Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1     9/27/83; site hplabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!fremont
From: fremont@hplabs.UUCP (Michael J. Fremont)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Generalizations
Message-ID: <620@hplabs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Jul-84 11:37:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabs.620
Posted: Thu Jul 19 11:37:26 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jul-84 03:08:21 EDT
References: <16600011@hp-pcd.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 52

nathanm says (quoted in brief - hope its still accurate):

>There is nothing wrong with generalizations as long as
>everyone realizes what they are.

That's one problem with them: not everyone does realize what they
are.  As a result, they are misapplied.  This often results in
misunderstanding of people, racism and other prejudice.  This is not
fair to the people or things being generalized.

Further in nathanm's article:

>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
>realise that some exceptions to a generalization do NOT make it
>invalid.

If thirty-five people on the network made the following
generalization:

	"XXXXXXX is a jerk", or
        "People who submit articles to net.singles are idiots"

and one had little or no experience with XXXXXX or net.singles
submitters, how would one decide whether the generalization was
valid?  If the generalization helps one understand
something about a group, then presumably one doesn't have the
benefit of the
particular experience with said group - therefore, it is almost, by
definition, impossible to judge its accuracy.

Even if one could (in one's own mind) judge whether the
generalization is accurate, my feeling  is that one should always
try to avoid using generalizations that can potentially negatively
affect people.  Better to be a little less efficient and give the
benefit of not applying a generalization.

If I met 99 net.singles submitters, knew them well, and thought they
were all idiots, it's still rather unfair for me to say 

	"I think that most net.singles submitters are idiots".  

It might be true (for my definition of
idiot; or even for the non-existent global TRUTH defining idiots),
but it is grossly unfair for the 100,000 or even 1 net.singles
submitter who is not an idiot.

I must admit that none of us are perfect, including myself.  I too
group people and things.  But I try not to.

                mike