The mind demands rules; the facts demand exceptions. – Mason Cooley
Of all the different varieties of irritating weenies in the world, one of the worst is that species of tiny-minded pedant who is completely unable to comprehend the concept of a generality. Though there is no such thing as a rule without exceptions (except, perhaps, for that one), this perennial poop feels compelled to interrupt any general statement with the unnecessary declaration that there are exceptions to it. Make the statement, “Birds have wings,” and this knob will invariably remind you that kiwis do not; it doesn’t matter to him that kiwis are but five species of the roughly 10,000 in the class Aves, that they are entirely limited to New Zealand, and that they number only about 60,000 of the total 400 billion birds in the world (approximately 0.000014%). Expressed another way, if at birth you were given a magic hat which produced a randomly-generated bird once per minute, you’d probably be past puberty before the first kiwi popped out. But to the anti-generalist, that doesn’t matter; his creed is, “If it results in the recognition of even ONE KIWI, it will all be worth it!!!!1!11!”
Though I used the masculine pronoun in the paragraph above because that’s what one does in English, I’ve never noticed any difference in the gender distribution of this particular personality flaw; men and women seem equally afflicted by the inability to comprehend that exceptions don’t invalidate rules. For years, MRAs have complained about the syndrome they refer to as “NAWALT” (Not All Women Are Like That), and in the past year feminists have started making the same complaint, which they refer to as “Not All Men” and bizarrely associate with fedoras and the Kool-Aid Man character. Of course, both of them are right in considering this sort of person annoying, and dead wrong in pretending the syndrome is limited to the opposite sex…which, as it turns out, supports my contention that feminists and MRAs are actually the same critter with different genitalia. Yes, there are some negative characteristics that tend to appear in many women…and not all women are like that. And yes, there are some negative characteristics that tend to appear in many men…and not all men are like that. And in neither case is it actually necessary to say so, because fanatics won’t believe it anyway and rational people already know it.
Unfortunately, the word “rational” does not actually describe very many people in the modern West. As the spring wore on and the “Not All Men” thing grew from an inane trope into a fad far more annoying than the behavior it was intended to mock, some master of Not Thinking Things Through apparently decided that the way to counter the truthful-but-unnecessary assertion that not all members of a sex are identical was to wrongfully assert that they are. At least, that seemed to be the premise behind #YesAllWomen, a Twitter hashtag apparently dedicated to the notion that the actions of a homicidal psychopath were somehow indicative of the behavior of ALL men, and that ALL women constantly live in mortal terror of this. Or something.
At some point in the past century, extremism became the norm in the United States; that defective way of seeing the world seems to have since spread to much of the West. No longer is it enough to disagree with someone else’s political position; now its opponents must assume a diametrically opposite posture. Dislike some aspect of x? Crusade for its total eradication, no matter how many civil liberties must be trampled, how many billions wasted and how many people killed in the process. Dislike a politician? Oppose all of his policies, even those which were started by your party the last time it held the office. Irritated with “Not All Birds” yo-yos? Insist that every last bird is as identical as a plastic toy made from a mold, and that one draconian, narrow-minded policy is good for all of them. Then argue until you’re blue in the face with your supposed “enemies”, and don’t be too surprised when reasonable people want nothing to do with either of you.
I’ve used the metaphor: If you’re standing in the path of a buffalo stampede, it really doesn’t matter that a few of the animals are going the opposite directions. It’s the direction of the mass that gets you.
Mostly, I’ve gotten the “Not all” argument when I criticize Islam, or rich people. when i say in general Islam is a anti-woman, anti-gay, violent and repressive religion, I get the “not all” argument from the politically correct. Of course not all muslims are all, or even any of the above. That doesn’t change the effect of the whole. (disclaimer, Christianity, or any other religion would be as bad given the chance.)
That’s an excellent analogy!
I’ll readily agree that it is at least quite a good analogy, although I think that depends quite a bit on context. For instance, one could say that, analogously, it depends rather crucially on whether one is about to be trampled by the bulk of the herd – shot round the world or not – or whether one is, for instance, trying to enlist the support of the other smaller part in an effort to change the direction of the larger part.
Which is a large part of the reason why even I – yes, even I! – periodically have recourse to the “NA [of group X] ILT” gambit: seems all too common for many people to characterize an entire group based on the attributes or behaviours of some smaller segment of it: stereotyping writ large (a term which I see you tagged your post with) or, more formally, a manifestation of the problem of induction, a case of after having seen half-a-dozen white swans inferring therefore all swans are white. A concept which I expect you’re quite cognizant of.
But, not surprisingly, when people present solutions based on stereotypes they are very frequently very wide of the mark, and are very frequently responded to, quite justifiably I think, with a variation of the NA[x]ALT. Why I think that the aphorism you quoted of Cooley’s is definitely a keeper: not at all easy to craft solutions dealing with all of the facts; but ignoring those that don’t comport with our stereotypes seems frequently to qualify as the proverbial recipe for disaster – a case in point probably being Canada’s proposed Bill C-36 to criminalize prostitution; one would have thought our legislators weren’t so clueless as to ignore the lessons afforded by Al Capone and Prohibition, as to insist, in effect, “all sexworkers are like that” (they ain’t).
Your metaphor is related to one I have seen in several places: If “only” three bottles of beer out of a thousand are poisoned, then “May I buy you a beer?” is a threat, not a kindness.
Hi I’ve nominated you for WordPress Very Inspiring Blogger Award. You may already been through this, it’s all new to me. If you’re not interested in participating – that’s fine but perhaps you’ll get a few extra well-deserved readers just from the nomination as I posted your URL on my WordPress site. Go here for an explanation.
https://alotfromlydia.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/wordpress-blogger-award/
I always enjoy your blog. Lydia
You have read Hofstadter’s “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”?
Also, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
Jesse Walker’s United States of Paranoia is much better.
Ta.
Ah, yes, “those” people. (Excellent description BTW.) I sometimes wonder whether they are at an earlier stage of development of sentience, one where “abstraction” is not a part of the skill-set. (Would require some kind of reincarnation sequence as model.) Interestingly, most (but not all) animals fail at abstraction and generalization as well. That is a huge hint right there.
Possibly the worst of the lot are those that follow some holy book literally. But people that follow and want to enforce laws literally are not better. Or quite often those that make laws. In the end, it has a strong overlap with the bureaucratic mind-set, where following some rules is everything and actual understanding is hugely unwelcome. This is also the reason why these people can be extremely destructive, but cannot even solve simple problems competently.
Of course, these people are hugely dangerous, as this mental disability prevents them from seeing reality, just the same as people that cannot see context (and context is everything once you have grasped the concept) and those that cannot see their own level of (in-)competence (i.e. sufferers from the Dunning-Kruger effect).
While it is quite uncharitable, it really seems like the majority of the human race barely qualifies as sentient and not really qualifies as intelligent. Most also do not qualify as “tool makers” or “problem solvers”. Without the tiny minority that does qualify as such, the human race would still be living in caves. Explains quite a lot, for example why so many people are such cave-men mentally.
I’m sure some nerd has already pointed out that kiwis, like all birds, do indeed have wings. They are just hidden beneath the furry feathers that kiwis evolved while developing into the ecological niche made vacant by a lack of mammals (apart from bats) in the region.
😛
(If not–let me be the nerd in question)
I always associate “not all men” with neofeminist types who inject themselves into any Internet debate you care to name with their loony opinions on human (in this instance male) nature. They’ll give some example of some degenerate (or group of degenerates) as being representatives of the Y chromosone, and then if someone dares to disagree, post up a “not all men” meme picture as a way of dismissing the argument.
Now, for me, the mistake is in engaging with such people at all. These are ideological monsters, like many other truly evil ideologies you don’t debate with them. We don’t try to debate Nazi’s on their opinions on the nature of the Jewish religion, and we have to treat neofeminists the same. On the other hand, you don’t get Heinrich Himmler advising the United States government on things, but G. Dine-s is often welcomed so there’s a problem. (For me, Dine-s is a perfect representative here, given her contention that all men who watch adult porn are pedophiles.)
I think your analysis, in the first part, is a little off. If the response “Not all (Some group Here)” is elicited, it is usually because the initial claim took the exception and made it the rule, e.g. “All men are rapists”, “All women are Gold-diggers”.
Scott Alexander has post on the Weak man (cousin to the Straw man) argument and why rational people feel compelled to respond.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/
In order to fend off the Worst argument in the world.
http://squid314.livejournal.com/323694.html
this is the thinking behind C-36. Since they can’t possibly see themselves having sex with somebody for money(or in some cases sex at all) they think that all sex workers must be drug addicts and for bonus points they all carry and transmit STIs to all they come in contact with. Completely disregard the fact that this is a small subsection of sex workers
Maggie, you are so clear-headed it’s scary. I run into this all the time and have gotten to the point where I avoid even talking to a lot of folks. Voices of reason are so rare, and you have my undying respect.
Alas, some of what it took to get to this level of clear-headedness was scary!
Unfortunately, that is customary in this world. Insightful people are really unwelcome as they rock the boat by pointing out all the extreme stupidity that is going on.
If you want to change behavior, you have to acknowledge that some people are doing things right (as you see it), and therefore, all or most people are capable of doing things right. You have to say ” Some men/women don’t act that way and they are the ones I respect.”
If all men behave badly, and I don’t, I’m not much of a man, am I.
“MRA’s” … LOL!
And … if I were a woman … I’d probably have the same reaction to “WRA’s”.
There is really nothing that turns me OFF quite like identity politics and “whoa is me!” sadsacks who make excuses for their own shortfalls by blaming the “system”.
Now, if men were being rounded up and jailed willy-nilly JUST for being men – then I might reconsider this – but they aren’t. Sex workers are being jailed, demonized, ostracized … that’s a legit issue but, guys crying about their rights?
Give me a break. Sally up and act like men, you fucking beta males – be the master of your own fate. You want to go from point “a” to point “b”? This is life and you’ll often find the road is full of potholes … or it may transverse a desert and you may have to STOP the car and get out just to make sure you’re still on the road. Nobody owes you an air-conditioned, smoothly paved interstate journey in a Mercedes.
And yeah, the occasional woman coming along and crashing into you because she’s texting on a cell phone while driving … well that happens to and it’s part of life.
That particular “WRA” is complaining about women cleaning out men and leaving their lives destroyed. I don’t understand this, personally. I know it happens because I have a friend off my first boat who called me up the other day to rant about his soon-to-be ex-wife, who’s made it her goal to ensure that he goes bankrupt and loses his government clearance so he can no longer work. I told him to move to NOLA and we’d hire him on as a bouncer – no clearance required. But … thinking back to our days as young submariners filled with piss and vinegar … that guy ALWAYS had problems with chicks. He never knew how to pick a chick. With him – it was always looks alone. Hell, he’s been with a lot more HOT chicks than I have … but it came with a price for him!! Why did he marry this woman? Because she’s young and he wanted to have more kids! LOL – he ain’t learned ‘nuthin and he’s 52 years old – same as me! I asked and, yep … she destroyed her last hubby too and, yep – he knew about it before he married her!
You gotta pick the right women. Which, doesn’t mean it will last forever but at least guarantees you can have a more pleasant “exit” if it comes to that.
Some people will not learn from experience, not even their own. These are usually the great complainers, and it is never their fault. While in some abstract sense that may even be true, it does not help with the real world.
I have to say that marrying a woman that destroyed her last husband is special though. Predators come in all forms, shapes and sizes and you only deal with them when you have no choice and then if at all possible on a level playing field or one stacked in your favor.
I think he added to his problems too. He’s not the kind of guy who sees warning signs and backs off … he’s more the kind that sees them and then probes them and picks at them and …
He’s also OCD and a control freak – though this is my opinion only. I love the guy and will do anything for him – but these problems he’ll never be able to fix. My bet is he tried to micromanage everything she did and probably “lectured” her a lot. I remember once, when we were young. We were in a hotel in Waikiki, and he had his beautiful girlfriend in the bedroom and I had her best friend on the floor in the living room. She was chunky but enthusiastic and I was on third base already so I’m totally good with this (she was an “athletic” kind of plump – a lifeguard from Michigan and she was barely 18 and one of the nastiest girls I ever dated – and this was my second “date” with her and the second time I was about to have sex with her) … then his girlfriend storms out of the bedroom and yells at me … “Krulac! Go talk to him!!” So I go in the bedroom and he’s kicking shit around and I say … “Dude, what is the problem?” and he says … “She won’t beg me!” And I’m like … “WTF Dude!? Who cares?”. She was willing, and breathing, and of legal age so I didn’t see a problem but he wanted her to “beg” him.
I would have smacked the living shit out of him but I knew if I wanted to get back to my plump little lifeguard on the floor – I would have to calm him down. So that’s what I did. Swear to God if I was his girlfriend I would have left that room right then. But then she was off-kilter in the head herself and gave it another go – probably hoping there’d be more drama. Thankfully, for me – there wasn’t. But that’s just one example. And none of us were the least bit drunk so you can’t blame alcohol.
Tens of thousands of men are in jail over female support debts and absurd assault on a female claims, and being a “deviant who rapes child sex slaves” ain’t easy.
What came first, the chicken or the egg? My live and let live attitude has been figuratively beat out of me in the last ten years. My extremism on certain issues these days is a result of being told my moderate stances are no longer moderate but completely bigoted, racist, sexist etc.. Welcome to the era of “the personal is political”, its total war out there.
It makes a little more sense to bring up the kiwi if you yourself happen to be a kiwi and somebody is faulting you for your big obnoxious but actually vestigial wings. Also, sometimes somebody will say “birds eat birdseed” and act like you are bringing up the kiwi when you’re actually bringing up hawks, vultures, hummingbirds, owls, moas, archeopteryx… and kiwis.
The article was good. I like to showing of the degredation of all of north america and the masses against things and what they do. Good article 👍🏻