I don’t think most progressives assume stereotypes are arbitrary or random. The standard progressive view seems to be that the stereotypes were based on the fundamental attribution error: attributing negative traits that a group has to their innate nature rather than to negative influences.
Example: Members of group A enter region dominated by group B. The educational system in region B focuses on entirely different languages and historical periods than the educational system in region A. Group B considers intelligence to be demonstrated by a mastery of language and history. Group B then assumes that members of Group A are inherently unintelligent, instead of assuming that there’s a good reason why otherwise competent members of Group A are completely inept at Group B language and history.
Group C denies group D access to certain types of training for reasons that are, at the time, valid. The reasons become invalid. Group D asks for access to those types of training. Group C points out that Group D currently has no demonstrated skill at those types of tasks. Group D is being stereotyped as inherently bad at something, when in fact they are merely untrained.
Why don’t progressives put the same effort into dismantling insulting stereotypes of their political opponents (certain types of rich people) in the same way that we do for other groups? Presumably, because rich people can afford to hire PR agents, and are not suffering harm from stereotypes*, and because people generally do not make their political opponents look better.
*I haven’t seen evidence for rich people being harmed by stereotype threat, but if some study shows they are, please link me to one.
The standard progressive view seems to be that the stereotypes were based on the fundamental attribution error: attributing negative traits that a group has to their innate nature rather than to negative influences.
Not sure what is the “standard” progressive view, but the one I see a lot says that stereotypes are tools of oppression and domination.
I’m sorry if this is a rude request, but I’m very new to the LW commenting process, so if anyone knows why my comments here were downvoted, I’d really appreciate it if that person would tell me, so I can improve my future participation on this site.
At the moment, all your comments seem to be net-upvoted, so there seems no evidence of a systematic objection to your participation. As I’ve observed elsewhere as well, comments that can be taken as supportive of progressive positions have lately garnered a few downvotes early on, which tend to get reversed by subsequent upvotes over the next few days. I wouldn’t worry about it.
I suppose there isn’t really a standard progressive view, but I attend Young Democrats meetings, my school voted with something like a ⅔ majority for Obama in the last mock election, and I read newspapers and magazines that target a progressive audience, so I encounter a lot of progressive viewpoints.
I thought that the “tools of oppression and domination” was a reference to how stereotypes are used, not how they are formed. I don’t really picture a bunch of people in positions of power deciding that the best method to oppress people was to assume insulting things about them, instead of, say, passing harmful legislation, so I assumed that other progressives would agree with me on that point.
Also, I wanted to discuss stereotype origins without using phrasing that made the originators of those stereotypes look immoral, because I thought that doing so would distract for advancedatheist from the point I was trying to make, so I shied away from that explanation.
I thought that the “tools of oppression and domination” was a reference to how stereotypes are used, not how they are formed.
If you are into that kind of thing, you can view stereotypes as soldiers in memetic warfare. If you want to win, you want to shape your soldiers and not just pick whichever ones happen to come along.
The standard progressive view seems to be that the stereotypes were based on the fundamental attribution error: attributing negative traits that a group has to their innate nature rather than to negative influences.
The problem is that progressives consider it evil to attribute negative traits to innate nature and will refuse to update in that direction even if changing influences doesn’t improve the trait.
Thus if a negative trait happens to actually have an innate cause, progressives end up going on witch hunts trying to find the witch oppressor whose evil spells micro-aggressions are causing the negative influences.
I don’t think most progressives assume stereotypes are arbitrary or random. The standard progressive view seems to be that the stereotypes were based on the fundamental attribution error: attributing negative traits that a group has to their innate nature rather than to negative influences.
Example: Members of group A enter region dominated by group B. The educational system in region B focuses on entirely different languages and historical periods than the educational system in region A. Group B considers intelligence to be demonstrated by a mastery of language and history. Group B then assumes that members of Group A are inherently unintelligent, instead of assuming that there’s a good reason why otherwise competent members of Group A are completely inept at Group B language and history.
Group C denies group D access to certain types of training for reasons that are, at the time, valid. The reasons become invalid. Group D asks for access to those types of training. Group C points out that Group D currently has no demonstrated skill at those types of tasks. Group D is being stereotyped as inherently bad at something, when in fact they are merely untrained.
Why don’t progressives put the same effort into dismantling insulting stereotypes of their political opponents (certain types of rich people) in the same way that we do for other groups? Presumably, because rich people can afford to hire PR agents, and are not suffering harm from stereotypes*, and because people generally do not make their political opponents look better.
*I haven’t seen evidence for rich people being harmed by stereotype threat, but if some study shows they are, please link me to one.
Not sure what is the “standard” progressive view, but the one I see a lot says that stereotypes are tools of oppression and domination.
I’m sorry if this is a rude request, but I’m very new to the LW commenting process, so if anyone knows why my comments here were downvoted, I’d really appreciate it if that person would tell me, so I can improve my future participation on this site.
Thanks in advance!
The request is not rude and actually fairly common (but is not guaranteed to bring responses).
Note that LW up/downvoting is a noisy process and you shouldn’t attempt to find meaning in every single vote. Also, this.
At the moment, all your comments seem to be net-upvoted, so there seems no evidence of a systematic objection to your participation. As I’ve observed elsewhere as well, comments that can be taken as supportive of progressive positions have lately garnered a few downvotes early on, which tend to get reversed by subsequent upvotes over the next few days. I wouldn’t worry about it.
I think LW just hates progressives
I suppose there isn’t really a standard progressive view, but I attend Young Democrats meetings, my school voted with something like a ⅔ majority for Obama in the last mock election, and I read newspapers and magazines that target a progressive audience, so I encounter a lot of progressive viewpoints.
I thought that the “tools of oppression and domination” was a reference to how stereotypes are used, not how they are formed. I don’t really picture a bunch of people in positions of power deciding that the best method to oppress people was to assume insulting things about them, instead of, say, passing harmful legislation, so I assumed that other progressives would agree with me on that point.
Also, I wanted to discuss stereotype origins without using phrasing that made the originators of those stereotypes look immoral, because I thought that doing so would distract for advancedatheist from the point I was trying to make, so I shied away from that explanation.
If you are into that kind of thing, you can view stereotypes as soldiers in memetic warfare. If you want to win, you want to shape your soldiers and not just pick whichever ones happen to come along.
The problem is that progressives consider it evil to attribute negative traits to innate nature and will refuse to update in that direction even if changing influences doesn’t improve the trait.
Thus if a negative trait happens to actually have an innate cause, progressives end up going on witch hunts trying to find the
witchoppressor whose evilspells micro-aggressions are causing the negative influences.