Is it credible or appropriate to dismiss a generality on the basis of the few for whom it does not apply?

Question

This goes to how we each build, defend or reply to generalities in any discussion. If someone says A is true, shouldn't it be assumed in the majority as true rather than excluded on the basis of the minority? This is not a specific question to any one subject. It is simply an attempt to discuss the techniques by which we construct our thoughts and present them to others.

For instance: If I say "humans need to protect their eyes"; is it an appropriate defense to say "not all humans have eyes" as a means to dismiss the applicability of that statement to the majority who do have eyes?

By what criteria should we examine or critique the formation of stereotypes? By what margin of a majority do we need to accept that A is true, without being able to dismiss it as a stereotype? Are we supposed to dismiss generalities as false, simply because they are stereotypes?

I guess this is more of a philosophical question than anything else.

Shingoshi Dao
2007.Nov.28 Wed, 03:08 --800 (PST)

Is it TOO much to ask again that you STAR this question for a BROADER audience to view it?

Answer 1

As a writer and teacher of writers, I would say that the generality should not be dismissed if it can be proven. But at the same time it just makes sense to use language more specifically. In other words, instead of saying, for example "Men are attracted to women solely on the basis of appearance," wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Most men are socialized to be initially attracted to women largely on the basis of appearance"? That way you do not exclude those who do not fit the stereotype while still expressing the generality or generalization. This is where words like most, some, usually, many, etc. come in handy.

Answer 2

If a thing is a matematical certainity it cant be disputed. If it is a lie like not having eyes it cannot be accepted. But whenever there is more than one possibility there is a probablity curve.However high the probablity curve is there is a chance that the exception may happen. When that execption happens to a person it becomes a reality to that person and the probablity curve is meaningless in that instant. Same with generalities. As long as it is a probablity, however frequently it has been proven to be, when there is an opposing result it has to be kept in mind as different people may be facing different situations and what is an obvious genarility for anyone in one culture may not be so for someone else

Answer 3

IF and only if the stereotype is true. As stereotypes are created by humans and serve our personal and societal prejudices, in my opinion, ALL stereotypes should be done away with, whether it's viewing a feminist as an ugly lesbian or thinking "pro-war bigot" about a Republican.

So, regardless of any minority that might surprise people who stereotype, we should ALL work to abolish sterotypes, as they are prejudiced and usually the opposite of the truth.

Answer 4

I only dismiss such generalizations when they aren't true for the majority. For example, if a man on here posts a question like "Why are all women money-grubbers", I would probably say in response "Not all women are like that".

In that particular instance, what I should REALLY say to make myself more clear is "Not all women are like that, in fact, the VAST MAJORITY aren't like that, and I have no idea what kind of life you have had to lead you to that perception".

Answer 5

I agree... its stupid to focus on the exception over the rule in an argument.

If I say "women are emotional" and 90% of women are. Its stupid to come in and say.. "well 10% of women are not emotional so you are wrong".

Answer 6

I try to answer giving the benfit of the doubt.

I believe it's called 'having an open mind'.

lol. rare beast.

Answer 7

u have a point