Stereotypes

Men and women are different. Duh. Everyone knows it's true and yet why, in some circumstances, does it feel so...evil...so 18th century...so non-PC (politically correct, for those living in a cave) to say it?

And what about statements like "Indians are..." or "Italians are..." or "Canadians are..."? Why do they feel so wrong to say? Okay, sometimes such things are said out of hatred and are clearly lies propagated at the expense of certain cultures and that's undoubtedly the source of aversion to such comments. However, what about other generalized observations that are not hate-mongering but observation and opinion? Are they wrong? Are they misguided? Are they made by small-minded people who only see a narrow section of the world. Not necessarily.

I'm sure we've all had an experience where a comment is made, eg: the French are rude. But we know many very nice French people so the statement is clearly wrong. Or 'Americans will sell you the shirt off their back if they can make some money'. But we know many Americans not like that. So what's the deal? Clearly stereotypes are inaccurate at the least and maybe flat-out wrong. But are they?

I believe the difficulty with stereotypes comes from a small twist that the human mind does when moving from groups to individuals. We interpret the phrase 'Italians love soccer (football for the Europeans)' as 'All Italians love soccer'. It's a subtle, misleading and ultimately inaccurate interpretation that leads easily to the mathematical assertion 'Gianni is Italian, therefore he must love soccer'. However, I can tell you from experience that I know many Italians who don't love soccer. Yet, during the world cup, we hear on the news of great parties throughout Italy (and I’ve filmed one of my own). What's the deal?

Now, I'm hardly the first think on this topic and for a great sci-fi story based around the idea, read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Basically stereotypes can be highly accurate (if made intelligently and not out of hatred or bias) for describing a population--a large group of individuals of similar background (cultural, occupational, etc)--even if they don't, and generally they won't, apply to the individual. What?!

Think of it this way. An 'accurate' stereotype (to distinguish it from the hatred type) can be seen as a statement describing an 'average' individual of the population; an individual that, in most cases, doesn't exist in reality. If you view a population statistically, as possessing individuals that each have traits ranging over an entire spectrum of possibilities, you will generally find, not an even distribution over those possibilities, but a distribution in which there is a very obvious excess around certain values--this produces, for example, a 'bell-shaped (Gausian) curve' where most (generally two-thirds) of the population will have similar characteristics, tending somewhat to one side or the other of the stereotype. In other words, while no individuals will be the average, most may be close enough in some ways, to support the stereotype (mathematically, only about five percent will be so far out as to be the 'weirdos'.)

This argument may still not be convincing if we think only of one trait. You can say 'well, none of the people I know voted for George Bush'. That might be true, but still half of the country did (ok, this is not the place to discuss rigged ballots and biased voting machines). The important thing is that the population is made up of a huge number of individuals each of whom will fall into a different place on the curve when a different characteristic/philosophy is examined. Thus, on the whole, stereotypes can be valid for a society even if they are not (and generally they won't be) for an individual.

So? Why should I care?

Well, stereotypes have 'great' uses in a scientific society, just ask any politician or advertising executive. They are an excellent way, not only to develop products that will sell, but as a means to guide (or, more harshly, control) a population. If you know how the majority feels on an issue (that two-thirds on the curve) you can plan accordingly.

In a democratic country, one could argue that this is the Achilles heal of the society, since it makes the entire population susceptible to control by the few. It is a very simple thing to move from understanding the stereotypes (now I can use the more common term 'demographics') to using it and then to, ultimately, controlling and influencing it in, dare I say it, a Pavlovian manner. Certain aspects of government and business are already exploiting these ideas; exploiting the fact that some parts of society are more susceptible to manipulation (thus, possible to mold into the desired stereotype) in direct and indirect ways. Don't believe me all you parents? When's the last time you bought a toy for your child because they wouldn't stop bothering you about it? Or took them somewhere for the same reason? Welcome to the crowd; you’ve been manipulated by big business (I won’t even get into politics here). I can hear the Twilight Zone music of realized horror playing in your ears.

EH Rydberg