CH is fond of asserting that stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air. They usually have a kernel of truth. The intent of stating this bleedingly obvious fact is to drive equalist, race creationist leftoids insane in the membrane. But, perhaps the truth embodied in common man stereotypes is more than a kernel.
There are many different ways to test for the accuracy of stereotypes, because there are many different types or aspects of accuracy. However, one type is quite simple — the correspondence of stereotype beliefs with criteria. If I believe 60% of adult women are over 5′ 4″ tall, and 56% voted for the Democrat in the last Presidential election, and that 35% of all adult women have college degrees, how well do my beliefs correspond to the actual probabilities? One can do this sort of thing for many different types of groups.
And lots of scientists have. And you know what they found? That stereotype accuracy — the correspondence of stereotype beliefs with criteria — is one of the largest relationships in all of social psychology. The correlations of stereotypes with criteria range from .4 to over .9, and average almost .8 for cultural stereotypes (the correlation of beliefs that are widely shared with criteria) and.5 for personal stereotypes (the correlation of one individual’s stereotypes with criteria, averaged over lots of individuals). The average effect in social psychology is about .20. Stereotypes are more valid than most social psychological hypotheses.
Generalizations about groups of people are useful because they are short cuts to evaluating another group’s values and predicting their behaviors in a variety of social contexts. Generalizations, aka stereotypes aka your lying eyes, work because they are more often right than wrong. There are big social (and reproductive) advantages to the person who is comfortable stereotyping ethnies, races, and sexes, not least of which is the ability to tailor one’s trust response according to the likelihood that a member of a different group shares one’s values, or will behave similar to oneself given the operative environmental cues.
As for the relevance of stereotyping to Game, if you enter the dating market believing that every woman is a unique snowflake (as opposed to feigning this belief with the purpose of moving a seduction forward), you will encounter a lot of failure from your inability to accurately gauge how women will respond to your romantic efforts. Learning from your mistakes becomes impossible if you refuse to notice patterns. There’s no faster route to incel than to go on believing that any one woman’s bad reaction to your beta supplication predicts nothing about how other women will react.
Which raises a question: Why do so many psychologists emphasize stereotype inaccuracy when the evidence so clearly provides evidence of such high accuracy? Why is there this Extraordinary Scientific Delusion?
There may be many explanations, but one that fits well is the leftward lean of most psychologists.
Color me shocked. Soft science field filled to the rafters with delusional shitlibs churns out slanted studies and deceptive interpretations of findings that validate their fragile cuckbaya egos.
And when something happens where they can’t avoid looking at [unpalatable findings], they have denigrated its importance. Which is, in some ways, very amusing — if, after 100 years of proclaiming the inaccuracy of stereotypes to the world, can we really just say “Never mind, it’s not that important” after the evidence comes in showing that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest relationships in all of social psychology?
Can zero-integrity shitlibs really just utterly contradict themselves without a second thought? Does a fat feminist simultaneously claim fat is beautiful and beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
Via Canadian Friend,
This year, a team of scholars from six universities studying ideological diversity in the behavioral sciences published a paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences that details a shocking level of political groupthink in academia. The authors show that for every politically conservative social psychologist in academia there are about 14 liberal social psychologists.
Arthur C. Brooks, New York Times, October 30, 2015
How ironically banal that the group which preaches the endless benefits of Diversity™ is the group with the least amount of thought diversity in their academia bathhouses.