Tendencies

[Tiger]

Pointing out certain tendencies tends to cause a ruckus. This is something I often do as I'm not afraid to put things into proper context. However, others seem to think it's making assumptions about groups of people. For example, Christians tend to have negative feelings towards homosexuals. Does that mean that all of them do? Certainly not! So why is it that pointing out certain tendencies that many members of a given group may possess such a bad thing? I can't quite figure it out. I do not infer that 100% of a given group has certain tendencies, because doing so is dishonest, and quite frankly unfair. Yet, by inferring that some or many people in a given have certain tendencies, I'm somehow still accused of saying that a group ALWAYS has a given tendency when that is NEVER what I mean. Has anyone else had similar experiences? I'm sure many have, so maybe some of you can offer good insights into this phenomenon.

[kitten]

Most of us use generalisations (I use them probably more than I ought to) and they can often be useful, but they are fraught with dangers.

 

Some people have an aversion to generalisations because, when applied to people, they can amount to stereotyping. Those who have suffered as a result of being stereotyped may have a very negative response to such generalisations.

 

Also, I'm not getting at you, but just trying to explain why you may get negative reactions to you statements about 'tendencies'...

Perhaps part of the problem lies in the inaccurate use of words such tendency, which can often vary in meaning. Thus people may misinterpret what you mean. Saying a group of people have a tendency to be or to do X is not quite the same as saying one tends find behaviour X more commonly in a particular group. Maybe it would be more accurate and less controversial to say that members of a particular group are more like to show behaviour X.

 

Perhaps another part of the problem is that before making generalisations you should be sure that they are in fact true, preferable with some real statistics. Even if they are true in your personal experience, it doesn't mean they are true overall and on a global level. So unless you are sure that the generalisation is globally true, and have some sort of numbers as evidence of that, it is best to try to defuse possible negative reactions by prefixing such assertions with something like 'in my experience...'

 

Assuming that the generalisation is indeed true, another question to ask is whether it is actually useful or merely stereoptyping. i.e. if, as you say, you don't intend the generalisation to mean that ALL members of a group ALWAYS have some quality X, then the generalisation isn't going to be much use when dealing with individuals as you won't know before meeting them if that particular individual conforms to the stereotype. Perhaps it might have some use if you are dealing with the group as a whole, but most of us deal with individuals more often than we deal with large representative groups.

 

Another thing to bear in mind when saying that members of a particular group are more likely to show behaviour X is that you need to be sure that group is clearly defined and that it is clear what other groups you are comparing it with.

 

So, to take your example and trying to express it more accurately: " (In my experience) Christians are more likely to have negative feelings towards homosexuals"

 

Is the group 'Christians' homogeneous? Catholics, Evangelicals, Anglicans are not necessarily all the same and may be very different from people who self-identify as Christian but who never go to church except for weddings and funerals.

 

Having defined your group 'Christian' and then saying that members of that group are "more likely to have negative feelings towards homosexuals" you need to have the comparison for "more likely". More likely than Buddhists, Athiests, Agnostics, Muslims, Jews?

 

Even if you defined your original group and the group(s) to which it is being compared, then took care to check the accuracy of the generalisation and/or gave the caveat that it was merely your personal observation, you would still find some people would react negatively to your generalisation. This may be because their experiences and conclusions are different from yours, or it may be that they are members of that group and don't want it to be assumed that the stereotype applies to them.

 

Thus, my conclusion is that even if you are accurate and think your generaliusation is of practical use, you must expect that negative reactions will be possible or even likely.

 

Kit

[MikeL]

I think the kind of tendencies you mentioned are natural. By natural, I don't mean they are something we are born with but rather a reflection of our own experiences. It is natural for us to believe those ideas to which we have been exposed.

 

Someone who is around a group of Christians may frequently hear about the evils of homosexuality. That person may or may not adopt that belief himself. He may consider himself a devout Christian and not harbor any ill will toward homosexuals. Or, he may be a Christian in name only and have a bitter hatred of the gay lifestyle. It is only natural that he would, given his environment. Indeed, some Christian groups never speak out against gays.

 

The same situation may apply to a gay person who frequently hears other gays lambasting Christians for their attempts to impose their morality on everyone else. He may or may not develop a distaste for everything Christian. It is only natural that he would dislike or distrust church people.

 

One thing Christians and gays have in common is the tendency to stereotype the other group. Such an approach is always wrong if you believe that everyone in a given group is like everyone else in that group.

 

Everything is beautiful in its own way.

Edited April 21, 2009 by MikeL

[Graeme]

Kit and MikeL have said pretty much everything that I wanted to say

 

In particular, looking at how a group with a particular label acts in a particular area does not necessarily translate to groups with the same label in other areas. For example, my understanding of the Boy Scouts is that some well known anti-gay policies in the USA are not applicable in other parts of the world. Thus, when talking about a group, it is useful to try to specify which particular subsection of that group is being discussed, though I accept that it is a natural human tendency ( ) to generalise more than is strictly valid.

[AFriendlyFace]

I agree with what Kit, Mike, and Graeme have said.

 

Basically, I think what it comes down to is not making such simple, blanket statements.

 

I would find this remark offensive:

 

Christians have a tendency to be homophobic.

 

 

I would not find this remark offensive:

 

In my experience, it seems like many (which implies that this is not true of all or even most) Christians are homophobic.

 

I'm certainly not going to argue with someone else's experiences. At most, if I find that my own experiences are different I'll simply say something to the effect of, "that has not been my experience." I'm also not going to become upset because "many" is a relative term that is almost meaningless. "Many" could be five or six individuals if the person has only encountered a fairly small handful of Christians. I'm sure there are thousands of homophobic Christians out there, and that is "a lot," (thus one might say "many") but considering how many Christians there are in general, it's fairly insignificant. Another factor is the words "seems." That casts doubt on whether or not the generalization is true. It might seem true, but the speaker is conceding that he/she is going by appearances and may not be trying to make a factual statement.

 

So, my general advice would be that when you want to make generalizations make sure to water them down as much as possible.

 

It's even better if you say something explicit like:

 

In my experience, it seems like many Christians are homophobic; however, I realize that this is probably not the case for all Christians.

 

In that case even if I feel that as a whole Christians aren't homophobic, I'm still not going to get defensive or argue. I'm likely to only say something to the effect of, "you're right, not all Christians are homophobic." So instead of arguing or becoming defensive I'm implicitly agreeing because of the way the person carefully worded their statement.

 

 

Just my thoughts*

 

*(which is something I routinely use as a way of signing off because it implies that the words contained in my post are only my opinions and not something which I'm purporting to be absolute fact. Now if someone comes along and says, "No! Even if someone phrased it like that, I'd still be irate!" I'm covered )

 

Kevin

Edited May 9, 2009 by AFriendlyFace

[Mark Arbour]

Good points, but when you identify with a group, you are assuming the stereotypes of that group. If you tell people you are a Baptist, for example, they are going to attribute the anti-gay views so often promulgated by some Baptist denominations. And quite frankly, aren't they right? I mean, if someone identifies strongly with a group, they should absorb and buy into the group's values and beliefs. Otherwise, why belong?

 

Or if you are a Buddhist, for example, and you are talking to a Christian, you would probably assume that the Christian would be at least passively hostile to your faith. Why? Because Christianity advocates that it is the ONLY way to get to heaven, so they are in effect telling the Buddhist he is going to hell. So is the Buddhist wrong to lump Christians into that group? I think not. Does that mean the Buddhist should hate the Christian? No. But it should help him identify the Christian as someone who is latently hostile to his own religious beliefs.

[AFriendlyFace]

Hmm, I think I'll have to disagree with Mark,

 

Going back to your Baptist example there are at least two GLBT friendly Baptist congregations in Houston. I know this because I attended a GLBT vigil for a hate crime victim at one of these Baptist churches, and there were several GLBT or GLBT friendly speakers at the group. It most definitely was not an instance in which the church was preaching "hate the sin; love the sinner." The explicit message was that it was okay to be different, that acceptance was the way to go, and that violence and hate were never the answer.

 

I also had a friend (he moved) who routinely attended a different Baptist church with his partner, whom he openly introduced to people as his boyfriend. From what he says it was never an issue and everyone was perfectly warm and accepting.

 

By the same token I believe it was Graeme who mentioned once that Baptists in Australia weren't overly likely to be homophobic. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure it was someone around here who mentioned that Baptists from their country weren't homophobic per se).

 

As yet another example, I used to frequently attend a Methodist church (as I side note my only experience of Methodists concerning gay issues is that they tend to be very progressive and supporting). There was a girl there who once mentioned how ashamed she was about the way the Westboro Baptist Chruch was behaving because she felt it was unfairly giving Baptists a bad name. From what she said, in the area where she grew up Baptists were more sensible, moderate people.

 

I think that last point gets at what I'm trying to say. I can easily imagine someone being Baptist for reasons other than homophobia and thus not at all appreciating being labeled or assumed homophobic. Should they convert? Of course not, not if there are good reasons for them to be Baptist. There are certainly other characteristics of Baptists that one might appreciate. If I felt dogmatically tied to the Baptist faith I certainly wouldn't want to have to convert just because people wrongly assumed me to be homophobic, and quite evidently, depending on one's particular branch of Baptism it is possible to be dogmatically non-homophobic.

 

 

Another example is the GLBT/ally community. Theoretically most of us belong to that community, yet I'd be surprised if there were any of us who identified with all aspects and perceptions of the community and felt that it perfectly summed us up as individuals. Should we all then have to quit identifying as such because we don't want to wrongly be associated with one or two specific perceptions?

 

 

I think it makes more sense for people to be sensitive in their statements and not automatically make fallacious assumptions while at the same time the individuals in question remain calm, don't take things overly-personal, but politely correct any false assumptions about themselves as individuals.

 

Again, just my thoughts, lol

 

-Kevin

[Mark Arbour]

Hmm, I think I'll have to disagree with Mark,

 

Going back to your Baptist example there are at least two GLBT friendly Baptist congregations in Houston. I know this because I attended a GLBT vigil for a hate crime victim at one of these Baptist churches, and there were several GLBT or GLBT friendly speakers at the group. It most definitely was not an instance in which the church was preaching "hate the sin; love the sinner." The explicit message was that it was okay to be different, that acceptance was the way to go, and that violence and hate were never the answer.

 

I also had a friend (he moved) who routinely attended a different Baptist church with his partner, whom he openly introduced to people as his boyfriend. From what he says it was never an issue and everyone was perfectly warm and accepting.

 

By the same token I believe it was Graeme who mentioned once that Baptists in Australia weren't overly likely to be homophobic. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure it was someone around here who mentioned that Baptists from their country weren't homophobic per se).

 

As yet another example, I used to frequently attend a Methodist church (as I side note my only experience of Methodists concerning gay issues is that they tend to be very progressive and supporting). There was a girl there who once mentioned how ashamed she was about the way the Westboro Baptist Chruch was behaving because she felt it was unfairly giving Baptists a bad name. From what she said, in the area where she grew up Baptists were more sensible, moderate people.

 

I think that last point gets at what I'm trying to say. I can easily imagine someone being Baptist for reasons other than homophobia and thus not at all appreciating being labeled or assumed homophobic. Should they convert? Of course not, not if there are good reasons for them to be Baptist. There are certainly other characteristics of Baptists that one might appreciate. If I felt dogmatically tied to the Baptist faith I certainly wouldn't want to have to convert just because people wrongly assumed me to be homophobic, and quite evidently, depending on one's particular branch of Baptism it is possible to be dogmatically non-homophobic.

 

 

Another example is the GLBT/ally community. Theoretically most of us belong to that community, yet I'd be surprised if there were any of us who identified with all aspects and perceptions of the community and felt that it perfectly summed us up as individuals. Should we all then have to quit identifying as such because we don't want to wrongly be associated with one or two specific perceptions?

 

 

I think it makes more sense for people to be sensitive in their statements and not automatically make fallacious assumptions while at the same time the individuals in question remain calm, don't take things overly-personal, but politely correct any false assumptions about themselves as individuals.

 

Again, just my thoughts, lol

 

-Kevin

 

All true Kevin. But if you are going to identify as a Baptist, even if you're a loving, wonderful person, don't you think you have to expect a little negative stereotyping? That being said, there are different species of Baptists. For my example, I should have used the term "Southern Baptist." My personal experience with that particular sect is that it is a hotbed of hate called love.

[AFriendlyFace]

All true Kevin. But if you are going to identify as a Baptist, even if you're a loving, wonderful person, don't you think you have to expect a little negative stereotyping? That being said, there are different species of Baptists. For my example, I should have used the term "Southern Baptist." My personal experience with that particular sect is that it is a hotbed of hate called love.

LOL, had you said "Southern Baptist" I probably wouldn't have even argued

 

 

Personally I most closely identify as a very liberal Methodist, but I have a pretty non-traditional sort of spirituality and don't really fit any very well in any category.