Stereotypes !!

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sat Mar 30 2002 - 20:16:12 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: To be or not to be: memetics a science?"

    Received: by id NAA18792 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:28:05 +0100
    Message-ID: <000201c1d828$53ccb2a0$e2a0eb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Stereotypes !!
    Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:16:12 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Steve Drew <>
    > BTW, i'm very interested in stereotypes, as they are way of coping with a
    > vast amount of data. I think the problem is that as society became more
    > more complex, so the stereotypes become more inaccurate and subject to
    > social situations that they were not really evolved to cope with.
    > Stereotypes are not limited to racial groups, but to situations i.e., i
    > think they evolved as we did. A neat mental trick when you are hunting or
    > digging for lunch would be to have a 'situation template' in your noggin.
    > it is too detailed you would starve as no two locations are the same and
    > would not find a match. If the pattern were too general you would end up
    > poisoned through eating the wrong thing etc.
    > So some theories suggest that we are hard wired to stereotype people and
    > situations, as it is (in early human history) too good a trick not to. But
    > in the modern world the system doesn't seem to work as well due to the
    > amount of info and situations we encounter.
    > So i reckon we are hard wired to stereotype, but who and what have lots of
    > social input.

    Hi Steve,

    All seems to be quiet on the memetic front, so in the meanwhile....

    Now at the end of a very busy fortnight, it struck me by surprise that
    while I was working with the people designated to me that maybe one
    reason why I get the work done where others seem to fail is due to
    the use of stereotypes.
    I often wondered why I get so easily along with people of other cul-
    tures, I suppose it was my interest in those, but now I am not that sure.

    This is maybe a longshot but the reason I see fit to qualify as an answer
    is that I see the people where I work with like they really are.
    No offense intented here, but in my crounty black people are considered
    as lazy, they take no initiave, they don 't like very mush physical labour
    and get very easy distracted. If, thus you have to work with them, 9 out
    of 10 times the project will fail due to those stereotypical

    But, I had chances to observe them and my own actions during the last
    couple of days, it seems to me that by consolidation of those stereo-
    typical aspects of their being that I get a better result
    That means I disregard the fact of feminism and give to the woman I
    work with typical woman- jobs,
    To the lazy bumps I give an easy part, the strong I use to lift things
    and so on...
    And in fact, in return I get a better overall result. In a way their weak-
    nesses do become a sense of strenght.
    In a way I use the typical stereotypical aspects of their being to my
    advance, and I do that, oh wonder me, conscient and all the time !!

    And to my bigger surprise, they don 't seem to care ( I don 't tell them,
    of course), everybody is happy with the role he/ she plays in and for
    the better good.
    Application of stereotypical aspects as the groundrule for teambuilding,
    so to speak.
    How does this relate to your interest and to some of the theories !?



    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 14:43:50 BST