that these stereotypes are bad and those stereotypes are bad. Of course they are bad. Its obvious. What is not obvious is that what someone from Europe may consider a stereotype is not what someone from Asia would consider one a stereotype.

Due to the over reaching arm of American culture we are assualted with the american views on stereotypes and not our own. I was just thinking right now that many of the stereotypes I hold are no way the same as ones that everybody else holds.

I will give you an example. When i think of am american. I do not think of a red neck hick as a stereotype. I think of an overly moralistic religious arrogant individual. I make no comment on their level of education or intelligence. Rather that they always believe they are right and the US is always right. That is how everybody in Pakistan and the middle east sees them. The concept of a dumb american stereotype has only gained importance after the election of president Bush Jr.

When it comes to Latin American people, i think of very moody and tempermental people. Passionate is not a word i would use in my stereotypes. These stereptypes are based on our own few and very limited contact with these people. They are based on our own personal preceptions and not on an over arching view that everybody holds to be the same and true for all.

[Xandax]

I'm not sure what you are wanting to discuss, or you are just "making a statement", however....

Sterotypes are usefull for humans because it helps us catagorize people we bearely know or have just met (or similar situations), and helps us form a concept of their behavoiur patterns and thus - what we can expect from people. It is easier to put people into boxes and then sort them out later as we get to know them - which is why "they" say the 3 first seconds you meet somebody is critical and first impressions are so critical, because they decide in which box you'll be placed to begin with.
This helps our view of the complex world.

When it does become a problem, is when people starting to take their little boxes for reality and can't see beyond their own perception of how the boxes are labled, and what behaviour pattern follows. This is then what makes sterotypes bad and harmful.

[CM]

Xandax I want the views of SYM on the above comments like all other threads . I am sorry if i did not mention it openly, i thought it would be self-explanatory again my bad.

Basically i wanted to know do people agree with the concepts that stereotypes differ from region to region. Or that there are over arching stereotypes that are for the lack of a better word universal.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM I was reading the thread by WR and CE's comments in them and i was struck with the fact that people state that these stereotypes are bad and those stereotypes are bad. Of course they are bad. Its obvious.

I agree, all stereotypes are bad because they remove us from reality. Stereotypes are simplifications, and they will decrease our interaction with and perception of, reality. It's like a filter.

However, we cannot avoid stereotyping since, like Xan posted, they are part of the human ability to generalise, which in turn is important for our learning ability. The important thing IMO is to keep your stereotypes flexible and adapt them according to incoming data.

Quote:

What is not obvious is that what someone from Europe may consider a stereotype is not what someone from Asia would consider one a stereotype.

Stereotypes exist both on cultural and individual level. Just as you describe, you can have your personal stereotyped image of something, that is probably not shared by other people from the same cultural background as you, or you can have a socioculturally conditioned stereotype image that you share with many other people from the same background.

Quote:

When i think of am american. I do not think of a red neck hick as a stereotype. I think of an overly moralistic religious arrogant individual. I make no comment on their level of education or intelligence. Rather that they always believe they are right and the US is always right. That is how everybody in Pakistan and the middle east sees them. The concept of a dumb american stereotype has only gained importance after the election of president Bush Jr.

The order is reversed compared to the Swedish stereotype of an American. To the classical "stupid American" (meaning ignorant and uneducated, not unintelligent) stereotype, the Dubbayah administration has added an image of religious fundamentalism and fanatic patriotism.

[Rob-hin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans I agree, all stereotypes are bad because they remove us from reality. Stereotypes are simplifications, and they will decrease our interaction with and perception of, reality. It's like a filter.

Remember that stereotypes are based on reality, indeed they are simplifications, but this does not mean that it decreases touch with reality. It simply gives a different starting point for interaction then starting on a clean sheet. The learning prosess doesn't end there though. Weather you start with a stereotype idea in mind or on a blank sheet, you will learn about these cultural differences, as they exist.

Problem with stereotypes is, in my opinion, that the uphold cultural differences. On the other hand, isn't it good that not al cultures are the same.

Weather all countries have the same steotypes of other countries, I'd have to say yes; simply since stereotypes are based on reality 90% of the time.

[Arrylium]

Hmmmm.... I'm not sure about regional stereotypes (which were the object of the thread) so I can't answer that - sorry.

I think stereotypes can be useful - only in some situations - because they can give you some idea what to expect from a certain person. I think they become dangerous when we allow our stereotypes to shape our opinion of a person, rather than our own experiences of that person. For isntance, if we believe a certain person to be arrogant, we may specifically notice or amplify instances of arrogance in them and gloss over instances of humility because that is what we expect of them, and we have decided whether they are arrogant before we know them. This just makes us keep thinking they're arrogant, and reinforces the stereotype.

[Xandax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob-hin Remember that stereotypes are based on reality, indeed they are simplifications, but this does not mean that it decreases touch with reality. It simply gives a different starting point for interaction then starting on a clean sheet. The learning prosess doesn't end there though. Weather you start with a stereotype idea in mind or on a blank sheet, you will learn about these cultural differences, as they exist. Problem with stereotypes is, in my opinion, that the uphold cultural differences. On the other hand, isn't it good that not al cultures are the same. Weather all countries have the same steotypes of other countries, I'd have to say yes; simply since stereotypes are based on reality 90% of the time.

Sterotypes aren't neasecarily based on reality. They are based on the subjective perception of "reality", which can be totally different then reality.

[arno_v]

I think stereotypes are based on some well known things or people. For instance, when you see Dubya, and you think he is stupid, you'll say he's American so all Americans are stupid. Or when you see something about weight problems in the US you'll say they are all fat. So it is based on reality, but only on a (very) small part of it.

[ik911]

Why is it the stereotype is never "normal guys, looking normal, normal intelligence, normal thoughts"?

Stereotypes are dangerous when they're negative. What sense could an Irishman make? They're always drunk, so I shouldn't believe them, right? Therefor it wouldn't make sense to contact an Irishman. Also, I hate war so I'm not talking to the warpuppies from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bastards. Always Jihad this, infidels that.

If I would think like this, the Pakistani and Irishmen wouldn't even get a chance to prove my stereotyping wrong. Also, as Arrylium mentioned, when I would talk to an Pakistani I would particulary notice the prowar things he/she says...

But whether it's wrong or right was not the question. Ofcourse the views are regional. Has to do with history, location and personal experience. For instance, the Belgians. The stereotyping Dutch people apply to them is undoubtebly different than the French or the Americans. Mexicans: Americans view them very differently than Europeans. And so forth.

[dragon wench]

So I have a question then. Is the term 'national traits' simply a euphemism for stereotypes?

I tend to think that stereotyping is highly dangerous, and I view people as individuals rather than as being from any particular nation. That being said, I'm often quite alarmed at how closely people match (I guess the Cdn perception of) national stereotype. I live in an area that attracts many international tourists, and I have worked in the tourist industry. I am at the point where I can tell where somebody is from just by the way they act and look even before they give themselves away by speaking. So what is going on here? Do people adopt a certain set of behaviours while travelling, sort of a cultural signifier that is broadcast to those of the same group? Have I, at a subconscious level, picked up on national clothing preferences and such ?

I can't help but wonder if the cliche about "no smoke without fire," holds at least a little validity. Discounting stereotypes that arise from bigotry, is it possible that some stereotypes develop from a small kernal of 'reality' (however one might wish to define it) and then become grossly amplified and distorted?

Though as CM observes, different nations hold contrasting stereotypes of the same groups. I would say that this is very true, and I'm guessing these stereotypes are shaped by experience. In Canada, perceptions held of the US are similar to those in Europe (but interestingly they are as much fueled by insecurities over national identity). To me, the Middle Eastern stereotyping of the average American makes a great deal of sense.... just look at history, especially the recent past.
Similarly, Canadians are frequently paranoid about national identity, they usually don't know if they want to be more influenced by the old colonial power of Britain, or the newer American one.. or if they actually want to develop a uniquely Canadian image
I can also say, given my own European background, and the fact that I've travelled extensively in Europe, that many Europeans like to sneer at Americans.. so again, the resulting stereotype is hardly surprising.

note: I say "Europe" here because in my own case, my background is composed of several diffent countries, so it is easier. I am clearly aware that Europe is made up distinct nations and cultures. If I appear to be generalising, I am referring to those countries with which I am most familiar: Holland, Germany, France, Norway and the UK. Many people I have encountered in all of these countries view the US with considerable disdain.

[jopperm2]

I know exactly what you mean about tourists. I can tell you that I saw probably 10,000 British men that looked alike when I worked for universal. Tall, skinny guys with thin hair on top, sunburned, wearing a soccor jersey. Either that or they were short and stocky with messy hair, still sunburned(I guess UV awareness is not big in the UK as they really don't have the kind of sunshine we do here) with a tattoo on the back of one calf. I can likewise pick out other nationalities by sight. Not to say they are all like that, but More are like that amoung those groups than any other.

Steroeotypes are based on experience or lack thereof. Say you meet during your life 100 British men. 75 of them fit that description above. There's no reason that if you were told that you were about to meet to 101st, you wouldn't think that he was going to probably look like that. Even if say 40 of them fit that description, 20 fit each of three other descriptions, you would still be justified in assuming that this one would fit description A. At least until you met the person you would have reason to assume other nonphysical traits as well. Things like enjoys soccer, likes tea, doesn't know what sunblock is.

Here's another one that people believe that is more negative: Jews are cheap or overly concerned with money. (I don't believe this so no one get affended please, it's a prevalent stereotype in America though.)

There's a reason based in reality for that one too. Long ago Christians were forbidden to charge interest on a loan of money that they made. It's called Usury. Jews did not have this restriction. So in order to make tons of easy money on a completely untapped market, a large amount of Jews went into banking. When Christians began to charge interest too they needed people with experience to manage the newly founded First Bank of Christ(okay, I"m sorta making that up) so they hired the first Jewish accountants. Most job training in those days was in the form of apprenticeships and since no self-respecting Christian of the time would apprentice a Jew and no self-respecting Jew of the time would be a christian's apprentice the jews stayed accountants. Father to son job training had an impact on that as well. So years down the road, while there are still disproportionate amounts of Jewish accountants we have this presumption that all Jews manage their wallet like a shrewd book keeper. It's a negative connotation these days, but it stems from them making a really great business decision a long time ago.

[Xandax]

A problem/issue is that many sterotypes aren't created by your own experiences, but what you have been told by media, friends, parents, religion etc.

Now if sterotypes were only based on personal beliefs, it wouldn't be so "dangerous", but because they can spread from a person to person, population group to group and so on, withouth any factual evidence, they are extreemly dangerous.
It is visible in many (all?) of the conflicts of this world.

[jopperm2]

Right! I actually meant to put something to that affect in my original post, but it got really long and I forgot.

If a person has no experience or evidence to form their own stereotypes(or just not enough, like someone who has met one person of a particular set) they will substitute whatever they can find be it fiction from TV or racist propaganda that is handed out by someone.

Sorry, that was a big point to leave out.

[ik911]

Yeah, I didn't have the time to finish my post, because I suddenly had to go, but that is my conclusion too. Stereotypes are often based on social history or maybe national history...

In the old days, when everything was good, Belgium belonged to the Netherlands. But the Belgians said "Hey! Give us independence!", and we said "Kay..." and since then the Belgians became dumb people. Their stereotype, that is. The stereotyping of Belgians is almost reduced to nil nowadays, but some jokes still remain. Also, I understood a similar story can be told from the Belgian viewpoint. (moltovir?)

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob-hin Remember that stereotypes are based on reality, indeed they are simplifications, but this does not mean that it decreases touch with reality. It simply gives a different starting point for interaction then starting on a clean sheet.

This I disagree with. Like other have already pointed out, stereotypes can origin from media, fiction like movies and books, or anything, not necessarily based on even a grain of truth. Let me give two different types of examples:

1. Erranous interpretation. For a long time, Europeans held an erranous stereotype image of Africa and Africans, due to the misinterpretations and sometimes outrights lies by the European colonisers.

2. Overgeneralisation. In the 1930's, a new method for open heart surgery was tried on 7 patients with lethal heart condition, and they all got cured. Ti was decided that this new method should be implemented. However, the following 100 patients died of the surgery. Later trials have demonstrated that only about 1/100 will survive this operation, it was just that the first surgeon happened to get 7 cases in a row, just like you can happen to throw the same number on a dice several consecutive times.

Stereotyping always pose a risk because people may have integrated their culturally transmitted stereotypes already, before they have any personal experience, and use them as a filter to bias the reality presented to them.

Quote:

Weather all countries have the same steotypes of other countries, I'd have to say yes; simply since stereotypes are based on reality 90% of the time.

I think you are incorrect: just look back in history when media was not as cross-culturally influencial as it is today, and you see vast differences in how different cultures depict a certain other culture. Compare what cultures who do not have much contact with each other, differ in regard to how they view other groups of people that they are both know exist.

IK's story about Belgians demonstrate that even within such similar cultures and Sweden and the Netherlands there are major differences. Belgians are not at all viewed as stupid according to the Swedish stereotype. The Swedish stereotype would be that Belgians eat a lot. The stupid ones used to be the Norwegians (they were in union with Sweden but became independent 1917). Not the Danish or the Finns, strangely, although Denmark and Finland also once belonged to an extented Swedish nation.

If stereotypes were based mostly on reality, we would live in paradise compared to now.