Generalization - I think this is something most of us, if not all of us, do to explain things around us. We need this tool to logically explain the past and deduce the future from it. I am not saying it is the right or wrong thing to do, but we do it. If you view your life as a big set of isolated incidents, it is guaranteed that you won't get anywhere. You have to form patterns that apply to you in the context of the society you live in or likely to live in the future. It is the most efficient means of communicating and reasoning out. Think about it. In fact, try to remember a conversation in which you didn't generalize even at one point.
Somebody picks your pocket in a highly crowded bus. What's the natural thought process after that - "In all the heavily crowded buses that I travel, there is bound to be at least one pickpocket, so I better be careful everytime". You can't blame the person - after all he is taking measures to protect his money, which is entirely his responsibility. But does it mean that his theory is right? But does it even matter if his theory is right or wrong? All that matters to him is the way in which he has to lead that part of a life that is spent inside a crowded bus. So there.
People get educated and get more exposure. They travel to different places, countries. They interact with people from different cultures and find out that several possibilities exist in life. And hence conclude that there is no real need to generalize. Different kind of explanations come into being at that point - things that try to explain things around you. Now somebody picks your pocket in a highly crowded bus - you'll first try to blame yourself for not having taken care of this in the first place. But what's the difference? Are you going to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd in the next bus you're going to catch? Highly unlikely! We'd still pretend as though somebody is hiding out there who is interested in our wallet and take measures to safeguard our money - no problem or nothing wrong there.
Sometimes I see people objecting or criticizing generalization. I'll say "they're all like that" and immediately I get a response - "How do you know - did you interact with everyone and find out to make a statement like this?" Kindly explain to me why I was wrong and more importantly, how you interpreted what I said within the given context. When I say "they're all like that" I am only trying to explain things that have happened to me in the past and a pattern that I should remember so that I can readily deal with a similar situation in the future. Won't I be wasting time if I treat every incident as an isolated one? You lose the wallet ten times in a bus, please move on with your life - after generalizing. Now, I am not going to interact with all the 6 billion people in the planet to make a very educated statement about people. In fact, nobody can. There is so much data in this world that it only makes sense to form familiar patterns and generalizations. But within the community, society or circle that I move, it may be perfectly ok to generalize. By all means, it'll be a very similar community or a society that I'll encounter in the future - what I mean is that I am going to be hanging around only reasonably educated people who don't understand life all that well, or they do only as much as I do. Within this given context, what's the difference if I generalize or if I don't?
In fact, I think generalizing is inherent to human nature. Educated people may tend not to generalize, but I still think they ARE trying to generalize things on may be a much bigger level. Level from which they can say "ALL people have problems", "desire is the root cause for ALL suffering", "you get what you pay for", "life is a big averager", "there is no free lunch", "you are entirely accountable for your actions", "you give crap, you get crap" kind of things. Notice the liberal use of the word "ALL" in these phrases. That word signifies heavy generalization. People constantly try to explain the things around them, with the hope that they may lead a more peaceful life later. But they may not all be going that extra mile to generalize on a much higher level so they can see things from a different/right perspective altogether. They generalize on a much smaller, miniscule level which leads to a lot of problems. In other words, the margin of error 'cause of generalization varies.
"The wind at this location is always blowing at 130mph" is a stupid generalization.
"The wind at this location is always blowing at high speeds in this time of the year" is a more educated generalization. But it is generalization regardless :)
PS: Here is one amazing article on generalization which precisely reflects what I was also trying to say, except that this person is much clearer and factual.
Somebody picks your pocket in a highly crowded bus. What's the natural thought process after that - "In all the heavily crowded buses that I travel, there is bound to be at least one pickpocket, so I better be careful everytime". You can't blame the person - after all he is taking measures to protect his money, which is entirely his responsibility. But does it mean that his theory is right? But does it even matter if his theory is right or wrong? All that matters to him is the way in which he has to lead that part of a life that is spent inside a crowded bus. So there.
People get educated and get more exposure. They travel to different places, countries. They interact with people from different cultures and find out that several possibilities exist in life. And hence conclude that there is no real need to generalize. Different kind of explanations come into being at that point - things that try to explain things around you. Now somebody picks your pocket in a highly crowded bus - you'll first try to blame yourself for not having taken care of this in the first place. But what's the difference? Are you going to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd in the next bus you're going to catch? Highly unlikely! We'd still pretend as though somebody is hiding out there who is interested in our wallet and take measures to safeguard our money - no problem or nothing wrong there.
Sometimes I see people objecting or criticizing generalization. I'll say "they're all like that" and immediately I get a response - "How do you know - did you interact with everyone and find out to make a statement like this?" Kindly explain to me why I was wrong and more importantly, how you interpreted what I said within the given context. When I say "they're all like that" I am only trying to explain things that have happened to me in the past and a pattern that I should remember so that I can readily deal with a similar situation in the future. Won't I be wasting time if I treat every incident as an isolated one? You lose the wallet ten times in a bus, please move on with your life - after generalizing. Now, I am not going to interact with all the 6 billion people in the planet to make a very educated statement about people. In fact, nobody can. There is so much data in this world that it only makes sense to form familiar patterns and generalizations. But within the community, society or circle that I move, it may be perfectly ok to generalize. By all means, it'll be a very similar community or a society that I'll encounter in the future - what I mean is that I am going to be hanging around only reasonably educated people who don't understand life all that well, or they do only as much as I do. Within this given context, what's the difference if I generalize or if I don't?
In fact, I think generalizing is inherent to human nature. Educated people may tend not to generalize, but I still think they ARE trying to generalize things on may be a much bigger level. Level from which they can say "ALL people have problems", "desire is the root cause for ALL suffering", "you get what you pay for", "life is a big averager", "there is no free lunch", "you are entirely accountable for your actions", "you give crap, you get crap" kind of things. Notice the liberal use of the word "ALL" in these phrases. That word signifies heavy generalization. People constantly try to explain the things around them, with the hope that they may lead a more peaceful life later. But they may not all be going that extra mile to generalize on a much higher level so they can see things from a different/right perspective altogether. They generalize on a much smaller, miniscule level which leads to a lot of problems. In other words, the margin of error 'cause of generalization varies.
"The wind at this location is always blowing at 130mph" is a stupid generalization.
"The wind at this location is always blowing at high speeds in this time of the year" is a more educated generalization. But it is generalization regardless :)
PS: Here is one amazing article on generalization which precisely reflects what I was also trying to say, except that this person is much clearer and factual.
No comments:
Post a Comment