The numbers are in, and they add up - I'm good at math. I'm also Asian, which might create a problem for you readers out there who've done your homework regarding stereotypes, and the ever-revising standards of political correctness - isn't it problematic to praise me for my math skills? The thinking is that even a positive stereotype reinforces the notion about categorizations being tied to certain abilities. There is a temptation to skirt around the edges of such matters, with perhaps the bravest among us dipping a toe into the water and reporting back to the rest - it's complicated (1). Let me try to simplify the equation. The thing you need to know about me is that I am good at math because I grew up doing a lot of math. I'm not sure if my work rate placed me in the 90th or 95th or 99th percentile in global terms, but as it relates to anyone I met before college I was one of the top two or three hardest workers. I didn't do this alone - there was a lot of support from my parents and a few committed teachers, but the net effect of this support was mostly to get me to do more work, including over the summer and as a part of my hobbies. If you understand this story, you are now free to tell me how good I am at math.
So, I've made this a simple situation - if you know why I am good at math, you can tell me I'm good at math. When I generalize the conclusion, it suggests that if you know why someone is good at something, you can tell them they are good at it even if it reinforces an underlying stereotype. The catch is that this requires effort - just as I had to work on my math skills, you have to work to understand the roots of someone's ability. When I got to college, I met another Asian, and he was far better at math than me. He was also more Asian, to the extent that he grew up in Asia, so I must have wondered. But if there ever was a mystery regarding his superiority in math, I must have solved it from working together on a problem set, or from a late-night observation walking past his table at the library, or perhaps I got the clues from his roommate - he was better at math than me because he worked harder on math than me. Life, like math, can be simple, but you have to work on it until you can work it out.
The problem with the "positive stereotype" - like the Asian who is good at math - seems on the surface a little different from the problem of the more sinister variant - like the Asian is the coronavirus. Frankly, the positive version doesn't seem like a problem to some people, just as it once didn't seem like much of a problem to me. But I came around to the realization that a stereotype is a stereotype, whether it reinforces a positive quality or otherwise, because at the core of any stereotype is a refusal to learn about someone else. A positive stereotype is like winning your bet at the roulette table - the reward obscures the fact that if you keep doing the same thing, you are going to lose. If you think Asians are good at math, then each Asian you meet who happens to be good at math is going to make you feel a bit more confident about beating the house. I can't use this fact to predict exactly what you'll think about the next Asian person you meet, but my bet is that you'll repeat your process, the low-effort approach of associations and assumptions, which means your next thought won't have much to do with this person at all, though of course it will be projected onto him or her. It's only a matter of time before you get it wrong, and though we can hope that no one else is harmed by your slothful thinking, my experience suggests otherwise.
When people have made mistakes about me, it seems that they assumed I would speak, behave, or respond in some way consistent with the stereotypes ascribed to a broader descriptor - male, athlete, Asian, cyclist, bachelor, millennial, reader, Bostonian, it goes on; the perplexing thing is how often this happens with people who already know me beyond these categories. I think the reason has something to do with how much effort it takes to replace an initial impression with a personalized explanation, an effort that seems increasingly unreasonable each time our gut instinct proves its prescience. It's a desire for efficiency, and as a math guy I can speak to the value of efficiency, but when it comes to relating to other people I don't consider efficiency a very important factor. Do you think back fondly on your favorite people and say - you know, those people were great, they were so efficient with me? The argument for efficiency is that it saves time and effort, but those happen to be key ingredients for building strong relationships, and absolutely essential for their maintenance and reinforcement. The positive stereotype trades these commodities for efficiency, which is like refusing to throw the ball during a game of catch so that everyone can save their energy. Why make the effort to start if you can't make the effort to keep going? Maybe it's easier this way, to live out our assigned roles rather than risk discovering what we never knew about each other, but I don't think it adds up.
Footnotes
1) It's so complicated that I actually found something helpful on NPR. I think it's a good overview of all the factors in the situation as perceived from various perspectives, but I would offer one revision for the flimsy final sentence - instead of turning the conclusion outward, point it at the readers and remind them that the people who use stereotypes are the ones who are failing.
