NationStates Jolt Archive

I was at work today, and while my manager was talking to a girl who is about to become a manager (she's in training), I heard her talk about me.

She said only good things, that I have a good work ethic, I'm thorough and efficient in what I do and so on. Which is fine.

The thing that I found a little weird is that she added "...probably because he's from Germany."

Which got me thinking. If she'd said I was lazy and unreliable because I was from Italy, or dumb, drunk and slow because I'm Aboriginal, we'd dismiss it as racist or just plain bigotry. There couldn't be an ounce of truth in those things, of course.

But it's hardly the first time that I have heard people talk about Germans as being hard-working, efficient (especially efficient) and all that sort of stuff. And no one doubts it or is offended by it.

So...are positive stereotypes truer than negative ones?

So...are positive stereotypes truer than negative ones?
No. People just don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

So...are positive stereotypes truer than negative ones?

Just like any other stereotype; Sometimes. It depends on the individual.

Sterotypes always depend on the point of view.

Saying that Germans are efficient only makes sense if you yourself speak from the point of view of a less efficient culture.
Saying that Spanish people have a tendency to amble along the street with complete disregard for traffic or other people around them makes sense if you speak from a... well, Dubliner's point of view :D

Saying that the French are very partiotic makes sense from a German point of view, but not from a USAmerican one.

USAmerican
Darn it. Now I have to add you to the list of people who are dead to me.

Where's the "Most" option?

:(

all sterotypes have their birth place in reality, good and bad. Its just 'wrong' to talk about the negative ones. fucking polically correct bullshit

Darn it. Now I have to add you to the list of people who are dead to me.
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

they are true to some extent.
8 out of 10 germans have a good sense of humour. germany rocks.
americans are stupid mostly.
and most irish drink alot. irish deffinetly are better at talking then english. but the annoying stereotype is that irish ae dumb, cause we do have the second best education system in the world.
and israelis are thieving wolves.

Darn it. Now I have to add you to the list of people who are dead to me.

Huh??? :confused:

When did I die? I hope I'll get some nice flowers for the funeral...

they are true to some extent.
8 out of 10 germans have a good sense of humour. germany rocks.
americans are stupid mostly.
and most irish drink alot. irish deffinetly are better at talking then english. but the annoying stereotype is that irish ae dumb, cause we do have the second best education system in the world.
and israelis are thieving wolves.


how do you give four sterotypes as truth and then say "o, but the one about us being stupid isn't true and it sucks that people think it is"

silly drunken irishman ;)

No stereotype would stick unless there was at least a kernel of truth to it.

If I were to shout 'money-grubby Tibetan', no Tibetan would feel anything but a tendency to giggle at silly shouting me.

Sterotypes are always true for at least someone. If that wasn't true then you could sterotype all sterotypes by saying they are opposite to the truth.

Huh??? :confused:

When did I die? I hope I'll get some nice flowers for the funeral...
No flowers for you. You died a disgraceful death. Infact I'm not even sure why I'm talking to a casket. If you make it up to me, you'll become a zombie to me though. So there is hope. But for now, back in the ground dead-y.

they are true to some extent.
8 out of 10 germans have a good sense of humour. germany rocks.
americans are stupid mostly.
and most irish drink alot. irish deffinetly are better at talking then english. but the annoying stereotype is that irish ae dumb, cause we do have the second best education system in the world.
and israelis are thieving wolves.

you bastard. ive got a bunch of israeli friends and while they ARE tough as nails and a bit paranoid, they AREN'T dishonest in the least.

I was at work today, and while my manager was talking to a girl who is about to become a manager (she's in training), I heard her talk about me.

She said only good things, that I have a good work ethic, I'm thorough and efficient in what I do and so on. Which is fine.

The thing that I found a little weird is that she added "...probably because he's from Germany."

Which got me thinking. If she'd said I was lazy and unreliable because I was from Italy, or dumb, drunk and slow because I'm Aboriginal, we'd dismiss it as racist or just plain bigotry. There couldn't be an ounce of truth in those things, of course.

But it's hardly the first time that I have heard people talk about Germans as being hard-working, efficient (especially efficient) and all that sort of stuff. And no one doubts it or is offended by it.

So...are positive stereotypes truer than negative ones?

No, they are not any truer, and they're also not any less offensive (to me, at least).

If I work hard, I WANT THE CREDIT. I don't want somebody robbing me of the credit by pinning it on my German ancestry, or my female gender, or my white skin. If I do something well, I want it to be recognized as MY skill, MY talent, and MY work.

No, they are not any truer, and they're also not any less offensive (to me, at least).

If I work hard, I WANT THE CREDIT. I don't want somebody robbing me of the credit by pinning it on my German ancestry, or my female gender, or my white skin. If I do something well, I want it to be recognized as MY skill, MY talent, and MY work.


You are soooo egocentric, you know?

*throws hissyfit for the amusement of Bottle*

I was at work today, and while my manager was talking to a girl who is about to become a manager (she's in training), I heard her talk about me.

She said only good things, that I have a good work ethic, I'm thorough and efficient in what I do and so on. Which is fine.

The thing that I found a little weird is that she added "...probably because he's from Germany."

Which got me thinking. If she'd said I was lazy and unreliable because I was from Italy, or dumb, drunk and slow because I'm Aboriginal, we'd dismiss it as racist or just plain bigotry. There couldn't be an ounce of truth in those things, of course.

But it's hardly the first time that I have heard people talk about Germans as being hard-working, efficient (especially efficient) and all that sort of stuff. And no one doubts it or is offended by it.

So...are positive stereotypes truer than negative ones?


The short answer nope, they are just as true.

Stereotypes are formed over a period of time, and really are nowt else than what many people over time have noticed in general how certian groups of people act.

The German one above is typicaly true of the German peoples, as is in my experiance the sterotype of German holiday makers getting up early and laying out their towles by the pool.

Great generalisations they may well be, and indeed some of them my well be out of date(I have never owned a chip shop let alone meeting a German that may have bombed it) but at some point they have to have had a basis in the truth, heh even if that truth not be a nice one.

You are soooo egocentric, you know?

How many times do I have to tell you people? IT IS ALL ABOUT ME!!!

*stamps foot* ME, ME, ME!!!


*throws hissyfit for the amusement of Bottle*
Splendid, splendid. Writhe about for Bottle...

It's all about the PIE!:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

It's all about the PIE!:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
mmmmmmm pie

Stereotypes by definition are negative.

They are considered to be a group concept, held by one social group about another. They are often used in a negative or prejudicial sense and are frequently used to justify certain discriminatory behaviors. More benignly, they may express sometimes-accurate folk wisdom about social reality.

Often a stereotype is a negative caricature or inversion of some positive characteristic possessed by members of a group, exaggerated to the point where it becomes repulsive or ridiculous.

(may I take a moment to point out that if Wiki was a person, i'd marry it)

....the positive or negative aspect of your post is down to the opinion the individual has on your culture. Not a stereotype of your culture.

All stereotypes do have a basic core of truth, or at least someone made a big enough impression at some stage.

Doesn't mean it's always true, I've met lazy and incompetent Germans and I've met a sober Irishman (once only but still ;))

No, they are not any truer, and they're also not any less offensive (to me, at least).

If I work hard, I WANT THE CREDIT. I don't want somebody robbing me of the credit by pinning it on my German ancestry, or my female gender, or my white skin. If I do something well, I want it to be recognized as MY skill, MY talent, and MY work.

I agree. This topic is entirely in relation with the one about pride and the reasons for being proud.

I agree. This topic is entirely in relation with the one about pride and the reasons for being proud.


Rhetorical question ( it might as well be applied to Bottle ):

Why are you so certain that it is you as yourself who is worthy of examination?
I might as well pose ( and I do ) that the individual I only has relevance within the context of the society within which the 'I' functions.
That the individual as it is by itself is unworthy of consideration.

all sterotypes have their birth place in reality, good and bad. Its just 'wrong' to talk about the negative ones. fucking polically correct bullshit


Being a teacher, I can tell you that stereotypes, good and bad, really don't fit most individuals you'll come into contact with. Best to deal with people as individuals and not make any assumptions, good or bad, based on ethnicity or country of origin.

they are true to some extent.
8 out of 10 germans have a good sense of humour. germany rocks.
americans are stupid mostly.
and most irish drink alot. irish deffinetly are better at talking then english. but the annoying stereotype is that irish ae dumb, cause we do have the second best education system in the world.
and israelis are thieving wolves.

Bit ironic that you classify most Americans as stupid but take exception to the Irish being classified the same way, don't you think?

What's that word I'm thinking of here... hy... hypo....

Guess I'm too stupid to remember.

Being a teacher, I can tell you that stereotypes, good and bad, really don't fit most individuals you'll come into contact with. Best to deal with people as individuals and not make any assumptions, good or bad, based on ethnicity or country of origin.


You are assuming there that we meet other people solely in their capacity as individuals.
Let me assure you that we mostly meet other folks as part of a relationship, and our analysis of the other person must depend on our own place within this relationship.

You meet a pupil as a pupil. And grade him or her accordingly as a teacher.
When you meet her at some other venue, the relationship between you is different.
If you meet her ( this time in a bar ) you should deal with her as a fellow-bar-visitor.

How we must deal with individuals depends on the context, not on the individiduality.

Rhetorical question ( it might as well be applied to Bottle ):

Why are you so certain that it is you as yourself who is worthy of examination?
I might as well pose ( and I do ) that the individual I only has relevance within the context of the society within which the 'I' functions.
That the individual as it is by itself is unworthy of consideration.

You hold a rhetorical point in your statement. Context has a lot to do with the perception of the individual. However, there are a lot of things that are not related to context, as also the context is formed by the individuals that form it. A school is a school because it has individuals fitting certain roles, like teachers, pupils and so forth. Bars have clients, bartenders, happy hour fans and so on. The individuals are also modifiers of the context, so for me, the individuals by themselves are indeed worthy of consideration. Not all the bars have the same patrons or the schools the same teachers, and they can be quite disimile.

We can enter a deadend with this, although, being right and wrong, both of us.

You hold a rhetorical point in your statement. Context has a lot to do with the perception of the individual. However, there are a lot of things that are not related to context, as also the context is formed by the individuals that form it. A school is a school because it has individuals fitting certain roles, like teachers, pupils and so forth. Bars have clients, bartenders, happy hour fans and so on. The individuals are also modifiers of the context, so for me, the individuals by themselves are indeed worthy of consideration. Not all the bars have the same patrons or the schools the same teachers, and they can be quite disimile.

We can enter a deadend with this, although, being right and wrong, both of us.


I think we are not on a dead end - the free individual is as relevant as the rather notional free atom. He is the exciting exception - but not the norm.

We see and deal with humans as part of a society - just as we deal with atoms as part of a molecule.

Our analysis must deal with that person within the context of a relationship - as we ought to in the case of atoms.

And then the molecules' existence is entirely dependant of the variation of the atoms that form them. Plus, there are independent atoms that do not form molecules at all.

Although the socialization process is not something we can place apart when dealing with another individual (both our socialization and theirs), we can indeed reach the core of the individual.

Analysis means to break a problem, a situation or whatever we want to aalyze into the elemental part of it. If we are meant to analyze both individuals and society, we must...decompose our object of study into the elemental parts. If we are analyzing molecules, we must then study each atom by separate, as they are the elemental parts of them, (perhaps going to separate the atoms into neutrons, protons and electrons). If we are going to analyze society, then we must try to study individuals as well.

Synthesis, is another problem. We cannot make a synthesis about individuals, but about society as a whole.

Perhaps I...tied up myself a bit, I'm thinking in spanish as I write this.

Rhetorical question ( it might as well be applied to Bottle ):

Why are you so certain that it is you as yourself who is worthy of examination?

I don't believe I ever stated that I am objectively "worthy" of examination. I just said it's what I want. :)


I might as well pose ( and I do ) that the individual I only has relevance within the context of the society within which the 'I' functions.

Sure. Individuals exist within context. They're still individuals. The individual, within the societal context, is the one who has done the work. Society hasn't done the work. "Womankind" hasn't done the work. "Black people" haven't done the work. "Christians" haven't done the work. The individual, who may or may not belong to a whole host of groups and contexts, has done the work. Different individuals respond differently in the same context.


That the individual as it is by itself is unworthy of consideration.
Pragmatically speaking, that's a great way to run yourself out of business. :)

I was at work today, and while my manager was talking to a girl who is about to become a manager (she's in training), I heard her talk about me.

She said only good things, that I have a good work ethic, I'm thorough and efficient in what I do and so on. Which is fine.

The thing that I found a little weird is that she added "...probably because he's from Germany."

Which got me thinking. If she'd said I was lazy and unreliable because I was from Italy, or dumb, drunk and slow because I'm Aboriginal, we'd dismiss it as racist or just plain bigotry. There couldn't be an ounce of truth in those things, of course.

But it's hardly the first time that I have heard people talk about Germans as being hard-working, efficient (especially efficient) and all that sort of stuff. And no one doubts it or is offended by it.

So...are positive stereotypes truer than negative ones?
IMHO, all stereotypes have some basis in reality, no matter how small or how misconstrued, or they wouldn't have such long lives.

I don't believe I ever stated that I am objectively "worthy" of examination. I just said it's what I want. :)


Sure. Individuals exist within context. They're still individuals. The individual, within the societal context, is the one who has done the work. Society hasn't done the work. "Womankind" hasn't done the work. "Black people" haven't done the work. "Christians" haven't done the work. The individual, who may or may not belong to a whole host of groups and contexts, has done the work. Different individuals respond differently in the same context.


Pragmatically speaking, that's a great way to run yourself out of business. :)

Chartres was built by a bunch of people - not by the individual.

My own business has no reason to exist outside my societal context.

i think that steroetypes are true to a small extent

I was at work today, and while my manager was talking to a girl who is about to become a manager (she's in training), I heard her talk about me.

She said only good things, that I have a good work ethic, I'm thorough and efficient in what I do and so on. Which is fine.

The thing that I found a little weird is that she added "...probably because he's from Germany."

Which got me thinking. If she'd said I was lazy and unreliable because I was from Italy, or dumb, drunk and slow because I'm Aboriginal, we'd dismiss it as racist or just plain bigotry. There couldn't be an ounce of truth in those things, of course.

But it's hardly the first time that I have heard people talk about Germans as being hard-working, efficient (especially efficient) and all that sort of stuff. And no one doubts it or is offended by it.

So...are positive stereotypes truer than negative ones?

All stereotypes have some basis on what is at least partially true; a generalization holds up to the majority of a population. And if the stereotype is negative, most will feel offended and deny it. It's life.

You are assuming there that we meet other people solely in their capacity as individuals.
Let me assure you that we mostly meet other folks as part of a relationship, and our analysis of the other person must depend on our own place within this relationship.

You meet a pupil as a pupil. And grade him or her accordingly as a teacher.
When you meet her at some other venue, the relationship between you is different.
If you meet her ( this time in a bar ) you should deal with her as a fellow-bar-visitor.

How we must deal with individuals depends on the context, not on the individiduality.

Well, as an example: most people would say it is an "accurate" stereotype that Asians are very family oriented and excel in school. I have met many who are not.

People tend to dismiss "Goths" and "Metalheads" as self-absorbed, self-destructive, moody, and disinterested in school. I have met many who were not.

People tend to believe that people from the US south are racist rednecks, and people from the US Midwest are Bible-thumping Jesus freaks... yet the people I've met from both places are not.

I could go on, but will just say that in my experience, lumping people into groups based on what "people say" just doesn't work.

While all stereotypes are true to some extent, there is nothing universally for sure about any single stereotype. Sure, I know a Jew who nabs every single sugar packet from the coffee shop table, but I also know a Jew who doesn't. Stereotypes are very much culturally based, and handed down from parents to children, which is why they continue to exist, but are far from universal. In fact, I think that a stereotype need not even be in a majority of a group to come into existence. Just a handful of people from a group need to actually do the action that inspires the stereotype, and have it stand out from what the rest of the population does.

Just out of curiosity and fun. Have any of you heard any stereotype, positive or negative, about venezuelans?

Just out of curiosity and fun. Have any of you heard any stereotype, positive or negative, about venezuelans?
Uhhhhh...they're from South America?

Sorry, that's all I've got.

Just out of curiosity and fun. Have any of you heard any stereotype, positive or negative, about venezuelans?


;) That they are sexy. But that comes from a friend of mine who is dating one (and yes, I mean flying back and forth to Venezuela). I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, but neither would I believe every one I met from Venezuela is going to be drop dead gorgeous....

...or are you? :)

Well, as an example: most people would say it is an "accurate" stereotype that Asians are very family oriented and excel in school. I have met many who are not.

People tend to dismiss "Goths" and "Metalheads" as self-absorbed, self-destructive, moody, and disinterested in school. I have met many who were not.

People tend to believe that people from the US south are racist rednecks, and people from the US Midwest are Bible-thumping Jesus freaks... yet the people I've met from both places are not.

I could go on, but will just say that in my experience, lumping people into groups based on what "people say" just doesn't work.

I suppose I have no quarrel with that: people are not part of a group because others say so, but they are part of a group because they behave as part of that group.

To say that people are part of a group because someone else says so must imply an enormeous amount of faith in the individual. Suffice it to say I have NO faith in individuals.

;) That they are sexy. But that comes from a friend of mine who is dating one (and yes, I mean flying back and forth to Venezuela). I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, but neither would I believe every one I met from Venezuela is going to be drop dead gorgeous....

...or are you? :)

We, all drop dead gorgeous?

Not really. I think we are as pretty as any other social conglomerate in the world. We tend to spend a lot of time and money in our physical apearance, (and I am saying this not just out of experience, but by national socioeconomic rankings. Beauty Saloons were the most profitable small business last year, and the year before, and the year before that, and plastic surgery amounts hit new outstanding records each month), but for example, although I can label myself as being attractive, without placing a lot of pride in it, I think I am well far the mark of being "drop dead gorgeous". Brazilian women fit that stereotype more than us, I think.

For example, I find brits more interesting than most other males, but then, it's just another stereotype, no?. Would all the males around this country be drop dead gorgeous and I wouldn't be interested in brits.

I place a bet saying your friend is dating a female, and not a male, am I wrong?

Stereotypes arise from one of several factors:

1) The majority of a population falls under the stereotype;

2) The first of a certain group, when thrust into mainstream society, created an impression that stayed on and created an initial sterotypical basis;

3) The stereotype is created through the actions, behavior, dress, etc. of the most striking and/or "loudest" members, which, for understandable reasons, create a lasting impression that society then imposes on the remainder of the population;

4) The behavior of a large part of the population implies certain characteristics, which are then applied to the group as a whole.

Stereotypes have at least some basis on reality, but there are, clearly, always exceptions.