Post by truth on Mar 22, 2003 8:38:59 GMT -5
TedRay80 gave this excellent summary:
Should we use associations when looking at individuals, truth? Of course not. You being the numbers man, you should know all about deviations and sample sizes. But take a large people group, and their stance on one political issue is usually correlated to another unrelated one. When I discuss "liberals," I'm not discussing you or anyone else specifically; I'm discussing the group on the whole. In that context, it would be hard for you to disagree that the group can be characterized as I've laid out.
And then claimed:
Please don't call me prejudicial or lazy for trying to prove a point. If I had specifically said that because YOU are a liberal (IF you are a liberal), YOU must be a big environmentalist, your accusation would have been right. When discussing the larger group, I think I have that freedom of association. Plenty of evidence to support it. I hope this is clear enough.
Good. This is getting closer to one of the points that I'm trying to make - Groups don't hold opinions; individuals hold opinions.
So, let's recap:
First, let me address your concern about me claiming that you are prejudicial or lazy. I'm not making that claim if you continue to be open to dialogue and seeking to understand another's position. The labels are meant for the practice of insufficiently summarizing another's arguments by labeling/grouping (like with "liberal" (or "lazy" )) and then being done with that.
I disagree with your view that "guilt by association" - the practice of determining the beliefs/opinions of a person on an issue because of shared beliefs on another issue with a group/person - useful. Not at the level that some associations don't hold - it's obvious that some of us do hold the same opinions on various topics; but at the level that it's not predictive (or useful in discovering new knowledge at a useful level of detail). My disagreement is based on these general observations/concerns:
And to extend an already too long of a post, let's break down the accuracy/usefulness of your original claim as an example of the problems with "guilt by association". You first claimed:
Note my emphasis on "all". This is a silly, lazy, prejudicial statement at surface. It smacks of talk-show host accusation meant more to inflame than to educate. It is obviously inaccurate.
Asked for clarification, you change the claim to (paraphrasing):
Note first the change in logic here: your first claim was about each member of a pre-classified group, all liberals believe(are) X. Your second claim is a classifying/defining statement, most X are liberals. Given your further claims of association, to be internally consistent, the claim should be for all. And finally note the change in consequence: "against the war" IS NOT THE SAME AS "support a fascist dictator". As with the above, inaccurate with added imprecision.
The second example brings up a question of method with "guilt by association" - how to choose the beliefs which make the associations. If I'm a liberal and am therefore pro-choice and a staunch environmentalist (for the time-being ignoring the problem with the coarse-graining of these) does my support for UK basketball make every other fan a liberal? Obviously not, but how to decide?
So, I'm done. I've rambled far too much to try to say:
grouping bad.
grouping lose good information.
information good.
truth no like grouping.
truth like information.
truth good.
BTW, I'm agin the war. I support the president. Some of my previous work is being used in the current war and some of my present work is for the Department of Defense.
Should we use associations when looking at individuals, truth? Of course not. You being the numbers man, you should know all about deviations and sample sizes. But take a large people group, and their stance on one political issue is usually correlated to another unrelated one. When I discuss "liberals," I'm not discussing you or anyone else specifically; I'm discussing the group on the whole. In that context, it would be hard for you to disagree that the group can be characterized as I've laid out.
And then claimed:
Please don't call me prejudicial or lazy for trying to prove a point. If I had specifically said that because YOU are a liberal (IF you are a liberal), YOU must be a big environmentalist, your accusation would have been right. When discussing the larger group, I think I have that freedom of association. Plenty of evidence to support it. I hope this is clear enough.
Good. This is getting closer to one of the points that I'm trying to make - Groups don't hold opinions; individuals hold opinions.
So, let's recap:
- You started out with the erroneous extrapolation of, "Absolutely disgusting. And it amazes me that all of our "liberals" have decided to support a fascist dictator over a conservative U.S. President.
- At which, I asked what you meant by "liberal" in your usage.
- You then allowed that your usage was too broad; made some generalizations about the political/social opinions of those "who are most adamant against war; clarified your point; and ended with an extended claim about the utility of war.
- To which, I muddled the line of thought with a post about the diversity of opinion between individuals, claiming that "guilt by association" is not useful.
- And then finally you rebutted that such generalization is useful when applied in a coarse-grained level of groups.
First, let me address your concern about me claiming that you are prejudicial or lazy. I'm not making that claim if you continue to be open to dialogue and seeking to understand another's position. The labels are meant for the practice of insufficiently summarizing another's arguments by labeling/grouping (like with "liberal" (or "lazy" )) and then being done with that.
I disagree with your view that "guilt by association" - the practice of determining the beliefs/opinions of a person on an issue because of shared beliefs on another issue with a group/person - useful. Not at the level that some associations don't hold - it's obvious that some of us do hold the same opinions on various topics; but at the level that it's not predictive (or useful in discovering new knowledge at a useful level of detail). My disagreement is based on these general observations/concerns:
- Groups don't hold opinions; individuals hold opinions.
- The abstraction of the individual's detail-rich positions on an issue to allow grouping loses the information of most interest - being for access to abortion in the first-trimester in cases of rape becomes "pro-choice" somewhere along the line.
- The grouping is most typically done by the "opposition" - sometimes done so that dismissal of the opinion becomes possible.
- In the context of seeking understanding of another's opinion, of what purpose is such a practice? Poor utility, especially in comparison to discussion of the issue with the person
And to extend an already too long of a post, let's break down the accuracy/usefulness of your original claim as an example of the problems with "guilt by association". You first claimed:
all of our "liberals" have decided to support a fascist dictator over a conservative U.S. President
Note my emphasis on "all". This is a silly, lazy, prejudicial statement at surface. It smacks of talk-show host accusation meant more to inflame than to educate. It is obviously inaccurate.
Asked for clarification, you change the claim to (paraphrasing):
most people who are against the war hold "liberal" beliefs
Note first the change in logic here: your first claim was about each member of a pre-classified group, all liberals believe(are) X. Your second claim is a classifying/defining statement, most X are liberals. Given your further claims of association, to be internally consistent, the claim should be for all. And finally note the change in consequence: "against the war" IS NOT THE SAME AS "support a fascist dictator". As with the above, inaccurate with added imprecision.
The second example brings up a question of method with "guilt by association" - how to choose the beliefs which make the associations. If I'm a liberal and am therefore pro-choice and a staunch environmentalist (for the time-being ignoring the problem with the coarse-graining of these) does my support for UK basketball make every other fan a liberal? Obviously not, but how to decide?
So, I'm done. I've rambled far too much to try to say:
grouping bad.
grouping lose good information.
information good.
truth no like grouping.
truth like information.
truth good.
BTW, I'm agin the war. I support the president. Some of my previous work is being used in the current war and some of my present work is for the Department of Defense.