Why do people think/argue this way?

[Haven]

I think we do this because it is so very difficult to see beyond our personal experiences. I'm sure we all like to *think* we can, but most of us aren't truly able to grasp the concept that what we know to be true doesn't really apply to everyone else's reality.

Edited to complete my thought.

Oh my goodness.
I hope I can see beyond my own views on things.
I am not shy about expressing my perspective but certainly strive to respect others.

I shy away from the perspective of there being single external truths we all must adhere to, unless we are talking about what 2+2 equals.

As I said, we all like to think we can see beyond our own experiences.

 

[Shoopy]

Kenny, I've read you complain about this topic before. Perhaps it's time to change your expectations when arguing with people?

 

[MonkeyPie]

Kenny, I've read you complain about this topic before. Perhaps it's time to change your expectations when arguing with people?

I doubt that would happen - then what would he post about?

 

[iLander]

I think some people just can't see the forest for the trees.

For example, you say "Lets talk about the pine trees in the pine forest".

They say "I saw an oak tree once in that forest, so it's not all pines".

Then someone else chimes in "If there is one oak tree, then it's not actually a pine forest".

Another person says "I saw an oak tree once, and it was a live oak and it had thick bark . . . " etc., etc.

Yes, it's completely aggravating.

 

[Prana]

I think on an internet forum, such as this, so many things get taken literally, mixed with what was lost in translation through not being able to portray emotion appropriately through typing.....

and BADA BING!!

 

[iLander]

Totally agree with Prana.

I also think some people just have really poor reading comprehension. They see one word that they recognize, fixate on it, and that's all they write about.

Also, some people just want attention, and to get it, they pick some stupid viewpoint and defend it to the death.

And I've noticed that when it comes to being offensive or rude, it's the same suspects every time. I don't know if it's a personality defect or self-centeredness or what. Just be REALLY glad you don't have to live with them.

 

[lucyandroger]

Kenny, didn't you start this exact thread a few months ago?

ETA - Here it is: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/generalizations-and-exceptions.148915/

 

[Imdanny]

It's an informal logical fallacy called argument from insufficient sampling iirc, meaning people having been thinking and arguing this way for at least the last 2,000 years.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

It depends on what I am arguing about.

If I am at work arguing with my peers about a topic, I will use the literature and will look at the big pictures, not the small exception.

When I am being asked for my opinion I that is usually a combo of research and my own personal experience.

In general, I have found that one's personal experience is a big influence in shaping the opinion they have regardless if it the exception or the norm.

As for the rest of this tread, I am lost....

 

[movie zombie]

deja vu, redux, sequel....glad i'm not the only one that noticed.

MoZo

ps i think its called having a conversation for many of us.......or are we merely contrarians?!

 

[ForteKitty]

Totally agree with Prana.

I also think some people just have really poor reading comprehension. They see one word that they recognize, fixate on it, and that's all they write about.

Also, some people just want attention, and to get it, they pick some stupid viewpoint and defend it to the death.

And I've noticed that when it comes to being offensive or rude, it's the same suspects every time. I don't know if it's a personality defect or self-centeredness or what. Just be REALLY glad you don't have to live with them.

But you can be really mean too, dont you see? it's one thing to make your point, and another entirely to attack a person's intelligence, personality, and mental state because you dont agree with how they come across.

Some people see a more detailed picture, as opposed to just a general outline. We all see things differently. I am guilty of defending something multiple times, as everyone can see, but it is really frustrating when people just dont get my point.

 

[iLander]

Totally agree with Prana.

I also think some people just have really poor reading comprehension. They see one word that they recognize, fixate on it, and that's all they write about.

Also, some people just want attention, and to get it, they pick some stupid viewpoint and defend it to the death.

And I've noticed that when it comes to being offensive or rude, it's the same suspects every time. I don't know if it's a personality defect or self-centeredness or what. Just be REALLY glad you don't have to live with them.

But you can be really mean too, dont you see? it's one thing to make your point, and another entirely to attack a person's intelligence, personality, and mental state because you dont agree with how they come across.

Some people see a more detailed picture, as opposed to just a general outline. We all see things differently. I am guilty of defending something multiple times, as everyone can see, but it is really frustrating when people just dont get my point.

I wasn't talking about you, ForteKitty! I'm sorry if you thought so!

I was talking in broad generalities about posters in general, I had no one specific in mind, and I wasn't even really reading your posts. . .

i was just rambling about internet forums in general, and posters in general. Just kind of venting about stuff people wrote on some of my past threads.

Not one word of what I said was directed at you ForteKitty. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. So Sorry!

 

[katamari]

This form of logic (N=1) is the bane of my existence. Nuanced logic is higher level thinking. I hope we see it here because people are more logically lazy on web forums than IRL.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

This form of logic (N=1) is the bane of my existence. Nuanced logic is higher level thinking. I hope we see it here because people are more logically lazy on web forums than IRL.

I'm sorry, I grew up in an economically depressed area and in a upper-lower class family, I didn't quite understand that statement. Would you please expound? Thank you.

 

[diva rose]

generalization: women have more shoes than men
reality (for me): most of the men i know own more shoes than every single woman i know.

what does that mean?!?!? and i'm really bored at work. isn't it time to go home yet??

lol - they are metrosexuals?

most men i know also spend more time doing their hair than my girlfriends
they also like shopping more than the girls

 

[kenny]

generalization: women have more shoes than men
reality (for me): most of the men i know own more shoes than every single woman i know.

what does that mean?!?!? and i'm really bored at work. isn't it time to go home yet??

lol - they are metrosexuals?

most men i know also spend more time doing their hair than my girlfriends
they also like shopping more than the girls

Fine, your experience is what it is.
Your experience is the exception to the rule that generally women spend more time doing their hair and like shopping more than men.

There is nothing wrong with generalizing.
Lately, generalizations make people go berserk.

 

[kenny]

generalization: women have more shoes than men
reality (for me): most of the men i know own more shoes than every single woman i know.

what does that mean?!?!? and i'm really bored at work. isn't it time to go home yet??

lol - they are metrosexuals?

most men i know also spend more time doing their hair than my girlfriends
they also like shopping more than the girls

Fine, your experience is what it is.
No problem.
Your experience happens to be the exception to the what is more usual, that generally women spend more time doing their hair and like shopping more than men.
Generally women own more shoes than men.
That there will be exceptions goes without saying.

There is nothing wrong with generalizing.
Lately, generalizations make people go berserk.

 

[ForteKitty]

generalization: women have more shoes than men
reality (for me): most of the men i know own more shoes than every single woman i know.

what does that mean?!?!? and i'm really bored at work. isn't it time to go home yet??

lol - they are metrosexuals?

most men i know also spend more time doing their hair than my girlfriends
they also like shopping more than the girls

not really, they're quite rugged. and not so into hair and shopping. They just have a LOT of shoes. In fact that was one of the questions on one of their wedding websites: between D and C, who has more shoes? we all guessed C had more shoes because she's, well, a girl, so we figure it must be a trick question and stuck w/ the girl. but we were SO wrong. he beat her by about 10 pairs.

 

[diva rose]

I do agree in general women do have more shoes and spend longer getting ready etc.
I think I'm just surrounded by metrosexuals - they like looking nice and shopping.

 

[katamari]

This form of logic (N=1) is the bane of my existence. Nuanced logic is higher level thinking. I hope we see it here because people are more logically lazy on web forums than IRL.

I'm sorry, I grew up in an economically depressed area and in a upper-lower class family, I didn't quite understand that statement. Would you please expound? Thank you.

My bad for the unnecessary jargon. (And for all the class-based posts today; I've been prepping my social inequalities class, and, as a result, thinking about it a lot). N=1 means a sample of 1, anecdotal evidence. Since I teach sociology for a living, I have to deal with students who try to discount general patterns by telling anecdotes of personal experiences. Drives me to drink. I just think it is harder for most people to think beyond either-or thinking. Particularly when they are not trying to be deeply analytical.

 

[jstarfireb]

It's basic psychology, human nature if you want to call it that. People are more strongly influenced by vivid memories that come to mind easily than by logic and statistics. Just an example of the availability heuristic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

(I was a psych major, and I think this stuff is fascinating!)

 

[davi_el_mejor]

This form of logic (N=1) is the bane of my existence. Nuanced logic is higher level thinking. I hope we see it here because people are more logically lazy on web forums than IRL.

I'm sorry, I grew up in an economically depressed area and in a upper-lower class family, I didn't quite understand that statement. Would you please expound? Thank you.

My bad for the unnecessary jargon. (And for all the class-based posts today; I've been prepping my social inequalities class, and, as a result, thinking about it a lot). N=1 means a sample of 1, anecdotal evidence. Since I teach sociology for a living, I have to deal with students who try to discount general patterns by telling anecdotes of personal experiences. Drives me to drink. I just think it is harder for most people to think beyond either-or thinking. Particularly when they are not trying to be deeply analytical.

No problem. Thanks for the explanation.

I guess I was a tad melodramatic regarding the class statements. It's hard work to break free from the non-caste caste system we freely glance over in America.

 

[ForteKitty]

generalization: women have more shoes than men
reality (for me): most of the men i know own more shoes than every single woman i know.

what does that mean?!?!? and i'm really bored at work. isn't it time to go home yet??

lol - they are metrosexuals?

most men i know also spend more time doing their hair than my girlfriends
they also like shopping more than the girls

Fine, your experience is what it is.
No problem.
Your experience happens to be the exception to the what is more usual, that generally women spend more time doing their hair and like shopping more than men.
Generally women own more shoes than men.
That there will be exceptions goes without saying.

There is nothing wrong with generalizing.
Lately, generalizations make people go berserk.

haha, i wasn't really asking for an analysis. i was bored out of my mind and stuck at work, goin nuts.

 

[katamari]

This form of logic (N=1) is the bane of my existence. Nuanced logic is higher level thinking. I hope we see it here because people are more logically lazy on web forums than IRL.

I'm sorry, I grew up in an economically depressed area and in a upper-lower class family, I didn't quite understand that statement. Would you please expound? Thank you.

My bad for the unnecessary jargon. (And for all the class-based posts today; I've been prepping my social inequalities class, and, as a result, thinking about it a lot). N=1 means a sample of 1, anecdotal evidence. Since I teach sociology for a living, I have to deal with students who try to discount general patterns by telling anecdotes of personal experiences. Drives me to drink. I just think it is harder for most people to think beyond either-or thinking. Particularly when they are not trying to be deeply analytical.

No problem. Thanks for the explanation.

I guess I was a tad melodramatic regarding the class statements. It's hard work to break free from the non-caste caste system we freely glance over in America.

No worries. I am probably being more than a tad melodramatic with my "there-is-no-hope-for-mobility-why-bother" posts today. (Ironic, too, when I am also complaining about either-or thinking, no? ).

 

[suchende]

i'll just say it has nothing to do with intelligence. i post more often on another message board where the common link among posters is a high score on a certain logic test, many in the 99th+ percentile, and you see this sort of arguing all the time.

 

[iLander]

@FORTEKITTY: I'd appreciate an acknowledgement of my apology . . .

 

[iLander]

I don't understand why everyone is getting on Kenny for posting the same topic more than once.

There is a guy in colored stones that has been on the same topic for many months. I pointed out that I, personally, was tired of it, and everyone got angry with me, saying that a poster has a right to post whatever they like, as many times as they like. Everyone said that if I didn't like it, I just shouldn't read the thread or comment on it.

I even got an admin warning saying that I shouldn't restrict or hamper the rights of others to post what they like . . .

Meanwhile, some are angry with Kenny for bringing up a subject more than once?

 

[movie zombie]

i don't know that anyone is angry with Kenny, iLander. its merely a reminder that this got hashed over in the fall. he has stated this is an issue for him....apparently, an ongoing issue as he's posted the same thing so soon.

re the color stone thread: some projects just take a long time for some people. its happened with others who never returned once their project was completed. just a fact of life on the internet [which is also true re Kenny and his issue]. in that particular thread, others have said they've learned a lot. i'm hoping steve sticks around........and provides his insight to those that will be asking the same questions once again.


MoZo

 

[Jennifer W]

generalization: women have more shoes than men
reality (for me): most of the men i know own more shoes than every single woman i know.

what does that mean?!?!? and i'm really bored at work. isn't it time to go home yet??

lol - they are metrosexuals?

most men i know also spend more time doing their hair than my girlfriends
they also like shopping more than the girls

Fine, your experience is what it is.
No problem.
Your experience happens to be the exception to the what is more usual, that generally women spend more time doing their hair and like shopping more than men.
Generally women own more shoes than men.
That there will be exceptions goes without saying.

There is nothing wrong with generalizing.
Lately, generalizations make people go berserk.

Since we've already had this conversation, I'll say what I said last time, more or less.

I think that challenging generalisations is pretty much always worth doing, to be honest. I see them at best as rather pointless, sometimes as being derogatory and at worst as being closely linked to prejudice. Attitudes change over time, as people challenge stereotypes and generalisations. Two or three generations back, it would have been acceptable to many people to generalise about others on the basis of their ethnicity for example, in a way that many of us would find hugely offensive now. The changes we've seen since then are complex (and partial) but at some point, people challenged the generalisations in everyday conversation that were widely held to be true, and to be part of a culture's general knowledge.

Often, the only challenge you can make is one based on your own experience. If you say that women have more shoes than men, as soon as one man emerges with a collection to rival Imelda Marcos, you have to question the validity of the assumption. When a sizeable minority of men profess their love for multiple pairs of shoes, and a similar minority of women maintain their allegiance to one ratty pair of sneakers, it starts to crumble a little. At what point, based on what evidence, do you want to assert that it's still a valid generalisation, and at what point do you have to say it's an unhelpful stereotype that perpetuates gender roles? Why does anyone need to make such a generalisation in the first place? Unless you're hired to fit shoe racks in a men's dormitory, I don't see the point of it.

My grandmother's neighbour once asserted that Indian people were dirty and lazy. Aged ten, the only challenge I could offer was that my uncle is Indian and he isn't dirty or lazy. That ghastly man believed his generalisation was true and perfectly valid, and that my anecdotal example was either a rare exception or just plain wrong. (He died last year probably still believing it.)

I personally am annoyed by any generalisation that touches on race, sexuality, ethnicity, age or class.

 

[zoebartlett]

Kenny,
You are all over the place, and am having a hard time following your frame of thought. You bring up several topics within one thread. I don't know where you are going or what you are asking.

And for your question about how people argue?? There will always be those that see things from a different perspective than you, and isn't that what makes the world go around. If we all agreed, how boring would that be. It's like vanilla...

I'm having a hard time following this too.