Stereotypes of carder's thinking

[Lord777]

The most common thinking patterns are:
- polar thinking;
- over-generalization;
- selective perception;
- groundless conclusions;
- categorization.

In polar thinking, people tend to exaggerate or underestimate the importance of events in their lives. They see the whole world in white or black. Neither one nor the other has a place in life. As Shakespeare's Hamlet said, "There is nothing good or bad: this thinking makes everything so." To see everything in black is the lot of a pessimist, in rainbow tones - an optimist.

Excessive generalization also manifests itself in conclusions based on a single fact, which subsequently applies to all similar situations indiscriminately. Didn't pass the college exam or didn't cope with the job - "I'm a loser." This attitude distorts reality and paralyzes activity.

Selective (one-sided) perception is expressed in the concentration of attention on certain aspects of the situation, the fact, which seem to be significant, and neglect of others, seemingly unimportant. This is explained by the person's tendency to reject any statements that contradict his beliefs. “He who has a different opinion is wrong,” they think in such cases.

Unreasonable conclusions are based on an insufficient amount of objective information and their own conjectures, erroneous thinking stereotypes and attitudes, although based on personal life experience, but still not realistic enough due to its limitations. The missing information is replaced by one's own conjectures and assumptions, not supported by any arguments, and the conclusions are explained only by the fact that “I think so” or “I think so,” and nothing more. So, we draw conclusions about the actions of others on the basis of our own views, assuming that they have the same values, the same beliefs, the same views of the world, the same needs as we do.

Categorization can also lead to self-deception - the assignment of a cognizable object to a certain social group - industrial, educational, military, confessional, etc. without taking into account its individual qualities.

For example, you met a State Duma deputy. Using the developed notion that “all deputies are dishonest people”, you will initially characterize your acquaintance as dishonest. Individuality of qualities can differ significantly from those that fall into your category of "deputy". And only further acquaintance in the process of communication will allow us to understand how individual traits may differ from the general ones contained in category prototypes.

 

[CarderPlanet]

Psychology of stereotypes

"Sticks and stones can break your bones, symbols can kill you." Phil Zimbardo, 2008.

A bias (stereotype) is a negative prejudice about a specific group of people. We all have a tendency to "prejudice" other people and do this either on the basis of our own past experience, or, if it is limited, on the basis of ready-made common stereotypes.

We can single out whole groups of people - for example, Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, blacks, whites, Slavs, women, men, students, blondes, fat men, etc. - such stereotyping is quite obvious. These stereotypes are often found in the mass media and give food to numerous cognitive distortions in conclusions about the generality of such groups, the wrong transition from the general to the particular, gives rise to a large number of jokes and misunderstandings. Stereotypes related to ethnicity, race and religion have been extensively researched and well-founded criticism, as they generate bias and discrimination - which is one of the manifestations of prejudice.

However, there are other stereotypes that are so much a part of ourselves that we are barely aware of them. Many of these stereotypes come up in everyday conversations and are rarely challenged. If we are not familiar with a particular group personally or have little reliable information about it, then we can easily subconsciously accept the stereotypes that are imposed on us in everyday life and are present in our language. Most of us make assumptions easily about specific groups of people: teenagers hanging around the street are dangerous; politicians lie; older people are free to manage their time, etc. These assumptions result in prejudice and discrimination.

We may think of ourselves as open-minded people, but in fact, we show bias more often than we understand or admit it, as the following mysterious story illustrates:

One day, when the father was driving his son to school, their car collided with another car. The father died on the spot, and the boy was taken to the emergency surgery department. When the surgeon entered the operating room, he looked at the boy's face and exclaimed, "God, this is my son!" How could this happen?

When this riddle was offered to students from the Faculty of Psychology, only 25% of them gave the correct answer: the boy's mother was the surgeon. Perhaps you, like them, will also be surprised by the fact that it is our preconceived notions that prevent us from immediately finding the right answer.

Research results suggest that no one truly believes in the absolute conformity of all group members to the stereotype. Nevertheless, perhaps there is a certain amount of truth in the stereotypes that we encounter in everyday life - and if not, how then did they arise? What are their psychological prerequisites? If stereotyping is usually seen as negative, then why is it continuing?

One of the reasons stereotypes are so unfavorable in print is because most of them are negative: blondes are stupid, students are lazy, and so on. However, there are also positive stereotypes: for example, left-handers are creative, and believers are kind. Despite the fact that both positive and negative stereotypes can be both right and wrong, most psychological research focuses on the study of negative stereotypes - and often precisely those that are associated with certain nations or ethnic groups. For this reason, people are usually more aware of false negative stereotypes that are ignored by most educated people.

The power of the stereotype was clearly demonstrated by the famous experiment carried out in the late 1960s. Jane Elliot, schoolteacher (Gilmartin, 1987). Frightened by the widespread racism that led to the assassination of Martin Luther King, Elliot brought to school a book allegedly written by a prominent scholar. She told her eight to nine-year-old students that according to a study by the author of the book, blue-eyed people are better than brown-eyed people. When her brown-eyed students began to feel uncomfortable, she stated that this was the behavior she expected from them. She told each child to wear a special label for the rest of the day indicating whether they belonged to either the blue-eyed breed or the brown-eyed breed.

During the day, the changes in the children's behavior became quite evident. Blue-eyed children began to receive higher grades in mathematics and their mother tongue than they had previously, and began to read in a manner similar to that of children who were two years older than them. At the same time, brown-eyed students began to study much worse and receive lower grades than they received a week ago. Their self-esteem suffered a serious blow, and as a result, they became more morose and withdrawn. In doing so, their blue-eyed classmates enjoyed their unexpected newfound superiority and showed increased enthusiasm for their studies. In addition, they began to show a disdainful attitude towards the "lower" brown-eyed children.

However, the next day, Elliot explained to the children that she had made a mistake - in fact, the study showed that brown-eyed children are "superior". She quickly discovered that both school success and the behavior of the two groups had changed dramatically.

Elliot announced that it was permissible to rate a person on the basis of eye color, but she did not tell the children to bully the "lower" group; their instinct for this behavior was most likely innate. Presumably, if children are stereotyped - whether positive or negative - they will behave accordingly and be perceived by others in accordance with the labels assigned to them.

Another famous study showing the effect of stereotyping and prejudice on children was carried out by Musafer Sheriff and his colleagues in 1961. Boys attending a summer camp in the United States were split into two teams: "rattlesnakes" and "eagles." Then the two teams took part in several competitions, which quickly escalated into skirmishes. Each team in advance began to ascribe negative qualities and stereotypes to the other team: for example, "All" rattlesnakes "are deceivers", "all" eagles "are bad athletes", etc. This study showed how quickly people begin to identify with their group at the expense of another group.

The psychological effects of labeling people can sometimes be positive, but are usually negative. Many varieties of this effect are known. Labels are used to identify "their groups" (the groups that we belong to) and "they-groups" (the groups that we do not belong to). Identification with a particular social group can give rise to "we-they" bias, that is, a tendency to praise "our" people and denigrate "not ours." People who firmly identify with a particular "in-group" are more likely to experience prejudice against people from competing "they-groups."

People tend to believe that their "own group" consists of many different types of people, but all the members of the "they-group" are the same: all Russians are spies, all accountants are bores, all skinhead young people are hooligans, and so on. This is a manifestation of the homogeneity effect of "they-groups", which is a classic example of stereotyping. Once it manifests itself at least once, it becomes very difficult to suppress it, although the "contact hypothesis" suggests that the activation of contacts between different groups of people can limit this effect and weaken the bias. As people learn more and more about the different customs, norms and attitudes of the "they-group" members, they become aware of its inner diversity.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the persistence of stereotypes is that sometimes we see confirmation of their validity in our daily life. The so-called "stereotype threat" arises when a person is so scared by the possibility of confirming his negative stereotype that he really starts to perform his task worse and thus confirms the stereotype, the so-called. self-fulfilling prophecy. An obvious example is a woman who is so aware of and believes in the "woman driving" stereotype that her driving is visibly impaired when she is carrying a male passenger. The flip side of the effect occurs when a negative stereotype diminishes the abilities of the members of the "they-group", and thus people can experience the so-called "rise under the influence of the stereotype."

For example, male drivers (their group) can actually drive better when reminded that they are considered more skillful drivers than women (vilified "they-group"). However, this "stereotypical rise" does not occur when researchers manipulate the situation in such a way that negative stereotypes are inappropriate or irrelevant for the task at hand. This suggests that, in fact, it is the creation of stereotypes that influences the subsequent behavior of a person - regardless of his innate abilities. Research findings indicate that many people seem to be quite thoughtless about associating negative stereotypes with evaluative criteria (Walton and Cohen, 2003).

Expanding our knowledge of stereotypes can cause us to question their validity and open our eyes to the individual differences that are visible in each stereotyped group - if only we take the trouble to look at them more closely. Remember that stereotyping can breed prejudice and discrimination. Look at people, not labels, and then I'm sure you can discover many amazing facts hidden in the jungle of prejudice.