Just pondering,,,,


I am sure that when I communicate, I speak in generalizations.

I may say things like 'boys are so silly' or 'girls rock', but I understand that by no means are all boys the same or all girls the same so my words are not meant to imply an absolute but instead, I speak with an implied 'some' or even with a specific reference to my experiences and interactions in life so far,,,


This distinction is not such a big deal with statements that are non offensive or complimentary in their nature but what about critiques or comments that might not compliment?

for instance, if I say 'its terrible for a child to suffer through cancer',, and someone responds 'its terrible for ANYONE to suffer through cancer',,,,,,do you feel that person is most likely interested in distracting from my point?


,,,again,, just pondering....its a bit of a pet peeve of mine because it feels like such an unnecessary distraction and a statement of the obvious that serves no real purpose

Many people use generalizations. And I don't have a problem with that.
There are some people who will go off point, no matter what. Just the nature of people..
but, to use your example, maybe you have found that one older person who may be going through cancer themselves or suffering through with a partner or good friend. They are hurting also. And that kind of hurting can make you feel helpless.
So, I guess, sometimes it is a matter of walking the mile in their shoes... to see where they are at this moment..
Just a thought.. have a great day.

At times just using your example...

for instance, if I say 'its terrible for a child to suffer through cancer',, and someone responds 'its terrible for ANYONE to suffer through cancer',,,,,,do you feel that person is most likely interested in distracting from my point? )

I really don't think it is their intentions to distract from a point, I think it is more of a reminder that not only children should not have to suffer from Cancer but as well as all of those that have cancer should be considered.. Since Cancer does not care how old someone..

Or it could be they have never experienced kids that have had cancer but have with several others that have had to deal with Cancer.

Myself I have never personal known a child that had cancer so it would be hard for me to relate to that extent.. But I have had several family members that have passed away or have beat Cancer.. Therefore I feel that they are only trying to remind others not to forget the whole picture..

Kind of like when some started protesting Black Lives Matter. What makes them think that all lives should not matter..

When people tend to see the big picture and include all in instead of a select group normally there is a better response...

I totally understand that and that is my quandry, I suppose

is EVERYTHING ONLY the 'big picture'? Why do we frown upon individual or group experiences or discussing them as such?

after all,,,

If I say I fell and hurt my leg, I am not unaware that others have also fallen and hurt their legs before,,,,,

I feel there is nothing in the world that only one group goes through, but that we learn from listening to individuals share what THEY go through

people give to breast cancer charities, not because all cancer charities don't need a contribution, but because that type of experience is dear to THEM and closer to THEM

a stepchild who only got one serving of delicious food and watched their siblings get two, who states they would like more, is not unaware that ALL The children would want more,but they are sharing what THEY Are feeling being that they received the least in THAT situation,,



Do we believe people do not understand the 'big picture' merely because they share their experience in their particular picture frame?

I understand what you are saying but I don't see it as a pet peeve.
Its difficult to express my meaning sometimes in generalized terms because of my inability to choose the correct tense. That is why you might notice that I change between I, you, we, they, others and use sometimes a lot.

I realize that everything I have to say is something from me. My opinion, my view. Some people can twist anything that you say to appear that it is meant to them, at them or concerning them alone.

There is no possible way I could know anything about anyone else in such detail. When using generalizations, my word choice is just how it comes out and while I do make a great effort not to offend I can't guarantee it.

Many of the concepts that I write are, to me, clear as a bell. Many people have trouble with understanding my intention when trying to convey those concepts. I see that as a failure on my ability to choose the right terms. People (in general) are very self-conscious. They will take anything someone says as a direct assessment against them. Sometimes even when the generalization is clear.

Like in this reply. I am addressing your OP and addressing you but I am also making general observations to anyone that might be reading this topic. I try to express myself in first person as much as possible but sometimes it is easier for me to put my point across by using exampling identifiers.

I have a scifi mind. My imagination is very creative. I tend to express my concepts in "what if", "consider this" type scenarios and use my own experiences to reinforce my conceptual points. I'm not really telling anyone what to do or think or how to act. Its more like me saying "Hey, take a look at it from this point of view and see if it makes sense to you too?". My reason is I want someone to reply and say "Yeah, I see your point but have a look at it from this point of view as well".
It broadens my horizons and hopefully something I said broadens their horizons as well.

The closed mind is my pet peeve. It stagnates imagination and builds prejudice.

Some imply all or are mistaken when it should be generalizations. When people post generalizations it is never accurate

Good question...

Here's what I think on the subject;

I consider that not everyone sees the same big picture.
That is because everyone is different and has different experiences that changes the big picture so they see it as it appears to them.

Sometimes they haven't even considered a big picture until someone else says, hey, check this out. Then, they look and may or may not see it the same.

There are many things that change the way we see things. Delusions reinforced by conditioning can cloud anyone and they have no idea they are operating under an illusion. Everything they 'see' is tainted by those deluded understandings. They are only seeing the parts of the big picture that their minds can accept. When someone tries to show them the reality of it, they will reject it or take it as an assault against them.

Sometimes just planting a seed of 'what if' can cause them to tear down the delusions and result in clarity.

As for your example

The "instance" is a control idea.
'Child' and 'Cancer' are intended to initiate a feeling. It asks you to search yourself for compassion. It intends to strike a cord with the parenting instinct to assure preservation of a child's health. Some could see it as a manipulation attempt.
If the entire discussion has been about children with cancer it may not be as big of an issue as if the discussion is about general attitudes about life.
The context of the reference initiates a varied response which is expressed by the individual according to their experiences.

It IS terrible for a child to suffer thru cancer.
It IS terrible for anyone to suffer thru cancer.
It is also terrible to see your child suffer thru mental abuse and directionless conditioning.
As a parent of four children, I could list all my nightmares concerning their welfare, forever.

I see, that negative begats negative. "Child", "Cancer", "Terrible" inspires negative thoughts. It sets the thought process into a negative mode. Touches a nerve.

A simple rewording of the phrase might give greatly different responses. "Its wonderful when a child beats cancer". Now, you have set the mind to a positive thought process.
People that are dealing with anyone fighting cancer can be inspired to optimism. Someone that has lost someone to cancer may be hurt but unless they are in a depressive state will also be inspired to think positive. Understand that there will be some that will take offense at the thought of cancer. Those people are not wrong, just in a state of depression.

I see many people that express themselves in the negative without even realizing they are doing so. Their expressionism sets negative thinking in those that are getting the message. They are not aware of the negativity either because most people seem to be focused on negative. Its a conditioning that is reinforced by society in the news, tv shows and movies constantly. People tend to focus on the negative.

To combat this, I taught my children to reinforce the positive in their lives by calling it out. My advice was to actually say or think
"This is a GOOD THING" whenever they see something good.
It lifted their negativity and gave them a positive outlook.
Don't believe me? Try it. It can't hurt you but it might help.

LOL, Thanx fer the laugh.

I am assuming you were making that generalization as humor. If not, well, erm...Might want to reread it.

No I am I am referring to INDIVIDUALS that is NOT generalizations. Nice try

But you wrote 'people' which is a generalization
and you wrote 'never' which is an assumption
Edit to add
Now you are using the word 'individuals' which is also a generalization. Everyone is an individual and you grouped everyone generally.
How about
"Generalizations can be inaccurate"

Yes?
But why are they interested in distracting from your point?
Is it a bad point? Is there perceived to be a better point? Did you bring up your point as a distraction from another point and they're trying to get the discussion back to the original point or go off on a different tangent altogether? Some other reason?


From the preceding example, what purpose does the original point serve, it too seems a statement of the obvious.

If you're making a pointless statement of the obvious, and they're making a pointless statement of the obvious, then the only real difference is your emotional association.
That makes your pet peeve simply other people not coddling your emotions, or not subordinating themselves to your dictating.


Only if they're invited to share what they go through, and only if what "THEY" go through is seen as worth learning.
Otherwise it's seen as someone seeking special attention, placing their desires above everyone else, forcing their experience onto others. Something antagonistically invasive.

Unless you're talking about formed social groups. Where anecdotal sharing is part of the bonding and reinforcement process.

And since this is an online dating site forum, you can get into discussions about online social interaction.
Where people form pseudo group bonds and then expect strangers and anyone that participates in the perceived group to adhere to the group rules individuals rationalized and assumed to exist, mostly without realizing it.
But they're not strong or consistent, since they can't really be enforced, which simply creates feedback of powerless frustration, which may turn into impotent "pet peeves."
And those insecurities motivate people to seek out more validation in an attempt to find consistency and strength.
And in an online "community" that has a tendency to whittle down participation to a smaller and smaller number of people who just sit around stroking each others egos, discussing silly things they tell each other are great. But that's probably a different thread.


If there's a known bigger picture, then focusing on an individuals anecdotal experience tends to be rather pointless, just self satisfying emotional or mental masturbation.

Why should one person value another persons self satisfaction over their own, or even to the detriment of their own.

The point most speakers have is to convey what THEY are feeling or perceiving in their situation,,,

I guess that is why it is a pet peeve when people feel they need to immediately minimize the personal element that speaker is asserting by clouding it in a bigger general picture of EVERYONE,,,,,

It seems more likely, they are commenting on your point, not distracting from it.
I mean, its a conversation... what would you want them to do? say nothing? just agree with you?

Agree^

Not necessarily.

I attended public speaking classes. (Dale Carnegie)
They stress that you should "know" the material you are speaking about. They advise you should have a passion for the subject but not to speak from perception but from facts. Perception and facts are very different sometimes. Passion is a feeling but emotion is as well. Emotional speeches tend to lose their validity.

Forum discussions are not the same as giving a public speech. Yes, it is public but it is not a speech given as authority in most cases. Forum banter is a back and forth discussion, where a speaker giving a speech is a one way communicate.

In a forum discussion, the discussion is usually one on one, one at a time where public speakers are one to a group. In forums, the point of the participant does not need to be on subject or based in facts. That is because forum discussions are informal and more or less unregulated. Staying on topic is desired but seldomly enforced. Emotional banter is pretty much accepted and expected. The participants perceptions are valid as a unique perspective presented for general assessment.

maybe to listen and understand,,,and comment with either something PERSONAL of their own or not at all,, rather than shooting down something personal like it should just be lost in the sea of potential experiences everyone else might have had or not had,,,

understood, but humans should not shy from having emotions and unique experiences and perceptions, it is what makes us human, without requiring our experiences to be COMPLETELY isolated/unique

I appreciate much more when people are trying to listen to UNDERSTAND

and, for me, someone sharing their personal experience or their particular groups walk in life, having someone else say basically 'so what, you are not the only one',,,,is mirror of a type of LACK of emotion and desensitization people have about what others go through,,,

lovely pj

the world is a balance, imho

nothing good comes if everyone only changes their perception to accept whatever is happening or not happening

nothing good comes if everyone is constantly trying to change everything either

some things are meant to stay the same and some are not, some can improve with devotion and work


and human beings can 'move mountains' when they work together but it starts with communicating with each other from a place of honesty about our experiences and perceptions,,,,

this is the assumption you are making
that people will only repsond in the way that you would
and when they do not
it bothers you
I am not condeming you
just saying we all tend to do this one

remember everyone comes in here
with their own suitcase of issues
and some are quite bitter, unhappy people
and like to spread that around

When we share our emotional states with friends in high school we sympathize because we are trying to form friendship bonds.
In the real world the bonds are much less tight.

To expect friendship bonds from everyone concerning an emotional revelation is delusional.

Not only do we not share emotional signatures, some have no desire to or will admit to the emotional signatures presented.

In a forum community like this, social groups form (just like in high school) and those emotional signatures can be shared to promote the group bonds. Anyone that is not part of the group has no desire to share that emotional stance. When asked, they don't respond as expected because they have no interest in gaining approval or admittance to the group.

Society is established by agreement of idealisms. Some societies form under the idea of performing a task where other societies form under the idea of sharing emotional states. Plus, there are as many reasons societies form as there are people to present the ideas that support a need for a society.

The world stage is much more diverse than the high school friends stage. People have different ideas and different emotional states. The value systems are just as diverse. We can't expect everyone to tolerate everybody's emotional outbursts. We all see it differently.

In a forum setting like this when we share an emotional state it implies that we desire someone to share that state with us. Some people do, some people don't. Some people think that because you shared your emotional state with everyone that its okay to share theirs too.

To expect others to listen and only agree is an indicator of narcissism.
Shut up and listen to me!
This is mine, you will agree!
What I say is most important, you be quiet!
I'm not interested in your views!
It stems from delusions of grandeur. It also stems from being a parent to small children. Problem is, people in forums are not small children.