Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles - hp 1.2 08/01/83; site hp-pcd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hp-pcd!nathanm
From: nathanm@hp-pcd.UUCP (nathanm)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Generalizations
Message-ID: <16600011@hp-pcd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jul-84 18:33:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.16600011
Posted: Mon Jul 16 18:33:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jul-84 07:25:53 EDT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Corvallis, OR
Lines: 65
Nf-ID: #N:hpcvre:16600011:000:2910
Nf-From: hpcvre!nathanm    Jul 16 14:33:00 1984

A COMMENTARY ABOUT GENERALIZATIONS (mild flame)

From a recent article:

> At the best of times, generalizations can miss the mark for individuals.
> Example: a girlfriend of mine was stunned when she encountered the doctrine
> that women were "taught" to be under-achievers at school.  She, personally,
> had always felt encouraged to achieve.  She had never felt any special
> problems about out-scoring boys in the class as opposed to out-scoring girls
> in the class.
>
> Daryel Akerlind

YES.  Generalizations often miss the mark for individuals.  That's why they
are called generalizations.  There is nothing wrong with generalizations
as long as everyone realizes what they are.  Hence, I refuse to get upset
about Trish Millines' attitudes (can't we put that discussion to rest
already?) or many of the other generalizations I read in this forum.

Granted, not all generalizations are valid.  Some (such as those commonly
considered as racist, sexist, etc.) have no basis in fact.  Some do.
It's my choice to take 'em or leave 'em, knowing full well that even
the ones I take do not apply to every individual.

So why this article?  Because I am SICK and TIRED of reading articles
from individuals who are personally offended at any generalization
about a group (gender, sexual orientation, age, occupation, etc.) to
which they happen to belong.  If it doesn't apply to you, FINE!  I'm
happy for you.  Please don't bitch and moan about it.

Generalizations are useful.  A valid generalization helps one understand
more about a group of which one is OR is not a member.  It isn't always
easy to pick out the valid ones, but PLEASE realize that some exceptions
to a generalization do NOT make it invalid.  And STOP taking it personally!

I don't want to make this a personal crusade, but I did have an
experience in this newsgroup that illustrates the problem.
A few months ago I posted a pointer to a Wall Street Journal article
that I had found interesting.  The WSJ article contained some
generalizations that I happened to mention in my pointer article.
What happened?  An extremely vocal and flaming discussion about
the topic by a bunch of people who obviously did NOT read the WSJ
article... a long, pointless discussion that resulted in 14 responses
before the article finally aged out of existence.  This ain't discussion,
folks, it's pollution!

Maybe we need a disclaimer surrounding each generalization.  Try
this:

!!! WARNING: The following is a generalization.  It may not apply
!!! to you.

 People who program computers for a living are asocial, reclusive
 misanthropes.

!!! The preceding has been a generalization.  It may not have applied
!!! to you.

What am I trying to say?  Give generalizations a chance.  Sure, challenge
the ones that look invalid, but quit pissing and moaning because you
happen to be personally offended by one.

----------
Nathan Meyers
hplabs!hp-pcd!nathanm