I?ve come across many people who are easily upset by generalizations that they often feel negatively or inaccurately depict their ethnicity, religion, profession, etc. I personally, am very rarely, if at all, offended by an oversimplified conception pertaining to any given demographic I happen to belong to. I?ve always accepted that the world?s population at large is prone to making generalizations, as it provides individuals an opportunity to construct a simplified model to view the world through.

For example, the human eye can see 7,000,000+ colors, but with our limited capacity for memory, we refer to colors by the names of the primary ones that we already know. We may recognize a color as having a reddish hue to it, or a touch of blue in it, etc, but only AFTER we?ve attempted an initial categorization of it within the primary classes and have found none to be appropriate. I?ve heard the argument that extending such generalizations to a group of people is de-humanizing in the sense that it denies the true essence of the individual?s soul. However, I am not entirely convinced of this argument.

Although, I understand how stereotypes can be hurtful to people, especially being a Muslim in the aftermath of 9/11, I believe that profiling people on the basis of commonly held generalizations upon INITIAL contact is ok. We live in a fast-paced world where processing the details of every contact we've had with every human being is impossible...and so we train our minds to chunk information for the sake of efficiency. However, once more information about an individual becomes available, we should dispose those parts of the generalization that do not hold true and begin to derive our own perception of the human being.

Imagine riding the subway at 10PM. You see the car that is closest to you is occupied by a dozen white men dressed in black leather gear, w/ heavily-tattooed, muscular arms. You, therefore, decide to sit in the adjacent car that is empty even though you have to walk a further distance. However, once you are in the empty car, one of the biker dudes from the other car comes and sits with you. He smiles and gives you a nod, as he sits down across from you and opens the paper to read the real estate section. Should you all of a sudden, feel guilty for avoiding the other car? I personally would not. I relied on the common perception that big, biker guys?who are often bundled in leather and love ink?are more likely to engage in violent behavior and hold racist grudges, simply b/c I did not have the time to gauge whether these guys were ?different? from the status quo.

Here is where I think the problems w/ generalizing arise:
1) When we don?t accept new information regarding an individual that contradicts a generalization, i.e. ignore the exceptions to the ?rule.? As with all models, whether they are scientific theories, economic predictors of cyclical fluctuations, or strategies for analyzing which stocks to invest in, there are ALWAYS exceptions to a rule.

2) When the generalization leads people to engage in violence or derogatory interaction with a certain group of people or harbor deep hatred towards them.

Some may argue that generalization is still ?bad? b/c it is often based on media-created images and / or information of little substance. And to them I would like to pose the following questions: how many of us can actually devote time to thoroughly investigate every generalization out there? If due to time constraints or limited information, we temporarily rely on a commonly-held belief about a people, but are open and willing to modify our perceptions, is it still an un-excusable act of ignorance?

Please share your opinions and thoughts, ESPECIALLY if you disagree with me. I am trying to learn. Thanks.