Pattern recognition through human interaction - Which group of people do you hold apprehension towards?

[The Last Stand]

I am an individualist in principle; I do not just judge any particular person because of the actions of a group. That said, if you had bad experiences from a person pertaining in that demographic, your brain would assume that X demographic is always like that or to be hesitant around that person.

The long and short of pattern recognition is when you experience something that repeats over time and you label it as such for the future. Example: learning the order of the alphabet at a young age. We all do it subconsciously.

Now, this goes into how we perceive certain demographics through personal experience. This could lead into a level of prejudice or bias against somebody through your perceived experiences around it. Is that good or bad? I would not know.

 

[Brightstar777]

That is probably Good and will save you a lot of trouble in the long run, for example pajeets are usually scammers so I don't deal with them and I have a peace of mind since then.

 

[The Last Stand]

, for example pajeets are usually scammers so I don't deal with them and I have a peace of mind since then.

That's actually why I made this pondering thread in the first place.

My field of work is in technical support. Occasionally, I work with Indians. Almost every interaction I have with them is negative based on their work ethic, harsh accent, and general perception of them being scammers as you said. I don't HATE Indians; I just don't like working with them in context of what I mentioned.

That also goes with the pattern recognition theory I mentioned. Those phony tech support calls to phish information from people mainly originate from India or Nigeria.

 

[The Blue Morpho]

You can generalize about groups using a collection of data from many individuals, and this is completely sound and can glean a lot of useful information. Crime rate statistics, etc. You have a much harder time generalizing down from that information back onto individuals. Its mostly one-way unless the numbers are borderline deterministic. That's not to say you should never use that information to inform your decisions, but it also has to be acknowledged that individuals have agency and the ability to defy whatever may be generally true about people similar to them. There's no real contradiction there, as far as I'm concerned. Understand groups but deal with individuals.

 

[The Last Stand]

Its mostly one-way unless the numbers are borderline deterministic.

Define deterministic. Can you give an example?

You can generalize about groups using a collection of data from many individuals, and this is completely sound and can glean a lot of useful information. Crime rate statistics, etc.

That's an easy example.

 

[Brightstar777]

That's actually why I made this pondering thread in the first place.

My field of work is in technical support. Occasionally, I work with Indians. Almost every interaction I have with them is negative based on their work ethic, harsh accent, and general perception of them being scammers as you said. I don't HATE Indians; I just don't like working with them in context of what I mentioned.

That also goes with the pattern recognition theory I mentioned. Those phony tech support calls to phish information from people mainly originate from India or Nigeria.

most Indians worship false idols so I don't expect them to perform in any aspect of life

 

[The Blue Morpho]

Define deterministic. Can you give an example?

If the statistics show such an extreme correlation between group membership and a behavior, like in excess of .5, then I would call that deterministic. You are not illogical for expecting that behavior will be present in someone from a group given the probabilities at play.

That's an easy example.

Which is why I brought it up. Everyone on this site probably knows a bit about racial crime statistics. But thats also a good demonstration of the limits of this thinking. It is true, but it is also very low-resolution and hard to apply. Black men commit 50% of violent crime, but the actual percentage of black men doing these behaviors compared to the total population is still relatively low and there are obviously other factors within the racial category that can be used to parse out more actionable information. Do blacks from some areas or ethnic backgrounds commit most of the crime? Is it based on economic status or background? I think you can see what I mean.

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

Which is why I brought it up. Everyone on this site probably knows a bit about racial crime statistics. But thats also a good demonstration of the limits of this thinking. It is true, but it is also very low-resolution and hard to apply. Black men commit 50% of violent crime, but the actual percentage of black men doing these behaviors compared to the total population is still relatively low and there are obviously other factors within the racial category that can be used to parse out more actionable information. Do blacks from some areas or ethnic backgrounds commit most of the crime? Is it based on economic status or background? I think you can see what I mean.

You mean like how SJWs assume that because most rich people are white, most white people are rich and we should discriminate against them based on race, or how people assume that because Jews have a disproportionate representation amongst the elite, all Jews rule the world?

 

[The Last Stand]

Black men commit 50% of violent crime, but the actual percentage of black men doing these behaviors compared to the total population is still relatively low and there are obviously other factors within the racial category that can be used to parse out more actionable information. Do blacks from some areas or ethnic backgrounds commit most of the crime? Is it based on economic status or background? I think you can see what I mean.

With that, pattern recognition can be skewed from manipulating data for a purpose. That can be said for anything. Here's another example I was thinking: you have bad experiences from cops in one area compared to another. Would you judge those experiences on the policing in that area or cops in general?

I don't mean to derail it into a crime rate statistic debate itself. I'm sure there's other examples of that psychological theory.

 

[eDove]

Loud women. I have yet to meet one who wasn't neurotic, deranged, or evil.

 

[The Blue Morpho]

You mean like how SJWs assume that because most rich people are white, most white people are rich and we should discriminate against them based on race, or how people assume that because Jews have a disproportionate representation amongst the elite, all Jews rule the world?

Yes exactly. To your second point, its very obvious Jews are over-represented in certain groups of people who seem to be nefariously pulling strings, like bankers and hedge fund managers and AIPAC lobbyists. And that is true, and there are very good and rational and well-evidenced reasons for this and some of those reasons even cast Jews in a bad light. Does that mean little old Nana Shekelstein on her way to temple in her babushka is a Zionist elite or that she feasts on gentile-foreskins to fuel her Jew powers? Of course not.

I encourage noticing, but tempered with critical thinking to avoid becoming too reductionist. Indeed I see noticing as a key component of critical thinking, and unfortunately it is a component that many people have been browbeaten and conditioned to let atrophy.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I do not just judge any particular person because of the actions of a group.

"You can't judge all pitbulls! My baby shitbull would never eat me aliv--AHHHHH!!!"

 

[The Last Stand]

I encourage noticing, but tempered with critical thinking to avoid becoming too reductionist. Indeed I see noticing as a key component of critical thinking, and unfortunately it is a component that many people have been browbeaten and conditioned to let atrophy.

I wonder how psychology majors/experts feel about their concepts being diluted into simple memes for elementary entertainment. I'd be mad as hell.

 

[Chongqing]

When an Arabic speaking man is yelling, I know he's only a hair away from physical violence.

 

[Fascist Frederick]

I assume the worst from all Indians because there is no negative consequence for doing so. If I'm wrong nothing changes, if I'm right, I don't get scammed. If I unfairly judge 99 Indians but correctly judge 1, it's worth it.

 

[Cnidarian]

Homosexual men have been just as narcissistic as trannies in my personal experience.

 

[The Last Stand]

It's very handy for AI as well. I know photo library software can detect faces and intelligently categorize and sort them based on facial recognition from pictures. I suppose we're no different from machines.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Is that good or bad?

It depends on how you handle it, and it also depends on your circumstances and environment; it's "good" if you don't let it get out of hand.

Meaning it should never cloud your skepticism on either way, and to put things into perspective, because at the end of the day, prior to the discovery on whether that individual is bad or not, you're taking an educated guess that mostly relies in statistics based on experience and anecdotes, and an assumption that the group this individual is in is what makes them bad, but you won't know for sure until you interact with them.

Until you know the root-cause (maybe they share a specific culture, not even from India but a part of it, or even from similar circumstances like with some immigrants, maybe they're not being paid enough, probably a mixture of things) you can only refer to this vague pattern (them being Indian) to be wary of such people.

That is "good" for self-preservation so to speak, but it may be unfair if you don't want to work with someone who happens to be good & polite that is Indian. It is somewhat understandable though, and if at all possible, maybe giving them a chance is a redeeming quality for being biased due to statistics.

 

[Historical Strelkov]

Pattern recognition made me racist and xenophobic out of self-presevation.
I didn't even want to be.

 

[The Last Stand]

Until you know the root-cause (maybe they share a specific culture, not even from India but a part of it, or even from similar circumstances like with some immigrants, maybe they're not being paid enough, probably a mixture of things) you can only refer to this vague pattern (them being Indian) to be wary of such people.

I have heard if you're going to be racist, at least travel around the world.

That is "good" for self-preservation so to speak, but it may be unfair if you don't want to work with someone who happens to be good & polite that is Indian.

I can work with anybody well enough. Just do what you have to do. Here's another example: I don't like college group projects because if one person doesn't pull their weight, somebody else has to.

I encourage noticing, but tempered with critical thinking to avoid becoming too reductionist. Indeed I see noticing as a key component of critical thinking, and unfortunately it is a component that many people have been browbeaten and conditioned to let atrophy.

When you said that, I immediately thought of racial profiling. Say you're an Asian corner store keeper, you're more aware towards Black people because you live in the hood. Or you're a cop that assumes an article of clothing means you're up to trouble.