What differentiates the act of grouping people from the act of stereotyping? How can stereotyping effect group
821393
Stereotyping usually promotes negative attitudes (Eg. Women can't drive)\n\nWhereas grouping people groups them based on similar characteristics (people with boob are women)
825993
Stereotyping and racism are two different things.  You don't have to be a racist in order to stereotype.  Stereotyping isn't only a negative idea, it can also focus on the positive.  Basically, stereotyping is usually a simple idea, concept, or image and holding that to a particular group of people.  So yes, your statements could fall into a stereotype, even though it is positive, since you don't know if your statements are factual.  Even though you said "most" and "usually", you have not met every single black or Asian person in the world to know if what you're saying is actually true.  Therefore, you hold a certain group of people to an idea/concept/image of yours...and voila!  A stereotype.  That's not necessarily a bad thing as long as you don't start crossing over to the negative.  Everyone at some point in their lives has stereotyped something, whether it be a living or nonliving thing.
277342
People have a natural tendency of categorization, where they put people into in-groups and out-groups. This comes out as "the belong to my group" (in-groups), and "they do not belong to my broup" (out-grous). This is the first step on the glorious path to stereotyping and soon enough - prejudice. (Groups may also be nationalities, or groups in a smaller society, like schools).\n\nAnyway - when the in-groups and out-groups are established, people tend to put good qualities to their in-group, and bad qualities to the out-groups. If they find something negative about the in-group, they bagatalize it and find it insignificant. If they meet somone they like, but who comes from the out-group, they tell themselves that this person is a rare exception from the rest of the group. This process is called maintaining categorizations (also protecting categorization). This also plays an important part in maintaining stereotyping and thus - prejudice. \n\nAnyways - people often favor their own group (nationality), and see other groups (nationalities) as lower or less good. \nWhere does prejudice come from?\n\n\nAlso - stereotyping means that you generalize certain traits to people who belong to an out-group.\nWhen these generalized traits are tied to neagtive attitudes - you got PREJUDICE.\n\n\nConclusion\nThe naturally occurring process of categorization, that is allowed spin out of control, because we like to see our own group as better, so that we can feel good about ourselves.
797946
Individual versus Group Behavior\n\n\n"The passions released are of such an impetuosity that they can be restrained by nothing...Everything is just as though he really were transported into a special world, entirely different from the old one where he ordinarily lives, and into an environment filled with exceptionally intense forces that take hold of him and metamorphose him" \n\nEmile Durkheim on Group Consciousness (1965)\n\nThe discussions we have been having in class about the brain and the self as well as the idea that we are constantly changing led me to think about group versus individual behavior. Although some people may feel otherwise, I think we are all influenced – in different degrees – by others. All of us, at one time or another, have known what it is like to be part of a group. However, there often seems to be a negative feeling towards the group, with more focus being put on negative group behavior. This paper is an exploration on group and individual behavior and thought. Are certain people more group oriented? Are others more individual minded? Which one is the "real" self?\n\nAccording to an article I read, the biological explanation behind why we behave differently when we are in a group as opposed to being on our own is that the limbic system in the brain, which is involved with emotional activity, dominates the person's actions and thinking, and therefore suppresses the neo-cortex, or the logical thinking part of the brain when a person joins a crowd. Therefore, the person acts irrationally because he or she is under "emotional pressure (1)." The author of the article uses the stock market as an analogy, stating that the reason why markets crash – in various societies, rich or poor – after a sudden boom, is that people tend to follow crowds (1). This analogy leads me to ask whether non-Western societies are therefore irrational, since they are regarded as collectivists. And also, if stock brokers in various societies act in the same irrational manner, does that not prove that individuals in different societies behave the same? These two ideas seem contradictory to me and also, they raise many questions regarding the idea that joining a group means loss of rationality.\n\nWhen I studied psychology, it was always made clear that western and non-western psychology were different because of the western emphasis on individuality and the collectivist nature of non-western societies. Statements like these make clear and definite comparisons between western and non-western societies: "Western societies often define adjustment by one's level of individuality, independence, and achievement promoting emotional detachment from social groups...Contrary to Western cultures, many Eastern cultures endorse a communal view of society and do not conceptualize a person apart from his or her relationships." (2). Furthermore, it was stated that social hierarchy, social support, and interdependence are highly valued in these (non-western) cultures. Thus, these different views lead psychoanalysts to believe that Western groups would endorse antisocial coping strategies (strategies targeting independence and self-advancement) and non-Western groups would be more likely to endorse prosocial coping strategies (strategies targeting joining with others for support and considering the needs of others).\n\nBut is this really fair? I was raised in a non-western society but I do not feel that I have no individual self. My American friends are no less loyal in their friendships and consider the needs of others. In an unrelated study performed on groups of boys and girls that concluded that there are gender differences in the way we learn, Dr. Grobstein, professor of neurobiology at Bryn Mawr college responded to the study by stating that, "Population differences, while real are of no use whatsoever in characterizing a given male or female...For any particular measure, a given m
1152716
every group is different, different attitudes and learning capacities
174916
The answer is based in ones cultural boundaries, societal values, behavioral (learned) expectations, and socio-economical in nature.\n\nSo complex.  \n\nCommon denominator:  Each society dictates what is acceptable.  Most behaviorists would answer your question by saying that we are conditioned to a response.  The good news is that faulty thinking can be unlearned, as well as learned stereotypical responses.
561323
When people wear certain types of clothing people judge them.  In response that person's behavior changes due to the way others treat them.
351764
Some may say it is human nature but I believe that stereotyping is a product of the moral majority to believe they are of better standards and breeding of those who fall into a social setting other than their own...believing they are usually beneath them.  What gives us the right to judge others for their differences I will never know the answer to in my lifetime I am sure, but I know that those same people who stereotype others and then assume they know who you are, they are the same people who will swear up and down against hypocrisy.
8577
The Other Poster (OP) is correct: stereotyping is the answer.\n\nThe word comes from printing, where a solid (stereo) plate of type was used to print the same thing over and over.\n\nJust as in stereotyping a group, you assume that everyone in it is the same.\n\nFor example, all accountants are boring, is a stereotype.
874007
I think you're worrying too much about semantics.\n\nLoosen up your definition of culture.  I think you'd find it really doesn't have to be such a strict definition.\n\nYour use of 'stereotyping' confuses me...are you saying that people who say everyone has a culture are stereotyping us all as...?  Humans?\n\nEverybody does have a culture - or aspects of various cultures - even if they'd lived in a cave with no human contact, that would be a culture of sorts.  Even if they've abandoned the ways of their ancestory, they have to live somewhere, eat something, do something every day.  These things would then become their culture.\n\nEDIT:  Ha!  Two cave references in two answers.  What were the chances?  We must share some cultural background to think alike...;)
844297
Yes ofcourse, I would think many stereotypes are valid but only when stated properly in the form of a generalization. Why else would they exist? But you must decide whether there's a difference between a "stereotype" and a "generalization". Most people use the two ideas interchangably. If what ur using or talking about is really a generalization, then ur not making an absolute or undebatable statement on something. Stereotype's are usually invalid when they claim to be absolute or undebatable by using words like "always", or "never". If however, it's presented as a generalization using words like "most" "usually" etc, then it could be valid statement. And for that reason, many stereotypes can be all or partially valid. Or they would never have appeared in the first place. But I think in ur question you are also refering to  those fashionable constructs about people that place them into groups. Those relationships between a person and some behaviour or artical of clothing that puts everything into one package. Well, even some of those constructs must have some basis for having come along. My best advise is when deciding about whether a particular idea is valid or not ...try exercising some of ur own analytical skills as well. Don't simply accept everything that peers, fashion or media may be stating.
1116690
I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS BASED ON STEREOTYPICAL THINKING.
216449
Stereo-typing has nothing to do with low self esteem, because not all stereo-typing are negative.\n\nI think you guys are confusing or associating stereo-typing with racism.\n\nA stereotype is a "fixed or conventional notion or conception", this is according to Webster's dictionary, not just my own opinion, before anyone start flaming me.\n\nStereo-typing as with racism is usually caused by ignorance and generalizations made by society or certain groups of people, either ethnic, social, political, religious or otherwise.
391168
We have a tendency to demonized things that are different, or that we don't understand.\n\nIt is a matter of laziness and ignorance.   It takes time and an open mind to understand and accept the diversity that makes society wonderful.  Unfortunately too few people possess that.\n\nAnd difference is potentially bothersome.  As long as it puts us outside of the "comfort zone" we have established for ourselves.
1031861
stereotypes are based on things that are sometimes true. A lot of black people enjoy fried chicken for example. A lot of white people are nerdy and use big words. It's not unusual to see a minivan full of Mexicans. I mean come on, some of this stuff you just can't make up!
802041
Stereotypes form from what it appears the majority of those distinct people are doing. Stereotypes are usually untrue about the whole group, but are usually true about the most visible ones of those groups. It appears to me that the least desireable of any group are the ones most demonstrative and most visible and thats where the stereotypes come from. Are all Italians mobsters? No... but those who are make themselves very visible. Are all blacks ghetto thugs? No, but those who are make themselves most visible, are all Christians nasty judgemental hypcrites? No, but those who are have made themselves most visible. Are all gays flamboyant hairdressers? No, but they're the ones most visible. \n\nUsually the stereotypes are what we wish people would overlook. Best thing to do I suppose is for the good people of these bunches to come out and be more vocal for their side.
331825
ANOTHER general statement about an ENTIRE GROUP of people, all of which you cannot know personally! I DO NOT make such statments about anyone else's group, so PLEASE STOP making them about groups that include me! Isn't this kind of stereotyping doing just as much injustice to me as SOME Christians' impositions do to you?