Stereo typing with science and math

[HydrogenBond]

A stereo type is often a blanket statement. At the rational level, these will never apply to all members of a group, although it may apply to some members of the group. These are not rational relationships, since if one can find any exception to the rule, then there is a problem somewhere in the logic and/or premises. Most people can see that, refuting the stereo type.

 

Although stereo types are not good rational relationships, they can be good empirical correlations, depending on how you phrase them. Any exceptions to the correlation are less of a problem, since that can be addressed with proper phrasing and gambling math without adversely effecting the integrity of the correlation. The math is sort of magicians assistant, where the math is like the pretty girl that distracts the audience, so the other hand can pull levers.

 

Before I get too far, let me give an example. As a stereo-type, green skinned people are all vegetarians. At the rational level, if I can find one green person who eats meat, the blanket statement is no longer fully rational, but looks somewhat irrational in the light of the evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, based on the data, green people have a high tendency to be be vegetarians. This sort of uses the same presumed stereo type, but has a buffer, since even if someone can point out 49 out of 100 green skins are meat eaters, it is still correct. If you phrase it even better, that can go up more.

 

A best magician's helper girl, for indirect stereo typing, involves a special type of correlation, that used the magic word, risk. This allows one to stereo type with even more exceptions to the rule. If there were 2 vegetarians among 100 green skinned and only 1 among 100 purple skins, we can say being green skinned doubles the risk of being a vegetarian. I can sort of quarantine the green skins, similar to a fearful stereo type, even with 98 meat eaters in the group. The risk analysis is valid and real, no silicone. That is the distraction that adds to reasonable. Then the magician pulls the lever.

 

The risk of the green skins, is sort of like an ethereal ghost that the group generates. It sort of floats around in the air until it comes to a focus, with the green skins having enough mojo to generate two such ghosts. Like Russian Roulette, the ghosts of risk float about and can land on any two in the group, so they are all at risk and the source of the mojo at the same time.

 

Unlike the rational stereo-type where hard data can refute it, or the empirical correlation where one can still use both eyes to avoid the clothed pretty assistant from distracting you, the ghost of risk is ethereal and can not be directly seen. The only way to deal with this is at the mojo source, the group of green skins, because once the mojo focuses, look out. What we may have to do is quarantine the group, with an irrational stereo type, that almost seems reasonable, so it can't generate the same level of mojo, thereby lowering the number of ghosts.

 

A good modern example, was the terrorists. The risk stereo type involved all Arabs generating mojo with the ghost of risk able to materialize in any of the members. This almost looks rational to the irrational mind.

 

To summarize, if I maintain the rational statement all green skins are vegetarians this is irrational, if an exception is found. If I correlate vegetarianism as a function of green skin, I can use this stereo type a lot longer with more exceptions. If use the buzz word risk, I can spread a small amount of valid mojo to the entire group, since the ghost of risk comes from the mojo and can land anywhere in the group. This way there are no longer any exceptions. It sort of approximates being rational.

[freeztar]

Rather than talking about green skins, vegetarians, magicians, ghosts, mojo, and terrorists, it might help if you just told us what the heck you're talking about. The only sentence that made sense was the last one and I'm not even sure I agree with it wrt your post.