Is "Home of the Knave" Anti-American?

[The Black Knight]

AngelOfMusic, you also got a point there, though I think generalizations are quite good (and natural) as long as they don't result in fear, racism, hatred, extremism or anything other destructive.

[Mindtraveller]

You forget, however, that a few bad seeds can ruin the whole "race." as well.  Going back to the dog example - Pit Bulls have a reputation as being violent, aggressive dogs.  But this is ONLY because idiots continue to use them for illegal dog fights.  If you train a dog to be aggressive, that dog is going to be aggressive, whether Pit Bull, Rottweiler, Labrador or Toy Poodle.  My experience with Pit Bulls has been nothing but positive.  The breed is, on the whole, very people-friendly and loveable.  However, the media portrays pit bulls as being vicious killers because that is what sells.  I've noticed that the most vicious dogs are the smaller breeds, especially terriers.

Well, Terriers actually belong to the Pit bull family. This family has an historical background that can help provide some information about why these dogs could generally be seen as aggressive. They were usually bred to show aggression towards other dogs. Nowadays that has been mostly left in the past, only resurfacing when the idiots you mention train them for aggressive purposes.

But I digress, in this case you are taking a different dog race or family than the ones used in the previous example, and as such, the approach is completely different. It's a case of misinformation instead of generalization.

It's easier to make generalizations than to actually THINK.  It's easier to assume and believe everything negative you hear than it is to consider all angles.

That's why in the bottom line of my previous post I wrote what I wrote...

To clarify, in the dogs example, the idea is made in a bare-bones way to make a point come across easily, but if the person was trying to determine all the possible angles, another likely scenario would have been talking to the dogs or making a certain friendly gesture and seeing how the dogs react. Still, this would obviously be exceptional behavior, as people in general would simply try to avoid getting into trouble with dogs that can very well rip you apart.

[AngelOfMusic]

*cough* Right, PIt Bull Terrier.  :oops:   My knowledge of animals failed me!  AUGH!  Oh well, it happens.  Yes, Pit Bulls are part of the terrier family.


Alright, I see what you're saying.  However, I stand by my stance that generalizations are mostly negative and not at all conducive of getting over predjudice and short-sightedness.  In this case, we aren't talking about dogs.  We're talking about my countrymen.  YES, there are quite a few ignorant Americans, but the more I interact with people from other countries, I'm finding that there are just as many  ignorant people the world over.

[Mindtraveller]

Alright, I see what you're saying.  However, I stand by my stance that generalizations are mostly negative and not at all conducive of getting over predjudice and short-sightedness.  In this case, we aren't talking about dogs.  We're talking about my countrymen. YES, there are quite a few ignorant Americans, but the more I interact with people from other countries, I'm finding that there are just as many ignorant people the world over.

You are probably right when you say that generalizations can be mostly negative, a lot of people are unable to recognize the fact that exceptions do exist. But that's a case of bad 'management' more than anything (like the people who breed dogs to fight ). Still, those who have a better understanding of how such things work can benefit from a well rooted, understood generalization.

As for the generalizations about people; we tend to feel ourselves included whenever we are part of a group that is the target of a negative generalization. For example, when one hears about metalheads being ignorant, obnoxious, and prone to violent behavior, one can feel offended and say "that's not true", but the thing is, it IS true. Most metalheads I've come across in my life meet those characteristics, and only a few have been exceptions, only the gods know how annoyed I've been at every live show I've been due to the stupidity of the majority of the people there who need to show how metal and tough they are.

So, when one is part of a generalization, it's better to just shrug it off and think "well, it's true, most of them are like that... if I'm lumped with them, then whatever, those who come close near me will perhaps be able to see that I might as well be an exception". Yet, this doesn't change the fact that the generalization itself can be pretty much spot on. Sure, it's really unfortunate that most people can't wisely use the information, but the generalization in itself is what it is: data gathered through observation.

[AngelOfMusic]

As for the generalizations about people; we tend to feel ourselves included whenever we are part of a group that is the target of a negative generalization. For example, when one hears about metalheads being ignorant, obnoxious, and prone to violent behavior, one can feel offended and say "that's not true", but the thing is, it IS true. Most metalheads I've come across in my life meet those characteristics, and only a few have been exceptions, only the gods know how annoyed I've been at every live show I've been due to the stupidity of the majority of the people there who need to show how metal and tough they are.

That's interesting you should mention metalheads.  My experience has been the opposite.  Most of the metalheads I've come across in my life are intelligent, polite individuals.  Even at concerts, there has always been a sense of commeraderie and friendship among perfect strangers.  Even at the one death metal show I was at, I was concerned about my safety because I had only heard that the shows sometimes got violent.  But when I was there, people were friendly and polite.  And despite the fact there was a mosh pit, if someone fell, the moshers around him (or her!) stopped and helped that person up, then resumed moshing.

Generalizations are often based on experiences.  And often times individual experience varries.  In this case, our individual experiences with fellow metalheads.  You say most metalheads are violent and prone to stupidity. I say that the opposite is true.  Why?  Because my experiences have been positive whereas yours obviously have not been so positive.

The same goes for Americans.  If you have only been around stupid Americans, you are going to generalize and assume that most of the people in the US are stupid.  Just as if I were to only interact with arrogant Europeans, I would generalize that most Europeans were arrogant. But is this true?  Many Americans think so.  I do not necissarily agree, though with certain sentiments expressed here, it's very tempting to say "Yes, Europeans are arrogant."  However, I will not have my opinions changed by a few sour grapes.  It would be very easy to do so, but what would that earn me?  Nothing good, that is for certain.

[Mindtraveller]

Generalizations are often based on experiences.  And often times individual experience varries.  In this case, our individual experiences with fellow metalheads.  You say most metalheads are violent and prone to stupidity. I say that the opposite is true.  Why?  Because my experiences have been positive whereas yours obviously have not been so positive.

Your case could be  an exception, as I know metalheads from Canada, the USA, Belarus, Turkey, etc, that have experienced very similar negative behaviour from the other metalheads they've seen at shows or have in general met, this is based on their own local observations.

A true and valid generalization is achieved when the sum of experiences of a number of people sheds a, well, general result. It is mostly a scientific process that throws some numbers, and based on those numbers a conclusion can be found.

To reach a valid generalization, it is needed to take into consideration a number of sources to reach a conclusion, otherwise it's just a half-baked approach to the idea in question. Again, this doesn't deny that there will be cases like yours where there are exceptions, but they are not representative of the general idea.

Still, I think you are picking single ideas and my main point is not getting across. The above is an example that only regards the nature of a generalization and how it is given credibility, it could very well be the other way around (most metalheads actually not being ignorant and disrespectful), and then the whole idea would change from a generalization through observation to a case of misinformation.

A statement that says "Jews attend to their religious beliefs" is correct, as it is the general rule, even though there are those who do not. This is a generalization based on observation throughout the globe and coming from many sources. In this case, the individual experiences do not matter when isolated, as someone who has met Jews that do not attend to their religion might argue that it isn't true that in general Jews do so, just as it wouldn't be true if someone else said that all Jews around the world do. This kind of localized data does not serve a purpose for the wider generalization because it is a) taking the exceptional cause as the general rule, and b) excluding the exceptions completely.

In the end, I want to make clear that my point is to show that generalizations do serve a valid purpose, even though we as individuals will have a different perception about certain things based on our own experiences, they do not change as a whole. To quote what I said earlier: "Generalizations exist for a reason, and it's up to the individual to know when to use a wiser judgement to find an exceptional case." But I can't stress enough that the generalization does not change because of this, it is what it is.

Just to make my point even clearer: You need to go through a dark alley at night, you are alone, and you can spot two individuals that are approaching, they are dressed as the 'typical' thugs. What do you do? Do you take your chances by thinking the idea of "dark alley + alone at night + people dressed as thugs = bad" is just a stupid generalization?

[AngelOfMusic]

Your alley description is a moot point, since I would not be silly enough to wander through a dark alley at night alone.  It's not a generalization to see two people dressed in black in a dark alley and to think "hmm...I'm alone in a dark alley, there are two strangers coming at me who look imposing, this is possible danger" that is merely common sense at work.  It is not generalization.  

But to go assuming that every person of a certain demographic you meet is going to behave a certain way is folly.  -that- is what I'm going on about in regards to generalizations.

There is more than just one way to generalize.  Yes, you can make generlizations based on tested theory.  But many people do not.  Often times generlizations are the result of making an inference based on merely a FEW facts, examples or observations, not many, as you appear to be trying to convince me of.  If I'm still missing something, I appologize.  I'm ill.  Literally.  I have strep throat,  or something similar. :(

Ooh, that's a good example - saying "strep throat is painful."  This is true.  It is also a generalization.  As you've been pointing out in regards to generalizations - it is one made on fact, and one that most, if not all people with strep throat have complained of.  But the negative generalization about Americans?  Often enough it's been made based on "what I've heard" or what that particular country's biased media likes to portray.  Or perhaps one bad experience soured a person's opinions and caused them to make such negative generalizations. (refer back to my quote about grapes.)

[Mindtraveller]

Your alley description is a moot point, since I would not be silly enough to wander through a dark alley at night alone.  It's not a generalization to see two people dressed in black in a dark alley and to think "hmm...I'm alone in a dark alley, there are two strangers coming at me who look imposing, this is possible danger" that is merely common sense at work.  It is not generalization.

Not necessarily a moot point, since said common sense is based on previous information gathered about what the general outcome will be in such a situation. these people are dangerous because they are in an alley at night and they are dressed in the general way thugs do. If they were dressed in "regular" clothes and were a couple that one could think " they are middle-class suburban people", the whole thing would change. However, one generalizes that people who dress in a certain way are more likely to be criminals. In this regard, said generalization is achieved based on the observed context, surroundings and appearance of a person or persons.

But to go assuming that every person of a certain demographic you meet is going to behave a certain way is folly.  -that- is what I'm going on about in regards to generalizations.

There is more than just one way to generalize.  Yes, you can make generlizations based on tested theory.  But many people do not.  Often times generlizations are the result of making an inference based on merely a FEW facts, examples or observations, not many, as you appear to be trying to convince me of.

I think this is where the main misunderstanding lies, really. I agree with you in that most people will make up their minds about a certain group of people based on a couple of things they've observed. These are often the kind that will not look for exceptions and will treat everyone who belongs to a certain group the same way, no matter what the differences might be.

However, there are also some people who, even though they acknowledge that certain groups of people follow a generally observed behaviour, they are also aware of the existance of exceptions, and will look for them under certain circumstances.

The generally observed behaviour should serve as a sort of guide to know what to expect from a certain group. It is indeed unfortunate that most people take it as an unchangeable absolute, regardless of the individual.

But the negative generalization about Americans?  Often enough it's been made based on "what I've heard" or what that particular country's biased media likes to portray.  Or perhaps one bad experience soured a person's opinions and caused them to make such negative generalizations. (refer back to my quote about grapes.)

I want to be clear that I'm not discussing the generalizations that are made about the people of the USA, my argument is done regardless of that.

It should be good to keep in mind though, that generalizations about the people of a certain country refer to the average citizen. Most societies function in such a way that seems to be custom-built for drones and idiots, where success equals to economical triumph and societal status and where the average person will see anything that contradicts or challenges his views as a personal attack. These slaves to the grind constitute the mass known as "the people" of a given country, which is why whenever I see someone say "the people from [insert country name here] are ignorant and stupid" I don't see it as an affrent, but as something that can be applied as a reality worldwide (you yourself mentioned about how you've been in touch with people from other countries and found out that they are just as ignorant and dumb as many of your countrymen).

But I feel like I'm digressing again. Still, I hope that our misunderstanding has been cleared by now.

[AngelOfMusic]

Arlighty, so basically we're on the same page.  My thoughts are just fuzzy.  As I said, I'm sick, and I've been bombarding myself with medicines to try and get over it.

I don't agree with you on "people from (insert country here) are ignorant and stupid" is not an affront.  It certainly is, if said generalization is a falsehood.  But that's the thing about generalizations - people take them as absolute truth, as you've so noted.  But when I mentioned my experiences with many Europeans, that doesn't mean I think the majority are that specific way.  But I am aware that there are enough negative opinions that enough people vocallise to make the others look bad, and make someone draw the inference that "Europeans don't like Americans."  Just as an example.  I think that's where we differ.  Which isn't a BAD thing.  Can't have everyone agreeing.  That's no fun.

Am I making any sense at this point?   :shock:   Anyway, it's been fun.  I HOPE the above made sense, as an expansion on what's already been said.

[The Metal RN]

I feel that I would like to make a point to add to the direction that the thread has gone in.

As we develop, early in childhood, the concept of generalization happens around age 1-2. A child learns the word "dog" for example if the family has a dog. They then start calling the neighbors cat "dog" and horses that they see by the side of the road "dog". They have generalized all 4 legged animals as dog, from their limited point of reference. As they learn more about the world they live in, they learn that not all 4 legged animals are dogs, there are cats, horses, and so on. This is a higher functioning of deduction/reasoning. But that reasoning did not come without the information the child has picked up through either experience or being taught by someone else.

(This is not to degrade anyone- I am just making a point here)- Generalizations are, hmm I can't find suitable words here- sort of a "less intelligent" way of looking at things. It is a guess, based only on past experiences and no new information. What MIndtraveller had stated (I believe) is  that generalizations/stereotypes, do exist for some reason. It is inherrent that we as people do this. However to get past this, an individual needs to look at as much info as they can, or want to, to make the best possible assessment of the situation.

We also need to remember that we all cloud our choices by our perceptions, which are based on past experiences. I really do not agree with what jakob has stated but I do look at his posts and ask "what has he expeienced in his life that has caused him to think this way?"  Making matters even more entangled is that I have to look at what my experiences are in order to realize what my reactions to his statements are being driven by. It can go on and on and on and..........

I hope I added something meaningful to this discussion,and I would be glad to clarify anything, it has been a long day at work and I just want to go get a drink!!! :beer:

[AngelOfMusic]

RN, you basically summed up what I was trying to say, and you did so much more succinctly than I ever could hope to.    I suck at debating. :(

[Mindtraveller]

As we develop, early in childhood, the concept of generalization happens around age 1-2. A child learns the word "dog" for example if the family has a dog. They then start calling the neighbors cat "dog" and horses that they see by the side of the road "dog". They have generalized all 4 legged animals as dog, from their limited point of reference. As they learn more about the world they live in, they learn that not all 4 legged animals are dogs, there are cats, horses, and so on. This is a higher functioning of deduction/reasoning. But that reasoning did not come without the information the child has picked up through either experience or being taught by someone else.

True, but that is not a valid generalization, as it is based on lack of information and, as you said, mostly guesses. A valid generalization will come later in life, when the child grows and begins to understand that dogs share a lot of characteristics and traits that make them dogs. But in that process, s/he will also understand that within the canine kingdom, there are a number of races that have completely different characteristics that set them apart from each other.

Moreso, with this information and data gathered, the person will be able to recognize the physical and behavioral characteristics that define a race as such. S/He will come across certain individual dogs that do not conform to the general rule and will recognize those as exceptional creatures, but s/he will know now that certain races, as a whole, are more likely to be aggressive, tame, nervous, laid back, etc.

Generalizations are, hmm I can't find suitable words here- sort of a "less intelligent" way of looking at things. It is a guess, based only on past experiences and no new information.

Taking what I wrote above, you can see that valid generalizations are most definitely not guesses. A generalization is (ideally) based on information gathered through practice and observation, it is nothing but data. It can't make someone more or less intelligent. What can do that though, is the way in which said data is obtained and how it is put into practice.

Looking back, it's a bit funny to see how throughout this discussion there has been a sort of silent agrement as to how people, in general, will use generalizations in a negative way.

[Odin]

I don't think there can be valid generalizations about living "things". As you say it is just the collection of data and a person will find out exceptions and this and that - there will always be exceptions, there always are individuals that are totally different from others who are different from others and others...

And the saying "Exceptions proof the rule" is mere bullshit. An exception can never proof a rule (generalization) to be valid, it falsifies it and nothing else.

Just a coin from me. I really like the way this discussion has been done in the end. Thank you and good night.

[Spawnie]

So interesting....

I, same as AngelOfMusic, am awful at debating. Also, as an American, I didn't care to get into the dog fight, because for the most part I would agree with alot of the things people are saying about us... but only as a nation... not individuals. I also disagree with the "grouping" and "generalizations". We are NOT all the same here. And thank goddess for that.

Although we are all set apart by islands of earth, we are all, realistically, the SAME. I would bleed the same blood as anyone else here. I have friends all over the world... literally, and guess what... we all think, feel, and LOVE in the same basic way. We may not AGREE on everything, we agree to DISAGREE and let it go, Because that is what makes us human. We have the grand ability to have thought. And how grand is that?  We are NOT all the same and that is what makes us so wonderful.
 
Once you put down the shield of accusation, and let yourself get to KNOW people, be it the person next door... or the person on the other side of the world from you. You find that we ARE all a lot more alike then we are different. No matter where we happen to live. So, my feelings, which I'm sure will be bashed, but I could care less, are that people who generalize though hate and ignorace are just that... ignorant. And I pitty you for being so pathetic.

Okay.... Let me have it now.    :wink:

[The Metal RN]

My wife said it very succicntly, and I believe that this is how I live.

"We need to be respectful of our differences, but we need to celebrate our commonalities"- Metalmaiden

Good discussion all!

Stefan, is this along the lines of what you had hoped to acheive writing this song?