Why do people think/argue this way?

[kenny]

I see it often here.
Something can be true in a zillion instances but someone will post one or a few examples of it not being true, as if they cancel out the zillions, or carry equal weight as the zillions.
It doesn't make sense but it used in arguments as if it did.

It's as if one drunk person driving home safely refutes drunk driving being a bad idea.

I blame the media for influencing our brains in this, uhm . . . unhelpful way..
In their effort to be "balanced" they'll search out, find and interview a person who. . .

had unprotected sex many times and never got STDs
saw an EGL diamond that was graded harsher than GIA
smoked her entire 114-year life and died in a car accident
prefers poor light return from a steep-deep diamond
I could go on.

Oh BTW, did you know there's a public school with higher test scores than a private school, therefore private schools are no better.

I think of this as PC-ness gone amok, yet it happens VERY VERY often here on PS, and often it's the same posters.

Keep an eye out for it.
It's not hard to spot.

 

[ForteKitty]

yes kenny, i'm stupid. what can i say? i blame my public school education.

 

[kenny]

I'm from public school too and have no college degree.

There I just did it.

Our personal experience is a sample size of only one, so it doesn't carry much weight when discussing things based on zillions of examples.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

It doesn't cancel it out, it shows how "studies" "surveys" "what-have-you," are a glimpse into what the information gathered from the data collected. No matter how "diverse" or "broad reaching" a survey is, it is not the end-all-be-all of life.

 

[ForteKitty]

i suppose it doesn't matter, since we all end up dead anyway.

 

[kenny]

It doesn't cancel it out, it shows how "studies" "surveys" "what-have-you," are a glimpse into what the information gathered from the data collected. No matter how "diverse" or "broad reaching" a survey is, it is not the end-all-be-all of life.

Driving drunk is a bad idea. Period!

But people use this defective way of thinking to argue that away by citing examples of a drunk driving home.

We all know there are exceptions to every rule.
That goes without saying and it does not make the rule untrue.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Some people like to be the devils advocate. I think when you throw a bunch of people together, you're bound to have differing opinions, that's life. What's gospel to some is folklore to others. We've been groomed to think certain ways on certain things, but others like to just stir it up by offering up another view point.

I personally don't see fault in it. There is always going to be condescending research or views or opinions...it's the spice of life, right?

 

[ForteKitty]

drunk driving is pretty clear cut. pro/cons of public/private schools aren't. too many variables.

 

[kenny]

Agreed.

How bout a kid being raised by the same two parents is better than a single parent or a series of parents.

I believe the two parents raising the kid to adulthood is best for the kid.
Now people get their panties all in a wad over this.
They cite examples of sociopaths who were raised by a single set of parents and examples of wonderful adults raised by a single parent or 5 sets of parents/step parents.

I still think it's okay to state that the preferred way for a kid to be raised is by one pair of parents.

Examples contrary to the statement does not make the statement go away.
It's a numbers thing.
Larger numbers hold more weight than smaller numbers.
Yet these folks will cite one example to refute a zillion.

 

[Bliss]

You ladies and gents are HILARIOUS!!!!

Speaking from one's personal experience can be a powerful thing and does bring one more perspective into the mix. But yes, anecdotal evidence should never be treated as gospel. My favorite thing is when people tell me I can have a drink because their moms drank a glass a night while they were pregnant and they turned out fine. That's always fun to hear! Or people who say their moms smoked throughout their pregnancies so I shouldn't mind standing beside their lit cigarette inhaling the toxins. Yep, I think I'll gladly inhale carcinogens and endanger my unborn child because of your cute story!

 

[Haven]

I think we do this because it is so very difficult to see beyond our personal experiences. I'm sure we all like to *think* we can, but most of us aren't truly able to grasp the concept that what we know to be true doesn't really apply to everyone else's reality.

Edited to complete my thought.

 

[ForteKitty]

Agreed.

How bout a kid being raised by the same two parents is better than a single parent or a series of parents.

I believe the two parents raising the kid to adulthood is best for the kid.
Now people get their panties all in a wad over this.
They cite examples of sociopaths who were raised by a single set of parents and examples of wonderful adults raised by a single parent or 5 sets of parents/step parents.

I still think it's okay to state that the preferred way for a kid to be raised is by one pair of parents.

Examples contrary to the statement does not make the statement go away.
It's a numbers thing.
Larger numbers hold more weight than smaller numbers.
Yet these folks will cite one example to refute a zillion.

i think that depends too. i would say two HAPPY parents would be ideal. if they were miserable, forget it. miserable parents = miserable kids... doesn't matter how many parents are around.

 

[JewelFreak]

Well, I know just what Kenny means & it is annoying. One example that drove me nuts was an ongoing disagreement I had with a friend in my dog obedience club. It's an accepted fact, based on generations of experience, that you cannot ever let a Siberian Husky off-lead unless he's confined by a good tall fence. Running's in their DNA & they take off; sometimes will come when called but if it ain't on their agenda for the day, ta-ta. Any responsible breeder will not sell a pup to a buyer who doesn't understand that. This friend always said in a tone that ended all discussion, "Well, we had a Siberian when I was a kid and she never ran off!" As if that one dog (don't even know if she was all Siberian) makes the whole idea ridiculous & nobody should leash one. I wanted to shake that girl!

--- Laurie

 

[MyDiamondSparkles]

I think it is because a lot of peole see things in black and white and don't know what to do when there is a gray area. Like it has to be black or it has to be white, ya know?

My Chihuahua must have some Siberian Husy in her, because I would never trust her off leash. Sure she would stick by me on a walk, until she sees a squirrel, bird or leaf blowing in the wind, then she would be gonzo!

 

[kenny]

Generalizing is okay.
It is generally true that men are stronger than women.
It is generally true that men are taller than women.

It goes without saying that there are exceptions to these generalizations.
DUH!

Yet, people will quickly make a huge deal when the bring up the exceptions, as if they are an argument against the generalization.
But the exceptions do not make the generalizations not generally true.

But the overly-PC people go psycho these days if you make generalizations that are . . . well . . . generally true.

 

[that_someone_special]

I am confused by this because I have seen a lot of posts from you, kenny, that plays devils advocate...

At any rate. This is just a forum. The internet. If I believed everything on the internet...

 

[ForteKitty]

generalization: women have more shoes than men
reality (for me): most of the men i know own more shoes than every single woman i know.

what does that mean?!?!? and i'm really bored at work. isn't it time to go home yet??

 

[davi_el_mejor]

Generalizing is okay.
It is generally true that men are stronger than women.
It is generally true that men are taller than women.

It goes without saying that there are exceptions to these generalizations.
DUH!

Yet, people will quickly make a huge deal when the bring up the exceptions, as if they are an argument against the generalization.
But the exceptions do not make the generalizations not generally true.

But the overly-PC people go psycho these days if you make generalizations that are . . . well . . . generally true.

Deja_vu

 

[MonkeyPie]

I am confused by this because I have seen a lot of posts from you, kenny, that plays devils advocate...

At any rate. This is just a forum. The internet. If I believed everything on the internet...

This.

 

[kenny]

Agreed.

How bout a kid being raised by the same two parents is better than a single parent or a series of parents.

I believe the two parents raising the kid to adulthood is best for the kid.
Now people get their panties all in a wad over this.
They cite examples of sociopaths who were raised by a single set of parents and examples of wonderful adults raised by a single parent or 5 sets of parents/step parents.

I still think it's okay to state that the preferred way for a kid to be raised is by one pair of parents.

Examples contrary to the statement does not make the statement go away.
It's a numbers thing.
Larger numbers hold more weight than smaller numbers.
Yet these folks will cite one example to refute a zillion.

i think that depends too. i would say two HAPPY parents would be ideal. if they were miserable, forget it. miserable parents = miserable kids... doesn't matter how many parents are around.

I would say two happy parents who are not Hitler and a child-molesting cannibal....
... I mean REALLY, here's another example of something not even relevant.
It furthers nothing if the subject is one-parent vs. two-parent homes for kids.

Why not mention two-parent homes that starve and beat the kids?
You see what I mean?

 

[sillyberry]

Deja_vu

Oh good, I was really confused there for a second.

 

[kenny]

I think we do this because it is so very difficult to see beyond our personal experiences. I'm sure we all like to *think* we can, but most of us aren't truly able to grasp the concept that what we know to be true doesn't really apply to everyone else's reality.

Edited to complete my thought.

Oh my goodness.
I hope I can see beyond my own views on things.
I am not shy about expressing my perspective but certainly strive to respect others.

I shy away from the perspective of there being single external truths we all must adhere to, unless we are talking about what 2+2 equals.

 

[Kaleigh]

Kenny,
You are all over the place, and am having a hard time following your frame of thought. You bring up several topics within one thread. I don't know where you are going or what you are asking.

And for your question about how people argue?? There will always be those that see things from a different perspective than you, and isn't that what makes the world go around. If we all agreed, how boring would that be. It's like vanilla...

 

[ForteKitty]

Agreed.

How bout a kid being raised by the same two parents is better than a single parent or a series of parents.

I believe the two parents raising the kid to adulthood is best for the kid.
Now people get their panties all in a wad over this.
They cite examples of sociopaths who were raised by a single set of parents and examples of wonderful adults raised by a single parent or 5 sets of parents/step parents.

I still think it's okay to state that the preferred way for a kid to be raised is by one pair of parents.

Examples contrary to the statement does not make the statement go away.
It's a numbers thing.
Larger numbers hold more weight than smaller numbers.
Yet these folks will cite one example to refute a zillion.

i think that depends too. i would say two HAPPY parents would be ideal. if they were miserable, forget it. miserable parents = miserable kids... doesn't matter how many parents are around.

I would say two happy parents who are not Hitler and a child-molesting cannibal....
... I mean REALLY, here's another example of something not even relevant.
It adds nothing and makes no point if the subject is one-parent vs. two-parent homes for kids.

Why not mention two-parent homes that starve and beat the kids.
You see what I mean?

Of course it's relavant. So many parents are miserable. that's why divorce rate is high, right? (you can't argue w/ stats on this one...) Given that divorce is what, 50% now? it's safe to say that when someone says "two parents", they can infer to either two happy parents, or two miserable parents. So of course you have to clarify whether these are happy parents or not if you want to argue your point.

I'm not arguing w/ your point. I personally believe the stronger the family unit, the better adjusted the kids.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Agreed.

How bout a kid being raised by the same two parents is better than a single parent or a series of parents.

I believe the two parents raising the kid to adulthood is best for the kid.
Now people get their panties all in a wad over this.
They cite examples of sociopaths who were raised by a single set of parents and examples of wonderful adults raised by a single parent or 5 sets of parents/step parents.

I still think it's okay to state that the preferred way for a kid to be raised is by one pair of parents.

Examples contrary to the statement does not make the statement go away.
It's a numbers thing.
Larger numbers hold more weight than smaller numbers.
Yet these folks will cite one example to refute a zillion.

i think that depends too. i would say two HAPPY parents would be ideal. if they were miserable, forget it. miserable parents = miserable kids... doesn't matter how many parents are around.

I would say two happy parents who are not Hitler and a child-molesting cannibal....
... I mean REALLY, here's another example of something not even relevant.
It adds nothing and makes no point if the subject is one-parent vs. two-parent homes for kids.

Why not mention two-parent homes that starve and beat the kids.
You see what I mean?

Actually, it makes a WORLD of difference. Ignoring the key components of the whole for the sake of being "straightforward" is just ridiculous.

 

[that_someone_special]

But some people think 2+2=4 is the same as "Only private schools for my kid!" So what?

 

[kenny]

Agreed.

How bout a kid being raised by the same two parents is better than a single parent or a series of parents.

I believe the two parents raising the kid to adulthood is best for the kid.
Now people get their panties all in a wad over this.
They cite examples of sociopaths who were raised by a single set of parents and examples of wonderful adults raised by a single parent or 5 sets of parents/step parents.

I still think it's okay to state that the preferred way for a kid to be raised is by one pair of parents.

Examples contrary to the statement does not make the statement go away.
It's a numbers thing.
Larger numbers hold more weight than smaller numbers.
Yet these folks will cite one example to refute a zillion.

i think that depends too. i would say two HAPPY parents would be ideal. if they were miserable, forget it. miserable parents = miserable kids... doesn't matter how many parents are around.

I would say two happy parents who are not Hitler and a child-molesting cannibal....
... I mean REALLY, here's another example of something not even relevant.
It adds nothing and makes no point if the subject is one-parent vs. two-parent homes for kids.

Why not mention two-parent homes that starve and beat the kids.
You see what I mean?

Actually, it makes a WORLD of difference. Ignoring the key components of the whole for the sake of being "straightforward" is just ridiculous.

Huh?
The topic is What's best for kids, one or two parent homes?

There are in infinite number of other factors about what's best for kids, no argument there.
They just have nothing to do with a discussion if the discussions is, What's the best home for kids, one or two parent homes?

It's got nothing to do with being straightforward.
It is off topic.

 

[ForteKitty]

Agreed.

How bout a kid being raised by the same two parents is better than a single parent or a series of parents.

I believe the two parents raising the kid to adulthood is best for the kid.
Now people get their panties all in a wad over this.
They cite examples of sociopaths who were raised by a single set of parents and examples of wonderful adults raised by a single parent or 5 sets of parents/step parents.

I still think it's okay to state that the preferred way for a kid to be raised is by one pair of parents.

Examples contrary to the statement does not make the statement go away.
It's a numbers thing.
Larger numbers hold more weight than smaller numbers.
Yet these folks will cite one example to refute a zillion.

i think that depends too. i would say two HAPPY parents would be ideal. if they were miserable, forget it. miserable parents = miserable kids... doesn't matter how many parents are around.

I would say two happy parents who are not Hitler and a child-molesting cannibal....
... I mean REALLY, here's another example of something not even relevant.
It adds nothing and makes no point if the subject is one-parent vs. two-parent homes for kids.

Why not mention two-parent homes that starve and beat the kids.
You see what I mean?

Actually, it makes a WORLD of difference. Ignoring the key components of the whole for the sake of being "straightforward" is just ridiculous.

Huh?
The topic is What's best for kids, one or two parent homes?

There are in infinite number of other factors about what's best for kids, no argument there.
They just have nothing to do with a discussion if the discussions is, What's the best home for kids, one or two parent homes?

neither. children raised by a pack of wolves will turn out the best.

 

[that_someone_special]

WTH is going on? I am lost now

 

[ForteKitty]

appearantly life is very very simple and we all live in an ideal world.