Often people will dismiss conclusions, saying that's a generalization. We have done it here. However, what exactly is a "generalization?" "Generalization" is defined as a "principle, statement, or idea having general application." There's nothing wrong with that, right? Why, then does "generalization" have such a negative connotation?

Of course, all generalisation are inherently flawed (although that's a generalisation, of course).

Of course, all generalisation are inherently flawed

But of course, that's my point. I don't think they are. I think you can make a point that has general application without having to respond to, "Oh, that's a generalization." I suppose, though, that it's all political. For example, aren't women more nurturing than men and men stronger than women? Or are those attributes generalizations?

I suspect many of us saw women weightlifters at the Olympics who are stronger than many men. In general, however, men are stronger than women, if we measure strength by the ability to lift heavy weights.

You could say that people who make generalisations are applying statistics to situations without the accompanying rigorous tests that statistics requires. In particular, they are often guilty of drawing conclusions based on a sample that is too small, or is skewed.

You realise, of course, that my posting was a joke? The statement I made is obviously nonsense since it contradicts itself.

Yes, I did realize that, Richard.

You could say that people who make generalisations are applying statistics to situations without the accompanying rigorous tests that statistics requires. In particular, they are often guilty of drawing conclusions based on a sample that is too small, or is skewed.

Yes, that does happen, arnie. However, for my examples, albeit (is "albeit only used for singular words? Should it be "albethem?" ) politically incorrect, I know there have been well-designed studies, with large samples, that have had statistically significant results that allow for those conclusions.

Yet, an ordinary "generalization" isn't based on studies, I agree. When should you use the word then? It seems to only be used negatively in daily life (That's a generalization), or in scientific studies.

Ah, but when does something become sufficiently common or usual for it to be a fact?

It is a fact that human beings have two legs - even though there are exceptions to that rule so few would suggest it is a generalisation.

It is a fact that there is frequently affray at football (soccer) matches but it would be a (false) generalisation to say that football supporters are all prone to violence. But it would be true to say that they are more prone to it than are, say cricket supporters.

I suppose that what I am saying is that all statements about situations that involve variables will probably be incapable of being proved always to be 100% correct, but those which are correct more often than not, and can be proved to be such, are better than simple generalisations.

You could say that people who make generalisations are practising statistics without a licence. Since many of their generalisations are statistically flawed, they are regarded with suspicion.

In other words, arnie, you see "generalization" as only a technical, statistical word, right?

I read a report of a study today in a Chicago Tribune editorial, and I thought of this thread. The Science journal published a survey of 909 working women in Texas, and they concluded that:

~ Women are happier watching TV than shopping or talking on the phone (not this woman!)

~ Way down the list, below cooking, and not far above cellar-dwelling, commuting or doing housework, was taking care of children

Give me a break! BTW, was "cellar-dwelling" a facetious statement, do you think? It seemed to be just a part of the report, but it hardly makes sense.

No, Kalleh, quite the opposite. A generalisation to me is a statement made by someone who is not a statistical expert, but based on statistics. The data may be flawed, and the generalisers lack the technical knowledge to understand (or, often, care) why they (the data) are flawed.

Some generalisations can be right, but it is quite likely by chance. Since many can be disproved by a competent statistician, people tend to look upon them with suspicion, hence the negative aspect of the word.

I'm not saying that all statistics produced by statisticians necessarily make sense either, but that's another story...

That's interesting, arnie, because it definitely bases the definition of the word on statistics...or a technical knowledge of research analysis. In research reports that I have written or critiqued, absolutely I have looked at the generalization to other populations. For example, for my doctoral dissertation I studied energy expenditure levels for predicting sepsis in an ICU. The results could not be generalized to pediatric populations or populations not in ICUs. In fact, I had to get severity of illness scores to make sure all my patients were similarly ill, and the results couldn't be generalized outside my limits.

Yet, there are everyday generalizations that can be made, I think. As one of the definitions in dictionary.com says, an idea can have general application. For example, most Christians celebrate Christmas, while most Jews don't. That's a generalization, really, because some Christians don't celebrate Christmas (by choice), and vice versa. Still, it is a fair one, I think. Other generalizations, like men are more into science than women, can clearly be argued. There are statistics both ways on that, and all sorts of variables.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,