ah my bad. don’t have an answer to that question at this time.

i mean i’ve been ignoring Biden’s garbage capitulation to the false framing that immigrants are doing crime and rapes en masse and that this is a serious concern.

i’m gonna ignore it into the future but i’ve been ignoring it too.

Love this explanation, thank you!

And some of the determinants of what makes valid- versus over-application are knowledge, cognition and time.

• I don’t have training in foraging, so without that knowledge I use stereotypes to avoid danger
• Children have lower cognition, so we tell them to stereotype that all strangers are dangerous until they are older
• A woman walking alone at night may not have time to examine her biases, and so uses stereotypes to keep herself safe

I am interested to know if there are other determinants as well. :)

excellent breakdown 🙂

🙌🙌 poignant advice

I actually often see drivers smile and wave at me, disproving that they are unaware, and nevertheless I do not adjust my beliefs in the context of maximizing my road safety as a pedestrian.

Woo the first real answer that just doesn’t argue with my semantics, and also really well written!

Yes, and I think the context, as you emphasize, is so key here. In situations that are vulnerable to the point of being time sensitive, interrogating one’s biases is absolutely valid to do later (or even better, before).

I am noticing a pattern in (what I consider to be) the real answers in that they mostly apply in situations where cognition is limited in some sense. Children have limited cognition so we tell them “stranger danger” and “cars can’t see you.” But, as we know from your example, cognition can also be limited by time which means that gut instincts and stereotypes often apply in dangerous situations as well.

Thanks for your comment!

“Don’t eat red berries, many red berries signify poison”.

The subject of the stereotype (red berries) even in your own example is still kept within its normal context (consumption). I will be keeping my own original understanding of “stereotype” for this reason. :)

The statement “a stereotype can never be constructive because it will always involve the need to be restrictive and limiting in order to be a stereotype” suggests that stereotypes inherently confine individuals to a set of predetermined traits, limiting their full and diverse expression.

However, stereotypes can be context-dependent and their restrictiveness can vary. For instance, in some contexts, certain conservatives might falsely believe that exposure to trans identities manipulates people into becoming trans, which is a restrictive stereotype. Yet, in other contexts, these same individuals may engage with trans identities through media consumption (fetishization; pornography), which contradicts the initial stereotype.

This example demonstrates that stereotypes can shift and are not universally restrictive. The fluidity of stereotypes based on context suggests that while they often limit and confine, their impact can vary, revealing a more complex and sometimes contradictory nature.

As far as the car example, of course the graffiti tagger is no longer going to hold the same stereotype true when they cease pedestrian activities—because the context has changed.

I like this enough, as long as you make the genuine effort to identify when you are shown otherwise :) I was thinking the same—I usually am very wary of every unfamiliar email or phone call as phishing or scam until given counter evidence.

hmm i guess im confused why you find this to be constructive? whom or what does it benefit?

A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

I agree with this definition. :)

Is a driver a type of person?

Why wouldn’t they be? Also note the or thing at the end there. A driver can refer to both human drivers and autonomous vehicles. But either way, every driver in history has been a person or thing.

“Asians are good at math”. An example of a positive stereotype, which are also corrosive to the people they are applied to.

Positive, yes. Constructive, as I ask in my post, no. There is a reason I worded the question the way I did. Positive stereotypes might seem flattering, but they place undue pressure and expectations on individuals, which can be harmful. This isn’t a counterexample so much as an example that is not valid, and glad to see we agree here.

“a woman driver probably doesn’t see pedestrians”—A negative stereotype that makes you sound sexist but also probably makes you more cautious as a pedestrian, but not as cautious as assuming any given driver could end your life.

So, we have to weigh the pros and cons. While such a stereotype might encourage cautiousness around women drivers, the perpetuation of patriarchal values that result in violence and exclusion against women is far more harmful. Therefore, applying gender to road safety is not constructive because the negative impacts significantly outweigh any potential benefits.

Tldr: do you know what a stereotype is?

A mean way to end this, come on man. :( Let’s remember to follow community rule 1: “be nice and have fun.”

Sounds like your definition of stereotype innately excludes instances not involving demographics, such as gender or disability. While I think it’s valid to have this definition, it isn’t universal and isn’t the definition that I am applying my question to so there isn’t anything I can glean from this. Thank you for your response.

Valid I suppose. Oxford Learner’s does allow for it to apply for non-people “things” though; I just think the word and its use has shifted so far (due to progress in the field of confronting and attacking negative stereotypes) that that element has almost been redefined out of existence in the minds of most people.

If you have posted a comment and I haven’t responded yet, don’t assume I am ignoring you. My instance/.world seems to be super behind with federating comments so I can’t reply to them till they show up here sorry! :(

The Asian/math example is often called ‘positive,’ yes, but I would never call it constructive. There’s a reason I chose the wording of my post. Same goes for Latine/x people and “hard work”—that’s ‘positive’ but in no way constructive (and in fact is hateful and detrimental) and so outside of my question altogether.

I am encouraging people to think of stereotypes that are both “positive” and constructive. I often find they apply to children. Like “mushrooms you find on the ground are poisonous,” or “all bears want to eat you.” But… people aren’t taking to my description I guess.

hmm

i’d need evidence to call this valid, how has this shown itself to be constructive in your experience ?

you discovered the importance of multiple non-associated fact checking institutions holding one another accountable :)

In theory true. In reality not true.

While U.S. biofuel use rose from 0.37 to 1.34 EJ/yr over this period, additional carbon uptake on cropland was enough to offset only 37 % of the biofuel-related biogenic CO2emissions. This result falsifies the assumption of a full offset made by LCA and other GHG accounting methods that assume biofuel carbon neutrality. Once estimates from the literature for process emissions and displacement effects including land-use change are considered, the conclusion is that U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2emissions. study

Not passing judgement on anything, just putting the facts out there that I happen to know :) Biofuel may or may not be a good tool to move toward more sustainability, and it’s certainly better than petrol.