Re: Stereotypes (another (Arrgh!) metadiscussion)

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:50:55 -0500
>From: "P3D Dr. George A. Themelis" <fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Stereotypes

>Greg Wageman writes:

>>What I'm saying is that your "data" is invalid, and therefore 
>>it is not only pointless to draw any conclusions from it (and then 
>>manufacture "explanations" for them), it could be harmful (or at 
>>least insulting) to the segment of the population that you claim is 
>>under-represented.

>I really do not see how could these observations be harmful or insulting to
>any one.  Saying that the ratio of women collecting View-Master is higher
>than the same ratio for men, who exactly am I hurting and how?  

But are you sure you're able to see your comments exactly the way someone
who might be affected might see them? I've heard some horribly insulting
stereotypes voiced by people who subsequently stated with an air of complete
innocence that they had meant them as compliments. And I've come across
casual generalizations made about some group of which I am a member that
made me extremely angry, where the person making the generalization didn't
perceive it as an insult. And in such cases, adding speculation as to why
such-and-such a generalization "is true" makes it even worse.

In a subject area where it's relatively easy to insult someone
without meaning to, it would be nice to have some motive other than just
random curiosity before venturing out into it. For example, if you think
that the male-female ratio of View-Master collectors has a significant
impact on your business sales, or if you feel for some reason that an effort
should be made to change the ratio, then those could be "reasonable grounds"
for bringing up the subject. The recent discussion on observed age distribution
of stereo club attendees has significance to the future of stereo in general,
and could be useful in formulating club policy (for example a conscious
decision to try to recruit more young members, or an increased emphasis on
training).

>Did I say
>or implied that women should not collect stereo views because it is a man's
>area? Did I say or implied that men should not be collecting View Master
>reels?  No, I did not.  

Everybody conforms to stereotypes about themselves to some extent, and some
people much more than others. Would you say that a stronger tendency to
conform to stereotypes is a personality defect and that such people deserve
no consideration?

>>You can't possibly know every collector of either VM or stereoviews

>Do you need to know EVERY collector of VM or stereoviews to make
>observations about general trends?  

People who make generalizations about groups for a living (sociologists)
usually do try to make an effort to check the statistical validity of
their generalizations [yes, I'm aware that that's a generalization about
sociologists :-)], and even so they sometimes get into trouble because it's
hard to show that personal bias didn't consciously or unconsciously skew
the research.

I personally was not at all offended by the View-Master comment. But if
you continue to make a regular practice of coming up with generalizations,
you're probably eventually going to come up with something that affects me,
so my personal preference is that we try to limit the sociological
generalizations on P3D except where they are likely to have an effect on
3D policy.

John R


------------------------------