Why Do People Get So Offended By Generalizations and Stereotypes...?

[threebyfate]

Read the second word in the opening post. Then go to the bolded question in the middle of the post...there's a word right before "generalization." Would it be presumptuous for me to assume that people read all the words?

 

and it amazes me how offended some folks get when a generalization is made that may apply to their gender, age group, race, etc.

What does the bolded word mean? It means "as well as". Not my problem that your intent for the thread doesn't equate to what's written.

[USMCHokie]

What does the bolded word mean? It means "as well as". Not my problem that your intent for the thread doesn't equate to what's written.

 

and it amazes me how offended some folks get when a generalization is made that may apply to their gender, age group, race, etc.

 

Gender: Men only value looks and only want sex from women, women only value height and money, etc.

 

Age Group: Older men only want younger woman, older women are screwed in dating, etc.

 

Race: Asians are timid and have small penises, white people rule the dating world, etc.

 

The word I'm looking for now is...hmmmm....

 

Context.

 

 

Your turn.

 

 

EDIT: This is almost getting as real as a game of Words with Friends.

[threebyfate]

<snip blah, blah, blah>

You wrote it. If you want to limit, write the opening post with clarity.

 

Now, let's debate this from a dating perspective. How well have these stereotypes or generalizations helped the lovable losers on LS? Notice how all arguing against the generalizations lean towards being in happy relationships and marriages, without too many problems dating and the ones arguing "for" stereotypes and generalizations are single and whining about it? Coincidence or correlation? My money's on the latter.

[USMCHokie]

You wrote it. If you want to limit, write the opening post with clarity.

 

Now, let's debate this from a dating perspective. How well have these stereotypes or generalizations helped the lovable losers on LS? Notice how all arguing against the generalizations lean towards being in happy relationships and marriages, without too many problems dating and the ones arguing "for" stereotypes and generalizations are single and whining about it? Coincidence or correlation? My money's on the latter.

 

Ok, game on. I'll be sure to make more liberal use of bolding, underlining, and italicizing in the future.

 

And again, I believe I mentioned in a response to Ninja that I am often neutral when it comes to topics like these, as well as the whole confidence and external validation bit. I was involved more to play the debate game and see if I couldn't undermine the popular logic. Probably not the best way to help the LL's out there, but I hope it got at least a couple people thinking. I sure did.

 

And to answer your question, it depends. As I said earlier in this thread, generalizations can both help and hurt. It depends on the generalization. If you generalize alcoholic men in your own way and choose to avoid them for dating, have you done yourself a disservice? On the other hand, if a man chooses to characterize all women as untrustworthy because of a couple bad experiences and then goes on a misogynistic sex rampage, then he may be doing himself and others a disservice.

 

At the end of the day, it's up to each person to develop and trust their internal processes to be able to pick the "right" generalizations to make and use while avoiding those that can harm them. I don't have the answer for everyone, because there isn't one. It's all part of the life experience. We will all make mistakes, and we all have to adjust accordingly. Some do it right, while others don't.

 

 

EDIT: That was definitely the lawyerly way of completely dodging the question with utter bullsh*t.

 

And the whole purpose of this thread wasn't to address the validity of stereotypes, but to address the "confidence" of those who were offended by dating generalizations made by other individuals...I was still on my confidence and external validation bender...

[threebyfate]

of completely dodging the question with utter bullsh*t.

Agreed.

 

And the whole purpose of this thread wasn't to address the validity of stereotypes, but to address the "confidence" of those who were offended by dating generalizations made by other individuals...I was still on my confidence and external validation bender...

And as proven earlier, the two shouldn't be conflated, as they're distinctly different topics.

[USMCHokie]

And as proven earlier, the two shouldn't be conflated, as they're distinctly different topics.

 

Please define "the two."

 

EDIT: Just so I can go back and see if it was really actually "proven"...

[threebyfate]

There's a clear distinction between needing a lot of external validation and invalidating inaccuracies. The former is about strokes, the latter, combatting prejudice and bias.

 

These are very simple concepts that differ. Really surprised that you conflated the two. Even more surprised that you need even have asked.

 

If you require concrete examples, it's the difference between needing compliments everyday and untying the black man being dragged behind the truck full of white pointy hat wearing crazy people.

 

Please define "the two."

 

EDIT: Just so I can go back and see if it was really actually "proven"...

Requoted for your laziness.

[USMCHokie]

There's a clear distinction between needing a lot of external validation and invalidating inaccuracies. The former is about strokes, the latter, combatting prejudice and bias.

 

These are very simple concepts that differ. Really surprised that you conflated the two. Even more surprised that you need even have asked.

 

If you require concrete examples, it's the difference between needing compliments everyday and untying the black man being dragged behind the truck full of white pointy hat wearing crazy people.

 

Requoted for your laziness.

 

Much appreciated.

 

One key assumption I make is that external validation and external invalidation are integrated into a single overarching entity of external feedback. It's yin and yang. Just as external validation artifically boosts one's ego, external invalidation deflates it. My view is that you can't have one without the other, and you can't possibly analyze the effects of external social forces on an individual without both. A push and a pull, so to speak. And both of these external forces, positive and negative, will have an effect on one's "confidence," especially during his younger formative years. For those who received more negative than positive external feedback during those years, their confidence undoubtedly reflects this, and I believe they require positive feedback in their current adult years to restore that balance.

 

Now as it relates to dating generalizations and stereotypes, or even general generalizations; I view these as simply external invalidations from a single source spread across a group of people. Individuals within that group will receive that external invalidation, and each individual will act in their own way.

 

Some invalidations may be as heinous as the aforementioned KKK, but many others (e.g., dating) are formulated by individuals based on their own experiences. This thread was made to question certain reactions to these dating generalizations which certainly wouldn't fall into the same category as the Holocaust.

 

So that's how I linked the two together: If a person claimed to be truly internally "confident" and free from the influence of external feedback, why would they suddenly be so influenced by external invalidation in the form of a dating generalization?

[zengirl]

So that's how I linked the two together: If a person claimed to be truly internally "confident" and free from the influence of external feedback, why would they suddenly be so influenced by external invalidation in the form of a dating generalization?

 

Because everyone still has to operate in the real world which is not solely about their self-concept. Self-concept is important, but unless you're totally self involved, it's not going to be this sole factor in your life that you seem to make it with statements like this. To me, the problem with generalizations isn't validation (hell, some generalizations are NICE things, and I still reject those as lazy thinking) but ignorance, laziness, prejudice, and falsehood. I don't go through life thinking everything is just about me. In fact, many generalizations I have a problem with would neither validate, nor invalidate me personally, as they wouldn't apply to me (I mean on a basic level where the person is speaking about a group I'm simply not in and no one would suggest I'm in).

 

As to dating generalizations, the whole point of dating is to meet and get to know people as individuals to find a potential mate (from my perspective), so of course, it would cause problems when people are overgeneralizing and claiming lazy thinking and generalizations as truths. The whole goal of dating is to be SEEN for who you are and find someone who goes with that, and generalizations work against that to keep people unhappy and justify their unhappiness.

[HeavenOrHell]

I find generalisations irritating because they're inaccurate and sometimes harmful, and it's offensive to me if someone says something like 'all women cheat' or 'all British women are users', because in effect that person is saying *I* am those things and that's offensive to me because it's so far from the truth.

 

I think, basically, I find irrational statements irritating. Also generalisations are often made because the poster is feeling bitter.

 

I find gender stereotyping harmful, women are this and men are that and if you don't fit into the description of what a male or female 'should' be then you're seen as inadequate or weird.

 

Anyone can be anything or any trait, regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality etc.

 

 

 

So dating generalizations and stereotypes are thrown around every day on LS...and it amazes me how offended some folks get when a generalization is made that may apply to their gender, age group, race, etc....when they see such generalizations, they instantly go into man/women-hater mode...

 

Why do people get offended by a dating generalization or stereotype?

 

One of two things will happen:

 

(1) The generalization actually holds true for you. So why get upset if someone makes an accurate assessment of you? Do you perceive it to be a flaw that you do not want to be called out on? What justification do you have to be upset?

 

(2) The generalization does not hold true for you, or you do not perceive it to hold true. So why do you get upset if someone falsely generalizes or stereotypes you? Based on the recent "myth of confidence" thread, wouldn't your reaction imply a lack of confidence? You supposedly are "confident" that the stereotype doesn't apply to you, so why does it cause a reaction? Is it because the stereotype actually does apply to you and you don't want to admit it for sake of your "confidence"? Or is it that you don't actually have "confidence" and are being manipulated by external validation (or invalidation, whatever the case may be)?

[HeavenOrHell]

Then I'd say if a person keeps coming up against the same type of behaviour in a series of men or women they're dating then they should go for a different type of man or woman. There are billions of men and women all with different traits!

 

I have no generalisations to make about any of the men I've dated, the only thing I would say is that men can find it harder to talk about emotions, but not necessarily so, and that's usually because of how men are brought up, and how society says men are wimps if they show emotion. Hate BS like that!

 

 

What about those generalizations made by individuals based solely on personal experience, particularly in the dating and social context? There's likely to be no meaningful statistical significance and be driven by causation rather than correlation. Do they have any weight or traction?

[threebyfate]

Much appreciated.

 

One key assumption I make is that external validation and external invalidation are integrated into a single overarching entity of external feedback. It's yin and yang. Just as external validation artifically boosts one's ego, external invalidation deflates it. My view is that you can't have one without the other, and you can't possibly analyze the effects of external social forces on an individual without both. A push and a pull, so to speak. And both of these external forces, positive and negative, will have an effect on one's "confidence," especially during his younger formative years. For those who received more negative than positive external feedback during those years, their confidence undoubtedly reflects this, and I believe they require positive feedback in their current adult years to restore that balance.

 

Now as it relates to dating generalizations and stereotypes, or even general generalizations; I view these as simply external invalidations from a single source spread across a group of people. Individuals within that group will receive that external invalidation, and each individual will act in their own way.

 

Some invalidations may be as heinous as the aforementioned KKK, but many others (e.g., dating) are formulated by individuals based on their own experiences. This thread was made to question certain reactions to these dating generalizations which certainly wouldn't fall into the same category as the Holocaust.

 

So that's how I linked the two together: If a person claimed to be truly internally "confident" and free from the influence of external feedback, why would they suddenly be so influenced by external invalidation in the form of a dating generalization?

Have you never combatted homophobia, racism, ridiculous political, socio and economic statements? Have you ever combatted the flat earth theory or conspiracy theories?

 

Hell, when not pregnant I'm on the very low edge of healthy BMI but the fat shaming of women on LS is ridiculous, as if people are defined solely by the most superficial criteria. As well, I'm married so dating really doesn't impact on me.

 

The list goes on and on about issues that don't affect me but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow a bunch of idiots with personality disorders of assorted nature, get away unscathed for stating their insane theories on LS.

Edited July 10, 2012 by threebyfate

[A O]

Why do people get offended by a dating generalization or stereotype?

Maybe it’s just the way they’re used. A generalization/stereotype are really just observations of common behavior in my view so in of themselves, don’t always set alarm bells ringing. But many are misused (dubious conclusions often result from them) or likewise are used in a disparaging manner. That’s when alarm bells ring and people take exception. Confidence doesn’t really come into it unless people take great exception to something otherwise I simply see it as a case of people simply correcting or taking to task misuse of said generalization/stereotype.

[USMCHokie]

Have you never combatted homophobia, racism, ridiculous political, socio and economic statements? Have you ever combatted the flat earth theory or conspiracy theories?

 

Right, but aren't these generalizations combatted with generalizations as well? How do you combat flat earth theory? With round earth theory, which is as much a generalization as the former. Of course physical science shows that the earth is indeed round, but social science is much less concrete...

 

The whole idea of religion is just a bunch of generalizations duking it out...often with death and destruction...so out of all of them, who's "right"...?

[USMCHokie]

Maybe it’s just the way they’re used. A generalization/stereotype are really just observations of common behavior in my view so in of themselves, don’t always set alarm bells ringing. But many are misused (dubious conclusions often result from them) or likewise are used in a disparaging manner. That’s when alarm bells ring and people take exception. Confidence doesn’t really come into it unless people take great exception to something otherwise I simply see it as a case of people simply correcting or taking to task misuse of said generalization/stereotype.

 

I agree, that the use of the generalization is determinative in how "bad" it actually is...however, as I often see on LS, we get a lot of "oh, I can't get a date because all women are X," or something of that nature.

 

If someone said that they wouldn't date an chinaman because the Asian weinerschnitzel is too small, so what? How am I affected by her dating preferences? How is any other Asian I know affected by her dating preference? Hell, are Asians even affected?

 

That's sort of what I was originally trying to get at...how are an individual's personal dating preferences based on personal generalization(s), as voiced in a public forum like LS, so offensive to the members of the "target" group...?

[threebyfate]

Right, but aren't these generalizations combatted with generalizations as well? How do you combat flat earth theory? With round earth theory, which is as much a generalization as the former. Of course physical science shows that the earth is indeed round, but social science is much less concrete...

 

The whole idea of religion is just a bunch of generalizations duking it out...often with death and destruction...so out of all of them, who's "right"...?

You're spinning as fast as Karen Black's head in the Exorcist! What has the above got to do with validation?

[threebyfate]

I agree, that the use of the generalization is determinative in how "bad" it actually is...however, as I often see on LS, we get a lot of "oh, I can't get a date because all women are X," or something of that nature.

 

If someone said that they wouldn't date an chinaman because the Asian weinerschnitzel is too small, so what? How am I affected by her dating preferences? How is any other Asian I know affected by her dating preference? Hell, are Asians even affected?

 

That's sort of what I was originally trying to get at...how are an individual's personal dating preferences based on personal generalization(s), as voiced in a public forum like LS, so offensive to the members of the "target" group...?

This is called racism.

 

Noun:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...

Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

[USMCHokie]

This is called racism.

 

 

 

I personally think racism is a bit oversensitized...but to each their own.

[StrangeBehaviors]

People get so offended at generalizations and stereotypes because they have been conditioned to do so. Period.

 

Scientifically, there is typically enough supporting evidence in a high enough percentage that the generalization and/or stereotype is "true". Only to theory status...not law.

 

Because there is the person or thing that may have the characteristics that fit into the generalization and/or stereotype, however they are not part of that group.

 

Most people have been over-conditioned to protect the latter group.

 

Has this already been said? Am I too late to the party?

[USMCHokie]

You're spinning as fast as Karen Black's head in the Exorcist! What has the above got to do with validation?

 

I've already said my peace about how generalizations are related to validation and confidence.

 

I was addressing the statement I quoted in that post.

[threebyfate]

 

I personally think racism is a bit oversensitized...but to each their own.

Now, shall we ask what this has to do with validation too? Or do you conflate racism with validation?

[USMCHokie]

People get so offended at generalizations and stereotypes because they have been conditioned to do so. Period.

 

Scientifically, there is typically enough supporting evidence in a high enough percentage that the generalization and/or stereotype is "true". Only to theory status...not law.

 

Because there is the person or thing that may have the characteristics that fit into the generalization and/or stereotype, however they are not part of that group.

 

Most people have been over-conditioned to protect the latter group.

 

Has this already been said? Am I too late to the party?

 

Actually, this has not been addressed, but you bring up a great point. The PC movement has conditioned society to be overly sensitive to certain things...

[USMCHokie]

Now, shall we ask what this has to do with validation too? Or do you conflate racism with validation?

 

No, I don't conflate racism with validation. Again, I'm merely responding to a standalone post of yours, addressing the oversensitization (don't think that's a word) of racism in modern society. A "sidebar," if you will.

[zengirl]

And the whole purpose of this thread wasn't to address the validity of stereotypes, but to address the "confidence" of those who were offended by dating generalizations made by other individuals...I was still on my confidence and external validation bender...

 

I don't think the problem people have with generalizations and stereotypes generally has any correlation to external validation or confidence. I think it's more about the negative impacts that generalizations and stereotypes have obviously had on society throughout time and that anyone with any inkling of history can sense the potentially problematic nature of many types of generalizations, especially those emanating from bitterness or frustration OR those emanating from a desire to separate or dehumanize.

 

Generally I would say that making a generalization is often done FOR external validation -- that's what "Us Vs. Them" is all about, validating yourselves as a group, no?

 

Maybe it’s just the way they’re used. A generalization/stereotype are really just observations of common behavior in my view so in of themselves, don’t always set alarm bells ringing. But many are misused (dubious conclusions often result from them) or likewise are used in a disparaging manner. That’s when alarm bells ring and people take exception. Confidence doesn’t really come into it unless people take great exception to something otherwise I simply see it as a case of people simply correcting or taking to task misuse of said generalization/stereotype.

 

I would also agree with the bolded, in that a lot has to do with the way it is used and worded. For instance, someone really truly just observing and generalizing about their own experience, with no potential agenda or abuse, is probably not going to raise any alarm bells. The fact is most of the generalizing that gets called out on LS (and in life, IME) emanates from some kind of ugly place, whether it be anger or ignorance, and has the potential to become socially problematic in addition to being logically false. That is why people object, as far as I can tell.

 

 

I personally think racism is a bit oversensitized...but to each their own.

 

I love Avenue Q, and that song is cute, but the whole point of having a song like that is to get people to talk about racism and the implications of our thoughts and speech, not to just say, "Aw, no big deal, let's not bother." The issues with racism in our society are largely unresolved and in flux. I would say that stereotypes and generalizations are actually the worst contributor to racism today and the most poorly managed. I think sometimes PC speech is overdone, but I cannot see how perpetuating any sort of racial stereotype serves any positive purpose. Rather, it serves only a potentially negative one - and such stereotypes have had deadly consequences in the past and even today really, so we should not tread lightly in such areas.