Generalisation vs specificity

[Bert22]

Having read a few threads, I've gotten to thinking about the use of general or specific language (for the umpteenth time).

There are many catchphrases that seem to apply; "there is always an exception to the rule" is the first that springs to mind.

For example, I've read several posts where someone says "everybody does x" which is then often challenged. That is my first instinct when presented with any statement (I suspect this is common amongst people here, for obvious reasons) and I've made quite a hobby of always being the one in a conversation that points out the slightest flaw. I've been learning to do this less (as much as I can control it) since it can irritate people depending on what sort of conversation the other person(s) think we are having. To me, its always playful and intellectual, but other don't always feel that way at the time.

Yet generalisation is used everywhere in conversation. I think a lot of the time it's more a question of time saving, as attempting to avoid it leads to excessive verbosity (from the other person's viewpoint, I always prefer precision and qualification).

For example, "everybody lies". Perhaps it would be better to say "from my perspective, it appears that the vast majority of people do lie at some point, often for reasons that have positive intentions". Such as the age old trope "does my bum look big in this?" "No, your bum looks perfect"..

Someone suggested "take everything with a pinch of salt" which appears to me to be wise and useful advice. I cant resist the urge to point out that metaphors aren't exactly precise descriptions of the universe! Yet as the goal of conversation is to effectively communicate, what seems important is common understanding?

Eager to hear people's thoughts on this topic

 

[Tom]

I would say it depends on the context and degree of error perhaps.

Generalizations are useful at times and also can be fairly valid it describing the human condition. I think too it can be utilized in humor/sarcasim and intended to be taken with a grain of salt as you mentioned.

But if it has gone off the deep end into gross error or fallicy then pointing that out makes sense.

Overcorrecting or in every case regardless of context is annoying and may make you a 'person to be avoided' in many people's eyes. However knowing when to and when not to requires some social/communication skill which is not a natural strength of many on the spectrum. So it takes observation and work, but is well worthwhile in my opinion, as it is helpful in making positive interactions and helps prevent isolation.

 

[Shamar]

Having read a few threads, I've gotten to thinking about the use of general or specific language (for the umpteenth time).

There are many catchphrases that seem to apply; "there is always an exception to the rule" is the first that springs to mind.

For example, I've read several posts where someone says "everybody does x" which is then often challenged. That is my first instinct when presented with any statement (I suspect this is common amongst people here, for obvious reasons) and I've made quite a hobby of always being the one in a conversation that points out the slightest flaw. I've been learning to do this less (as much as I can control it) since it can irritate people depending on what sort of conversation the other person(s) think we are having. To me, its always playful and intellectual, but other don't always feel that way at the time.

Yet generalisation is used everywhere in conversation. I think a lot of the time it's more a question of time saving, as attempting to avoid it leads to excessive verbosity (from the other person's viewpoint, I always prefer precision and qualification).

For example, "everybody lies". Perhaps it would be better to say "from my perspective, it appears that the vast majority of people do lie at some point, often for reasons that have positive intentions". Such as the age old trope "does my bum look big in this?" "No, your bum looks perfect"..

Someone suggested "take everything with a pinch of salt" which appears to me to be wise and useful advice. I cant resist the urge to point out that metaphors aren't exactly precise descriptions of the universe! Yet as the goal of conversation is to effectively communicate, what seems important is common understanding?

Eager to hear people's thoughts on this topic

In some areas, such as the physical sciences, there are absolutes. This line is 38 millimeters, plus or minus .5 mm. The temperature is 47.5 degrees plus or minus .05 degrees. This rock has quartz and plagioclase in it. When it comes to people, there are no absolutes (OK,OK, that last sentence is an absolute; how about there is ONE absolute?). That seems to be a practical reality. Autistics tend to prefer absolutes, like a given word only meaning one thing. We tend to completely miss implied statements or assumed information (I know this is true for me and quite a few others).

Since generalizations are everywhere and a fact of daily life, we have to learn to deal with it. Or at least keep our mouths shut when presented with one we know isn't true (that is one that took me years to learn).

 

[Bert22]

I prefer absolutes and simplicity, but I'm also well adapted to reading intent. Its less I miss it, and more I pick the wrong option from the list. I've developed a deadpan take it straight humour to hide it, so if I give the wrong response people often think I'm joking, and I have time to catch up.

The only thing I'm certain of is that there are no certainties!

Yes, science and technology is great because it requires absolutes and precision. It's irritating that so much communication is on fuzzier subjects.

 

[Aspychata]

Well l will start off with there are exceptions to the rules. So unlike the OP, l refuse to look at a generalization as a flaw, that's a subjective call based on many different factors. We just sorta came thru a panademic which threw out everything as we have come to know. Now exceptions are expected changing generalisations in (lol) general.

 

[Bert22]

Well l will start off with there are exceptions to the rules. So unlike the OP, l refuse to look at a generalization as a flaw, that's a subjective call based on many different factors. We just sorta came thru a panademic which threw out everything as we have come to know. Now exceptions are expected changing generalisations in (lol) general.

That's interesting that I came across as seeing generalisation as a flaw. I intended to convey the concept you expressed, its all subjective to the situation. Context is King.

 

[Aspychata]

Generalizations are flawed but there can also be some truth. Just as in lies, there is usually a little truth mixed in.

 

[Bert22]

Generalizations are flawed but there can also be some truth. Just as in lies, there is usually a little truth mixed in.

Exactly so. They give a good guide for what is likely to happen, or how people are likely to behave. But also, the more general, the more likely someone will raise an exception? It's a balancing act depending on what you are trying to communicate, and woth whom.

 

[Au Naturel]

Them: "Everybody does thus."

Me: "Well, not everybody. This group does not."

Them: "Why are you attacking me?" or "They don't count." or some convoluted and bizarre rationale as to why they really do even if they don't.

It starts to make sense when you understand that most statements of fact are not meant to be statements of fact. It could be a statement of solidarity with their social bubble. Their definition of "everybody" only includes their group and I'm supposed to understand this. And if I were an NT, I would.

Or it could be a kind of wish fulfillment. Not everyone does thus but they wish everyone did thus. Or maybe "everybody does thus" is a way to pressure you into doing thus as well because you'll want to conform to the rest of your social group in order to better belong. Or everybody who is important does thus and you are expected to follow.

Something inside of me hates to let generalities like this slide, especially if it is writing off a group of people with difficulties or an idea that could be important. But I try to neutralize my irritation and let it slide. I don't always succeed.

 

[Fino]

The problem here is that you're taking things literal which are not literal. "Everybody does this," means, "a lot of people I know of do this." And people understand this. Maybe not some of us, but most of all the others.

 

[Progster]

Yes, I tend to point it out if a person makes a generalised statement like 'everybody does this' because unless it is something like 'everybody takes in oxygen and releases carbon dioxide' then it probably isn't true. I try to refrain now from pointing out typos or spelling/grammar mistakes, because I know that this can upset or trigger people, and then you get labelled a 'grammar nazi' which is not what I'm trying to be. I'm not exactly perfect anyway - when I read back my posts, I often find spelling or grammar mistakes that have somehow crept in.

 

[Misery]

The problem here is that you're taking things literal which are not literal. "Everybody does this," means, "a lot of people I know of do this." And people understand this. Maybe not some of us, but most of all the others.

Aye, very well put.

Much to the annoyance of so many on the spectrum, effective communication does mean understanding when NOT to take things fully literally. Which can be a tough thing to manage for some.