The Generalization of Extremes

After my long and involuntary absence, I've come back today to discus something I like to call the "association of extreme to average" or "the generalization of extremes."

What do I mean by this? It's quite simple, really. I just like using fancy sounding names like that because it makes this look sophisticated. The generalization of extremes is where a radical group is thought up as the example of the whole population. Another word for this would be the stereotype, though I like to think my principal goes much deeper than any stereotype.

See, stereotypes nowadays are, in my experience, little more than petty prejudices that have no real influence other than the fueling of one person's ignorance. I like to go deeper than that, and really dig into how we view populations.

Let's use an example; those always help us understand concepts, right? Right.

Take any group you know. Let's say... Muslims. What image popped into your head when you read that? I'd be willing to be at least some of you had the image of a terrorist. Others of you, particularly feminists, might have thought about a woman in the traditional clothing of the faith (whose name escapes me at this moment). Her face could possibly be wrapped up, showing only her eyes. She's quite repressed, right?

Wrong. Well, maybe it's right. I have the tendency to not be a Muslim woman.

But anyway, ask yourself why that image came to mind. I did, and that's the precise reason why I'm writing this.

It's because Muslims and Islam have become synonymous with terrorism and oppression. And that's the basis of the generalization of extremes: that a small, extremist group becomes the generalization of the entire group. I know, I already said something like that in the second paragraph, but I like reiterating myself; it gives this a nice length and makes it look like I know what I'm talking about.

Containing on, we'll use another example. This time politics -- oh, how I do enjoy using politics. Think of any political party you hate or dislike. Got it? Were your initial thoughts something like "dirty Liberals" or "stupid Conservatives"?  If they were: than congratulations, my friend! You've proved what this whole post is about! if they weren't: then you should stop lying to your computer. It's not nice and doesn't appreciate the bad juju.

Either way, you're probably waiting for me to get back on the subject and actually explain more of what I'm talking about. I know I am.

Back on subject now. Right. Got it. We can do this. Push it to the limit. Eye of the tiger. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Bob and weave. To and fro. Alright. Here we go.

There's a reason this process occurs: because we, as humans, accept the generalization and spread it. It may not be all of us -- I doubt Liberals go around spreading the dirty liberal  (they might though!) -- but we still do it. It happens without us even realizing it too! It's like we're all drones who just accept what other people tell us!

Well, in essence, we are. That's how a species who operates in groups, be they large or small, survives and continues to live on and not end up as some alpha-predator's dung pile. So you can blame evolution (or whatever you believe brought about our existence) for your being a bad and generalizing person!

"But, Kyle. We have to follow how we were made. It's the only thing we can do."

On some degree, I do agree with that. Biologically, I can only do what I've evolved to do. Of course, there's one little problem with that: I, and I'm hoping the rest of everyone else, are conscious beings. That means we have the ability to rise above what we've been "programmed" to do and consciously change how we act and think.

So it's all up to you. No matter what people tell you, one person CAN make a difference. Unfortunately, that hasn't always worked out too well, so to be safe, you should sit back down and go back to eating your Doritos. I know I am.