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"

#11 · September 1, 2022, 11:41 pm

Yeah, it is a power move.

Importantly, it's not necessarily a mean-spirited power move since in many cases it's a fair point that one should always keep the individual or exceptions in mind -I make that point very often-.

But it is potentially disempowering for the receiver.

I think your proposed answer (as in the first post) are good.
What I like to do is to "keep pushing" to tie back to your argument, so you don't get sidetracked and stay in the lead.

For example:

You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this
Person: you cannot generalize
You: absolutely, you always gotta look at the individual first and almost any rule has its exceptions (<-- bridges and agrees to avoid confrontation and make it all smoother, but also takes over their frame and makes it your own). HOWEVER, what I am saying is that, ON AVERAGE, you can see this pattern of behavior more frequently in...

And then you keep on going to stay on track.

It's important not to let those power moves sidetrack you, both for effectiveness and power reasons.

And if you stop right after, you either risk being sidetracked with the "individual VS generalization" argument, or you risk that your original comment will get lost and not receive the attention you want to give it.

John Freeman, Kavalier and Growfast have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#12 · September 1, 2022, 11:50 pm

Boom. Just Boom.

I stopped whereas as I could have gone further. Especially because that was exactly my point: out of 10 people of this category, 8 behave like that. So I'm talking about the 8, not the 2.

Thank you very much! :)

PS: And you know how much I liked your article about enlightened self-interest. So I'm sure you know I'm all for considering the individual first. Yes, I'm talking about patterns here. And the patterns I'm talking about only make sense on the level of the population. There are individual behavioural patterns of course, but I'm not talking about that.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#13 · September 2, 2022, 12:56 am

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

This is definitely a power-move. The person saying this speaks the truth in a way but then the delivery came off like it was meant to one-up.

The person could have responded in this way to not put you down

Person :- that's a stereotype and yeah majority do do it of not all.

However for the response you got, you could have replied I a manner that made fun of the response the person gave.

As in

John Freeman :-
"I suppose if I say most people in America are white, you will be the person who says 'But I know a black American, don't generalize'.
Do you understand the word 'most'?"

This will also deter others from making a power move on you.

Lucio Buffalmano and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#14 · September 3, 2022, 5:22 am

Yeah, exactly, if one didn't mean it as a power move, he should have power-protected.

For example:

Yeah, I see your point, of course we should always remind ourselves that these are general trends that do not apply to all, but if we look at general trends, then...

That's the way you can have a logical discussion about the topic, and not make it about power and one-upping.

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#15 · September 3, 2022, 5:32 am

Quote from John Freeman on September 1, 2022, 11:50 pm
PS: And you know how much I liked your article about enlightened self-interest. So I'm sure you know I'm all for considering the individual first. Yes, I'm talking about patterns here. And the patterns I'm talking about only make sense on the level of the population. There are individual behavioural patterns of course, but I'm not talking about that.

OFF-TOPIC

Yeah, absolutely, the two co-exist, and putting the individual first doesn't mean denying population-level trends -denying population-level trends, cultural impacts, or even "racial" differences wouldn't even be having high consideration for the individual, but just being illogical or plain stupid-.

The person who denies any group or population-level trends or cultural impacts is either ignorant, indoctrinated, illogical, or simply aligning with that position for status or power gains because it's a more PC and culturally approved stance.

OFF-TOPIC

John Freeman has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#16 · September 3, 2022, 4:26 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 3, 2022, 4:26 pm
Thanks a lot for sharing your perspective on this topic. It helps me to understand better the psychology behind this behaviour.
Clarification
As per recent talks, by "leftist" I meant: people who identify with the political left AND use virtue-signalling/moral superiority for power's sake and having a positive self-identity and social identity. Hence the rightly attributed negative connotation that Kavalier noticed. I get along very well with people who identify with the political left AND are critical thinker/self-introspective/open-minded/have a growth mindset, of course. As for me, I don't identify with any particular political side, for several reasons. I have a preference for certain ideologies and I don't identify with them (apart from stoicism :P, I'm now reflecting on that as well). I recognise the limit of all of these systems as all systems have limits. I welcome criticism of the ideologies I like (also stoicisim) as I learned tons from people who had different views. There was this guy who criticised stoicism and I learned lots from him. I'm now more aware of the limitations of this ideology.
Another label that would have probably been more fitting is what conservative people (not going to explain my view on this label here, only if there is a need for clarification from someone here) call "SJW" (social justice warriors). A label I don't personally like myself as it degrades the category of honest leftists who are critical thinkers. It also puts both extremists and moderate people from the left in the same group, which in my view are not at all. Also demanding social justice is something I think is not only fair but needed for humane societies. Therefore activism has a huge value for societies.
I don't remember what label Lucio you use for this category. I remember you had a lesson on defending on shame attacks (Julien Blanc), that's what I'm talking about. Actually after thinking about it, "You cannot generalize" is also a medium shame attack (rather than light shaming), implying that the person is racist/sexist. Of course, there is a contradiction here: why would I use the label "leftist" negatively in this instance rather than "SJW"? It's a good question. I could have and I'll be more explicit next time when using a label negatively.
In French, the people I talked about (first category) are called "bien pensant", which means "good thinkers" in English. That is, people who think they are morally good and morally superior and only allow themselves to think good things (self-censorship of their own dark side). Therefore, as they judge themselves for having negative thoughts they judge others for negative ideas and/or idea that do not fit their own moral views.
Finally, another way of describing this category would be to use the pattern of behaviour in question. I could have. Once again, the purpose of labels is to be shortcuts. What's important in terms of communication is to recognise when a label could be interpreted differently and give your own interpretation of it (love, conservative, extremists, etc.). Such is the limit of language.
I'm aware that I'm explaining myself here, which in terms of power is not ideal. In certain times and situations, it is needed to tip down the balance of power towards connection and mutual understanding. So it's important to make the necessary effort to be understood for building better relationships in the long run. This post also allowed me to think and to better understand myself as well (identifying with stoicism).

Thanks a lot for sharing your perspective on this topic. It helps me to understand better the psychology behind this behaviour.

Clarification

As per recent talks, by "leftist" I meant: people who identify with the political left AND use virtue-signalling/moral superiority for power's sake and having a positive self-identity and social identity. Hence the rightly attributed negative connotation that Kavalier noticed. I get along very well with people who identify with the political left AND are critical thinker/self-introspective/open-minded/have a growth mindset, of course. As for me, I don't identify with any particular political side, for several reasons. I have a preference for certain ideologies and I don't identify with them (apart from stoicism :P, I'm now reflecting on that as well). I recognise the limit of all of these systems as all systems have limits. I welcome criticism of the ideologies I like (also stoicisim) as I learned tons from people who had different views. There was this guy who criticised stoicism and I learned lots from him. I'm now more aware of the limitations of this ideology.

Another label that would have probably been more fitting is what conservative people (not going to explain my view on this label here, only if there is a need for clarification from someone here) call "SJW" (social justice warriors). A label I don't personally like myself as it degrades the category of honest leftists who are critical thinkers. It also puts both extremists and moderate people from the left in the same group, which in my view are not at all. Also demanding social justice is something I think is not only fair but needed for humane societies. Therefore activism has a huge value for societies.

I don't remember what label Lucio you use for this category. I remember you had a lesson on defending on shame attacks (Julien Blanc), that's what I'm talking about. Actually after thinking about it, "You cannot generalize" is also a medium shame attack (rather than light shaming), implying that the person is racist/sexist. Of course, there is a contradiction here: why would I use the label "leftist" negatively in this instance rather than "SJW"? It's a good question. I could have and I'll be more explicit next time when using a label negatively.

In French, the people I talked about (first category) are called "bien pensant", which means "good thinkers" in English. That is, people who think they are morally good and morally superior and only allow themselves to think good things (self-censorship of their own dark side). Therefore, as they judge themselves for having negative thoughts they judge others for negative ideas and/or idea that do not fit their own moral views.

Finally, another way of describing this category would be to use the pattern of behaviour in question. I could have. Once again, the purpose of labels is to be shortcuts. What's important in terms of communication is to recognise when a label could be interpreted differently and give your own interpretation of it (love, conservative, extremists, etc.). Such is the limit of language.

I'm aware that I'm explaining myself here, which in terms of power is not ideal. In certain times and situations, it is needed to tip down the balance of power towards connection and mutual understanding. So it's important to make the necessary effort to be understood for building better relationships in the long run. This post also allowed me to think and to better understand myself as well (identifying with stoicism).

Kavalier has reacted to this post.

#17 · September 3, 2022, 6:13 pm

Quote from Kavalier on September 3, 2022, 6:13 pm
Hey guys
John, thanks for clarifying you thoughts on the "leftist" label. I couldn't agree more. Still, I insist it wasn't a big deal. I used myself as an example to draw attention to this:
Me: ~~women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this~~ -> I've seen that a lot of X people like to do Y" (Kevin's)
It solves 99% of the problems that might arise from making generalizations that, as you say, may be useful. It also frames yourself as a keen observer of social tendencies, and as someone who can spot exceptions.
Here the context you added later in the conversation might have helped. The context makes a difference, so, before reaching a conclusion, let's explore some scenarios.
1) Talking 1 on 1 to a friend, no malice intended in your comment, friend has nothing at stake:
You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (not optimal, but also not a big deal)
Person: you cannot generalize (power move)
2) Talking 1 on 1 to a friend, no malice intended in your comment, but you regularly deal with dogs and your friend is trying to warn you (feedback):
You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (not optimal, but also not a big deal)
Person: you cannot generalize (power movy, should have power protected)
3) Talking 1 on 1 to a friend, no malice intended in your comment, but his grandfather is a dog and you didn't know:
You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (not optimal, you could have used Kevin's format, but also not a big deal)
Person: you cannot generalize (not optimal, he could have power protected, but also not a big deal)
4) Talking to a group/an audience:
You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (power movy; you couldn't possibly know, but should have antecipated the possibility)
Unexpected dog (or maybe he's got a relative/friend that is a dog. Either way, you didn't know): you cannot generalize (counter power move, but a fair power move. There may be social consequences for him/her. Power protecting is optimal, but fully up to him/her)
5) Talking to a dog and you did know it was a dog or that he had a relative/friend that is a dog
You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (power move, nasty if in front of an audience)
Dog: you cannot generalize (counter power move, but a fair power move. It's fair to address it head on)
Two doctors talking about patients from a certain nationality falls under 1-3. Now we know these are the scenarios you wanted to bring us.
"Person (usually leftist)" falls under scenario 4 (no big deal, we already talked about it).
What I'm writing here is more or less present in the whole discussion, taking into account a little bit of what everyone said. But I think it's clearer with the examples.

Hey guys

John, thanks for clarifying you thoughts on the "leftist" label. I couldn't agree more. Still, I insist it wasn't a big deal. I used myself as an example to draw attention to this:

Me: ~~women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this~~ -> I've seen that a lot of X people like to do Y" (Kevin's)

It solves 99% of the problems that might arise from making generalizations that, as you say, may be useful. It also frames yourself as a keen observer of social tendencies, and as someone who can spot exceptions.

Here the context you added later in the conversation might have helped. The context makes a difference, so, before reaching a conclusion, let's explore some scenarios.

1) Talking 1 on 1 to a friend, no malice intended in your comment, friend has nothing at stake:

You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (not optimal, but also not a big deal)
Person: you cannot generalize (power move)

2) Talking 1 on 1 to a friend, no malice intended in your comment, but you regularly deal with dogs and your friend is trying to warn you (feedback):

You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (not optimal, but also not a big deal)
Person: you cannot generalize (power movy, should have power protected)

3) Talking 1 on 1 to a friend, no malice intended in your comment, but his grandfather is a dog and you didn't know:

You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (not optimal, you could have used Kevin's format, but also not a big deal)
Person: you cannot generalize (not optimal, he could have power protected, but also not a big deal)

4) Talking to a group/an audience:

You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (power movy; you couldn't possibly know, but should have antecipated the possibility)
Unexpected dog (or maybe he's got a relative/friend that is a dog. Either way, you didn't know): you cannot generalize (counter power move, but a fair power move. There may be social consequences for him/her. Power protecting is optimal, but fully up to him/her)

5) Talking to a dog and you did know it was a dog or that he had a relative/friend that is a dog

You: women/spanish people/dogs/category X do this and this (power move, nasty if in front of an audience)
Dog: you cannot generalize (counter power move, but a fair power move. It's fair to address it head on)

Two doctors talking about patients from a certain nationality falls under 1-3. Now we know these are the scenarios you wanted to bring us.

"Person (usually leftist)" falls under scenario 4 (no big deal, we already talked about it).

What I'm writing here is more or less present in the whole discussion, taking into account a little bit of what everyone said. But I think it's clearer with the examples.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#18 · September 3, 2022, 7:08 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 3, 2022, 7:08 pm
Thanks for your answer, Kavalier.
I might not have been clear enough.
In these public conversations I do not use such general statements. I use nuances. I do power protect the category, I specify the context so it’s not as general as “women do this”. And that is why it’s a power move from them.
Because despite the precautions I take the person still insists it’s racist/sexist.
I insist because the examples above are good use cases. However they do not represent the situations I’m talking about. People do not use “you cannot generalize” privately with me.
In my cases it does not matter if I’m talking about obesity and the person in front of me is obese. They feel like I respect them and we can have a conversation about it. It happens all the time. Even if I did not know the person was Jew or whatever, I do speak respectfully anyway so people don’t get offended. If I did not know such information and the person feels offended I apologize. So once again this is not what is happening. We’re talking about 2 different situations. The person who feels offended is not remotely concerned.
It’s a public situation every time, I have a powerful frame, people agree with me or bring their own (counter-)arguments, we have a fruitful and passionate conversation and out of nowhere a person who was not even contributing says: “you cannot generalize”. And it feels very dishonest.
So I’m sorry but none of the situations above are representative.
Thank you for your contribution anyway! If this would be situation it would totally fit.
I think the topic you want to bring to life is “what to do you when you offend someone or disempower someone unknowingly publicly (whether through a category or not)”. This could be a great thread to open!
On my side if I could not talk about negative aspects with people for the sole reason the person in front of me belongs to the category I’m talking about it would feel like self-censorship. I talk about negative aspects of the categories I belong to all the time without self-deprecating. I believe in free speech if done respectfully. It’s about how you do it. You dig deep in the shit, you think with the other people and everyone emerges smarter and wiser. Of course you build them up at the end of the conversation, always! It’s just good manners.
People respect a lot that you can dig in the negative aspects of their lives/opinions/beliefs if they feel you have benevolent intentions and it’s done respectfully. AND you end up on a positive note. It actually builds stronger relationships in my experience.
I actually want people to feel free to say negative things about the categories I belong to or the category they think I belong to around me. To me it’s totally ok. They can think and say whatever they want around me about categories. I’ll say my opinion and I’ll respect theirs.
So these are two different topics I think.

Thanks for your answer, Kavalier.

I might not have been clear enough.

In these public conversations I do not use such general statements. I use nuances. I do power protect the category, I specify the context so it’s not as general as “women do this”. And that is why it’s a power move from them.

Because despite the precautions I take the person still insists it’s racist/sexist.

I insist because the examples above are good use cases. However they do not represent the situations I’m talking about. People do not use “you cannot generalize” privately with me.

In my cases it does not matter if I’m talking about obesity and the person in front of me is obese. They feel like I respect them and we can have a conversation about it. It happens all the time. Even if I did not know the person was Jew or whatever, I do speak respectfully anyway so people don’t get offended. If I did not know such information and the person feels offended I apologize. So once again this is not what is happening. We’re talking about 2 different situations. The person who feels offended is not remotely concerned.

It’s a public situation every time, I have a powerful frame, people agree with me or bring their own (counter-)arguments, we have a fruitful and passionate conversation and out of nowhere a person who was not even contributing says: “you cannot generalize”. And it feels very dishonest.

So I’m sorry but none of the situations above are representative.

Thank you for your contribution anyway! If this would be situation it would totally fit.

I think the topic you want to bring to life is “what to do you when you offend someone or disempower someone unknowingly publicly (whether through a category or not)”. This could be a great thread to open!

On my side if I could not talk about negative aspects with people for the sole reason the person in front of me belongs to the category I’m talking about it would feel like self-censorship. I talk about negative aspects of the categories I belong to all the time without self-deprecating. I believe in free speech if done respectfully. It’s about how you do it. You dig deep in the shit, you think with the other people and everyone emerges smarter and wiser. Of course you build them up at the end of the conversation, always! It’s just good manners.

People respect a lot that you can dig in the negative aspects of their lives/opinions/beliefs if they feel you have benevolent intentions and it’s done respectfully. AND you end up on a positive note. It actually builds stronger relationships in my experience.

I actually want people to feel free to say negative things about the categories I belong to or the category they think I belong to around me. To me it’s totally ok. They can think and say whatever they want around me about categories. I’ll say my opinion and I’ll respect theirs.

So these are two different topics I think.

#19 · September 4, 2022, 8:14 am

Problem is people are so enthusiastic to be the SJW laying down the law. I remember I was talking to this Asian lady I knew once at badminton about food. I said there s so many Chinese in boxhill of course the congee has to be good.

And she said that's racist. Not an evil person but I think people have been indoctrinated by our hyper PC media to believe mentioning cultural differences = stereotyping = racism.

So it's really tap dancing in the minefield. If you go big and hold the room probably increases your leadership but sometimes you likely lose a few toes.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#20 · September 4, 2022, 8:29 am

Yeah, exactly!

It also has to have with what intentions people attribute to you.

Do they give you the benefit of the doubt? Do they ask for an explanation?

Different situation: I have some friends who said racist jokes. I did not laugh but I let it go. They saw I did not find it funny but I did not shame them.