Is Generlaising wrong

Aww spendy, you're hilarious. Although I hardly ever understand what you're saying, I love you too.
No I am not fat or ugly. Or at least I hope im not, and im defiiantely not a bit of fluff.
I keep meaning to put a photo of me on here. Maybe I'll change my avatar to a photo of me.

I think I agree with the majority on here. Generalising isnt wrong, its just something we all do, and sometimes it would be best if we didn't do it.
What does anyone think on the subject of judging people. Is it the same thing?

You can't really help it.You have been conditioned by pictures and descriptions.Movie makers,for example,choose certain physiognomies to fit with certain characterisations particularly of evil or sinister types or of innocence.These become fixed in our minds and we tend to judge others we meet accordingly.Others may even be aping the stereotype.The vamp,the sweet housewife,the brave clean cut hero,the stupid,the dumb blond etc etc.They are fixed in our heads.There are probably hundreds.Even the Guns and Roses groupie.

One of the most entertaining couplets i have seen on A2K dawg

I think there are times when generalizations are not only imperative but necessary. Having said that, I think it's a good rule of thumb to avoid them whenever possible.

Show one instance of a non-generalization.
One will do.
Anyone....one non-generalization....please!!!
Just one!!!

Name one, just one, specificity.
When you say "I" what are you refering to? What are you specifically talking about when you say self?
Even the idea that generalizations should be avoided is itself a generalization.

The mind simplifies reality. That is what it was created to do.
The more aware the mind is the more of reality it can encapsulate within a few rules and see it within a few patterns.
The less aware a mind is the more complicated reality becomes, its patterns chaotic, the rules that are used to describe it far too broad for it.

Generalizations are not inherently bad. Wrong generalizations or incomplete and unreasoned and false generalizations are bad.
Imprecise generalizations are bad.

All of science is based on generalizations. It depends on them.
Your every day existence depends on generalizations. But they are so easy you fail to take notice.
The sensual stimulations that enter your brain through your sense organs are themselves interpreted generally.
Every idea and thought is a simplification of reality.

Language is full of concepts with no definite definitions and so used in general ways, determined by cultural imperatives.
Justice, freedom, perfection, God, nobility, good, bad, evil, right, wrong are all words with no real specific meaning.

Okay Satyr - One example of a non-generalization:

"When she titled this topic - Pentacle Queen misspelled 'generalization' (American English spelling) or 'generalisation' (British English spelling)."


What keeps a statement from being a generalization and turns it into a fact - which is the status that most generalizers are trying to give their opinions - is specificity- allowing that in an individual instance something is true which may not be true in every single instance or circumstance. Generalizations can be limiting or even dangerous if they are mistakenly accepted as fact and impact negatively an individual's willingness or desire to remain open to a subject.

Is innacuracy bad? That's what I view generalizations to be - innacurate.

*Sorry Queenie - excuse me for calling attention to the fact that you appear to be quite challenged when spelling (a generalization- why?Because you may only misspell on a2k when you're hurried and may, in fact be motivated to spell perfectly on your essays, etc. that you hand in for a grade (a suggestion - use the spell check option).

PS - By the way Queenie - listened to Lark Ascending and loved it, and bought it. I've been waiting for an opportunity to say thank you for suggesting it.

Thats ok. Glad u liked it.
No I admit I cant spell. Thats fine!

I agree with almost everything you wrote - in a nutshell generalizations exist because we as human beings perceive the need to categorize in an effort to organize information- but how does that refute what I said?

It is a fact though, that some individuals, or subjects of discussion of whatever particular stripe someone is measuring, do indeed defy categorization - they do not fall within the norm or the mean or the average of their population in any way. It is thus inaccurate to include them in a blanket generalization or categorization of their group.

It would be more accurate to say, "The majority of this population tend to...or even "It has been my personal observation that the majority of this population tends to....", which is still a generalization, but at least one is admitting it is a generalization and not presenting it as hard fact.

I do see patterns - I just also remember that a pattern is only that - a pattern -and not a definitive or absolute mold for every individual in a specific population.

I don't object to generalizations in an effort to preserve my free will - I happen to possess the courage it takes to exercise independent thought and action (or free will) and it has nothing to do with refusing to generalize in an effort to simulate anything - it has to do with truly possessing personality characteristics that enable me to react differently to stimuli than another person might.
I do agree that courage and independent thought and action are rare commodities in today's world- so it may be true that for the majority of people free will is an illusion- but I'd hesitate to make that claim unless I could actually be inside someone's head and experience their thoughts and emotions during the decision making process.
But for me - it's like Willie Nelson said, "I don't believe in adhering to any rules I don't support and I didn't vote for. To hell with what people think. Just be who you are and be happy."
(and I don't usually like Willie Nelson, but I can admit that in this instance he has said something that I have found meaningful - I would have missed that if I had generalized my dislike of his music to everything the man says or does).

I don't object to generalizations in an effort to be politically correct. I say, "If the shoe fits wear it." But if it doesn't fit - why should someone be shod with a shoe that doesn't fit? I just try to look for the truth - and yeah, a lot of time it's different for each and every person.

But again, that's only my experience-yours may be different.

PS - Am I the resident Neitzschean? if so you better tell me what that means so I'll know who/what I am...Feel free to generalize if you need to (just kidding).

aidan
No, I was talknig aboutthe guy who calls himself Nietzsche.

Oh good - then I don't have to worry about it , because I hate labels!

Satyr-

Would you not class Aldous Huxley's view of a flower in Doors Of Perception as a non-generalisation.Or,any subject of a good biography.
I assume you view non-generalisation as an absolute which cannot be reached but can only be approached more and more closely as more information is available.

On your main point though I would agree.But it does lead to the idea of irreducible complexity.

spendius
Is not a biography an interpretation of experiences, even if they are your own?
Isn't reality an interpretation?

I see generalization as this attempt to encompass or approach reality by deconstructing a phenomenon down to its core or by comparing events down to their common denominator or by finding a pattern in the chaos.
In fact reality can only be described and approached, since we are both observers and participants and because reality is not fixed but flowing.

Most use the word "generalization" to describe a rule or a law they cannot accept as valid, due to moral and social education, or to describe an idea or an opinion they cannot wrap their mind around. What they call "specific" is the prejudice of singularity derived mostly through the illusions of a particular perspective.
For instance when I see a chair I call it a specific item when in fact it is an amalgamation of parts, particles, temporal occurrences; a conceptualization and interpretation of time/space whose parameters and characteristics are determined by how my mind has evolved to absorb sensual information and by my perspective and prejudices.
To me it is a tool, a cultural idea, which I use for a specific function, whereas to another being not infused with my prejudices and unable to relate to my reality, it might just be a piece of wood or an obstacle.

Yes.
But also the limitations of language to accurately describe reality or to offer precise definitions of concepts is apparent.
What we do when we use certain words in certain ways is that we present an uncertain idea, as we comprehend it or as we have been taught to comprehend it, which we have culturally agreed about its general premises and boundaries but whose essence is forever mired in nuance and ambiguity.

This is where memetic battlefronts are drawn and we struggle to enforce a particular worldview upon the universe.
This is why man is the creator of reality, no more harnessed to natural imperatives and dictations, but now attempting to free himself from that pre-existing perspective and create a new one, through reason, heal the universes flaws and correct its imperfections.
We call it justice or morality or good or power or God or whatever.

Satyr-

Well said.

Could you agree to specificity in relation to an idea such as all young ladies are fascinated by shiny,coloured objects of rare value being delivered up to them by handsome youths who have risked danger to get them.

In principle I should not be impressed, however in reality i probably would be.
count me in!

So much for principles when up against atavistic pherenome activation.

The little bottles might not work but just try diving 10 fathoms beyond the reef and bringing back the largest pearl ever seen and presenting it to the most beautiful maiden in the village with all her friends watching and a golden sunset dying on the ocean rim.

spendius
Why spendius you…flirt you.

Yes, I would agree that it is in their nature to be attracted to shiny objects, no less than female peacocks are attracted to fine, exuberant plumage and male humans are attracted to well-rounded rumps.

But a statement of fact is an expression of a perspective with common grounds and shared roots.
A diamond becomes specific because it is perceived from a particular vantage point which is shared with other beings.

If my perspective is enlarged it becomes a speck of nothingness in a larger specificity. A molecule in a larger specificity.
If my perspective is shrunk the diamond becomes a generality I cannot fathom and my specificity becomes the particles that make up the diamond instead.

To a flea the horse is too broad a generalization to comprehend and its specificity becomes the particular hairs, the small piece of skin it boars into.
To a demigod, let us say, both the dog and the flea become too minute a detail to bother with, since they participate in a larger unity.
Now if the demigod could communicate his perspective to a flea, the flea would become confused and bothered. It would accuse the demigod of over-generalizing, if what he said was unflattering or disturbing to its existence.
The flea would want to become more specific and talk about the hairs and how tasty the skin is and the demigod would find the subject matter interesting, for a while, because it is a particle of his larger perspective but in time he would grow tired with it, wanting to discuss the larger concepts of canines or animals, in general, or universal patterns.

Information is not judged by how broad or narrow it is with its focus but by how well it can predict outcomes and explain phenomena.

Like I said, the term "generalization" today is used like the words "liberal" or "conspiracy" - that is as a way of undermining a concept or an opinion without answering its challenges or offering counter-arguments to its claims.
Specifically the word "generalization" is used to dismiss sexual, racial divergence or any culturally unwanted concepts without actually thinking about them.
It would appear that in the battle between nurture/nature, as ways of explaining potential and the human condition, nurture always wins out.
Science is biased towards nurture in all areas.
Gender differences are explained away as being cultural constructs, with no natural roots.
Racial differences are explained away as being a product of environment and only skin-deep, making nature an aesthetician that produces physical differences for purely cosmetic effect or for practical reasons that have no other implications.
Mental differences are all disorders or traumas or diseases that can be prevented and cured, with no genetic foundations.
Criminality is always a result of dysfunctional families or troubled upbringings with no natural explanations.

Every divergence from an idealized norm must be reparable. Reason must have access to its own healing.
For to place the cause in a genetic or historical context would make it inaccessible and so un-correctable.


Why?
-Because it enables the individual to live with the mythology of his own free-will, by assuming that his reason has already mastered his instinct and by offering him the illusion that his fate is entirely determined by his choice and that his being is utterly and completely a rational creation. In other words that he has already overcome his nature.

-Because it explains away any physical attributes or any biological attributes as being cosmetic or functional without them having any deeper intellectual or psychological ramifications.

-Because it enables him to hope that the universe's imperfections and flaws can be corrected with reason.

Satyr-

Ace man.

Ever looked at Andy Warhol's late self portraits.He had no illusions on that score.There's a great biog of him by one of his side-kicks;Bob Colacello(?)

You must be pretty easy going.

PS-It's only cyber flirting.I like Queenie.

Satyr is obviously a man for making things unnecessarily complicated.

Yes its cyber flirting, so unfortunately the shiny objects do not really exist

And yes, i am aware that although I started this thread I have made no valuable contribution.

Queenie-

Your charming presence is an entirely sufficient contribution.In previous times the beautiful young ladies of the court had merely to wave a scented handerchief,or some other flimsy piece of lace,in the direction of a jousting contestant for the battle to rise above a simple exhibition.It was considered good form for them also to lower their eyelids and blush ever so slightly.