Do you think you think like American?

[temnov]

Craig, I respect your opinion very much but for me it's different.

 

When I was in Russia last fall I was told I think like American, and should go back to my @#$^ America by several I'd say rich and educated and very nationalistic people. For me it's not stereotyping. It was a personal experience and I'd like to know how the real American feel it - to be and think like American

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Rich people are generally white.

 

 

I think you still have to be very careful with generalizations. It's a mindfield, especially when you are writing on an international forum.

 

For instance, you write that "rich people are generally white". But where does this occur? And if the U.S., is it on average, or simply because there may be more of them in the first place? Are Asians generally richer than whites in the U.S. on average? Are white people richer in general in Asia? Or in Africa?

 

I'm not expecting you to answer these at all. They're rhetorical questions, there to make a point. But even as you were given generalizations, I found one - without trying very hard - that might require further explanation. And that's the problem with making generalizations...it might not be interpreted quite how you expected it to be. Or it may be too vague.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

It was a personal experience and I'd like to know how the real American feel it - to be and think like American

 

 

Isn't that a difficult question to answer? What is it like to know how a real Russian feels? What is it like to be and think like a Russian?

 

I wouldn't know how to answer your question.

 

The best way I can think of is to come over here and live here and hang out with lots of Americans from all over for quite a few years.

 

I like Americans. I like this country. But I sure wouldn't know how to describe 'em. I think they're funny, have the ability to poke fun of themselves, and like the creative energy and "can do" spirit. But how do you describe them?

[Anderton]

 

Sheesh....what is this, excuse me and with true respect, but what seems to me hypersensitivity about generalization?

 

 

Because it is at odds with accuracy. Of course, some generalizations are harmless, but to generalize about a group of people, a nation, a mindset, etc. is generally misleading on some level.

 

How to Americans think? How should I know? What is an "American" mindset? Which period of history are you talking about? At one point, part of the American mindset was slavery, for example, but I don't think it is any more. I just find generalizations to be a pleasantry, something speculative, rather than anything with real, factual significance.

[UstadKhanAli]

Generalizations: The Gateway to Stereotypes?

 

 

I'll stop now.

[scud133]

 

Isn't that a difficult question to answer? What is it like to know how a real Russian feels? What is it like to be and think like a Russian? I wouldn't know how to answer your question. The best way I can think of is to come over here and live here and hang out with lots of Americans from all over for quite a few years. I like Americans. I like this country. But I sure wouldn't know how to describe 'em. I think they're funny, have the ability to poke fun of themselves, and like the creative energy and "can do" spirit. But how do you describe them?

 

 

You just did.

 

You cannot classify someone from the USA. We are all mutts. There are people from every country, race, religion, political bent, male and female and everything in between.

 

What the original post was getting at is the stereotype that other places have about the USA. The problem is that it's ludicrous to even attempt a blanket definition for people in this country.

 

It might work elsewhere in the world (e.g., the makeup of Saudi Arabia isn't that hard to describe) but for the USA it's just pointless.

[UstadKhanAli]

You just did. You cannot classify someone from the USA. We are all mutts. There are people from every country, race, religion, political bent, male and female and everything in between. What the original post was getting at is the stereotype that other places have about the USA. The problem is that it's ludicrous to even attempt a blanket definition for people in this country. It might work elsewhere in the world (e.g., the makeup of Saudi Arabia isn't that hard to describe) but for the USA it's just pointless.

 

That reminds me of "Stripes" with Bill Murray:

 

"We're all very different people; we're not Watusi, we're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital "A", huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every out every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're underdogs, we're mutts! Here's proof: his nose is cold."

 

[MrKnobs]

Then claim someone is a bigot for being a Christian while you cast your vote to have foot baths for muslims installed in all public restrooms.

 

You lost me here.

 

Otherwise, I agree.

 

Regarding Christians: have you ever driven through Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, north Texas? I don't think they're gonna be an endangered species anytime soon...

 

Terry D.

[nat whilk II]

Sorry, Craig - I tip my hat to your intelligence, sense of fairness, long life experience, with all sincerity.

 

Generalization is part of accuracy the same way rough carpentry is part of the final product. Of course all generalizations have limits and exceptions, but they, as a method of organizing information, are not at odds with accuracy per se.

 

A stereotype is looking at someone or something and not seeing them in their individuality, but "seeing" some predetermined definition, often condescending or prejudiced.

 

A generalization is something other - a dipstick into the "more often than not" realm as classifying phenomena. Sure a generalization can be right or it can be wrong. And by definition it is a limited kind of statement. But moving in the general direction of truth will still get you closer to the truth but it's only a start.

 

But surely you see that to condemn "generalization" as "generally misleading" is using a generalization to categorically classify all generalizations as misleading. It's circle of meaninglessness.

 

Sure you can generalize about an American mindset. Absolutely no reason it can't be attempted as an experiment. The period of history I thought was assumed to be current. And if a generalization is speculative, that is no problem - or are speculations now also verboten? But they are most certainly not all speculative at all.

 

It all depends on how wide a net you are throwing around data. Historians make generalizations constantly - the Western medieval mind was generally more religious than the modern mind. It's a good thing to keep in mind while reading medieval literature, or else you might interpret their actions according to modern "general" tendencies of thought, which will probably lead to certain errors of understanding.

 

The larger the population of things about which generalizations are made, the easier it is to both see the general drift, and also the more specific individuals will run counter to the generalization. Ok, fine...

 

I really react to the condemnation of a valid thinking process simply because some people have done it poorly and used it as a veil to their bigotries or prejudice. If you generalize and then blind yourself to the exceptions, you are an idiot (I'm using the universal "you" of course). But if you generalize accurately, then you are, by definition, more perceptive of both the majority occurances and the minority occurances.

 

And please, if I make a generalization that is sketchy, then call me on it. If I care about truth, then I care about generalizing accurately.

 

I do feel there is a knee-jerk hypersensitivity at play here. Too many things that are true, if stated aloud, can make a room full of people freeze in fear. Afraid of what someone "might" make of the truth. I say let the truth take care of itself. And a true generalization is a valid species of truth, even if it's just a base run, not a home run.

 

nat whilk ii

[temnov]

Well, it looks like I've tried to generalize and simplify one very big issue:confused:

 

But your answers actually are helping me to find the answer for my question:thu:

[blue2blue]

 

You can't generalize about what an American thinks like. We disagree with each other too much.

 

I take strong exception to that.

 

I think we agree far too much.

[nerol1st]

I take power dumps like an American.

 

As far as thinking like one... no idea, you would have to define "an American" in order to get that answer. Since Americans are so diverse I don't think it's doable.

[Geoff Grace]

 

I take strong exception to that. I think we agree far too much.

 

 

 

You're all individuals! Crowd (in unison): Yes, we're all individuals! Lone Voice in Crowd: I'm not...

 

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Lee Flier]

I'll stop now.

 

Oh c'mon... the first one's free!

[nat whilk II]

If only idiots use generalizations, then all generalizations will be idiotic.

 

ant hwkli

[Anderton]

I say "generally" all the time, like "Generally, latency is a product of how much power your CPU has, coupled with the demands you're making on your DAW" and the like. I just think that when you start generalizing about people, you're not going to hit the target because people are just too complex, too deep, and often, too inherently contradictory to make generalizations...including that one So I just avoid them altogether.

[Anderton]

Generalizations, that is. Not people.

[nat whilk II]

Craig, I understand you on that. In many, many social situations, discretion trumps explicit expressions of certain things that are nonetheless true.

 

But in serious discussions - and I include this discussion - I think it's uber-appropriate to approach subjects, even the touchiest and those quivering with reaction-triggers, with all the tools of rational discussion and (friendly) argument.

 

But I think I've said my piece on this issue enough...any more and I'll just start hammering uselessly.

 

My last comment is this, and **warning** it contains generalizations which, if used improperly, can lead to harmful opinions and negative social consequences - I think many of us feel this invisible censor over expressing obvious (and not so obvious but nevertheless true) generalizations about people, cultures, nations, social groups. And the clue to the operation of this invisible censor are the standup comedians. THEY are given, as a sort of outlet for the rest of us, a blank check to work in the "forbidden zone" of commenting on people, cultures, nations, social groups. Of course it's all diverted from "real discussion" because it's been converted to a schtick, an act. They are clowns, and like Shakespeare's fools, they can get away with it, although they sometimes get too close and get a kick in the arse from the boss.

 

The reason some of the comics can be so funny is that they work that discomfort zone, and the laughs are partially guilty, partially nervous, and implicitly recognizing some general truths that can't be told elsewhere. I say this in general only, there are exceptions. I don't apply this to brainless shock-comics who are just doing a sort of punk theatre of offense for the sake of offense.

 

nat whilk ii

[Ernest Buckley]

I`m not really sure what "American thinking" is but I do know as a human species, we are at our best when we work and think together.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

If only idiots use generalizations, then all generalizations will be idiotic. ant hwkli

 

 

Naw, I don't think that at all. One just must be quite careful about 'em and when to use 'em (see example above).

[Super 8]

Guys! We're talking about ourselves again....and the foreigners are watching.

 

We disagree with each other too much.

 

I don't agree with that.

[boosh]

Guys! We're talking about ourselves again....and the foreigners are watching.

 

Nuff Said

[boosh]

You guys want the truth??

 

Ya can't handle the TRUTH!!

 

[chugheshc2]

Remember, half the Americans are below average.

Chris

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Remember, half the Americans are below average. Chris

 

We don't talk about the stupid here. We talk about the persons who have the saying.

 

For example the fiirst and highest American President George W. Bush is a role model and a glorious example of a highly intelligent and well educated American with an IQ well above 140, he is a person with the highest morality, possibly above the Pope and Quincy Jones, and a figure we can model oneself on.