There are many ignoramuses who vociferously tell me very frequently that “stereotyping is wrong, very unfair”. What they fail to realize with their real eyes is that stereotyping is not a real lie. I would not mind, by the way, if you help me defining “reality”. Moreover, they fail to unrealise that scorning stereotyping to socially divulge that stereotyping is vile is also an act of stereotyping because those who legally, socially and culturally do are also synonymous with the those who do not do if I happen to coherently conclude that detaching from stereotyping also does not tackle “biased” perception in an “objective” manner. Simple.
[dropcap]I[/dropcap] am obliged to these pseudo-awakened creatures who blatantly believe that “stereotyping is bad”, because they provoked me to stereotype some quantity of my own cognition to ponder upon the hidden cost behind undefending the stereotyping. I hope this article dissonances you, like the way you masquerade me against stereotyping. LOL. Well, fighting against stereotyping is merely limited to “situational” amendments in opinion, views and news, and nothing more than this. Let me not comment on media conformity, there. Anti-stereos conclude that stereotyping deals with sociopsychological factor and this is where I am intending to also bang them for limiting their “perception” by confining their obsession only with a particular science than with the science that I am chalking down here. So, be honest like me and admit that stereotyping is natural and inevitable because some humans are more equal than other humans. If you believe that stereotyping is really wrong , then tell me that why do believe it is not immoral for the politicians to monopolize all resources, etc because you believe letting men to live freely can annihilate mankind? If you are so much against stereotyping, then tell me what makes you to stereotypingly believe that some politicians have legitimate right to take your decisions on my behalf because you are just not made up of human clay?
Now, let me get started…
Why should one person be affected by the actions or qualities of the rest of his or her demographic? Of course, people are individuals with their own moral values (or lack of), intelligence, and talents. Stereotyping is, however, a method that people use, consciously or subconsciously, as an efficient way of economizing on information costs.
For example, if somebody offered your $1 million to solve a complex mathematical problem and, furthermore, you could choose anybody on a university campus to help you, I doubt you would choose the Paris Hilton-type sorority girl or the Abercrombie and Fitch-wearing fraternity boy. Now, consider the young man wearing glasses and a pocket protector in his short-sleeve, button-down shirt: would you not think that he is a better bet?
If you were a soccer coach and had to draft a player for your team and the only information you had was that Player A is from Brazil and Players B is from US, who would you choose?
Finally, assume that you’re walking down the street and you have only two choices – either walk on the left side of the street or the right side of the street. Before you choose, you notice that on the left side there are ten tattooed, muscular men with shaved heads walking and talking together, while on the right side you see ten “clean-cut” men wearing dress shirts and ties carrying Bibles. Now, what would you do?
If you chose the “nerdy” student with the pocket protector in the first scenario, the Brazilian player in the second scenario, and the right side of the street in the third scenario, are you being immoral or “prejudiced”? In fact, what does the word “prejudice” really mean? One of the definitions that is normally overlooked is “a preconceived preference or idea.” In other words, prejudice simply means pre-judging. Of course, you may not be correct in your judgment, and your later judgments will be affected by the success or failure of the accuracy of your forecasts. But the alternative is to use a completely random basis on which to make pre-judgments, which is very silly and probably impossible. In a world of imperfect knowledge, economizing on information is a tool that should not have to be defended.
In another important area, government’s interventionist policies in the labor market can make the bad kind of discrimination we normally think about more prevalent. For example, European Union countries have very strict laws on firing people compared to the United States. Because of this, it is more costly for a firm to hire somebody.
Now, if I am an employer and I know that I am stuck with a worker once I hire him, don’t you think I will be more likely to economize on information (i.e., discriminate) before I hire him? Conversely, in a free-market, I will be more likely to take a risk on somebody and give him a chance (and not indulge my initial “prejudices”) because I know if he ends up being a poor selection, I can easily fire him. Those who advocate “fair labor laws” had better be careful what they ask for. Economics affects our everyday lives. Economics can be viewed as the study of individual human actors making choices. Of course, people should not be rude to others based on looks, race, or gender. I also know that there are a lot of ignorant, mean-spirited people who assume things about others that are completely baseless. But in the market economy, they also pay a price for being wrong.
Let us remember that we live in a world of scarcity, that economizing on information can be efficient, and that sometimes the reason stereotypes exist is because, well, they’re true. Stereotyping is denounced wrongly as unseemly, as being narrow-minded and bigoted, and, rightly, as prejudice — when the judgment precedes the evidence, you are prejudging. Stereotypes are often negative, but who’s at fault: the person engaging in a negative stereotypical act or the person interpreting an act negatively?
The politically correct bien-pensants always fail to recognize that stereotyping is a form of inductive reasoning. If you see something repeatedly, but not necessarily without fail, you form an opinion, which is layered with a degree of truth. A subset of the human race, based on ethnicity, inclination, or geography, will spring to mind after reading each of the following words: financier, migrant worker, male flight attendant, NASCAR driver, sprinter. I’m sure most of us immediately conjured similar images. Yes, it is unfair to impose a group characteristic onto an individual, but we did so nonetheless. To belabor the obvious, each of us is an individual, not a group. When the stereotype is proven fallacious for an individual, move on. But if it is not, don’t. Stereotypes give reason to pause and think when they are violated. For example, if someone were to profess to being a Jewish migrant worker, the brow should furrow and the lips should pursue. Jewish migrant workers might very well exist, but I suspect that few of us have met any, so we would naturally, and rightfully, question the occupational assertion: it violates our stereotype, which was developed from experience. Is it so offensive to reply, “come again?”