So a question to everyone here.

What are your initial (pre-googling) thoughts on stereotypes?
Do you think they exist or not, and how accurate do you (again pre-googling) think they are.

They exist, are all around us, all the time, and in many cases, their basis is a natural part of our own subconscious categorizations, and influenced by our own experiences, or bias. In some ways, loosely Similar, or related to first impressions.
The more dangerous stereotypes are ones driven by someone else's point of view. A lazy acceptance.
The most damaging being where stereotypes are accepted, in the face of contradictory evidence, rather than modified with honest re-evaluation.

IraHayes wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 10:05 am So a question to everyone here.

What are your initial (pre-googling) thoughts on stereotypes?
Do you think they exist or not, and how accurate do you (again pre-googling) think they are.

They do exist, and they don't need to be "accurate" to work. If 70% or 80% of those who are being stereotyped fit the bill well enough, that's good enough.

As for accuracy (in answer to the question), probably, some very much more accurate than others.

Generally speaking - yes.

This was an interesting rabbit hole I decided to venture into a few nights ago after reading a tweet on X about the peer reviewed validity of stereotypes and how, aside from IQ, it has been extensively proved that not only do they exist but they are accurate to an amazingly high degree.

But, like IQ, psychologists are reluctant to discuss the subject.

So, the next time someone accuses you of stereotyping something in a post there is a very high probability that your statement is factually correct.

Stereotyping (or generalizing) seems to be a rather accurate means of processing big data about groups of people. The social sciences are based on observing patterns of behavior in Group A, B, etc. Yes, there is LOTS of room for individual variation.