The Bell Curve/People Are The Problem

[Bravus]

Thought I'd share today's post from my blog here. Some will find it interesting, some infuriating - which is kinda the point!

The Bell Curve/People Are The Problem

Been thinking about issues like stereotyping recently, in all sorts of contexts. One was a thread on a bike forum about which kinds of cars were most dangerous to riders - the Toyota Camry scored pretty high, but almost every other category of vehicle was also named at some point. But people seemed to be missing the glaringly obvious common factor: all the most dangerous cars were being controlled by humans! Humans are the problem!

The same is true for almost anything, from war-mongering to child abuse on the one hand to genius and saintliness on the other. The bottom line, for me, is that pretty much any human characteristic can be placed on the famous bell-shaped curve:

As you can see, the majority of people fit into the middle category, less than one standard deviation away from the mean. For IQ, for example, the mean is 100 and one standard deviation is 15, so almost 70% of people have IQs somewhere between 85 and 115. The next band out is two standard deviations, and shows that over 95% of all people have IQs between 70 and 130. And so on.

What I’m claiming is that it’s not just IQ, it’s everything. It includes good and evil - most people are in the middle, and only a few are extremely evil or extremely good.

My key point here, though, is that this is true across various people groups too[1]. So each race will have its very bright and very stupid, its very good and its very evil, its thoughtful and careful drivers and its dangerous and careless ones. The same is true of every other group of people, including religions - there, too, there will be a spread from very good to very evil. This approach answers a conundrum I’ve discussed here before, about why stats on divorce, child abuse and a whole range of other measures are no different for religious believers than for the population as a whole.

So here’s how stereotyping works: as humans we will tend to find patterns, whether they are there or not. And this pattern-recognition activity is made easier if there is some visible characteristic to pin it to.

So, for example, if I have decided Toyota Camrys are dangerous, or been told so, and someone in a Toyota Camry does something dangerous, I’ll consider that to be supporting evidence for the stereotype. If someone in any other kind of car does it, I’ll just consider it to be the fault of the driver. More insidiously, if I see an Asian driver do something dangerous, I’ll identify dangerous driving as a characteristic of Asian drivers, whereas if I see a ‘white’ (for want of a better term) driver do something dangerous I’ll just assume it’s that individual. Stereotyping tends to happen to the groups of which we’re *not* members - if a member of our own group does something we don’t like, we ascribe it to the individual.

If we can recognise that in every group there is a wide range of individuals, and if we can ascribe the bad (and good) behaviour to the individuals rather than the group, we’ll have taken one huge step away from racism and prejudice and sectarian fighting and toward recognising our common humanity with everyone else on the planet.

[1] Unless a group is specifically selected for a particular characteristic already, of course. There’s probably not a bell-shaped curve for intelligence among Nobel Prize winners, for example - or at least not one with the mean in the same place as for the rest of the population.

[Amelia]

There ya go, being all smart again. What are we going to do with you? teehe

[carolaa]

if I see an Asian driver do something dangerous, I’ll identify dangerous driving as a characteristic of Asian drivers, whereas if I see a ‘white’ (for want of a better term) driver do something dangerous I’ll just assume it’s that individual. Stereotyping tends to happen to the groups of which we’re *not* members - if a member of our own group does something we don’t like, we ascribe it to the individual.

Well, that's because I'm white and I don't do that, so I know it must be the individual. But that Asian over there is representing a different group of people to me, and I have to wonder if they are all that way. And I might not necessarily think it's Asians who do it. If it is an old Asian gentleman, I might wonder if old people do it, or if all MEN do it. We do need to be slow in coming to rash conclusions, but I think it's just human nature to wonder about things that are different from what we're used to.

[there buster]

So. let me see if I understand this : Toyota Camry's don't kill people; people kill people?

Dunno, seems like I might have heard something like this before.

[Gail]

I hate bell curves, always have. They are comparing people with people, which the Bible says we shouldn't do.

[Nan]

As a Camry driver, I had better be careful and restrained here. Well I guess I wear a seat belt when I drive.

And I am reminded of the caution from childhood about being careful when you see a car being driven by an old man wearing a hat....

[Bravus]

Yeah, it was always Volvos with bowling hats on the back parcel shelf that we particularly looked out for...

But everyone gets that this was an anti-stereotyping (mellow) rant, right?

[Nan]

Yeah, it was always Volvos with bowling hats on the back parcel shelf that we particularly looked out for...

But everyone gets that this was an anti-stereotyping (mellow) rant, right?

Yes, I have gathered from your general philosopy that you try to avoid unkind stereotyping.

(as an aside, social psychology was one of the most interesting subjects I ever studied - lessons for all of us)

[there buster]

I take it you're not going to apply this to gun control?

[Bravus]

Yep, I got the clever Camry joke. Yeah, actually I am - figure out a better way to keep the guns out of the hands of the 2.5% at the evil end of the scale and I'm happy for the other 97% of the populace to have all the guns they want (as long as they're locked away from small children).

It's possible, though, that the group of citizens who want to own automatic assault weapons is one of those non-representative self-selected subgroups, kind of like the antiNobelists.

[there buster]

I don't know about where the statistics come from, but something you didn't seem to account for is the distribution of Camrys among all automobiles.

Simply put, if there are more Camrys than other vehicles, or more Camrys in areas where bicycles are commonly ridden, then it would be almost inevitable that Camrys would collide with bicycles more often than other cars. It seems to me that the popularity of the Camry in places like University towns alone might account for its apparent danger to cyclists.

[Bravus]

I was actually saying that Camrys are *not* more dangerous - it's an attention effect, a perceptual artefact, an example of apophenia.

[there buster]

Yes, so was I.

[LynnDel]

The bell curve is the reason why I hate shopping for myself, because stores stock their shelves based on demand, and there's not much demand for what I like and what fits me. I'm in the outer fringes of the curve in almost everything except bikinis and flip flops. I need to move to a nice warm island somewhere!

[there buster]

You need to know about a marketing phenomenon known as "the long tail."

[Nan]

Or wear something from another culture - saris are very comfortable and adapt to any shape and size !!

[Jeannieb43]

LynnDel, you mean to say you're "Average" when it comes to bikinis?!

Oh that I could say the same! Bikinis are meant for "skinny-minnies." So, congratulations!

:smile:

[Nan]

I must make clear that I was not insinuating LynnDel needed above average sizes and Like Jeannie I congratulate her :)

[carolaa]

there's not much demand for what I like and what fits me.

Oh, I hear ya! I shop mostly online now. It's only somewhat better, but at least I'm not running all over the place for nothing. It's so discouraging.....

[LynnDel]

I've shopped in "long tail" markets for years, especially for shoes (via catalog - buy and try on, send back in exchange for a different size, etc. -- neither fast nor cheap), even though I'd never heard of the term "long-tail marketing" until I read your post, Ichabod.

As to bikinis, they fit me best because they don't have leg length, arm length, or waist length, all of which are troublesome concepts if you're tall. Tall women's stores are not a possibility - they target the 6 foot + woman.

Saris are dangerous, Nan. The last time I wore one, the expanse of bare waist between the short top and the sari wraparound was dismaying, and I required a quantity of pins just for piece of mind. I do love a salwar kameez, however, though I've never been able to manage the dupatta in the same way as those born to it.

Nobody need try to solve my problem for me, however - I just love to complain!!!