I'm looking for a word or phrase

[IDemo]

to describe the misuse of a single character trait, behavior or belief to define the whole person or entity. Let's say, for example, that an individual who engages in periodic motocross racing on weekends is characterized as reckless, including within areas completely unrelated to racing. It's akin to binary thinking, Manicheanism and religious or political extremism, though not necessarily as absolute.

"Prejudice" isn't precisely what I'm after, though it's often the result of such thinking.

Thanks ahead of time for any suggestions.

[PoliticAverse]

1. This would seem to fall under 'stereotype'.

[IDemo]

3. While it may work in some situations, not exactly what I'm after

[Chan790]

2. counter-indicative?

Seems a bit long and technical but it means something to the effect of "to possess traits in opposition to expectations from observable indicators." I had to go to Hume's The Elements of Mentality: The Foundations of Psychology and Philosophy to find a suitable word. The dictionary was not helpful.

His purple mohawk and "Fuck you" forehead tattoo was counter-indicative of what a helpful young man the new shop assistant was.

[IDemo]

4. Sounds somewhat clinical, but it is from a psych book after all

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. something like an invalid negative characterization or generalization...?

[SheilaT]

6. Again, not one word,

but "self-fulfilling prophecy" is a cousin to what you want.

If people get treated as if one aspect of them defines their entire self and is used to predict their future, you sometimes get a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm also curious if you're only thinking about the negative aspects. There can be positive ones, also. But the positive side can also include overreach, such as if you assume someone who is good at one thing, like managing a pet store, would be equally good at something similar, such as managing a water park or running an entire empire of food stores there can be problems.

[Sanity Claws]

7. pigeon-hole

[SheilaT]

8. Oooh, I like that.

Even though I'm not the OP.

[valerief]

9. Synecdoche? Generalization?

[Petrushka]

10. Would "typecast" work? (eom)

[NuclearDem]

11. This sounds a lot like dispositional attribution.

Basically, asserting an attribute (in this case, recklessness) to a person as if that trait defines them, rather than that trait simply being a reaction to a particular situation.

[IDemo]

14. Thanks, I think that puts me on the right track

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-attribution-bias.htm

Attributional biases in social psychology are a class of cognitive errors triggered when people evaluate the dispositions or qualities of others based on incomplete evidence.

It's analogous to an "attribution error", to be sure, though perhaps not with as linear a relationship between cause and effect. It's not so much "He slammed the phone down, therefore it's safe to say he's an angry person", as "I have witnessed a behavior that I find disagreeable and will now simply disparage anything he has to say, regardless of the topic or situation".

[unedited]

12. labelling

...as in "they were labelled as a [x,y,z]..."

[IDemo]

13. I guess I need to reset a bit here.

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 09:39 PM - Edit history (1)

It's not stereotyping that I'm trying to describe. The concept I want to capture is basically a logical fallacy, though I can't identify it specifically. The motocross racer in the OP was a poor example. I'm after the tendency to use ones objection to an argument or a belief to condemn any or all other aspects of an opponent's belief system, but not necessarily to apply the specific objection in a broad-brush manner; i.e. - "bigoted", "uneducated", etc. So, "judgmentalism" to be sure, but what lies behind the propensity to judge (and commonly, misjudge) in the first place.

It is a human trait which cuts across all boundaries of society and seems, to me anyway, to be becoming increasingly common. It's a mental shortcut to dislike, distrust, and even enmitize the whole based on a fraction of the person.

[joshcryer]

15. Umbrageous?

This is a tough one. I don't think umbrageous is it, but it's fairly close.

[valerief]

16. Absence of critical thinking, perhaps? Maybe it's not what's there but what's not there.

Our culture doesn't value critical thinking. Additionally, it demands instant everything, including instant judgments, lest we appear stupid, which we are, because we can't think critically.