Correct, but not logical. It would fail in all cases where glandular disease did exist, and in all cases where the bulk of the very large American just seen was primarily muscle.
And, in the case where the generalization takes on popular currency, Americans are fat because they are Americans, it becomes prejudice.
Tris
Of course. But these would likely be a very small percentage of cases, as compared to cases where there was no glandular disease, and the guy who looks fat is in fact so (its rare that you can’t tell the difference between fat and muscle). It is frequently of value - or even of mere interest - to know that certain things are most likely true, even if it is not out of the realm of possiblity that they are not.
Of course, it would depend on how definitive a statement was being made. If you absolutely guaranteed that that the guy was fat from overeating and not from a glandular condition, you might be overstating it. But if you merely said that the overwhelming likelihood is that this was the case, you would be logical and proper. And this statement might be valuable insight for someone who was from a culture in which the reverse was the case (i.e. glandular problems were more common than overeating).
In the Gobear case, it was clear that there was a certain amount of speculating going on, in the assertion that the guy was a “frat boy”. As such, Gobear was merely saying, based on his experience with Korean culture, that the better judgment is that this was the result of this culture.
A is not equivalent to your statement about James. More equivalent would be:
A. America churns out racists by the truckload.
B. All Americans are racist.
Again, if we were to go by your post in the thread about James, the choices should be:
A. Korea churns out mama’s boys by the truckload.
B. All Korean men are mama’s boys.
Had you phrased your comments in that thread the way you did in this OP, I doubt Hamlet would have quarreled.
Keeping specifically to the op-
Stereotypes and generalizations may be true or they may be untrue. Often we believe stereotypes are true based only on a limited, selected and/or artificial set of experiences with the target group.
The few Korean men I know are not Mama’s boys. They are hardworking academics, professionals, and businessmen. This in no way qualifies me to comment on what most Korean men are.
When one uses a stereotype one must be cautious. One must examine what basis one has for holding that stereotype. Is it based more on media images, or a very selected set of experiences with a particular subset of the population? Or is it really based on a broad representational sample of the population in question.
In short, the existence of a stereotype is no evidence for the truth of the stereotype even if you can point to a variety of experiences in which it is true. Shorter yet, use a stereotype or generalization, be prepared to prove it is true rather than a humble opinion.
I thought I have read that OP before… 
All general statements are false! 
The following statement is true.
The preceding statement was false.
– GCWithout generalizations a great deal of knowledge and normal human interaction simply could not happen. The problem with generalizations is not that they are abused by some or twisted by others. I would find fault with that opinion should anyone say so. They are no more an arbiter of sound generalization than you or I. The problem, I think, lies rather in some people’s stubborn insistence on interpreting any particular generalization as a universally applicable statement (i.e., “for all x, x is y”). That is one use of generalization; it is not the exclusive application of generalizations. They are just as guilty of the same mistake, by suggesting that their rather narrow interpretation of generalizations are universal. Generalizations are not. This, I feel, is obvious by inspection. “Eggs are good [to me]” is not a statement that no rotten egg could possibly exist, or that I always want to eat an egg, or somesuch. It is absurd to think so. The facet of that generalization does not change when we shift from dairy products to people, but for some the emotional commitment increases to the point of needlessly obscuring a rather useful feature of human activity. That is not to say it is without hazards, of course. Finding the range of the generalizations one makes is, to me, an endeavor we should all undertake. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not.
Erl, The first part is certainly true … we’ve both been in many discussions about the value of induction as a means of knowledge production and of the interactions between exemplars and prototypes. All induction is, at its root, making generalizations.
The second part … well find fault with my opinion then, for I see that as a major problem. Let us illustrate with a generalization and determine how it have been generated.
“Jews are pushy.”
Now someone saying this may state that they don’t mean that all Jews are pushy. they may say that they have good freinds who are Jewish. They may explain to me that they don’t mean me, I’m not a pushy Jew, but that most Jews are. He may even come up with a just-so story about Jewish cultural heritage to explain why they are pushy in the main.
How did this individual form that generalization? Perhaps with a few experiences with individuals who were identified as Jewish and who were pushy, and solidified by a few media images of the same. He may have had many experiences with nonpushy miquetoast Jews but not even have been aware of their religion. He certainly had no experience with a wide representative selection of Jewish people.
He however repeats that generalization and others with few exemplars of “Jew” have his canard as one of their few exemplars of “Jew”.
Poor sample sets lead to poor generalizations and the public repetition of inaccurate generalizations perpetuates the error. This process can be done with any minority stereotype. These are abuses and twists of generalizations even if performed with no malintent.
You raise a really good point, gobear. I know I for one have been guilty of making generalizations in the past when I should not have been.
For example (and I preface this by saying I try really hard to not be a racist), let’s assume that a white child from a middle-class neighborhood in a major urban city has minimal exposure to people of minority races. Through TV and other means, he has learned that there are many dangerous people living in his city and that a large number of them are of minority races. He may therefore be wary and distrustful of minorities in general, even when he is completely unjustified in doing so - because of the way he’s been conditioned.
I admit I’ve occasionally fallen into stereotyping people kinda like this. I think it boils down to the fact that generalizations are rarely completely unfounded, and though most obviously can’t be true for every member classified therein, many people uphold them against said people for a myriad of reasons - most of which probably amount to conditioning, how they were raised, perhaps following examples of parents/guardians, etc.
It’s unfortunate, I know. What can we do about it, though?
I don’t think we disagree DSeid, it is more that I don’t take out the failings of bad generalizers on generalizations. That was the emphasis of the sentence you quote.
So, why revive a dead thread?
Who are you talking to?
JSGoddess, I guess.