Why are people offended by generalizations?

submitted by eddyelric from self.GenderCritical

If you're making a text post about certain trends in society and you make mention of a trend/meme among a certain group, you called out for generalizing as if you hit them. I've been generalized before and never have I ever gotten into a huff. Only if someone is violent with me. Is generalizing only acceptable if you have statistics and studies on you?

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]moody_ape 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

it makes me really angry when people get offended by generalizations. when we talk about social phenomena, generalizations are perfectly acceptable. we can't analyse everything on the individual level all the time. and i don't understand why people can't accept it.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Often people make generalizations that are highly inaccurate because they're based on exposure to, and awareness of, only a small number and variety of the group that they're generalizing about. The generalizations they make don't take into account, reflect or even acknowledge the actual variety within the group being generalized about. This is often true whether a person is generalizing about a group to which they themselves belong, or about others.

For example, when Joe Biden told Charlemagne Tha God "if you're not voting for me, you ain't black," Biden was generalizing that all black people in the US are of one mind politically. Which just isn't true, and I believe is a highly offensive thing to say about them. This generalization tells much more about Joe Biden's own prejudices and narrow-mindedness than about the political views of black Americans.

If you're making a text post about certain trends in society and you make mention of a trend/meme among a certain group,

My impression is that online & IRL people often make sweeping statements about "trends in society" as a whole when in fact they are speaking only of the small sliver of their own particular society that they are personally familiar with based on their own limited life experiences and narrow POV.

In fact, just using the term "trends in society" indicates a parochial perspective on the part of the person making the statement, coz after all the world is a very big place and there are many types of societies.

Which society does the statement-maker mean: American (US) society? Pakistani society? Japanese society? Ugandan society? Swedish society? Guatemalan society? French Canadian society? Bosnian Muslim society? US old-money WASP society? Ultra-orthodox Jewish (Haredi or frum) society?

Seems to me, when people make pronouncements about "trends in society" online what they often mean are "trends amongst the small group of people I grew up with in the particular place I come from/live in and I choose to pay attention to."

For example, in neuroscientist's Deborah Soh's recent book promoting sex stereotyping (which is inaccurately titled "The End of Gender"), she makes all sorts of generalizations about what all male and female humans innately believe, think and how we behave based on our biological sex - as well as many blanket generalizations about "human nature" and "feminism" - that indicate she doesn't get out much, has not travelled widely, doesn't read much about the world, is not well-versed in - or even superficially familiar with - fields like history and anthropology, knows very little/next to nothing about feminism and its history, and basically has never bothered to take any time to talk to or even consider persons different to herself (whether in age, place of origin/residence, life experiences, viewpoints and so on) and outside her own small social circle.

Soh similarly makes many generalizations about newborn babies and children, and how they behave and develop, yet her sweeping pronouncements are so off-base that it seems clear she has never intimately known, cared for or carefully observed any actual babies or children IRL. Reading her book, I got the distinct impression she lives in a very small bubble, socially and in terms of the ideas she's been exposed to and is open to considering - and that the grand, sweeping generalizations and pronouncements she makes about all humans, all men, all women, all babies and children across all cultures from the beginning of history are largely just projections of her own beliefs and prejudices.

Today's gender ideology in particular shows just how wildly inaccurate and just plain wrong many generalizations about the two sexes and human beings as a whole are, and it also shows the drawbacks and dangers of making unsubstantiated generalizations.

One of the basic tenets of today's gender ideology is the generalizing assertion that "everyone has a gender identity" and it is innate. But that's not true. As several sexologists in the field of gender identity have observed, most people on earth do not have "gender identity" - until very recently, the only people who claimed to have a "gender identity" were those people who want to be the opposite sex, or not to be of either sex. But now this tiny group of people is demanding that what they themselves experience must be taken as the general human experience that applies to everyone on earth, and it's bigoted and hateful to say "hey wait a second, what's true of you isn't necessarily true of all others."

What's more, gender ideology has become so unquestioningly embraced by many people in education, psychology, politics and the online world that children, teenagers and young adults whose minds are still developing are learning/being taught from an early age that "everyone has a gender identity" and a crucial task of becoming a fully-developed human with an "authentic self" is for each of us to decide/figure out what our own "gender identity" is, then proclaim it to the world, and expect and demand that the world "validate" it. This sort of BS foisted on the young has already caused great distress and done deep damage to many of the impressionable young people conned by it, through no fault of their own.

Gender identity propagandists also like to generalize that the gender identity they insist everyone has is not only in-born, but it's permanently fixed and will not change over time. But as we all know, that's not true either. A lot of people who cling fiercely to having a particular "gender identity" at one time in their life switch to a different one at another time, sometimes the next week, day or hour - and a lot of people grow out of their belief that they have a "gender identity" altogether.

[–]anfd 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Dont' generalize" is probably some outgrowth of liberalism taken to absurd lenghts, so that it can be used against perceived attacks on someone's individuality. (Of course, criticism of (over)generalization is a fine argument in itself, and the "don't generalize" people won't themselves survive for a day without generalizing.)

[–]ANIKAHirsch 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Really good question. I've even made generalizations before, and someone who didn't fit the generalization got offended on behalf of the group.

Generalization is obviously a valid method of analysis in many situations. As they say, the exception proves the rule. So if an individual doesn't fit expectations, it should be pointed out, but it doesn't invalidate the broad assumption.

[–]GCaccountforSaidit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, that's actually a bad application of logic. "The exception proves the rule" is used when an exception is presented, but on examination, is proven to indeed fit the rule, thus validating the rule. If a rule had to have an exception to be true, it cannot be a rule, because a rule, by definition, must not have exceptions. (it may, however, have nuance and in real life applications often does, but each of those rules which clarify the original rule do not, in fact have exceptions. They are simply a clearer statement of the rule with a fuller application of detail.). Generalization can, in fact, be a valid method of analysis in many situations, as you say. But the exception must also fit the rule for the rule to be true--if it doesn't, the only possibility is that the rule is not encompassing (that is, a bad generalization), or than the shoe does fit but someone isn't willing to admit it.

[–]ANIKAHirsch 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How can an exception fit a rule?

Every rule has exceptions.

[–]GCaccountforSaidit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, it doesn't or the rule isn't truly stated. The exception that proves the rule is actually the apparent exception that, when examined FITS the rule, as I said before--it's not truly an exception. Your version is a common misconception.

[–]ANIKAHirsch 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Please show me any rule that has no exceptions.

[–]endless_assfluff 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great responses all around, and I'd like to add that I've seen it used as a form of straw man.

It often happens in online conversations that Person B sometimes doesn't entirely understand what Person A says, and rather than admitting that, Person B responds to what they think Person A said instead of what Person A actually said. And if Person B is looking for a fight, they're going to interpret Person A's statement in the least charitable way possible.

Suppose Person A says "men are more violent than women," and provides sources to back it up. There are ways to interpret this statement that make it stronger or weaker. It could have been that OP has a strong understanding of statistics (but not rhetoric apparently) and meant "of course there are violent men and peaceful men, and violent women and peaceful women, but the vast, vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. That's an interesting effect. If we want to prevent violence, we should try to figure out why this is happening." It could have been that OP meant "every man who has ever existed is more violent than every woman who has ever existed. Neener neener man bad woman good." If you're Person B and what Person A said rubbed you the wrong way---'cause it is slightly ambiguous what they meant---which meaning do you want their statement to have had?

There are ways you could argue with the first statement, but they're more subtle. But all you need to counter the second statement is one example, either of a violent woman or a nonviolent man, to argue that Person A was wrong to generalize. When really, Person A might know you can't use statistics to make conclusions about individual cases in the first place.

In that case, it makes sense to ask Person A for clarification. That's only if you care about what Person A is saying. If you don't care and just want to make it look like Person A is wrong and you are right, isn't it much easier to immediately dismiss Person A for generalizing? Plus it puts A on the defensive and detracts from their original point as they're forced to explain, no duh, there's personal variation, but this trend may be worth examining. Usually the conversation just ends there.

You can tell someone's doing this if the only statements they respond to are the weakest ones Person A made---or the easiest to interpret in a poor light---and they gloss over everything else. Like if Person A writes a five-paragraph essay and someone's entire response is ranting about something Person A said in the intro. In that case, it's a waste of time to engage this person further because they aren't actually listening.

It's somewhat ironic that I feel I have to say this, but of course some people really are generalizing, and I'm talking about a phenomenon that only happens with people who aren't.

[–]zephyranthes 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because people act on these generalizations against the disadvantaged group, sometimes without regard for the math.

For example, you're hiring an <insert profession> and you can choose between a man and a woman. A blatantly unscientific generalization shows that men are "better" <profession> by a small margin - therefore, it makes sense to choose a man every time. Why wouldn't you want that extra edge? This creates a death spiral, as women realize their chances in <profession> are low and leave, and the faulty figure becomes even more grim.

A rational HR person wouldn't rely on the generalization at all: because most people are unfit, the criteria for consideration will have filtered them out. It would be unscientific (and unfair) to apply the "men are better" generalization to the remaining group: if it's true, it has already been applied in that the remaining qualified people are more likely to be majority male, and the variance in the tiny subset of them that actually showed up in your office for an interview would be the last nail in the coffin.

[–]dustyboobs90 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's in the wording. There are always outliers and as long as generalizations aren't worded as "all people of group x are like y", it shouldn't be an issue.

There are a lot of us here who were/are "tomboys", it doesn't feel good to be erased by much of society that generalizes women and thinks we all like pink, frilly nurturing things and don't have an actual interest in STEM.