Stereotyping more common in those with high cognitive ability

Dec 2013
33,688
19,321
Beware of watermelons
#1
We all make snap judgments about people even if we haven’t met them. This is called stereotyping, and depending on the context, our stereotypes can either be good or bad. A new study finds that people with higher cognitive abilities are more likely to learn and apply social stereotypes. However, they also have the ability to more easily unlearn them when presented with new information.

The researchers say that these individuals are more adept at picking up subtle patterns that aren’t obvious to the average person. However, their stereotyping associations can be challenged when new patterns arise.

“Superior cognitive abilities are often associated with positive outcomes, such as academic achievement and social mobility,” said the study’s lead author David Lick, a postdoctoral researcher in New York University’s Department of Psychology. “However, our work shows that some cognitive abilities can have negative consequences—specifically, that people who are adept at detecting patterns are especially quick to learn and apply social stereotypes.”

Recognizing patterns is how we learn
Learning can be boiled down to patterns. Whether learning a new language, recognizing faces, or detecting emotions, there is usually a commonly followed pattern that makes these domains easier to understand.

However, the researchers do see how pattern recognition can be negative in regard to social bias.

“Stereotypes are generalizations about the traits of social groups that are applied to individual members of those groups. To make such generalizations, people must first detect a pattern among members of a particular group and then categorize an individual as belonging to that group. Because pattern detection is a core component of human intelligence, people with superior cognitive abilities may be equipped to efficiently learn and use stereotypes about social groups,” the authors note.


Stereotyping more common in those with high cognitive ability



Well that's racist
 
Sep 2018
6,679
1,114
cleveland ohio
#3
um no the exact opposite is true , and if you read the article they are not talking about the same sort of stereotyping you suggest
Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.


Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
 
Dec 2018
1,960
1,288
Wisconsin
#5
I actually think stereotyping can be beneficial if applied correctly. Yes, I said it. It CAN be good to stereotype.

If you're walking home late at night and someone walks towards you with a hoodie up, a bandanna over their face, tattoos up and down their arms and their hands tucked in their front pockets, is it okay for you to stereotype this person based on their looks and cross the street?

If you're a lawyer trying a case about a transgender person robbing a gas station and a transgender person shows up for jury selection, is it okay for you to stereotype them and NOT select them for the jury?

It's absolutely okay. When provided with a limited amount of information, you sometimes have to make judgements for your own best interests.
 
Sep 2018
6,679
1,114
cleveland ohio
#6
I actually think stereotyping can be beneficial if applied correctly. Yes, I said it. It CAN be good to stereotype.

If you're walking home late at night and someone walks towards you with a hoodie up, a bandanna over their face, tattoos up and down their arms and their hands tucked in their front pockets, is it okay for you to stereotype this person based on their looks and cross the street?

If you're a lawyer trying a case about a transgender person robbing a gas station and a transgender person shows up for jury selection, is it okay for you to stereotype them and NOT select them for the jury?

It's absolutely okay. When provided with a limited amount of information, you sometimes have to make judgements for your own best interests.
i would agree, but only in a limited way, if your going to steroetype al women as hormonallly retarded hysterics or all jews as theiving money grubbers, i would take issue. you must be overly broad
 
Dec 2013
33,688
19,321
Beware of watermelons
#7
um no the exact opposite is true , and if you read the article they are not talking about the same sort of stereotyping you suggest
Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.


Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

Yup, thanks for proving my point.
 
Dec 2018
1,960
1,288
Wisconsin
#8
i would agree, but only in a limited way, if your going to steroetype al women as hormonallly retarded hysterics or all jews as theiving money grubbers, i would take issue. you must be overly broad
Let me clarify. I think stereotyping is okay in A. Select instances and B. When limited information is available.
 
Dec 2013
33,688
19,321
Beware of watermelons
#9
i would agree, but only in a limited way, if your going to steroetype al women as hormonallly retarded hysterics or all jews as theiving money grubbers, i would take issue. you must be overly broad
It's a pretty simple article. Maybe give it another shot.
 
Dec 2016
5,201
2,654
Canada
#10
We all make snap judgments about people even if we haven’t met them. This is called stereotyping, and depending on the context, our stereotypes can either be good or bad. A new study finds that people with higher cognitive abilities are more likely to learn and apply social stereotypes. However, they also have the ability to more easily unlearn them when presented with new information.

The researchers say that these individuals are more adept at picking up subtle patterns that aren’t obvious to the average person. However, their stereotyping associations can be challenged when new patterns arise.

“Superior cognitive abilities are often associated with positive outcomes, such as academic achievement and social mobility,” said the study’s lead author David Lick, a postdoctoral researcher in New York University’s Department of Psychology. “However, our work shows that some cognitive abilities can have negative consequences—specifically, that people who are adept at detecting patterns are especially quick to learn and apply social stereotypes.”

Recognizing patterns is how we learn
Learning can be boiled down to patterns. Whether learning a new language, recognizing faces, or detecting emotions, there is usually a commonly followed pattern that makes these domains easier to understand.

However, the researchers do see how pattern recognition can be negative in regard to social bias.

“Stereotypes are generalizations about the traits of social groups that are applied to individual members of those groups. To make such generalizations, people must first detect a pattern among members of a particular group and then categorize an individual as belonging to that group. Because pattern detection is a core component of human intelligence, people with superior cognitive abilities may be equipped to efficiently learn and use stereotypes about social groups,” the authors note.


Stereotyping more common in those with high cognitive ability



Well that's racist
Sounds plausible...I can't say for sure, but the real left has been long irritated by the soft liberal approach on focusing on cosmetic changes like using proper language and following a list of do's and don't's in public....and liberalism isn't new or novel either! There have been societies in the past which were very cosmopolitan and tolerant for very long periods of times.....centuries in fact. I would cite the long, peaceful eras of the first cities like Catalhoyuk in Southwest Turkey today as a prime example of a haphazard collection of concentrated settlement which grew to a population as high as 8,000 because of the high concentration of food sources available in the area 8 to 12000 years ago. Genetic analysis showed that settlers came from all directions who moved in and lived so crowded that in some areas, people would have walked across the mud-brick roofs of their neighbors houses to get back and forth through the 'city.' It's when times get hard, that's when liberalism is put to the test!