Poor LEGO. Academia is once again conspiring against you. This time, with the use of dictionaries.

<<The reason why socialist humanitarians loudly proclaim that groups of people should not be prejudged, labelled, or stereotyped, is because they believe that individuals must not be judged by their group associations.>>

No, it’s because pre-judgements, stereotypes, and often labels, are inaccurate and, therefore, unfair and potentially harmful.

What about capitalist humanitarians?

<<Dictionary definitions of "stereotype" define this word in terms related only to people.>>

No, they don’t

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or THING. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

<<If you make any inferences about an individual from a group membership, you are stereotyping them.>>

Only if it's unfair or an oversimplification.

<<The problem with the socialist humanitarian ideology, is that psychology text books go further than dictionaries in defining stereotyping.>>

Allowing you to commit the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

We've already demonstrated that the psychological definition is not a problem.

<<In order to form a concept of anything, you have to have a stereotypical idea of what the subject is.>>

Either that or a concept of it.

<<Stereotyping is therefore used to think.>>

Sometimes.

<<Saying that you must not stereotype is exactly the same as saying you must not think.>>

No, it's not. See above.

<<One sterling example of the validity of that is the sentence is "a flock of birds is sitting on a car.">>

You're confusing concepts and stereotypes again.

<<Group membership is not a stereotype.>>

Correct.

<<But if you make inferences about any individual persons behaviour from their group membership, you are stereotyping them.>>

Only if it's unfair or an oversimplification.

<<And you have done that.>>

When?

<<You just stereotyped me, and every individual in the group called "Creationists.">>

No, I haven't.

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

AJ Poor LEGO. Academia is once again conspiring against you. This time, with the use of dictionaries.

LEGO It can be. But everybody does it to think.

AJ No, it’s because pre-judgements, stereotypes, and often labels, are inaccurate and, therefore, unfair and potentially harmful.

LEGO Thinking is often inaccurate, unfair and potentially harmful. Are you suggesting people should not think?

AJ What about capitalist humanitarians?

LEGO To conceptualise that statement, you had to stereotype in your own mind what a "capitalist" and a "humanitarian" are. And thank you for showing that even the definition of "stereotype" which you provided accepts that objects as well as people are stereotyped. That validates what I have been saying all along.,

AJ Only if it's unfair or an oversimplification.

LEGO To think about everything we simply the concepts of everything. This can be unfair, but we all do it to think. Should we stop thinking?

AJ We've already demonstrated that the psychological definition is not a problem.

LEGO Oh, where?

You stereotyped me, and every individual in the group called "Creationists."

AJ No, I haven't.

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

LEGO Here is what you wrote about me.

AJ You’re just like a creationist, LEGO. Understandable given you’re old, debunked 19th century ideas.

LEGO Your statement is plainly a negative prejudgement of me. It is an oversimplification of me which is unfair, and hurts me. It stereotypes "19th century ideas as "debunked" and therefore implies that all "19th century " ideals are debunked. That is an oversimplification of "19th century" ideas which is obviously unfair and inaccurate.

You have also likened my attitudes to those of Creationists. Your stereotype of a Creationist is probably a stupid and ignorant religious nutcase who thinks in absolutes. I would agree that your stereotype of "creationist" is accurate, but it is still hurtful. But your stereotype of me, equating my values, attitudes and behaviour to an entire class of people, is an inaccurate oversimplification and a hurtful stereotype.

Not always, LEGO.

<<But everybody [stereotypes] to think.>>

There are many other cognitive techniques people use.

<<Are you suggesting people should not think?>>

Reductio ad absurdum. You just don’t learn.

<<To conceptualise that statement, you had to stereotype in your own mind what a "capitalist" and a "humanitarian" are.>>

No, I didn’t. I just had to understand what capitalism and humanitarianism are. Neither of these ideals say anything else about those who believe in them and nor was I suggesting anything.

<<And thank you for showing that even the definition of "stereotype" which you provided accepts that objects as well as people are stereotyped. That validates what I have been saying all along.>>

How so?

<<To think about everything we simply the concepts of everything.>>

You’re missing a word there. Were you suggesting that we stereotype to develop concepts? If so, then no, we don’t…

Concept:
An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate... (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/concept)

<<Oh, where?>>

Actually, it would have been more accurate of me to say that you hadn’t yet demonstrated that the psychological definition of ‘stereotype’ was an issue for some, because your attempt to do so was fallacious. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317946)

<<You stereotyped me, and every individual in the group called "Creationists.">>

No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationist.

<<Your statement is plainly a negative prejudgement of me.>>

"No, I haven’t pre-judged you, LEGO. Because you already demonstrated this before I came to my conclusion." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318107)

<<It stereotypes "19th century ideas as "debunked" and therefore implies that all "19th century " ideals are debunked.

At no point did I suggest that all 19th century ideas were debunked.

<<You have also likened my attitudes to those of Creationists.>>

No, not your attitudes, but the extent to which many of the beliefs you've expressed on OLO are old and discredited.

The two reasons why you are losing this argument, is firstly because human beings stereotype to think. Specifically, to think about people, objects, ideas, and situations. I seem to have made some progress in convincing you that everybody does this, but you appear to accept it in principle, and then oppose it in detail.

My sentence "a flock of birds is sitting on a car", which clearly displays that people form stereotypes about objects (and people) to think, seemed to have rocked you. You changed your attitude markedly after that, and concentrated more on a moral argument than a criticism of stereotypical thinking. But now you are backsliding and writing about "capitalist humanitarians", where the same principles of conceptualising people and objects applies, but you claim it is different.

The second reason why you are going belly up, is because your moral argument does not wash. It assumes that you do not stereotype yourself, and of course, that is nonsense. You have to conceptualise objects and people just like everybody else. But what you are really are talking about is using stereotypes to make judgements of people. Everybody does that too. I told you that I would catch you doing it yourself, and it did not take long to do so. I would have done it much earlier, but this is not a discussion where we are routinely evaluating individuals and groups.

I see that you are attempting to deconstruct my argument which explained why you are stereotyping, using every red herring and water muddying technique that you can dream up. But you are caught in your own contradiction, and I have cut and pasted it in your "clangers file," so that I can throw it back in your face every time you claim that stereotyping is wrong.

It is not a classic stereotype, because it likens my attitude to a group which I do not identify with. But you are the one which is classifying (stereotyping) me as thinking like a Creationist, so it is still a stereotype, and it will do until I catch you doing it again.

Yes, LEGO, I’m “losing” this argument. *Snigger*

<<The two reasons why you are losing this argument…>>

The argument was won a long time ago, and certainly not by the one here who is leading 4-0 on the use of fallacies. I’m just having fun now, waiting to see how many months you’re willing to repeat yourself in the hope that I get bored and leave so that you can have the last say and feel like your dangerously ignorant worldview is still justified.

<<…firstly because human beings stereotype to think.>>

Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.

<<…you appear to accept [stereotyping] in principle, and then oppose it in detail.>>

I accept that it’s done by everyone from time to time, but reject that it’s useful when applied to classes of people.

<<My sentence "a flock of birds is sitting on a car", which clearly displays that people form stereotypes…>>

No, that was an example of the use of concepts.

<<You changed your attitude markedly after that, and concentrated more on a moral argument than a criticism of stereotypical thinking.>>

No, that’s when I started differentiating between stereotypes and concepts.

Speaking of which, though, you can quit pretending that your feelings are being hurt. It doesn't make me look hypocritical. From a moral/ethical point of view, avoiding stereotypes is more about harm minimisation on a macro level. I could argue that by publicly discrediting your nonsense, the benefits of hurting your feelings outweigh the costs.

<<But now you are backsliding and writing about "capitalist humanitarians", where the same principles of conceptualising people and objects applies, but you claim it is different.>>

Yes, “backsliding”. *Snigger*

"I just had to understand what capitalism and humanitarianism are. Neither of these ideals say anything else about those who believe in them and nor was I suggesting anything." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

<<The second reason why … is because your moral argument does not wash. It assumes that you do not stereotype yourself…>>

No, it, differentiates between harmless mental shortcuts and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes.

Yes, the argument was won long ago. Human beings form stereotypes to think. And the people like yourself who claim stereotyping is wrong, routinely do it themselves. Finally, stereotyping is a tried and true tool used in business, marketing, and law enforcement. Marketers divide the community into differing demographic groups, and submit their sales pitches in ways that will appeal to the psychological needs of the differing demographic groups. Gambling bosses prefer to place slot machine palaces in disadvantaged (dumbass) areas, knowing that people from these areas are most at risk of developing gambling obsessions. Social workers stereotype when they oppose the building of poker machine palaces in disadvantaged areas, because they know the gambling bosses stereotype of "disadvantaged" people is right.

The owners of the "Supercheap" franchise know better than to place their retail outlets in upper class areas. Upper class people are not interested in the sort of cheap commercial goods which "Supercheap" sells. And upper class people would not be caught dead in a place named "Supercheap". The police routinely stereotype criminal suspects as having "Middle Eastern Appearance", 'Pacific Islander appearance", or "Caucasian appearance." "Profilers" catch criminals by classifying them and stereotyping how they think.

AJ Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.

How do you create a concept without a stereotype of what it is you are trying to conceptualise? Do you consult a dictionary every time you use a noun in a sentence? Or do you have a stereotypical concept of it in your mind already?

AJ I accept that (stereotyping) is done by everyone from time to time, but reject that it’s useful when applied to classes of people.

Excuse me? "Everyone? Including yourself? Well, you just lost the debate.

AJ No, that’s when I started differentiating between stereotypes and concepts.

You mean you rationalised around an obvious truth that you did not wish to accept.

AJ No, it, differentiates between harmless mental shortcuts and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes.

You do it yourself. And you admitted doing it yourself.