What do you mean when you say that "generalizations are false"?

I’ve never heard that expression used other than as a joke. As in “All generalizations are false.”

I can’t stand generalizations, because they do individuals a disservice. None of us are the same, not even a few in a group of ten are similar in outlook or opinions.

For instance, as a theist, I am subject to millions of different ‘wrongs’ committed by every person or all (christian) faiths around the world. While I understand life isn’t fair, it’s important to me that we make distinctions between people or we don’t see the big picture.

Are all Moslems trying to kill us or is that just fanatics? When we limit our perspective to generalizations, it limits us and leads us (imo) to a narrow-minded way of thinking.

One of the reasons I was intrigued with fluther orginally is because I kept seeing these broad generalizations about groups of people and jellies were adamnant about their opinions, which left no room for an individual to express original content and be believed.

Were all Native American Indians spiritual, no.
Are all gay people flamboyant, no.

@KNOWITALL – Thanks. So, if I understand you correctly, your opposition to generalizations is that some people might misunderstand what a generalization is? In other words, to say that men are taller than women appears to be claiming that all men are taller than all women (or that a segment of the population will be incapable of distinguishing the fact that men are on average taller than women from the statement that all men are taller than all women)?

Part of my question is really trying to understand if it’s possible to communicate without using generalization. It seems that much of our language is generalization. Most people resent political correctness for requiring “some”, “sometimes”, or other qualifiers when making innocuous statements. Are we overly-parenthetical in our speech, or are we able to communicate in ways that speak in broad generalizations and are understood to be generalizations and not taken literally?

Apparently a lot of people from atheists to rightwingers don’t understand what a generalization is, as we witness here on fluther many times. It seems to lead to an interpretation of a person based on the generalization itself.

If you hate theists because someone knocked on your door a few times in the past, or someone tried to witness to you in the past and wouldn’t take no for an answer, I feel that stigma is put on me when I innocently say “I’m a theist.”

For the purposes of communication between mature adults, I think it impedes more than helps, in the way we interract and view each other. I’ve seen it happen here on fluther many many times, it’s just not helpful, it’s divisive.

Bell curves exist.

Those who say that generalizations are false are referring to the fallacy of assuming that the extremes represent the median.

Personally, I think some generalizations are true as they have a statistically high likelihood, though they should be understood to mean “the majority of…” rather than “all”.

@KNOWITALL That is why I think there should be more of an effort by sane Conservatives and mainstream Christians to distance themselves from the Batshit Brigade. Well, that, and the “Silence is complicity” angle.

@KNOWITALL – I think we’re talking about different things. You might actually be referring to inaccurate statements, rather than what I am referring to. Go back to my men and women height thing or the humans having 2 legs.

If the discussion was about people who identified as Christians, of course a nuanced and thorough discussion of Christianity would include every imaginable flavor and belief. But it would not be inaccurate to say that Christians believe that Jesus existed, right? There are Christians who don’t believe that Jesus existed. So, do we have to alter our statement every time – even when it’s not the core of our discussion – to say, ”Some Christians believe that Jesus existed.”?

I’m not talking about people making wrong statements – rather, don’t we all make generalizations all the time when we speak? When diving into a topic, we allow for all of the details to emerge. And that’s a good thing. But I’m wondering how many comments here in fluther are free from generalizations of any type.

@jerv How would a sane conservative christian differentiate themselves except through communication? If you refuse to see me as an individual after two years of discussion, then I’m just another Christian Republican, worthy of ridicule because of what those two thing’s define in YOUR head. That doesn’t make them true however, but I can wear that inacurate stigma, although it’s not my choice.

@hominid Yes, people make generalizations all the time, and I believe some are less divisive than others, of course.

My interpretation is that all generalizations will contain a sample population that will then make the generalization false.

@KNOWITALL You’re talking about a specific fallacy called a hasty generalisation, not generalisation in general. Ironically, you’re generalising about generalisation.

@hominid: I think “humans have two legs” is a fact, not a generalization. Humans not having two legs are the exception.

@jca – You could be right. I might be using “generalization” incorrectly, which resulted in my confusion.

In general, however, don’t humans have two legs? Isn’t that why we can make that statement without requiring “most”?

@Kropotkin lol, maybe so. My point is that some generalizations, or operating based on that alone, are more misleading than others. Most humans do have two legs, but I wouldn’t agree that most Christians believe all gay people are going to Hell.

Merriam Webster says:

gen·er·al·i·za·tion

* a general statement : a statement about a group of people or things that is based on only a few people or things in that group

* the act or process of forming opinions that are based on a small amount of information

“Humans have two legs” is neither based on observation of only a few humans, nor is it based on only a small amount of information. So I’d say you may have been using it wrong. Me too, actually.

@longgone That’s a pretty bad definition from Merriam Webster.

Generalisation is the process of inferring the general from the particular (from a sample to the population). I observe 100 people walking on two legs, and infer that people generally have two legs.

Also, that all or practically all people have two legs is a generalization because the property of having two legs is true for all or practically all humans.

It’s this second meaning that Merriam Webster doesn’t cover, and it mangles the first one.

When someone makes a generalization, what they’re actually describing is their conceptual model of the class in question. These conceptual models are a necessary expedient; they allow us to make predictions based on past experience, and to communicate with others on an abstract level. We all use them.

But models are only models. At some level of resolution, they inevitably break down. By their nature, conceptual models are simplifications that can’t account for the complexities of the real. They’re “false” in that they’re models, not the real thing.

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be used. They perform a valuable function, though exactly how valuable they are depends on the accuracy of the conceptual model and the scope of the experience on which it’s based. When people object to the use of generalities, they’re really just making a point of order that these are models, not the thing itself. That’s often a worthwhile reminder, because we do tend to forget that. People also object when the model being presented is so simplistic that it functions poorly even as a model.

Most of us negotiate a peculiarly human tension between wanting to see ourselves as part of something bigger than ourselves and wanting to see ourselves as unique individuals. We put ourselves into categories of our own choosing to satisfy the first of those wants, and we’re OK with thinking that “I belong to this or that group” because it’s our own choice, and we get to decide exactly what that means. But when someone else makes those decisions about us according to their own meanings, we often feel that this violates our individual dimension, and so we raise objections.

“All generalizations are false to some degree.”

I think is the implied end to the statement. Where that demarcation is depends on the subject of the generalization.

@rojo Except for the generalizations that have no exceptions.

In other words, to say that men are taller than women appears to be claiming that all men are taller than all women (or that a segment of the population will be incapable of distinguishing the fact that men are on average taller than women from the statement that all men are taller than all women)?
Therein lies the lynch pin of the whole issue. That is part of my continued bewilderment with this community, and some out in the non-cyber world. People, or should I say some (insert what number you want) people seem to not know they generalize, even when they say they abhor generalizations. For instance, there have been many threads where the relationships between older men and much younger women come up, people generalize that those unions are in some way less than unions in which the couple’s ages are closer, or within a certain ”formula”. Each one of those relationships are individual relationships, where one may be formed on faulty or less than genuine precepts, another might be a union that would transcend all time with the couple being as loving and nurturing to each other and so much a single unit as feathers to a bird. People read what they want to read into it based off their own slant or the slant they learn from their peers; often generalizations. Not every man who seeks to have a much younger woman does so because he has the fantasy of boinking his daughter, or the young woman having ”daddy issues”; sometimes it happens because the people click, and age had nothing to do with it. People (some) will take the word or phrase and try to hammer it into each and every situation to make it fit how they want it to fit, and not fit it where it goes.

@Hypocrisy_Central It may be a weird fluther thing, I notice it here more than anywhere else.

@Hypocrisy_Central @KNOWITALL I have seen this dynamic at another couple forums where long answer/comments/discussions can take place especially where usually the antagonists are for the most part anonymous and can take cheap potshots at the other members.

I almost never saw/see it at EP or AB because the answers are short and sweet with little chance to develop beyond generalizations.

@Cruiser The only reason it bothers me so much here is because I am a Republican & I am a theist so I feel like I get lumped into every negative box without even getting to clarify MY thoughts or feelings.

Broad statements about any political group, race, sexual orientation, etc… is ignorant to me. One or two atheists here may have been real turn-off’s in their behavior, sure, but that doesn’t mean the next atheist I talk to will be treated poorly.

@KNOWITALL: “The only reason it bothers me so much here is because I am a Republican & I am a theist so I feel like I get lumped into every negative box without even getting to clarify MY thoughts or feelings.”

Again, this is the point of fluther (in my humble opinion). Don’t waste any effort trying to protect your feelings about someone being incorrect about something. If you have a position on something, make that position known. The only way we can know about your take on something is to hear it from you.

Anyway, @thorninmud nailed it. Thanks.

My feeling’s aren’t hurt, I just find it annoying and ignorant. ;)

@KNOWITALL I think you already know all too well you are not in the majority here and I can tell you being a Conservative and an Atheist won’t get any more favor points here either. Plus IMO you get a better mental workout swimming upstream.

If you have a position on something, make that position known. The only way we can know about your take on something is to hear it from you.
That is no slam dunk either, I have made my position known and why my position is my position, and I still get generalized as a bigoted, misogynistic, stubborn, closed-minded, delusional, deviant, homophobe, and worse. People do not want to hear the position or respect it if it is does not fit the ”generalization” they believe or champion.

@Cruiser Bite your tongue, sir, I am a theist!!!! hahahaha!

Frankly, I didn’t know that coming in here, then when I started seeing all the rude bashing I was intrigued.

It does give me a better perspective on some things though, like why my auntie asked me not to use God’s name in her house, so I am glad for the knowledge, I just didn’t realize people would be so disparaging without knowing someone better. I’ve seen since then that a full assault on the uninitiated is typical…or was.

@Hypocrisy_Central and @KNOWITALL – This is getting slightly off-topic.

@Hypocrisy_Central: “That is no slam dunk either, I have made my position known and why my position is my position, and I still get generalized as a bigoted, misogynistic, stubborn, closed-minded, delusional, deviant, homophobe, and worse.”

There is no definition of generalization I’m aware of that even vaguely describes what you are talking about here.

@hominid Geesh, sorry, it IS in social.

@KNOWITALL I meant I am the Atheist and conveyed my conservative opinions meet equal resistance. Must just be the conservative aspect then I was raised a God fearing Catholic and proud Democrat in the City of Chicago….just like all my neighbors. Right out of college my liberal view began to erode when I started two of my own businesses and felt the instant searing pain of self employment taxes and the struggle it was to run a business in the oppressive business environment of Chicago and the amount of flak I got from the unions is a whole other story. Funny part is when I did hire Union workers they always quit or didn’t shop up because my work was truly a ball buster. I remember getting hassled by the Union bosses when I would show up at a job site and after they saw the work I had to do they wound by buying me coffees.

@KNOWITALL: “Geesh, sorry, it IS in social.”

Some of us have been lectured about these guidelines so frequently (and the mods’ interpretation of said guidelines), that I am attempting to follow them and ask others to follow them so there is no confusion or special cases.

Since everyone seems ok with the guidelines, I’m sure nobody will have a problem.

Responses must:

- Relate to the discussion

Responses must not:

- Disrupt the discussion

Generalizations are like judgement, if they’re not one and the same. Everyone does it, even if they claim otherwise, and while most of it is blown out of proportion through bias and ignorance, generalizations always come from a kernel of truth.

I see it this way, whenever you watch a movie that’s based on a true story; the basis for the movie exists, but usually has very little to do with what the movie is showing.

Another problem with generalizations is that they’re usually based off singular experiences and opinions, which fails to do the definition of the word ’‘generalization’’ justice to begin with.

All cops are pigs! Some are, some are fine men, but often one experience will serve to paint an entire subject.

Technically you would be right; humans have two legs, but you know as well as I how far generalizations can go to point at so many different things.

@hominid I was talking about how generalizations have affected me and the community as a whole, and you replied to me on the subject. It’s your world though.

@hominid There is no definition of generalization I’m aware of that even vaguely describes what you are talking about here.
Let me knot it together, you have a group of 15 Flutheronians who believe in ’X’, I would take a neutral position that doesn’t jive with their position. I get generalized as a supporter for cause ’C’ which runs afoul of position ’X’, or thought of as the opposition to position ’X’, and attacked for it, when I had said no such thing, I just pointed out there was another possible option. Such as your ”men are usually taller than women” being mistaken for ”every man is taller than every woman”, which if anyone used their logic, would know not to be 100% accurate, but more accurate than absolutely false.

Here is a previous question asked on the same topic. One of the points that came up back then is that there is distinction to be made between universal and restricted generalizations. Universal generalizations make claims about all members of a class. Restricted generalizations make claims about trends or averages within a class.

In the case of a universal generalization, a single counterexample is enough to demonstrate that it is false. If someone claims that all X’s are Y’s, and if there is even one X that is not a Y, then the claim is to be rejected. That’s the risk of making a universal generalization: you’re making a claim about everything that exists.

In the case of a restricted generalization, however, a single counterexample is not enough to demonstrate that it is false. This is because the claim that most X’s are Y’s can be true even if there are several examples of X’s that are not Y’s. Most apples are red, and this is true despite the fact that there are plenty of green apples in the world.

So what I’m saying when I call a specific generalization false depends on what sort of generalization I am discussing. If it’s a universal generalization, I am saying that there is at least one counterexample. If it’s a restricted generalization, I am saying that the trend posited by the generalization doesn’t really exist.

I would never say, however, that all generalizations are false (except, perhaps, in jest). After all, there are too many examples—both universal and restricted—that are true: all bachelors are unmarried, no circles are squares, houses are typically bigger than apartments, most mammals are diphyodonts.

When I use it what I really mean is that I am a butt-hurt liberal and you totally fucked up my chakras.

@KNOWITALL When your experiences with the extremes have been bad enough, it’s easy to forget what those near the median are like.

@Blondesjon LMFAO!

Well ya know, all blondes are ditzy, all muslims are terrorists and all black people eat fried chicken. I am not a ditzy blonde, just slightly scattered at times. lol

@hominid I’m glad someone else on fluther understands that a generalization does not mean all the people in the group are the same. Also, human being do group things to make things simpler. I had a big argument about this on a Q a while back, I can’t find it. I literally had to link definitions from the dictionary. Some of our language experts still argued with me. I can’t for the life of me understand it. The word generalization can mean everyone in a group, be it also can mean that the majority fall within the generalization, it does not have to mean all. I never think it means all, it is not how I use it or hear it, unless someone specifies all.

Since @KNOWITALL brought up being republican and I theist I will use that as an example. In real life I make generalizations about Christians and Republicans, and I never in a million years would think all the people in those groups all think the same or act the same, but we can generalize about what the groups believe and do. I just can’t see the problem. When people generalize about Jews, I don’t feel like they think I must be like that since I am Jewish. I just point out I am not part of the generalization, and then I usually can agree that a lot of Jewish people do think that way though, or vote that way, or whatever it is.

Fluther is so defensive about generalizations it is very strange to me. Now I always try to clarify that I know not all people in a group fit whatever generalization I am making so people don’t jump all over me. It’s exhausting.

How hard is it to say “most,” “many,” “a lot of..,” or “almost all” of whatever group you are discussing?

That’s why qualifiers exist; in general, they serve a purpose.

@Kropotkin Can you give me an example of a Generalization that has no exceptions?

Humans need air to breathe?

Um, fish?

^^ Good point.

No fair @gailcalled you changed your answer!

@rojo:I know, but I acknowleged that you were correct.

Does “all living creatures need oxygen to breathe” work?

Yep, you did and I appreciate it.

I am looking into it. Astronauts breath pure oxygen when in a space suit, which is not technically air. I am trying to find out what the creatures an the hydrothermal vents need. I think they have a form of chemosythesis so they would not need oxygen.

@gailcalled: “That’s why qualifiers exist; in general, they serve a purpose.”

:)

Wrongo @gailcalled….humans need lungs to breathe air which contains oxygen….fish need gills to filter oxygen out of the water to survive and both those statements are not generalizations….they are empirical facts. If there is any doubt in your mind…go buy a dozen doughnuts! ;)

@Cruiser Gots to agree, obvious fact and generalization prolly ain’t much the same.

Great. Now I want donuts…

@gailcalled That’s what I try to do now here on fluther, use the qualifiers. It is tedious and unnecessary most of the time in my opinion. Generalizations and using “in general” implies not all. It is a valid definition of the terms. It seems some people were raised or use generalizations to mean all people in a group and I guess that just shows what type of environment they grew up in. Where statements about groups meant they really did think all people in that group are exactly the same.

I actually think what happens is someone starts to write, Christians, black people, Jewish people, Liberals, Hispanics, Southerners, Yankees, and on and on, and then a bunch of Jellies get all ready to see what is going to follow. What screwed up assumption is the author going to write that we can jump all over. The people who dwell on the wording aren’t arguing the points of the statement though. If I say the Jewish vote generally goes to democrats, and someone decides to dwell on not all Jews are registered democrats, nor do they all vote for democrats, that really is missing the point. I’m fine with someone pointing it out, but let’s move from that quickly. What would be more interesting and worth a conversation is why do the majority of Jewish people tend to vote Democrat and tend to be liberal.

@JLeslie One thing that doesn’t help is that some people make different assumptions and therefore leave out a few words thinking that some things are implied. For instance, I automatically assume that there are exceptions to almost every rule, so I myself often omit terms like “most” or “generally”. Accordingly, those that don’t have the same disclaimer in their thought processes won’t have the implied exceptions I do, and therefore I often get called out for painting with a broader brush than I am really using.

@jerv I think we are agreeing.

When a doctor says the antibiotic Pen V K cures strep throat, no one goes on and on about how that is not always true in every case of strep throat. Generally (theree is that word again, 8 guess I should us usually instead) it is true that that medicine is prescribed for that infections, and the majority of the time it works. Even medical men, people of science, generalize. They know there are exceptions in science and that each individual body system synthesizes the drugs differently.

@rojo @Cruiser: Making my point (much better than I did) that using language precisely makes the reader less apt to say, “Huh, what do you mean?” or “Please clarily,” thereby saving everyone time and energy.

Now, speaking of clarity, what do donuts got to do with the price of fish? Do donuts have either gills or lungs? Or was that an April 1 reference that I missed? Do both fish and humans eat too many donuts?

@gailcalled Are there really people who think everyone in a group is exactly the same? Those people are so closed minded, racist, prejudice, pick a descriptive word. I don’t see how they would last here on fluther, let alone out in the real world.

Are you going to write your congressman or the President’s people for generalizing about voting groups?

Do you really not know that someone does not mean all when they generalize? You really don’t understand what is implied?

@gailcalled There was earlier evidence in a Jelly question that some humans who need lungs to breathe air did not know how to quantify the number 12 and appeared thoroughly confused over that matter and I gave them explicit instructions to go to Dunkin Donuts and get a dozen donuts and eat one at a time and when they are all gone that was 12! Moral of the story is eating a dozen donuts will remove all doubt.

@JLeslie – I think what @gailcalled is getting at (and I’m not sure I disagree considering my experience here) is that we (those of us who are tempted to drop qualifiers for a more conversational tone) can avoid confusing those who are unable to understand language without seeing qualifiers every other word.

I’ll try to throw in a bunch of qualifiers like we did (those of us who were here at the time) for a brief time here a couple of years ago. I like to experiment with language and communication, generally. That is, right now I am in the mood to. It should be fun – and I might learn something.

@hominid I don’t have a problem with that. I agree that the qualifiers make the sentence more clear, but I feel like @gailcalled is saying she believes the phrases and terms, in general, generalization, and generally, don’t mean or can’t mean usually, commonly, or a way to refer to the majority. That’s where my particular problem lies with this conversation. @gailcalled is a bit of a wordsmith, and I respect her command of the English language. She is quick to correct people, which usually I don’t mind, I want to know when I used a word incorrectly or spelled something wrong, when it is obvious it was not a simple typo.

The problem I do have, and the reason I get annoyed, is when the conversation goes way off tangent about using the words we are discussing rather than just clarifying and moving forward in the conversation. Jellies get downright offended and pissed off that anyone dare to say all people in a group are the same. I can see why, that is almost never true about anything. How often is all or never correct? Almost never.

@JLeslie – I share your concerns. I think @gailcalled is proposing speaking to the lowest common denominator, however, as a pragmatic way of avoiding having to clean up a mess made by speech that is unclear to some people. This could be a “know your audience” moment. It could be a fun experiment.

@hominid I think know your audience is very important. At this point I am just waiting to see if @gailcalled agrees generalization can be used to mean usually or commonly. A generalization can also mean all, I am not disputing that. I am not disputing that the more we clarify, the less likely there will be a miscommunication. For whatever reason she seems to not want to agree to it. The two things are not mutually exclusive. We can say it is best to be as specific as possible and also agree the words generalization, and generally can refer to the majority. There is nothing incorrect about using those words, it just can possibly be better stated to ensure the meaning is understood.

I want to add, when a jelly asks another jelly to clarify, are they worried about whether the Internet world understands the sentence? Or, are they clarifying for their own understanding? I say it’s the latter. So, when Joe Jelly writes, ”@hominid, when you say people who live in Michigan say pop not soda, do you mean all people there say pop?” Do you think Joe is asking so you clarify for all the jellies on the Q, or clarifying for himself?

Correction: I should not have put a comma between generalization and generally in my answer two above.

@JLeslie; I agree to whatever you want. I’ll sign anywhere.

@gailcalled Whatever that means. What the hell? You can’t say whether you agree or not that generalizations can be about the majority of the group and doesn’t have to mean the entire group. Let me help you, this is not a medical question, I’m not pissed off that you are trying to shut me up. I am genuinely interested in your answer regarding the English language.

@JLeslie I actually think what happens is someone starts to write, Christians, black people, Jewish people, Liberals, Hispanics, Southerners, Yankees, and on and on, and then a bunch of Jellies get all ready to see what is going to follow. What screwed up assumption is the author going to write that we can jump all over.
DING DING DING DING Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Let’s give this woman a prize, she see the problem very clearly. That is almost what happens at least once in just about every thread I read; people are quick to put a large chip on their shoulder.

The problem I do have, and the reason I get annoyed, is when the conversation goes way off tangent about using the words we are discussing rather than just clarifying and moving forward in the conversation. Jellies get downright offended and pissed off that anyone dare to say all people in a group are the same.
Yup! You Nailed it right on the head!

@hominid I think what @gailcalled is getting at (and I’m not sure I disagree considering my experience here) is that we (those of us who are tempted to drop qualifiers for a more conversational tone) can avoid confusing those who are unable to understand language without seeing qualifiers every other word.
Isn’t that were the smarter minds on Fluther are supposed to kick in, to extrapolate the data by the context of the statement or question, not by weather ”all” is everyone or nearly everyone in the given situation that the poster is presenting. If someone was to say to me ”Why do all young Black men sag their pants?” I have enough common sense to know they are not talking about every single young Black man, but those in the area or city we are in. And I am not MENSA worthy and I can figure out that much; as they say, it isn’t rocket science.

@Hypocrisy_Central DING DING DING DING Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

LOL what the Devil haha. Can’t stop laughing. Chicken dinner. Lmao.

But this reminds me of the question you asked before, how whenever someone mentions a touchy subject, people on here all seem to automatically assume that what one brings up, one must be for, or against.

Say I ask, why do all Asians have black hair? Someone WILL eventually walk into my question and tell me I’m racist.

LOL. Here’s thing both @Hypocrisy_Central and @Symbeline actually used the word all in their examples about sagging pants and Asians having black hair, and the OP is not even talking about saying all, he is talking about generalizing, which does not even have to imply all at all.

I don’t think I ever say all unless I really think it is every single person, and I am still jumped on.

^ Correct. The word “all” means it’s not a generalization, right?. That is why I think some of us may be talking past each other.

1. Dogs have four legs. (the generalization)
2. All dogs have four legs. (the specific statement that contains a qualifier – the wrong one)

The reason I asked this is that some people here on fluther seem to interpret #1 as meaning #2.

@hominid Sure, everybody does that.

@rojo: ”@hominid Sure, everybody does that.”

?

@hominid

^^ :)

I was just generalizing

@rojo: “I was just generalizing”

…by taking away the “general” and making a specific statement that includes the entire set of people?

For the record, I really have no idea what I’m even talking about anymore. Thanks.

@rojo I was just generalizing
How do you know everyone doesn’t do it?

@Hypocrisy_Central that is one of the nice thing about talking in generalities, you don’t have to provide statistics to back up your claim.

@hominid Well, everybody is pretty general, as is that. I do agree that does is pretty specific though.

@rojo: ”@Hypocrisy_Central that is one of the nice thing about talking in generalities, you don’t have to provide statistics to back up your claim.”

In your case, however, you do have to back up your claim, because it’s a specific one.

@rojo: “Well, everybody is pretty general”

Are you just messing with me now because I’m tired and confused? I can’t see how a statement could be less general than “everybody”.

My mind is going to explode, however, if I continue to attempt to parse “as is that. I do agree that does is pretty specific though”.

@hominid

“Everybody does it” as opposed to ”@hominid, @Hypocrisy_Central and @jerv (and each other person on Fluther) does it”

@rojo – You are then saying that…

everybody == flutherUsers

…in a way that would require that…

flutherUsers[x] == true

…where x < numberOfFlutherUsers.

I don’t see that as a generalization. That’s not what I meant. I meant it in way of the examples I have provided in the question as well as “dogs have four legs”.

But saying that “dogs have four legs” doesn’t mean that

@JLeslie I’m using an example that, I admit, was going off track; but I’ve never used ’‘all’’ to talk about generalizations either. I guess my understanding of the word generalization isn’t chicken dinner enough for this thread.

@rojo LOL!

@Symbeline I still want you to stay. You can have my chicken.