Faulty Generalizations

As humans, we live in a world of abstractions and generalizations. All words that name or characterize what we think about are products of the mental act of generalizing. 2 But as semanticists rightly remind us: “cow 1 is not cow 2 is not cow 3.” Each and every existing thing is unique. Bishop Butler put this point in a memorable way in remarking, “Everything is itself and not another.”

Despite the uniqueness of things, the words we use in categorizing what we experience glosses over uniqueness and concentrates on similarities or differences (in general). As such, we talk in general terms about tables, chairs, cows, crows, people, poems, and social movements. Despite the fact that there are useful things we can say about individual tables, chairs, cows, crows, people, poems, and social movements, we are nevertheless forced to “generalize” in countless ways. We talk in general terms about nearly everything that interests us: life and death, love and hate, success and failure, war and peace.

We should be careful, therefore, not to triumph in a discussion by saying “THAT IS A GENERALIZATION!” (and therefore “automatically” faulty). We must remember that generalizing is integral to the foundations of communication. It enables us to construct the concepts through which we conduct all our thinking. 3

For a particular generalization to be a “fallacy,” it must be based either on too few instances or unrepresentative ones. For example, if we meet three amusing Italians while on a visit to Rome, we are not justified in making the generalization that all or most Italians are amusing (there is no reason to think that the three we met were representative of all or most Italians). On the other hand, determining whether a generalization is justified is not merely a matter of counting instances. For example, if you touch a hot stove and burn your hand, one instance should be enough to convince you of the wisdom of the generalization, “Never touch a hot stove with your bare hand.” On the basis of very few experiences you would be justified in making the even wider generalization, “Never touch extremely hot objects with your naked flesh.”

Well, then, how can we ensure that we are making justifiable generalizations? The answer is that we need to make sure we have sufficient evidence to justify our generalizations. For example, the more diverse the group we are generalizing about, the harder it is to generalize in a justifiable way about it. Thus, it is easier to make generalizations about frogs (given the consistency in frog behavior) than it is about domesticated dogs (whose behavior varies more, from dog to dog and dog species to dog species). In a like manner, it is easier to generalize about domesticated dogs than it is about humans (whose behavior varies along many parameters). Humans behavior is highly diverse. Consider yourself as an example.

You were born into a culture (European, American, African, Asian). You were born at some point in time (in some century in some year). You were born in some place (in the country, in the city, in the North or South, East or West). You were raised by parents with particular beliefs (about the family, personal relationships, marriage, childhood, obedience, religion, politics, schooling, etc.). You came to the world with certain predispositions that influenced your development as you interacted with your environment. You formed various associations, largely based on who was around you, associations with people who had distinct viewpoints, values, and who adhered to certain taboos. Because of all of these influences, you are a complex and unique individual. One should therefore be cautious in forming generalizations about you, just as you should be cautious in forming generalizations regarding others.

This does not mean of course that there are no important generalizations we can make about humans. For example, there are features we share with all other humans. For instance, given what we know about the human mind we can make the following generalizations:

1. It is essential for our intellectual growth that we come to know the scope and limits of our intellectual capacities.
2. Most people do not recognize their tendency to think egocentrically and ethnocentrically.
3. Most people resist understanding the implications of their social conditioning and the ethnocentrism inherent in it.

One important series of studies, the Milgram Experiments, 4 document the human tendency to conform (uncritically) to the commands of authority figures, even when those authority figures have no power to punish or compel them to conform and even when the authority figures are asking them to do what they know to be “unethical.”

Another series of studies of the “mutual images of the enemy,” document a striking intellectual disability of humans. It occurs when groups come in conflict with each other for the same goal. Each side to the conflict then attributes the same virtues to itself and the same vices to the enemy. WE are “trustworthy, peace-loving, honorable, and humanitarian.” THEY (our enemies) are “treacherous, warlike, and cruel.” 5

We can readily find examples of this phenomenon in the daily news, which is filled with positive characterizations of “our side” and caricatures of those who oppose us. Self-aggrandizing generalizations that feed the human ego are always welcome and easily “believed.” Negative generalizations of those who oppose us are also welcome, as easily believed, and for similar reasons. As social animals we do not want to face our fear and distrust of members of groups we oppose. We avoid facing the fact that we are very much like the people we hate and fear. The pain, the suffering, the waste of resources that result from acting on the thinking we generate egocentrically and sociocentrically, boggles the mind.