The imbecile and his dumb Generalizations

reply to post by Skyfloating


I don't know, could be the Illuminati, could be TPTB, if you consider them separate.
Might be some as yet unknown party, or a familiar group, maybe one supporting the Truth movement.
Many current movements add in a tagline to their formula for their Utopia by stating that their plans would be workable if the human population was sharply decreased.

reply to post by unityemissions


Good post...as long as you dont fall for the Generalization that "all politicians are psychopaths".

Even that is a form of conditioning. I've found that most people are...

...

...actually

...humans.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I don't. Ron Paul is the only real example I've got of a politician with integrity, but this is probably due to my ignorance in politics. I'm thinking most politicians do have holes in their conscience, if there was even one to begin with.

I can see many politicians starting out naive, wanting to change the system, or at least make a real difference. I think that in order to get their position, they have to sell out to an agenda. It's the only way they get enough finances for campaigns. So as far as politicians are concerned, most become sociopathic by the nature of the beast, it's only a matter of time.

I think it's a near absolute that those who make it to the very top, world leaders & elite, are all psychopathic. Perhaps not every one of them, but nearly so. Would you consider this a sweeping generalization? I'm curious.

reply to post by unityemissions


Or on the other side of the political spectrum Dennis Kucinich....

They are both profoundly true to their principles, whether you agree with them or not.

I'm not sure I understand.
I do believe that there are issues that could include generalization, ie abortion, gay marriage, war on terror. . .

Are you saying that there is no black/white issues?

reply to post by Skyfloating


You're a victim of your own thread. Generalizing that all generalizations are the work of imbecils... I don't even have to ad hominem you (something which I try not to do anyway), you do it to yourself.

Of course, some cases fit what you describe, I won't deny it, but like any input, it's up to the beholder to judge for himself the validity of the statements and either counter or just let it drop. Resorting to insults, especially with such wide and undefined scope and limits, is a sign of weakness of mind and shallowness of character.

Either something is worth discussing honestly, with open minds but sound principles or it's just worth ignoring imo. This thread to me, although I did retort, probably should fall in the second category.

Isn't courtesy mandatory by the T&C?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Who are you quoting? I've spoken about ponerology, as have others, which is a theory that a small number of psychopathic people in hierarchical structures have inordinate influence on society in a negative way, but it's not all of them. Just most of them because it's a selection process.

Ponerology itself defines the psychopathic as a minority. It's not about the numbers, it's about the dynamics. It's not a generalization, it's a verifiable phenomenon that has implications in sociology, psychology, psychiatry and day to day life.

A lot of high office politicians do demonstrate psychopathic tendencies quite openly, and I suspect many of them would show up low on emotional response testing with brainwave scanning, for example. To the obvious names like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Ill we would, were society honest, add names like Nixon, Churchill, Bush Jr and a few more, that don't get listed because they are "our" psychopaths.

This is part of the reality, of the problem. But nobody is generalizing this to mean all of a class, however, the higher up you go the higher the probability. In this world the ruthless have a competitive advantage, and much of the psychopathic memes out there are put out by, well, psychopaths. The glorification of competition over cooperation is just one example of many.

There is science to be made regarding psychopathic politicians. And there is objective truth to be learned regarding reality. Sub par rhetorical tricks not withstanding.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Mindmelding]

Unfortunately the generalization reflex is because our mind rather hold a false positive to be truth. Our minds are risk averse naturally, so we tend to generalize when things frustrate or cause us pain.

An imbecile would be someone who, when shown that they are simply being irrational because of their frustration still can't fathom that their generalizations are incorrect.

The thinking person would say something like "I know... but I'm just so ticked!"

Generalizing is part of human nature. It helps simplify how we think and organize things in our brain. Although, I do understand your frustration...My conclusion about people that make broad generalizations, such as 'all muslims are terrorists' is that they just haven't had an experience first hand that would conflict with they already think about the subject, despite how ignorant it may appear to others.

reply to post by laiguana


But there's a grey area. The muslims are terrorists example is an obvious fallacy, but what if someone said something like "all americans are responsible for what is being done in their name in Iraq".

Now where do we stand? Something is being done in thier name and most either don't wan't to know or don't care, and those that do have so far failed to turn the tide. So is not at some level the generalization valid? It's not really an insult to anyone, it's a statement of fact, sure, a wideranging sociological fact, a complex fact, but I think that if most normal minded people put in the consideration they will agree with the statement, at least at some level, although national responsability and personal responsability are two different spheres, or we would be talking criminalization of populations here.

Generalizations can have a place in a debate, and people need to take them on a case by case basis before branding people imbecils.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I absolutely ( get it ) love your posts ! For real though. This is the most intelligent post I have read in a long time. A long time.

You are pretty accurate in your statement. I now find it hard to even compliment you without trying to generalize something . haha

Anyways, close to every thread i have read of yours I love. And I mean it. I love them, because they always make me take a step back from my perceived reality and go " HMmmmmm"


Thank you for trying to better the people of this world by enlightening us once again.


I try not to generalize as much as possible as i agree with your post it is retarding our society .



You pretty much just checked the entire human race. Now if we were smart we would learn from this and try to better ourselves.


S&F

Thank you for posting this. I needed that.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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]

See, even you can learn from your own words. That is how valuable that information is.

Thanks for posting this thread.

I was going to post something similar the other night but I just could not word it properly without putting myself in the Hot Seat with the mod Gods so I chose the wiser course and did not post it.

Generalizations happen all the time in the real world and especially here at ATS at times. The really sad thing is that people believe them. Sometimes I wonder if people star and flag posts simply because they agree with the generalizations and not so much with the content including when there is no real facts at all to support many of these type's of claims.

I hear them all the time about "Americans" the "Chinese" the "Middle east" etc. I fear that for those who are not well read or have a good understanding of the real world that they will actually believe some of the stereotyping that goes on simply because a topic poster is popular.

Sad really.

Just an Opinion.

Originally posted by andy1033
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.

Very few generalizations are true . ( Does that even make sense in this thread ?lol)

Is that one ?

I would say that the more descriptive your statement is, the less of a generalization it could become.

Be as descriptive as possible and it will make your argument more unique and less general.

The way we all have grown up though, it will be tough for us not too make generalizations.

They happen in everything. I'm very into music. Many genres of music get lumped into generalizations. I mean seriously WTF is pop music. It is a mix of all diff genres sometimes so it all technically can't be pop.


The point and idea behind the thread is more important that the individual examples because we could go on for eons trying not to generalize.


Our speech at least here in American has become more generalized too.


We can't stop it from happening, but we can make a better effort at limiting it i guess.

I would like to point out a flaw in logic here.
"The imbecile and his dumb Generalizations"
Who ever said that all imbeciles are male, hence the descriptive, "HIS"
Sounds like a stereotypical generalization to me.

Is anyone capable of taking responsibility for their own "mental diarrhea" any more?
If one were truly attempt to make a bold statement regarding the function of generalizations, perhaps they should start with their own familiarity of the use thereof.

Does one think for themselves, or are they forever doomed to feel superior to the rest of us, but in actuality, are nothing of the sort?

In layman's terms, take responsibility for your own attitude.



[edit on 22/5/2009 by reticledc]

This post really scared me: Can I really get herpes from a used car? Thanks for pointing out that unseen danger. And, IF that is true than I will probably never ride the bus again either - that just seems like a one-way trip to STDville. Plus, everyone knows that riding on the bus will make you stupeder. And that's not a genaralisation.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Mine is that all unrest, all conflicts are created in the same manner.

Now that is a generalisation.

Whilst I enjoy your posts and respect you as a sharp-minded individual, I feel that your post comes across as a little elitist and condescending.

I agree with the thrust of your post 100%. However, I think it could have been couched in less condescsnding terms.

Nevertheless, a valuable post indeed and worthy of an S&F.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by mckyle]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

... 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:

[emphasis added]
you failed to add an apostrophe, therefore you don't know the rules of grammar =p
Just messing with you!

Very good points, well heard, and a powerful indicator, in my opinion, of the complexity of our society and the felt need to make quick, reactive decisions.


Star


[edit on 22-5-2009 by notreallyalive]

Star from me! Excellent thread.

Generalizations are an easy way out of a difficult argument, many times. I think most people (generally speaking), also, don't realize how divisive some generalities can be. Others, I think, don't care or use them to intentionally divide.

I read some posts, which seem to be an attempt to persuade one to change their opinion or position. I am turned off by those who turn to generalizations and labels, if they are challenged or, if their belief isn't, immediately accepted as fact.

Having been a cop for fifteen years, I am often angered at being compared to the likes of those who assaulted the unconcious man, thrown from the moving vehicle. They disgust me as do those who accuse all cops of being like them.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by WTFover]

Originally posted by RuneSpider
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.

If I understand you correctly what you are saying is something I've often tried to express.

American politics is played like a baseball game, with the emphasis being on to "belonging to" a side, staying blindly loyal and scoring points for your team.

Rifts are created between the rich and the poor, male and female, and the different races. Groups less likely to be able to defend themselves, such as the poor, the obese, single mothers etc are held up to ridicule.

I believe this is done by design so everyone will be too distracted by hatred of the whipping boys to look behind the scenes to see who is really responsible for the country's problems.

How many people blame medical treatment of illegals for their country's misfortunes and never compare the amount spent on that with the amount spent on a war based on lies?

The generalisations we are fed about any group that is "other" are just one more curtain keeping us from understanding, and being able to change, the world we are living in.