Why do people think/argue this way?

[ForteKitty]

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

ilander- i responded to some posts near the bottom last night but didn't scroll up and see your post till now... it's only 7:30am here and i just got to work... cut me some slack? and i DO appreciate your apology. I know you're going thru some family stuff and it really sucks. Kids generally do come around after some time, especially when they realize they were wrong. I hope for you that this generalization is true. (in the spirit of this thread)

 

[Aoife]

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.

This.

The problem with generalizations is that many people treat them as fact. Many times they aren't, as Jennifer's examples illustrate. Even if you get out of the realm of racial/gender/ethnic/class stereotyping and into "science," you then get into the area of how valid the study was, methodology, statistical analysis, and so on. I can think of quite a few "scientific facts" that, over the course of my lifetime, have been later shown to have been based on faulty assumptions or invalid analysis.

Personally, I think one of the healthiest things we can do is challenge assumptions, generalizations, and the ever-popular "common knowledge."

 

[Shoopy]

ILander, no one is getting "angry" with Kenny.

I said what I said because he has complained twice about this topic. He will never be able to control the comments of others or how they choose to argue. But he can control his reaction to it and rather than get undies in a wad over it, he can just change his perspective. But no one is angry with him.

 

[kenny]

Jennifer and Aofie, yes generalizations can be used to harm people but so can telephones and kitchen knives.
Shall we shun them too?
Of course not.
Telephones, kitchen knives and generalizations are useful things when appropriately used.

What I'm pointing out is that generalizations are okay and many people think they are not, or never, okay.
Using them, or anything else, to spread hate or harm is of course not okay.
Duh.

Many people today (especially here on PS) have irrational reactions to generalizations that are simply true.
A generalization is merely numbers.
The majority of X do Y.
It is not a judgement that doing X is bad or all those Y people are bad.

An exceptions does not make a generalization not true.
The exception and the generalization coexist and are both true.

Why is this threatening so to people?

 

[kenny]

I don't sense anyone is angry with me.
Besides, nothing's wrong with a discussion that gets heated.
That just means something important is happening.

I have brought this up before.
No problem.
Lots of stuff is brought up over and over.

I think it is a legit discussion.

 

[princesss]

Many people today (especially here on PS) have irrational reactions to generalizations that are simply true.
A generalization is merely numbers.
The majority of X do Y.
It is not a judgement that doing X is bad or all those Y people are bad.

An exceptions does not make a generalization not true.
The exception and the generalization coexist and are both true.

Why is this threatening so to people?

Because we're all special snowflakes, and special snowflakes cannot be defined by a group. They are special, dangit, and must be recognized in their own, unique light!

Honestly, I don't know. I don't really care. I think often it's because people can't see beyond their own experiences, and also because it's a quick way of saying "You can't believe statistics, there are exceptions, don't take them as gospel." I don't think people always want their example to carry the same weight as information gained through studying large numbers of people, but I do think it's become a cultural shorthand for acknowledging that the data doesn't always apply to every case.

 

[kenny]

Many people today (especially here on PS) have irrational reactions to generalizations that are simply true.
A generalization is merely numbers.
The majority of X do Y.
It is not a judgement that doing X is bad or all those Y people are bad.

An exceptions does not make a generalization not true.
The exception and the generalization coexist and are both true.

Why is this threatening so to people?

Because we're all special snowflakes, and special snowflakes cannot be defined by a group. They are special, dangit, and must be recognized in their own, unique light!

Honestly, I don't know. I don't really care. I think often it's because people can't see beyond their own experiences, and also because it's a quick way of saying "You can't believe statistics, there are exceptions, don't take them as gospel." I don't think people always want their example to carry the same weight as information gained through studying large numbers of people, but I do think it's become a cultural shorthand for acknowledging that the data doesn't always apply to every case.

True and false.
Every snowflake IS different from others, as is our DNA with the exception of identical twins, but ever snowflake is identical in that they are all frozen water.

This brings to mind the paradox in a wonderful bumper sticker I once saw:
Always remember you are unique, just like every other everyone else.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

Jennifer and Aofie, yes generalizations can be used to harm people but so can telephones and kitchen knives.
Shall we shun them too?
Of course not.
Telephones, kitchen knives and generalizations are useful things when appropriately used.

What I'm pointing out is that generalizations are okay and many people think they are not, or never, okay.
Using them, or anything else, to spread hate or harm is of course not okay.
Duh.

Many people today (especially here on PS) have irrational reactions to generalizations that are simply true.
A generalization is merely numbers.
The majority of X do Y.
It is not a judgement that doing X is bad or all those Y people are bad.

An exceptions does not make a generalization not true.
The exception and the generalization coexist and are both true.

Why is this threatening so to people?

What is truth?

 

[kenny]

Jennifer and Aofie, yes generalizations can be used to harm people but so can telephones and kitchen knives.
Shall we shun them too?
Of course not.
Telephones, kitchen knives and generalizations are useful things when appropriately used.

What I'm pointing out is that generalizations are okay and many people think they are not, or never, okay.
Using them, or anything else, to spread hate or harm is of course not okay.
Duh.

Many people today (especially here on PS) have irrational reactions to generalizations that are simply true.
A generalization is merely numbers.
The majority of X do Y.
It is not a judgement that doing X is bad or all those Y people are bad.

An exceptions does not make a generalization not true.
The exception and the generalization coexist and are both true.

Why is this threatening so to people?

What is truth?

Aha.
Good questions spawn better ones.

 

[kenny]

Truth is very very often just agreements in convincing disguise.
When better info becomes available what we saw as "truth" gets updated. (new agreements are made)

I find it endlessly fascinating noticing places where what people categorize as "truth" is merely agreements.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

To me 2+2 being 4 is truth with a capital T.
But the name given to the quantity of two, or four is merely agreement.
Language is agreements.

It is also interesting how the brain cannot stand unanswerable questions and what it will do to "answer" them.

 

[Jennifer W]

Jennifer and Aofie, yes generalizations can be used to harm people but so can telephones and kitchen knives.
Shall we shun them too?
Of course not.
Telephones, kitchen knives and generalizations are useful things when appropriately used.

What I'm pointing out is that generalizations are okay and many people think they are not, or never, okay.
Using them, or anything else, to spread hate or harm is of course not okay.
Duh.

Many people today (especially here on PS) have irrational reactions to generalizations that are simply true.
A generalization is merely numbers.
The majority of X do Y.
It is not a judgement that doing X is bad or all those Y people are bad.

An exceptions does not make a generalization not true.
The exception and the generalization coexist and are both true.

Why is this threatening so to people?

One of the points I tried to make is that I actually don't see the usefulness in generalisations. The potential harm associated with knives is significant, but the use of them is pretty much essential, so we have knives and manage the risk as far as possible. The use of generalisations is, to me, pointless . I'm not talking about trend data or sociological research, just casual assumptions that people all agree with a particular view of a particular group in society.

It is possible to discuss a point of view without being threatened by the counter argument, too.

ETA, on your "duh" point, one person's hate or harm is another person's perfectly acceptable (and assumed to be shared) viewpoint.

 

[kenny]

Jennifer, I'm not threatened at all.
The conversation continues, back and forth.
That's fine and just how conversations go.

Generalizations ARE useful and we all make them all day.

Examples:

You generalize that the person knocking at your front door is not going to shoot you when you open it.
There have been exceptions.
To function in life we must operate based on generalizations about people.

The manager generalizes when deciding whom to hire.
The applicant may have all the education and qualifications but companies have probation periods to weed out the exceptions to the generalizations.
Even after the probation period an employee can go bad and get fired.
But if a manager didn't generalize she couldn't function because she wouldn't hire anyone.

You generalize that the floor you are about to put your weight on with your next step will hold you up.
There could be an exception to the generalization that floors hold you up.
It could be eaten by termites and you are about to fall and sprain an ankle.

 

[Jennifer W]

Jennifer, I'm not threatened at all.
The conversation continues, back and forth.
That's fine and just how conversations go.

Generalizations ARE useful and we all make them all day.

Examples:

You generalize that the person knocking at your front door is not going to shoot you when you open it.
There have been exceptions.
To function in life we must operate based on generalizations about people.

The manager generalizes when deciding whom to hire.
The applicant may have all the education and qualifications but companies have probation periods to weed out the exceptions to the generalizations.
Even after the probation period an employee can go bad and get fired.
But if a manager didn't generalize she couldn't function because she wouldn't hire anyone.

You generalize that the floor you are about to put your weight on with your next step will hold you up.
There could be an exception to the generalization that floors hold you up.
It could be eaten by termites and you are about to fall and sprain an ankle.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were threatened, just responding to the suggestion that perhaps I was.

I don't think that they examples you give are generalisations, I think they are assumptions. I think there's a clear difference, but happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Siamese Kitty]

Where was it that I read something along the lines of women have a tendency to argue or explain with anecdote, whereas men use a theoretical approach? Don't know that I agree with that, but this thread made me think of it.

I would agree that well-founded arguments backed with unbiased empirical evidence is more higher order thinking, but I think there are times when this doesn't work well. For example, here on PS newbies ask us for our experiences with a certain cut, color, clarity, setting... I've seen people respond with a diplomatic, "check out AGS ideals", to which the newbie has asked that poster what color/clarity/cut they went with.

I think this is a dangerous line to tread, though. Condemning the way some people argue is indirectly condemning the way they think. This board represents a wide range of people. While it may drive someone nuts to hear arguments that are formed this way, it is a bit condescending to criticize the adults here that do this. (even if it's indirectly) Let's not replace the overabundance of political correctness with a dearth of respect and tolerance.

 

[Aoife]

Jennifer and Aofie, yes generalizations can be used to harm people but so can telephones and kitchen knives.
Shall we shun them too?
Of course not.
Telephones, kitchen knives and generalizations are useful things when appropriately used.

What I'm pointing out is that generalizations are okay and many people think they are not, or never, okay.
Using them, or anything else, to spread hate or harm is of course not okay.
Duh.

Many people today (especially here on PS) have irrational reactions to generalizations that are simply true.
A generalization is merely numbers.
The majority of X do Y.
It is not a judgement that doing X is bad or all those Y people are bad.

An exceptions does not make a generalization not true.
The exception and the generalization coexist and are both true.

Why is this threatening so to people?

I think generalizations are a culturally based way of categorizing, and are based on what we assume are shared experiences. In and of themselves, I think they are neutral; it is when individuals begin to act on unexamined generalizations that we run into trouble. Human beings like to categorize things. We all do it, it's pretty much unavoidable. However, it's a thin line between a generalization and prejudice, and personally, I think it's healthy to periodically re-examine what we think we know is true. And it's threatening for some people to do that, because it means s/he might actually have to change the way s/he thinks.

And, to be really nit-picky, first of all we have to come to some kind of agreement on what is meant by the term "generalization," and "irrational." Because what I have frequently noticed is that most of us have a tendency to view others as "irrational" when what we really mean is that the other person didn't agree with us.

 

[movie zombie]

generalizations are often stated as "fact" and not prefaced with the words "in general", "generally speaking", or "i realize i'm putting forth a generalization/stereotype", etc.

i am, however, reminded that there is also this phrase "an exception that proves the rule" could also apply in speaking of stereotypes and generalizations.

additionally, many people find their own experience more validated than the statement of a generalization.

i predict that Kenny will remain dissatisfied with the thinking/argueing that so much bothers him and will either 1-learn to live with it or 2-not participate in threads in which he objects to people thinking/argueing in "this way". i also anticipate that either way he will again post to the topic as it really does bug him. in which case, we will either learn to live with seeing it posted for a 3rd time and will not participate in the 3rd thread.


MoZo

 

[Rockdiamond]

Since this is a diamond based discussion forum, how about we say that some generalizations work- ie- EGL reports are not accepted by the trade to set prices. I find this to be a valuable, and workable generalization- valuable to consumers, that is
And some generalizations do not work- ie- Diamonds claimed to have "superior optics/light return" are "better cut" than those which are either claimed to have lesser light return, or those that do not do as well on the tests designed to measure light return. I find this generalization to be a linking of a type of sales technique to factually based statistics. IMO such generalizations do not necessarily assist consumers.
Of course all this might be a generalizaiton

 

[Maria D]

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.

Are you trying to say that 2+2=4 is "truth?" There are exceptions: 2+2 = 11 in base 3 and 10 in base 4.

 

[HollyS]

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!!

Been there, done that. I finally stopped accepting the t-shirts for each trip through that circus.

 

[rockzilla]

I wouldn't say that generalizations are completely useless. I think they help us make decisions. If you generalize and say that people with a college education are more likely to be financially stable throughout their lives, and because of that generalization you make it a priority to help your kids go to college, I would say that it is a helpful generalization. The fact that some college grads are broke, or that other HS drop outs are millionaires doesn't change the fact that generally, going to college leads to more positive outcomes.

Take Kenny's example, the one vs. two-parent home. I think a lot of us can think of examples that defy this "generalization," however, most would agree that all other things being equal, having two parents is more beneficial than one. It is similar to doing a regression in Stats 101 -- you evaluate the impact of a variable while excluding the effects of all other variables.

When it comes to generalizations, yes, you have to proceed with caution, in particular with things that could lead to racial, ethnic or gender stereotypes. But, generalizations can be tremendously useful for decision making. If someone generalizes and says that English majors make less than engineering majors (and there is data to back this up) it can help them decide whether or not that is a path they want to go down. It doesn't matter if some English majors become J.K. Rowling or some engineers are flat broke --- in general, it is harder for an English major to have a lucrative career right out of the gate. It doesn't mean noone should ever be an English major, just that this is data they should take into account (and I wish more did...my heart aches for my friends with MFAs in Creative Writing!)

 

[Imdanny]

I don't sense anyone is angry with me.
Besides, nothing's wrong with a discussion that gets heated.
That just means something important is happening.

I have brought this up before.
No problem.
Lots of stuff is brought up over and over.

I think it is a legit discussion.

Yes, a lot of stuff is brought up over and over on any "off-topic" board at any site, and that's good, people who weren't around the last time can post.

And if people weren't starting threads, people would be complaining that there were no threads, the place was dying, etc.

I'm kind of under the weather, so if I don't respond to something, somewhere nobody should assume anything about it. I can barely pay attention. I hardly feel like doing anything. Hopefully I'll be feeling better tomorrow.

 

[swimmer]

Because we're all special snowflakes, and special snowflakes cannot be defined by a group. They are special, dangit, and must be recognized in their own, unique light!

Honestly, I don't know. I don't really care. I think often it's because people can't see beyond their own experiences, and also because it's a quick way of saying "You can't believe statistics, there are exceptions, don't take them as gospel." I don't think people always want their example to carry the same weight as information gained through studying large numbers of people, but I do think it's become a cultural shorthand for acknowledging that the data doesn't always apply to every case.

Nicely put. I think anecdotal evidence has a great place when TTC or finding the perfect diamond. When discussing societal issues, refuting statistical evidence based on one's own evidence is either following only the heart or not using the brain.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Most people seem to be uncomfortable with life's gray areas. Polarized thinking (black and white) is distorted and unhealthy.