The imbecile and his dumb Generalizations

Imbecile was a controversial term used to classify a type of mental retardation

It derives from the Latin word imbecillus, meaning weak, or weak-minded

1

One of the greatest issues of society, in my opinion, is the widespread dumbing down of its populace. One of many examples of this is the exaggerated use of False Generalizations which I will highlight here. We can witness these all around us...in real-life, on these virtual discussion-forums, in the mass-media. Some sweeping Generalizations I've viewed only today on this discussion forum:

* Soldiers committed a crime. Therefore soldiers are scum.
* Obama is a liberal. Therefore none of his decisions will be any good.
* Bush is a Neo-Con. Therefore anything he does is bad.
* The Rothschilds financed both sides of wars. Therefore Jews are bad.
* The Christian Inquisition murdered many. Christians are evil.
* Terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims. Muslims are terrorists.
* Homosexuals want marriage rights.
* A police officer abused his position. Police Officers are scum.
* UFOs are real.
* UFOs are not real.
* Women are...
* Mexicans are...
* Men are...
* Americans are...
* Reality is...
* Reality is not...

...in fact, open any given thread here and you will find Generalizations that lack discernment and instead divide everything into black and white, 100% good or 100% bad. Among the Billions of Idiots who spread the virus of Generalization words such as "some", "sometimes", "partially", "a part of", "aspects of", "possibly", "maybe" etc. are not very popular. Words such as "is", "are", "fact" and "truth" on the other hand are very popular with the imbecile.

The reason the feeble-minded need to divide everything into black and white or two sides is because they are unable to grasp anything bigger or more diverse, colorful or complex than those two. Seeing something from three, four, five, six or seven sides already goes above these morons heads. In this way they becoming unwitting agents of false information. This ancient story from India illustrates this:

The story of the blind men and an elephant originated from India. A group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.

A variation of False Generalizations is called Misleading Vividness:

The logical fallacy of misleading vividness involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. Although misleading vividness does little to support an argument logically, it can have a very strong psychological effect because of a cognitive heuristic called the availability heuristic.

Example 1:
Anne: "I am giving up extreme sports now that I have children. I think I will take up golf."
Bill: "I wouldn't do that. Do you remember Charles? He was playing golf when he got hit by a golf-cart. It broke his leg, and he fell over, giving himself a concussion. He was in hospital for a week and still walks with a limp. I would stick to paragliding!"

Example 2:
Lois Griffin: "I found an ad for a used car from the paper."
Peter Griffin: "Oh, no. A guy at work got a car from the paper, two years later, Bam! Herpes!"

If we were to remove this logical fallacy, 90% of our stories and "news" would fall away.

Sadly, sweeping generalizations create labels and stereotypes which stifle intelligent conversation and learning. More examples of "conversations" (the second line being that of the moron. If you cant see the logical fallacy in the reply, do some more thinking):

"I went out with this other woman..."
"That means you dont love me anymore?"

"That is a good team"
"Yeah, because the players are good"

"The Swine Flu originated in Mexico"
"So it comes from Mexicans"

"The restaurant is always busy"
"That must mean their food is really good"

"Im a Republican"
"Oh, so you are for war"

"I´m a democrat"
"Oh, so you are for abortion"

"I´m an atheist"
"So you hate Christians"

"I believe in a Supreme Being"
"So you are a Creationist!"

"I believe ETs exist"
"But there is no evidence for them"

"Do ETs exist?"
"I believe so because there is no evidence that they dont"

"This is a thread about Generalizations"
"All Generalizations are false"
(Notice the self-contradictory statement)

To conquer imbecility in regards to Generalizations all that is needed is the realization that there is no such thing as 100% right or 100% wrong but instead varying degrees of probability and that one need not jump to conclusions or have knee-jerk reactions about anything...much less about labels which describe entire groups.


[edit on 22-5-2009 by Skyfloating]

So are all generalizations the work of imbeciles?

Sounds a bit too general for me, that statement...

Thank you Skyfloating, very well written and cohesive thread. Generalizations are one of my pet peeves, and it's cousins -- labels (affixed on a whole group or demographic) and circular logic.

I find that lately I avoid certain threads, as I feel compelled to address the labels and generalizations and probably miss or ignore the point of the thread. This, of course, seems to resonate as an off-topic post, and perhaps even seems like trolling the thread to others.

Better to just avoid the thread than to get wrapped up in what might be perceived as focusing on a peripheral issue of the thread.

yah. I have issues.

Originally posted by Astyanax
So are all generalizations the work of imbeciles?

Sounds a bit too general for me, that statement...

Good then that I did not make that statement.

(The title should of course read: "Generalizations are sometimes stupid in my opinion"...that would be less general I guess )

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by argentus


Main reason I made this one is so that in the future I´d just have to post a link here rather than explain Generalizations every time.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Skyfloating]

The op cannot right right full stop. Even though alot use generalisations, you too are following this rule and labeling people who label are generalisations, imbeciles lol.

No one says that rothchilds are bankers and happen to be this that jews are scum. I think the rothchilds are leaaders in this world system, but i would call them satanists not jews. One common thing in all the systems and religions of the world will be at the top they are all the same. So that is a generalisation, because truth is truth, lol.

Originally posted by andy1033
No one says that rothchilds are bankers and happen to be this that jews are scum.

No one? If only that were true...

Couldn't agree with you more Skyfloating, it's something that at times makes me wonder if there is a conspiracy to promote this type of though, what with the talk of revolution and civil war that pops up here so often.
This type of though would be helpful to such a situation.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by andy1033
No one says that rothchilds are bankers and happen to be this that jews are scum.

No one? If only that were true...

You know what i mean. I am not getting into the generalisation, while the op is getting into generalising about people labeling and stereotyping all different groups of people.

reply to post by andy1033


Yes, Im generalizing and labeling. Its called using a splinter to get out a splinter.

reply to post by RuneSpider


War would be impossible without sweeping Generalizations. If we were to discern between good and bad guys behind enemy lines, we could not be shooting at all of them.

So yeah...I also wonder if there is a conspiracy to produce crowds of idiots...

I think you mean lack of rhetorical thinking, not generalization.

Originally posted by earthman4
I think you mean lack of rhetorical thinking, not generalization.

No, I mean Generalization as in making General statements rather than Specific ones.

reply to post by Skyfloating


If there is, then the conspiracy is aggravating both sides of the possible conflict, which would mean that a revolution or civil war would play right into their hands.

I have a biased perspective on this idea, though, as it's one I've been holding onto for awhile.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Whats your biased perspective then?

Mine is that all unrest, all conflicts are created in the same manner.

1. Have a group identify an entire other group as an enemy (Generalized Stereotype) and vice-versa

2. Continue doing so until all hell breaks loose.

reply to post by Skyfloating


It's a pet theory of mine, as such I'm biased in favor of it.

It's a opinion I got from first reading the SS forums, and became stronger the more I've read various threads on the site.

It puts me off many of the talks that encourage Civil War type scenarios.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Either you`re being vague or I´m being stupid. Your theory is that some force is trying to orchestrate civil war within America?

If so, that would be something to consider.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Probably am being vague.
My point is, that yes, I do feel at times that a Revolution is being encouraged, and that certain groups are being demonized, or generalized, with the intention of it being played to someone's advantage.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I agree with your thoughts. I'm guilty of this at times, and am doing my best not to see the world in such black & white terms.

The way you describe war is clear & simple. I find it hard to conceive a person could fight in a war if all they saw were people who've been manipulated. Unfortunately, there's very few conscientious objectors.

I'm about to read a book called Political Ponerology. This book describes how leaders in high places are psychopaths and what implications this has on society. The main problem I've had is seeing evil in most people, and thinking that it was their fault. That it was set in stone, they were bad folk.

Now I realize that we're being bombarded with layers of conditioning, through advertisement, entertainment, politics, economics, just about every which way to be arrogant, selfish, greedy b4$tards. Most people simply don't seem to have the intellectual capacity and heart to break through the barriers and see what's really going on.

I'm hoping this book will further my understanding of why many people seem to be acting so barbaric.

It may be that TPTB are social engineering us into imbecility. If you look at what's on T.V., where most people get a good chunk of their information from, you can see that there are many, many sweeping generalizations present. There are few programs which dare see reality in it's multi-faceted way.

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Probably am being vague.
My point is, that yes, I do feel at times that a Revolution is being encouraged, and that certain groups are being demonized, or generalized, with the intention of it being played to someone's advantage.

To who's advantage could that be in your opinion?

___________________________________________________

No doubt that creating stereotype polarizations has advantages for some. As mentioned earlier, who`d be watching the news if everything were peaceful?

Artificial conflicts are created for entertainment and making money out of that entertainment. But if they go overboard and people start to think its "real", the trouble starts.

During the Presidential Election the hyped up the Divide to make it more interesting. Some many took the divide completely seriously.

Lets hope these games are not taken so seriously that civil war erupts.