Generalizations and exceptions

[kenny]

When someone posts a generalization someone will post an exception.
Why is that?

Exceptions do not mean generalization are not generally true.
Generally does not mean always.

Hypothetical examples:
Someone posts that men are generally stronger than women, so someone will mention a very strong woman they know.
Someone generalizes that hybrid cars are usually driven more slowly than other cars, so someone will mention a hybrid owner that drives fast.
Someone generalizes that cats are more aloof than dogs, so someone will mention a very affectionate cat they know.
Someone generalizes that people with higher education usually make more money, so someone will mention a rich high school drop out they know of, or a person with a master degree working at a low-paying job.

There are a thousand examples here on PS.
I'm sure I've done it myself.
Why do we bother post exceptions?
It seems redundant.

Are generalizations somehow upsetting or threatening to people?
Do they think people making generalizations are so stupid that they think there are no exceptions?
Do they think exceptions neutralize what usually holds true?
Is this just PC-ness run amok?

Generalizations are okay.
They are only generalizations.

 

[ForteKitty]

Because people dont always realize it's just a generalization. Not everyone's smart enough to figure it out.

And yes, my cats are all affectionate. it's annoying when people say "cats suck because they only like you for the food, you mean nothing to them" (yes, someone said that to me)

 

[kenny]

Thanks FK.
I'm not picking on you, but the statement "cats are generally more aloof than dogs" is not the same as the statement, "no cats are affectionate".

The term "generally" transcends individual examples one way or the other.
"Generally" refers to a very very large sample.

 

[lucyandroger]

Perhaps in providing exceptions, posters are actually trying to say that they disagree with the generalization.

For example, you say that cats are generally more aloof than dogs. Another poster could come along and say, "I disagree. Dogs are generally more aloof than cats." Then you're pretty much at a standstill.

Instead, the poster can say, "In my experience, dogs are more aloof than cats. For example, my cat Fluffy is way friendlier than my dog Fido." To them, they may not be providing an exception but rather an example to demonstrate how they see things.

 

[kenny]

Perhaps in providing exceptions, posters are actually trying to say that they disagree with the generalization.

For example, you say that cats are generally more aloof than dogs. Another poster could come along and say, "I disagree. Dogs are generally more aloof than cats." Then you're pretty much at a standstill.

Instead, the poster can say, "In my experience, dogs are more aloof than cats. For example, my cat Fluffy is way friendlier than my dog Fido." To them, they may not be providing an exception but rather an example to demonstrate how they see things.

Again, generalizations are huge numbers, like a zillion examples averaged together.
Exemptions, as in individual examples which are within my personal experience, are small numbers.

Generalizations (large numbers) do not negate the exceptions (small numbers).

I think, for some reason, generalizations upset people.
If I generalize that men make more money than women, that does not mean I support it or it is right or there are no exceptions.

 

[ForteKitty]

haha i know you're not picking on me, kenny. i just used that as an example.

generalizations generally annoy me because i'm tired of hearing the same stuff all the time:

"you're good with math, right?"
"wow, you actually have a butt..."
"you must be a terrible driver"
"did you play badminton?"

can you guess why? :p

 

[doodle]

That's exactly where generalizations get interesting, Kenny, because they are based on samples, and samples can be manipulated. Generalizations are based on observation, so they're at the mercy of that which has been observed. If I wanted to try to "prove" that women are in fact stronger than men, gathering a group of 100,000 women currently serving in the military, as bodybuilders, etc (anything that requires a high degree of physical fitness) to contend with 100,000 men who were hand picked for being puny, scrawny guys would have very misleading results. Sure, generalizations are just generalizations, but you get into murky territory when generalizations get construed as facts, particularly when the generalization in question is a fallacious one in the first place.

 

[Kaleigh]

When people make blanket statements, it drives me nuts. But it's the nature of the beast. Human nature and all, there is no controlling it. Nighty night and sweet dreams!!!

 

[rainwood]

Kenny -

I think there are a number of instances when generalizations are true, but I personally know of several exceptions to that generalization!

 

[kenny]

So if you averaged the height and strength of every man on the planet and that of every woman on the planet they would be the same?
I think not.

Generally, men are taller and stronger than women.

Generalizations become more true when the sample sizes get larger.
They are less true when sample sizes are smaller - as in my own personal experience.

Generalizations are not necessarily wrong or bigotry.
Generalizations can be valid.

Yet, generalizations drive people absolutely insane.
I don't understand why.

I think in some cases PCness and equality-creep (and I consider myself as pro-equality as anyone) has affected peoples reasoning abilities.

 

[lucyandroger]

Sometimes people attempt to pass off their bigoted or otherwise inaccurate generalizations for valid ones. As a result, it's smart to be skeptical of generalizations until they're proven, imho.

 

[Imdanny]

Yes, very true. It happened to me. Someone posted the generalization that men aren't judged as harshly on their looks as women. I said the exception is me (there is a certain type of gay man that... ah... is judged on his looks). That's been my experience my whole life. So to me it seemed like I wanted to say, "Where do I fit in your (not your per se) generalization? I don't." So I guess to answer your question to me it was a matter of self expression. But I'm not trying to generalize.

 

[doodle]

lucyandroger put that rather concisely. I'm not saying all generalizations are bad either, but I'm less trusting of them because they can be misrepresentative. As for the specific question of why people use exceptions in response to generalizations, perhaps those people interpret generalizations as excluding any other outcome and want to put it out there that another alternative is possible. Or maybe it's just human nature to be argumentative!

 

[Cehrabehra]

haha i know you're not picking on me, kenny. i just used that as an example.

generalizations generally annoy me because i'm tired of hearing the same stuff all the time:

"you're good with math, right?"
"wow, you actually have a butt..."
"you must be a terrible driver"
"did you play badminton?"

can you guess why? :p

well.... if you don't play badminton it's only because you're good at ping pong, right? haha ::running&ducking::

seriously though, you think you're alone? (I know you posted in somewhat jest so take this in the same flavor lol) Every person over 6' is assumed to play basketball. Pretty and perky blondes are assumed to be stupid.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Kenny -

I think there are a number of instances when generalizations are true, but I personally know of several exceptions to that generalization!

this is funny on at least 3 levels that I see - brilliant lol

 

[Cehrabehra]

Yes, very true. It happened to me. Someone posted the generalization that men aren't judged as harshly on their looks as women. I said the exception is me (there is a certain type of gay man that... ah... is judged on his looks). That's been my experience my whole life. So to me it seemed like I wanted to say, "Where do I fit in your (not your per se) generalization? I don't." So I guess to answer your question to me it was a matter of self expression. But I'm not trying to generalize.

I'm feeling kinda ignorant at the moment - what certain type of gay man is judged on their looks more than other types of gay men? I'm totally lost! Do you mean like drag queens on stage? Because *generally* (haha) anyone on stage is judged more than those who aren't... but I kinda think you don't mean dreag queens lol

 

[Nashville]

Sometimes a counter view on a generalization is nothing more than an attempt at discussion. Everyone does it at some point, even those who are acutely aware of it. Sometimes generalization is just easier. There will always be people who are compelled to jump in and say "Not necessarily!"

Heck, given my mood on any given day I could be either type of person. As long as it's a respectful dialogue I really don't mind at all.

Generalizations that truly offend me border more on intolerance or bigotry, and not comments like "People prefer warm weather to cold weather."

 

[ForteKitty]

well.... if you don't play badminton it's only because you're good at ping pong, right? haha ::running&ducking::

seriously though, you think you're alone? (I know you posted in somewhat jest so take this in the same flavor lol) Every person over 6' is assumed to play basketball. Pretty and perky blondes are assumed to be stupid.

haha watch it cera, i'm gonna aim those ping pong balls your way! oh who am i kidding, my aim is terrible...

but really, that's exatly why generalizations annoy the crap out of me. generalizations become assumptions, assumptions become "fact", and pretty soon, everyone knows everything about everyone else w/o actually knowing anyone.

 

[Jennifer W]

Because sometimes they are annoying or the underlying assumption is offensive. If generalisations weren't challenged, we'd still be able to say offensive things about other races, gender, sexual orientations, religions and cultures without contradiction. Challenging generalisations helps to move away from negative attitudes in some cases.

Also, sometimes generalisations are just plain incorrect. They are based on one person's perception of shared knowledge within their culture.

My cat is aloof, though.

Jen

 

[steph72276]

Because the stated generalization is often made from the observations of one person, not based on fact, so the exceptions are pointed out in an attempt to disprove the generalization.

 

[Imdanny]

Yes, very true. It happened to me. Someone posted the generalization that men aren't judged as harshly on their looks as women. I said the exception is me (there is a certain type of gay man that... ah... is judged on his looks). That's been my experience my whole life. So to me it seemed like I wanted to say, "Where do I fit in your (not your per se) generalization? I don't." So I guess to answer your question to me it was a matter of self expression. But I'm not trying to generalize.

I'm feeling kinda ignorant at the moment - what certain type of gay man is judged on their looks more than other types of gay men? I'm totally lost! Do you mean like drag queens on stage? Because *generally* (haha) anyone on stage is judged more than those who aren't... but I kinda think you don't mean dreag queens lol

I had a feeling I was going to have explain this one.

These are very taboo subjects. I can't believe I even brought it up. I can't believe I went there, but OK...

No, nothing to do with drag queens, which I have not done a single time in my life and have no desire to do.

No, nothing like that.

When I was a kid, my great-aunt said that I was a pretty boy and I said "boys can't be pretty" but, of course, she was
right and I was wrong.

The generalization is that men don't get judged as harshly on their looks, but when I was 21, at college, among my friends, looks was one of the determining factors in a social hierarchy, and I occupied the place at the very top of the pyramid. If this sounds unlikely to you, imagine how it felt to me, with seven people in love with me at the same time, and so on. It was more than I could handle maturely or well.

But if you want to know what I'm talking about, just look at teenage boys on magazines for young women, and pretty young adult men.

It's pretty much that simple. And the way that you feel about yourself, the way that people (all kinds of people) react to you, even as you grow older and change, this has been my experience, and I can't help but imagine the experience of millions of men. But society doesn't talk about this.

So the generalization that woman are judged on their looks but men generally aren't definitely has exceptions, and this is all I was really trying to say.

Tomorrow I'm going to wake up and this is going to be a dream, and I will not have confessed any of these things to you all. Um, or not.

I can't say that I've written anything about my life on the internet for a long time. Well, now there's this.

Generalizations are fine. They're just not always useful. They can hide real life people and situations because of the force that they sometimes have over how so many people perceive the world.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Yes, very true. It happened to me. Someone posted the generalization that men aren't judged as harshly on their looks as women. I said the exception is me (there is a certain type of gay man that... ah... is judged on his looks). That's been my experience my whole life. So to me it seemed like I wanted to say, "Where do I fit in your (not your per se) generalization? I don't." So I guess to answer your question to me it was a matter of self expression. But I'm not trying to generalize.

I'm feeling kinda ignorant at the moment - what certain type of gay man is judged on their looks more than other types of gay men? I'm totally lost! Do you mean like drag queens on stage? Because *generally* (haha) anyone on stage is judged more than those who aren't... but I kinda think you don't mean dreag queens lol

I had a feeling I was going to have explain this one.

These are very taboo subjects. I can't believe I even brought it up. I can't believe I went there, but OK...

No, nothing to do with drag queens, which I have not done a single time in my life and have no desire to do.

No, nothing like that.

When I was a kid, my great-aunt said that I was a pretty boy and I said "boys can't be pretty" but, of course, she was
right and I was wrong.

The generalization is that men don't get judged as harshly on their looks, but when I was 21, at college, among my friends, looks was one of the determining factors in a social hierarchy, and I occupied the place at the very top of the pyramid. If this sounds unlikely to you, imagine how it felt to me, with seven people in love with me at the same time, and so on. It was more than I could handle maturely or well.

But if you want to know what I'm talking about, just look at teenage boys on magazines for young women, and pretty young adult men.

It's pretty much that simple. And the way that you feel about yourself, the way that people (all kinds of people) react to you, even as you grow older and change, this has been my experience, and I can't help but imagine the experience of millions of men. But society doesn't talk about this.

So the generalization that woman are judged on their looks but men generally aren't definitely has exceptions, and this is all I was really trying to say.

Tomorrow I'm going to wake up and this is going to be a dream, and I will not have confessed any of these things to you all. Um, or not.

I can't say that I've written anything about my life on the internet for a long time. Well, now there's this.

Generalizations are fine. They're just not always useful. They can hide real life people and situations because of the force that they sometimes have over how so many people perceive the world.

I am not sure how to say this without undermining your feelings, but I really don't think you need to worry about that disclosure here... not with me anyway and I can't imagine anyone judging you for those feelings. I'm not sure I understand entirely what you mean, but being beautiful carries assumptions with it for both sexes. I'm not sure being a "pretty boy" is different for a gay boy than for a straight boy... of course I could be wrong. Maybe I still don't understand? I used to be really beautiful and had a lot of bizarre attention associated with it that made me very uncomfortable... being "matronly" now has its benefits though I do wish I had my old body where wearing clothes is concerned!

I think it is safe to say that both sexes get judged in different ways... women may have (generally) a harsher standard physically, but there are physical traits that are held up to men as well as other things like how much money they earn or how much power they hold.

I'm sorry if I'm making things worse for you - I'm trying to express that you are okay with me no matter how much you disclose

(looking over this I see I am still totally in that generalize vs exception thing)

 

[soocool]

Because we have nothing better to do and just want to throw in our 2 cents

 

[elrohwen]

I think generalizations are usually true, but the exceptions are far more interesting.

Sure men are stronger than women, but hearing about the one woman who is way stronger than most men is actually interesting. I think that's why people share exceptions - sharing an example that backs up a generalization is just boring, but sharing an exception is an interesting anecdote.

 

[Nashville]

I think generalizations are usually true, but the exceptions are far more interesting.

Sure men are stronger than women, but hearing about the one woman who is way stronger than most men is actually interesting. I think that's why people share exceptions - sharing an example that backs up a generalization is just boring, but sharing an exception is an interesting anecdote.

Ding ding ding we have a winner

 

[kenny]

Some generalizations can be true, such as "dogs are larger than cats".
Exceptions do not make that generalization false.

The word true when used to modify generalization does not mean true for every example, just true for the group generally.
For example, to say "cats are larger than dogs" is a generalization that is NOT true.

It goes without saying that there are exceptions.
Nobody is stupid enough to think it applies to ALL dogs and cats.
It is ridiculous for someone to speak up and state, "Oh yeah? Well, what about chihuahuas?"
Duh.

Some generalizations are true.
Exceptions are true also.
They coexist; one does not cancel out or disprove the other.
I sense here on PS some people who post exceptions DO think they are disproving the generalization.

Now there ARE things that I think are more prejudices than generalizations, statements like "women can't drive", or "fat people are jolly" or "people on welfare are lazy".
I think these things are just ignorance and motivated by superiority.
When such things are said I think it is fine that the person is challenged.

 

[elrohwen]

Kenny, read my post. I don't think people are trying to disprove the generalization - I think they're sharing an exception because exceptions make for interesting anecdotes. What else would we talk about?

 

[Sparkalin]

If we just accept the generalizations without exceptions, there would be no discussion, therefore end of topic, no replies.

Linda

 

[Nashville]

So your issue is with people being contrary just for the sake of being contrary?

 

[kenny]

So your issue is with people being contrary just for the sake of being contrary?

No, I'm just pointing out that exceptions do not make a legit generalization vanish.

I agree it is okay to point out exceptions.
I'm sure I do it and will continue to.
I just must keep in mind that my exceptions are merely exceptions and the generalization remains unchallenged by exceptions.
Generalizations are just generalizations.
The are generally true.
Exceptions are true too.
It's a logic thing.

Dogs are larger than cats. This generaliztion is ture.
SOME cats are larger than SOME dogs. This exception is true too, and does not make the generalization not true.

I"m not trying to change anyone.
I think I'm making a point that some people have not considered.