See, now there’s an idea for a sequel: The Guide to Getting It On, Repeatedly. Run with it.
But anyway, robert, I must agree with your driving point. It does seem that, upon reading a study that shows that is true for more than 50% of a given subset, certain folks are bound and determined to believe that is now proven to be a quality of that subset. It’s crap, but if you figure out how to convince people to develop the necessary awareness to stop doing it, please let me know: people drawing (jumping to) specific conclusions with no basis other than preformed generalities is a problem that hardly confines itself to statistics. Find out how to stop that sort of thinking, and you’ve just dropped an A-bomb on the one of the very roots of prejudice against individuals for any preconceived reason whatsoever. Racism, sexism, homophobia, what-have-you. Not the same concept? Different reasoning behind the judgements? Bullshit (or should I say horseshit?).
Just as bad, if not worse, are the repercussions of the almost instinctive reaction to the realization of the above. It has, in the past, led many to the conclusion that generalization, rather than application thereof to individual cases, is the cause of this effect, at which point they call upon humanity to do the impossible: cease making general observations altogether. And thus, Political Correctness was born.
Nuh-uh…sorry, folks, but it ain’t gonna happen. The human mind is notorious for seeking out, finding, categorizing and manipulating patterns in all aspects of everyday life. Among these aspects are social interactions, as well as classifications of other people by innumerable different criteria. As we live, as we meet others, as we interact with them day-to-day, as we observe still others by chance if for only a moment, we do – regardless of whether we want to, regardless of whether we consciously try to avoid it – make observations about them, classify them in our minds, and create our own designations based upon certain individual qualities. If we then notice – and we will – that a predominance of individuals with quality seem, in our experience, to share quality [Y], we will quite naturally begin to hypothesize that → [Y]. This, in and of itself, does nothing. Generalization is not the problem. The negative effects occur when we notice an individual instance of , immediately apply [Y] in our minds, and treat the individual accordingly without bothering to test our hypothesis in this case. That’s what we need to eliminate.
The trouble you’re noticing with statistics is a subset of this same issue; the only difference is, instead of forming the generalization through our own experiences (however limited they may be), we’re having them thrust upon us by oustide sources and, through a couple of odd workings of the mind based on calling the thing a “study” and attaching a number to it, lent some air of credibility in the process.
You’re right when you note that this is potentially a particularly dangerous scenario, because the “fact” being presented need not be one we’d ever have conceived for ourselves. Indeed, the more “out of left field” it is in relation to the topics we’ve considered, the GREATER the likelihood that we might chance to accept it at face value, if for no other reason than “hey, what the fuck do I know better about that?”.
Granted, not everyone succumbs to this way of thinking. There are those that maintain a conscious vigilance against applying these conclusions in this manner. There’s an unusual preponderance of them on this board, from what I can tell. I hope, one day, to be able to isolate the mental process that allows these people to maintain this level of situational awareness in day-to-day life, and to be able to teach its application to others. The world would be a better place for it.
Hey, just one more societal psychology problem to add to the heap. But thanks for bringing it up and letting me rant a little…always nice to air out the old philosophies occasionally. 
