What does "In General" mean to you?

[Marblehead]

This is turning into a forum meme. "In general".

 

And by "in general", I mean the people who are even aware of the conversation going on.

 

 

But what of those who are unaware of this conversation? Are they generals too?

[Stigweard]

And logic would dictate that even if 100% of them thought it meant free spahgetti dinners, it is still a falacious argument.

Oh blah, blah ... I don't give a sod about logically correct at all.

 

Point in case is that if you stand up in front of a bunch of folks and say "In general blah blah blah" when in fact you meant "A significant many blah blah blah" then my little survey proves quite nicely that the majority of folks are going to in fact misunderstand you thinking you are in fact saying "The majority blah blah blah".

 

At best they will misunderstand, at worse they will be offended. Stand up in front of a womens' group and say "In general women are fat mamas", and watch how quickly you will be socked with a handbag.

 

In this case I will say that, from the point of view of delivering a message to an audience, if many believe so, it most certainly is so.

 

[Marblehead]

The expectation here is that most Limburger cheese will taste the same. So say you taste a fraction of the cheese, but knowing how it is prepared, you make a reasonable assumption it's not going to be drastically different from the fraction you ate. Thus you can say you like Limburger cheese in general without being crazy.

 

But women are not manufactured like cheese. They tend to have some individuality and unpredictability. So talking about women in general is a risky business. I wouldn't outright dismiss such talk, because sometimes it's OK to be a little provocative in my view, but if I was making a statement about women in general, I would be raising my flame shields to the maximum level.

 

Ah! More Limburger cheese! Yes, there are actually only two different 'tastes' of Limburger cheese: The good stuff that has been kept at a proper temperature and the bad stuff that has started a second fermenting.

 

Women? Ha! Everyone I have ever tasted tasted differently. And they all acted quite differently as well. I just don't think that any generalization of women can ever be properly supported with hard fact data.

 

Stereotyping just doesn't work in general. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

 

In this case I will say that, from the point of view of delivering a message to an audience, if many believe so, it most certainly is so.

 

 

I disagree. If many believe so it only means that many believe so. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Stigweard]

I disagree. If many believe so it only means that many believe so. Nothing more, nothing less.

LOL ... I understand what you are saying, truly. Just because the majority thought the earth was flat didn't make it so. Sure

 

But what I am getting at is about human perception and associated behavior. The way humans engage reality is a collective hunch. If a mob of people are convinced you are a filthy pedophile then logic won't deter them from burning down your house.

 

People will respond to what the believe to be true over what is true. Sometimes what is true matches what we believe to be true, but how rarely does this occur within society??

[Apech]

 

 

Women? Ha! Everyone I have ever tasted tasted differently. And they all acted quite differently as well. I just don't think that any generalization of women can ever be properly supported with hard fact data.

 

 

 

How many of those women tasted cheesy? Come on be honest.

[Marblehead]

LOL ... I understand what you are saying, truly. Just because the majority thought the earth was flat didn't make it so. Sure

 

But what I am getting at is about human perception and associated behavior. The way humans engage reality is a collective hunch. If a mob of people are convinced you are a filthy pedophile then logic won't deter them from burning down your house.

 

People will respond to what the believe to be true over what is true. Sometimes what is true matches what we believe to be true, but how rarely does this occur within society??

 

Oh, of course I know what you are talking about Stig. It is just that it is one of the conditions of my having membership on this board is that I mess with you now and then. We don't want you going off into La-La land.

 

Aside from the fact that I disagree with you I actually agree with what you are saying. I sometimes call that mass illusion and delusion.

[Marblehead]

How many of those women tasted cheesy? Come on be honest.

 

No. No. Those are my personal memories. You wanna' have memories you gotta make your own.

 

However, brown does not equal chocolate, white does not equal vanilla and red does not equal strawberry.

[Sloppy Zhang]

No ... are you?

 

Not at all.

 

Oh blah, blah ... I don't give a sod about logically correct at all.

 

How good to know.

[Stigweard]

Not at all.

 

Oh blah, blah ... I don't give a sod about logically correct at all.

 

How good to know.

Oh for goodness sakes go back and read it in context would you. You obviously need me to spell it out to you.

 

The group mind, in general, cares little for logic. People will latch onto any lie, either because they really want to believe or because they are afraid that it is true. Just look at the political circus and you will see proponents of all sides exploiting this fact of human nature. And look at religion and you will know that what I am saying is true

 

What people believe to be reality IS reality for them.

 

This is why I am saying that your insistence for logical predominance in this case is impotent and seed wasted on the ground.

 

To the topic at hand, if the majority of the group mind believes that something said means a certain something than for that group this IS reality regardless of what may or may not be logically correct. Once that certain something is believed by the group then logical counter-debate has little chance of changing that belief.

 

Look at Christianity, what a conglomerate mess of illogical notions and yet a third of the world's population subscribes to it. During the 17th or 18th century the Vatican sponsored a scientific inquiry into it's own religion hoping to counter the wave of science at the time. They had to cancel it real quick because their own researchers start getting heretical insights

 

Anyway, the case is that when it comes to what people believe or don't believe quite often logic has very little to do with it. That is at least one of the point of this topic.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

Oh for goodness sakes go back and read it in context would you. You obviously need me to spell it out to you.

 

I did. And it's good to know that if most of the people believe the world is flat, you wouldn't stand up and tell them that the world is round, to avoid them calling you a pedophile and burning your house down.

 

You'd rather have your house, share their reality, and tell others to say that the world is flat, lest they become sex offenders too!

 

 

Since we're in a forum of cultivators practicing (hopefully) some kind of a system of radical self honesty or critical inquiry, I thought it prudent to inform you that just because there are a bunch of people out there who have a firmly determined reality devoid of any critical insight, it doesn't mean that their position is in any way credible beyond the confines of their own shared reality.

 

 

And you informed me that you "don't give a sod".

 

 

To which I said that it is good to know where you stand on the matter

 

 

At which point you then informed me that there are lots of people out there who have a firmly shared reality in which some things are true because they believe them regardless of whether there is any evidence to support them, even after a careful scientific inquiry.

 

 

Which brings us now full circle, and I say that it still doesn't make them right, no matter how many people believe the emperor is walking around fully clothed.

 

[Stigweard]

I did. And it's good to know that if most of the people believe the world is flat, you wouldn't stand up and tell them that the world is round, to avoid them calling you a pedophile and burning your house down.

 

You'd rather have your house, share their reality, and tell others to say that the world is flat, lest they become sex offenders too!

 

 

I really detest people putting words into my mouth. Take a step back and actually read what I am saying rather than shooting off at the mouth with your distorted interpretations.

 

Actually you are proving my point here because if you used pure logic and only commented on things as they are than you would never have arrived at your assumed belief of what I am saying. It is obvious that your preconceived filtering system and presupposed disagreement with me has skewed your view from the bare reality of what I am saying.

 

Thank you for giving us an example of exactly the case that I am presenting.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

Take a step back and actually read what I am saying

 

I was about to go back and quote each of your posts and step through where I got what I said. Then I realized I didn't have to.

 

Why?

 

Because according to your argument, it doesn't matter what the speaker's intent was. If I took it to mean a certain thing, I was right, because that's what it means to me.

 

You said this:

At best they will misunderstand, at worse they will be offended. Stand up in front of a womens' group and say "In general women are fat mamas", and watch how quickly you will be socked with a handbag.

 

And aside from it being an all around sexist remark, it is happening right now.

 

You said something to me regarding your opinion regarding logic. I socked you with my metaphorical handbag, and now you are complaining to me about how much you detest it.

 

 

What goes around comes around!

 

 

[edit] Wow, I had actually never seen that video before. Linked to it for fun... talk about ten minute waste of my life!

Edited July 20, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Stigweard]

I was about to go back and quote each of your posts and step through where I got what I said. Then I realized I didn't have to.

 

Why?

 

Because according to your argument, it doesn't matter what the speaker's intent was. If I took it to mean a certain thing, I was right, because that's what it means to me.

 

You said this:

 

 

And aside from it being an all around sexist remark, it is happening right now.

 

You said something to me regarding your opinion regarding logic. I socked you with my metaphorical handbag, and now you are complaining to me about how much you detest it.

 

 

Bahahahah !!!!

 

You still don't get it do you? It doesn't matter one bit whether I like it or not.

 

You are so intent on trying to stick it to me from being upset from other threads that you have blinded yourself completely to the whole logic of this topic.

 

Once again go back and read things properly with the logical basis that you are extolling because at the moment you are way off base.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

Once again go back and read things properly with the logical basis that you are extolling because at the moment you are way off base.

 

Well according to your argument, I'm well within my right to interpret what you say however you want, and I'll be right because I believe I'm right, and logic can just "sod off" right?

 

Having second thoughts about whether this is really the type of world you want to live in?

 

It sucks when people believe whatever they want, despite you telling them they have no logical basis for such beliefs, doesn't it?

[Stigweard]

Well according to your argument, I'm well within my right to interpret what you say however you want, and I'll be right because I believe I'm right, and logic can just "sod off" right?

 

Having second thoughts about whether this is really the type of world you want to live in?

 

It sucks when people believe whatever they want, despite you telling them they have no logical basis for such beliefs, doesn't it?

LOL oh dear, still floundering around looking for a way to say "Got ya!" You are being rather too obvious.

 

It's not whether or not I want to live in such a world, the fact that has been proven by both the survey I have run and the subsequent conversation that we are having is that we ARE living in such a world. People will and do assume beliefs regardless of what logic is presented to them. This is just the reality.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

LOL oh dear, still floundering around looking for a way to say "Got ya!" You are being rather too obvious.

 

It's not whether or not I want to live in such a world, the fact that has been proven by both the survey I have run and the subsequent conversation that we are having is that we ARE living in such a world. People will and do assume beliefs regardless of what logic is presented to them. This is just the reality.

 

In the brilliant words of one of my professors-

 

So what?

 

What's your point? You compile some results of the most minuscule bit of the English speaking population.... to what end? What are you trying to say?

[thelerner]

I did. And it's good to know that if most of the people believe the world is flat, you wouldn't stand up and tell them that the world is round, to avoid them calling you a...

 

Wait, I was under the impression that the Earth is flat, and because space time is curved we only THINK its round.

 

 

In lay mans terms, the Earth is like a pizza... in a blender... in an Italian restaurant.

 

 

 

 

 

Every item..

 

the pizza, the pasta, the bread is made up of the same ingredients

 

and ultimately goes to the same place

 

In General this is true. And true is simple.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Wait, I was under the impression that the Earth is flat, and because space time is curved we only THINK its round.

 

 

In lay mans terms, the Earth is like a pizza... in a blender... in an Italian restaurant.

 

 

 

 

 

Every item..

 

the pizza, the pasta, the bread is made up of the same ingredients

 

and ultimately goes to the same place

 

In General this is true. And true is simple.

 

Now, wait, hold on a sec....

 

Do you mean "in general" is in "most of the ingredients" go to the same place, or do you mean many, but not all, of the ingredients?

 

Because depending on what you meant, I may or may not be okay with that world view

[Stigweard]

An update of the survey results:

 

I have also run this as a quick quiz on FB as well to get some broader response.

 

The combined results are:

 

45 : The majority of women act in a certain way

 

26 : Many, but not necessarily the majority, act in a certain way

 

However, for the purpose of scientific ethical diligence, we cannot base judgement on this result due to such a small sample size. So instead we need to pessimistically adjust the results based on Standard Error Adjustment; we reduce the upper score and raise the lower by the SEA.

 

x = sample size

y = higher score

z = lower score

 

For the higher score: =SUM(y-(y*(1/SQRT(x+1))))

 

For the lower score: =SUM(z+(z*(1/SQRT(x+1))))

 

As such the pessimistically adjusted scores are:

 

39.7 : The majority of women act in a certain way = 55.9% of the sample

 

29.1 : Many, but not necessarily the majority, act in a certain way = 40.9% of the sample

 

Therefore, acknowledging the weaknesses of this survey, we can approximate a statement:

 

If you declare, "In general women act in a certain way," then you can expect that 55.9% of the audience you are talking to will believe you are in fact saying, "The majority of women act in a certain way".

[Aetherous]

So:

 

In general, people assume that "in general" means a majority.

 

But according to the true meaning of the idiom "in general", we can also say...

 

In general, people know that "in general" doesn't necessarily mean a majority.

 

Therefore, in general, "in general" can be taken to mean either a majority...or not...depending on whether you side with a public opinion survey, or the actual definition, in general.

[Sloppy Zhang]

If you declare, "In general women act in a certain way," then you can expect that 55.9% of the audience you are talking to will believe you are in fact saying, "The majority of women act in a certain way".

 

And 40.9% of the sample will think the other option.

 

So what is your point?

[Stigweard]

In the brilliant words of one of my professors-

 

So what?

 

What's your point? You compile some results of the most minuscule bit of the English speaking population.... to what end? What are you trying to say?

What's my point?

 

Well firstly, as you know SZ, this topic rose up out of our spicey exchanges in The Pit. Specifically in response to this comment:

 

Stig,

 

I disagree. We have no data which says the majority of contemporary society considers "in general" to imply a majority. You just made that up. My opinion is that the majority knows that it can either mean many or most. At least where I'm from, that's how it's always been used.

 

Besides the fact that public opinion would be wrong if they only considered half of the definition, because as we've found out "in general" can mean many in EVERY SINGLE WAY you define it.

 

What more needs to be said?

Well now we have said data And yes it is a feeble sample size but, as you have seen, I have applied the best of scientific ethical procedures so that if anything the results are skewed pessimistically away from the original point I was trying to make. Which, to requote myself, was:

 

"The word "general" and more specifically "in general," though yes indeed it can sometimes imply "many" rather than "most," is used in the majority of contemporary society to designate "most" rather than "many". Therefore if you use "in general" in an argument with the general public to mean "many" rather than "most" you immediately trip up your own argument because most people will take it as meaning "most"."

 

That was and is "the point," and it is a point that I believe I have now made satisfactorily well.

 

 

This has lead into further discussion of what is and is not reality ... a discussion that Marbles and I have played with in the past. It is the juxtaposition of reality "as it is" and reality "as it is perceived".

 

If I recall we filled several pages with scintillating discussion over the reality of a chair

 

[Stigweard]

So:

 

In general, people assume that "in general" means a majority.

 

But according to the true meaning of the idiom "in general", we can also say...

 

In general, people know that "in general" doesn't necessarily mean a majority.

 

Therefore, in general, "in general" can be taken to mean either a majority...or not...depending on whether you side with a public opinion survey, or the actual definition, in general.

Erm ... no ...

 

Remember the question was, "What does "In General" mean to you?"

 

It is asking them what they believe the phrase to mean within the context of how they have come to know and/or use said phrase. You simply cannot extract any evidence from these results that they may "know" it to be something different. I have provided my data that supports my statements as per requested/challenged, now the onus is on you to conduct your own research to support your assumption.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

The problem, as I must reiterate, is the initial poll itself.

 

Center cited several sources in the spicy pit which reveals multiple definitions of the terms.

 

However, the poll only has two options- one or the other. What if people felt it could mean either one? They were forced to pick one or the other. Then there is immediacy presented by the first option, which coincidentally was represented of your position.

 

Given that, poll takers may very well have gone with the option which, in their experiences, was most common. That is not to say that they believe the second interpretation is not correct. But they had no other option.

 

So not only do you have a very narrow sample size, but you also have a very narrow poll!

 

On top of that, the conversation about cheese earlier on reveals how much we take for granted that a reader supplies the own meaning.

 

For instance, "in general, I like Limburger cheese" would usually be taken to mean "most of the Limburger cheese I have eaten was good" not "most of the total amount of Limburger cheese in existence was good".

 

So while they may pick one option or the other, they may correctly supply the secondary definition if the context calls for it.

 

So over all, your "study" shows absolutely nothing.