The caravan moves on, but the dogs keep barking.

LEGO,

Either you’re really, really slow, or you’re skimming my posts again.

<<Human beings form stereotypes to think.>>

“Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<And the people like yourself who claim stereotyping is wrong, routinely do it themselves.>>

"[There are] harmless mental shortcuts [which are also stereotypes] and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

I’m glad you mentioned stereotyping in law enforcement. That’s one of the areas in which it is the most harmful. It results in both over-policing and under-policing, mistrust of police amongst certain groups, and the penchant for stereotyping that many officers naturally develop can lead to instances of bullying of officers that belong to certain groups.

Marketing is a notoriously inaccurate pursuit. As for gambling, I don’t think I need to explain why placing more pokies in poorer areas is a socially destructive thing to do, despite the fact that some will still benefit from it. This just looks to me to be another appeal to common practice.

<<How do you create a concept without a stereotype of what it is you are trying to conceptualise?>>

By drawing on the features of an entity or a class of entity that make it distinct or are essential to it. I’ve been linking you to the definition of ‘concept’ because it hinted at that. I didn’t think you were reading the definitions. Which probably explains why we’re still here.

<<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?>>

I usually know what the noun is already, but consult a dictionary whenever I’m uncertain - which is really easy now with smartphones.

<<Excuse me? "Everyone? Including yourself?>>

Yes, I’ve said and alluded to that many times now. What’s wrong with you?

<<Well, you just lost the debate.>>

How so?

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

I know, nothing in that statement of mine that you were responding to suggested that I thought otherwise.

AJ wrote

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."

Wow, everybody stereotypes. It only took me about 20 posts to bludgeon you into admitting that. You know, of all the people I have debated in the last 15 years, you were the slowest to come to that conclusion. Of course, every one of them, when confronted by their own stereotypes either apologised, and said they would never do it again(they could not keep their promise), or they went a bit quite as they started to figure out that their sacred ideology was wanting.

But not you. You are still saying that stereotyping people is naughty, even when you got caught doing it yourself. Your excuse was, to claim that when you classified my attitudes as conforming to the "19th century" attitudes of "an entire population" of people called "Creationists", you were not stereotyping at all. It just goes to show how powerful a force cognitive dissonance can be.

Did you like the way I hit you from another direction? I still have another angle up my sleeve. So now I have demonstrated that everybody stereotypes and you have finally accepted that. A little slow, but you got there in the end. You are still claiming it is wrong to stereotype people, but you got caught doing it yourself. So you have a problem there.

I submitted that stereotyping is an essential business tool, and police forces routinely use it too. In the case of marketing, a study of psychology is now an essential prerequisite in the study of marketing. And last I heard, advertising was a worldwide, $2 trillion dollar industry. How you can claim marketing is "inaccurate" is beyond me. It just goes to show that the devotees of Mammon are a lot smarter than the acolytes of Gaia.

Finally, I submitted that police forces routinely use ethnic descriptors when identifying suspects, and that classifying criminals through profiling is now considered a normal and valued tool of police work.

Please keep up with the discussion, LEGO.

<<Wow, everybody stereotypes. It only took me about 20 posts to bludgeon you into admitting that.>>

No, it didn’t…

"...there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317623)

"Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317946)

<<You are still saying that stereotyping people is naughty…>>

"[There are] harmless mental shortcuts [which are also stereotypes] and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<Your excuse was, to claim that when you classified my attitudes as conforming to the "19th century" attitudes of "an entire population" of people called "Creationists", you were not stereotyping at all.>>

No, that wasn’t a justification for anything at all. Just a general comment.

<<I submitted that stereotyping is an essential business tool, and police forces routinely use it too.>>

And I explained just how harmful that can still be.

<<How you can claim marketing is "inaccurate" is beyond me.>>

Because stereotyping is oversimplified and inaccurate. (http://contentequalsmoney.com/avoid-stereotype-marketing)

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)

<<Finally, I submitted that police forces routinely use ethnic descriptors when identifying suspects…>>

No, you never said that. But that’s a description of a potential suspect, not a stereotype.

<<…and that classifying criminals through profiling is now considered a normal and valued tool of police work.>>

No, there are actually efforts to reduce it. And I already explained why it’s more counterproductive than constructive…

[Law enforcement is] one of the areas in which [stereotyping] is the most harmful. It results in both over-policing and under-policing, mistrust of police amongst certain groups, and the penchant for stereotyping that many officers naturally develop can lead to instances of bullying of officers that belong to certain groups." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318228)

Stereotyping is toxic for police culture.

Do keep up, ol’ chap.

Sorry, LEGO. I misread this…

<<Your excuse was, to claim that when you classified my attitudes as conforming to the "19th century" attitudes of "an entire population" of people called "Creationists", you were not stereotyping at all.>>

I blame all the wine.

I explained why I wasn’t stereotyping but you never addressed it…

“No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationist.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

Which was…

“I like how you have to hark back to before the Enlightenment to find an example. It’s the same as creationists boasting that Sir Isaac Newton was a creationist. Everything is evidence-based now. In LEGO’s world, we’re still worked on an assumption/faith-based level.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318070)

I also see that you were referring to offender profiling when you said…

<<"Profilers" catch criminals by classifying them and stereotyping how they think.>>

No, profilers don’t catch criminals all the time. You’ve been watching too much Criminal Minds.

Profilers are rarely ever successful and for that reason, are only ever called in when the police have absolutely no leads whatsoever. Australia only has nine profilers, trained in the US. And even then, they’ll call them over from the US when we have a serial killer. Profilers were called in for the Claremont killer and they didn’t help at all.

Profiling is a controversial technique amongst criminologists and police because it is seen as more of an art rather than a science. It is often inaccurate and can lead police off on the wrong direction, allowing offenders to get away with their crimes.

AJ "Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so"

LEGO That is a generalisation about "intelligent people". And it is a contradiction of....

AJ "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations. So your analogy with thinking is invalid."

LEGO Haha. Caught again.

AJ "[There are] harmless mental shortcuts [which are also stereotypes] and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes."

LEGO You "foolishly" stereotyped "an entire class of people" when you stated that "intelligent people understand in what situations it is appropriate to" (stereotype.)

AJ No, that wasn’t a justification for anything at all. Just a general comment.

LEGO You stereotyped me by claiming my attitudes conformed to those of "Creationists". You stereotyped "Creationists" as having "debunked" 19th century views. You stereotyped "19th century views" as "debunked."

AJ I explained why I wasn’t stereotyping but you never addressed it…

LEGO Your statement regarding "Creationists", implied that I was like a Creationist, because Creationists had claimed Newton was a Creationist. The implication being, that Creationists were all idiots, so I was an idiot too It is still a stereotype. . Unless you have another explanation? In which case the onus is on you to post it up.

AJ Because stereotyping is oversimplified and inaccurate.

LEGO Generalisations do not need to be completely accurate, only accurate enough to form a concept. And you do it yourself.

LEGO Finally, I submitted that police forces routinely use ethnic descriptors when identifying suspects…

AJ No, you never said that. But that’s a description of a potential suspect, not a stereotype.

LEGO I put that one in as a trap for you. The use of ethnic descriptors has been widely criticised by the PC brigade as "stereotyping." Looks like you are not conforming to your PC stereotype.

AJ No, profilers don’t catch criminals all the time.

LEGO I made a generalisation about "profilers"

AJ Profilers are rarely ever successful and for that reason.....

LEGO You just stereotyped "profilers" as being "rarely ever successful."