How accurate are generalisations? And what is wrong about them?
How accurate are stereotypes and generalisations?
A lot of people on this site seem to dislike them. I've got to say that I generalise and stereotype a lot, but ONLY ON WHAT I KNOW... NOT on what I DONT KNOW.
For instance - I live around a lot of black people. I've got tons of friends, enemies, acquaintances etc. that are black. Why would any generalisation I make about them be wrong?
However, if I was to make a generalisation about Scottish people - I would only be making it off what I've seen on TV or Movies. Therefore it would be wrong of me to do so.
So any stereotypes I make of black people would be accurate no? Any stereotype I make of scottish people would most likely not be accurate yes?
And what is wrong about a generalisation that is based on facts? Rather than generalisations based on off-hand/no experience?
|
2
points
I agree with you that if you stereotyped Scottish people when you knew very few of them, it would be wrong of you to do so because of media influence. However, when you stereotype people based on first hand knowledge of them, for example black people, you have to be aware that your knowledge is of black people in a certain region which may not be a consistent view outside of your region. And with your example of a generalisation, it's not even race consistent. You may be speaking of Negroid, Australoid, Mongoloid or the darker Caucasoid. You may even be speaking about someone who is white but has some form of heritage within a predominately black community. Yes that is true. However people have to understand the generalisation too. For example - when I say black people, then it obviously means black people in England and more specifically in London or Urban Blacks. Obviously black communities would be different in other continents. Now it is probably accurate to American, Canadian and South American societies too and probably other western European countries. But to use it to generalise blacks in Africa, Carribeans, Asia, Australia etc. would be innaccurate. It depends on the context - but generally generalisations seem to be frowned upon even when they are accurate. 1
point
If the generalisation is clarified so that the reader understands that this is the case, that's a fairly accurate way of describing attributes when you don't neccesarily have stats to back you up. The only problem really is when the generalisations aren't clarified and aren't accurate. Accuracy? It depends on the topic. If you're talking about racial stereotyping (based on the description you mainly are talking about that) it would be about experience. If you live in a really diverse place most of your generalizations about other races will be correct. People may hate it and call you racist but that's their problem. Generalizations in most topics are mainly based on opinion instead of fact. That's why people in a debate don't like it and see it as a flaw. I personally like making generalizations. But I try not to in a debate. 2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
They are accurate enough for people to believe that they are mostly accurate, but not accurate enough to explain for all of the exceptions. Generalizations are enough to protect people from what they fear. But, what's going to protect them from their phobias? Side: Misleading
1
point
|
