ZOMBIE FORUMS

Just a quick check in..

A lot of what you guys are labeling as stereotypes are actually prejudices and the 'speech act' of prejudice, discrimination.

What is a heuristic? *checks on Wiki* thnx (beforehand)

Sterotypes in speech patterns only as prejudice?
I dunno, black people in the USA are more involved in crime due to a lack of education, money, being a minority and historical tradition of these facts. It also doesn't help to be oppressed. The fact that drug dealers hires whitey to do a job only proves the cops need to refine their methods or change them entirely.

No, stereotypes and prejudice are not simply verbal matters.

Stereotypes are mental conceptions of characteristics associated with a particular group.

Prejudices are enduring mental conceptions of unjustified negative characteristics associated with a particular group.

Discrimination is basically positive or negative actions and/or inactions against a particular group.

So prejudices deal with the heart and minds of people while discrimination deals with their actions.

The major cognitive problem person B has in this case is that he has conflated* the terms stereotype and prejudice.

*conflate means to merge two different things and treat the as one entity. In this instance, merging the meanings of stereotype and prejudice, with stereotype losing its orginal meaning and taking on the meaning of prejudice possibly through the inability of persons to understand and thence distinguish between the two.

I was referring specifically to the psychological heuristic mentioned in the wikipedia article.



First, prejudices are not necessarily negative. For example, one might have a positive prejudice toward members of one category and a negative prejudice against members of another category.

Second, prejudice is not necessarily unjustified. The decision made could be based on characteristics that are demonstrably (or even difinitively) shared by every member of the category. For example, a person who is charged with hiring employees for a corporation is probably prejudiced against high school dropouts (for the purpose of discharging his duties) because they are (at least in the overwhelming majority) demonstrably less educated than graduates.

The use of the term prejudice without the use of qualifiers has a definite affective vector and would refer to the definition that I used above. In your usage above, you have conflated the concept of attitude with the term of prejudice. Attitudes may be positive (good) or negative (bad). If the attitude is negative and, in addition, unjustified, it is a prejudice.



A prejudice (sic) that is absolutely true of every member of a category is not a prejudice. For example, you cannot slander someone with the truth. Also, that would be an act of discrimination, not prejudice, as it has passed into action.

Happily, the example that you use is one that I have seen disproved which makes it quicker for me to explain. That manager might require a person of definite qualifications. Even after he hires the interviewee, he must assess him in the workplace, the qualifications of graduands is more likely to save the company time, money and customer good will. It is not discriminatory since it is based on 'true' things.

Chaos, confusion, distraction, frustration, intellectual nuance, . . . . my work here is done.