Natural villains
Now, I took a picture of a toad recently. I assume it was a toad based on its dry and warty looking skin and that it was on a pavement no where near water. It was in the evening so I apologize for the blurry image. (I do not use flash when taking wildlife even if the animal is urbanized.)
I would taken a picture of a snake or a crocodile but apparently it is really hard to find them in the island where I live. But the toad serves my purpose as a natural villain. When we hear people being called a toad, we assume negatively about the person. Now why are some animals stereotyped? I know that some toads are poisonous but so are bees and bees do not get the same bad reputation. I also know that in ancient times toads were thought to be the familiar of witches but so were cats and dogs and those animals escaped with their reputation unscathed.
The issue is that as humans, we are partial towards things that are attractive and repulsed by things that are ugly. I know that ugliness is a matter of opinion but most humans are more attracted to mammals than reptiles. The fact that mammalians pets outnumber reptilian pets proves my point. If you exclude tortoises and turtles, the number of reptilian pets will be even smaller.
So what is the problem with negative stereotypes? Firstly, when I took a picture of the toad, I only checked to see that it was not a frog. When I identified it as a toad, my interest wane. I did not bother to check the specie. (It is an Asian common toad.) I did not care if it was endangered. (It isn't). I also accepted description of its skin as warty even though the bumps are just bumps.
Our attention on the subject is either minimal or extreme if we assume it is dangerous. If we consider them part of society, we regard them as part of the background to be avoided or ignored. If we have any opinions of them, only the negative facts will be considered. We will be more likely to believe the worst in them. They will not capture our interest and in some cases attract our misplaced wrath.
The truth is that there are science does not have a distinction for frogs and toads. (They are all considered as frogs) There is a toad family but it has members with smooth skin or skin with fewer bumps. Perhaps our stereotypes are just walls built by ourselves?
"Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside of us while we live."
Norman Cousins
 |
| Step on the stones..... |
The issue is that as humans, we are partial towards things that are attractive and repulsed by things that are ugly. I know that ugliness is a matter of opinion but most humans are more attracted to mammals than reptiles. The fact that mammalians pets outnumber reptilian pets proves my point. If you exclude tortoises and turtles, the number of reptilian pets will be even smaller.
So what is the problem with negative stereotypes? Firstly, when I took a picture of the toad, I only checked to see that it was not a frog. When I identified it as a toad, my interest wane. I did not bother to check the specie. (It is an Asian common toad.) I did not care if it was endangered. (It isn't). I also accepted description of its skin as warty even though the bumps are just bumps.
Our attention on the subject is either minimal or extreme if we assume it is dangerous. If we consider them part of society, we regard them as part of the background to be avoided or ignored. If we have any opinions of them, only the negative facts will be considered. We will be more likely to believe the worst in them. They will not capture our interest and in some cases attract our misplaced wrath.
The truth is that there are science does not have a distinction for frogs and toads. (They are all considered as frogs) There is a toad family but it has members with smooth skin or skin with fewer bumps. Perhaps our stereotypes are just walls built by ourselves?
"Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dies inside of us while we live."
Norman Cousins
Comments
Post a Comment