- 04 May 2012 16:08
#13953086
I'm not "confusing" them, I am suggesting that the two are related and have origins in the same psychological vulnerabilities.
"Stereotype" is just a mimetic form of group-think. Fundamentally "Black people are ignorant because their genes are bad" is little different from "White people are criminals who owe reparations for slavery." The only real difference is their prevalence in society; stereotypes are just instances of group-think commonly held by individuals within a society.
Not that there's necessarily anything fundamentally wrong with group-think. A person maintaining a voluntary association with a group is signifying to others at least a strong agreement with the principles of that group. In the absence of information about the individual, information about the group necessarily must inform an outside observer. Informational limitations lie at the core of communication and opinion-forming in general, and this is just one consequence of that.
That is no more a justified belief than saying "oh, this fellow seems nice enough, he surely can't have set off a bomb in the past." Which would be an example of unjustified individual-think. Approaching people from only an individualist standpoint makes about as much sense as approaching them only from a collectivist standpoint. Both approaches are seriously flawed. Trying to imply that group membership has no impact on human beings is absurd. Trying to say that a group membership is the only thing that matters about a person is equally absurd. Both types of -think are important.
Justified stereotypes, which I think are rather few in number, are merely a valid form of group-think. You're engaging in group-think when you hold those stereotypes.
A child wants to walk across the street with oncoming traffic, their parent thinks this is a bad idea. The interest of the family takes precedence, and the parent stops the child. The child's interest--crossing the street--is suppressed in the interest of the family's well-being. You might try to argue that the child is incorrectly estimating their own interest, but how can you as an outside observer calculate the subjective value of investigating the other side of the street for that child? The child may well have evaluated the potential consequences and is perfectly willing to engage in the calculated risk of crossing the busy street to do so.
I chose this example not as a way to try to display paternalism in politics, but rather as a very clear and largely unambiguous example of a case where group interest supersedes individual preference. One that I would hope few libertarians would be able to reasonably dispute. I guess you can try to engage in some special pleading that the child's age makes their preferences inherently less important or something, but that's just bad logic.
Eran wrote:I think you are confusing stereotypes with group-think.
I'm not "confusing" them, I am suggesting that the two are related and have origins in the same psychological vulnerabilities.
By "stereotype" I mean opinions we have on people merely by virtue of their belonging to a group. Stereotypes can be justified ("African Americans are dark-skinned") or unjustified ("African Americans are ignorant"). Stereotypes fulfil in important role when information about individuals is unknown. When I walk down a dark street, and see a group of people approaching, I will understandably feel differently depending on whether the group is made of noisy teenagers vs. construction workers. The former tend towards violence more than the latter. I might have done them injustice individually, but under the circumstances, I have to go with the information at my disposal.
Group-think, on the other hand, applies ethical considerations at the group level. For example, a statement such as "white owe blacks reparations for the crime of slavery" does that. It groups all whites together, and makes a normative statement that applies to all group members based on actions of only some group members.
"Stereotype" is just a mimetic form of group-think. Fundamentally "Black people are ignorant because their genes are bad" is little different from "White people are criminals who owe reparations for slavery." The only real difference is their prevalence in society; stereotypes are just instances of group-think commonly held by individuals within a society.
Not that there's necessarily anything fundamentally wrong with group-think. A person maintaining a voluntary association with a group is signifying to others at least a strong agreement with the principles of that group. In the absence of information about the individual, information about the group necessarily must inform an outside observer. Informational limitations lie at the core of communication and opinion-forming in general, and this is just one consequence of that.
In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a stereotype would be to associated Palestinians with terrorism (partially justified). Group-think would be to claim that Palestinian refugees deserve to have lost their homes because "they started the 1948 war".
That is no more a justified belief than saying "oh, this fellow seems nice enough, he surely can't have set off a bomb in the past." Which would be an example of unjustified individual-think. Approaching people from only an individualist standpoint makes about as much sense as approaching them only from a collectivist standpoint. Both approaches are seriously flawed. Trying to imply that group membership has no impact on human beings is absurd. Trying to say that a group membership is the only thing that matters about a person is equally absurd. Both types of -think are important.
I don't have a problem with (justified) stereotypes. I have a big problem with group-think, typical of collectivists.
Justified stereotypes, which I think are rather few in number, are merely a valid form of group-think. You're engaging in group-think when you hold those stereotypes.
I'd like to ask people who view themselves as collectivists to give examples of when they view valuable group interests that are distinct from the interests of group members.
A child wants to walk across the street with oncoming traffic, their parent thinks this is a bad idea. The interest of the family takes precedence, and the parent stops the child. The child's interest--crossing the street--is suppressed in the interest of the family's well-being. You might try to argue that the child is incorrectly estimating their own interest, but how can you as an outside observer calculate the subjective value of investigating the other side of the street for that child? The child may well have evaluated the potential consequences and is perfectly willing to engage in the calculated risk of crossing the busy street to do so.
I chose this example not as a way to try to display paternalism in politics, but rather as a very clear and largely unambiguous example of a case where group interest supersedes individual preference. One that I would hope few libertarians would be able to reasonably dispute. I guess you can try to engage in some special pleading that the child's age makes their preferences inherently less important or something, but that's just bad logic.
- By Rich
- By ingliz
- By Unthinking Majority
- By Fasces