Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
hardcore_gamer

Generalizations aren't (always) bad

Recommended Posts

People tend to talk about generalizations in a negative way, and a common defense against criticism of a group is that "well you can't generalize, because not 100% member of that group is this way". But I am having a hard time accepting this argument, for a couple of reasons:

1. Using this line of reasoning, every group can be defended. You can't show me proof that 100% of the nazi party members weren't baby eating monsters. Does this mean then that the nazy party as a whole can't be labeled evil? Decent people can be found EVERYWHERE. This isn't a valid defense if a disproportionally large portion is vile/stupid/bad etc

2. While I will admit that this one is more a personal opinion than a hard science, I don't believe there is actually such a thing as a pure individual. What I mean, is that I don't believe it's actually possible for a person to stand completely outside of any group and be only a 100% individual that is not shaped or affected in any way by anything but himself. Even if someone believes himself to be only an individual, that person is not actually so. In addition, I also believe that largely because of this people have a collective moral responsibility towards their own group, and it's "culture" so to speak. For example, let's say that I was the father in a family, in which case the family would be a group that I belong in. If I were to discover that that 2 of my kids were doing drugs and bullying the other kids at school, then I would be morally obligated to do something about it in order to maintain good values within the family. If I were to just ignore the problem and let my kids do as they pleased, then the image of the whole family, not just that of the kids, would understandably suffer. While a family was used in this case, the same thing applies to larger groups. In order for a group to protect it's collective morality and values, each member has a moral responsibility to care about what the other members are doing and reacting accordingly when they step out of line. If they don't give a shit, their silence is an unofficial form of approval (or at least indifference) and thus can and should be judged, for the act of not doing anything is in and of itself an act, and in this case it is an act of neglect towards the collective group morality.

There are still ways in which generalizing can be bad. My point is merely that an argument or statement isn't wrong ONLY because it's a form of generalization. What are your own thoughts on the idea of generalizing?

Share this post


Link to post

I have a couple of thoughts regarding generalizations. The first was something that was drilled into my head when I decided to major in psychology in college. The very heart of psychology is doing group studies to understand how the mind operates. However, one of the most important things you learn is that you can't use the generalizations you learn to make predictions about any one individual, and you can't use any one individual to make predictions about a group. Individuals are still individuals, with their own thoughts and feelings, regardless of what groups they belong to, and differences between individuals within a group are always going to be greater than average differences between groups.

For example, let's say you have two groups, Group A and Group B, and the average height of Group A is two inches taller than the average height of Group B. This is a general pattern, but if you just pick people at random, you may have one person from group A be 5 inches shorter than the average, and another be 7 inches above the average. Likewise, if you pick a person at random from each group, there's no guarantee that the person from Group A will be taller than the person from Group B, even if the averages are different.

The second issue I have with generalizations is more personal. I just don't often find myself identifying fully with groups I'm lumped into. I've never really identified with groups, I've always considered myself something of an outsider, and partly because of that, I always prefer to be identified by my differences from the group rather than the ways I fit in. It's just my mode of thinking - I'd rather be dealt with as an individual, with my own thoughts and feelings.

Finally, it's funny you should mention, because I was having a discussion the other day about the fact that not all Nazis were monsters. Not that I don't believe Nazis should be demonized, but it's an interesting perspective to realize that not everyone in the Nazi party was fully on board with what was going on, and some were, in fact, quite horrified with the actions of the party. Of course, I'm not going to pretend like it wasn't horrible, and that it was horrible that so many went along with it, but it is something to keep in mind, that even some of the people who went along with it did not do so because they themselves were horrible people, or that they thought genocide was okay. It's just one of those unfortunate things where the desires of the group can override the desires of the individual, and it can be a very difficult thing for individuals to oppose the group when that occurs. It's one of the dangers of putting a group label ahead of the individual - it has power over the individual, and it strips people of their individual identity, which in itself can be a horrible thing.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

My point is merely that an argument or statement isn't wrong ONLY because it's a form of generalization. What are your own thoughts on the idea of generalizing?

Anyone who affirms that generalisations are always bad is going to come unstuck.

Of course, there's nothing intrinsically incorrect about generalising, but still, it's perfectly possible (and also quite easy) to generalise badly; I suspect that often when people complain about a particular generalisation it's because they think it's a bad generalisation - that is, that the generalised claim is either not supported by evidence or is demonstrably false, or otherwise misleading - rather than because it's a generalisation simpliciter. I don't think that your points in (1) and (2) have much bearing on what makes for a valid generalisation, though.

Share this post


Link to post
durian said:

Anyone who affirms that generalisations are always bad is going to come unstuck.


Ironically, that'd be a generalisation, too ;-)

Share this post


Link to post

If you criticize a group, then using generalizations is mostly a right argument. If you actually criticize an individual (from people in leadership of a group to whoever else), then using generalizations is mostly a wrong argument. Scientifically confirmed generalizations that aren't dependant on individuals should be always valid, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

You can't show me proof that 100% of the nazi party members weren't baby eating monsters. Does this mean then that the nazy party as a whole can't be labeled evil? Decent people can be found EVERYWHERE. This isn't a valid defense if a disproportionally large portion is vile/stupid/bad etc


I think it's more correct that the idea of fascism is inherently evil. The Nazi party was powerful and ruthless. I suspect many people who were part of the nazi party were doing it out of fear. Jew sympathizers were killed on the spot. The best way to secure your future was to demonstrate your loyalty to it.

Share this post


Link to post
40oz said:

I think it's more correct that the idea of fascism is inherently evil. The Nazi party was powerful and ruthless. I suspect many people who were part of the nazi party were doing it out of fear. Jew sympathizers were killed on the spot. The best way to secure your future was to demonstrate your loyalty to it.


What about the KKK then? No excuse there.

j4rio said:

I heard icelanders eat ponies. What a disgusting excuse of a nation.


But ponies taste good...

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

If you think about it, its no better than eating a pig.


Or dogs. Or rats. Or anything made out of meat for that matter. It's really just a bunch of nonsense culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_meat
I heard horse meat is actually very tasty; so my relatives say.
If you think about it, its no better than eating a pig. Pigs are actually more intelligent creatures.


I have regularly eaten smoked horse meat between two pieces of bread ever since i was a kid, they just sell it in every butcher store there is, including the stands in bigger stores, It very easily compares to beef while being a little bit tougher. However, i would never accept Dog under any circumstance for multiple reasons.

You can not generalize food, not even tigers and wild beasts randomly eat any other animal they encounter.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

Or dogs. Or rats. Or anything made out of meat for that matter.


don't u dare generalizing ur stupid lmao !!1!

Share this post


Link to post

Generalizations are like elements in a weight function that determines your behaviour. They're an inescapable, unavoidable part of our reasoning. They helped us survive as individuals and as a species. However they can become a burden if sheltered, ignorant people put too much weight on them while completely missing or undervaluing key elements that would allow them to make a reasoned, informed decision. It's somewhat ironic that these exact people like to defend generalizations the most. Oops, I made a generalization, didn't I.

Share this post


Link to post
j4rio said:

I heard icelanders eat ponies.

And puffins.


hardcore_gamer said:

But what about farmed rats?

The queen of England ate a rat once.

Share this post


Link to post

Barack Obama has eaten dogs, snakes, and insects, when he was a young boy in Indonesia.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-as-a-boy-ate-dog-meat/

Barack Obama said:

With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy)

Share this post


Link to post

In certain situations, it is appropriate to generalize, but in others it is not. People often fail to see that line, which is where the problem of the negative niew comes from.

To say generalizing is always negative is generalizing generalizing! *deservedly murdered*

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×