Log in

No account? Create an account
25 June 2008 @ 09:27 am
Got another name for this?  
Let's say for a moment that there is a particular circumstance surrounding all interactions with a given group of people. This is a very large sample of people, representing a "group" only loosely, in much the same way that you could define all people who live in New York City as a group. It is highly unlikely that there is a single member of this group who knows more than a fraction of the total membership on any kind of personal level. In every experience you have with this particular group, this circumstance asserts itself, each and every single time. It is a circumstance that is frequently attributed to this group and to dealings with members of the group.

Give me a word that defines what I'm describing.
Now give me a word that defines coming to expect this circumstance to repeat itself in future interactions with previously-unmet members of the given group.
Current Mood: not wholly curious
Current Music: Rocky Horror Picture Show - Time Warp
Richardxochizlan on June 25th, 2008 02:44 pm (UTC)
"Collective" and "Precognition". :)
Jon Reidcrossfire on June 25th, 2008 02:51 pm (UTC)
Dunno about the first word, but I suspect the second word you're looking for is "prejudice."
ravenskye8ravenskye8 on June 25th, 2008 02:56 pm (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
rickvsrickvs on June 25th, 2008 04:11 pm (UTC)
1) "characteristic"

2a) "expectation", which I prefer to

2b) "preconception", because it sounds like we're stipulating that the number of "each and every single time" encounters is statistically significant.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on June 25th, 2008 09:26 pm (UTC)
How do you define a "significant number" of interactions? As a percentage based on the total possible number of members of the group? Or as a given percentage of one person's interactions with members of that group? Assume for the sake of argument that there is at least one such interaction per week for several consecutive years.
rickvsrickvs on June 25th, 2008 11:51 pm (UTC)
> How do you define a "significant number" of interactions?

[verbose mode ON]

Depending on how much unreasoning prejudice I bring to the table, the "significant number" may be zero. *Reasoned* prejudice would hopefully derive from a representative sample, along with knowledge of how that subset compared to the entire population, but also allow for how much trouble would be ignited from ignoring the exceptions to any blanket expectations. I am willing to blather more about this if invited to do so. For a population of a million, a thousand people behaving as expected 100% of the time would lead me to more prejudiced behavior than five hundred thousand behaving as expected 98% of the time, if that gives you an idea.

I'd say a "significant number" has been reached when I move (consciously or otherwise) from one level to another on the following (off-the-cuff) spectrum:

A) No expectation of certain behaviors from any member of the group -- which implies no narrowing of possible responses from me.

B) Some expectation/prediction/prejudice about a member's behavior before any action has occurred (or tainting of perceived motives after said action, compared to the same action from non-members of the target group); I may at this point narrow my response based on my assumptions ...or I may try to withhold any prejudiced responses, using an analogy of the theory that it's better to let some of the guilty free than jail *any* innocents.

C) Solid expectation of a certain behavior from any member of the group, with surprise if anyone behaves outside of these expectations; I've got to apply mental brakes at this point to even pretend to an unbiased evaluation.

D) Won't admit that any member of the group would behave contrary to expectations; blinders are firmly on to the possibility of any exceptions.

Hope that makes some sense, and please keep in mind that I don't view all prejudice as bad. But I may have a different definition of it than some other people.

Do you have a target situation / population in mind, or do you prefer to keep this discussion hypothetical? I can go either way.

[/verbose mode]
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on June 26th, 2008 12:21 am (UTC)
While I'd prefer to keep this hypothetical, I'm hypothetically in level B, wondering why I haven't proceeded to C already.
rickvsrickvs on June 26th, 2008 12:36 am (UTC)
Sorry for any hypothetical discomfort the hypothetical situation is providing :/

If you want to vent further in private e-mail, you're welcome to do so.
Kitsune: cheshirekitsunegeek on June 25th, 2008 07:33 pm (UTC)
Archetypical behavior, or, in some cases, cynicism... depending on the group and the behavior in question.
Erinlivethlfe on June 25th, 2008 08:50 pm (UTC)
The first words to come to mind are Religion and Discrimination.
nata5 on June 28th, 2008 12:38 pm (UTC)
Riot and predefined floats to the top of my head at 7 something in the morning.
craigers01 on July 2nd, 2008 05:15 pm (UTC)
I think it's actually two words. Status Quo.