Quotes About Generalization

Even people trained in statistics and probability theory failed to intuit how much more variable a small sample could be than the general population—and that the smaller the sample, the lower the likelihood that it would mirror the broader population.

El mero acto de la clasificación refuerza los estereotipos. Si queremos debilitar un estereotipo, eliminemos la clasificación.

to find the phenomenon and then explain it in a way that applies to other situations

Things are grouped together for a reason, but, once they are grouped, their grouping causes them to seem more like each other than they otherwise would. That is, the mere act of classification reinforces the stereotypes. If you want to weaken some stereotype, eliminate the classification.

Oh, you can trust the studies well enough, generally speaking. What you can't trust are the sweeping conclusions that people often attach to them.

If you took all the young men in southern England with those caps and that slouch and collected them all together in one room, you still wouldn't have enough IQ points to make a halfwit.

Don't we teach our women to view all men according to the actions of a few?

Autistic thinking is always detailed and specific. Teachers and parents need to help both children and adults with autism take all the little details they have in their head and put them into categories to form concepts and promote generalization.

No one knows 'men' as such, any more than anyone knows 'women ' and if they do generalise they're probably trying to hide their own ignorance. You might know one 'man ' yes, or even lots of individual 'men'.

Human beings... are far too prone to generalize from one instance. The technical word for this, interestingly enough, is superstition.

A lot of historical writing has been characterized as ODTAA—"one damn thing after another"—without an effort to extract general rules or causal theories that can be applied in other circumstances.

There is a tendency to want to treat blacks as a monolithic socioeconomic group.

There's bad apples in whatever way you want to group people - doesn't matter if it's religious, political or social. The big mistake is generalizing.

When we make a neural net to distinguish cats from dogs we don't effectively have to write a program that (say) explicitly finds whiskers; instead we just show lots of examples of what's a cat and what's a dog, and then have the network "machine learn" from these how to distinguish them. And the point is that the trained network "generalizes" from the particular examples it's shown.

Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do.

I'm generalizing from one example, here, but everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do.

Everybody generalizes from one example. At least, I do.

The Northwest, to make a generalization, is a fairly sensitive populace. Slightly self-conscious and very self-reflexive.

There's nothing the world loves more than a ready-made description which they can hang on to a man, and so save themselves all trouble in future.

Many people, conservatives point out, grow up in dismal social conditions yet become law-abiding citizens. This is rather like arguing that because some smokers don't die of cancer, nobody who smokes dies of cancer.

In general, we are lazy as consumers and just want to label people as good guy, bad guy.

Hollywood likes to label everyone so you're easier to identify.

I think people like to label everything. I just think it's comfortable.

Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.