In the absence of detail, stereotyping in many situations allow us to arrive at a general conclusion of these groups. Although we may innocently generate and be responsible for stereotypes, it can, and does, often lead to unfair inequity and discrimination when the stereotype is inauspicious. By stereotyping, we take for granted that a person or group has some definite distinctiveness. Television, books, comic strips, music, and theater are all copious starting places of stereotyped characters. Stereotypes also progress out of trepidation of persons from minority groups.
As children grow some become linked to having certain characteristics and are stereotyped with those who they associate themselves with or how their home life is. Groups like politicians, those with tattoos, feminists, and senior citizens are among the most stereotyped people known. The stereotypes that go with these particular groups can be especially damaging. Through analyzing the stereotypes and the rhetorical language used to reinforce them, it is quite obvious to see the substantial negative effects from those stereotypes. “Language that reduces people or things to categories can induce an audience to accept a claim unthinkingly or to make snap judgments concerning groups of individuals about whom they know little” (Moore, 2007, p.122).
In many ways I feel that involuntary minorities (African Americans) are in a lose-lose situation. Ogbu states that " America's involuntary minorities have come to assert that there is a "white way" and an "Indian way" or that there is "a white way of talking" and” a black way of talking" and so on", (Ogbu; pg 48). In many minority communities this issue occurs. How will our culture progress if we tear each other down? Many African Americans resisted education because they were always exposed to a banking education.
Taleb rarely points out data or figures in defense of his arguments and defends the same by saying that it is a mistake to use statistics without logic, but not vice versa. We underestimate the share of randomness in about everything, due to myriad biases we often tend to attribute our successes to our skills and blame bad luck for our failures. Risk taking is described as random foolishness. People are taught to think simple and that simplification is also dangerous. Thus there are two poles, extreme thinkers and simplifiers, both of whom are dangerous.
Moral strain results when we have to do something we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority and benefit society. Denial was found to be particularly common in participants in the Milgram experiment and the Holocaust. Agency theory explains a wide range of social behaviours, ranging from how we act at work to the way in which peaceful people can go to war, and how normal people can get involved with atrocities. The idea of moral strain explains Milgram's findings that the minority of participants showed signs of stress. Agency theory is also supported by studies such as Blass and Schmitt, they showed a film of the Milgram study to
While they conclude that pride is an integral factor in perpetuating violence, primarily among males, it does not prove that humans and chimps are biologically prone to violence. Robert W. Sussman, a professor of Physical Anthropology at Duke University, rebuts Wrangham and Peterson's contention—specifically in regards to their theory on sexual selection—saying that women choosing a dominant or aggressive male as a mate is due to the type of society rather than an innate inclination. Furthermore, Sussman points out that the decision to mate with a dominant male could also be a mistake, stemming from an irrational need to follow social conventions and obtain a male who would be considered a "good reproducer". Sussman uses the passive, docile, and promiscuous
To begin with, society is one reason why people change and become either good or evil, but why? This happens because of all the people around us. We become so influenced by all the people around us that we forget what good and evil really means. A good person is good but once they are around evil people and experiences how the society really is; with that society that person will become evil and will never realize it. Secondly, jealousy is another reason why we become good or evil.
Secondly, the test-taker’s score may depend on their emotional state at the moment they are taking the test, as well as their cultural background. They might be happy, depressed, or angry and it may affect their answers. My biggest concern about this test is why there is a need to reverse the numbers on some of the questions before scoring. I have noticed that the reversal of numbers is only for questions that have to do with emotion, or with how one interacts and behaves toward other people. Is it because of an assumption that all people think differently or opposite of who they are toward others?
“It’s true for me if I believe it,” says moral relativism. In the same breath, it argues “if it is acceptable in my culture to torture people (for any reason), then I am accountable only to the constraints of my society’s beliefs of what is right, and not to any other standard of moral truth”. In asserting itself, moral relativism embodies the concept of ‘that’s true for you but not for me’ and implies that this moral disagreement between cultures leads to the conclusion there can be no absolute moral truth. In this essay, I will firstly outline briefly the arguments for moral relativism before countering them with reasons why the arguments are implausible. Secondly this essay will discuss the logical concept of absolute truth while highlighting a few weaknesses of relative truth.
While I was taking these quizzes I was wondering how they could possibly assess my verbal aggressiveness and conflict resolution style just from these weird questions. Especially when I took the conflict resolution quiz; the questions were kind of confusing. For example, one of them said, “A question must be answered by knowledge, not by numbers, it is to have a right decision.” I didn’t even know what it meant, let alone knowing how I felt about it. Although the quizzes didn’t make sense to me at the time, when I added up my score and saw where I was on the scale, it made total sense. Verbal aggression is basically personal attacks.