Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
From Oxford:
Is a driver a type of person? Maybe. I think it's generally prudent to be cautious as a pedestrian, regardless of the rationalization or mnemonic. I don't think assuming drivers don't see pedestrians is a stereotype. Maybe it is.
Fixed and oversimplified seems to be doing a lot of work here. "Don't eat red berries, many red berries signify poison". That's an oversimplified idea.
"Asians are good at math". An example of a positive stereotype, which are also corrosive to the people they are applied to.
A negative stereotype that makes you sound sexist but also probably makes you more cautious as a pedestrian, but not as cautious as assuming any given driver could end your life.
Tldr: do you know what a stereotype is?
I agree with this definition. :)
Why wouldn’t they be? Also note the or thing at the end there. A driver can refer to both human drivers and autonomous vehicles. But either way, every driver in history has been a person or thing.
Positive, yes. Constructive, as I ask in my post, no. There is a reason I worded the question the way I did. Positive stereotypes might seem flattering, but they place undue pressure and expectations on individuals, which can be harmful. This isn’t a counterexample so much as an example that is not valid, and glad to see we agree here.
So, we have to weigh the pros and cons. While such a stereotype might encourage cautiousness around women drivers, the perpetuation of patriarchal values that result in violence and exclusion against women is far more harmful. Therefore, applying gender to road safety is not constructive because the negative impacts significantly outweigh any potential benefits.
A mean way to end this, come on man. :( Let’s remember to follow community rule 1: “be nice and have fun.”
Sorry, I don't think "driver" is a "type" of person for this purpose.
Maybe if you decided drivers are foolishly for being drivers and therefore in a different arena, say gambling, can easily be buffed against. "Drivers are risk takers and therefore it makes sense to bluff against them in poker". That's a stereotype.
To say drivers, while they are driving, don't look cautiously enough, or whatever, you are simply making a statement about drivers. Not about drivers in a different context. Not about a type of person who in the situation is a driver.... I don't think it's a stereotype. You'd either have to be unjustly discriminating against a type of driver or judging drivers in a context outside of driving.
“Don’t eat red berries, many red berries signify poison”.
The subject of the stereotype (red berries) even in your own example is still kept within its normal context (consumption). I will be keeping my own original understanding of “stereotype” for this reason. :)
It's also the FIXED portion. Everyone has seen people est and enjoy some times of red cherries. Yet, presumably, if you got new data showing drivers do actually pay attention and being a pedestrian was relatively safe you would adjust your beliefs.
A belief based on unbiased data ("being a pedestrian where I live is dangerous and this may be due to a lack of awareness by drivers") is not the same as an unfounded, fixed belief based on no data, unrepresentative data, or data that does not reflect the root cause.
I actually often see drivers smile and wave at me, disproving that they are unaware, and nevertheless I do not adjust my beliefs in the context of maximizing my road safety as a pedestrian.
I'm with you here, Neptune's definition seems to overspecify the extract from Oxford they presented.
If we boil stereotyping down to its core components, then it appears to simply be an instance of correlation using subjective and non-complete data: "This individual exerts traits a, b, and c, which means they are highly likely to also exert traits x, y, and z."
Or: "This individual is operating a car (unique trait/type of person), therefore their visibility and attention capacity are likely reduced or under strain (overgeneralization as driving might come natural to them, and fixed as I might assume that no one is a natural)."
^This is, of course, an oversimplification, as I'm going purely by Neptune's words and my own understanding, and have not looked up additional sources.
Useful stereotypes can help a person avoid danger.
Unknown mushrooms don't have to be poisonous but being careless with them can lead to a grisly death. Drivers don't have to be unaware of me but it takes just one who is to put me in mortal danger if I'm not careful. A man following a lone woman at night where nobody else is around doesn't have to have ill intent but she's still better off being prepared for the case that he does.
Does this discriminate against mushrooms, drivers, and men? Yes, but that's the point. It's essentially an informal safety guideline and it deliberately overreaches just like real safety guidelines. The 999 times someone doesn't need that handrail don't outweigh the one time they do; not in OSHA's eyes. Because someone might die if the handrail fails that one time.
This whole thing becomes problematic when it gets over-applied. Avoiding canned mushrooms in the supermarket won't protect me from poisoning. Assuming that all drivers are blind and irresponsible will not improve my behavior on the road. Being afraid of all men in all situations will not make that woman's life better.
Like always, Paracelsus is right: The dose makes the poison. (And like with poison, some stereotypes are so toxic that any dose of then is bad for you.)
Love this explanation, thank you!
And some of the determinants of what makes valid- versus over-application are knowledge, cognition and time.
I am interested to know if there are other determinants as well. :)
excellent breakdown 🙂