Generalizing in a Politically Correct World

Perhaps the most consistent argument one faces when discussing politically incorrect subjects is the knee-jerkingly reflexive, “You can’t generalize like that!” They usually follow this with an anecdote about someone’s friend’s cousin who lives next door to a lady in a neighbouring town - ten years ago. The purpose of telling this story is that it “obviously proves” the politically incorrect premise is wrong. It is the trick of personalizing an individual characteristic over a group characteristic - which shows the person giving the anecdote has already lost the plot and is not arguing in good faith.

Any logical person will soon realize that when discussing macro-issues regarding society and its trends, not only can you generalize but, in fact, you must generalize. To cannot generalize is to demand all things must only be one-dimensionally and in terms of the lowest common denominator. A more complex and proper way of thinking is that “there are individual groups and there are individuals within those groups.”

For example, saying something like “women have larger breasts than men” is a sweeping generalization. But it’s a true one–even though some women have smaller breasts than some men. In the collective group of “women” there will be some individual women who have small breasts, while in the collective group of “men” there will be some porky men sporting a set of man-boobs. But only a simpleton would try to cherry pick a flat chested woman and stand her next to a

Man-boobed male and claim that this is in any way an honest reflection of the physical nature of man and woman therefore, we should not say that “women have larger breasts than men” anymore. It would be lunacy! The only thing we might learn then is that “both men and women have nipples.”

Generalizations are absolutely necessary in order to learn anything about macro-issues and societal trends.

Of course, what a person cannot do is take one individual and generalize that the entire group resembles that individual. Feminists have been screeching to the winds that someone like Marc Lepine, a Canadian who committed mass murderer and school shooter who perpetrated the December 6, 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, which left 15 people dead (including Lépine himself) and 14 others injured, is “proof” of the murderous hatred men harbour for women. You can simply dismiss this as belief simple due to the fact that the actions of one man are indeed not a reflection of the mentality of the all of the men who live in Canada. This would be a negative and harmful generalization.

But, to say that men are taller or heavier than women? Yes, this is a proper generalization, because most men are taller and heavier than most women–even though in some individual cases, you will see a taller or heavier woman than a man.

We generalize that “birds fly.” But there would be some that we stat that you can’t generalize like that! Don’t you know that Emus, Ostriches, Kiwis and Penguins don’t fly? This is such a lame argument and it ought to be obvious that any biologist worth his salt must generalize that “birds fly.” Look up, grasshopper… not down!

In fact, generalizing is very beneficial and is used successfully in many areas of society - such as when the insurance industry analyzes the average frequency of an event (i.e. a house fire) in order to offer protection to the individual homeowner while still reliably turning a profit. The government generalizes as well when they pass such laws as speed limits with fines for punishment. They fully understood that not all the people will reduce their speed, but most of them will and therefore, it works to keep most people driving at a reasonable speed and makes the roads safer - which is the positive result that is being sought.

Another example is that if we can see that men politically vote 60/40 for principles extolling freedom versus those which promote socialism, while women vote 30/70 on the same issues, then there is little doubt that over time the government will become less freedom oriented and much more mired in socialism - as has been explored by John Lott and Lawrence Kenny’s study titled, “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?”

Many of the arguments that get put forward regarding sensitive issues (like the War of the Sexes) automatically get dismissed with the intellectually dishonest statement, “You can’t generalize like that.”

Nonsense.

In fact, no-one is going to figure out anything if they cannot generalize. Ignoring the similar actions/traits/situations in 80% of the cases because 20% of the cases do not coincide… well… that will not help us at all in analyzing the world as it unfolds about us.

The thing to keep in mind is that there are individual groups (i.e. men and women), and there are individuals within those groups.

The way to learn something is to recognize that the trait of the group follows in “this” direction, even though there are individual exceptions which follow “that” direction.

It’s time to stop looking for the lowest common denominator.

There are individual groups, and there are individuals within those groups.