ITT: Help me come up with an argument in favor of stereotyping,

if time is a limited resource, I believe stereo typing is a useful tool

You are an ancient hominid, you see the silhouette of a large cat in the grasses. You aren't sure if you should limit your necessary foraging, but time is of the essence. Based on previous experiences with another large cat species, you decide to not take the risk and leave the grasslands to seek refuge. Your neighbor does not make this generalization and gets robbed by a nigger.. I mean cat.

In all seriousness I think stereotyping is caused by lazy thinking. Is it really that difficult to take a few seconds to judge someone based on their individual behavior? Wouldn't you want someone to do the same unto you?

>>9059463
>an extreme form of generalizing and therefore, as the argument goes, hinders critical thinking

Does not follow. Generalising isn't useful?

>>9059463
>>9059477
>if time is a limited resource, I believe stereo typing is a useful tool
for some reason, for a few minutes I thought stereotyping was a type of shorthand writing.

File: 20170204_192942.png (368KB, 720x416px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 720x416px

>>9059477
>Wouldn't you want someone to do the same unto you?
Fugg. ITT: Refute the Golden Rule.

>>9059463
One needs moulds in order to maximize meaningfulness, creativity, and impact.

This is why post-modern art suffers, why all those installations and performance pieces amount to nothing now that the shock of them has subsided. A poem written in strict meter creates an additional layer of meaning when that meter is broken. Nothing like that can be achieved in a totally free verse poem. The rules needs to be established beforehand so that the exceptions can come about.

>>9059477
>In all seriousness I think stereotyping is caused by lazy thinking. Is it really that difficult to take a few seconds to judge someone based on their individual behavior? Wouldn't you want someone to do the same unto you?

You need to spend a lot of time with someone to get to know them. Taking a few seconds to judge them based upon a first appearance just leads to misrepresentations of their character.

>>9059463
Stereotyping statistically gives the correct results and saves you time, in case of niggers even your life.

>>9059477
>you can't tell how someone is just based on their race
lmao, most niggers/Jews/spics act exactly the same. Stereotypes exist for a reason, because they're proven right again and again.

Maybe you could just shift the conversation slightly to racial profiling and argue in favor of that since then you could provide real world data to show its effectiveness, namely Israel and their border control. You could also have a look at the before and after 'stop and frisk' was implemented in NYC.

Suppose you're in charge of a nations border security, and you have a limited budget. You have to hire officers to walk around and check travelers for explosives. For the sake of simplicity just say the total budget is 1 dollar per day, and the total cost of checking a traveler when you factor in employee wages comes out to 10 cents per traveler. Now you could order your security agents to check every single passenger that comes along, but the problem with that is you'll run out of funding very quickly, so by necessity you must be selective because you can only check a total of 10 travelers per day. This is where racial profiling becomes useful. If you look at the data and see that 95% of the travelers who carry explosives happen to be one ethnicity then it would make sense to instruct your security agents to focus on checking travelers that are of that ethnicity. Likewise it would be a complete waste to spend your budget checking travelers that belong to groups that were never found to carry explosives, like 90 year old females.

It's completely reasonable invest more security budget on people that are more likely to be problems. If we don't generalize people in this way our security would not be as effective, and that's because when security agents are forced to treat everyone equally, it may allow people with bombs to sneak through while agents are harassing 90 year old women. Budgets are limited and they must be spent wisely. If you don't stereotype you can only see people as equal bags of meat, so it is important to allow stereotyping or racial profiling because it's the only way discern certain trends among people, which allows you allocate your security budget efficiently as those trends change.

>>9059477
>Is it really that difficult to take a few seconds to judge someone based on their individual behavior?
Isn't that largely exactly what stereotyping is?

>>9059463
It's not really possible.

Populations are composed of individuals, but individuals are not populations. Until someone does a thing you don't know whether they're part of the 80% of a population that does those things or the 20% that doesn't.

>>9059634
true. I guess I would limit stereotyping to the individual, based on their previous actions. I still think it's lazy to generalize (and difficult to accurately group someone) based on their appearance.

File: shoutracist.jpg (46KB, 575x429px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 575x429px

>>9059463
Stereotypes are rules of thumb to use when you have little or no information about a person. They are generalizations of a collective, and therefore do not necessarily apply to an individual.

It is a useful technique to protect yourself from harm. If one did not stereotype, they run a much higher chance of getting harmed or killed by misunderstanding or lack of information.

A "stereotype" of fire is that it is hot, will burn you, and you should thereby not touch fire. There still lies the potential that a particular fire will not burn you.

Hence, stereotypes are foundational rules of thumb for judging people BEFORE you know them. As time passes, and you understand the individual more, the stereotype may be discarded or placed as a background precaution. To judge a person by a stereotype after they display signs of not acting according to the stereotype would be irrational and should not be done.

Stereotyping is accurate. There's a huge literature on this, go search on google scholar.

>>9060903
>A "stereotype" of fire is that it is hot, will burn you, and you should thereby not touch fire.


That's an inherent property of fire though, unless you're using Hume's argument regarding causality which would be stupid to use here