Stereotyping is a concept we're all guilty of using. No matter how innocent the intention, the only result is a negative reflection of our selves, in that stereotypes only convey one's own ignorance and lack of desire to learn.

It is true that stereotyping could simply be a method people utilize to prevent sensory overload, similar to the way we group our words into nouns, verb, pronouns, adverbs, etc. The connotation, however, is often a negative one when the stereotypes involve people-Republicans are only concerned with making money; Democrats concentrate on public opinion; fat people are lazy; blondes are dumb; the indigent will never amount the anything. One should not categorize people in such a manner as it is unfair to those targeted, and reflects badly on the one aiming the generalized weapon of words.

Every individual is just that . . . an individual. So many environmental factors play into one's intrinsically defined principals, but no one has ever chosen to be born into his or her given circumstances, and so should not be defined by that which they cannot control.

Everyone is entitled to experiencing life and qualifying the positive and negative aspects en route to molding their unique prosperity. The majority of the time, an individual does not fall into any socially defined stereotype of their own free will, rather they are shamefully descended there by those ignorant people not experienced in that particular route.

Stereotypes and selective perceptions negatively impact one's interactions with others in that these methods only concentrate on viewing outward, visual perceptions or hearsay. The only advice I could give to someone wanting to increase their awareness and sensitivity toward others is to get to know the individual: experience their perspective by "walking a mile in their shoes" (although it may require many more miles to get the "feel") and be open to other ways of thinking. Take an adventure outside your comfort zone, and set yourself and your own ideals aside to fully grasp the world presented.

I remember in my earlier college days when some friends and I set up a social experiment. The plan was to document reactions of people based on our outward appearances. One day we walked into Macy's dressed in T-shirts and sweats, no makeup, with our hair up in ponytails (like we just came from the gym). On day one, we were followed by the store's employees in every department we visited, including one obvious under cover "customer." No one ever approached us with, "Can I help you find anything?" In the two hours we spent in the store, we walked out empty handed and were stopped by the security guard on the way out. Nothing other than our appearance influenced these events. We didn't take anything. We didn't set off any alarms. We were only browsing as we normally would any other day.

The next day, we dressed as if we were going to the office-business attire, manicured nails, hair fixed nicely, and makeup highlighting our features. From the moment we walked in the door, we were approached with the most helpful sales persons (one even offered a tip on a sale happening the next week). We made sure to ask for the particular sales people that followed us the day before (inconspicuously of course). We spent the same amount of time in there and still did not buy anything. We acted the exact same way we did the day before, only in better attire. Needless to say, we proved our theory that people do judge a book by its cover, regretfully so.