Good analogy.

I too get tired of the bad rap generalizations get. They are useful tools, an axe to a scalpel; some situations call for precision, in others it's useless to be too precise.

Weatherman: "Looks like the hurricane is moving east!"

SJW: "Are you saying ALL RAINDROPS ARE LIKE THAT? Obviously some are NOT MOVING EAST. Therefore, you're a racist raindropist."

Calling out exceptions may render an absolute untrue, but it does not render a trend untrue.

AWALT, as discussed here, does not mean all women are carbon-copies of each other. It means all women have the propensity to act a certain way, and usually do.

But but, some womynz are special snowflakes!!

The bloopers on PPD love to trot out the tropes that:

• they have seen exceptions to your generalization
• they have seen more exceptions to the rule that cases that follow the rule
• you are not looking at a representative sample
• maybe they are not looking at a representative sample, but who cares because it is more important for them to think you are wrong than that they are right (although they most certainly do).
• There is no forest, only trees
• They describe a swamp, attribute that description to you, and then say that you do not understand the forest
• They have chopped down some trees without any falling on them, therefore you are wrong.

Generalization helps in making plans and allows us to stick to a bigger picture to achieve the Goal set beforehand.

The general public doesn't want to be lumped together with the others as it means a dissolution of identity. It's weird, in a way like how Hipsters like to claim they are "Original", that they would fight tooth and nail just to proof that they are different from another person, but lacking in the point that you're also a Human being living amongst other Human being in a society which compromise of Human beings.

They want to be special snowflakes, the one out of the ordinary, to be treated differently. Yet studies have already shown that humans behabe mostly in a herd and gravitates towards like minded people. That's how societies are build, that's why when we deal with things on this sub, the absolute is the easiest way to understand things.

That's also what makes us dangerous to the SJWs. We disrespect their feelings and their individuality, that our idea of a bigger picture is patriarchy and oppressive. Yet the joke is on them when if you cannot handle the big picture, how are you able to then decide on the tougher choices? Companies do not produce products to meet the "niche" group of customers unless they hit an amout where it's saturated on their potential profit chart, Governments cannot cater only to the minorities if they alienate their majority of the population.

It's in this everlasting quest to "fulfill" every niche and minorities wish for "equality" is why the world is heading into a mess.

You can't please everyone, or you'll piss everyone off.

Its a way of reframing to avoid the issue.

First thing that comes to mind is that the 1.1 or so birthrate in western nations is like a storm that everyone is pretending is not happening.

Anyone who has the capacity to think diachronically would instantly understand that western culture is sick.

Women always use exception logic because they cannot see things objectively.

Your post is, for lack of a better word, elegantly written. Would you suggest any reading material related to the topic or anything you would strongly suggest.

The main takeaways should be:

1. We all generalise.
2. You will likely be generalised.
3. Generalisations are not accurate but they are based on real trends.
4. Generalisations will likely work both shady you and for you at some point in time. You're best of acknowledging this rather than fighting it.

I'm going to keep this post (reasonably) short and sweet, and maybe you'll find some value in it.

Awesome.

Many modern people shirk at generalizations. They claim that the world is too complicated, and that nuance is necessary. They claim that to apply a generalization of a large population to an individual leads to stereotypes and bigotry.

Many people are idiots, though these claims do apply when generalizing"everyone" or "for any x" statements, though the latter is usually only applicable to logic, don't use this with the average person, let alone a woman. As far as stereotypes, they are often simply heuristics people don't want to admit because they're not nice or passe truths.

All of those might be good points, but in actuality completely miss the point.

See above. Yes and no. From our perspective, or the perspective of any pragmatist it applicationalist, yes. Though as an accredited philosopher I'll presume that's precisely what you meant, we're not talking about formal argument here.

Let's be clear about what it is we're doing when we generalize. Rather than delve into the annoyingly complex statistics of power studies, p values, Bonferroni corrections, non-Gaussian distributions (all of which can relate to our discussion of generalizations) let's use a simple analogy that gets the point across.

Cool.

You're a man on a beach without access to modern technology and cut off from civilization. You see a storm coming, and its gale winds whip you around. You run inside. The raindrops and wind are coming from all directions. It's chaos!

Or at least to the uninformed man, all he sees is chaos.

Now there's a weatherman on TV. He uses all the information at his disposal (satellite imagery, data from past hurricanes, etc.), and sees a hurricane as clear as day. He sees the spiral spokes, and understands the direction of the hurricane in general. He's not exactly perfect at predicting it 100% yet, but he can at least see how it's moving.

The motion of a given raindrop, or even a given storm inside the hurricane, is annoyingly complex. There are a thousand variables at play. To take the hurricane's general direction and apply them to a specific raindrop is stupid and foolish, due to the complexity of a small, acute situation.

Yes the above is the very description of a few fallacies, all based on the hasty generalization, the fallacy of division and the fallacy of composition, (it's converse).

But that doesn't mean the general trends don't exist. That doesn't mean that the hurricane itself is not moving in a given direction, despite the fact that you can't necessarily see that direction from a given raindrop's movements.

Of course, your correct.

An extraordinarily complex system such as a hurricane has general trends when you look at it from the proper perspective. When you are knowledgeable.

I don't know if "proper" is the right word, from a certain perspective definitely, but using proper presumed there are not other sufficient perspectives and premises to hold for applying this data.

You will never know exactly how a given raindrop will move, but you are better prepared and understand the general trends of the storms.

Yes, from this position, you are correct with"proper" see above. No issue here. Generally, you'll want to outline the pretense before the assertion.

We're learning more and more every day about the dynamics of the interactions between men and women. There are nuances, sure. But many of those dynamics have been common knowledge which have passed the test of time. Nuances are constantly being brought to the surface, but let's not forget that the general trends over large populations hold true.

They hold true, generally that in itself is the point.

Speaking about the sheer complexity of the dynamics between a pair of two humans, between a pair of raindrops in a hurricane, does not dispute the simple fact that there are general trends we're observing.

It never has. That's simply a mistake of perspective focus, or maybe even bias. Of course the true lesson here is, don't argue with people unless you're certain they can understand objectivity and switch perspectives. Otherwise you're simply wasting time.

TLDR: AWALT

Yeah I guess. Generally. Hah.