What does "In General" mean to you?

[Aetherous]

now the onus is on you to conduct your own research to support your assumption.

 

Oh okay. I chose to look in the dictionary.

[Sloppy Zhang]

On top of that....

 

At the time of this posting, the current results on the TTB's forum are 17 votes for "the majority", and 6 for "many).

 

Which means, going by this post:

 

45 : The majority of women act in a certain way

 

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

 

28 of "the majority" came from facebook

 

20 of "most" came from facebook

 

So Facebook's results are actually pretty close (just eyeballing it )

 

Anyway...

 

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

 

40.9% is still a big chunk. Not big enough, I would think, to warrant this statement:

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"."

 

As a fairly big chunk (40%) will understand your meaning correctly.

 

Furthermore, if we go by the dictionary definitions, which show multiple meanings, and we take the previous cheese conversation as evidence that people will supply the correct definition given the context, I wouldn't say that any argument would be reasonably "tripped up" in any way to warrant a significant change of speech when dealing with "the public".

 

In light of so many aspects which this current "study" leaves completely unaddressed, I would say that this peer reviewer finds it woefully inaccurate, and would highly suggest AGAINST drawing any conclusions drawn from it. Any conclusions that are drawn from it, I would consider so narrow as to be unrealistic, and completely inapplicable to any discourse.

 

If any study is to be done from which conclusions are to be drawn, it must at least be able to accurately reflect the subjects' thoughts and feelings on all of the above addressed issues.

[Stigweard]

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.

All fair and correct points which indicate weaknesses in the poll.

 

It is for these reasons that I have taken correct due diligence in pessimistically downgrading, via Standard Error Adjustment, the result from a 63.4% support to only a 55.9% support of my argument. Conversely for the same reasons I have raised the contrary argument from 36.6% to 40.9%.

 

With these stringent methods in place I can declare statistical validity within the results.

[Sloppy Zhang]

All fair and correct points which indicate weaknesses in the poll.

 

It is for these reasons that I have taken correct due diligence in pessimistically downgrading, via Standard Error Adjustment, the result from a 63.4% support to only a 55.9% support of my argument. Conversely for the same reasons I have raised the contrary argument from 36.6% to 40.9%.

 

With these stringent methods in place I can declare statistical validity within the results.

 

Paint trash gold, it's still trash, and it sure ain't gold.

 

Sorry bro.

 

Your strategy of bringing a pit conversation to the general forum AND to facebook?

 

Not only does it lack tact and reek of desperation, but your execution was poor. And even though you admit that there are flaws, you STILL try to pass it off as some "stringent", "scientific" procedure.

 

I hope you impressed whoever it was you were trying to impress. Because it sure as hell wasn't me, and I sure as hell wasn't impressed.

 

But if it helps you sleep at night, knowing you showed us all what a great "scientist" you are, more power to you.

 

This conversation never should have left the pit.

[Stigweard]

Oh okay. I chose to look in the dictionary.

Which only proves the two usages of the phrase exist but gives no credence whatsoever to majority use one way or the other.

 

Now I have previously and quite happily acknowledged the legitimacy of both usages, and you can see by my results that an error adjusted 55% vs 40% is not wide enough a gap to claim outright ascendancy of one over the other (though it would win you a General Election ).

 

The point is that, why the hell, in the pursuit of delivering a clear argument, would you use a statement like "In general blah, blah, blah" when results like this poll shows that in all probability at least 55% of your audience would blatantly misconstrue your comments??? And you would have to then spend the next hour (or several days ) painfully explaining to them the "logic" behind your comments.

 

What sort of fool narrator would self-sabotage a presentation like this???

 

And even if I knew that 55% of the audience was going to understand my generalization I would still be left with 40%+ who would likewise misconstrue my statements.

 

The morale of the story is, if you want to get your point across clearly, avoid generalizations like the plague!!!!

 

Heheheh!!!

 

[Aetherous]

To be clear, this whole argument about "in general" started from this statement:

 

Anger arises when someone states a fact about women in general.

 

So are we essentially arguing that anger only arises when a fact is stated about many women (because the angry people will be ASSUMING that it's untrue due to interpreting "in general" to mean a majority)...but if the fact actually pertains to a majority, then people tend not to get angry (because "in general" will have been used in the correct way)?

 

 

Edit: excuse me: "used in the correct way" should say "used in the assumed to be correct way".

Edited July 21, 2011 by Scotty

[Stigweard]

Paint trash gold, it's still trash, and it sure ain't gold.

 

Sorry bro.

 

Your strategy of bringing a pit conversation to the general forum AND to facebook?

 

Not only does it lack tact and reek of desperation, but your execution was poor. And even though you admit that there are flaws, you STILL try to pass it off as some "stringent", "scientific" procedure.

 

I hope you impressed whoever it was you were trying to impress. Because it sure as hell wasn't me, and I sure as hell wasn't impressed.

 

But if it helps you sleep at night, knowing you showed us all what a great "scientist" you are, more power to you.

 

This conversation never should have left the pit.

Interesting to hear your premeditated emotional prejudice coming through which only serves to validate my earlier statements that you have, from the outset, been desperately floundering about trying to latch onto anything you could to establish some sort of "Got ya!" moment for yourself.

 

And now, in the absence of anything constructive to say, you resort to mere mud-slinging.

 

I brought a single element of said conversation up to the main forum as a poll and did a quiz on FB to get some statistical data which I was accused of not having. Up until your last post the conversation in this thread has had the respectful discourse befitting its place in the open discussion.

 

Now if you wish to get this thread moved back down to The Pit so that you and I can speak more "liberally" with each other than I will happily ask a moderator to oblige. Otherwise I am sure we can find a way continue what has for the most part been a constructive investigation.

 

[Stigweard]

To be clear, this whole argument about "in general" started from this statement:

 

 

 

So are we essentially arguing that anger only arises when a fact is stated about many women (because the angry people will be ASSUMING that it's untrue due to interpreting "in general" to mean a majority)...but if the fact actually pertains to a majority, then people tend not to get angry (because "in general" will have been used in the correct way)?

 

 

Edit: excuse me: "used in the correct way" should say "used in the assumed to be correct way".

Sorry matey I only came in with SB's new post in The Pit so I am ignorant as to the original starting point. I was responding to this comment:

 

"To be clear about "women in general"...it may not mean the majority. Consider this: if 25% of all humans are serial killers that is a LARGE number. Large enough to say "human beings are serial killers in general". But it is not the majority of humans that do it, only a quarter. So I'm using the phrase in a similar way."

 

As such I can't comment on what you are referring to.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

Interesting to hear your premeditated emotional prejudice coming through

 

I clearly broke down each and every element that I found flawed with your approach, execution, and appraisal.

 

You respond with conjecture of my personal stance.

 

Telling.

[Aetherous]

Yup, this is where the discussion began:

 

Anger arises when someone states a fact about women in general.

 

You can see the breakdown on page 1 of Serene's thread.

 

We were essentially discussing nothing the entire time. Semantics or something.

 

Anyway: I still think I'm absolutely right.

[Aetherous]

I clearly broke down each and every element that I found flawed with your approach, execution, and appraisal.

 

You respond with conjecture of my personal stance.

 

Telling.

 

Isn't that hard to deal with? You put so much time and thought into making your points...and it all goes to waste. On top of that, you're ridiculed.

 

Not saying anything about Stig's intelligence, but there's that saying:

 

"Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

[Stigweard]

Isn't that hard to deal with? You put so much time and thought into making your points...and it all goes to waste. On top of that, you're ridiculed.

 

Not saying anything about Stig's intelligence, but there's that saying:

 

"Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Ahh more mud-slinging in the absence of valid argument. Keep going ol' chap

[Aetherous]

There actually was a valid argument...what was it, two days ago?

 

By the way, I'm not saying anything about you personally Stig, but I really do like that saying:

 

"Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

[Stigweard]

I clearly broke down each and every element that I found flawed with your approach, execution, and appraisal.

 

You respond with conjecture of my personal stance.

 

Telling.

Bahahaha ... ain't that just the pot calling the kettle black Should I drag more elements of our conversation out of The Pit??

 

[Stigweard]

I clearly broke down each and every element that I found flawed with your approach, execution, and appraisal.

 

You respond with conjecture of my personal stance.

 

Telling.

Actually your arguments in general have lacked in substance.

 

[rene]

.

 

I would like to thank Scotty, Sloppy and Stig

 

 

for making it easier to continue to watch this fun exchange without having to log in to read in The Pit!

 

Generally speaking, this is like watching three little boys rolling in the snow, fighting over whose weenie is bigger who has the best argument. (-:

 

with warmest regards and laughing heart,

rene

[Sloppy Zhang]

Bahahaha ... ain't that just the pot calling the kettle black Should I drag more elements of our conversation out of The Pit??

 

 

Actually your arguments in general have lacked in substance.

 

 

This is what I meant. You responded twice to my same post, but never contribute anything other than your opinion that I haven't done anything (even though, if it were true, you'd have evidence, despite the evidence to the contrary here and here, which, yes, was in response to you asking me to apply the logic that I was extolling).

 

I spent two posts spelling out specifically what issues I had with your poll and your analysis of said poll, as well as your reliance on using it as some sort of credible evidence (this post and this post, for anyone wondering).

 

I went and applied the logic that I was extolling. Quite meticulously.

 

Have you returned in kind?

 

No.

 

The most you said was this:

All fair and correct points which indicate weaknesses in the poll.

 

It is for these reasons that I have taken correct due diligence in pessimistically downgrading, via Standard Error Adjustment, the result from a 63.4% support to only a 55.9% support of my argument. Conversely for the same reasons I have raised the contrary argument from 36.6% to 40.9%.

 

With these stringent methods in place I can declare statistical validity within the results.

 

As if the answer to every single problem I pointed out could be washed away with your "stringent" statistical analysis.

 

And, honestly, that is a weak argument. If you have five holes in your boat below the water line, you can't plug just one and declare that you have plugged everything up.

 

You have so many problems in the initial stages (which I pointed out), that doing some numbers work in the final stage is not going to correct it.

 

Yes, my argumentative dick is bigger than yours, even in the snow. I show it again and again and again, whip out my ruler, and measure it, being quite clear about what system of measurement I am using.

 

And you are pointing to your little pecker, and as often as you SAY it's a big fat cock, you never quite manage to put your ruler where your mouth is.

 

So, please, if you expect any reasonable person to have any reasonable respect for your argument, go back (again, to this post and this post) and please address why, despite each point I raised, your current poll still holds any credibility.

 

Then we'll see how you measure up.

 

 

So there you go, the gauntlet is thrown. I have presented my arguments. You can weasel your way out of answering by trying to demean me or belittle me by saying stuff like "oh, you think you're so smart" or "just because you ask doesn't mean anyone has to answer" or "you think you're so smart, but logic ain't everything" or talking about my age, or my maturity, or my penis, or any number of excuses I have heard over forums over the years whenever someone is cornered. But I'll just have you know-

 

I'll know what you're doing.

 

And...

 

Every other rational person who is following this conversation will know what you are doing.

 

You can do what you want. You can tell whatever lies you want to believe. And anyone else on this forum who wants to believe will believe.

 

But those who will not be distracted by lies will see right through them.

[Stigweard]

.

 

I would like to thank Scotty, Sloppy and Stig

 

 

for making it easier to continue to watch this fun exchange without having to log in to read in The Pit!

 

Generally speaking, this is like watching three little boys rolling in the snow, fighting over whose weenie is bigger who has the best argument. (-:

 

with warmest regards and laughing heart,

rene

+1 for you !!!

 

 

If you think it has been fun to watch imagine the enjoyment I have had being a part of it

 

Look I will fully admit I have stirred this one up. I was intentionally looking for a good hearty debate and the topic matter didn't really matter. It's nit-picking and probably a little trivial but it's a debate none-the-less.

 

And good on Scotty and Sloppy for hoeing in, what they have lacked in substance they have well and truly made up in exuberance, though I do think they need to not take it all so personally

 

But I am glad the Scotty, Sloppy, Stiggy Show has brought you some mirth. Y'all come back now! There's more to come!

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

And good on Scotty and Sloppy for hoeing in, what they have lacked in substance they have well and truly made up in exuberance

 

Perfect example of one of your comments that goes unsupported. You can SAY that arguments lack substance until the cows come home and you lose your voice. But just because you think it, doesn't make it so.

 

Now if you could, I dunno, review a post which critiques your argument, and explain why that critique is lacking substance at each and every turn, well, you might have an argument

 

though I do think they need to not take it all so personally

 

Please. Let not center's comments about taking things personally reflect on me, and let not my comments about anything reflect on him.

 

I'm not taking anything personally. Are you? It's interesting that you would jump to that conclusion.... almost as if it was already on the front of your mind... as if that's what you were doing and you were... projecting.... hm....? Or maybe one too many people have said they are taking things personally, and now you see enemies everywhere.... wait, you don't have a reason to... have enemies.... do you? Hmm?

[Aetherous]

I do take it personally when you're having a discussion and someone plays cheap, and doesn't care for the truth. It's a complete waste of time and is only enjoyable to them.

 

Which is why at some point it's enough to stop trying to prove your point, and simply say:

 

"Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

It's like a sacred mantra, soothing the mind and enlightening us at the same time; teaching us the correct course of action. It is the most precious practice for the lover of truth.

[Stigweard]

Alright o' Sloppy one, you are wanting to claim ascendancy in the argument.

 

OK, now please detail how any of your flounderings have countered this statement which has been the point all along (which you have shown an incredible capacity to simply not get):

 

It is counter-productive to one's argument to say "In general blah blah blah" with the intent of it meaning "many but not the majority" because the majority will in fact understand it to mean "the majority".

 

Furthermore, it is likewise counter-productive to say "In general blah blah blah" with the intent of it meaning "the majority" because a significant portion of people will in fact understand it to mean "many but not the majority".

 

That my friend has been the logic of this debate from the outset and so far I have seen nothing in your statements that would detract for my hypothesis.

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

Alright o' Sloppy one, you are wanting to claim ascendancy in the argument.

 

OK, now please detail how any of your flounderings have countered this statement which has been the point all along (which you have shown an incredible capacity to simply not get):

 

It is counter-productive to one's argument to say "In general blah blah blah" with the intent of it meaning "many but not the majority" because the majority will in fact understand it to mean "the majority".

 

Furthermore, it is likewise counter-productive to say "In general blah blah blah" with the intent of it meaning "the majority" because a significant portion of people will in fact understand it to mean "many but not the majority".

 

That my friend has been the logic of this debate from the outset and so far I have seen nothing in your statements that would detract for my hypothesis.

 

 

Then you need to go back and read this post and this post.

 

But I shall try to sum it all up:

 

Center/scotty, in the other thread, listed several sources which gave multiple definitions for the meaning "in context". The English language has many words with multiple meanings determined by the contexts. Intelligent readers/listeners fill in the appropriate definition depending on the context.

 

For instance, the word "rape" means forced sexual intercourse. However, violent military campaigns that involve the destruction and general sacking of a city have been referred to as "rapes" for a very long time (though very often, forced sexual intercourse happens). Case in point, the rape of Nanking. I doubt any intelligent person thinks the city itself was forced into sexual intercourse (how can you have sex with a city???). Knowing the context, they supply a secondary meaning, and the message of "the rape of Nanking" is not lost on anybody (anybody educated, that is).

 

Which brings us to your poll.

 

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. However, you poll pits them against each other. That very premise is silly. Why would you even pit two equally valid definitions against each other? Again, it'd be like pitting the multiple uses of the word "rape" against each other. Is any one "more right" than the other? No. It depends on the context.

 

So not only is the premise flawed from the beginning, but you compound the issue further by allowing only ONE of TWO choices. Participants have no option for "it could be either, depending on what you are talking about". They have no option for "neither". They have no option for "this, but only in this instance".

 

So the participants literally have one arm tied behind their back. They must choose between one of two equally valid definitions. Given their limited choices, they are faced with several viable options for how to proceed- they could not vote, they could vote for the one that is most likely the case, they can vote for the one that they (subjectively) have heard most often, they can vote for the one that they think the poll giver wants to hear, they can vote for the one that they believe has the most primacy, they can vote for whichever one is "right" according to test taking tricks (such as "always pick the shortest option" or "always pick the longest option").

 

But since your poll is so narrow and involves two valid definitions, we have absolutely no manner of reasonably viewing the thought process of the individuals who voted. And that's even when we ignore the fact that self reporting is notoriously unscientific!

 

On TOP of that (and the list is already pretty long!) there are no questions which probe the extent of their answer, such as "in what situations would your answer not apply?" Again, go back to the example of "rape". When you read in a newspaper, "rape occurred" it is very likely it is talking about an act of forced sexual intercourse. Most people get that. "I've been raped" means "I was subjected to forced sexual intercourse at the hands of another". People understand that. However, when they hear, say "the Rape of Nanking", their understanding of the meaning of the term SWITCHES. So even if 100% of the population took rape to be a sex act, they would all understand the different usage of meaning.

 

The same could very well be the case for "in general".

 

We saw an example of this in this thread with the discussion of Limburger Cheese. Apech postulated (and marblehead corroborated) that the majority of the time, the phrase "in general I like Limburger Cheese" would most likely be understood to mean "the majority of the Limburger Cheese that I have eaten, I liked". The italicized bit is the part that is subjected by the reader. It is the implied understanding. It is NOT "the majority of the Limburger Cheese in existence, as to claim to have eaten that much cheese is a rather tall claim, and it is safe to say it can logically be ruled out.

 

So we come at last to your statements that

 

It is counter-productive to one's argument to say "In general blah blah blah" with the intent of it meaning "many but not the majority" because the majority will in fact understand it to mean "the majority".

 

and

 

Furthermore, it is likewise counter-productive to say "In general blah blah blah" with the intent of it meaning "the majority" because a significant portion of people will in fact understand it to mean "many but not the majority".

 

You have no basis to say either one of these, and your poll does not provide evidence that it is correct. It is very likely, given words with multiple meanings such as "rape", and the habit of people supplying the correct meaning themselves given the context of the situation (as evidenced by our Limburger Cheese discussion), that people would EQUALLY supply an understood, alternative meaning to the phrase "in general, *sentence*"

 

For instance, your poll example, "in general, women act a certain way..." It is nigh impossible for someone to have met at least 51% percent of the population of women in the world, then to categorized their behavior in one way. It is far more likely that the person intends (as in Apech's example with the cheese) to mean that "in the majority of women that I have met, women tend to act a certain way". Which is very similar to the second option of the poll "many, but not necessarily the majority", since it is a large enough portion to comment on, but not so large that anyone can reasonably assume that the speaker was commenting on at least %51 percent of the female population.

 

Now since your poll fails to adequately investigate situations in which the poll taker's response might change, be different, or even be both depending on the situation, it is not (at least, I would not find it to be, for all the reasons listed) suitable to be admitted as evidence that "the majority of listeners will in fact understand it to mean the majority" or "a significant portion of people will understand it to mean many". Because there is yet at LEAST half a dozen valid possibilities which would influence how they would receive such a message which are NOT addressed by your poll.

 

And no, doing a favorable statistical analysis to one side and a harsher analysis on the other will NOT, ever be a substitute for other viable options which were not, in ANY way, addressed by your poll.

 

So there you have it.

 

Your poll is far too limited in scope, and there are far too many unaccounted for, completely viable situations which could significantly affect your findings, for it to have any real bearing in how "the majority" or "a significant portion" of the English speaking population would receive a message of "in general women act a certain way".

Edited July 21, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Apech]

Then you need to go back and read this post and this post.

 

But I shall try to sum it all up:

 

Center/scotty, in the other thread, listed several sources which gave multiple definitions for the meaning "in context". The English language has many words with multiple meanings determined by the contexts. Intelligent readers/listeners fill in the appropriate definition depending on the context.

 

For instance, the word "rape" means forced sexual intercourse. However, violent military campaigns that involve the destruction and general sacking of a city have been referred to as "rapes" for a very long time (though very often, forced sexual intercourse happens). Case in point, the rape of Nanking. I doubt any intelligent person thinks the city itself was forced into sexual intercourse (how can you have sex with a city???).

 

 

 

Oh! with the City ... sorry.

[Sloppy Zhang]

 

Oh! with the City ... sorry.

 

Don't worry, it's an easy mistake to make

Edited July 21, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Stigweard]

Then you need to go back and read this post and this post.

 

But I shall try to sum it all up:

 

Center/scotty, in the other thread, listed several sources which gave multiple definitions for the meaning "in context". The English language has many words with multiple meanings determined by the contexts. Intelligent readers/listeners fill in the appropriate definition depending on the context.

 

For instance, the word "rape" means forced sexual intercourse. However, violent military campaigns that involve the destruction and general sacking of a city have been referred to as "rapes" for a very long time (though very often, forced sexual intercourse happens). Case in point, the rape of Nanking. I doubt any intelligent person thinks the city itself was forced into sexual intercourse (how can you have sex with a city???). Knowing the context, they supply a secondary meaning, and the message of "the rape of Nanking" is not lost on anybody (anybody educated, that is).

 

Which brings us to your poll.

 

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. However, you poll pits them against each other. That very premise is silly. Why would you even pit two equally valid definitions against each other? Again, it'd be like pitting the multiple uses of the word "rape" against each other. Is any one "more right" than the other? No. It depends on the context.

 

So not only is the premise flawed from the beginning, but you compound the issue further by allowing only ONE of TWO choices. Participants have no option for "it could be either, depending on what you are talking about". They have no option for "neither". They have no option for "this, but only in this instance".

 

So the participants literally have one arm tied behind their back. They must choose between one of two equally valid definitions. Given their limited choices, they are faced with several viable options for how to proceed- they could not vote, they could vote for the one that is most likely the case, they can vote for the one that they (subjectively) have heard most often, they can vote for the one that they think the poll giver wants to hear, they can vote for the one that they believe has the most primacy, they can vote for whichever one is "right" according to test taking tricks (such as "always pick the shortest option" or "always pick the longest option").

 

But since your poll is so narrow and involves two valid definitions, we have absolutely no manner of reasonably viewing the thought process of the individuals who voted. And that's even when we ignore the fact that self reporting is notoriously unscientific!

 

On TOP of that (and the list is already pretty long!) there are no questions which probe the extent of their answer, such as "in what situations would your answer not apply?" Again, go back to the example of "rape". When you read in a newspaper, "rape occurred" it is very likely it is talking about an act of forced sexual intercourse. Most people get that. "I've been raped" means "I was subjected to forced sexual intercourse at the hands of another". People understand that. However, when they hear, say "the Rape of Nanking", their understanding of the meaning of the term SWITCHES. So even if 100% of the population took rape to be a sex act, they would all understand the different usage of meaning.

 

The same could very well be the case for "in general".

 

We saw an example of this in this thread with the discussion of Limburger Cheese. Apech postulated (and marblehead corroborated) that the majority of the time, the phrase "in general I like Limburger Cheese" would most likely be understood to mean "the majority of the Limburger Cheese that I have eaten, I liked". The italicized bit is the part that is subjected by the reader. It is the implied understanding. It is NOT "the majority of the Limburger Cheese in existence, as to claim to have eaten that much cheese is a rather tall claim, and it is safe to say it can logically be ruled out.

 

So we come at last to your statements that

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

You have no basis to say either one of these, and your poll does not provide evidence that it is correct. It is very likely, given words with multiple meanings such as "rape", and the habit of people supplying the correct meaning themselves given the context of the situation (as evidenced by our Limburger Cheese discussion), that people would EQUALLY supply an understood, alternative meaning to the phrase "in general, *sentence*"

 

For instance, your poll example, "in general, women act a certain way..." It is nigh impossible for someone to have met at least 51% percent of the population of women in the world, then to categorized their behavior in one way. It is far more likely that the person intends (as in Apech's example with the cheese) to mean that "in the majority of women that I have met, women tend to act a certain way". Which is very similar to the second option of the poll "many, but not necessarily the majority", since it is a large enough portion to comment on, but not so large that anyone can reasonably assume that the speaker was commenting on at least %51 percent of the female population.

 

Now since your poll fails to adequately investigate situations in which the poll taker's response might change, be different, or even be both depending on the situation, it is not (at least, I would not find it to be, for all the reasons listed) suitable to be admitted as evidence that "the majority of listeners will in fact understand it to mean the majority" or "a significant portion of people will understand it to mean many". Because there is yet at LEAST half a dozen valid possibilities which would influence how they would receive such a message which are NOT addressed by your poll.

 

And no, doing a favorable statistical analysis to one side and a harsher analysis on the other will NOT, ever be a substitute for other viable options which were not, in ANY way, addressed by your poll.

 

So there you have it.

 

Your poll is far too limited in scope, and there are far too many unaccounted for, completely viable situations which could significantly affect your findings, for it to have any real bearing in how "the majority" or "a significant portion" of the English speaking population would receive a message of "in general women act a certain way".

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

 

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. 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".

 

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".

 

I am just saying, for the sake of presenting a clear argument, you would be a bloody idiot for doing so!

 

 

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.