The Off Topic Topic

[grumbler]

BB the vast majority of women who like sports are not lesbians. 

All of Beeb's generalizations smell like things that "everyone knows."

[Barrister]

All of Beeb's generalizations smell like things that "everyone knows."

Okay you guys got me.

You can not assume anything about anyone.  You can not tell a book by its cover.  Everyone is is just a perfectly random assortment or attributes.  Someone from Eritrea is just as likely to be a hockey fan as someone from Canada.  Middle aged men are just as likely to be Taylor Swift fans as millennial girls.

I swear to never make a generalization about anyone ever again.

Even though our family was 100% right about my nephew being gay (and he's an awesome guy BTW, just in case I wasn't clear about that fact) - it was by a total fluke and had nothing to do with him being a huge theatre nerd.

[DGuller]

Beeb, as someone who stereotypes for a living, I think you're absolutely right in your reasoning, but you'll never win that argument (especially with the people you choose to argue with).  Ability to generalize might literally be the definition of intelligence, but it's also a definition of stupidity when virtue signaling is the name of the game.

[garbon]

Beeb, as someone who stereotypes for a living, I think you're absolutely right in your reasoning, but you'll never win that argument (especially with the people you choose to argue with).  Ability to generalize might literally be the definition of intelligence, but it's also a definition of stupidity when virtue signaling is the name of the game.

Why would a person generalise about a specific individual they have had sustained contact with? Why would you judge them off one or two traits (likes theatre and has no girlfrieds, really likes sports) rather than viewing them as a whole individual? After all, you have the luxury of time to get to know them (observe them?) and judgments off a wealth of experience (data?).

I get that generalisations have utility when you are first meeting someone / only have incidental contact with them. In those instances, it isn't practicaly to collect a ton of information in a sufficiently quick enough time frame*. And so sure, you'll look at the limited information you know and form an initial judgment - but I'd suggest it is important it remains that. You should aim to be open to changing your opinions/classifications as you interact further. Otherwise a person could see me dressed in comfortable, shabby clothes one day in my slowly gentrifying neighbourhood, with my brown skin and make unwarranted assumptions about my level of education, socio-economic status, danger that I pose to them. If just an incidental encounter (passing by on the street) not a big deal to have it wrong, but certainly negative consequences could pile up.

I also get that one would want to take a different approach to populations and what that might say on predicting an individual's behaviours based on data in a database but that's pretty far removed from a family member or resident of one's home with whom you have sustained personal contact. As a result, it should be more than one data point (unless that data point is seeing a person engaged in sexual activity, or outright stating their sexual preferences) that actually makes you think someone must be gay.

Hell, for a long period of my life, it was personally advantageous for me to be able to determine who was gay and who was not. Even as someone whose sexual fulfillment was predicated on juding correctly, I wasn't always accurate in quick determinations of who was 1) gay and 2) interested in me. Many times I was wrong when I'd quickly judged on clothing or voice or language. Though incidentally there are many sartorial choices and hairstyle that gay people will adopt as signals which depend upon stereotypical judgments. I can't remember its name but there was a magazine that for a period of time had an endpage devoted to 'Is he gay or is he just ___' and then would comment on stereotypical 'gay' features that overlapped with other groups. Notably I recall one was Jesus and one was European.

I'm not convinced that had BB's nephew turned out to not be gay or his hosted student turned out not to be a lesbian, that he would have factored that into his thinking and his ability to predict sexuality. Rather, I think he would have considered those as exceptions and that his simple rules still hold true.

If what I've said above is nonsensical, then perhaps there is something to the idea that men who are proud of their 'gaydar' are likely to be gay themselves.


*not yet!

[Josquius]

As a one off for a special Japan event on BBC 3 many years ago the BBC dubbed the first few episodes of the anime classic Urusei Yatsura.
This remains to this day without a doubt the best anime dub ever.

[crazy canuck]

All of Beeb's generalizations smell like things that "everyone knows."

Okay you guys got me.

You can not assume anything about anyone.  You can not tell a book by its cover.  Everyone is is just a perfectly random assortment or attributes.  Someone from Eritrea is just as likely to be a hockey fan as someone from Canada.  Middle aged men are just as likely to be Taylor Swift fans as millennial girls.

I swear to never make a generalization about anyone ever again.

Even though our family was 100% right about my nephew being gay (and he's an awesome guy BTW, just in case I wasn't clear about that fact) - it was by a total fluke and had nothing to do with him being a huge theatre nerd.

Definition of stereotype


something conforming to a fixed or general pattern
especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

You knew your nephew was gay.  But you attribute that knowledge to an oversimplified stereotype rather than to you actually knowing your nephew and likely observing a number of things which helped you understand him.

What is really bizarre is you have double down on a completely inaccurate stereotype which is that most women who likes sports are lesbians. Where the hell did that come from?

Were over half of the girls who played on the teams your stay at home student was involved with end up being lesbian? And if not, will you think critically about the generalization you made? 

[HVC]

As a one off for a special Japan event on BBC 3 many years ago the BBC dubbed the first few episodes of the anime classic Urusei Yatsura.
This remains to this day without a doubt the best anime dub ever.

Don't know why, but the guys accent is perfect.

[grumbler]

Definition of stereotype


something conforming to a fixed or general pattern
especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

You knew your nephew was gay.  But you attribute that knowledge to an oversimplified stereotype rather than to you actually knowing your nephew and likely observing a number of things which helped you understand him.

What is really bizarre is you have double down on a completely inaccurate stereotype which is that most women who likes sports are lesbians. Where the hell did that come from?

Were over half of the girls who played on the teams your stay at home student was involved with end up being lesbian? And if not, will you think critically about the generalization you made? 

CC, as someone who sees the negative impact of stereotypes for a living, I think you're absolutely right in your reasoning, but you'll never win that argument (especially with the people you choose to argue with).  Ability to resist over-generalization might literally be the definition of intelligence, but it's also a definition of stupidity when virtue signaling is the name of the game.

[crazy canuck]

Definition of stereotype


something conforming to a fixed or general pattern
especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

You knew your nephew was gay.  But you attribute that knowledge to an oversimplified stereotype rather than to you actually knowing your nephew and likely observing a number of things which helped you understand him.

What is really bizarre is you have double down on a completely inaccurate stereotype which is that most women who likes sports are lesbians. Where the hell did that come from?

Were over half of the girls who played on the teams your stay at home student was involved with end up being lesbian? And if not, will you think critically about the generalization you made? 

CC, as someone who sees the negative impact of stereotypes for a living, I think you're absolutely right in your reasoning, but you'll never win that argument (especially with the people you choose to argue with).  Ability to resist over-generalization might literally be the definition of intelligence, but it's also a definition of stupidity when virtue signaling is the name of the game.

I hope you are wrong about at least BB not seeing the error of his ways.

I picked a stereotype of his that is demonstrably wrong (women in sports) in the hope he sees the point.

DGuller says that stereotyping is in indication of intelligence.  No point even engaging there.

BB, you must have seen first hand the damage that is done when police stereotype.  Why do it yourself?

[Barrister]

Beeb, as someone who stereotypes for a living, I think you're absolutely right in your reasoning, but you'll never win that argument (especially with the people you choose to argue with).  Ability to generalize might literally be the definition of intelligence, but it's also a definition of stupidity when virtue signaling is the name of the game.

Why would a person generalise about a specific individual they have had sustained contact with? Why would you judge them off one or two traits (likes theatre and has no girlfrieds, really likes sports) rather than viewing them as a whole individual? After all, you have the luxury of time to get to know them (observe them?) and judgments off a wealth of experience (data?).

You're right - I should never generalize about anyone.  Ever.

Now I'll just go sit in the box and feel shame.

[crazy canuck]

Ok Grumbler, you were right and I was wrong to think BB was also not a lost cause.

[Barrister]

Ok Grumbler, you were right and I was wrong to think BB was also not a lost cause.

Yup - I'm a lost cause.

Your only recourse now is to never speak to me again.

[DGuller]

Definition of stereotype


something conforming to a fixed or general pattern
especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

You knew your nephew was gay.  But you attribute that knowledge to an oversimplified stereotype rather than to you actually knowing your nephew and likely observing a number of things which helped you understand him.

What is really bizarre is you have double down on a completely inaccurate stereotype which is that most women who likes sports are lesbians. Where the hell did that come from?

Were over half of the girls who played on the teams your stay at home student was involved with end up being lesbian? And if not, will you think critically about the generalization you made? 

CC, as someone who sees the negative impact of stereotypes for a living, I think you're absolutely right in your reasoning, but you'll never win that argument (especially with the people you choose to argue with).  Ability to resist over-generalization might literally be the definition of intelligence, but it's also a definition of stupidity when virtue signaling is the name of the game.

The funny thing is that by getting invested in the argument, you missed something which you would normally never miss:  CC's always catastrophic reading comprehension.

This is what BB wrote:

Lesbians like sports more than straight women - on average.

This is what CC claimed BB wrote:

What is really bizarre is you have double down on a completely inaccurate stereotype which is that most women who likes sports are lesbians. Where the hell did that come from?

We both know that CC is too dumb is even understand that he completely misinterpreted what Beeb wrote, and that this really bizarre stereotype actually came from him and him only, but surely you see that.  The fact that you didn't, and went with this silly uno reverse post, in my opinion shows how virtue signaling can blunt critical thinking of people, even those who normally have very strong critical thinking.

[DGuller]

Beeb, as someone who stereotypes for a living, I think you're absolutely right in your reasoning, but you'll never win that argument (especially with the people you choose to argue with).  Ability to generalize might literally be the definition of intelligence, but it's also a definition of stupidity when virtue signaling is the name of the game.

Why would a person generalise about a specific individual they have had sustained contact with? Why would you judge them off one or two traits (likes theatre and has no girlfrieds, really likes sports) rather than viewing them as a whole individual? After all, you have the luxury of time to get to know them (observe them?) and judgments off a wealth of experience (data?).

I get that generalisations have utility when you are first meeting someone / only have incidental contact with them. In those instances, it isn't practicaly to collect a ton of information in a sufficiently quick enough time frame*. And so sure, you'll look at the limited information you know and form an initial judgment - but I'd suggest it is important it remains that. You should aim to be open to changing your opinions/classifications as you interact further. Otherwise a person could see me dressed in comfortable, shabby clothes one day in my slowly gentrifying neighbourhood, with my brown skin and make unwarranted assumptions about my level of education, socio-economic status, danger that I pose to them. If just an incidental encounter (passing by on the street) not a big deal to have it wrong, but certainly negative consequences could pile up.

I also get that one would want to take a different approach to populations and what that might say on predicting an individual's behaviours based on data in a database but that's pretty far removed from a family member or resident of one's home with whom you have sustained personal contact. As a result, it should be more than one data point (unless that data point is seeing a person engaged in sexual activity, or outright stating their sexual preferences) that actually makes you think someone must be gay.

Hell, for a long period of my life, it was personally advantageous for me to be able to determine who was gay and who was not. Even as someone whose sexual fulfillment was predicated on juding correctly, I wasn't always accurate in quick determinations of who was 1) gay and 2) interested in me. Many times I was wrong when I'd quickly judged on clothing or voice or language. Though incidentally there are many sartorial choices and hairstyle that gay people will adopt as signals which depend upon stereotypical judgments. I can't remember its name but there was a magazine that for a period of time had an endpage devoted to 'Is he gay or is he just ___' and then would comment on stereotypical 'gay' features that overlapped with other groups. Notably I recall one was Jesus and one was European.

I'm not convinced that had BB's nephew turned out to not be gay or his hosted student turned out not to be a lesbian, that he would have factored that into his thinking and his ability to predict sexuality. Rather, I think he would have considered those as exceptions and that his simple rules still hold true.

If what I've said above is nonsensical, then perhaps there is something to the idea that men who are proud of their 'gaydar' are likely to be gay themselves.


*not yet!

These are all very good points, IMO, and I agree 100% with your reasoning on when/why you stereotype, and when you pull back from it.  I would argue that in this case, though, because we're discussing sexuality, the uncle really doesn't know their nephew (I hope).  Given how private sex and sexuality usually is, even a family member you knew for years is essentially a stranger when it comes to this topic.

[Barrister]

These are all very good points, IMO, and I agree 100% with your reasoning on when/why you stereotype, and when you pull back from it.  I would argue that in this case, though, because we're discussing sexuality, the uncle really doesn't know their nephew (I hope).  Given how private sex and sexuality usually is, even a family member you knew for years is essentially a stranger when it comes to this topic.

I've typed a big long response a couple of times, but deleted it - I don't see any good coming of it.