Fair enough, I'd just end that the male female experience isn't wholly different from the male experience, and infact they're become reflections of another. Reflecting and mimicing the behaviour of the diametric leads to unity. Homosexuality was rare in the 1950s and now it's fairly common, was this an evolutionary rapid change or was it a product of us removing generalizations, with organic and natural behaviour following suit?
I'd say the same will follow suit with genders, either be desocializing the characteristics they asociate with a gender, or through socialization of gender equality. Generalizations are prospective/inductive, behaviours are deductive.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
It’s actually uncanny how much I agree with you on that. I’ve identified probably at least 10 or 15 ways in which the female and male experience is insanely similar. (Males are afraid of being rejected, and so are females - the reasoning, slightly different)
There are far more ways, I think, in which we are the same - then ways in which we are different. Even sexual dimorphism isn’t nearly as major associate would have us believe insofar as differences are concerned.
Males and females both struggle for power. Males and females both use sexual manipulation. The list goes on and on.
So yes - we wholeheartedly agree on that. I also agree that if people could appreciate that apparent truth more readily, we could be more progressive as a society. Failing to realize that most certainly holds us back.
The only time I think generalizing for the sake of empathy can be highly useful is when males or females feel “at sea” when it comes to how the other is behaving. Why is she standoffish? Well, a generalization of her likely perspective/reasoning due derived from a perspective of what sociological experiences she is most likely to have been predisposed to... may help to form a decently strong hypothesis about her behavior. One which would have a higher chance of being - if not completely accurate - at least partially so. This is where when someone says “She didn’t respond to my advances” and someone else says “Maybe she didn’t want to lead you on” - generalizations can come in handy. If you know this is a likely possibility, then you’re less likely to infer her behavior as a rejection of your sexual appeal, for instance.
I understand that, it seems generalization in this situation is in opposition to analysis: That is, it's easier for them to generalize information and therefore maintain self-esteem instead of burying themselves further. It is deceiving, but I guess people have to indulge in a white lie or two.... or three... or four....
tequila!
A lie? And tequila?! Yes, tequila makes liars of us all. (Sorry, this reference is a woosh for me.)
No...I don’t think the generalization is a lie. It’s a paradigm. Essentially, it a a point to process. A thing be regarded as a thesis to be proven or disproven as more information presents itself.
The reasoning may go something like:
(1) Most females appear to be sensitive about their appearance.
(2) This female asked me if she looks fat in this dress.
(A) I lack information: I will be gentle with my response.
(B) I know this female: She would prefer that I give her an honest opinion about her dress.
————
It’s not, however, a lie that most females are sensitive about their appearance.
That also doesn’t mean that it will always be true, either. The generalization isn’t a philosophy about the truth of life. It’s a simple observation that, lacking a qualifier as to the time period in which it should apply, would be applied in the modern day and age.
So the generalization becomes:
In the modern day and age, most females are sensitive about their appearance.
That obviously doesn’t mean that all of them are...and of course, any generalization that someone makes is subjective unless proven otherwise, and therefore, should be treated as though it may be incorrect.
So, again, it doesn’t excuse the researcher from conducting further research. However, without a generalization, there is no topic to research to begin with.
One of the things we clearly agree on, Rebis, is the fact that the public greatly misuses and misinterprets generalizations.
People really do have a tendency to use generalizations to fabricate illogical labels which they use to discriminate.
The line between discrimination and generalizations is so easily crossed, that I think you’re absolutely right to say that generalizations should always be discussed within the proper context. We actually have to say “You still have to learn about this girl”. It seems like you shouldn’t have to - but drop a generalization on someone and they’re likely to add it to their dogma and start chanting it like a spiritual epiphany at the stroke of 12 while they sacrifice black cats to their pagan god.
There’s a few things we appear to lack in education at the moment...I think in the EU as well as the USA.
We lack classes on rhetoric and logic. We have “critical thinking”, but it appears to be poorly conducted and mostly involves writing terrible persuasive essays which are more of an exercise in learning language and writing skills s
We also need a class to teach scientific comprehension. In the US, we learn things like the periodic table - an utter waste for most students. Students should be learning about what science, philosophy, and math are, the fundamentals of each, how they are studied, how they are applied, and how to find valid resources for each...as well as some basic skills for how to properly interpret the information.
and again, you have gr8 insight into another subject!