Are stereotypes real? Can they be avoided?

[Character from a movie]

When I was younger, I used to believe stereotypes were a myth. As I grew up, I realized that not only they're very much real, but also you can't escape from them. So I accepted the fact that people can be stereotypical, but that meant I was a walking stereotype as well. And nobody wants to be that.
I'm not sure if one can fight against the stereotypes that "define" them, and try to overcome them, or just accept they're unchangeable. At least some of them.
And the other downside is, stereotypes fill you with prejudice, which makes socializing more difficult and narrows your outlook on the world.
I suppose an alternate approach would be to see stereotypes as the "mayority rule". For example, if people believe that jews are greedy, maybe not 100% of all jews are so, but 80% of them. So the stereotype still stands, but you are aware that it isn't 100% true.

Edit:
I changed the title because the real question for this thread is whether any person can do something to stop or avoid the stereotypes associated to them. Continuing with the example, could a jewish person stop or avoid being greedy? or is it impossible due to some "nature or nurture" rule? do jews just accept they're greedy, or can they try to change that?

 

[SilkGnut]

Stereotypes are just the result of repeated observations. They may not hold true 100% of the time, but they almost always exist for a reason, and it seems odd to me that nowadays they are seen as ideas that manifest from thin air solely because of some sort of innate hatred.

I suppose one could dismiss the idea of discerning certain traits commonly displayed by groups as inherently biased, as nobody can interact with every single member of a population, but since humanity ultimately functions by making assumptions based on their observations, doing so feels like it would sacrifice an individual's ability to understand reality for themselves.

 

[Prophetic Spirit]

Yes, but not entirely 100%.
I'm gonna be honest, i love analyze people's behavior. And if one thing is repeated along so many i've see in my life, is hypocrisy.

 

[Mnutu]

To recognize a stereotype in yourself and overcome it requires self-reflection, discipline, and a strong sense of self. All three of these are difficult and rare, because they’re not necessarily good survival traits in the wild. Humanity has only really taken to discipline fairly recently, the other two traits spring from that, and are slowly being incorporated.

 

[Character from a movie]

To recognize a stereotype in yourself and overcome it requires self-reflection, discipline, and a strong sense of self. All three of these are difficult and rare, because they’re not necessarily good survival traits in the wild. Humanity has only really taken to discipline fairly recently, the other two traits spring from that, and are slowly being incorporated.

Why are self-reflection and discipline not good survival traits in the wild?

 

[Mnutu]

Why are self-reflection and discipline not good survival traits in the wild?

Discipline is the best survival trait to select for, the problem is that it leads to self-reflection, which leads to a stronger sense of self. This ties back to the main question of stereotypes; it’s inevitable that even a minimally disciplined individual will eventually weigh themselves against the group and question why certain tasks are done or certain behaviors are encouraged rather than just acting them out. This causes social instability, which is a major vulnerability.

Keep in mind, I’m completely talking out of my ass and really just spitballing; I thought your question was interesting to mull over.

 

[Character from a movie]

Discipline is the best survival trait to select for, the problem is that it leads to self-reflection, which leads to a stronger sense of self. This ties back to the main question of stereotypes; it’s inevitable that even a minimally disciplined individual will eventually weigh themselves against the group and question why certain tasks are done or certain behaviors are encouraged rather than just acting them out. This causes social instability, which is a major vulnerability.

Keep in mind, I’m completely talking out of my ass and really just spitballing; I thought your question was interesting to mull over.

No, no. Your opinion is quite insightful, it gave me something to think. I know that stereotypes and idiosyncrasy are closely related, but I wonder if they aren't actually the same thing.

 

[jje100010001]

Stereotypes are just the result of repeated observations. They may not hold true 100% of the time, but they almost always exist for a reason, and it seems odd to me that nowadays they are seen as ideas that manifest from thin air solely because of some sort of innate hatred.

I suppose one could dismiss the idea of discerning certain traits commonly displayed by groups as inherently biased, as nobody can interact with every single member of a population, but since humanity ultimately functions by making assumptions based on their observations, doing so feels like it would sacrifice an individual's ability to understand reality for themselves.

I wonder if it's sort of like Psychohistory in Asimov's Foundation, that there are observable and predictable trends/shifts in societies and cultures, but these are less predictable in individuals due to personal deviations?

 

[Haim Arlosoroff]

Are patterns in behavior avoidable, especially over the decades as things become fixed in your life as your choices led to outcomes? No, ultimately its a matter of being the right stereotype rather than the bad type. If I am capable of being fair, or dutiful rather than someone who chooses rock in rock, paper, scissors consistently or someone who resembles a Jew.

The truth is that young people don't understand half of what they're looking at and so see no stereotypes, and older folks have seen so much more and recognize it too much to not see stereotypes. I wouldn't accuse a jewish person amongst the gentiles of being Jewish as a pejorative without their behavior confirming it. However I would assume a jew would act stereotypically if they are regularly around jews but especially if they aren't just around jews. People culturally signal when they are around someone who will notice the signal but also around those who won't. However later that reflex and act will become noticed, and the stereotype is born. Jews, assuming the goyim are going to kill them later but not now will cheat the goyim and spend it on their fellow jews. The host population will notice that they are being parasited but not why, and form jewish stereotypes.

Black populations do this, black people act entirely different around white strangers once they have a few blacks around them. I assume whites do so too, but as we are so hounded about it I genuinely couldn't tell you what we signal to each other. Fatigue, I imagine? I imagine we seem very tired, everyone else has a space to call their own but us who have to listen to people bitch about not having space to vent about our poor behaviors. Cold and distant too, that would be how white people probably act stereotypically.

Individuals may notice that they do this, but the majority won't. So the patterns, although sometimes from an outsiders point-of-view only, persist and are real. Especially when they are self-fulfilling. The stereotype causes a fixed reaction (which itself is a stereotype) which then justifies the stereotype. Blacks are violent, so whites exclude them justifying the hatred. Jews assume the host population will turn on them, so they parasite them trying to gather enough resources to survive. Everyone is a victim of their circumstances, but the meme of multiculturalism isn't strong enough to solve the problem.

Discipline is the best survival trait to select for, the problem is that it leads to self-reflection

Intelligence leads to less offspring too, a lot of higher traits factually lead to poor social outcomes and sterility. Brutal honesty too. Social traits rely on too much on conformity, and skills too much on not having your work stolen, for great people to just become common things.

Psychohistory

Remember how it turns out though, eventually the small environmental changes produce a person entirely outside psychohistory who ruins the whole plan of the first foundation anyway. Frank Herbert's Dune also suggests Great Men whose contrasting spirits fit exactly against an acknowledged social fault can produce huge outcomes. Jackie Fisher took an aging navy who was beginning to bloat and ossify and scrapped most of the fleet for pre-dreadnoughts. If he hadn't done that Britain would have had enlarged HMS Polyphemus's for a battleship fleet. Great men are strong personalities who are trusted by their populations rightfully or not. Psychohistory died to Asimov's great man.

 

[Considered HARMful]

Remember how it turns out though, eventually the small environmental changes produce a person entirely outside psychohistory who ruins the whole plan of the first foundation anyway.

That was IMO the weakest and most forced part of the whole premise: a Mary Sue mixed with deux ex machina. Jump-the-shark moment of the series.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I wonder if it's sort of like Psychohistory in Asimov's Foundation, that there are observable and predictable trends/shifts in societies and cultures, but these are less predictable in individuals due to personal deviations?

It's not even personal deviations, really. Asimov was a trained chemist and his idea of psychohistory was to apply the science of chemistry to human beings. As in, you can not predict how any particular particle will act / mix / react, but you can predict the average for a large volume of liquid.

Humans have a huge bias for the personal. Everything we experience is through the biased world view where we are at the center of the experience. Even if you go to listen to someone else's speech, you're still experiencing that from your own seat, with your own emotional wiring.

---

One of the principle intellectual evils that people have gotten infected by, is the nullification of great theories. In order to make the west swallow mass immigration, it was fundamental to always ask for a kneejerk response to look at the personal.

Aristotle said that you have to use the right level of magnification for the problem that you're addressing. For example, you can't look at the personal to solve growing crime rates; you have to look at the large shifts in society (e.g. mass immigration, race, culture). At the same time, you can't look at race / culture just to solve a single crime case; you have to look at the base personal facts what you know about each person who is a suspect.

If there was a life threatening situation (assume covid was deadly for non-obese people under 70) it may well be a smart choice for chinese to lock-up in prisons the non-chinese in their territories. White people are too independent minded. They disagree with the directions. Black people don't understand or care about them. Lock them up. Is that prejudice? Well you're solving the problem.

That moment you decide the person in front of you at night might be dangerous based on superficial characteristics? Well your prejudice might be keeping you alive. Since we never have 100% information, we are in a constant state of prejudice in every decision we make.

 

[Character from a movie]

No, ultimately its a matter of being the right stereotype rather than the bad type.

I agree, though I made this thread with negative stereotypes in mind. I'm a pessimistic person, so I would say positive stereotypes are rare and not always true. Besides, when have you heard people saying, for example, that jews are hard-working and honest? It's the bad stereotypes that prevail.

People culturally signal when they are around someone who will notice the signal but also around those who won't.

That's right, you deal with one or two chinese at the time and they can be great people. You deal with a bunch of them and they're the worst thing ever. Their idiosyncrasy grow stronger when they're together

As you mentioned, stereotypes are just traits and behaviors. I believe a person can change some of them, if he or she is aware, but others are so ingrained in his or her culture that it's impossible to get rid of them.

 

[Haim Arlosoroff]

Besides, when have you heard people saying, for example, that jews are hard-working and honest? It's the bad stereotypes that prevail.

Well, the Amish are hard-working. The Orthodox throw holy water on their fighter jets, which I think is a hardcore warrior ethos. The French are romantic about their politics which while being a source of all their problems is also a solution which was made them a nation of workable socialism. The Swiss are the only successful multiculturalists because of their federalism and power sharing. The Taliban and Vietcong are winners because those fuckers live harshly enough that they want things longer than America can focus. La raza cósmica is strangely compelling in its optimism.

The problem is that there is thought to be a problematic nature to positive collectivism; half on the right that any social condition cannot be improved by forbidding profit, and half on the left that thinks nationalism is always evil and so they destroy the spirit of every nation nowadays. Both have made insects of humanity, we lack an uplifting nature to our culture and we scurry away from any collective action which could improve our situations.

That's right, you deal with one or two chinese at the time and they can be great people. You deal with a bunch of them and they're the worst thing ever. Their idiosyncrasy grow stronger when they're together

The Icelandic people used to exaggerate their clothing to match the Norse fashions only more so, because they were signalling that they were a part of Norse culture even if distantly. Japanese suicidal warrior culture after the effects of the Gen'yōsha group and the Taishō period was an attempt at merging the pre-Seinan War world to the 1920s. A Shogunate world empire to make the culture match the surroundings of the average Japanese.

People become agitated when their central worldviews are pressed up against another people that do not share worldviews with the first group. Individuals cannot sustain their inner mindset surrounded by the outsider, but in packs of like-minded fellows it returns. It is the nature of man to be tribal, we either make a society that pushes that toward self-improvement and social benefit or we confound it and become a nihilistic culture that learns to not value their heart's desires sullenly. You can tell what the white man chose, I would say the majority of the world is choosing this. Certainly China is suffering from materialistic nihilism where their Gen Z are just not responding to civic traditions at all.

As you mentioned, stereotypes are just traits and behaviors. I believe a person can change some of them, if he or she is aware, but others are so ingrained in his or her culture that it's impossible to get rid of them.

Evolution will never select for loners who question their conformity, unless the host culture is toxic to children so thoroughly that those most disgusted by the conformity outbreed those who conform to their cultural flow in the course of their lives. That is rare, although I mean historically rare. Today, it is practically liquid charisma, people light up to meet people that have it together. I've met lost people who were strangely protective of my family because at least someone has to make it in this life. The majority are conformists even so.

Until our way of life changes, we will not change and our appalling nihilism and relentless stereotyping are a product of multiculturalism's failures.