Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsPower move: "You cannot generaliz …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Power move: "You cannot generalize"

#1 · August 31, 2022, 7:17 pm

Hello everyone,

here is a power move I encountered several times now. Example:

Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person (usually leftist): you cannot generalize

What is it

Philosopher frame + smart alecing

What does it do

It frames me as someone who's kind of ignorant of individual differences or is unable to differentiate between individuals. It also rejects my frame therefore invalidate my proposition, no matter the truth of it.

The defense I propose

Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person (usually leftist): you cannot generalize
Me: of course you have to take into account the individual and the context!

What does it do

It takes away their frame of being specific to the individual. You show your ability to nuance your statement without having it rejected.

Another option

Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this, of course you have to take into account the individual and the context!

What is it

Frame stealing

What does it do

It takes away pre-emptively their frame from them.

I'm happy to hear about your thoughts on this.

Cheers!

Lucio Buffalmano and B have reacted to this post.

#2 · August 31, 2022, 8:57 pm

Hi John,

it's a great power move to prepare for.

My take would be to reverse the frame, doing the same to them:

You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person: you cannot generalize
You: yeah, and relativizing everything is also wrong; especially because in this case, it's totally true that [restate what you said]

Transitioned and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#3 · August 31, 2022, 9:07 pm

Hello Bel,

Thanks for your answer! I think this has the risk to start an adversarial frame: "I'm right, you're wrong". Also saying that something is totally true builds up on that frame: "it's either black or white". There is also a frame imposition (restate what you said) which gives the risk that the other person will justify and escalate because you went dominant and they don't want to submit. So all in all, there is a risk to have your back on the wall and having to defend the first statement.

Transitioned and leaderoffun have reacted to this post.

#4 · August 31, 2022, 9:59 pm

How about "I ve seen that a lot of Spanish people like to do X". Less attackable

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#5 · August 31, 2022, 10:00 pm

Yeah it's much better I agree. I also used "most Spanish people" but yours is better.

Transitioned has reacted to this post.

#6 · September 1, 2022, 1:26 am

Quote from John Freeman on August 31, 2022, 9:07 pm
Hello Bel,
Thanks for your answer! I think this has the risk to start an adversarial frame: "I'm right, you're wrong". Also saying that something is totally true builds up on that frame: "it's either black or white". There is also a frame imposition (restate what you said) which gives the risk that the other person will justify and escalate because you went dominant and they don't want to submit. So all in all, there is a risk to have your back on the wall and having to defend the first statement.

We could tweak it:

You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person: you cannot generalize
You: true you can’t, and describing a trend is not generalizing (optional: and you also can’t relativize everything)

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#7 · September 1, 2022, 1:29 am

Quote from Kavalier on September 1, 2022, 1:29 am
Hello John, Bel, Kevin - and everyone!
Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Ultimately I do think that this blueprint is quite a generalization (by the way, John, leftist speaking here. It's a very small one, but you want to be careful with unintended social climbing). Whatever X stands for, it still comes accross as stereotyping, and therefore it's a power move itself. Saying "most Spanish people" won't cut it because "most" is still a lot, so it's still stereotyping.
Brazilians are great football players
Swiss people are awesome at yodeling
Most Italians talk with their hands
Australian women glow and men plunder
In this light, "you cannot generalize" is actually a counter, and a good one. Lucio even teaches a variation of that in one of the new lessons about universal meta comments.
So I agree with Kevin and Bel.
"I've seen that a lot of Spanish people like to do X"
Kevin's suggestion above is great because now it doesn't sound like a power move. It frames the comment as more of an observation about cultural differences and you are curious to know more. "I've seen that" also makes it almost immune because it's difficult counter counter this frame without outright saying "you're lying".
Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person: you cannot generalize
Me: of course you have to take into account the individual and the context!
The issue I see above, is that I interpret the rejoinder as buying into his frame, because it lessens a previous strong affirmation in reaction to the interlocutor's comment.
You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person: you cannot generalize
You: yeah, and relativizing everything is also wrong; especially because in this case, it's totally true that [restate what you said]
Bel's also resonates with me a lot. It's a great damage control, because it makes it seem that it's exactly what you were saying all along. Then, when you restate what you said, you could rephrase it with Kevin's approach instead of using the same words.

Hello John, Bel, Kevin - and everyone!

Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this

Ultimately I do think that this blueprint is quite a generalization (by the way, John, leftist speaking here. It's a very small one, but you want to be careful with unintended social climbing). Whatever X stands for, it still comes accross as stereotyping, and therefore it's a power move itself. Saying "most Spanish people" won't cut it because "most" is still a lot, so it's still stereotyping.

Brazilians are great football players
Swiss people are awesome at yodeling
Most Italians talk with their hands
Australian women glow and men plunder

In this light, "you cannot generalize" is actually a counter, and a good one. Lucio even teaches a variation of that in one of the new lessons about universal meta comments.

So I agree with Kevin and Bel.

"I've seen that a lot of Spanish people like to do X"

Kevin's suggestion above is great because now it doesn't sound like a power move. It frames the comment as more of an observation about cultural differences and you are curious to know more. "I've seen that" also makes it almost immune because it's difficult counter counter this frame without outright saying "you're lying".

Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person: you cannot generalize
Me: of course you have to take into account the individual and the context!

The issue I see above, is that I interpret the rejoinder as buying into his frame, because it lessens a previous strong affirmation in reaction to the interlocutor's comment.

You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person: you cannot generalize
You: yeah, and relativizing everything is also wrong; especially because in this case, it's totally true that [restate what you said]

Bel's also resonates with me a lot. It's a great damage control, because it makes it seem that it's exactly what you were saying all along. Then, when you restate what you said, you could rephrase it with Kevin's approach instead of using the same words.

Transitioned and B have reacted to this post.

#8 · September 1, 2022, 5:03 am

Ok I see there are misunderstandings. I'll be more clear and give more context later as I see it's needed for better communication.

Cheers!

#9 · September 1, 2022, 8:50 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 1, 2022, 8:50 pm
Quote from Kavalier on September 1, 2022, 1:29 am
Hello John, Bel, Kevin - and everyone!
Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Ultimately I do think that this blueprint is quite a generalization (by the way, John, leftist speaking here. It's a very small one, but you want to be careful with unintended social climbing). Whatever X stands for, it still comes accross as stereotyping, and therefore it's a power move itself. Saying "most Spanish people" won't cut it because "most" is still a lot, so it's still stereotyping.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said to Transitioned.
Brazilians are great football players
Swiss people are awesome at yodeling
Most Italians talk with their hands
Australian women glow and men plunder
In this light, "you cannot generalize" is actually a counter, and a good one. Lucio even teaches a variation of that in one of the new lessons about universal meta comments.
So I agree with Kevin and Bel.
This is where it needs more information. What I wrote is not what I exactly said. I said that this specific category of patient behaved like this. And then I added that of course you need to know the individual. However some general statement are true. That is why categories exist. However, we don't like to see us fitting in categories. See my new thread.
"I've seen that a lot of Spanish people like to do X"
Kevin's suggestion above is great because now it doesn't sound like a power move. It frames the comment as more of an observation about cultural differences and you are curious to know more. "I've seen that" also makes it almost immune because it's difficult counter counter this frame without outright saying "you're lying".
Yeah, as I said I agree.
Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person: you cannot generalize
Me: of course you have to take into account the individual and the context!
The issue I see above, is that I interpret the rejoinder as buying into his frame, because it lessens a previous strong affirmation in reaction to the interlocutor's comment.
Yes, it does. That is the purpose of it. To nuance the purpose. That's my way of saying: "I've seen many...". When I say that, I mean: of course some people escape this generalisation. However, the content of the conversation is to talk about the generalisation. If we cannot generalize, why is there a word to describe what it is? Of course you can generalize! It's useful. However, generalising does not apply to every individual. So in my mind I generalize without generalising. It's the middle way. Spanish people speak Spanish. It's true of MOST Spanish people. However nobody would tell me: "you cannot generalize" without it being a power move. People walk on 2 legs. It's mostly true. But we can generalize. So if you have to speak to represent the actual reality, you actually cannot speak.
If when you say cars have four wheels, somebody says: no some have three. This person is right, but it sound to me as smart Alecing. The purpose is not say does every car has four wheels. The purpose is to talk about cars that have four wheels. So it misses the point of the conversation. It's not about one-upping it's about understanding.

Quote from Kavalier on September 1, 2022, 1:29 am
Hello John, Bel, Kevin - and everyone!
Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Ultimately I do think that this blueprint is quite a generalization (by the way, John, leftist speaking here. It's a very small one, but you want to be careful with unintended social climbing). Whatever X stands for, it still comes accross as stereotyping, and therefore it's a power move itself. Saying "most Spanish people" won't cut it because "most" is still a lot, so it's still stereotyping.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said to Transitioned.

Brazilians are great football players
Swiss people are awesome at yodeling
Most Italians talk with their hands
Australian women glow and men plunder
In this light, "you cannot generalize" is actually a counter, and a good one. Lucio even teaches a variation of that in one of the new lessons about universal meta comments.
So I agree with Kevin and Bel.

This is where it needs more information. What I wrote is not what I exactly said. I said that this specific category of patient behaved like this. And then I added that of course you need to know the individual. However some general statement are true. That is why categories exist. However, we don't like to see us fitting in categories. See my new thread.

"I've seen that a lot of Spanish people like to do X"
Kevin's suggestion above is great because now it doesn't sound like a power move. It frames the comment as more of an observation about cultural differences and you are curious to know more. "I've seen that" also makes it almost immune because it's difficult counter counter this frame without outright saying "you're lying".

Yeah, as I said I agree.

Me: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person: you cannot generalize
Me: of course you have to take into account the individual and the context!
The issue I see above, is that I interpret the rejoinder as buying into his frame, because it lessens a previous strong affirmation in reaction to the interlocutor's comment.

Yes, it does. That is the purpose of it. To nuance the purpose. That's my way of saying: "I've seen many...". When I say that, I mean: of course some people escape this generalisation. However, the content of the conversation is to talk about the generalisation. If we cannot generalize, why is there a word to describe what it is? Of course you can generalize! It's useful. However, generalising does not apply to every individual. So in my mind I generalize without generalising. It's the middle way. Spanish people speak Spanish. It's true of MOST Spanish people. However nobody would tell me: "you cannot generalize" without it being a power move. People walk on 2 legs. It's mostly true. But we can generalize. So if you have to speak to represent the actual reality, you actually cannot speak.

If when you say cars have four wheels, somebody says: no some have three. This person is right, but it sound to me as smart Alecing. The purpose is not say does every car has four wheels. The purpose is to talk about cars that have four wheels. So it misses the point of the conversation. It's not about one-upping it's about understanding.

#10 · September 1, 2022, 11:39 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 1, 2022, 11:39 pm
Alright, so from Kavalier's feedback, I see now a new interpretation of "you cannot generalize".
For some people, it actually means: "you cannot say this negative thing about this category (I belong to, I care about)"
On my side, an alternative interpretation is: "You cannot say this negative thing at all (because it's bad to say negative things about a category)".
Aha! Now I understand. For some people, saying a negative thing about a category is a negative thing in itself. Therefore someone who says a negative thing about a category is a bad person (racist, judgmental) or behaving not morally and it's hurting/shocking them.
Whereas my belief is: you can say a negative thing, even about a category that I belong to IF the conversation is about understanding this category and relating better to them (which it was in this case, hence my surprise of his reaction).
If this is for stereotyping or bashing or social climbing, I'm not interested and I will defend the said category. So there is also a component of what intention people attribute to you when you're talking about a category in a negative way.
And now I understand why I can have these conversations with some people and not with others. Some people understand that my intention is to understand and some people do not. So I'm taking responsibility for my communication here. I might not have been clear.
It also depends if the conversation is private or public. I'm starting to understand that these conversations might belong to the private part of our lives.
I think there is such a thing as groupthink so mentalities and culture are real.
And now I understand better the Worldview, thinking and emotions behind it. I'll ask a question to my colleague next time I see him to ask him why he thought I cannot generalize.
Thanks a lot, Kavalier! See we started with a simple power move and we went deeper. :) One of our translators calls this the Icebergs of communication, each one is an iceberg and we communicate only to the visible part we see of the other person, thinking we see the whole.

Alright, so from Kavalier's feedback, I see now a new interpretation of "you cannot generalize".

For some people, it actually means: "you cannot say this negative thing about this category (I belong to, I care about)"

On my side, an alternative interpretation is: "You cannot say this negative thing at all (because it's bad to say negative things about a category)".

Aha! Now I understand. For some people, saying a negative thing about a category is a negative thing in itself. Therefore someone who says a negative thing about a category is a bad person (racist, judgmental) or behaving not morally and it's hurting/shocking them.

Whereas my belief is: you can say a negative thing, even about a category that I belong to IF the conversation is about understanding this category and relating better to them (which it was in this case, hence my surprise of his reaction).

If this is for stereotyping or bashing or social climbing, I'm not interested and I will defend the said category. So there is also a component of what intention people attribute to you when you're talking about a category in a negative way.

And now I understand why I can have these conversations with some people and not with others. Some people understand that my intention is to understand and some people do not. So I'm taking responsibility for my communication here. I might not have been clear.

It also depends if the conversation is private or public. I'm starting to understand that these conversations might belong to the private part of our lives.

I think there is such a thing as groupthink so mentalities and culture are real.

And now I understand better the Worldview, thinking and emotions behind it. I'll ask a question to my colleague next time I see him to ask him why he thought I cannot generalize.

Thanks a lot, Kavalier! See we started with a simple power move and we went deeper. :) One of our translators calls this the Icebergs of communication, each one is an iceberg and we communicate only to the visible part we see of the other person, thinking we see the whole.