When to generalize and when to get specific

[blueback]

This was inspired by another thread. I think that the best way to predict the actions of a population is to understand things like statistics and stereotypes, while the best way to predict the actions of an individual is to understand how they have acted in similar situations in the past.

So, it's worth understanding as much as you can about how an average person in a population will act because that gives you insight into groups and it's the best you can do if you know nothing about an individual. However, if you want to predict what an individual will do the most accurate information you can gather is about what they have done in the past in response to a similar environment.

This theory covers both the mean and the outlyers by defining when each is important.

What do y'all think?

[Solaris]

This was inspired by another thread. I think that the best way to predict the actions of a population is to understand things like statistics and stereotypes, while the best way to predict the actions of an individual is to understand how they have acted in similar situations in the past.

So, it's worth understanding as much as you can about how an average person in a population will act because that gives you insight into groups and it's the best you can do if you know nothing about an individual. However, if you want to predict what an individual will do the most accurate information you can gather is about what they have done in the past in response to a similar environment.

This theory covers both the mean and the outlyers by defining when each is important.

What do y'all think?

That's basically why I'm here. Although now I also just like the people here. But this sort of idea is what brought me here. I wanted to understand why I have known so many INTJs and why did I know them so well (and vice versa), when they are "supposed" to be notoriously hard to find and know.

[Rei]

That's basically why I'm here. Although now I also just like the people here. But this sort of idea is what brought me here. I wanted to understand why I have known so many INTJs and why did I know them so well (and vice versa), when they are "supposed" to be notoriously hard to find and know.

Are you sure you're not just falling into that "self-typing" trap?
Cuz damn... I need to meet more INTJs IRL.

[PhotoJim]

Don't generalizations generally suck? :)

[Rei]

Don't generalizations generally suck? :)

But it's the only way to make specifications make sense to the population sporting simpler minds.

[thegnat]

Don't generalizations generally suck? :)

Yes :)

Generalizations will always not apply to someone or something in that group you're generalizing. Personally I despise generalizations. You can't make conclusions unless you have ALL DATA on EVERY person/thing in that group.

To me, if you want to make something clear to someone else without being specific or to have specifics make sense as Rei is saying is to say something like the following:

"In my experience(from my observations, etc), most people who are x act this way because of y."

Notice the modifier *most* and the preface of "In my experience (or from my observations, etc)". This tells the person listening that this is not definitive or absolute and that there can be exceptions to the rule. And that...because it's *your* experience, this *could* be different somewhere else, you just haven't had the chance to truly say because you haven't met *all* of x. This is NOT saying that you could be wrong. What you're saying is RIGHT due to YOUR experiences. It is not negating your statement at all. It is just not making it absolute where something has an exception, which most things do.

[Drayakir]

Mm. Did anybody here read the "Foundation" novels by Isaac Asimov?

Basically, he had this idea, where a mathematical discipline called "psychohistory" could be used to predict the actions of humanity as a whole.

At a younger age, people should study psychology, and focus on the individual, so that they would be able to discern true motives, predict singular behavior, how an individual would function in a small group, etc.

Sociology, on the other hand, the study of many people should be done by those who don't interact with them, but need to know how the public will respond... so maybe, politicians, PR reps, market analysts, etc.

[Solaris]

Are you sure you're not just falling into that "self-typing" trap?
Cuz damn... I need to meet more INTJs IRL.

No, they actually tested as INTJ's. Reading the description for INTJ fits them all from my, and their, perspectives too. It's weird, really. I don't know how I meet so many, I just do.

[Rei]

No, they actually tested as INTJ's. Reading the description for INTJ fits them all from my, and their, perspectives too. It's weird, really. I don't know how I meet so many, I just do.

Hrm...
Where do you live?
I'm moving there!

[Solaris]

Hrm...
Where do you live?
I'm moving there!

Neat, if you move to North Carolina, I'll add you to my collection...I mean friends. ;P

Not all of them are from my current location, so I met while living other places. As I've stated elsewhere on here, it's like I'm a magnet for this personality type, I don't fully understand why. I thought I was just a weirdo magnet, but now I know it's specific to the INTJ-weirdo frequency. ;D

[rocksteady]

At a younger age, people should study psychology, and focus on the individual, so that they would be able to discern true motives, predict singular behavior, how an individual would function in a small group, etc.


This is a very good idea, and I will use it when I form my own real life INTJ community, lol.

But seriously, how hard would that be to implement in america's school system?

[Hypomanic]

Yeah the more you know, the better off you are. I don't see how that ties into generalizing or being specific though. At least not in that context. I tend to be general until nudged.. I'd rather not explain everything fully, unless I'm writing.

[Rei]

Yeah the more you know, the better off you are. I don't see how that ties into generalizing or being specific though. At least not in that context. I tend to be general until nudged.. I'd rather not explain everything fully, unless I'm writing.

The problem is that not all people are capable of understanding psychological concepts. I think it is probably better to start introducing it younger to get them while they are still relatively open-minded.

Anyway, I usually generalize because it takes a lot of effort to form my ideas into words, only to have the listener not understand anyway. Though if I am pressed I will specify.

[qwerty]

I love the idea of being able to predict the actions of a person based on a generalization. Of course you can't expect to be accurate all the time.

During the course of the past 5 years I've worked as a doorman. What this means is that I decide who enters a club based on what I see and generalize about a person in 30 odd seconds. So how does generalization work in this case?

In the majority of cases I believe I make the correct assumptions about a person and whereas the main reason I refuse entry to a person is for intoxication I will also speak to a person I believe may cause troubles before they come in and warn them. For those I do speak to generally they do behave and on nights where I question if I should be doing what I do and stop my usual practices the people I have singled out will cause problems.
My co-workers look at me strangely when I laugh about a guy knocking someones teeth out, when the only reason I'm laughing is because I was right at the start of the night.
Funnily enough that means I trust natural gut instinct above rigid psychological typing.

So what that means is generalization to me is a bad thing if your decisions are effected by methods that other people have created and stereotyping based off my own belief and knowledge does generally pay off.

[PortInStorm]

Need to be careful about a few things re: psychology. The field can be divided into those who study the average human vs. those studying the 'outliers'/oddballs/individuals, into those studying solely physiology vs. emotions, attitudes, those using information to predict vs. understand, those investigating humans who thrive and those in the human cesspool, those studying environment vs. innate traits/genetics etc., etc. There really is little that holds psychology together as a discipline, it being such a diverse field.