What does "In General" mean to you?

[Sloppy Zhang]

Wow! Your long-winded response futher demonstrates your seemingly inexhaustible capacity to simply not get the simple logic of the initial hypothesis and has in fact seen you arguing FOR my point

 

Wow, what a long-winded response! You could have just said "tl;dr".

 

The very fact that there are different contexts for the term IS the point!

 

This on it's own means you should avoid using it for either context.

 

That isn't what it means, because in a situation in which there are multiple definitions depending on the contexts, people fill in the correct definition as is appropriate.

 

Your poll ignores this, and makes no effort to probe the different contexts which may cause poll takers to respond differently to the same phrase.

 

So your two conclusions that you arrived at based on these polls are completely inapplicable. You are incorrectly extrapolating a population's thought process based on limited data from a limited survey.

 

But I have taken it further to show that it would be twice as foolish to use the term "in general" to mean "many but not necessarily the majority" because the majority of people, as seen by my snap-shot survey, will believe it means "the majority".

 

Will they really though? Will they maintain that even after they are able to take in the full context? You don't know that they will or they won't because you didn't care to include that in your limited poll!

 

In no way am I trying to invalidate the minority-use context because Scotty correctly showed in the other thread, and I have also likewise proven it in my afore-mentioned survey, that a significant percentage of people will indeed believe to be mean the context of "many but not necessarily the majority".

 

You have proven nothing, because people fill in the meaning depending on the context of the situation. You have no way of understanding how people would change their position given the context.

 

Consider this:

 

A poll in which participants could only pick one:

 

What does rape mean to you?

A) forced sexual intercourse

B ) violation or abuse

C) To spoil or destroy (a place)

 

ALL of those definitions can be correct given the context. If the majority picked A, you would have no grounds to say "if you say the Rape of Nanking, nobody would get it!" The poll would be flawed from the start, in the same way that yours is.

 

But your continued blinkered diatribe adds more weight to my secondary theory that you have blinded yourself to what I am really saying

 

I get what you are saying. The only problem is, you aren't seeing the whole picture. Your vision is too narrow. You are in a burning building, firefighters are telling you to leave, and you are looking at a cup of water and saying "see, see, it's water, I'll be okay".

 

But your continued blinkered diatribe adds more weight to my secondary theory that you have blinded yourself to what I am really saying because you are desperate to fulfill your self-justified vandetta against me. At every turn you have tried to establish a "Got Ya!!" moment, but in each case you have failed dismally principally because you are so desperate to do so.

 

Why you trying to make this personal? I'm critiquing your thought process. Not you as a person. I'm not going on a vendetta against you. I'm merely pointing it out when I see faulty thought processes.

 

At every turn, you keep trying to weasel out of it. You keep staging a fallacious ad hominum argument, that the reason I disagree with you is that I'm after you "personally", that I am "floundering" around for something. You have not given any indication that you have read my points. You have not responded to ANY of the points and concerns and limitations that I have pointed out.

 

When the fact of the matter is that at each and every moment I have articulated my position in a multitude of ways. And each time you respond with a wordy "tl;dr", then you proceed to talk about me as a person.

[Stigweard]

That isn't what it means, because in a situation in which there are multiple definitions depending on the contexts, people fill in the correct definition as is appropriate.

 

This is your ASSUMPTION, and without proper data to back it up that is what it will remain. I responded to Scotty's challenge to produce data to support my initial claims, you are now obliged to do the same to provide support to your claim.

 

My poll, as you will recall, arose because Scotty and I had polarity views between whether people understand "in general" to mean the majority or just many. This poll was simply testing that basic dichotomy, and the results are in.

 

I understood from the outset that there were inherent weaknesses in the poll including sample size, which is why I included the adjustment of results by the Standard Error Adjustment which is an acceptable statistical instrument to cater for inherent errors.

 

If you want to prove my conclusions wrong then by all means go conduct your own research and come back with the results. Your claim is that "people will fill in the correct definition as is appropriate to the context." This a generalized statement implying "all people," "all of the time," will act in the way you believe they will act.

 

There is a certain degree of naive arrogance in this statement and, if this was true, then no one would misunderstand the correct context of what each other are trying to say. If such a utopia would exist there would be no wars nor conflict between individuals.

 

Obviously this is not the case therefore you blanket statement has fundamental flaws.

 

Oh ... and in terms of personal comments, please don't try and appear all coy. I have plenty of your comments to refer to that demonstrates you give as good as you get.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

This is your ASSUMPTION, and without proper data to back it up that is what it will remain.

 

And since it remains a viable possibility given the plethora of words with multiple meanings depending on the context which are listed in standard compositions of English language words (like the dictionary) (not to mention the fact that this thread has already provided one such example of reading filling in the proper meaning given the context), I would say that it is a safe assumption to make.

 

Given that, it would still be necessary to further investigate. A proper poll dealing with a term that has multiple meanings would do that. Yours does not. So since any conclusions you would draw from an incomplete poll would be, themselves, incomplete, it's best not to draw any conclusions to begin with.

 

My poll, as you will recall, arose because Scotty and I had polarity views between whether people understand "in general" to mean the majority or just many. This poll was simply testing that basic dichotomy, and the results are in.

 

And what a false dichotomy it is. Again, scotty provided a multitude of sources which provided multiple meanings for the phrase. You poll assumes that these definitions are at odds, that they are mutually exclusive. That if you believe one, you cannot change and believe the other. And that's not true. And since your poll does not accurately assess the fluidity of language, it is a poor selection of "data" to draw conclusions from.

 

I understood from the outset that there were inherent weaknesses in the poll including sample size

 

There are flaws, but it ain't just sample size! And even knowing these flaws, you are still trying to pass this off as a "rigorous" scientific study?

 

You know what happens in a "rigorous" scientific peer review process to a paper with "inherent weaknesses", that the author of the paper KNEW about them going into the project? The peer reviewers rip it to shreds, they say "if you know what the problems are, fix them, THEN come back".

 

Then, before the findings are approved, it is done and redone, over and over again, and the experiments are improved FURTHER, and then done again and again, and THEN the results are passed off as reliable- until something better comes along.

 

So, please, if you KNOW that there are errors, then there is no reason to pass them off as even remotely accurate (no matter how many times you conduct a favorable analysis). You have defeated your own argument. No work required from me.

 

which is why I included the adjustment of results by the Standard Error Adjustment which is an acceptable statistical instrument to cater for inherent errors.

 

Not when the errors are in the structure and execution for how the data is collected.

 

If you want to prove my conclusions wrong then by all means go conduct your own research and come back with the results.

 

Such an action is unnecessary, as your "research" is woefully inadequate to begin with!

 

I don't have to jump off a cliff in order to tell the other kids that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea

 

I have plenty of your comments to refer to that demonstrates you give as good as you get.

 

Put your quotes where your mouth is. Then we'll talk.

[Stigweard]

And since it remains a viable possibility given the plethora of words with multiple meanings depending on the context which are listed in standard compositions of English language words (like the dictionary) (not to mention the fact that this thread has already provided one such example of reading filling in the proper meaning given the context), I would say that it is a safe assumption to make.

 

Given that, it would still be necessary to further investigate. A proper poll dealing with a term that has multiple meanings would do that. Yours does not. So since any conclusions you would draw from an incomplete poll would be, themselves, incomplete, it's best not to draw any conclusions to begin with.

 

 

 

And what a false dichotomy it is. Again, scotty provided a multitude of sources which provided multiple meanings for the phrase. You poll assumes that these definitions are at odds, that they are mutually exclusive. That if you believe one, you cannot change and believe the other. And that's not true. And since your poll does not accurately assess the fluidity of language, it is a poor selection of "data" to draw conclusions from.

 

 

 

There are flaws, but it ain't just sample size! And even knowing these flaws, you are still trying to pass this off as a "rigorous" scientific study?

 

You know what happens in a "rigorous" scientific peer review process to a paper with "inherent weaknesses", that the author of the paper KNEW about them going into the project? The peer reviewers rip it to shreds, they say "if you know what the problems are, fix them, THEN come back".

 

Then, before the findings are approved, it is done and redone, over and over again, and the experiments are improved FURTHER, and then done again and again, and THEN the results are passed off as reliable- until something better comes along.

 

So, please, if you KNOW that there are errors, then there is no reason to pass them off as even remotely accurate (no matter how many times you conduct a favorable analysis). You have defeated your own argument. No work required from me.

 

 

 

Not when the errors are in the structure and execution for how the data is collected.

 

 

 

Such an action is unnecessary, as your "research" is woefully inadequate to begin with!

 

I don't have to jump off a cliff in order to tell the other kids that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea

 

 

 

Put your quotes where your mouth is. Then we'll talk.

In spite of all your theoretic objections to my survey (which is all they really are), I will stand accountable when I say that it demonstrates to more than a satisfactory degree the practical reality that enough people would misunderstand a statement like "In general women act a certain way" for it to be a foolish statement to make when presenting an argument.

 

I will also add that I am a professional speaker who in the last 5yrs has clocked up over 2500 hours of real-time, face-to-face public speaking. With that experience I can tell you straight that if you stood up and made a generalization like that to a bunch of folks then I can guarantee you that, at best, a good portion will misunderstand you. At worst you would have given someone looking to object all the ammunition they need to tear your presentation apart and you would spend the next hour arguing semantics when you should have been delivering your message. And even if you finally convinced them of your logical correctness, you would have lost the rest of the audience anyway.

 

Which brings me back to saying that I don't give a sod about the logical theorizing you are carrying on with. The reality of my experience as a teacher, entertainer and a professional speaker is that you most certainly would be a bloody idiot if you make non-specific generalizations and expect people to somehow automatically get what you are saying. If you don't believe me then go out and try it for yourself.

 

[Small Fur]

A useful way to get a clear sense of what "in general" means is to bring awareness to the vocal intonations and physical cues of the presenter; listen carefully for the subtleties of architecture in the language; and hear the totality of the statement being presented; while accounting for the personal and intercultural vantage point of the speaker. And the way to perceive this accurately is to listen sincerely, feel with neutrality, and sense with acuity while utilizing a mind that is informed and aware in order to discern. Therefore, in essence, the ability to accurately perceive this or any other question follows the principles of meditation:

 

that listening happens sincerely requires

Ding- to be still and Jing- to be quiet physically and mental

 

that one be mentally and emotionally in neutrally requires

Xu- emptying of the mind

 

that true awareness requires

Ling- being alert and intuitive

 

So it follows that living and acting from the state of meditation allows us to have clarity of heart and mind in action, which in this case, is response to the idea of 'in general'. And this includes, any portion of of this thread.

 

It is fairly uncommon that when people are in lectures or discussions that they sit around ready to pull out a dictionary or look up the statistical measures of a term in order to determine the 'logic' that their thoughts and emotional processes could take. Looking at the level of emotionality and attachment the very idea of this thread has elicited in respondents gives reflection to the principles of understanding and clarity I mentioned above.

 

This survey was not intended to measure logic (as stated by the originating author). Nor is the surveyor trying to be entirely scientific in his measure. It is a causal survey about eliciting gut reactions towards a term with a skew factor towards this same term when used within a provocative phrase set.

 

He elicited what he wanted and if you keep arguing for one side, you fall into a certain, more subtle quality of statistic in his survey.

 

;-)

Edited July 24, 2011 by Small Fur

[Sloppy Zhang]

In spite of all your theoretic objections to my survey (which is all they really are)

 

How so?

 

And even if you were to cling to that title, those same "theoretical objections" are exactly what are used in the scientific peer review process which has provided our civilization with many of the things that I'm sure the vast majority of us enjoy on a daily basis. So they have to be doing something right, right?

 

I will stand accountable when I say that it demonstrates to more than a satisfactory degree the practical reality that enough people would misunderstand a statement like "In general women act a certain way" for it to be a foolish statement to make when presenting an argument.

 

Well then you hold yourself accountable to an empty statement.

 

Again, the very premise of your poll was false.

 

I will also add that I am a professional speaker who in the last 5yrs has clocked up over 2500 hours of real-time, face-to-face public speaking.

 

You know who else gets lots of face time? Paris Hilton.

 

Strawman? Just using this standard you are bragging about.

 

With that experience I can tell you straight that if you stood up and made a generalization like that to a bunch of folks then I can guarantee you that, at best, a good portion will misunderstand you.

 

Personal anecdote! How unscientific! Let's drop the charade, stig. Let's stop all pretenses about this being rigorously scientific, because we both know it isn't. It is an informal discussion on a discussion forum in which we swap personal anecdotes, and occasionally cite external sources. As grandiose as your "scientific" claims may have sounded to an uncritical mind, as soon as you are met with criticism that you cannot answer to, you retreat to something unscientific. And please keep in mind that that is an observation about your argument, not about you as a person this ain't personal.

 

For each of your personal public speaking anecdotes, I can come up with one to corroborate you and one to counter you. I've seen just as many audiences who sat and listened intelligently and patiently as the speaker clarified their point and elaborated their position, even IF they initially misunderstood something, and I've seen just as many audiences take statements with multiple meanings in the intended way.

 

So again, you have done nothing to prove anything. Please do not pretend that you have.

 

At worst you would have given someone looking to object all the ammunition they need to tear your presentation apart and you would spend the next hour arguing semantics when you should have been delivering your message. And even if you finally convinced them of your logical correctness, you would have lost the rest of the audience anyway.

 

I've got a personal experience which says that if that happened, the people in the audience were a bunch of morons, because I've seen audiences who 1) understood the intended meaning of a phrase with multiple definitions and 2) withheld their judgment until hearing the speaker out.

 

So, again, it proves nothing one way or the other.

 

Which brings me back to saying that I don't give a sod about the logical theorizing you are carrying on with.

 

You have demonstrated that with your posts.

 

And it's ironic, because on the one hand you try to pass off your poll as some rigorous, scientific, ethical study, using all the proper procedures, and on the other hand, you "don't give a sod" about logic. And then on your other (you have a lot of hands) you push me to apply the logic I "extol" rather than "flounder" around. Sounds to me like you are calling on "logic" when it suits you, and ignoring it when it doesn't. And again, keep in mind this is an observation about your argument, not you as a person. Remember, not personal

 

And all of your past posts prove this.

 

The reality of my experience as a teacher, entertainer and a professional speaker is that you most certainly would be a bloody idiot if you make non-specific generalizations and expect people to somehow automatically get what you are saying. If you don't believe me then go out and try it for yourself.

 

The reality of my personal experiences as *insert impressive sounding yet still fallacious argumentative tactic (as your self proclaimed experience does not grant you any knowledge of how an audience is going to respond in any given situation, and your "research" does not reliably explore the issue, even by your own admission*, we can say that my argumentative dick is STILL bigger than your little pecker.

 

[Aetherous]

At worst you would have given someone looking to object all the ammunition they need to tear your presentation apart and you would spend the next hour arguing semantics when you should have been delivering your message.

 

Totally true.

 

So I guess what we've all learned from this experience is to recognize those who are simply looking to object (or those who unconsciously knee jerk upon hearing a generalization), and just ignore them.

[Stigweard]

Totally true.

 

So I guess what we've all learned from this experience is to recognize those who are simply looking to object (or those who unconsciously knee jerk upon hearing a generalization), and just ignore them.

LOL ... sorry but trying to just ignore a heckler in a crowd is perhaps the worst thing you can do, it's like gambling against someone who is using a loaded dice. The best way is to make sure you don't say anything that could possibly meaning anything other than what you want it to mean.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

LOL ... sorry but trying to just ignore a heckler in a crowd is perhaps the worst thing you can do, it's like gambling against someone who is using a loaded dice. The best way is to make sure you don't say anything that could possibly meaning anything other than what you want it to mean.

 

 

Or taze the heckler

[Apech]

Sloppy (or anyone),

 

Just one thing has been puzzling me. For those who think (not including me) that 'in general' can mean some but not the majority. Does this mean I can say this:

 

In general women have brown eyes. (majority)

In general women have blue eyes. (many but not a majority)

In general women have brown eyes but in general women have blue eyes. (both)

 

... I don't really care because I think the whole argument is daft ... but maybe some one could answer.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Sloppy (or anyone),

 

Just one thing has been puzzling me. For those who think (not including me) that 'in general' can mean some but not the majority. Does this mean I can say this:

 

In general women have brown eyes. (majority)

In general women have blue eyes. (many but not a majority)

In general women have brown eyes but in general women have blue eyes. (both)

 

... I don't really care because I think the whole argument is daft ... but maybe some one could answer.

 

Yes to all!

 

Context is important. Context context con to the text

 

If we're talking about eye color, that's pretty broad and we have pretty easy ways of quantifying the number of people with a certain eye color (I mean, in the US it's on driver's licenses). It's why I think your example sounds so ridiculous- because we have hard data on hard, objective facts.

 

The real issue, and the one that this debate (which I also think is daft ) came from, is what happens when you talk about behavior, which is MUCH harder to quantify (again, because in general/many/most/a lot of cases we must rely on tricky things like self reporting). A category in which even our "facts" may not be correct.

 

"In general people masturbate". That's pretty tricky and possibly downright offensive! HUGE reliance on self reporting, and with a subject which is still held to be taboo in many cultures and sub-cultures, most likely under reported.

 

We know humans are pretty damn sexual.

 

We know sexuality is present in lots of forms of culture (music, advertisement, etc).

 

As people grow up, they discover things about their body and its sexuality.

 

So "in general, people masturbate". Is that a hard majority, is it a large portion? Hard to say, hard to say.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Apech]

 

 

So "in general, people masturbate". Is that a hard majority, is it a large portion? Hard to say, hard to say.

 

The hard majority masturbate. Ok. Maybe not so hard after a while just pale and spotty.

 

Ok I'll try again I suppose because I don't get your answer.

 

In general women are angry.

In general women are not angry.

In general women are angry but in general they are not angry.

 

I'm sure you are going to say context. So skip that and just tell what these statements actually mean.

[Stigweard]

How so?

 

And even if you were to cling to that title, those same "theoretical objections" are exactly what are used in the scientific peer review process which has provided our civilization with many of the things that I'm sure the vast majority of us enjoy on a daily basis. So they have to be doing something right, right?

Yes absolutely they do things right. But only when they marry their theorizing into the brutal reality of life. Otherwise they are just abstracting for its own sakes which is what you are doing. Actually you are going beyond this because it is obvious you are pulling whatever theory you can out of your ass in your vain attempts to be objectionable for its own sakes.

 

You know who else gets lots of face time? Paris Hilton.

 

Strawman? Just using this standard you are bragging about.

This is actually quite laughable, because on more than one occasion on this forum you have thrown one of your tantrums based on assertions that if a person didn't have experience in an area than they couldn't claim greater knowledge than a person who did have experience. And yet, also in more that one occasion, I have seen you throw your tantrums claiming that your theoretical knowledge was greater than the person who actually did have practical real-life experience.

 

This is just another example of one of your hypocritical tantrums.

 

So no matter how furiously you stamp your feet and pout, the reality, where the rubber meets the road, is that only rookie orators or complete idiots will leave themselves open to misunderstanding by using such terms as "In general blah blah blah". For the reality is that people can and will misunderstand even the slightest of vague statements, and an audience who misunderstands will not move in the direction you are wishing to take them.

 

Yes you have given some spirited counter-points, but they are all just theoretic abstractions. If you don't believe my statements with the support I have provided then there is simply nothing further I can possibly say other than...

 

Get your ass out in front of a bunch of people, use your generalizations and find out for yourself.

 

I would be willing to lay odds on the fact that within 50 hours of real face-time (I am talking about actual contact time up in front of an audience) you would have gotten so frustrated with people interrupting you with their misunderstood objections that you would be singing an entirely different tune. Probably a tune closer to the one I am whistling

 

You "don't give a sod" about logic.

 

Now now, don't misquote me here. In the last instance I quite specifically said "I don't give a sod about the logical theorizing YOU are carrying on with."

 

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

The hard majority masturbate. Ok. Maybe not so hard after a while just pale and spotty.

 

What about teh wimminz?

 

Ok I'll try again I suppose because I don't get your answer.

 

In general women are angry.

In general women are not angry.

In general women are angry but in general they are not angry.

 

I'm sure you are going to say context. So skip that and just tell what these statements actually mean.

 

Here is what I think going into those statements-

 

"In general women are angry"- you see a lot of angry women, and note that you perceive such a preponderance of angry women over such a period of time, when you think of women, you think of them as being angry.

 

"In general, women are not angry"- you see a lot of not angry women, and not that you perceive such a preponderance of not angry women over such a period of time, that when you think of women, you think of them as not angry.

 

"In general, women are angry, but in general, they are not angry"- you need to make up your mind, figure out what you are trying to say, and/or qualify some of your terms. For instance "in general, women I meet at bars are angry", "in general, women I meet picking up their kids from school are not angry", "in general, women I meet in the mall are not angry, but in general, women I mean outside the mall are angry".

 

Like that

Edited July 22, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Sloppy Zhang]

Yes absolutely they do things right. But only when they marry their theorizing into the brutal reality of life. Otherwise they are just abstracting for its own sakes which is what you are doing. Actually you are going beyond this because it is obvious you are pulling whatever theory you can out of your ass in your vain attempts to be objectionable for its own sakes.

 

Where have I done this? Point to my post. Quote me. Paraphrase my argument. Use a keyword that I have used which can be found in one of my posts. Do SOMETHING that isn't just you stating whatever it is you want to say. We all know what you think. Show us you are willing to marry the brutal reality, and show me some real posts!

 

because on more than one occasion on this forum you have thrown one of your tantrums based on assertions that if a person didn't have experience in an area than they couldn't claim greater knowledge than a person who did have experience.

 

Then it shouldn't be too hard to find me a quote.

 

And yet, also in more that one occasion, I have seen you throw your tantrums claiming that your theoretical knowledge was greater than the person who actually did have practical real-life experience.

 

Then it shouldn't be too hard to find me a quote.

 

This is just another example of one of your hypocritical tantrums.

 

1. Show me the hypocrisy (by lining up quotes, using some keywords I have used which can be found in my posts, or presenting a thorough analysis of my position)

2. Show me the tantrum (I find it hard to imagine you being able to do this without a quote...)

 

Again, the only evidence that I have "thrown a tantrum" is you saying I did. Where? When? To whom? What conversation? What were my words? Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

 

I can respond all I want to you by saying "you are a 13 year old girl in real life", but unless I can line up some posts that actually substantiate that claim, I have nothing. You, right, now, have nothing. Despite my repeating asking for some sort of evidence, you have still produced nothing.

 

So no matter how furiously you stamp your feet and pout,

 

Where do you see that? Or are you just attempting to belittle, demean, and trivialize my position? It might please a fickle crowd and make you popular. You can use public speaking side stepping and obfuscation tactics in the spur of the moment. But here, your words are on record (unless you decide to up and delete all your posts).

 

I don't go and delete my old posts (even the embarrassing ones). So you go and find some of me throwing a tantrum, and then we'll talk.

 

Yes you have given some spirited counter-points, but they are all just theoretic abstractions.

 

I've matched each and every one of my points, to one of yours. Now I suppose that, to some extent, EVERYTHING on this board is a theoretic abstraction. Which includes your poll. After all, how could a couple dozen (at most) be representative of the entire English speaking population?

 

Huh. Way to go. I think I'm going to start using that

[Stigweard]

[Sloppy Zhang]

Sorry to disappoint but I only bother to log useful and interesting topics.

 

Oh how (in)convenient.

 

Firstly, and I don't remember exactly which thread, there was a comment made about how younger men these days weren't very good students, or something along those lines. You jumped up and down with more huff'n'puff then ol' Mr Wolf saying that us older chaps had no right or credible ability to comment on the younger generation of today because we don't have the experience.

 

Don't remember huff'n OR puff'n. Quotes please.

 

Then in the thread about computer gaming you claimed ascendancy of your opinions over mine even though you admittedly had no experience of gaming addiction whatsoever.

 

I don't recall ever talking about my personal addictions. Quotes please.

 

I mean, for God's sake man- you know what threads those are! Take 5 minutes out of your life, go back, pull some quotes, and show me where I huff and puff and talk about my addictions. Marry your theoretical abstractions to the harsh cold reality of my words.

 

And now in this thread you somehow think your theoretic abstractions and "sit in the back seat" experience of public speaking

 

I'm sorry, please tell me where I said that my experience involved sitting in the back?

 

I recall saying this:

I've seen just as many audiences who sat and listened intelligently and patiently as the speaker clarified their point and elaborated their position, even IF they initially misunderstood something, and I've seen just as many audiences take statements with multiple meanings in the intended way.

 

But it doesn't say whether I was in the back, or was the speaker.

 

I recall saying this:

I've got a personal experience which says that if that happened, the people in the audience were a bunch of morons, because I've seen audiences who 1) understood the intended meaning of a phrase with multiple definitions and 2) withheld their judgment until hearing the speaker out.

 

But that doesn't indicate if I was in the back, if I was in the speaker, or if I was watching it on the internet.

 

See, that wasn't too hard, was it? The post I quoted was even on the same page (page 6)

 

So, Stig, when did I tell you that my public speaking experience involved sitting in the back?

 

See, this is why you need direct quotes. Because you come up and make theoretical abstractions about a person, but when you marry those abstractions to reality, you see that those abstractions don't hold up.

[Apech]

 

 

"In general, women are angry, but in general, they are not angry"- you need to make up your mind, figure out what you are trying to say, and/or qualify some of your terms. For instance "in general, women I meet at bars are angry", "in general, women I meet picking up their kids from school are not angry", "in general, women I meet in the mall are not angry, but in general, women I mean outside the mall are angry".

 

Like that

 

Yes, so there are different classes/groups of women under headings such as 'women in bars' and so on ... in every case 'in general' means 'most of' or 'the majority' of that class. What shifts in language and meaning is the group/class or perhaps set is a better word, which is the subject of the statement. So if you say 'in general women are angry'. The term 'in general' doesn't change meaning but the set of women which you are referring to might. Because often when we speak or write we are not that precise. Language is not math(s). Its just the cheese argument all over again.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Yes, so there are different classes/groups of women under headings such as 'women in bars' and so on ... in every case 'in general' means 'most of' or 'the majority' of that class. What shifts in language and meaning is the group/class or perhaps set is a better word, which is the subject of the statement. So if you say 'in general women are angry'. The term 'in general' doesn't change meaning but the set of women which you are referring to might. Because often when we speak or write we are not that precise. Language is not math(s). Its just the cheese argument all over again.

 

I'd say it has more to do with frequency of perception rather than numbers.

[Apech]

I'd say it has more to do with frequency of perception rather than numbers.

 

Really? To me frequency means 'how many times' or 'how often' which is a number, like three times a day (... but I don't want to get back to the masturbation issue again : )). But I guess you mean these statements are subjective assessments of fact rather than a measurement as in a survey. Well of course. If I say 'its been really hot this week' ... there'll always be some smartypants who points out that its actually 0.005 degrees below the average for this time of year. I tend to keep away from such types ... apart from on here of course where you meet them all the time.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Really? To me frequency means 'how many times' or 'how often' which is a number,

 

Hey, hey, language isn't math(s)!

 

But I guess you mean these statements are subjective assessments of fact rather than a measurement as in a survey. Well of course. If I say 'its been really hot this week' ... there'll always be some smartypants who points out that its actually 0.005 degrees below the average for this time of year. I tend to keep away from such types ... apart from on here of course where you meet them all the time.

 

 

But yeah, pretty much this:

 

But I guess you mean these statements are subjective assessments of fact rather than a measurement as in a survey.

 

So in that case, it doesn't necessarily have to be a majority. It could be many. As center pointed out, many enough to warrant a comment and perhaps their own category. But not necessarily the majority of their said group. Just numerous enough that you notice.

 

And/or associated with particularly strong perceptions (super bitchy, super jackass, super nerdy, etc) which might influence your "counting" even more

 

But I'd be careful Apech, it seems like you're starting to get pretty into this daft argument

[Stigweard]

Listen Slops, it's obvious that you aren't going to agree with me and I certainly don't need you to. My reality and experience tells me that my hypothesis is the practical truth and I am willing to believe the validity of my little survey because it coincides with my observations.

 

If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. If you think that my survey is so fundamentally flawed that the results have no relevance to you at all, that OK as well.

 

I have to admit that there is nothing more I can bring to the argument that might convince you one way or the other. But I certainly would recommend that you get amongst the real world and test your theories.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

But I certainly would recommend that you get amongst the real world and test your theories.

 

Who says I haven't?

 

Who says that the things I post on this forum AREN'T coming from real world experience?

 

I consider it foolish to assume that someone who disagrees with you is somehow inexperienced, or lacking the "right" experience.

 

But maybe someone will condescend to my level and tell me that I am just throwing a tantrum. That I whine and stamp my feet whenever people don't agree. That one day I'm going to get out into the "real world", "test my theories", and then start thinking about things the right way.

 

Those people need to get over themselves.

[Apech]

 

So in that case, it doesn't necessarily have to be a majority. It could be many. As center pointed out, many enough to warrant a comment and perhaps their own category. But not necessarily the majority of their said group. Just numerous enough that you notice.

 

And/or associated with particularly strong perceptions (super bitchy, super jackass, super nerdy, etc) which might influence your "counting" even more

 

But I'd be careful Apech, it seems like you're starting to get pretty into this daft argument

 

I still think it has to be a majority of a group to make any sense. The speaker can be wrong of course and it may just be their mistaken opinion that it is a majority when in fact it is not. I already made this point.

 

I wasn't arguing. I just wanted to to make sure that you were saying what you seemed to be saying because I found it hard to believe that that was what you thought.

 

Enough from me ... carry on if you must.

[JustARandomPanda]

Your poll presents two options which have been demonstrated by Center's sources (see the thread in which this conversation started) to both be valid.

 

 

Um...Sloppy despite the cited sources used in that thread Center actually disagrees that my equation of

"X in general = the majority of X" is as equally valid as his. This despite him admitting one of the many possible definitions of generality is "majority".

 

He claims he proved my equation to be invalid.

 

Just sayin.