You "explained" nothing, you just asserted.

>do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opportunities?

Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with.

Also, please try to incorporate this into a model of the real world with tradeoffs. So for example weigh my/your/his/her right not to be victimized, and everyone's duty to take care of themselves and others, with the right of someone not to be viewed with suspicion.

> the instinctual response to criminals is to avoid &"isolate" them

Citation needed.

> tendency to auto-isolate themselves

Citation needed. Aren't you stereotyping here?

> help towards actually solving the problem

What is "the problem" you refer to? What would you see as a solution?

What did you last slave die of?

I'm not sure whether there's something you actually disagree with - or you just want to "be right" by creating unreasonable burdens of proof. If so - here: you're right, I'm just a random dude making baseless affirmations, please ignore me.

> Aren't you stereotyping here?

Yes I am. I thought you're a supporter of the idea that stereotypes are true more often than not?

[edit] And to clarify, because it seems to be needed: by 'harmful', I mean harmful to the victims of the stereotype. If you discriminate someone, you're not necessarily harmed - but the other one may be. This isn't a "slavery was harmful to ranch owners" argument - it's not even a "slavery was harmful for the US society" argument. It's just a "slavery was harmful for black people" argument. I'm honestly flabbergasted that someone would honestly demand proof for that sort of statement.

> stereotypes are true more often than not

Yes, more often than not. Sometimes they're wrong. For example, the now common stereotype that stereotypes are mostly wrong is wrong.

> Slavery

What does slavery have to do with it, except nothing?

Let's give a more realistic example:

Say there's a woman walking alone at night. She notices a large man walking behind her. She crosses the road. Now she knew nothing of this man, so she just used her stereotypes (large men=possibly dangerous) and the situation (late at night) to inform her decision. Evil stereotype or prudent decision? Has he been "victimized" by the (almost certainly) incorrect assumption of her's that he is a danger?

> What does slavery have to do with it

Analogy - I was hoping that might help you understand what I meant by "harmful" (ie "who is the one being harmed?"). I didn't mean that you were harmed by it.

> Let's give a more realistic example

But I never stated that all stereotypes are harmful, or all create victims, or whatever. I stated that SOME do, and gave a specific example that you challenged. And now you move to a different example to prove.... what?

OK, so you agree that stereotypes are largely accurate and largely beneficial. Good, glad we cleared that up (it wasn't clear from your previous posts).

You still haven't at all expanded how you got from a stereotype about the Romani, which others in the thread have noted is quite useful, to slavery. Do you think slavery was the result of inaccurate stereotypes and implicit bias?

I think you would find it very hard to reconcile that hypothesis with the actual history of slavery.

> and largely beneficial.

In some circumstances. While being incredibly harmful to some people/ in some other circumstances. These are not mutually exclusive!! You know, kinda' how atomic energy can be beneficial while at the same time being incredibly harmful. These properties can be simultaneously true.

> You still haven't at all expanded

But I did... again, in the message you are replying to. Here, I'll try again to convey the same message, without analogy this time:

Do you believe that the stereotype "gypsy = criminal" would/should be perceived as "largely accurate and largely beneficial" for a (honest) person of Roma ethnicity? Because that's what you were challenging me to dis-prove.

Slavery was indeed "largely beneficial" to the slave owners. Even to some empires/ nations. Seldom to the slaves. See how "largely beneficial" has multiple facets? That's what I meant, I was hoping that for slavery you wouldn't find it hard to believe that it was NOT largely beneficial, for the slaves themselves.

"Nicht alles was hinkt, ist auch ein Vergleich"

So your analogy was "something that is beneficial to one side but not to the other"? Nothing to do with stereotypes at all? Because that is so distant that I don't see how it is an analogy of anything.

So "being stabbed in the gut is not beneficial to the stabbee, so don't you see that stereotypes are harmful"?

We all operate with stereotypes that are largely accurate and largely beneficial, not to single groups (as you seem to imply), but to everyone (obviously different stereotypes etc.). In fact, without stereotypes (=generalizations) we would not be able to function and the world would be a terribly dangerous place. Now are they all upside with no downside? Of course not. But that's a straw man, because what thing is there with no downsides?

And I also don't see that you've actually supported your assertion that the stereotypes you mention are "incredibly harmful" to those negatively affected. Because the research shows that that is not the case, meaning the real data about the individual replaces the stereotype very quickly. Do you have evidence that this is incorrect?

> Because the research shows that that is not the case

Please quote this research, you're just being obnoxious and I don't understand why. No such research can possibly exist, since it defies the most basic common sense.

"The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.”

http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-res...

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Albert Einstein

All I see there is some study unrelated to your claim [1], except maybe in the hypothetical square-chickens-in-vacuum case ("when individuating information is clear and relevant").

Now, in real life, when is information clear? Have you heard of, say, "blind auditions" for orchestras? I guess the people who developed that (and got results!) were stupid, because if clear and individuating information was present, there would be no problem at all.

[1] your claim: > stereotypes (I) mention are (not) "incredibly harmful" to those negatively affected. Because the research shows that that is not the case

I.e. your claim is basically that research shows people negatively affected by stereotypes are not harmed much by them. There is and can be no such research.

First, it is you who made the claim, specifically that 'the stereotype "gypsy = criminal" is still incredibly harmful'. You have not backed this claim with any evidence whatsoever.

I assumed that you were aware that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, that "I claim something, prove me wrong" is not how this works. That assumption appears to have been incorrect.

Given that the burden of proof is on you, what I provided was evidence that makes your claim unlikely, specifically the following: "When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent.".

So if the effect is "weak or nonexistent" as soon as any individuating information is known, your path to showing "incredible harm" has just become that much more difficult. Of course, you haven't actually presented any evidence whatsoever, so I guess it doesn't really make much of a difference.

No, as others have observed, you're just being intellectually dishonest. You claim studies prove me wrong, and "prove that" by cherry-picking sentences that don't support your claim - not even when taken out of context!

Want proof for what I claimed? Stop quoting Einstein, and read the study you linked.

> being intellectually dishonest

Nope, that would be you. You make a claim and don't back it up. You invert the burden of proof, in a "prove me wrong", which is both dishonest and ridiculous.

I write show (as in illustrate and you claim I wrote proof). So, put up with proof of your claim, or shut up, and don't accuse others of the intellectual dishonesty you yourself are guilty of.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/show

And the Einstein quote was aimed at your "proof by common sense" assertion, which is just ridiculous on the face of it.

The trouble is there is no individuating information at the first meeting. This makes the hiring (like most hiring) subject to prejudice. Which may or may not be justified or accurate. What was measured was difference in hiring rather than performance.

Unsurprising at all. The cure is either blind auditions or extended trial periods. Or impartially designed tests.

Tricky question is who is supposed to bear the cost.

That is if they problem really is of big magnitude and worth solving in the specific case. Which is done by measuring the magnitude and outcomes rather than detecting presence of prejudice. Then investigating the causes by hard analysis rather than politically biased guesswork.

It's worse than that. You don't just need the information - you need a prevalence of individuating information as well as lack of other (non-relevant/ distracting) information. The panel at the blind audition does not give you any new information - it just removes some of it, and that seems to be enough to break bias.

Making lots of money out of stock trading is rather easy in the presence of clear and relevant individuating information about all entities that are being traded. So is any decision making. That does not mean that in real life, "decision making" or "stock trading" are simple problems that we shouldn't be concerned with.

Yes, we should be concerned, especially as the outcomes other than differences have not been tested in that specific study. In other words, whether the prejudice was accurate or not and harmful ( to the goal of having a better orchestra) or not.

The irony is that there is strong prejudice that every prejudice and bias is harmful and in a major way. This actually remains to be seen.

To follow from your example, investors in many index funds do not have access to individuating information yet are making profits. Which means their perception of the market is at least somewhat accurate. But some investors who do have access to special information (and are not caught as doing insider trading) cash out much bigger. Often they do no better or worse too. You get too actually evaluate outcomes of each investment (or hiring) system.

> >do I need to go into details how being presumed "by default" to be non-trustworthy and potentially a criminal/thief can seriously impact your lifetime opportunities?

> Yes, please do. When you do, take into account that "per default" means "as long as no other information is available", which only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with.

Not OP, but it's easy to come up with examples: in Spain it's very probable that after interviewing two candidates with otherwise the same qualifications, the one without the gipsy accent will get the job offer over the one with a gipsy accent.

The same has been shown to be true in the US for resumes with typically African-American names vs the same resume with a typically Caucasian name. I don't really know where your skepticism is coming from, as it's not even surprising that these things happen.

> after interviewing two candidates ...

This contradicts the evidence that: "When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent."

After the interview, you have individuating information. In fact, you probably have individuating information beforehand, such as the resume, maybe references etc.

So your claim contradicts this study. As I haven't seen any evidence for your claim, my tendency is to believe the study.

But certainly something that probably warrants further study.

Your quote refers to idividuating information that is, in the mind of the interviewer, unambiguous and certain. To take the example from the paper, "the person was seen punching an adult". I don't know if you've ever interviewed someone for a job, but I wish the information I gather from interviews were at the same time unambiguous, relevant, and certain.

The very same paper is littered with examples of cases in which stereotypes affect the judgement of people when your clause ("only applies to people that you are completely unconnected to and have never interacted with") doesn't apply. So I'm not sure if you're being intellectually honest, or cherry-picking the most extreme circumstances examined in the paper and generalizing them. Just one of a multitude of examples cited:

> a child from a high socioeconomic background who displayed a mixed performance on an ability test was rated as higher in ability than a child from a low socioeconomic background with the same performance (p. 293, citing two different studies)

So if you honestly believe that the stereotypes associated with gipsies cannot impact their lifetime opportunities in a harmful way, please do read in detail the Kunda & Thagard paper. And by all means believe the paper.