        |
|
Politically Correct Fanatics
Their denial of patterns and genetics
By Winston Wu
Introduction
You may
be reading this
because you've made one or some of the following politically correct
statements:
1. "Not all
of them
are like that. It depends on the individual.
You generalize or stereotype."
2. "There is
good
and bad (or anything being contrasted) everywhere."
3.
"Stereotypes and
generalizations are bad, harmful, and wrong."
4. "I know
this
person or that who doesn't fit your
generalization."
5. "People
are the
same everywhere you go." or "We are all unique individuals, so it is
wrong and inaccurate to make generalizations or stereotypes." (a seeming contradiction)
The "politically
correct" crowd today is imbued with a mentality that denies any
sort
of patterns in people, and denies the whole science of genetics, seems
prevalent among many people today, especially in the US. Though
odd and
illogical, it has spread widely and in various degrees among the
world's
populations into popular thought today. For some reason, these
people, in
their idealistic cause to appease and unify the people of the
world with
political correctness, are willing to deny facts and reality to
support
their politically correct beliefs. And they do this to the
point of
making it not just a mentality, but almost a religion as
well. They
seem motivated by a belief or desire to ignore all differences in
people, in
order to unify all, get agreement from all, and offend none.
Thus, in effect,
when it comes to choosing between truth and political correctness, they
choose
the latter. For terminology purposes, we will call these kinds of
people
"PC fanatics" (politically correct fanatics).
(Many PC fanatics are
also
“Attitude fanatics”, though not all. To
see my article on the folly of attitude fanaticism, see:
www.debunkingskeptics.com/Attitude_Fanatics.htm)
These PC fanatics,
however, are
tedious to debate, because they bring up the same protests over and
over again
(e.g. the statements above) and even when you point out why they're
wrong,
getting them to admit it sometimes too, they still bring up the same
points
again later. It becomes tedious and repetitive. Therefore,
I've
written this article to knock some sense into them, and to save me time
from
having to repeat the same arguments to them over and over again.
I will
try to cut to the chase, telling it like it is.
PC
fanatics' denial
of patterns among people
PC fanatics are people who are religiously against
defining
or labeling people in any way. Any
attempt by someone to define or label others are met with defensiveness
by PC
fanatics who create straw man arguments
by
claiming that such definitions are “generalizations” and
“stereotypes”. They usually
have no problem with labeling
objects and things, just not when it comes to people, which somehow
violates
their belief systems. Any attempt at describing patterns in people is
immediately
labeled as "generalizing" or "stereotyping",
and rebuked by one of the five PC statements above.
Most PC fanatics are probably P’s in the last letter of the Meyer’s Briggs four letter personality type. In the fourth letter, one is either a P (Perceiving) or J (Judging). P’s hate definitions, decisions made, and prefer to keep everything open ended and undefined, while J’s are the opposite. I am obviously a J, and would surmise that most PC fanatics are P’s, due to their innate resistance of defining others.
The truth is, contrary to what PC fanatics insinuate, people who make observations or define others are never claiming that ALL people in that group are like that. They are merely reporting and defining PATTERNS in people based on their experiences, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Patterns exist, even in people, and it is illogical for PC fanatics to constantly deny them. Scientists observe and define patterns in people, as well as statisticians, researchers, marketers, businessmen, insurance companies, and even sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, historians, etc. Observing patterns in people is useful in so many ways that are too numerous to even list, adding to one’s understanding of things.
For instance, auto
insurance
companies conclude that young males are higher risk drivers than young
females,
so they set car insurance premiums for young males higher. So
does that
mean that these insurance companies claim that "all" young males are
high risk drivers, as PC fanatics would protest? No, of
course not. It's merely a statistic that they need to
properly
assess risk and cost, or else the business would go belly-up. If
only PC
fanatics would get that.
PC fanatics and others like to charge
that I generalize when I make observations and claims.
But I am don’t.
I merely OBSERVE PATTERNS. Yes we
are all individuals (especially in
Anyone who goes into a
department clothing store can see that the quantity and variety of
clothes for
women are far greater than for men. Is
that generalizing, or reality? It snows
way more in
Things and people are NOT in the
same percentages everywhere. For
instance, in
Those are all
observable patterns
that the most simple and ordinary person could observe and agree
with. In
addition, there are an endless number of contrasts you could make
between
cultures, mentalities, lifestyles, behaviors, etc. among people of
different
nations and geographic regions. None of them claim that "all"
members of a group or category fit these tendencies. Therefore,
to say
“not all are like that” is both useless and irrelevant. It is merely a false straw man argument;
in other words, putting words into their mouth that they never said in
order to
knock it down easily.
What these PC fanatics
never
understand, no matter how many times its pointed out to them, is that
those who
identify patterns NEVER claim that what they are saying applies to
"all" members of that group. Instead, they use terms
like "most", "in general", or "tend
to". And even when they don't clarify it with those terms, they
still never mean "all" (e.g. the phrase "Americans are......."
is not the same as "all Americans are......"). In fact, no one
but the most extreme fanatics would claim that any one trait or quality
applies
to "all" members of any category.
PC fanatics like to point out that stereotypes and generalizations hurt people by misjudging them, and they add that people’s behaviors cannot be categorized or formulized. They are right in that sense. Trying to predict people’s behaviors by putting them into formulas often fails, even when done by the world’s top experts. However, one who observes and defines patterns in others does not necessarily generalize or stereotype, for he/she does not claim absoluteness.
Let’s give the simplest example to illustrate what I mean. Suppose I saw eight X’s and two O’s fall into a grid. Now, it would be fair for me to honestly report that there are eight X’s and two O’s. And I could logically predict that when the next character falls into the grid, there will be an 80 percent chance it will be an X and a 20 percent chance it will be an O. Now that is not stereotyping or generalizing. It is merely reporting the pattern observed. One who does this can still keep an open mind and know that he/she could be wrong. It’s as simple as that. But there is no need to try to pretend that there are an equal number of X’s and O’s or that no pattern exists, just to please the beliefs of PC fanatics and avoid offending their beliefs that patterns don’t exist.
Debunking the 5 PC
statements
Now let’s
dissect each of the five
PC statements with another simple illustration. Here below you
see two
boxes, A and B. In box A, you see eight + plus symbols and two *
asterisks, while in Box B, you see seven * asterisks and three + plus
symbols.
Box A
+ + + + + * + + + *
Box B
* * * + * * + + * *
Now, suppose PC
statement # 1
came into the picture: "Not all of them are like that.
It
depends on the individual.
You generalize or stereotype."
If I said that "Box A tends to have pluses in them and
Box B tends to have asterisks" or "Most symbols in Box A are pluses,
and most in Box B are asterisks" and PC fanatics respond by with,
"You can't generalize like that. There are pluses are asterisks
in
both boxes." or "Not all symbols in Box A are pluses. Not all
symbols in Box B are asterisks." What would that
accomplish?
Those typical PC statements, though true, do NOTHING to refute the
statements I made, identifying patterns I observed in those two
boxes.
Yet they are presented as a denial or challenge. Again, they are
both
USELESS and IRRELEVANT. Instead, all they do is create a false
straw man,
insinuating that the pattern observer claimed that 100 percent all
symbols were
one or the other, when in fact, he/she did no such thing!
Do you see how
trifling silly this
is? Yet, it's EXACTLY what so many PC
fanatics do! I've seen and heard it so many times, that I could
say, "If I had a dime for everytime
I heard that, I'd be rich."
Let's look at PC
statement #
2: "There is good and bad (or anything being contrasted)
everywhere."
This again is another
common false
straw man. Though true, it does nothing to refute any statement
of
observation, and only puts words again into the mouth of the
accused. No
one denies that there is "good" and "bad" everywhere, or
any other qualities being contrated.
That was
never contested. But just because there is "good" and
"bad" everywhere doesn't mean they are in the same PERCENTAGES
everywhere!
For example, there is
much higher
percentage of scammers, criminals, and thieves in
As in the Box analogy,
if you
applied PC statement # 2 and said, "There are pluses and asterisks in
both
boxes" it does absolutely nothing but falsely accuse the pattern
observer
again.
As for PC statement #
3: "Stereotypes
and generalizations are bad, harmful, and wrong" well they are
when
PC fanatics make create them and put them into the mouth of those who
are
merely observing patterns they've experienced. In that sense, the
PC
fanatic is the one stereotyping and generalizing, not the pattern
observer. However, while it is true that stereotypes can be
harmful and
unfairly categorize minorities and genders, that
is
not the issue I am refuting here.
But even regarding
harmful
stereotypes, it’s been said even that, "Every stereotype is
based on
some grain of truth".
Now for PC statement
# 4: "I know this person or that who
doesn't fit your generalization."
Again, this does not
refute the
pattern being observed and claimed. Sure everyone knows or can
find
exceptions to the patterns being identified, and in most cases even the
pattern
observer can. However, a few exceptions does
NOT refute or falsify a general pattern. For example, you can
find a few
people in
And as in the Box
analogy, you
could take PC statement # 4 and point out the minority of pluses or
asterisks
that are the exception to the pattern, but it wouldn't change the
majority
pattern of the symbols in the boxes.
Finally, we come to PC
statement #
5: "People are the same everywhere you go." or "We are
all unique individuals, so it is wrong and inaccurate to make
generalizations
or stereotypes." (a seeming contradiction)
The first sentence is
blatantly
false (the composers of the oldies song "Ebony and Ivory" ought to be
ashamed to put that sentence into their lyrics), and anyone could bet
all their
money against it and easily win. Usually though, those who utter
it are
saying that everywhere you go you can find good and bad people.
But that
was already addressed in PC statement # 2.
And in regard to the
second
sentence, sure we are all individuals and unique (i.e. no two
fingerprints and
EEG brain waves are exactly alike) but one cannot deny that patterns of
differences exist among people of varying regions, nationalities, or
genders. Likewise, dogs and cats are
individuals and each has its own quirks.
Though they are not all the same, there does exist general
patterns of
differences between them (e.g. dogs are more dependent and needy while
cats are
more independent; cats instinctively chase mice and birds while dogs
don’t;
etc.)
Hypocrisy of PC
fanatics
When PC fanatics become defensive, they often resort to sly and ridiculous arguments such as “Have you met everyone in the world to know this?” or “Not all are like that. It depends on who you meet.” The first statement is a classic case of raising the bar to an impossible standard that no one could meet to try to discredit the claim being made.
One does not have to know or meet everyone in the world, over six billion people, in order to honestly report or define patterns in people. Funnily, if I proclaimed to PC fanatics that “most parents would not want their children to be kidnapped” or “most people would prefer not to be shot by a gun”, they somehow mysteriously do not feel the need to resort to this statement. Obviously, PC fanatics are inconsistent in their logic, and highly selective of what they choose to demand proof for and what they don’t. They seem to only use the "you can't generalize or stereotype" accusation when someone identifies a pattern they don't agree with or like, but don't use it when they themselves agree with the described pattern. In a way, this is a double standard, for this type of semi-PC fanatic will demand scientific proof from the one they disagree with, but when they agree with the pattern, then they don't need proof for it, and in fact base it on nothing but their own observations as well.
The second statement ploy is again merely a pure straw man argument, for no one who observes or defines patterns in others is claiming “all are like that” nor is he/she claiming that everyone is the same. So the statement is a moot point that is bred more out of emotion than rationality.
Suggested solution
The best solution seems to be to honestly observe patterns in people, while keeping an open mind that one could be wrong, and that there are always exceptions. That would be the logical view. But it wouldn’t be logical to just pretend that people are the same everywhere, or that patterns don’t exist in people, just to appease the beliefs of PC fanatics. If one observes that men in general tend to be physically stronger than women, that most who use cosmetics tend to be female, that white people tend to be taller than Asian people, or that most of the people who attend psychic fairs in America tend to be women rather than men, etc., then one should have the right and freedom to report such observations honestly, without feeling like they are violating some type of morality imposed by PC fanatics.
After all, since the observant of patterns is never claiming absolutes in his/her definitions, the PC fanatics technically have no case to gripe about. The absolutes seem to only exist in the minds of PC fanatics, not in those who define or observe patterns.
Where there is
disagreement among
those identifying patterns, one should state their opposing experience
or
observation, and try to back it up. In this way, it makes for
much
more constructive discussion or debate. But for God sake,
please
don't use one of the five PC statements, which serve no purpose other
than
creating false straw mans.
In such cases, those
who disagree
on their experiences and the patterns they observed ought to compare
their
qualifications - namely, a) the vastness of their experiences, b) how
well-traveled they are, and c) the number of people they've known or
met, in
relation to the subject at hand. Those with higher qualifications
in
these areas ought to be considered more credible, and ought to be
able to
back it up as well. For example, as it applies to a and b,
someone who's
been to a hundred countries (such exist by the way, for I have met
them) is far
more qualified to make culture comparisons, observing and identifying
patterns
between them, than someone who has never left their own city,
state/province,
or country. And likewise, someone who has lived in a foreign
country for
at least a year, immersing themselves with its culture and people while
living
amongst them, is far more qualified to be stating patterns than the
typical American
who only knows about that country from their media.
Now when you know or
have met many
people who are well traveled, you will notice that patterns exist
among
their stories and experiences. For example, as a traveler myself
who has
met many others, here are some common consensuses I've noticed.
Most
Americans who have been to
PC fanatics'
denial of the
science of genetics
Another feature of PC
fanatics is
that they seem to deny the existence of genetics
altogether, dismissing
and ignoring an entire branch of science. They have this
fanatical
belief that everyone's personality, behavior, characteristics, mindset,
and
beliefs are COMPLETELY determined by their environment,
culture, and
how they were raised. In simple terms, in the nature vs.
nurture
debate, they completely side with nurture. They have little or no
evidence or sound reasoning to base this on, yet believe it fervently,
even
ignoring all contrary evidence.
This belief is
especially
prevalent in
The truth though, is
that
most of the research by science in the field
of genetics
and heredity have concluded that our personalities are
determined about 50/50 by nature and nurture. The evidence,
tested,
observed, and researched for many years, indicate this.
Yet
most Americans and PC fanatics believe that personality is 100 percent
nurture
and 0 percent nature. Perhaps they have a need to believe that
they are
in control, and despise the notion of being a slave or prisoner to
their genes.
The research which
proves the PC
fanatics wrong, is well documented.
Most of it
indicates that its about 50/50. See
the
following:
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm
http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/socpsy-2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec98/naturenurture_10-20.html
http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/nature_nurture.htm
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3492.php
It is clear that there
is a
genetic or inherited element involved in our personalities,
temperament, and in
what makes us "tick". For example, two siblings can grow up in
the same families and environment, yet turn
out to be
totally different in personality and beliefs. Also, studies have
shown
that fraternal twins who were reared apart tend to still have striking
similarities in personality, habits, choices, etc. some of which are
very
eerie. That strongly favors nature over nurture, for
example.
And, some are born
with phobias
that have no environmental learned cause. For instance, I've
always had a
fear of heights, and as a little child was even afraid to go down
slides in the
playground. Yet I had no bad experiences or trauma that caused
this. I was born like that. And some are born with natural
talents
as well, that aren't learned (e.g. Mozart could play the piano as a
child
without ever having been taught it).
Another consensus
among behavioral
scientists and specialists is that behavior and habits are
mostly
learned and therefore changeable. That is the good news, which is
that
undesirable behavior, bad habits or cyclical addictions, can in fact,
be
changed by behavioral modification techniques. However, our basic
core
personality, who we are, and what makes us tick, cannot be changed,
only enhanced to varying degrees. Though we or others may
try to
change who we are, we simply end up coming back to being the same as
before. There is a saying that "people never change" and it
does have some basis in truth, but those who utter it ought to
understand that
behavior and habits can be changed.
Perhaps this person
who goes by "liesa" on PlanetPapers.com,
summarized the relation between genetics and environment best:
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3492.php
"The
most fundamental way to rationalize my opinion is quite comprehensible.
It is
that heredity determines one’s potential, but environment devises
how far one
will reach that potential. “Nature designs blueprints and nurture
modifies them
each step of the way” (Dempsey and Zimbardo
164).
“(For instance), some genes increase our risk of heart disease:
but if we know
this and eat less fat, we reduce the risk” (Tudge)."
As it's not always
easy to
recognize the difference between what is changeable and what
isn't, perhaps the following serenity prayer applies:
God,
grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage
to change the things I can,
And
wisdom to know the difference
Thank you for reading.
Sincere Regards,
Winston
Addendum:
Also see Attitude
Fanaticism - A New Wave of American Delusion
