The use of generalizations, and even over-generalizations, is appropriate at times and very useful in casual conversations. Without them, even small-talk could get bogged down with endless and arcane details. However, generalizations are also terms that mean different things to different people and can therefore be used to confuse and deceive. Additionally, they are problematic for any kind of real problem solving.
Think of the word “God” for example. If you were to walk up to a perfect stranger and ask “Do you believe in God?” and he responds “yes”, you would have no idea what he actually believes. What you mean by “God” and what he means can be as far apart as Heaven is from Hell. The same is true for terms like love & spirituality and don’t forget terms used a lot these days like “social justice”, “economic justice”, “fair share”, “white privilege” and “institutionalized or systematic racism”.
Consider a problem in everyday life…Suppose someone proclaims “Technology sucks!” This can obviously mean many different things to many different people. Until things are made clear, there will be little progress and much frustration, but deliberate questioning can drill down to the specifics and possibly reveal more than one issue.
What technology?
- My smartphone.
- What else?
- That’s’ it…for now.
What’s wrong?
- Camera won’t focus.
- What else?
- Battery life is too short.
- What else?
- It drops calls.
- What else?
- That’s it.
“Technology sucks” was separated and clarified in to three specific concerns about a specific object. The three concerns may or may not be related to an underling root cause; we don’t know, but to go forward we must first we prioritize the issues and then begin to investigate each one. Depending what you use your phone for, the camera and battery issue may just be an annoyance that is manageable, but dropping calls might be totally unacceptable and thus given the highest priority to be dealt with first. Keep in mind that in the end, you could find out that the problem is not the phone at all, but the person using it.
The same type of thinking needs to be done with a term like “Institutionalized racism”. Once again, until things are made clear, there will be little progress and much frustration. Deliberate questioning can drill down to the specifics of what institution(s) we are talking about and what specific policy (written or unwritten) needs to be corrected.
So suppose someone proclaims “Institutionalized Racism!”
(What follows is just an example…not saying it’s true)
What institution?
- The Minneapolis Police Department.
- What else?
- That’s’ it…for now.
What’s wrong?
- They’re killing blacks!
- What else?
- Pulling over black drivers without cause
- What else?
- That’s’ it.
“Institutionalized racism” was separated and clarified in to two specific concerns about a specific institution. The two concerns may or may not be related to an underling root cause; we don’t know, but to go forward we must first we prioritize the issues and then begin to investigate each one.
One would presume the “killing” concern would take top priority. Aside from investigating each case, I would personally want to see the data, not so much per capita, but per confrontation, in other words, the number of killings by race per the number of police confrontations for that race. In the end, you could find out that the problem is not with the police department, but with the person complaining.
Without clarity and prioritization—especially with complex issues with a lot of emotional baggage— confusion, division and frustration render problems nigh unsolvable. Left with only generalizations, it’s possible to blame anyone for a problem because you only need to agree that it is so, point the finger at those who hesitate, and walk away.
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.”
-George Orwell
As Mae West might say, “What does truth have to do with it?”
Subjective opinion is the commerce of most conversation. Trying to determine the truth upsets and alienates others. I find this happens among some of my kids when the dreaded name Trump comes up. Instant emotional outburst. Most unpleasant.
With family, or really anybody, I’ll always wait until the person is a relaxed & good mood before bringing up a topic with emotional baggage.
Your Kepner-Tregoe is starting to show again! 😉 😉 😉
KT is useful in so many ways…
Q: “What’s wrong?”
A: “Everything.”
Q: “What specifically is wrong?”
A: “Specifically, everything.”
I’ve had way too many conversations like that, and I’d be lying if I said I was always the “Q”. Or you get the one where you refute point 1, then they move to point 2, and if you refute that, sometimes they’ll go to point 3, but sometimes they’ll go back to point 1. It’s worse with the internet, because you’ve got 20 people responding to you, and they might not have read your response to the first point. The worst is when you say something and people come at you from different sides, and you find yourself refuting all kinds of claims. You know what you’re saying is consistent, but there’s no way a listener would be able to tell. To each reader, 95% of what you’re saying makes no sense.
If the answer were “everything” or “specially everything” ask them to name just one thing among every-thing. Like a mechanic that asks what’s wrong with your car and you answer “everything”…gotta start somewhere that is not nowhere.
Very good, BB.
Best not to debate with people whose fake opinions you have no respect.
Many years ago, Anne Coulter wrote advice on how to interact with a liberal, if you must. It was very easy/simple. Ask three questions (they can’t answer). One, What evidence do you have? Two, compared to what? Three, What would the proposed “revolution” cost?
Anyhow, that was many years ago.
Today, it’s “Welcome To The Post-Truth World.”
Had a conversation with a relative after riots burned down some stores a few years ago (this was long before George Floyd). Said relative insisted that the property damage was completely justified in order to send a message against racism. I asked him what kind of racism was in America that justified such extreme actions and got variations of “there’s all sorts of extreme racism against black people” for quite some time.
I kept asking for some specific examples of the worst types of racism in the country, and after lots of variations of “a specific example is how black people are treated in a worse way” (without saying how) he finally said “there’s many neighborhoods which are almost entirely white.”
I laughed at the absurdity of THAT being used as justification for burning down stores and he immediately went back to the general “why can’t you understand how severe the racism is in this country!”
Imagine if Pro-Lifers rioted in the same way including the looting. The tear-gas and pepper-spray would be back in full force.
Aside from investigating each case, I would personally want to see the data, not so much per capita, but per confrontation, in other words, the number of killings by race per the number of police confrontations for that race.
Something like this has been done– to try to adapt for claims of cops targeting minorities more, they looked at how likely a cop was to shoot someone who was using deadly force and limited it to “white” and “black.”
They did find a notable difference along race lines– white officers were more likely than black to not use deadly force against black suspects that were trying to kill/maim them. Black officers had roughly even rates for black and white suspects, but were more likely to be attacked with deadly intent by black suspects. Pattern held if there was video evidence or not, which suggests “I’m being watched” was not altering the cop’s behavior.
My conclusion: black criminals are really bleepin’ racist, and their lawyers have infected the criminal justice system.
Said relative insisted that the property damage was completely justified in order to send a message against racism.
Or, as recently phrased to justify spray-painting and/or destroying statues of such racist figures as Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas, “but it got your attention!”
If what you’re saying is so pathetic that it cannot earn attention, and you must instead steal the attention by destroying other folks’ property, you may want to think harder about what you are saying….
“but it got your attention!”
Yeah. It convinced me all y’all be crazy.