Title: Stereotyping
By: Sheila Cowan
PHI 103: Informal Logic
Instructor: Issac Brown
Date: November 07, 2011

Stereotyping, prejudices and discrimination are ways in which society maintains class and status distinctions and disparate rights and resource distribution. Whether stereotypes are personal, socially based or institutionally legitimized, stereotyping uses flawed logic. It universally applies a belief, idea or an observation to a group of people with a specific trait or characteristic. This leads to invalid logic arguments, hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives that look something like this (Brown, 2001):
• If a person has brown hair they are always less intelligent.
When constructed as a universal or categorical imperative it looks like this (Brown, 2001):
• People with brown hair are always less intelligent.
Nevertheless stereotypes persist.
Stereotyping and Discrimination Wherever people must compete for resources or position, stereotyping becomes a powerful tool. Governments and organizational leaders charged with the distribution of these positions and resources often use stereotyping and discrimination as a process of elimination. Therefore, negative stereotyping exists in almost every sphere of participation. It exists in schools, in financial institutions, in nearly every industrial and societal sector. Sometimes, negative stereotyping is less obvious than others are. As demonstrated by the University of Toronto 2010 article, “Stereotyping has a lasting negative impact,” innuendo can yield detriment. In fact, the University of Toronto (2010) explains how one group of women taking a math test were subjected to negative stereotyping. According to the University of Toronto (2010) article, the test monitor told these women this test would prove whether they were smart in math. It therefore injected negative stereotyping into the air. In the other group, the researchers supported the test group, told them how to overcome the stress and test challenges. Instead of negative stereotyping and innuendo, the second group of women were taught coping strategies. After both groups completed these tests, both groups took another test to determine levels of aggression and ability to focus. The test results for the group of women that experienced discrimination or the perception thereof, not only demonstrated more hostility than their counterparts did, but also showed lesser cognitive ability. Notably, the University of Toronto 2010 article also verifies that these results were replicated no matter which group or characteristic was targeted. Although the previous study was designed to measure the impact of stereotypes, negative stereotyping and discrimination occur within everyday life. For example, many people believe that poor people are lazy. In many cases, this is not true. Nevertheless, many clubs or agencies will ask poor people to prove they are worthy. In other words, they must demonstrate they have the ability to utilize the assistance and eliminate the need for assistance in the future from these agencies. They must also prove that they are not lazy or ignorant when seeking club membership. In the workplace, people might insist that all people from the Middle East take “unnecessary breaks” (for prayer). Others might insist all foreigners are stupid or fail to learn the migrant county’s language. These are all examples of negative stereotyping and faulty logic. These beliefs may be based on one experience or some media report, but these beliefs do not apply to all people within a category. Nevertheless, such logic makes the speaker or believer feel self-important or more deserving of status and power. Sometimes, too, ethnicity is positively stereotyped, as exemplified by the statement, “All Asians are good at math and science.” Obviously, any time a belief or observation is applied homogenously, it tends to be erroneous. While it may be true that Asian students’ math and science test scores exceed those of Americans, it is not always true. In fact, the breakdown of the logical argument using the hypothetical imperative will look like this:
• If a person is Asian, he/she will be good in math and science.
The universal or categorical imperative version looks like this:
• All Asians are good in math and Science.
Yet, other variations of the logical argument would probably look like this:
• All Asians get high math and science test scores.
• If the math and science test score is high, the test taker must be Asian.
• If high math and science test scores are required to achieve math and science degrees, all Asians will hold these degrees.
• If all jobs as scientists require science degrees and high test scores, then all scientists are Asians.
• If mathematicians require mathematics degrees and high test scores, then all mathematicians must be Asians.
This argument is flawed. If these statements were true, all Asian students would have high math and science scores. This is not true. If high scores on these tests were correlative of Asian origin, then no other people would have high marks on math and science tests. This is not true. Obviously, not all scientists and mathematicians are Asian. Therefore, this positive stereotype is incorrect. Yet, it demonstrates how people make the idea or perception seem true. Based upon the preceding passages, the stereotypes and the logical arguments presented, stereotyping yields many unexpected and unintended consequences. it produces lasting effects for those discriminated against, increases hostility, decreases focus and cognitive ability and sometimes induces aggression. The intended consequences of stereotypes artificially maintain social order, ideas about status and power and the distribution of resources and position. Therefore, stereotypes persist throughout society in various forms.

References
Brown, C. (2001). Kant’s ethics. United Kingdom: Trinity University. Retrieved from http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/kant_ethics.html
University of Toronto (2010, August 11). Stereotyping has a lasting negative impact, new research finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com¬ /releases/2010/08/100810122210.htm