NationStates Jolt Archive

This forum is full of people making generalisations about ethnic, religious or national groups, be they Muslims, Christians, Americans, French people, black people... or Soviestan's recent claim that "Jews are racist" (the delicious irony of that statement obviously escaping him).

While NSG has done much to sink any lingering faith I may have had in humanity, it has also provided a fascinating study case. I recall Ny Nordland once saying that making absurd generalisations against Muslims made him akin to "great scientists" who labelise and categorise elements of the world around them.

All of which has given me food for thought. And I'd be interested to know your thoughts on... well, my thoughts.

I believe that most of us have a deep-seated need to understand the world we live in... or, more accurately, to convince ourselves that we understand it. Few people are actually interested in the irreducible complexity of reality; an overwhelming majority of people need to believe the world is simple enough to be fitted into neat little boxes. There is a sense of security to be derived from persuading yourself the world you live in is knowable and known.

Hence generalisations, which are the very antithesis to a genuine attempt to understand reality. Ethnic, religious and national generalisations are a futile wish to erase the complexities which define the reality of human groups, and instead make everything comfortably and reassuringly simple. It is, in great part, a question of intellectual laziness, but I think it goes beyond that. I believe such generalisations are a fascinating attempt at simultaneously understanding and denying reality, for the sake of believing one has understood while at the same time persuading oneself there is no further need to "strain the brain" and think any further.

In that sense, such generalisations, the products of severely limited intellects, are both a form of nascent, child-like intellectual curiosity which exists in almost all of us, and a reassuring limit which serves to deny and block out the disturbing complexity of reality. Some of us grow beyond these limitations and consider infinite complexity to be fascinating and intellectually stimulating; most people do not, and would consider it simply too much to cope with.

Anyway... As I said, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Stereotypes save a hell of a lot of time.

all those people who generalize suck.

The mind is like a gigantic filing system, and it doesn't work well with alphabetization.

Only Americans generalize.

All of em.

Because generalizations and stereotyping are important parts of the machinery that is our society. There's a certain degree of generalization and stereotyping needed, such as shop owner's assuming that their customers want to be treated well, or that you generally avoid certain districts in a city because you could get mugged or worse. Both are examples of generalization and stereotypes, and they're not necessarily bad. They're easy to overdo and aren't relevant in most situations, though.

Generalisations are true..generally. People generalise because it makes the communication of their points and ideas easier. Generalisation is a massive aid in comprehension. When we face a generalisation it helps us to understand the whole of a situation better. However, that being said, the victims of generalisation are exceptions. Luckily, exceptions are just that, exceptions, and as such should constitute a minority.

all those people who generalize suck.
Ad hominem fallacies are a much greater transgression of arguementative logic than generalisations ever were. ;)

Everything we do, and everybody we meet winds up being a situation where we need information to understand what's going on. To fill in the gaps of the specific unknowns, we tend to generalize. We take what we know, or think we know, about similar people or things, and stick it in the file on that person or thing. This is acceptable, as long as we leave a question mark beside that entry though, and are ready and willing to, once we get further, more specific information, to erase the old bits and fill in the new bits.

It's all part of human nature, we all do it your self included otherwise why say....

I believe that most of us have a deep-seated need to understand the world we live in... or, more accurately, to convince ourselves that we understand it.

Thats a good example of a generalised statement, what you mean is.

According to my outlook on life and brought about by my genetic predisposition and my subjective upbringing it seems to me that... most of us have a deep-seated need to understand the world we live in... etc..

Your statment comes from a place that only you know about and yet you still impose your thought on others and suggest that this is the way things are.

Note, that I am not tryting to lay blame here, just showing how we all generlise.

The problem of course is we all know that even when we generlise that we don't mean every member of that group, but it takes too much effert to compartmenatlise and name those that we want to exclude, so we generliase and hope people get the gist of what we mean.

This thread is funny. ^_^

Everything we do, and everybody we meet winds up being a situation where we need information to understand what's going on. To fill in the gaps of the specific unknowns, we tend to generalize. We take what we know, or think we know, about similar people or things, and stick it in the file on that person or thing. This is acceptable, as long as we leave a question mark beside that entry though, and are ready and willing to, once we get further, more specific information, to erase the old bits and fill in the new bits.

Indeed. Making some generalisations to "fill in the gaps of specific unknowns", as you quite rightly put it, is probably an instinctive necessity. And of course I agree fully with your last sentence.

There's an important difference between people who "are ready and willing to, once we get further, more specific information, to erase the old bits and fill in the new bits", and people who aren't. The latter are those who believe such generalisations are sufficient and accurate in themselves, and who don't make that extra step.


Thats a good example of a generalised statement, what you mean is.

According to my outlook on life and brought about by my genetic predisposition and my subjective upbringing it seems to me that... most of us have a deep-seated need to understand the world we live in... etc..

Your statment comes from a place that only you know about and yet you still impose your thought on others and suggest that this is the way things are.

Note, that I am not tryting to lay blame here, just showing how we all generlise.

Quite so. Although I did try to nuance my statement, and the point I was making was more specifically about ethnic, religious and national generalisations.


The problem of course is we all know that even when we generlise that we don't mean every member of that group, but it takes too much effert to compartmenatlise and name those that we want to exclude, so we generliase and hope people get the gist of what we mean.

That's a very good point. I would argue, though, that generalising while implicitly leaving out the (multiple and diverse) "exceptions" often leads to people "thinking" (if you can call it thinking) in generalised terms, without considering any such "exceptions", or dismissing them as negligeable.

Generally, speaking, people generalise because specfic differences take too long to explain. :p

It's an ironic question, because it generalises people as generalising, and asks us to generalise the reasons they do it.

This thread is funny. ^_^

Care to elaborate on that statement? ;)

Generalisations are true..generally.

Out of curiosity... what "true" generalisations would you make about Australians? Something that, to you, would be true of all Australians except a negligeable minority.

It's an ironic question, because it generalises people as generalizing, and asks us to generalise the reasons they do it.

Not really. Well, I see your point, but I've tried not to make it that. I was referring to specific types of generalisation, and I haven't said that people in general make them.

Care to elaborate on that statement? ;)

KSP did a pretty good job of summing it up:

It's an ironic question, because it generalises people as generalizing, and asks us to generalise the reasons they do it.

:p

See Schema. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_%28psychology%29) It is a part of Piaget's theory of cognitive development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory) and stereotypes fall neatly into this catagory.

Just as a child sees a dog for the first time, forms a lasting impression of what a dog is, and assimilates new information to fit that impression - we too associate people into schemas. If something defies that model, then we accommodate our conception to fit it.

This is childish though; a simple explanation for a simple way of thinking.

This forum is full of people making generalisations about ethnic, religious or national groups, be they Muslims, Christians, Americans, French people, black people... or Soviestan's recent claim that "Jews are racist" (the delicious irony of that statement obviously escaping him).

(etc)



Of course, just saying "this place is full of people like this..." is already a generalisation.

Problem is, it is difficult to understand without an attempt to generalisation. Very difficult. The issue is, how do we find the RIGHT generalisation?

Anyway... As I said, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Making predictions is necessary to survive in life. You can't possibly know everyone you deal with well enough to know all of their beliefs and actions. Everything you do in life you consider "the odds are". The "odds are" when you go into a store the person behind the counter is authorized to take your payment. He may be robbing the place. When you invite an Italian to your house, "odds are" he likes pasta. If you say you don't play "odds are" the odds are you aren't being honest.

The difference becomes if you say "odds are" or if you say "always is". While we have to make predictions we also need to recognize exceptions. That is the difference between prediction and prejudice.

That's a very good point. I would argue, though, that generalising while implicitly leaving out the (multiple and diverse) "exceptions" often leads to people "thinking" (if you can call it thinking) in generalised terms, without considering any such "exceptions", or dismissing them as negligeable.

Yep I agree although iI don't really see this a right or wrong, more as human nature thing. Critical thought as I'm always saying does not come naturaly but must be taught, and learned. So I guess it is no supprise that these things happen.

KSP did a pretty good job of summing it up:


I've already answered that. There is a fundamental difference between someone saying "Jews are racist" / "Muslims love violence" / "Americans are morons", and saying that there is a tendency among a significant proportion of the population to make ethnic, national and/or religious generalisations. Especially since I explicitly specified that my concern was with those types of generalisations.


Of course, just saying "this place is full of people like this..." is already a generalisation.

See above.


Problem is, it is difficult to understand without an attempt to generalisation.

Indeed, as I said. The issue is then moving beyond that attempt, and going further, trying to grasp and understand the actual complexity of reality. Which generalisations of the type at hand simply cannot do. Which makes them ultimately counter-productive.


The issue is, how do we find the RIGHT generalisation?

My point is that there is no such thing (within the scope I mentioned in the OP).

The difference becomes if you say "odds are" or if you say "always is". While we have to make predictions we also need to recognize exceptions. That is the difference between prediction and prejudice.

Quite so.


Critical thought as I'm always saying does not come naturaly but must be taught, and learned. So I guess it is no supprise that these things happen.

Yep. I agree. I should have said that in the OP, really...

See Schema. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_%28psychology%29) It is a part of Piaget's theory of cognitive development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory) and stereotypes fall neatly into this catagory.


Interestingly, the first I heard of Piaget's theory was last Thursday, when I happened to attend a lecture by an elderly professor of psychology who'd worked with Piaget. He didn't mention this particular aspect of cognitive development (the thoughts in the OP are my own), but from the other aspects mentioned it seems very interesting.

I've already answered that. There is a fundamental difference between someone saying "Jews are racist" / "Muslims love violence" / "Americans are morons", and saying that there is a tendency among a significant proportion of the population to make ethnic, national and/or religious generalisations. Especially since I explicitly specified that my concern was with those types of generalisations.

Yes, I know. That was just my immediate reaction. :)

Out of curiosity... what "true" generalisations would you make about Australians? Something that, to you, would be true of all Australians except a negligeable minority.

They speak with an australian accent.

Yes, I know. That was just my immediate reaction. :)

OK. Just wanted to make sure. ;)

Generalizing works because it holds a kernel of truth.
"ALL" Muslims as terrorists works because all one sees of Islam on television is the government mandated "Muslims are Ebil" imagery necessary to continue waging war against the middle East one nation at a time. (Iran seems to be next...)
No matter how intellectual I am about it all in the realization that my opinion on them is being sculpted by a spin-doctor, the brutal truth is that it works.
Every time I realize I'm seeing a muslim, I rememnber the destruction of the World Trade Center.
There was a period in history where a person of Jewish heritage more than likely saw an image of Auschwitz in their mind whenever they encountered a German person.
Its a knee-jerk reaction.

Rather like a person who once accidentally nearly choked to death omn a peach pit thereafter associates peaches with choking...

Out of curiosity... what "true" generalisations would you make about Australians? Something that, to you, would be true of all Australians except a negligeable minority.Hmm, I do not usually generalise based on nationality, but it can be accurately done (must be careful though, otherwise you look like an arse). Ok Generalisations about Australians. They use british spellings when they write (unless corrected by word!). They do speak with a 'general Australian' accent (as opposed to 'broad Australian' and 'Cultivated Australian' accent). They are literate. They know what vegemite tastes like. They are employed. They are are 'victims' of tall poppy syndrome. They own a TV. The watch the TV. They can speak english. They have seen a eucalyptus tree in person.

Meh, they are quite a non-decript group (probably because I have grown up with them). Unfortunately there is little of that Steve Irwin crap to be found, it's there, but it is rare. Also note, that it is the exceptions that give flavour to the whole, as they are distinct. This, I feel is true of all things.

Interestingly, the first I heard of Piaget's theory was last Thursday, when I happened to attend a lecture by an elderly professor of psychology who'd worked with Piaget. He didn't mention this particular aspect of cognitive development (the thoughts in the OP are my own), but from the other aspects mentioned it seems very interesting.

A significant portion of Paiget's work deals with what he saw as "stages" of childhood development. Things like object perminence and centration would probably ring more bells.

The schema is more of a basis for how children think (as well as how adult thought develops), and tends to get overshadowed in the context of the rest of his theory.

Still, it's fascinating stuff in it's own right and it certainly provides a strong, legitimate psychological explaination for stereotypes and generalizations.

I've learned that people who actually meet those they're generalizing, are far less likely to generalize.

I've learned that people who actually meet those they're generalizing, are far less likely to generalize.
I think it depends on how they generalise. Remember that by far most generalisations have llittle to do with people at all, let alone race or nationality. Nevertheless, most generalisations are pretty harmless and often unconcious. Such as "africans want my charity" or "Italians cook good food".

I think it depends on how they generalise. Remember that by far most generalisations have llittle to do with people at all, let alone race or nationality. Nevertheless, most generalisations are pretty harmless and often unconcious. Such as "africans want my charity" or "Italians cook good food".

The second one, though, is a true generalization! :D

*suddenly craves Italian food*

The second one, though, is a true generalization! :D

*suddenly craves Italian food*

So africans don't want charity? Because right now this Australian wants Italian charity in the form of a food drop.
*Joins in craving*

A significant portion of Paiget's work deals with what he saw as "stages" of childhood development. Things like object perminence and centration would probably ring more bells.

The schema is more of a basis for how children think (as well as how adult thought develops), and tends to get overshadowed in the context of the rest of his theory.

Still, it's fascinating stuff in it's own right and it certainly provides a strong, legitimate psychological explaination for stereotypes and generalizations.
To build on the whole schema idea (which I've just been learning about in Psychology) there have been studies to show that sometimes, subconciously, information that doesn't "fit" our schema simply isn't encoded and stored in our mind/memory. We're more likely to remember things that support our preconceived ideas, and to not remember things that challenge it. For example, a group of anti-police people and pro-police people watching the same video about the police and giving totally different recollections of the film and the image of the polce.

Also, there's the idea that one you start using a schema, it's very hard to try and break out of that way of thinking.

For a simple example, loads of brain teasers work off of this. There's one about a drunk guy from the pub walking down the middle of the road and a car comes down the road with no headlights on, and the guy moves out of the way despite there being no moonlight and no streetlamps. You're led to assume it's nighttime (partly through the emphasis on no other light, and partly because you might assume someone coming from a pub will be going home at night, when the pubs close), and when asked "how did he see the car?" people generally come up with strange ideas instead of it being the simple fact that it's daytime. Once the schema has been triggered, and it's assumed it is nighttime, it's very hard to break out of it, and you generally don't realise there's anything to break out of.

So, basically, people subconciously seem to only remember information that fits in with a preconceived idea (from a past experience, parents or whatever), therefore strengthening the idea in their mind, and when that way of thinking has been triggered subconciously it's very hard to think in another way.

Humans are generalizing, or categorizing, animals because it's a survival characteristic. It helps us to quickly recognize things that we either need, or which are harmful to us. For example, if we had to go through some sort of internal analysis to decide if something was a predator, we probably wouldn't even finish the process before we were eaten.

Where the problem comes in is when we apply the categorization process to ourselves, such as classifying people into "racial types," then placing them into a category such as "different from us, therefore possibly bad for us."

This forum is full of people making generalisations about ethnic, religious or national groups, be they Muslims, Christians, Americans, French people, black people... or Soviestan's recent claim that "Jews are racist" (the delicious irony of that statement obviously escaping him).

While NSG has done much to sink any lingering faith I may have had in humanity, it has also provided a fascinating study case. I recall Ny Nordland once saying that making absurd generalisations against Muslims made him akin to "great scientists" who labelise and categorise elements of the world around them.

All of which has given me food for thought. And I'd be interested to know your thoughts on... well, my thoughts.

I believe that most of us have a deep-seated need to understand the world we live in... or, more accurately, to convince ourselves that we understand it. Few people are actually interested in the irreducible complexity of reality; an overwhelming majority of people need to believe the world is simple enough to be fitted into neat little boxes. There is a sense of security to be derived from persuading yourself the world you live in is knowable and known.

Hence generalisations, which are the very antithesis to a genuine attempt to understand reality. Ethnic, religious and national generalisations are a futile wish to erase the complexities which define the reality of human groups, and instead make everything comfortably and reassuringly simple. It is, in great part, a question of intellectual laziness, but I think it goes beyond that. I believe such generalisations are a fascinating attempt at simultaneously understanding and denying reality, for the sake of believing one has understood while at the same time persuading oneself there is no further need to "strain the brain" and think any further.

In that sense, such generalisations, the products of severely limited intellects, are both a form of nascent, child-like intellectual curiosity which exists in almost all of us, and a reassuring limit which serves to deny and block out the disturbing complexity of reality. Some of us grow beyond these limitations and consider infinite complexity to be fascinating and intellectually stimulating; most people do not, and would consider it simply too much to cope with.

Anyway... As I said, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Your very topic generalises. I need the names of those who generalise and examples of them generalising before we can have a meaningful discussion without generalising. Paraphrasing Ny Norland to bitch slap her wont cut the muster.

I've learned that people who actually meet those they're generalizing, are far less likely to generalize.

Ummm what generaly?

I'll have to agree with those that declare it to be part of human nature.

I think that even though some stated they don't generalize, isn't completely accurate.

I, also, don't feel having certain generalizations is wrong. :D

Your very topic generalises.

I've answered this several times already. I'm not going to do so again.


I need the names of those who generalise and examples of them generalising before we can have a meaningful discussion without generalising. Paraphrasing Ny Norland to bitch slap her wont cut the muster.

I wasn't paraphrasing; I was quoting. If you want other specific examples, you can find them easily in most threads. Or you can use the other example I provided: Soviestan's claim that "Jews are racist" (again, a quote, not paraphrasing).

Humans generalise because they cant really stop, further more they shouldnt. The normal human brain seems to conduct most of its thinking in generalisations.

Every time we categorise anything, we are making a generalisation, and we categorise just about everything. Excluding 'proper nouns' and pro-nouns' all basic nouns signify a generalisation, as do most verbs and most adjectives.

We generalise because we need to simply to reason. I dont think we could reason on a day to day basis without relying on generalisations. Imagine trying to get through a day if you couldnt generalise in order to know that two different objects both happen to be tables, or that two different objects happen to be food, or that two different series of actions at different times in different environments both happen constitute 'eating', or that two entirely different creatures, both happen to be people - the same thing you are despite not being identical to either of the others.

In order to decide (or know) if anything is or is not a book, a square, a cookie, a cat, a mug, or what-have-you, you have to employ generalisation, in fact being able to conceptualise/understand concepts such as 'cat' requires being able to generalise.

<SNIP>

All true, obviously, but it doesn't address the specific question I asked.

To set the context we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar_number (or if you will 'the monkeysphere', which was linked to a while back).
There seem to be an upper limit to the number of people we can distinguish. The number of people we have to deal with however, is generally much larger. So the only way to reconcile that, is to treat large numbers of people as if they were the same.
Take that as you may. Generalization is, however you may want to put it, just a way to cope with information overflow. There are too many people and things in the world to deal with them all individually.

This forum is full of people making generalisations about ethnic, religious or national groups, be they Muslims, Christians, Americans, French people, black people... or Soviestan's recent claim that "Jews are racist" (the delicious irony of that statement obviously escaping him).

While NSG has done much to sink any lingering faith I may have had in humanity, it has also provided a fascinating study case. I recall Ny Nordland once saying that making absurd generalisations against Muslims made him akin to "great scientists" who labelise and categorise elements of the world around them.

All of which has given me food for thought. And I'd be interested to know your thoughts on... well, my thoughts.

I believe that most of us have a deep-seated need to understand the world we live in... or, more accurately, to convince ourselves that we understand it. Few people are actually interested in the irreducible complexity of reality; an overwhelming majority of people need to believe the world is simple enough to be fitted into neat little boxes. There is a sense of security to be derived from persuading yourself the world you live in is knowable and known.

Hence generalisations, which are the very antithesis to a genuine attempt to understand reality. Ethnic, religious and national generalisations are a futile wish to erase the complexities which define the reality of human groups, and instead make everything comfortably and reassuringly simple. It is, in great part, a question of intellectual laziness, but I think it goes beyond that. I believe such generalisations are a fascinating attempt at simultaneously understanding and denying reality, for the sake of believing one has understood while at the same time persuading oneself there is no further need to "strain the brain" and think any further.

In that sense, such generalisations, the products of severely limited intellects, are both a form of nascent, child-like intellectual curiosity which exists in almost all of us, and a reassuring limit which serves to deny and block out the disturbing complexity of reality. Some of us grow beyond these limitations and consider infinite complexity to be fascinating and intellectually stimulating; most people do not, and would consider it simply too much to cope with.

Anyway... As I said, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.


We all generalize. It’s the scientific truth as well as the reality. For ex, humans have inorganic meterials (ex: magnesium), yet we are still classified as organic, like the rest of living organisms. This is to say, despite exceptions, conclusions and rules can be and are indeed made. The fact that you cant divide a number into 0 doesn’t meant that division doesn’t work. You cant say to your teacher that she has a limited intellect because she thinks division works. Because it does work, despite exceptions.

Similarly, in everyday life, we make such generalizations. We say sky is blue when it always isn’t. Even when it is, it contains clouds and shades. We can apply such generalizations to social matters as well. Statistically, 90% of women in Turkey are subjected to violence by their bf’s or husbands, so we can say that women in Turkey are treated badly despite exceptions. Based on this, and considering that Turkey is an EU candidate and example muslim country, we can also reach conclusions about the status of women in the Islamic world.

Now some people (lets call these people PC PEOPLE) think such generalizations are products of a limited intellect because social matters are quite complex. But what isn’t? Chemical reactions are also very complex but we always say, despite exceptions, elements try to make their electron configuration like the inert gases. This is not a simplification of reality but it is the reality, because the fact that almost any rule/conclusion has (an) exception(s) is such a basic concept that it is also included in our perception of rules of chemical reactions.

Hence, the fact that PC people can not see the “generalization” patterns in everyday life, science and for that matter reality and the fact that PC people can not grasp the basic concept of “exceptions” make them unable to see the point in generalizations about social matters and indeed make themselves the ones possessing limited intellects and most probably sub-standart ones as well. Their failure to understand such simple concepts may also explain the fact that they need to make threads in which they speculate the intellects of others in order to cover their own weaknesses. This is of course funny at best, but an understandable psychological reaction.

-snip-
Making generalisations is all good and well as long as you:
- recognise that it is a generalisation and not pure fact
- recognise that there are exceptions to the generalisation
- recognise that there are limitations to the generalisation
- recognise that that it is useless in some situations (such as dealing with individuals - far better to make judgement based on the individual)
- recognise that your generalisation may be false or inaccurate or be worth less than you first thought, and be willing to adjust, change, add to or get rid of your generalisation

All these things good scientists, mathematicians, generally intelligent people etc do. Many other people don't, and it is those people that this thread addresses (I would assume).

Making generalisations is all good and well as long as you:
- recognise that it is a generalisation and not pure fact
- recognise that there are exceptions to the generalisation
- recognise that there are limitations to the generalisation
- recognise that that it is useless in some situations (such as dealing with individuals - far better to make judgement based on the individual)
- recognise that your generalisation may be false or inaccurate or be worth less than you first thought, and be willing to adjust, change, add to or get rid of your generalisation

All these things good scientists, mathematicians etc do.

Saying generalizations has limitations is one of the "NO SHITTTTT!!!" things I have ever heard. Of course it has limitations. What hasnt? People, physics laws, suns, my chair, almost everything besides GOD has limitations.

almost everything besides GOD has limitations.Even God must his limitations. I wouldn't expect him to make round squares or rocks he can't lift, to name but two conundrums.

Even God must his limitations. I wouldn't expect him to make round squares or rocks he can't lift, to name but two conundrums.

I dont think GOD has any problems with making rocks but even if it has limitations, limitations would loose their meaning in that level, IMO. Like the fact that the criticism of generalizations lost their meaning in the OP since OP himself was making generalizations. His sub-conscious was probably aware of limitations of his owner's intellect and that was rather funny.

I've answered this several times already. I'm not going to do so again.




I did not ask a question. I made a statement. It is impossible not to generalise. Your idea that generalisers are lazy applies to all humans. It would have been easier to just insult the human race and leave generalising out of it.

While it may not be 'correct' to generalize, it is a nessecary evil of humanity.

Generalization is generally correct, however all generalizations are wrong. Until a more accurate theory evolves, The generalized concept should be considered acceptable.

~At one time, atoms were generally believed to be solid particles of randomly dispersed positive and negative elements. Generally correct, but wrong.

~We then believed them to be solid bodies with electrons orbiting them in circular orbits. Generally more correct, but still wrong.

~The current belief is that they have a solid core, with a cloud of electons surrounding them at different valence levels. Even more generally correct, but still wrong.

All of our knowledge of the universe around us stems from generalizations. If we did not generalize, we would be unable to make sense of anything. The only 100% truth would be that we are wrong. I would prefer to be right 60% of the time until someone comes up with a better theory.

Now some people (lets call these people PC PEOPLE) think such generalizations are products of a limited intellect because social matters are quite complex. But what isn’t? Chemical reactions are also very complex but we always say, despite exceptions, elements try to make their electron configuration like the inert gases. This is not a simplification of reality but it is the reality, because the fact that almost any rule/conclusion has (an) exception(s) is such a basic concept that it is also included in our perception of rules of chemical reactions.

The problem with generalisations is that often they are based on limited or biased examples. Growing up I might live in a small town where I only encounter women who have short hair. I might make the generalisation that women usually have short hair. In my current circumstances thats a pretty good generalisation. The problems start to occur if I don't adjust those generalisations when more information comes to hand.

There are lots of reasons people don't adjust these initial generalisations. It might be that I never leave my small town. I might hear about women having long hair.. but never actually see them. Even if I hear about thousands of women having long hair and there are only a hundred women in my small town I am unlikely to change my point of view dispite the weight of numbers.

This is where "PC" people often start to have a problem with generalisations. They are great when they are generaly accurate, but if they are not accurate and people still stick to them then they can be a real problem. It would be the same in science.

Initially the bulk of evidence suggested that the earth was flat. It was a pretty good generalisation that seemd to hold true in a lot of circumstances. However it was eventually shown that in fact the earth being round but very very big was a better approximation. There was a lot of resistance to the change but eventually the generalisation was adjusted.

Fixed generalisations are a problem. Assuming that your particular generalisation is an accurate representation is a problem. Not being willing to adjust your generalisations as times change is a problem. Extrapolating generalisations further than they should stretch is a problem. Thats why in general generalisations have to be used carefully and be flexible.

Saying Muslims are Violent cause you have seen a few violent Muslims on the news is not akin to the categorisation of the great scientists... in fact its poor science.

Generalizing is a way to cope with the immense number of people we meet in everyday life and the constant complexities of modern society.

It is necessary, but it must be used carefully.

or Soviestan's recent claim that "Jews are racist" (the delicious irony of that statement obviously escaping him).


Thank you for including in the OP it makes me feel special, even if your painting me a negative light. Though I should clear up the statement. What I should have said was Israelis not Jews. And no the irony doesnt espace me though your comment about how ALL people who generalise suck leads me to believe the irony is lost on you.

people generalise cause if they dont know a person well, they are going guess what they are like based on thier stereo type.
for instance, if i met an arab for the first time, if i didnt know they them, i would assume they are friendly but easily offended.
or another example, the irish stereotype, if i met someone for the first time and they assumed i liked to get drunk, i wouldnt be offended. its an acurate stereotype.

All true, obviously, but it doesn't address the specific question I asked.
I think it may not be so obviously true (although I hope it is true). I'm not sure you've understand what I had meant to convey since it's contrary to your position as described as in you OP.

I thought I did address your OP. I confess you got me with the question. I agree I didnt address or answer your question...I didnt notice it. I still cant find it even having re-read your OP?:confused:

A couple of points;
My understanding is that human reasoning, necessarily, in every case, requires generalisation.
The only substitute for a generalisation is some other generalisation.

It isnt true (as per my understanding) that people perceive a gap in their understanding of the world, causing them to choose to generate, and reason with generalisations in order to fill, patch-over, or hide the gaps (as I believe you are suggest in your OP...).
My position is that generalisation isnt a choice.

One aspect of this is that we cant address errors by trying to replace a generalisation with some other different kind of understanding/reasoning/knowledge. The antedote to a 'generalisation gone bad' isnt a non-generalisation, but rather a better generalisation.



Generalisations are flawed because even those that are not characterised by erroneous inclusions, all share the same universal flaw - omission.

An important factor is the mismatch between the identity state of reality along with the 'goings on' of reality, and our sensory-cognitive-processual capacities. The direct implication of this mismatch is that we have a problem; we cant reason things, or think things or know things, even the things we do vaguely detect with our 5 senses kit, as the things absoltutely are.

We cant 'think' even a simple phone as the phone is - the atoms in a single button are 'way too much info' for us to deal with. We cant reason, think or know things as themselves because that's just way too much information for the means available to us.

But we do reason, think and know things to some extent or other, so we've obviously got some kind of work-around to the impossibility of thinking the things themselve.
The work around is something that facilitates conceptual representations (of things) that we can comprehend, process, and use, so it must be something that faciliates less than complete (ie partial) representations of 'reality as it is, and as it is occuring'. And that is exactly what generalisations are.
The universal flaw of ommision is our 'in-door' to reasoning itself.

If your question is 'why do generalisation errors occur in human reasoning?' my answer is 'how could they not?'

While it may not be 'correct' to generalize, it is a nessecary evil of humanity.

I would argue that it is not 'a nessecary evil' and that indeed it is correct.

It seems to be the normal mode of thought for humanity, it is essential for the way we learn things.

Bearing this is mind it is neither inherently evil, nor incorrect.

Are you sure you ask the good question?
i mean Generalising about why they do thing...
Well,let's make it so, why are people ready to accept it,without questioning it?
Now I think this is what you mean.

We all generalize. It’s the scientific truth as well as the reality. For ex, humans have inorganic meterials (ex: magnesium), yet we are still classified as organic, like the rest of living organisms. This is to say, despite exceptions, conclusions and rules can be and are indeed made. The fact that you cant divide a number into 0 doesn’t meant that division doesn’t work. You cant say to your teacher that she has a limited intellect because she thinks division works. Because it does work, despite exceptions.

All very obvious and true. But my OP was about a specific kind of generalisation. Which we now move on to...


Similarly, in everyday life, we make such generalizations. We say sky is blue when it always isn’t. Even when it is, it contains clouds and shades. We can apply such generalizations to social matters as well.

Indeed we do, and I've already addressed this issue. As I've said, it's almost impossible for us not to generalise, in a (very insufficient) attempt to understand the world around us. The issue is that some of us are able to look beyond generalisations, and bear in mind at all times both the irreducable complexity of reality (especially in social matters) and the inherent limitations contained in social generalisations. Whereas many people are not able to go beyond the generalising process, and it is these people who cling to comfortable and meaningless racist generalisations - based on inherently flawed categorisations, as you so kindly demonstrate:


Based on this, and considering that Turkey is an EU candidate and example muslim country, we can also reach conclusions about the status of women in the Islamic world.

If one were to record a high level of support for fascism, a high level of alcoholism or a high level of educational achievement in, say, Poland, would you therefore claim it demonstrates essential social characteristics of British or Italian people?

I deal with and know individuals, some of whom match the stereotypes (often intentionally) some of whom do not. Until I know someone personally, I have no choice but to make generalizations about them.

I did not ask a question. I made a statement. It is impossible not to generalise. Your idea that generalisers are lazy applies to all humans. It would have been easier to just insult the human race and leave generalising out of it.

You've badly misread what I wrote. If you want to comment on what I actually said, please do, but that would require you going back and reading what I wrote.


The problem with generalisations is that often they are based on limited or biased examples. Growing up I might live in a small town where I only encounter women who have short hair. I might make the generalisation that women usually have short hair. In my current circumstances thats a pretty good generalisation. The problems start to occur if I don't adjust those generalisations when more information comes to hand.

There are lots of reasons people don't adjust these initial generalisations. It might be that I never leave my small town. I might hear about women having long hair.. but never actually see them. Even if I hear about thousands of women having long hair and there are only a hundred women in my small town I am unlikely to change my point of view dispite the weight of numbers.

This is where "PC" people often start to have a problem with generalisations. They are great when they are generaly accurate, but if they are not accurate and people still stick to them then they can be a real problem. It would be the same in science.

[...]

Saying Muslims are Violent cause you have seen a few violent Muslims on the news is not akin to the categorisation of the great scientists... in fact its poor science.

Yep. That's what I was driving at in my own fumbling way. ;)


Thank you for including in the OP it makes me feel special, even if your painting me a negative light.

You're quite welcome.


Though I should clear up the statement. What I should have said was Israelis not Jews.

That's an important difference, and a reminder that when you're going to make a statement, you should be quite sure you're saying what you intend to say. In any case, it just means you're making a sweeping generalisation about a nationality rather than a religion, which still fits in with what my OP is trying to address.


And no the irony doesnt espace me though your comment about how ALL people who generalise suck leads me to believe the irony is lost on you.

It's really not my fault if you misread what I write. I said that it's virtually impossible not to generalise, but that some people do not go beyond the generalising process to question it.

A couple of points;
My understanding is that human reasoning, necessarily, in every case, requires generalisation.

At least as a first step, yes.


The only substitute for a generalisation is some other generalisation.

Or (when dealing with groups of people) an awareness that any generalisation would be, in essence, flawed.


It isnt true (as per my understanding) that people perceive a gap in their understanding of the world, causing them to choose to generate, and reason with generalisations in order to fill, patch-over, or hide the gaps (as I believe you are suggest in your OP...).
My position is that generalisation isnt a choice.


Yes, that is what I'm suggesting, but that doesn't mean it has to be a choice. It can be (and probably most often is) unconscious and unreasoning. More instinctive, if you will. The actual reasoning, I believe, often comes later.


One aspect of this is that we cant address errors by trying to replace a generalisation with some other different kind of understanding/reasoning/knowledge. The antedote to a 'generalisation gone bad' isnt a non-generalisation, but rather a better generalisation.


I see your point, but I don't think that's true. You can very well decide that no generalisation will accurately describe the group of people considered - since that's what we're considering here. (To clarify, I should add that characteristics defining members of a group are obviously excluded here. Saying that all French people have French nationality, or that all Christians believe in Christ - although I'm sure some Christians will tell you they don't; I know some atheist Jews, after all - isn't a "generalisation" in the sense I'm discussing, since these are, theoretically, characteristics which define membership within a group. Whereas equating "paedophiliac" with "Christian", "violent" with "Muslim", "racist" with "Israeli" or "moronic" with "American" are non-defining generalisations made about members of ethnic, religious or national groups. When we observe a small group of people who all happen to have, say, Israeli nationality in common, it's almost impossible for us not to make some generalisation about them. My point is that many people will be content with that generalisation and will look no further. Whereas some of us, even if we still say "Based on my experience, a lot of Israelis tend to [insert general characteristic]", we will

a) recognise that our experience is limited
b) recognise that our conclusion may be utterly and completely false
c) be sure always to modulate our generalisations, and question their possible validity even as we utter them
d) recognise that there can probably be no generalisation applicable to the quasi-totality of the Israeli population.)


An important factor is the mismatch between the identity state of reality along with the 'goings on' of reality, and our sensory-cognitive-processual capacities. The direct implication of this mismatch is that we have a problem; we cant reason things, or think things or know things, even the things we do vaguely detect with our 5 senses kit, as the things absoltutely are.

We cant 'think' even a simple phone as the phone is - the atoms in a single button are 'way too much info' for us to deal with. We cant reason, think or know things as themselves because that's just way too much information for the means available to us.

Indeed.


But we do reason, think and know things to some extent or other, so we've obviously got some kind of work-around to the impossibility of thinking the things themselve.

Very true. But I doubt most people are aware of that when they make an ethnic, national or religious generalisation.

At least as a first step, yes.
Not as I understand things, (and this is the central point of my earlier posts), generalisation is the only step. There is no alternative reasoning mode for human beings - all our thinking and reasoning relies on generalisation.

Or (when dealing with groups of people) an awareness that any generalisation would be, in essence, flawed.
That's not an or. I stated that the only substitute for a generalisation is another generalisation - that includes the generalisation "...an awareness that any generalisation would be, in essence, flawed". It's not either another generalisation or '..an awareness..'. Rather it's another generalisation such as "...an awareness...".

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting, but that doesn't mean it has to be a choice. It can be (and probably most often is) unconscious and unreasoning. More instinctive, if you will. The actual reasoning, I believe, often comes later.
Then if it's not a choice (in your formulation) we (me and you) are a bit closer to consensus.

I see your point, but I don't think that's true. You can very well decide that no generalisation will accurately describe the group of people considered - since that's what we're considering here.
Unfortunately for your position that would be a generalisation. Thus my point that the only antedote for a 'generalisation gone bad' is a better generalisation. To state that no generalisationi will accurately describe a group of people, is to make a generalisation based on generalisations...there's no way to both reason and escape generalisation if you are human - the two are for humans the same thing.

(To clarify, I should add that characteristics defining members of a group are obviously excluded here. Saying that all French people have French nationality, or that all Christians believe in Christ - although I'm sure some Christians will tell you they don't; I know some atheist Jews, after all - isn't a "generalisation" in the sense I'm discussing, since these are, theoretically, characteristics which define membership within a group. Whereas equating "paedophiliac" with "Christian", "violent" with "Muslim", "racist" with "Israeli" or "moronic" with "American" are non-defining generalisations made about members of ethnic, religious or national groups. When we observe a small group of people who all happen to have, say, Israeli nationality in common, it's almost impossible for us not to make some generalisation about them.
It's impossible for humans not to make a generalisation about Israeli nationals except to not think or know the thing 'Israeli national'.

My point is that many people will be content with that generalisation and will look no further.
I dont argue that you are mistaken in your identification of the 'symptoms', but I do believe that your understanding of the cause is flawed. If you have an interest in addressing the problems at issue, then you need first to understand (to extent that it is possible) what is actually going on. Otherwise your ability to construct solutions is hopelessly compromised.

Whereas some of us, even if we still say "Based on my experience, a lot of Israelis tend to [insert general characteristic]", we will

a) recognise that our experience is limited
b) recognise that our conclusion may be utterly and completely false
c) be sure always to modulate our generalisations, and question their possible validity even as we utter them
d) recognise that there can probably be no generalisation applicable to the quasi-totality of the Israeli population.)
In other words many of us will choose the generalisations above in place of what we percieve to be inferior generalisations. ;)

Indeed.
Yes, but have you considered what this means in regards to generalising. Generalising is simply a partial representation of 'the truth of a thing' that may or may not also be characterised by erroneous inclusions, and a partial representation of 'the truth of the thing' is the closest, only knowledge of reality "the truth of things" that we as humans have the capacity to work with. All our knowledge and reasoning are simply 'partial representations of the truth of things'. Given the identity of all our knowledge and reasoning, and given the identity of generalisations, the inescapable conclusion is that the two things are identical. It's an open and shut case.

Very true. But I doubt most people are aware of that when they make an ethnic, national or religious generalisation.
Aha, however, your efforts are well-intentioned but misdirected.
How can you improve an inevitable process so that it produces less errors if you dont acknowledge (and conduct your reasoining in accordance with) the functiong of that process?
I suggest you are stalled in the process (of constructing solutions) by the non-adoption of the understanding that for humans knowledge and understanding are all generalisations, or completely reliant on generalisations.
You've gotten as far as
"why do these generalisation errors occur?"
the answer (given the fact that human knowledge and reasoning are not seperable from generalisations, ie billions of people are constantly generating generalisations and stopping them necessarily would bring a halt to all human thinking and reasoning) is "it's inevitable".
The next step is to abandon "why does it happen?", and to construct a new question based on the understanding that "it happens because it's inevitable".
I suggest "why doesnt it happen?" (ie why do errors not occur at the same rate, and to the same degree every single time we generalise [which is every time we reason or think?])
Answer that question and your solution is half-way constructed.

I really hope that the person who started this thread realizes that the title itself is a generalization.

I love this thread. We could in general, talk in circles for hours.

To Rebutte/Clarify: (I hope!)
Peepelonia: I would argue that it is not 'a nessecary evil' and that indeed it is correct.

Basically, what I meant about generalizations not being 'correct', is that generally, all generalizations are flawed. Or they would not be generalizations.

The colloquialism 'nessecary evil' was not intended to personify generalizations. But relied on the general interpretation that 'nessecary evil' is synonymous with inevitability.

Think of the most fundamental truth of which you are aware. I can in general, guarantee that this is an assumption, or generalization, and that it does not hold true to some facet of reality.

Unfortunately, until someone comes up with a unified-field theory, generalizations wil be inescapable. In general.:confused:

All very obvious and true. But my OP was about a specific kind of generalisation. Which we now move on to...


I find it quite moronic that you are ok with generalizations on very complex scientific phenomenons but you are making silly conclusions on generalizations on complex social matters.


Indeed we do, and I've already addressed this issue. As I've said, it's almost impossible for us not to generalise, in a (very insufficient) attempt to understand the world around us.


That wasnt what you were saying in OP. And despite your limited understanding of the issue, you were ridiculous enough to call generalizations results of limited intellects.


The issue is that some of us are able to look beyond generalisations, and bear in mind at all times both the irreducable complexity of reality (especially in social matters) and the inherent limitations contained in social generalisations. Whereas many people are not able to go beyond the generalising process, and it is these people who cling to comfortable and meaningless racist generalisations - based on inherently flawed categorisations, as you so kindly demonstrate:


Again I find it quite funny how much you flatter yourself, given the logic you applied to generalizations in this thread.



If one were to record a high level of support for fascism, a high level of alcoholism or a high level of educational achievement in, say, Poland, would you therefore claim it demonstrates essential social characteristics of British or Italian people?

If Poland were presented as an example in EU about not abusing alcohol and then if we were to find a high level of alcoholism in that country, it'd demonstrate the fact that the rest of EU is much worse than Polan in alcohol consumption, therefore we could conclude that abusing alcohol is really bad in EU based on Poland.

Similarly, despite the fact that Turkey is presented as an example muslim country when it comes to human rights, democracy, etc...90% of women there are subject to violence by their bfs or husbands. Based on this we can reach conclusions about the status of women in the rest of Islamic world, by analyzing the best country among them. This is a no brainer. I'm surprised you still dont get it. This makes it even more amusing when you keep flattering yourself in this thread.

People generalize because it's NS General *Rimshot*

People generalize because it's NS General *Rimshot*
hence general