Stereotypes are Generally Accurate

We tell each other to avoid using stereotypes, but more than 50 studies have assessed the accuracy of demographic, national, political, and other stereotypes. Consider this article, for example: "Stereotype Accuracy is One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology.". Excerpts:

Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.

The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.”

Continue ReadingStereotypes are Generally Accurate

Minority Can Rule: 3.5% of People is Sometimes Enough to Evoke Widespread Change

Can a tiny sliver of people change society.  Yes. 3.5% is often enough.  That's one person out of 30. It's happened often, even if the 3.5% are non-violent, as long as they are a cohesive and disciplined vocal minority:

Why cling to the myth that real change needs majorities—when data spanning a century proves a committed, nonviolent 3.5% has never failed? Erica Chenoweth’s research: Hundreds of movements analyzed. Once sustained participation hits 3.5%—strategic, disciplined, peaceful—success is guaranteed. No exceptions. The Civil Rights Movement nailed it: The 1963 March drew ~250,000 (<0.2% of Americans), but the real power was the unseen network—carpools, sit-ins, daily courage—that turned moral force into unstoppable momentum. Margaret Mead was right: Only small, thoughtful groups ever change the world. Now it’s proven. Key insight: This works beyond activism—in business, innovation, personal growth. Stop chasing consensus. Build your aligned 3.5%. Which movement (or moment in your life) shows this rule in action? What could you shift by focusing on that core minority?

Continue ReadingMinority Can Rule: 3.5% of People is Sometimes Enough to Evoke Widespread Change

The Problem with Experts

Jordan Peterson explaining Hayek’s “knowledge problem” argument. Many experts lack humility and willingness to adapt based on new facts, especially when they are economically and bureaucratically entrenched. The crowd is often wise and many experts fail to keep tuned in:

The proposition that central planning will work is the proposition that you can substitute one expert mind for a million distributed expert minds.

That’s obviously not the case, because each person is going to have knowledge that pertains to their locality that isn’t accessible to everyone.

“So it’s much better to let everyone make the decisions and sum them.

Continue ReadingThe Problem with Experts

Bret Weinstein’s Approach to Immigration

I agree with Bret Weinstein's way of seeing Immigration:

My feeling is this. I'm not pro-immigration. I'm not anti-immigration. What I want is for people who are not corrupt, who are well-informed about the issue, to figure out what the best level of immigration is and to set up a process that works.

I don't want to see any illegals. I want to see people who come in legally. I want to see the number. Maybe it's a high number. Maybe it's a low number. I don't know, but I'd like to see the right number. I'd like us to at least aspire to it.

And then most important of all, and I see this in both England and the US, somewhere along the line, we apparently decided it was impolite to ask people who wished to come to our countries, whether they liked us and aspired to be a part of our civilization. And my feeling is whatever the number is that we should be allowing in, I don't want any who don't aspire to be American. I want people who like it, who want to make the place better and want to participate in it because they see it as good. We should not be letting people in who want to destroy it. Obviously, I can't imagine that anyone has to say that out loud, but apparently it has to be said out loud because it's not obvious to a lot of people.

And the point is, it is what I just said anti-immigrant? No, it's anti-people who hate us. And I have a right to be anti-people who hate us...

Continue ReadingBret Weinstein’s Approach to Immigration