Whenever you have an identifiable subgroup, the larger society outside that subgroup starts generalizing and making assumptions about any new member of that class that they happen to meet. They believe they have discovered a short-hand way of learning about the person before having exchanged one word with that person.
Prejudice (or stereotype) is part of the human survial mechanism; all animals, likely. Certain things, patterns, people are immediately deemed threatening, or not threatening, because of previous experience with a similar thing or because of acquired community wisdom. This instant threat identification will cause you to react defensively, even if only momentarily as the threat is further analyzed and found benign.
In the case of people, these stereotypes are true for the group but tell us nothing about the individual. As humans, we are bound to consider the individual while we deal with the group stereotype because of the obligation we owe individuals created in the image of God.
Agree in part, disagree in part. It is an overstatement to say they 'tell us nothing about the individual'. If the rule is that the average X had trait Y... then our initial guess should be that they have trait Y, and we can operate on that assumption until proven otherwise. One does not 'assume' a white American can speak Swahili, nor even expect it.
But that does not mean we let the stereotype overrule actual evidence to the contrary.
Yes, I think we agree, I just wanted to correct the 'tell us nothing', which seems an overstatement. Another issue would be that they would probably be used to having Y assume, and would also see a lot of Y in their group.
Prejudice (or stereotype) is part of the human survial mechanism; all animals, likely. Certain things, patterns, people are immediately deemed threatening, or not threatening, because of previous experience with a similar thing or because of acquired community wisdom. This instant threat identification will cause you to react defensively, even if only momentarily as the threat is further analyzed and found benign.
In the case of people, these stereotypes are true for the group but tell us nothing about the individual. As humans, we are bound to consider the individual while we deal with the group stereotype because of the obligation we owe individuals created in the image of God.
Agree in part, disagree in part. It is an overstatement to say they 'tell us nothing about the individual'. If the rule is that the average X had trait Y... then our initial guess should be that they have trait Y, and we can operate on that assumption until proven otherwise. One does not 'assume' a white American can speak Swahili, nor even expect it.
But that does not mean we let the stereotype overrule actual evidence to the contrary.
Your conclusion was my point. Individuals are individuals, however they may be connected to a group.
Yes, I think we agree, I just wanted to correct the 'tell us nothing', which seems an overstatement. Another issue would be that they would probably be used to having Y assume, and would also see a lot of Y in their group.