Stereotype accuracy: One of the largest, most replicable effects in psychology [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

Stereotype accuracy: One of the largest, most replicable effects in psychology [pdf]

gwern.net

67 pointsfeross57 comments

We are walking neural networks. Pattern recognition is what we do best. Stereotypes are recognized patterns.

Are they 100% accurate? No way. But they provide good starting point for making decisions, especially quick decisions your life depends on.

E.g. should I continue walking on this side of the road when there is a homeless (recognized by cloths) guy ahead holding a knife?

It is possible that he is a nice person and maybe not even homeless, just having very casual style? Holding knife that he just found and trying to find it’s owner as a good citizen?

Maybe.

But for slim chance that he is a homeless schitzophrenic that going to slash illusionary monsters approaching him with that knife, I would cross the road and walk on another side.

And of course worth noting, relying on them is a bad shortcut when there is time and resources to gather more data.

Worse, we need to keep in mind that stereotypes can be totally wrong if they aren't inferring the correct causality. If we have three observables P, Q, R, and physical causations P -> Q and P -> R, then stereotype-style pattern inference will incorrectly conclude either Q -> R or R -> Q.

More generally, stereotype-oriented reasoning has no place for the argument from the outside that, when we mechanically disprove a stereotype's existence, we must refute the entire chain of correlations which led to the stereotype's establishment.

Pretty specific stereotype you got there with the homeless schitzophrenic.

I don't think anyone is worried about stereotypes being applied when determining how far to get away from someone with a knife, though I imagine black people experience more roads crossings than normal, knife or not.

"The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story.

"The consequence of the single story is this: It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different, rather than how we are similar."

     -- Author Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche

If stereotypes are accurate does it follow that discriminating on their basis is legitimate? Or can they be accurate patterns that we are obliged to ignore? Must we make no assumptions and treat every stranger as a blank slate to be ethical? Or is it sufficient to update strongly on specific observations as they come?

If stereotypes are accurate then the optimal amount of prejudice is greater than zero, as long as it is outweighed by postjudice.

Related article by the same author: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res...

I grew up being taught that sterotypes are a myth. Everyone is the same.

Boy I was in for a rude awakening

Regardless of how accurate it may or may not be, any blanked generalisation over millions of people is in fact useless for individual judgements. It is quite dehumanising as well, seeing it's people we're talking about.

I've had people assume traits about me due to my place of birth. I did not like it one bit I can assure you, hence I strive not to do so with others.

It's also worth noting that the article found that national stereotypes are the exception from the rule and a very mixed bag (for examples Russians having somewhat correlating stereotypes of Finns, but Finns having completely false stereotypes of Russians). Political, racial, or gender stereotypes are pretty reliable (according to the article), but national stereotypes are better ignored.

What a radical document. I doubt the comment thread will turn into anything more than a flaming mess; but this does go to one of the more interesting parts of the scientific process.

Scientists are, by and large, going to be well off. It is very hard to spend a life studying stuff that nobody understands while also been dirt poor or otherwise on the margins of society. Possible, perhaps, but not feasible on average.

Scientists therefore tend to be a little more well off than the average, a little smarter and a lot more educated. There is very little incentive to admit that the hoi polloi might know what they are talking about or have a good point. It is not unusual for people to be called 'anti-science' for taking positions that are extremely rational and not aligned with what the scientists want to happen. And this even though scientists are pulled from a class with its own political motivations.

Stereotypes about serfs were very accurate during feudalism.

Oppression has real effects, the core question is the direction of causality. Which way you think it points is precisely how much of an actual, factual nazi you are.

Stereotypes are by and large accurate, and unless I misread, "stereotype" in this article in not a technical term. The article uses it to mean what the layman means by it.

What do we do with this finding?

They go into detail on that in the "Knowns, Unknowns, and Emerging Controversies" section. Further questions that knowledge can help us answer include:

* How do stereotypes form?

* Why are some stereotypes not accurate? They mention nationality stereotypes in particular as being quite inaccurate.

* What other factors correlate with increased or decreased stereotype accuracy?

There's some value, of course, in just learning something's true even if it's not immediately useful knowledge.

I'd add to that: How do we keep stereotypes from reinforcing themselves?

> They mention nationality stereotypes in particular as being quite inaccurate.

National stereotypes are actually quite interesting because they come in two flavors:

"Swiss are punctual" is a regular stereotype that by and large applies to the average Swiss.

"Germans wear lederhosen" is a stereotype that is wrong for the vast majority of Germans. It's still true/useful in the sense that if you see someone wearing lederhosen they are most likely German. That makes is a good visual shorthand for "German", which can feed the impression that it's common.

On "Germans wear lederhosen", it is true that of all people who wear lederhosen, it's going to be mostly Germans. "Lederhosen are worn by Germans"

This is an argument over the definition of a word that is written to look like a carefully researched paper in sociology, psychology, and statistics.

The authors complain that the word "stereotypes" is used to refer to assumptions about groups that are incorrect (the assumptions are incorrect). They then show that by using an alternate and broader definition of the word stereotypes (to mean assumptions about groups period, rather than flawed assumptions about groups), they find that stereotypes as they define the term are frequently accurate.

This analysis is as close to a tautology as you can get while still filling that many pages with prose.

This isn't science or sociology or advanced statistics. It's a debate over the definition of a term that is used sloppily in casual language, and a debate that is buried deep in a long paper to make it look like they are doing something more important than arguing about the definition of the word stereotype.

There is a silly section on the definition of the word, but it's worth pressing past that to read the rest of the document. The core content is really interesting!

(Overall the whole thing is badly written and presented, imo. Many numbers in prose as opposed to tables; overlong sentences etc etc.)

Ahh yes, historicity masquerading as evidence of inherent attributes strikes again.

Stereotypes of serfs were largely accurate in feudal societies.

Nowhere does the article claim stereotypes are inherent. A common tactic - when confronted with evidence you don't like, switch to arguing that it doesn't support a stronger claim you made up, without acknowledging that it does support the original claim.

The original claim, stereotypes are accurate is effectively tautological given broad based, systemic reinforcement of said stereotypes.

I was, however, responding to claims upthread that were, in fact, claiming inherent attributes were responsible for accurate stereotypes.

Why are you more concerned with my statement that you believe misconstrues the original research rather than the obvious racists above who did make a claim not supported in the paper. Why?

> I was, however, responding to claims upthread that were, in fact, claiming inherent attributes were responsible for accurate stereotypes.

No, you responded to the article. If you wanted to respond to some specific comment you should have replied to it directly.

> Why are you more concerned with my statement that you believe misconstrues the original research rather than the obvious racists above who did make a claim not supported in the paper. Why?

Spare me. Even the obvious racist (whose comment is dead and already has many replies rebutting it) didn't make the claim you attribute to them. So you rebutted a claim they didn't make, in a separate comment thread, with no hint in your own comment that you were responding to anything other than the article. Then you should not be surprised you were misunderstood.

Unfortunately stereotyping has become "unacceptable" socially, and it prevents addressing issues and fixing them since talking about the issues is "morally wrong".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com