Stereotypes

[seeingeyes]

Right. I added that as my own contribution. Not everything has to be from "out there"....I do have a brain, an education, and enough intelligence to make some pretty reasonable inferences.

I'm glad that you have a brain, an education, and intelligence. Do you also have an example?

 

[sdmsanjose]

[QUOTE]
By ValleyGal
Is it so wrong for people to want to know their tax dollars are not going to people who abuse the system we all pay into?
[/QUOTE]
HECK NO!!! Will stereotypes help reduce the cheaters? Maybe,
stereo-types may not always be perfectly fair but they probably do help in some ways in reducing the cheaters.

However, the big problem is having the resources to sort out the abusers from the non-abusers of the society.

I have worked with single welfare moms for decades and I can tell you that having the resources to sort out the abusers from the non-abusers is a real huge problem.

Before I go on I will tell you this. In my state you would really have to be desperate to have a bunch of children so that you could get more welfare. I have never seen any welfare mother get more than $600 no matter how many children she had. I have been verifying income for welfare mothers for decades; I have seen welfare mother’s with 6 and 7 children and not even get $600 per month. I would not be surprised that they were having children to get more money but they would really have to be desperate IMO. What I did find in some cases is that the women were just so needy, weak, and irresponsible that they let their life get completely out of control. In my state it would be irrational and not a very smart move to have chidren t ge such a small sum of welfare for a short period of time.

Since the welfare reform acts in some states have been implemented the welfare is either cut off or severely reduced after a certain time. The welfare mothers in my small society that I work in have dropped drastically in the last 10-20 years. At one time (1970s-1980s) we had over 50% of our clients as welfare mothers but now we have leas than 9%

Let me give you an example as to why getting the recourses to stop the abuse of our tax dollars is so difficult. I have a woman right now that is getting tax payer social benefits that we are quite certain is an abuser. We have had several reliable sources tell us that she has property in Mexico that she receives rent from but has never claimed that income. We do have a system to verify income in the USA based upon their social security number but that is no good in Mexico. All we have is several people that know her tell us about her property in Mexico and that will not be sufficient to cut her off her tax payer benefits or take other actions. Heresay just is not enough to take action.

I even looked into hiring a person to go into Mexico and get the legal documents to prove her income but he told me that . Now that is just one case and can you imagine how many resources you would have to have to separate the abusers from the non-abuser on all the tax payers social sercises? Often it comes down to money. The amount of money it takes to set up an agency and fund the workers to try and prove that the abusers are cheating would be a lot more than the amount of money the cheaters are getting from the government’s tax payers. Then you have those that scream that the government has too many agencies and that they are inefficient. Now you have to hire more agencies and people to find out if the government has too many agencies and then if the workers are inefficient.

I know that some of the food stamp recipient’s trade their food stamps in order to get things that the food stamps do not allow. Are we going create more agencies and hire more people to chase these people around to see how they are cheating? What is the money outlay compared to the money saved by catching the cheaters?

In the area I work in the improvements in reducing the abusers has been signiciantly improved. However, no good citizen approves a person that abuses the honest hard working tax payers.


Will sterotypes help indentify the possible cheaters? Maybe, but the real questions are you willing to spend the tax money to get the recourses to serrate the abusers from the non-burses, then prosecute or take further expensive actions?

Then there is the question of “Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater”?

 

[ValleyGal]

Stan, where I live, single moms were entitled to collect social assistance till their youngest child turned 12 (at that time, but I think it's age 6 now). We did have a problem here back then. Women were hired part time and into low-paid service jobs that had no benefits, and husbands would leave and not pay their child support. So if a woman had one child about age 8-10, she would seek to have another, which would buy her another dozen years on the system. She would get the base amount, plus $100 per child per month.

I was on it for the first while after my ex left, but I could not stand being dependent on the system. When I asked to still receive if I went back to school, the worker actually asked me why I would want to, since I could be a stay-home mom for another 11.5 years. I asked her if she would rather her taxes pay me to do that, or if she wanted to give me a little slack and let me go back to work so I could contribute to paying her wages and benefits. Needless to say, I got permission to upgrade, and I never had to ask for social services again except for one month when my son was sick.

I do think the problem has been addressed, but the stereotype persists. They have created welfare to work programs, educational access, and they have created a program to register divorced dads to go after the deadbeat dads. Still, there is the stereotype. Understanding where it comes from and why people have them is half the battle in responding in a way that is not so personal -> defensive.

As I stated before, the problem is not that we stereotype...rather, it is that some of the stereotypes out there are false ones, like the welfare mom stereotype. While it may have been relatively true at one point, it is not so true anymore, so social perception also needs to adapt to that.

Unfortunately, the whole concept of stereotyping has been stereotyped as a negative problem that needs to be removed rather than understood and reformed. Unfortunately, some people do not want to address their own stereotypes of stereotyping.

 

[mkgal1]

Unfortunately, some people do not want to address their own stereotypes of stereotyping.

A stereotype is of a group. You can't stereotype a stereotype. One generalizes stereotypes, maybe.

 

[sdmsanjose]

By ValleyGal
I was on it for the first while after my ex left, but I could not stand being dependent on the system. When I asked to still receive if I went back to school, the worker actually asked me why I would want to, since I could be a stay-home mom for another 11.5 years. I asked her if she would rather her taxes pay me to do that, or if she wanted to give me a little slack and let me go back to work so I could contribute to paying her wages and benefits. Needless to say, I got permission to upgrade, and I never had to ask for social services again except for one month when my son was sick.

I love my taxes going to help someone like you!


As for stereotyping, I think Arizona law has an interesting situation with the immigration law SB-1070. This law is very controversial and has made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. Stereotyping has been suggested by opponents of the law as racial profiling. Proponents of the law state that stereotypes such as brown skin, speaking English with a heavy Spanish accent and/or not speaking English are reasonable suspects.

The law requires during a lawful stop for law officers to determine immigration status of individuals who are reasonably suspect to be illegal aliens. The opponents of the law say that the racial profiling occurs when the officers will ask the person who is dark skinned and talks with a Spanish accent to “show me your papers”.

The proponents counter by saying that during a lawful stop when the person shows any local, state, or federal identification documents then the person is presumed legal and no immigration checks are conducted. However without such documents then the officer will attempt to determine immigration status.

One issue by the opponents of the law is that it is claimed that stereotype, such as dark skinned and speaking English with a Spanish accent, is racial profiling.

The proponents of the law state that the determining factor is that the person is not able to provide any local, state, of federal documents to show legal resident status.

Some opponents of the law state that the Arizona Officers will not consider a Canadian who is white skinned and speaks English with a Canadian accent will not be considered a reasonable suspect.

At this time there is no concrete proof that this does or does not occur. However, one person that is in favor of the law stated that even if that was true our problem in Arizona is not with Canadians that are sneaking into Arizona illegally; the problem is with brown skinned illegals.

What is your opinion?

Arizona SB 1070

• During a lawful stop directs law enforcement officers to determine immigration status of individuals who they reasonably suspect to be illegal aliens, and for all persons who are arrested. (§ 2(B), page 1).

Provides that persons who present any federal, state or local identification documents
that require verification of lawful status (e.g., an Arizona driver’s license) when issued
are presumed to be lawfully present. (§ 2(B), page 1).

 

[DZoolander]

The criticisms against the Arizona immigration law never really made sense to me (and I'm pretty socially liberal). It's like we've taken this stand that all profiling is wrong - simply "because"...

But let's say for a moment that you truly wanted to do something about illegal immigration, and you believed it was a problem. Let's say you wanted to actually exert effort to find illegal immigrants. What then?

The elephant in the room that nobody addresses or talks about with any degree of conviction is the truth that if you were to put any of us Americans in a room with 100 random people, and ask us to find the illegal immigrant, the truth of the matter is that most of us could do it pretty accurately...and we'd all use the same sort of criteria.

Are they of hispanic decent, do they have crappy English skills, and do they possess an ID? Answer "yes, yes, no" - and you stand a pretty darn good chance that it's an illegal immigrant.

That's the simple fact of the matter. Of the illegal immigrants out there, I think statistics show that it's something like 80% are of Hispanic decent, 15% are of Asian decent, and like 5% are "other". So, it sorta stands to reason if you're gonna try and find them - you're going to go for the lowest hanging fruit first.

Of course you're not going to ask the red haired irish person walking around if they're legally here. Statistically - you're almost guaranteed that they are. To devote equal time to that person as you would a hispanic with marginal English skills would amount to nothing more than pretending to be impartial simply for the sake of appearing to be impartial.

Devoting equal time to those people would make about as much sense as say...if you were looking for klansmen...interviewing an equal number of black people as whites so you don't give the appearance of thinking that whites alone are klansmen. Or - if you were searching for Nazis...raiding synagogues and questioning rabbis.

It's simply how it is...and I really never got how that appears to escape people.

The truth is - if you're opposed to the Arizona law - I'd be willing to bet that you also believe that we should exert no effort to actually find illegal immigrants and do something about it. I doubt there's a person around who opposes the law, but also simultaneously believes that we ought to be finding them.

...and that's pretty much the crux of it.

 

[ValleyGal]

A caucasian person who has a Canadian accent would not be a suspect primarily because Canadians are typically not motivated to go to the US illegally. There might be the occasional criminal who tries, but the instances are far and few between - in comparison to people who are from Mexico who are highly motivated to make their way into the US to try to make a better life for themselves.

Imo, the law and racial profiling are one stereotype that have a higher likelihood of accuracy in AZ. I mean, I don't really think that would be an issue in WA, for example. Since illegal immigration attempts are so common in AZ, I can see why they have such laws.

That does not make it easier on the people who are there legally, though. The law might not work for all people....for example, the truckers who deliver there will pick lumpers (iirc that's what they call them) from the illegal Mexicans who are hiding in the ditches. They work hard for peanuts. The law might not work well for people who are in business and they hire these people under the table to avoid paying employee wages and benefits.

I do not believe in racial profiling unless there is just cause....and with the high incidence of Mexicans attempting to live in the US under the radar, I can see why they have this law. This could be an inconvenience for some people, and it could certainly be abused by the law enforcement. When it is done properly, the police would not just be stopping everyone who looks like they are of Mexican descent, but they would have to have just cause to start with. Imo, there is no just cause to stop someone who is walking down the street minding his or her own business. But if they are a "new" homeless person of darker skin and a heavy accent, I can certainly see it.

I think the issues arise when they abuse the law and stop people for the sake of stopping them and not for any just cause.

In the same way, I absolutely disagree with racial profiling in the sense that African Americans are pulled over more frequently than Caucasians, and they are issued more tickets. They are also over-represented in the prisons, which contributes to a stereotype that may or may not be true (I have not studied American issues). I would suggest that if it is true, then the question "why" needs to be studied, and then programs developed for them to confront the stereotype and work towards social change.

In the same way, this law in AZ might be a temporary band-aid to a longer term political solution for addressing illegal entry to the US. For example, there might be a program developed that would allow for certain applicants to enter AZ 3 days a week for the specific purpose of doing manual labour when all other avenues for hiring from within AZ have been exhausted. If there were a program like this, it could decrease the problem of illegal entry, address the problem of work shortages, and decrease the outcry over racial profiling.

I am given to understand, though, that the US is not nearly as supportive as Canada, of social programs to bring about change. So that is likely not going to happen, and then the law enforcement is likely to continue (and may abuse their power) and others are likely to continue their opposition. Rather than remain deadlocked, it is better to research the issue, talk to the citizens, talk to the Mexicans to cross illegally, and work together to come to a mutually agreeable resolution.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Where it gets into stereotyping, though, is when people assume anybody with a Spanish last name is probably illegal. It doesn't matter if they, their parents, and their grandparents were all born in the USA. They're going to be wondered about. For that matter, my daughters are Hispanic on their father's side. His family has been in this country longer than mine has, at least the branch that is Irish/Scottish as opposed to Native American. Still, people hear a Spanish last name, and assumptions are made.

PS: It also comes as a surprise to some people that not everyone with a Spanish last name is of Mexican heritage. Besides Spain itself, there is Central and much of South America. It does tend to offend people from, for example, Argentina, Venezuela, or Puerto Rico (which is a US territory, by the way) to automatically be referred to as "Mexican."

 

[mkgal1]

Something else that comes to mind about stereotypes is that the things that are assumed about that person demand knowing pretty intimate details about them in order to straighten out what's being misunderstood.

For example......a single mother that's given up custody of her children. She may not feel safe sharing the intimate details as to what circumstances led her to make that decision (especially if there's any sign that she's going to be judged harshly for it).

 

[sdmsanjose]

By EZ
The truth is - if you're opposed to the Arizona law - I'd be willing to bet that you also believe that we should exert no effort to actually find illegal immigrants and do something about it. I doubt there's a person around who opposes the law, but also simultaneously believes that we ought to be finding them.

...and that's pretty much the crux of it.

EZ, there is a lot of truth in your statement above!

 

[sdmsanjose]

By ValleyGal
A Caucasian person who has a Canadian accent would not be a suspect primarily because Canadians are typically not motivated to go to the US illegally. There might be the occasional criminal who tries, but the instances are far and few between - in comparison to people who are from Mexico who are highly motivated to make their way into the US to try to make a better life for themselves.

It is safe to say that the vast majority of the illegals in Arizona are brown skinned people that come from Mexico, Central America, and South America. The argument that I have heard that Arizona is prejudiced because we check brown skinned people more than light skinned Canadians, red headed Irish, blond people from Scandinavian countries, or other non-browned skinned people is an argument that is very weak.

VG, you are right the people from Mexico, Central America, and South America are primarily motivated by wanting to make a better life for themselves. If I lived in terrible poverty in those countries I would take the chance and come to America.

Imo, the law and racial profiling are one stereotype that have a higher likelihood of accuracy in AZ. I mean, I don't really think that would be an issue in WA, for example. Since illegal immigration attempts are so common in AZ, I can see why they have such laws.

That does not make it easier on the people who are there legally, though. The law might not work for all people....for example, the truckers who deliver there will pick lumpers (iirc that's what they call them) from the illegal Mexicans who are hiding in the ditches. They work hard for peanuts. The law might not work well for people who are in business and they hire these people under the table to avoid paying employee wages and benefits.

Did you know that the biggest and most powerful opponents of the Arizona law were the Arizona Chamber of Commerce? Since Arizona has a HUGE tourist, construction, and agriculture base for the economy, the Arizona Law was diligently fought by some of the business in Arizona. Most of the Illegals that are apprehended at the work place are at the restaurants (cooks, janitors, etc), motels (maids, gardeners), construction sites (minimum wager workers), and the agricultural fields and sheds.
Some of the businesses love the illegal workers because it puts a lot of money in their pockets. These businesses love money first then they are American-Arizona citizens second.

Imo, there is no just cause to stop someone who is walking down the street minding his or her own business. But if they are a "new" homeless person of darker skin and a heavy accent, I can certainly see it.

I agree VG, but even with a new homeless person of dark skin and a heavy accent, the law authorities can not stop them and ask for documents to prove they are legal.

In the same way, this law in AZ might be a temporary band-aid to a longer term political solution for addressing illegal entry to the US. For example, there might be a program developed that would allow for certain applicants to enter AZ 3 days a week for the specific purpose of doing manual labour when all other avenues for hiring from within AZ have been exhausted

There are programs in Arizona to allow certain applicants to enter Arizona for the purpose of employment. However, these programs leave out your v very important clause where you state

“…when all other avenues for hiring from within AZ have been exhausted”


Arizona has an above average unemployment rate compared to the rest of the country and in one county in Arizona claims the highest citizen unemployment rate in the country!

I know that America was built by immigrants but they were LEGAL immigrants for the most part. I feel for the dark skinned people that are coming to our country illegally and I would do the same thing if I was in heir situation but we have to take care of our own family first. If an Arizona citizen or an America citizen loses employment or social services because of illegal people then we need to make laws to try an stop that.

The Arizona law is much more good than bad!

 

[sdmsanjose]

Where it gets into stereotyping, though, is when people assume anybody with a Spanish last name is probably illegal.

There are people like that but they are dying out and probably few in number.


I don’t think we have that many in Arizona that think like that. In some counties almost half of the people have Spanish last names. Years ago Arizona had a Hispanic Governor, Raul Castro. In Pima County (Tucson area) Arizona now has an Hispanic U.S. Representative that is unbeatable in the last several elections. So that type of stereotyping is probably not real prevalent in Arizona.

 

[ValleyGal]

I think there is a difference between starting (and holding fast to) and confirming (or disproving) an assumption. If a police officer assumes that anyone with a Mexican sounding last name and brown skin is illegal, and they approach the person with the idea that they are going to prove themselves right, that is a problem with stereotyping incorrectly. If a police officer starts with the idea that the person with brown skin *could* be an illegal immigrant, then how they approach that person will be a whole lot different...they will seek an understanding in pursuit of the truth rather than allow their preconceived notion to turn into prejudice and discrimination.

I do think the whole idea of stereotyping is changing, with people understanding that while trends may be true of certain groups, those trends may not apply to ALL people in that group, and I think that most people are starting to recognize that most stereotypes have a lot of truth while some are not truth but based on personal bias.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I have just had a very personal encounter with stereotyping. I posted at length about it in the Recovery forum. Since stereotyping is the topic here, I'll recap.

My younger daughter, bipolar and in relapse with drug addiction, is now hospitalized and awaiting evaluation for rehab, which she thoroughly needs. The problem is, she's been asking for help for some time now, and no one in the mental health profession has been taking her seriously. Two days ago, I was in the ER with her while she was in crisis, and I very clearly heard the nurse telling her to "stop being so dramatic." Although she begged them to, because she was afraid she would harm herself, they would not admit her. They sent us away under threat of calling the police to have us removed. Last night--she harmed herself.

It was a counselor who works with indigent mentally ill who gave me the idea this morning, that the ER staff was probably under the impression my daughter is homeless. She's not. She's been staying with her sister. But they knew she'd been living with her boyfriend and had recently broken up, so they may have figured, "Oh, she's just homeless and looking for a roof over her head." Consequently, they didn't believe her.

Daughter herself has heard grumbling among the nurses about, "I'm tired of seeing psychiatric patients. This is a medical hospital." Guess what, psychiatric illnesses are medical.

A complaint will be filed with the hospital administrator.

 

[ValleyGal]

If your daughter was there for the possibility of self harm, she should have been seen by a social worker. A good social worker would have a chat with her, and she would have collaborated with other professionals to come up with an assessment. If they were competent, they likely did not send her away because they thought she was just a homeless person looking for a roof over her head. Rather, they likely looked at it and figured that someone who was serious about self harm would not voluntarily go to the hospital and let them know....I don't know and I am just guessing, but if they were competent, it would not be because they thought she was homeless.

The counsellor is making an assumption that your daughter being homeless could have been why they turned her away. A good counsellor would not make those kinds of assumptions - especially to you. So...either the hospital staff was incompetent to let her go based on their assumptions, or the counsellor was incompetent in sharing such an assumption with you.

It sounds to me like a lot of really incompetent people dealing with this - especially the nurses who openly complain within earshot of patients and their family members. When I hear things like this and things that happen in the courts there, I think Canada is leaps and bounds ahead of the US.

I do agree - there are stereotypes that are harmful, but they can be accurate. Your daughter did not fit the stereotype of homeless people attending a hospital just for a place to stay the night. But that particular hospital may have an ongoing stream of homeless people doing just that. One inaccurate stereotype about people with mental illness is that they are more prone to violence, but the reality is that they are not typically violent people, especially when they are not under threat (they will defend themselves just like anyone will).

Another harmful stereotype that is not true is that allowing one-time murderers out of prison is going to be bad for the public, but the truth is that one-time murderers are unlikely to reoffend, and the public is in more danger from those who commit physical assaults or theft. Yet we let them go. So that is an example of an inaccurate stereotype.

So there are stereotypes that are true and those that aren't. The true ones might be harmful or helpful. Some people who don't fit the stereotype may be harmed by the fact that a stereotype is generally true for that group. Again, if people would start with the stereotype (unfixed), and seek to understand the person, they will either confirm the stereotype or not. In some cases, it is life-preserving to assume a stereotype is true of a given group....such as those who have been convicted of assault, they are likely to reoffend...so it is best not to become buds with people who do that.

I'm sorry your daughter went through that and ended up harming herself. Honestly, I can empathize because my son has a mental illness and we had to deal with a lot of barriers to get him the help he needed, and if I were not a social worker who knows how to advocate for my clients (yes, I played the social worker card for my son), I honestly don't know where he'd be right now...likely not alive. I am so glad your daughter has family who loves and supports her.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

The sad fact is, there are people who do play the system, so hospital staff may start assuming everyone who is homeless is faking a crisis so they have a place to stay for the night. There was a social worker there, but she made assumptions too. She told my daughter "you're not using your support system," and "you need to be going to meetings." I've seen a signed piece of paper showing she's been going to 5 or 6 meetings a day.

People with borderline personality are especially prone to this. There are still professionals who won't work with borderlines, because they consider borderlines to be "manipulative and gamey." I once carried that diagnosis, although due to extensive testing recently, it's been taken off the table. When it was still on there, however, I've personally dealt with people in the profession who shot down my genuine emotions as "putting on a show" and "playing games." Because that's what borderlines do, and the paper said I was borderline. Now that my chart no longer says that, I'm more likely to be listened to.

You're right, a lot of incompetent people are (mis)handling this situation. At the very least, the hospital administration needs to instruct its emergency nurses not to tell mental health patients who are in crisis to "stop being so dramatic." All that's going to do is exasperate the patient and make them think, "What do I have to do to show you I'm serious?"

I told my daughter right there in front of one of the nurses that she was being stereotyped, and I understand, because that would trigger me too. She actually calmed down, and said to me, "Thanks for the validation, Mom."

 

[ValleyGal]

All that's going to do is exasperate the patient and make them think, "What do I have to do to show you I'm serious?"

In addition, it contributes to a patient's sense of hopelessness, increasing a likelihood of self harm.

It seems to me that you have done a lot to buck against the stereotypes that go along with diagnoses like borderline, and that takes a lot of courage and hard work. And it takes humility to admit that there are certain qualities that people with borderline typically have, such as being dramatic. This is a "true" and yet possibly harmful, stereotype. But you should be proud of how far you've come! Hopefully that same kind of resilience is a quality your daughter shares, and she will also be able to overcome many of her own barriers and complicating factors.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Part of it is, I used to think I *had* to escalate and pitch a hissy before anyone would pay attention to what I needed. Even now, any time I ask politely and it's skipped over and skipped over and skipped over until I finally blow my stack, and then my need gets met, that tends to reinforce the way of thinking. DBT skills have been invaluable. Part of it is "interpersonal effectiveness," and it teaches you to ask for your needs. You're weighing what's most important: 1.) getting that need met, 2.) respecting yourself by acting within your own moral values, or 3.) staying on good terms with the other person. A lot of times, you can't have all three at the same time.

I also told my daughter that yelling and swearing does not tend to put others in a mood to be cooperative. However, I do recognize that if she were in full control of herself, she would not have needed to be there.

PS: Thank you so much for the words of encouragement.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

By EZ
The truth is - if you're opposed to the Arizona law - I'd be willing to bet that you also believe that we should exert no effort to actually find illegal immigrants and do something about it. I doubt there's a person around who opposes the law, but also simultaneously believes that we ought to be finding them.

...and that's pretty much the crux of it.

Whats interesting is how many oppose the current situation because its kids. Yet all the bazillion of times before when kids weren't involved and it was adults, those same people were quick to yell "deport them!". Shows how many people fall into a trap when a situation involves children.

 

[mkgal1]

I have just had a very personal encounter with stereotyping. I posted at length about it in the Recovery forum. Since stereotyping is the topic here, I'll recap.

My younger daughter, bipolar and in relapse with drug addiction, is now hospitalized and awaiting evaluation for rehab, which she thoroughly needs. The problem is, she's been asking for help for some time now, and no one in the mental health profession has been taking her seriously. Two days ago, I was in the ER with her while she was in crisis, and I very clearly heard the nurse telling her to "stop being so dramatic." Although she begged them to, because she was afraid she would harm herself, they would not admit her. They sent us away under threat of calling the police to have us removed. Last night--she harmed herself.

It was a counselor who works with indigent mentally ill who gave me the idea this morning, that the ER staff was probably under the impression my daughter is homeless. She's not. She's been staying with her sister. But they knew she'd been living with her boyfriend and had recently broken up, so they may have figured, "Oh, she's just homeless and looking for a roof over her head." Consequently, they didn't believe her.

Daughter herself has heard grumbling among the nurses about, "I'm tired of seeing psychiatric patients. This is a medical hospital." Guess what, psychiatric illnesses are medical.

A complaint will be filed with the hospital administrator.

That's a good example of confirmation bias.

Also.....you bring up another point---often there are several biases working at the same time. Here you had, what seemed to be, biases that homeless people use drama to abuse the system and that mental illness is not medical illness/it's inferior to medical illness. "Proving the truth" becomes an uphill battle often in these situations. That's why I see more harm than any good. The distinction between generalizations and stereotypes is the aspect of whether the beliefs are fixed or not (generalizations are not fixed).