Why Stereotypes And Generalizations Are Important.

[mark45y]

I had mentioned a couple of ways it helped me. My family has a history of alcohol abuse and chasing women.

I never lost a job because of booze, never got a ticket for driving drunk or the usual things. I quit because of the family history.

I knew the males in my family got sad in old age because they couldn’t chase young women so I moved to Thailand. I am not sad.

I didn’t trust women much after three marriages but even so if I had not read all the tales of woe on Thai forums I might have given it another whirl if I had only my personal experiences in Thailand. But after reading Thai Visa and Stickman among others I think I’ll give it a pass. Now that may be a mistake and it is surly the result of negative stereotyping.

[electau]

The best stereo type over time of course is the Jew.

[Forethat]

The Americans thought the Japanese timid and not good soldiers and the Japanese thought the Americans soft and not industrially capable.

I know of a person who claims that you can cut the price for a BMW in LOS by several million baht by employing a biling....triling....multilingual gardener, AND on top of everything offers to pass out "certificates for having no clue" to those who oppose.

I view of the fact that there are people who believe the price for an apple can be reduced by cutting the cost for a pear I'd say the Japanese was pretty accurate...

[Loz]

The best stereo type over time of course is the Jew.

I think Nakamichi is a better stereo type. But I'd settle for a B&O.

[Thakkar]

The best stereo type over time of course is the Jew.

I think Nakamichi is a better stereo type. But I'd settle for a B&O.

You're a funnyman...I mean funny man.

[StreetCowboy]

The best stereo type over time of course is the Jew.

If he was on his own, it wouldn't be stereo, would it?

Anyway, you'll need to provide more supporting evidence for an outrageous claim like this, and also some criteria: in what respect is it good?

Accuracy of replication?

Faithfulness to the original?

Depth and timbre?

Portability and ease of use at parties?

By way of a little side track, I find the easiest way to sidetrack an otherwise coherent discussion is to provoke counter-anti-semitism, and we could perhaps measure a poster's self-control by the number of posts before he responds to such an obvious wind-up...

SC

I actually like the character Rab C Nesbitt as a stereotype, or Mason Boyne - a character from the Robbie Coltrane show, though I believe MB was actually a charicature (aimed at a specific individual) rather than a stereotype

I would offer Rab C Nesbitt as my nominee for best stereotype

[thepanicandthevomit]

The freedom to generalise is the only constant we have. It keeps us safe from the zealots or thieves. We must resist insidious, sinister attempts to impose ideology onto us by others. The thugs that administer the beatings do so to maintain their own importance, their own profit. Those that cite "aggression", or "civility" or "lack of manners or respect" or no end of other bland catch-alls do so because it suits them. Prison camp guards have undergone a makeover and have mutated into The Big Nurses. Don't let them bully you into submission. Don't let them divide and rule.

To stereotype is to be free.

[thepanicandthevomit]

The best stereo type over time of course is the Jew.

I actually like the character Rab C Nesbitt as a stereotype, or Mason Boyne - a character from the Robbie Coltrane show, though I believe MB was actually a charicature (aimed at a specific individual) rather than a stereotype

I would offer Rab C Nesbitt as my nominee for best stereotype

As my dad said recently, isn't it nice to be free to laugh again? How dull political correctness was! Thank god that straight-jacket has been removed - in most places at least...

Edited September 24, 2010 by thepanicandthevomit

[Jingthing]

The best stereo type over time of course is the Jew.

Careful. Babs has got your number and she isn't pleased.

[StreetCowboy]

I had reason to think about this topic again today, as I've just been involved in assessing some junior staff

who actually pretty much conformed to stereotype. And then I wondered why, given the nature of the job they were in, and the society that they were from,

ethnic minorities were not over-represented, as they are in the workplace as a whole, I think - and as they are, I think, in the middle management layer;

given that the majority do in fact conform to stereotype, as do the minorities, to some extent, hence the relative out-performance.

But regardless, we assessed each candidate on their own merits - a disappointing task indeed. Unfortunately, the variation in their performance grading was more closely correlated to the supervisor than the candidate.

And I thought about my previous recruitment efforts. I remembered delegating first-pass filtering to a colleague, who applied their own arbitrary selection criteria which were not related to the criteria published in the advert. So I had to re-filter again, though in the end I think the successful candidate did get through both filters, and has turned out to be one of the best and most loyal staff.

We had one permanently-injured / handicapped applicant, who was unsuccessful, possibly in part as a consequence of the effect of his inuries, although we did not carry out a rigorous and objective assessment of the impact on his job capability. In the UK, not doing so may have fallen foul of discrimination against disabilities - but then, we didn't do that for any of the candidates, and yet there is no legislation to ensure that the able-bodied are not discriminated against on the basis of arbitrary prejudice or unjustified subjective assessment of ability.

I suppose in the recruitment process, the stereotypes could provide the basis for investigation into specific abilities or capabilities, but most likely, that would lead to discriminatory practices, which in turn generally result in selecting against criteria which are not optimised for the job; for example, an assessor who selectively enquires of black candidates regarding their criminal record, on the grounds that a higher proportion have criminal records, is erring since if that is important to the job, then he runs the greater risk of employing a white criminal. It may well be, indeed, that a criminal record is not a particular impediment to the job, and to reject a competent reformed criminal in preference to a less competent law-abiding citizen may cost his company dearly.

SC

[IanForbes]

You danced around that issue quite nicely, Streetcowboy.

I noticed how hard you tried not stepping on anyone's toes. You must have had experience in the UK under the PC police. .

[StreetCowboy]

You danced around that issue quite nicely, Streetcowboy.

I noticed how hard you tried not stepping on anyone's toes. You must have had experience in the UK under the PC police. .

The fact that the indiginous majority are predominantly idle half-wits does not mean that they are all thus; and to ignore them in favour of the richer seams of talent in the minorities would be a mistake. But on the other hand, the fact that the minorities are under-represented in the recruits, despite being over-represented in the promoted staff, suggests a flaw in the recruitment process.

I considered the possibility that it reflected a flaw in the promotion process, but it is easier to have a robust "promotion by merit" process than a robust "recruitment by merit" process, since you have longer to learn about the merits of staff than applicants.

The trouble is that if unless you are careful to use non-inflammatory language, someone gets incensed, and then you end up fire-fighting on irrelevant issues.

Its always prudent to pour oil on troubled waters...

light blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance

SC

[StreetCowboy]

You danced around that issue quite nicely, Streetcowboy.

I noticed how hard you tried not stepping on anyone's toes. You must have had experience in the UK under the PC police. .

Before I start this post, I'll preface that I bear no ill-will to the individual concerned, and indeed almost consider him a friend - albeit an annoying one, like the donkey in Shrek.

I was not really aware of some of my prejudices until they were enflamed by a poster on this forum; and I realised that the reason I held that prejudice was because of an irritating feature of the stereotype which turned out to be reasonable generalisation for that group of people. And where individuals do not exhibit those characteristics, I often do not even notice their membership of that group of people, although obviously, I can imagine that ill-considered drunken innuendo could easily wear thin late in the evening, so perhaps I should be grateful that I am not a sociable drinker...

SC

On a slightly different note, I think that what was referenced as "Stereotypes" in the early posts were in fact preconceptions. A stereotype would be a generalisation applied to all members of a group; in the prelude to war, the participants had preconceptions regarding the Japanese army, US Industrial capability - single systems, albeit large and complex ones. A stereotype would have been "I'll go over and give him a good kicking. Japanese soldiers are all lightweight midgets" when in fact, some Japanese soliders would have been former sumo wrestlers and substantially greater in bulk than the average.

We stereotype Japanese industry (to avoid falling into the same error as I mentioned above, I think I must mean Japanese industrial companies) as well organised and efficient, but the back street workshops that comprise the large fraction of Japanese manufacturing companies (though only a small proportion of the total national manufacturing output) are as disorganised and no more progressive than their peers elsewhere. I often work with Japanese companies, but when it comes to procuring mechanical plant produced by small companies, even they prefer to do business with (in my experience) British companies - who, to be fair, subcontract a lot of the work to companies from other countries.

SC

[doggie888888]

At my last place of employment, there was a newly appointed manager who as it turned out was from the old school who thinks "stereotypes and generalisations are important" ...HR was aghast at their error. Anyway, some gentle hints and counselling were instigated but when it became apparent that his output was nowhere near what we wanted coupled with his inability to fit with the corporate culture, the gentle hints became a full scale strategy as to how to get rid of this square peg. HR (who was terribly embarassed at having created this problem in the first place) cleverly arranged a small reorganisation so that this square peg reported to an Indian senior manager. We got the square peg's resignation 2 weeks later. The local CEO revealed much later that he would have instructed HR to do same even if the square peg's outut had been outstanding because there is no excuse given the man's education.

Moral of the story: it is more important to know who are the ones who generalise and stereotype.

[elkangorito]

The OP's thread title:

Why Stereotypes And Generalizations Are Important. For world affairs or individuals.

This is important as it reveals important points about the person who believes in stereotyping & making generalisations.

In this case, I apply the 80/20 rule...yet again.

[Xangsamhua]

I think of a stereotype as a simplified generalization, and therefore quite possibly a wrong or misleading one - unhelpful at least.

On the Japanese war theme, it's said that Australian soldiers in the early 40s thought that Japanese soldiers would be small, myopic men. That view had to change when they came up against the Imperial Guard at the Battle of Muar in Malaya (January 1942). The stereotype was unhelpful.

Stereotypes are often based on outdated understandings, for example the notion that Australia is a nation of beer drinkers, a stereotype that has probably been fostered by Australians themselves in their generally unsuccessful search for an identifiable national character. The tourism industry has cultivated the stereotype of Australians as cheerful beer-swilling idiots. The beer-swilling part of it has been outdated for a long time, and Australians are no more stupid than other nations, and less so than many, I suggest.

http://www.news.com....9-1225872599147

Reasonable generalizations are based on evidence. Stereotypes are not, and hence, are not reasonable. At least they should be met with skepticism.

[Loz]

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

-Voltaire

[Loz]

of course sometimes its just good fun...

[StreetCowboy]

At my last place of employment, there was a newly appointed manager who as it turned out was from the old school who thinks "stereotypes and generalisations are important" ...HR was aghast at their error. Anyway, some gentle hints and counselling were instigated but when it became apparent that his output was nowhere near what we wanted coupled with his inability to fit with the corporate culture, the gentle hints became a full scale strategy as to how to get rid of this square peg. HR (who was terribly embarassed at having created this problem in the first place) cleverly arranged a small reorganisation so that this square peg reported to an Indian senior manager. We got the square peg's resignation 2 weeks later. The local CEO revealed much later that he would have instructed HR to do same even if the square peg's outut had been outstanding because there is no excuse given the man's education.

Moral of the story: it is more important to know who are the ones who generalise and stereotype.

I think a lot of gentle readers will have missed the point of this story... That people are made to suffer for their opinions by people who are prejudiced against those that think differently from themselves; you may well find that the reason the gentleman in question tendered his resignation was on the basis of the persecution and witch hunt by the thought-police and PC HR, rather than the ethnicity of his superior - or even those irritating facets of his superior that conformed to the resignee's stereotype of a person of that ethnicity.

Let me explain by way of an analogy.

Mr X (that name was not selected to indicate any ethnicity or religion) dislikes racists, bigots and Nazis. His employer believes that we should treat everyone equally, regardless of their views, and therefore assigns him to work for Adolf Boot-Boy. Shortly after, Mr X resigns, saying "I cannot work for someone who spends such a fraction of his day shaving his head" whereas in fact he is fed up with having people in his office who cannot do their work because of their Ku Klux Klan masks, but he does not want to be branded intolerant, and ever since he started, his authority has been undermined by people criticising his viewpoint and his own character.

Sadly, racism and gender discrimination are not the only ills that befall our society, but luckily, they are relatively easily addressed.

Let us hope that we address them from a pro-active, thoughtful and long-sighted perspective, rather than with reactive, knee-jerk ignorance.

SC

[IanForbes]

Rather than quoting Streetcowboy, I'll just say I agree with most of what he says.

There are many people, myself included, who don't work well in a large group. Very often these are the creative people who come up with new ideas to build things. I would fit many computer nerds into this category. They can be highly valuable for a firm, but they might not fit into the diplomatic needs of the company to get things done without irritating potential customers. A good manager understands this and fits those people into a separate niche while separating them from the diplomatic salesmen.

[StreetCowboy]

Rather than quoting Streetcowboy, I'll just say I agree with most of what he says.

There are many people, myself included, who don't work well in a large group. Very often these are the creative people who come up with new ideas to build things. I would fit many computer nerds into this category. They can be highly valuable for a firm, but they might not fit into the diplomatic needs of the company to get things done without irritating potential customers. A good manager understands this and fits those people into a separate niche while separating them from the diplomatic salesmen.

But there's more to it than that. We need to learn to accomodate the wicked and spiteful; the morally bankrupt; the ignorant, prejudiced and incompetent - because otherwise we are throwing away the bulk of our resources. I mean let's face it: if we only worked with people as intelligent as you and me, we'd be down to 97% efficiency straight away!

My colleague is a hypocrite. He doesn't realise it, and he would be so offended if I were to point it out that the damage to the section as a whole would be worse than the muttonous mumblings amongst the staff from his hypocrisy (I don't by this mean that I am in any way better - it is far easier to see others;' flaws than your own....) SO I need to learn to work with his foibles. If he were an axe-wilding psycopathic maniac, I would need to come up with some scheme to get the most out of him while avoiding exposing our team members to unacceptable risk.

EDIT: I am not sure, in retrospect, why I started out on the below digression - perhaps on the topic of tolerance of others' foibles...

I am always surprised by the posters that seem to think that violence can solve a problem "If he said that to my wife I'd give him a good biffing!"; I suspect ther posters that put forward such views are either

A) American: Have they learnt nothing from VIetnam?

English: So many of the English people I meet are indistinguishable from normal human beings that I am appalled when I met the loutish thugs which epitomise foreigners' perception of the English, almost to the extent that I am moved to nationalism (God forbid!) But we have to remember that they are family, and treat them with love and forebearance accordingly...

SC

[IanForbes]

I can think of many politicians who were (are) terrible leaders, but who are wonderful diplomats and a credit to their country. Pierre Elliot Trudeau didn't care two beans about running Canada when he was in power, but he was a wonderful diplomat and an incredible speaker. Trudeau left the running of the country to "lesser" individuals with less charisma.

If a country like the USA wants to exploit another countries resources they hire diplomats who know how to do so without antagonizing the country being exploited. When you ride into a country with guns blazing and sabres flashing then you have to expect a negative reaction. The US learned nothing from Vietnam and just repeated the mistake in the middle east.

[MAJIC]

The freedom to generalise is the only constant we have. It keeps us safe from the zealots or thieves. We must resist insidious, sinister attempts to impose ideology onto us by others. The thugs that administer the beatings do so to maintain their own importance, their own profit. Those that cite "aggression", or "civility" or "lack of manners or respect" or no end of other bland catch-alls do so because it suits them. Prison camp guards have undergone a makeover and have mutated into The Big Nurses. Don't let them bully you into submission. Don't let them divide and rule.

To stereotype is to be free.

Actually not,Phychologists correct name for stereotyping is a: "Schema"

Which describes a fixed idea or view of something by appearance and/or previous experience,and not necessarily relevant or true.

Some examples are:

1.A man and his dog are walking down the street,he has a very short haircut (skinhead),wears a denim jacket and jeans,has tattoos on his knuckles and neck, and is thick set,the dog is a Pitbull Terrier or a Rottwieler.

Is he and the dog potential trouble? or could he be just a successful company Director on a day off? taking his wouldn't hurt a fly,dog for a walk?

2.A Female Topless Sunbather is in view to everyone,does it necessarily mean she's easy? of course not.

3.Males are more aggressive than Females is a common belief,and in itself a stereotype,research and studies do not support this stereotype,its fairly even in reality.

4.French Cooking and Chefs are the best in the World? not necessarily so,but because their commonly stereotyped and talked about as such.

I could go on.

But Finally how many of us believe men are the stronger sex?

Having seen many men fall to pieces after a relationship ends,in IMO this is also yet another outdated stereotype.

Stereotyping is also a form of instinctive self protection inborn in all of us,but thats another story.

[Loz]

plus 1 SC.

Preach, nigga, preach on it!

[mark45y]

I can think of many politicians who were (are) terrible leaders, but who are wonderful diplomats and a credit to their country. Pierre Elliot Trudeau didn't care two beans about running Canada when he was in power, but he was a wonderful diplomat and an incredible speaker. Trudeau left the running of the country to "lesser" individuals with less charisma.

If a country like the USA wants to exploit another countries resources they hire diplomats who know how to do so without antagonizing the country being exploited. When you ride into a country with guns blazing and sabres flashing then you have to expect a negative reaction. The US learned nothing from Vietnam and just repeated the mistake in the middle east.

Normally I agree with you Ian but you forgot about Stormin Norman.

General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr was stationed in Vietnam for two tours. He learned something.

He won operation Desert Storm in 100 hours.

The same thing could have happened in Vietnam if there was a will to do it.

Of course then I would have missed meeting a lot of Vietnamese women.

Armies can win battles, that’s it. Hearts and minds of the people are best left to the people who own the hearts and minds.

[IanForbes]

Normally I agree with you Ian but you forgot about Stormin Norman.

General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr was stationed in Vietnam for two tours. He learned something.

He won operation Desert Storm in 100 hours.

The same thing could have happened in Vietnam if there was a will to do it.

Of course then I would have missed meeting a lot of Vietnamese women.

Armies can win battles, that's it. Hearts and minds of the people are best left to the people who own the hearts and minds.

I didn't forget about General Norman Schwarzkopf, Mark. He won a quick battle against an inferior force. The USA should have stopped right there. As much as I hated Saddam Hussein, he had been put in place by the US oil barons to keep Iran from expanding. The whole middle east conflict was and still is about control of the oil.

The USA COULD have won the Vietnam war had they been willing to completely annihilate the whole country and all surrounding countries as Hitler, Stalin and Mao tse Tung were prepared to do in their wars. But that was more than even the US public would tolerate.

[mark45y]

Normally I agree with you Ian but you forgot about Stormin Norman.

General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr was stationed in Vietnam for two tours. He learned something.

He won operation Desert Storm in 100 hours.

The same thing could have happened in Vietnam if there was a will to do it.

Of course then I would have missed meeting a lot of Vietnamese women.

Armies can win battles, that's it. Hearts and minds of the people are best left to the people who own the hearts and minds.

I didn't forget about General Norman Schwarzkopf, Mark. He won a quick battle against an inferior force. The USA should have stopped right there. As much as I hated Saddam Hussein, he had been put in place by the US oil barons to keep Iran from expanding. The whole middle east conflict was and still is about control of the oil.

The USA COULD have won the Vietnam war had they been willing to completely annihilate the whole country and all surrounding countries as Hitler, Stalin and Mao tse Tung were prepared to do in their wars. But that was more than even the US public would tolerate.

In the 1950’s Eisenhower wanted to nuke North Vietnam. At that time he could have had the support of the American people. Given the amount of people that died during the war that would have been the lesser of two evils.

Personally I don’t think the US had any business in Asia except to occupy the two main belligerents of WW II, in the Pacific, Japan and Thailand. The Brits occupied Thailand but had to leave after only a year because of problems in India. If America had occupied Thailand we would still be here and the country would be running with the efficiency of Japan. You know you can drink tap water in Japan.

[StreetCowboy]

...

In the 1950's Eisenhower wanted to nuke North Vietnam. At that time he could have had the support of the American people. Given the amount of people that died during the war that would have been the lesser of two evils.

Personally I don't think the US had any business in Asia except to occupy the two main belligerents of WW II, in the Pacific, Japan and Thailand. The Brits occupied Thailand but had to leave after only a year because of problems in India. If America had occupied Thailand we would still be here and the country would be running with the efficiency of Japan. You know you can drink tap water in Japan.

Do you mean that the Americans would have pulled out quicker if they had nuked North Vietnam? Or do you mean the additional motivation would have led an earlier and more decisive victory? Let's face it - if there had been only one vietnamese left, he would have joined the communist party. Perhaps you could give some examples where military might has been able to achieve political change.

Of course, some would say that the American War in vietnam was a victory for America, since Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore did not become communist...

For your information, you can drink the tap water in Bangkok - though possibly not in your property. Or I should say, I can drink the tap water in BKK.

SC

[mark45y]

...

In the 1950's Eisenhower wanted to nuke North Vietnam. At that time he could have had the support of the American people. Given the amount of people that died during the war that would have been the lesser of two evils.

Personally I don't think the US had any business in Asia except to occupy the two main belligerents of WW II, in the Pacific, Japan and Thailand. The Brits occupied Thailand but had to leave after only a year because of problems in India. If America had occupied Thailand we would still be here and the country would be running with the efficiency of Japan. You know you can drink tap water in Japan.

Do you mean that the Americans would have pulled out quicker if they had nuked North Vietnam? Or do you mean the additional motivation would have led an earlier and more decisive victory? Let's face it - if there had been only one vietnamese left, he would have joined the communist party. Perhaps you could give some examples where military might has been able to achieve political change.

Of course, some would say that the American War in vietnam was a victory for America, since Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore did not become communist...

For your information, you can drink the tap water in Bangkok - though possibly not in your property. Or I should say, I can drink the tap water in BKK.

SC

Examples of military might achieving political change. OK. WW II the Nazi party was overthrown and Hitler shot himself and a democratic government was installed in West Germany. In Japan the war party was overthrown and a democracy put in it's place.

Eisenhower wanted to NUKE North Vietnam before the Americans got there. The French were still there although loosing. Half of Vietnam was not communist at the time.

I think all the majority of Vietnamese wanted was food. They had been starving for 5 years as a result of the Chinese among others.

I knew a lot of Vietnamese in Vietnam and I still know a lot of Vietnamese both in Vietnam and the US and a lot of them are not communists.

[StreetCowboy]

...

In the 1950's Eisenhower wanted to nuke North Vietnam. At that time he could have had the support of the American people. Given the amount of people that died during the war that would have been the lesser of two evils.

Personally I don't think the US had any business in Asia except to occupy the two main belligerents of WW II, in the Pacific, Japan and Thailand. The Brits occupied Thailand but had to leave after only a year because of problems in India. If America had occupied Thailand we would still be here and the country would be running with the efficiency of Japan. You know you can drink tap water in Japan.

Do you mean that the Americans would have pulled out quicker if they had nuked North Vietnam? Or do you mean the additional motivation would have led an earlier and more decisive victory? Let's face it - if there had been only one vietnamese left, he would have joined the communist party. Perhaps you could give some examples where military might has been able to achieve political change.

Of course, some would say that the American War in vietnam was a victory for America, since Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore did not become communist...

For your information, you can drink the tap water in Bangkok - though possibly not in your property. Or I should say, I can drink the tap water in BKK.

SC

Examples of military might achieving political change. OK. WW II the Nazi party was overthrown and Hitler shot himself and a democratic government was installed in West Germany. In Japan the war party was overthrown and a democracy put in it's place.

Eisenhower wanted to NUKE North Vietnam before the Americans got there. The French were still there although loosing. Half of Vietnam was not communist at the time.

I think all the majority of Vietnamese wanted was food. They had been starving for 5 years as a result of the Chinese among others.

I knew a lot of Vietnamese in Vietnam and I still know a lot of Vietnamese both in Vietnam and the US and a lot of them are not communists.

My point was that every act of violence by the Americans against the vietnamese was used as a recruiting tool. The relative prosperity of Vietnam despite the war, communist rule and American sanctions, is testimony to the resourcefulness of the Vietnamese.

I think it was during the peaceful occupation that democracy was restored to one part of Germany, while communism was established in the other, and similarly, during the occupation that democracy was established in Japan - after the end of hostilities. SImilarly, a permanent democracy may be established in Iraq, and in the occupied parts of Afghanistan, but only through peaceful and constructive means. Perhaps if the Americans had spent as much effort on establishing democracy and free and fair markets in the South as they spent on propping up the military industrial complex in the US then things may have turned out differently.

SC

The Vietnamese I've spoken to on the topic felt - let down; amazed; that the Americans lost the war, but they were born after it had ended,

Off-Topic: Thanks for the 'In The Penal Colony' reference; I've downloaded it, and I'll read it later in the week...My favourite line in the film, I think, is when the General says to the President (on the topic of the Russian Ambassador entering the war-room) "But he'll see THE BIG BOARD!!!" - basically, because of my experience in control rooms, which all have a big board, which is rarely used by the Operators, who use their own more flexible VDUs...

In the Dr Who TV series, the Dr challenges Davros, creator of the Daleks "If you held in your hand a vial that would..." and I forget what exactly it would do - potentially destroy all life in the universe, or some similar doomsday scenario..." would you do it?" "Yes, yes,... I would do it..." says Davros reflectively - a line I have used myself many times when contemplating an act which would lead to clear and certain peril, but achieve potentially memorable humourous impact. But often, I have been deterred by - I'm not sure of the name for the philosophical concept (if a tree falls in the woods, and there's no-one to hear it, does it make a sound?") - If there's no-one to see it, is it really funny? If it is a matter of imagining the look on some-one's face, then we can imagine it without committing the mischief...

Apologies for the off-topic digression and UK-centric television references...

Edited September 26, 2010 by StreetCowboy