Do stereotypes have any truth to them?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is there an interpreter in the house? What on earth are you saying?

Which words are tripping you up?

The English ones. He evinced an ignorance of the meaning of "racist" over at AD, such that I had to link him to a couple of definitions. This boy's 'bout as sharp as a bowling ball.

[Sheldon]

Which words are tripping you up?

The English ones. He evinced an ignorance of the meaning of "racist" over at AD, such that I had to link him to a couple of definitions. This boy's 'bout as sharp as a bowling ball.

Well I don't want to leap to ad hominem, but yes the reasoning on display is poor, filled with unevidenced rhetoric and hyperbole, but maybe the poster is young. I know that I would not have recognised common logical fallacies, or understood their implication until I was in my 30's. Though of course I was horrified to realise how poor my reasoning was as a result, and have tried not to make such errors since, and more importantly to honestly admit to errors and correct them...

Which by the way @Jamiesmithie is precisely the point I believe Silver was making, that one should have the integrity to accept when one is wrong, and to admit it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The English ones. He evinced an ignorance of the meaning of "racist" over at AD, such that I had to link him to a couple of definitions. This boy's 'bout as sharp as a bowling ball.

Well I don't want to leap to ad hominem, but yes the reasoning on display is poor, filled with unevidenced rhetoric and hyperbole, but maybe the poster is young. I know that I would not have recognised common logical fallacies, or understood their implication until I was in my 30's. Though of course I was horrified to realise how poor my reasoning was as a result, and have tried not to make such errors since, and more importantly to honestly admit to errors and correct them...

Which by the way @Jamiesmithie is precisely the point I believe Silver was making, that one should have the integrity to accept when one is wrong, and to admit it.

Implying that Jamie may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer isn’t necessarily an ad hominem. That would only apply if we said his positions were wrong because he’s desperately, dangerously stupid.

The opposite is the case here - Jamie’s positions were wrong before he ever met them. The fact that those positions themselves are desperately, dangerously stupid has nothing to do with Jamie - his is an independent stupidity.

Boru

[Deesse23]

There's another stereotype concerning atheists I see occasionally. People who study theology seriously will make fun of what they call "Reddit atheists." These are people who 1) talk a lot about religion on line, and 2) have enormous confidence in their own reasoning power, and 3) know little or nothing about theology. And of course until quite recently they often referred to the works of Dawkins and/or Hitchens. 

And those other atheists you see occasionally in other places, have wtf exactly to do with anyone here? Right, nothing.

Complaining about others overestimating their own reasoning power, coming from someone like you, who does not have thoughts on his own, from someone who is constantly name dropping, thats....rich.

This is the sort of person who thinks he has any and every Christian check-mated, while not bothering to learn much more about Christian thought than "TalKinG SnaKES!!1!" "NO MaterIAl EvidENce!!!!!"

Material evidence?
Use the quote function (i am sure you know how it works. Someone with your reasoning power knows much more than this) and show us who, on this board, not Reddit, not anywhere else, demanded material evidence from you.

Its really, really rich, when someone like you, who keeps using the same script over and over, after it has shown to him that you are straw manning people 99% of the time, and the remaining 1% you are cowards hiding behind famous philosophers, accuses others of the very things you are doing. I guess you are the poster child of a hypocrite.

[Sheldon]

Well I don't want to leap to ad hominem, but yes the reasoning on display is poor, filled with unevidenced rhetoric and hyperbole, but maybe the poster is young. I know that I would not have recognised common logical fallacies, or understood their implication until I was in my 30's. Though of course I was horrified to realise how poor my reasoning was as a result, and have tried not to make such errors since, and more importantly to honestly admit to errors and correct them...

Which by the way @Jamiesmithie is precisely the point I believe Silver was making, that one should have the integrity to accept when one is wrong, and to admit it.

Implying that Jamie may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer isn’t necessarily an ad hominem. That would only apply if we said his positions were wrong because he’s desperately, dangerously stupid.

The opposite is the case here - Jamie’s positions were wrong before he ever met them. The fact that those positions themselves are desperately, dangerously stupid has nothing to do with Jamie - his is an independent stupidity.

Boru

For clarity I wasn't suggesting it was ad hominem, I worded it poorly perhaps, I was just wary of heading in that direction by focusing on him rather his "arguments" such as they are. 

I'd also say that offering demonstrably stupid claims, does not in and of itself make one stupid, and of course being poorly educated doesn't necessarily mean one is stupid either. 

I agree about his claims though, woeful stuff. The real irony is it takes just a few minutes of cursory research to disprove them as well, so he could have easily investigated this himself. The claim he is happy to revel in poor reasoning might simply be an attempt at face saving of course, no one enjoys appearing foolish.

[Sheldon]

My favorite is 'atheists have no morals'.

Yeah, that's certainly not justified. Lots of atheists have morals.

It's true that a lot of atheists think that morals are simply social conventions, with no objective existence. But even if a person believes that, he can still do his best to obey the conventions of his time and place. 

There's another stereotype concerning atheists I see occasionally. People who study theology seriously will make fun of what they call "Reddit atheists." These are people who 1) talk a lot about religion on line, and 2) have enormous confidence in their own reasoning power, and 3) know little or nothing about theology. And of course until quite recently they often referred to the works of Dawkins and/or Hitchens. 

This is the sort of person who thinks he has any and every Christian check-mated, while not bothering to learn much more about Christian thought than "TalKinG SnaKES!!1!" "NO MaterIAl EvidENce!!!!!"

I think we've all encountered people like that, but Reddit atheists are surely not representative of most of us. They are on line and visible by definition, while the great majority of atheists don't care enough about it to go on the Internet every day and criticize.

The word atheist is entirely redundant in that post. Poor reasoning is poor reasoning, and FYI there are theists who believe every word of the bible and Koran is literally true, it is risible to decry people who address such claims, as if they must address the 45k different sects and denominations of Christianity globally, or all the various claims theists generally make and believe, in every single discussion. 

If anyone wants to sneer at me as poorly educated they can knock themselves out, it's likely true on a wide range of topics, but I would still disbelieve claims that were unsupported by any or insufficient objective evidence. If sneering contempt is all they have, then they're likely holding an empty bag. 

This argument sounds like the tired old chestnut that one cannot disbelieve the Islamic religion unless one has Arabic as a first language. I don't need to be an expert in Bigfoot, in order to withhold belief, and the same is true of deities, from the risibly falsifiable, to complex nut ultimately vapid arguments that can must not one shred of objective evidence that any deity exists or is even possible.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't believe this. I came here in good faith and this is the treatment I get. I guess my name is mud around here now. I don't suppose there's anything I can say to make a good impression. 

Oh well, never mind. God bless you all.

Me old china, you wouldn’t know ‘good faith’ if it bit you on the bum.

Boru

[Charlie Boy]

Ah, the humble stereotype. A word that, despite its origins in the printing press of the 18th century, has become the lightning rod of modern discourse. How delightful it is to witness such a linguistic artifact morph from a precise descriptor of exaggerated, often humorous caricature into an all-purpose cudgel wielded to silence inconvenient observations. Indeed, one might say that the term stereotype today serves less as a tool of description and more as a weapon of censorship, particularly in certain ideological circles that prize moral orthodoxy above empirical reality.

To begin with, it behooves us to recall the original meaning of the term. A stereotype, historically, is a fixed, oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing — in other words, a caricature. The “typecast” in a theatrical play, if you will. This is not a mere footnote in semantic history but a critical foundation. The stereotype was never intended to be a faithful reflection of reality; rather, it was a deliberate exaggeration, often intended for comic or rhetorical effect. Picture, if you will, the dashing rogue with a twirled mustache, the bumbling professor with spectacles perched precariously on his nose, or the villain twirling a sinister curl of hair while plotting his nefarious scheme. These are the classic tropes, the exaggerations that bear the hallmark of stereotype.

Now, contrast this with contemporary usage — or rather, misuse — of the term, especially within progressive or “leftist” ideological frameworks. Today, the accusation of “stereotyping” is flung not at those engaging in playful exaggeration but at anyone daring to point out trends or patterns that are inconvenient to the dominant narrative of egalitarian harmony. Here, the label “stereotype” is applied, with astonishing malice, to what can only be described as objective observation: statistically supported generalizations about group behaviors, cultural tendencies, or demographic realities.

Permit me to be unequivocally clear: pointing out that certain groups may statistically exhibit particular behaviors is not stereotyping in the classical sense. It is, quite simply, observation. It is empirical. It is the sort of sober, data-driven recognition that underpins sound policymaking, effective business strategy, and genuine social analysis. To conflate such observation with the pejorative “stereotype” is to erode the very foundations of rational discourse. It is to abandon nuance and replace it with ideological dogma.

One might wonder why this semantic contortion has taken hold with such vigor. The answer, I posit, lies in the discomfort that certain realities provoke. When patterns of behavior or social outcomes do not conform to an ideological ideal — particularly the ideal of perfect equality in outcome across all demographics — the instinct among some is to deny the facts rather than grapple with their implications. In this context, the term “stereotype” becomes a shield behind which inconvenient truths are hidden.

But let us not mistake linguistic obfuscation for intellectual rigor. To brand factual observation as “stereotype” is not only a misapplication but an act of intellectual cowardice. It reveals a preference for ideology over evidence, for comfort over candour, and for groupthink over genuine inquiry. One might even suggest it is a subtle, if inadvertent, admission that some truths are indeed uncomfortable.

Of course, this line of reasoning is guaranteed to raise hackles among the politically correct — not because it is false, but because it is unfashionably honest. Therein lies the rub: in an age when feelings often trump facts, the most controversial statement one can make is the one rooted in data rather than dogma.

And here we arrive at the crux of the matter. If one insists on applying the term “stereotype” exclusively to exaggerations and caricatures, as is historically and linguistically proper, then what are we to call these “observations” that are in fact supported by rigorous statistics? Are they still “stereotypes” or simply accurate generalizations? To insist on the former is to confound language; to accept the latter is to invite a degree of intellectual honesty that many find uncomfortable.

Let us be clear: the refusal to acknowledge these observations does not render them false. Nor does it protect one from the practical consequences of ignoring reality. Indeed, when policy and discourse ignore or deny statistical truths, the result is often disastrous: poorly targeted social programs, misguided educational initiatives, and a growing divide between rhetoric and reality.

Now, one might reasonably ask: Is it not dangerous to make generalizations about groups? Does it not risk reinforcing prejudice or discrimination? This is a fair and important question, deserving of a nuanced answer.

Yes, it is true that any generalization can be misused to justify bigotry or to paint individuals with an unfair brush. The careful thinker must always distinguish between group trends and individual variation. The intelligent approach embraces complexity: recognising patterns without erasing individuality. Acknowledging statistical realities does not mandate stereotyping every individual.

However, to reject all discussion of group trends because of fear of misuse is akin to forbidding the study of medicine because some might self-medicate improperly. The responsible course is not denial but disciplined and contextualised analysis.

Moreover, the modern misuse of “stereotype” to suppress such analysis has chilling effects on discourse itself. It fosters an environment where honest inquiry is stifled, where researchers hesitate to publish uncomfortable findings, and where policymakers fear acknowledging inconvenient facts lest they be branded bigots.

In sum, the word stereotype has been systematically diluted and weaponised to silence inconvenient truths under the guise of combating prejudice. This rhetorical sleight of hand deserves to be unmasked and critiqued with both intellectual rigor and stylistic flair — a task we have barely begun.

I invite anyone to consider whether the current orthodoxy serves truth, or merely comfort; whether the fear of offending prevents honest discourse; and whether the true “stereotypes” of our age are not the age-old caricatures, but rather the ideologically motivated blinders that prevent clear sight of social reality.

After all, truth — no matter how uncomfortable — has a way of asserting itself, whether whispered politely in salons or proclaimed loudly in public squares.

[Deesse23]

I do believe that some stereotypes have truth to them, like the stereotype of "bigoted troll". They are always easily identifiable cowards, who tend to get hit by banhammers quite soon. So, please tell us: Which "uncomfortable truth" is your bigotry?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Look at all this blather. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance [and you ain't dazzling] baffle 'em with bullshit."