if you assert an educational pressure on unhelpful stereotypes people employ about other humans, and groups, call it a positive pressure, to somewhat dissolve them, there must be left a lot of seemingly more neutral stereotypes about things, things-not-people.

i’m thinking what happens when the repository of stereotypes doesn’t have much respectable to do of people and groups, and makes a home in things-not-people.

the subject may be a fringe indulgence, granted. Clearly it departs from the stereotype of stereotype.

deprived of a good range of stereotypes and expression of regard individuals and groups of our own species, and having an idea how essential stereotypes are more broadly, fairly much to every thought a human has, i’m left considering where the enthusiasm for categorization goes for its good work.

anyway, as a starter to this fringe subject, I have a question.

could you think at all without stereotypes?

no

transition said:

could you think at all without stereotypes?

None of them ever come up.

> could you think at all without stereotypes?

I think not.

Let me start by considering the stereotype “chair”. We all know what a chair is, but when we think of the word “chair” we have one or more chairs in mind at the time. We seldom consider that there is a continuum of objects that bridge the gap between “chair” and “non-chair”, and that the cut-off between “chair” and “non-chair” is completely arbitrary.

Suppose I define a chair as “an object that is sat on that has a back”. But how high does the back have to be to separate a chair from a stool? 4 cm? More? Less? And defining the word “sat” has even more uncertainties, what slope for starters. Then there is the toilet, which is also “an object that is sat on that has a back” but is not normally considered to be a chair.

So in order to think about a chair at all, everyone has a prototype/stereotype in mind and a range of variation. The same applies to say a “tree” or a “man” or a “foreigner” or a “mollwollfumble” or “beauty” or “slayed”. A collection of observations are put together define a stereotype, and when that name of that stereotype is heard it evokes images of a stereotypical example.

Or to put it another way, a simultaneous collection of sensations is assigned to a stereotype which is pigeonholed in memory. Accessing that pigeonhole then releases the stereotype into consciousness.

transition said:

if you assert an educational pressure on unhelpful stereotypes people employ about other humans, and groups, call it a positive pressure, to somewhat dissolve them, there must be left a lot of seemingly more neutral stereotypes about things, things-not-people.

i’m thinking what happens when the repository of stereotypes doesn’t have much respectable to do of people and groups, and makes a home in things-not-people.

the subject may be a fringe indulgence, granted. Clearly it departs from the stereotype of stereotype.

deprived of a good range of stereotypes and expression of regard individuals and groups of our own species, and having an idea how essential stereotypes are more broadly, fairly much to every thought a human has, i’m left considering where the enthusiasm for categorization goes for its good work.

Um, what?

>Suppose I define a chair as “an object that is sat on that has a back”

the essentials of a chair :-)

what a way to start the morning, here we go…

i’d think elevated (or elevating/suspending), and bottom on seat .The bum is a seat, it might be argued, giving rise to other seats, of chairs etc.

to the stereotype..

generally looks man made, though you could find a natural log, stump or even a rock that might qualify. Of the latter you’d be somehow applying for sitting on. The expression made for the job comes to mind.

my stereotype of chair looks very similar to the wooden chairs i’m sitting on, in fact it’s not so different to the stick pictures I drew when five years old, which haven’t improved much.

just incidentally, while writing this, i’m wondering now if some of peoples use of we is an unconscious reference to ones internal collection of stereotypes, I mean our stereotypes are like invisible friends (get back to that later maybe).

anyway there’s not just a chair in there, there’s probably a bear as well, and there’s certainly a story to tell.

and out we go through the round window today

transition said:

>Suppose I define a chair as “an object that is sat on that has a back”

just incidentally, while writing this, i’m wondering now if some of peoples use of we is an unconscious reference to ones internal collection of stereotypes, I mean our stereotypes are like invisible friends (get back to that later maybe).

Most Definetely
When talking with many people I find it gets tedious having to stop and explain
many bits of data that I routinely string together as a kind of mental shorthand.

On the other hand I have one friend who’s always on the same wavelength, which
facilitates literally hours of complex concepts as if we were merrily skipping down
a path arm in arm, exploring the world around us.

IOW:
if we weren’t depending upon these “unconscious references to our internal collection
of stereotypes” we prolly wouldn’t have such enjoyable neuron-popping conversations.

lol
I recall telling him on several occasions when I detect a pause in the flow, as though
he isn’t quite sure if I’m following, “Keep Going… if at any time I don’t understand what
you’re saying, I’LL STOP YOU AND ASK… until then, carry on!” :) o:

transition said:

could you think at all without stereotypes?

It’s mostly blonde women that have trouble thinking outside of stereotypes – they are not very good at thinking in general.

Everyone else is good.