Your analogy is flawed. Your mistake has already been made and you are avoiding reviewing how your opponent played certain hands because they contain the information which makes your mistake more obvious.

Your table image in the forum is a bit weak, IMO. You make a lot of small bet questions, but do not seem to do anything useful with the information. You also seem easily misled by players who project the table image they want you to think they have.

They use stereotype thinking and that is why it looks like a comedy of errors to people who don't make decisions based solely on stereotyping people and information. Look as shame trolly frequently references the Lronulan stereotype. MrWookie and others stereotyping the emotional response to getting mistakenly called racist. And so on.

I think it is one of the biggest leaks in their game.

To be fair, stereotyping people can be an important skill at the poker table. The problem is that when you're wrong at the poker table, you lose and no one else is hurt, and you can often even learn that you were wrong the hard way, while you being wrong in regular human interactions can be very harmful with no real gain for you if you're right, and there's nothing that really corrects your errors, so you just go on being wrong and hurting people.

It's especially dangerous because a person who's developed excellent people reading skills at the poker table is prone to extreme arrogance in thinking those skills apply to other situations that are really like apples and oranges, but since they don't get that slap on the wrist poker gives them when they're wrong, they just keep getting more and more arrogant in their wrongness.

If you're not adjusting your stereotypes at the poker table to how they're actually playing you suck at poker, ditto for real life.

True, but when you're wrong at the poker table, you eventually find out when they show something you didn't expect. Real life often doesn't have such clearcut examples of your wrongness.

I disagree, you see it all the time in real life. A great example is anti gay and anti gay marriage people being for it when someone close to them comes out as gay. Just like that they go from "it's not natural" to "I now see I was wrong".

Most correct thing you ever wrote.

I think it is wrong to stereotype people at the poker table. Maybe I am just a bad player, but I think one of the main mistake people are making is to stereotype too much. So they are too reluctant to give up their believes. If you start with a clean slate and then just add information based on play, you are much faster to get to a correct assessment because you are not blinded by something you read on the internet.

I hate to sound like the crazy ex gf, but I write a serious post and you take one part of what I wrote out of context... THIS IS SO US!!!

You wrote your 1000th post bitching about a 2 day temp ban from God knows how long ago.

You may be doing it wrong. When stereotyping players you should be basing play more off how someone is dressed, how they interact with others (players, dealers, floor person), if and how they play with their chips, what they say, and if they are keeping up with the game and less about their race.

Example: I played this weekend at a casino $1/$2 game and around 2:00 am an African American guy that looked like he was in his early 20s showed up at our table with a buddy and 2 girls railing him. He appeared intoxicated and/or, confused about buying chips at the table or cage, he asked what game we were playing after watching 2 hands, after the first hand he played he remarked that "this is a lot different that the World Series of poker you see on espn", and checked after someone bet in that first hand.

After playing with him for 45 minutes I can comfortable saw I was right in the stereotype I had of him that he was going to be terrible. Obviously his actions and words spoke louder than his race and his clothing.

Yeah ok I misused the poker table to make a general point. But you are not proving anything with your anecdote. So what? He was obviously not exploiting your image of him. But reasonable people will. And it will be you who won't be able to change, not them.


Now ok implicit in my argument is that people are somewhat clever. But who is more clever: somebody who applies a stereotype and will be prone to stick to it or somebody who plays with the stereotype. Maybe it is just my experience as a woman poker player, but I would contend that people stick with their stereotypes way too long. I am making a short run aint the long run argument here. And if you think you are able to adjust you prejudices in the long run, you might be wrong. Edit; That is why prejudices aren't rational, but they are easy to form.

That's not really the same thing as what I'm talking about though.

There is no such thing as a "clean slate", just different starting points. When someone with a "clean slate" raises, you put AA in their range, yes? But if someone truly had a clean slate, then each hand would have equal possibility. The stereotyping one does at a poker table just means starting a person at a different starting point. If you don't move away from that starting point just as much based on their actions as you would with someone who has a "clean slate", you're doing it wrong.

The only reason I would even consider a person stereotypically is to determine if they are a case that gives them a kernel of truth. Even then, I keep a grain of salt at hand, for the persons' individual nature is always going to matter more than the ways they may fit a stereotype.

It is simply too easy to get tunnel vision and emotionally attached to a course of judgements based on a stereotype and miss something that is less obvious.

On the other hand changing a mental pattern of making stereotypical judgments does not change overnight or without personal effort, in my experience. Before a person even gets to this spot, they first must be aware they are stereotyping in the first place.

Interesting how forming stereotypes and prejudicial thinking are related, but we accept stereotyping casually and prejudice like a moral failing. I believe both are mental mistakes that may lead moral failing if not personally kept in check.

Both groups play a part in a 'takes two to tango' sense, sure.

The difference is that most of the time the Poster-Bs aren't trying to derail the conversation... they're trying to broaden the conversation to include what they feel are its intolerance components.

The Poster-Cs, on the other hand, are always trying to derail the conversation... by whatever means necessary. And they always refuse to have a discussion about their propensity to do their whiny/derail act too.

The telling question is always... what would make the Poster-Cs stop with their whining and derailing. Or more precisely, what besides studiously ignoring any perceived intolerant component or possible dog-whistle.

So far all we've ever gotten on this question is silence.

This whole idea that the Poster-Cs are just pining to start this 'therapy' is total bull-crap. Nobody is 'shouting them down'. How come they just don't start doing their 'therapy' instead of whining/derailing?

So far all we've ever gotten on this question is silence.

In fact, the Poster-Cs can't even play-act or give a hypothetical example of what this 'therapy' might look like. Politards have been asking for such for years.

So far all we've ever gotten on this question is silence.

And finally, Poster-Cs have been asking for copious bans and censorship for years. How do they justify this?

So far all we've ever gotten on this question is silence.

I mean, I'm trying to answer some of these questions for you but I guess I'm failing.

You seem to be pretty certain about the SIH of Bs and Cs; like, what motivates all members of both parties. For instance, have Cs told you they're trying to derail conversations? Have any of them? If asked, would all say no and offer alternative motives and understandings?

Snap judgments like this is exactly what I'm talking about. It kills conversation and closes doors.

I'd argue that most don't feel like they're whining/derailing. I for one place as much blame on Bs as I see the derail starting when labels are brought into the mix.

It's kind of like you want Bs to be free to call people racist/sexist/misogynist/etc without letting others have issue with it; that people should just accept the label and move on. I don't think that's fair, and I don't think placing all the blame on Cs for responding is fair either.

IDK about this therapy business, but there are more constructive ways to approach posters who express themselves in ways that could be described as Xist. By labeling the poster Xist, you immediately trigger defensiveness and start the cyclical derails that you explicitly detest.

Why not NOT do that? Just avoid the whole mess by taking a different route.

I mean, I've offered how components of MI would be useful. I've also kept it basic and said that asking clarifying questions and maintaining an open mind is better than labeling. Even something as basic as, "That sounded Xist to me and here's why..." is far better than "You're Xist!" if you're trying to avoid derails and defensiveness.

I think all parties are guilty of this.

I think the talk of conversion is something of a red herring. Seems like the C's problems are:

- Posters B's interpreting A's posts in the worst possible light and making accusations of racism that are sometimes unjustified.

- Poster B's 'bullying' calling people ******s and aspies, saying they 'suck dicks for crack' or that they have a mail order bride. But it's OK because the racists/racists defenders deserve it.

Maybe they have a point there in some cases but I agree the whining is tedious. It's kinda sad to see a forum of really smart folks in the trenches flinging poo and peanuts, but then, this is unchained so **** it.