Welcome back, in case you did not know, it is Monday.
So, we have reached the 1/3 point in our overview of the 9 Cognitive Distortions discussed in Greg Lukianoff andJonathan Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind. So, where are we, right…
Overgeneralizing: Perceiving a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident. “This generally happens to me. I seem to fail at a lot of things.”
I think on our worst days I’d imagine we all have situations like this. We get down on ourselves and this kind of thinking creeps in. Fair? Well, another take on this, in a bit more serious form, is that:
Overgeneralization is a cognitive distortion that refers to making a broad assumption about something from limited experience. An example is thinking, after a single rejection from a job interview, "I'm always going to fail at everything.” Overgeneralization is often implicated in clinical depression, anxiety disorders, and anger management problems.
Notice that last part there? This is typically part of the implications of mental illnesses such as “depression, anxiety disorder, and anger management problems.” But Greg and Jonathan note that this kind of issue is something that is creeping into the broader world of young people who are exhibiting this kind of distortion without diagnosed mental illness.
Problem? Yes.
Interestingly, my mind made a related connection. For you see, I cannot think of overgeneralizing without thinking about the logical fallacy hasty generalization.
The fun part is that it kind of rhymes too.
Hasty Generalization
Is there a connection?
Well, Overgeneralization is a distortion where one makes a broad assumption from limited experience. Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy sometimes called “the over-generalization fallacy.”
It is a fallacy that develops when broad assumptions are made about a large subject with only a small sampling of evidence.
Basically, it is the realm of stereotypes, tropes, and more. Hasty generalization as a fallacy involves “mistaking the part for the whole” and usually relies on ignoring any missing or suppressed evidence.
Thoughtco notes that:
A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion that is reached is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. It's also called an insufficient sample, a converse accident, a faulty generalization, a biased generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid, and a neglect of qualifications.
Basically, you see one example and you extract a larger conclusion from it. This is basically what the Daily Show on Comedy Central has been mocking FOX News for doing for decades in relation to people and ideas it thinks its audience will dislike.
Here is a visual example courtesy of Thoughtco.
Speaking of just generalizations, they can themselves be problematic, because:
“…a large sample size won't always get you off the hook. The sample you're looking to generalize needs to be representative of the population as a whole, and it should be random. For example, the polls leading up to the 2016 presidential election missed segments of the population who eventually came out to vote for Donald Trump and thus underestimated his supporters and their potential impact on the election. Pollsters knew the race would be close, however, by not having a representative sample to generalize the outcome, they got it wrong.”
Now, I know it can be easy to make assumptions and generalizations. We do it all the time because, well, we are lazy and the world does demand a lot from us. The problem comes when we do it about things we argue about or that are shall we say important. More so, when we dig down into things, the nuance, generalizations tend to fall apart as well.
Our modern “real big problem” comes from the reality that we have now built systems, like social media, that actually are making it easier…really, easier…to engage in hasty generalizations and get rewarded for it in the process.
Seriously, with things all about attention, the increase of logical fallacies feels like it is increasing rapidly, even exponentially.
This might be why we are seeing it bleeding out into the everyday world of people’s mental health.
What Can We Do?
Other than engaging in actual Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), there are some suggestions and approaches to handling this kind of distortion…and it takes some work.
First thing you need to do, if you find yourself thinking this way and it is not temporary and becoming persistent, you may need to do some self-reflection, some self-questioning.
What are the costs and benefits of thinking this way? In other words, is it worth being so attached to this way of thinking? Does this kind of thinking protect you from anything? Is it harmful? If this thought costs you more than you’re gaining, it makes sense to develop more effective ways of reacting to the situation by going through the next five steps.
Next, something I teach students to do, you need to do some actual research. Not the stereotypical DYOR but actual research. Look for reliable and credible evidence to test the propositions to answer your questions.
Are you basing your conclusion on a lot of relevant data or just one or two data points? Is there significant evidence against this particular thought? Is there a way to consider both the evidence against this thought and the evidence supporting it when thinking about this situation? Would the evidence you’re considering hold up in court, or is it too flimsy?
Moving on, do the facts you find match up with reality. Do other people look at what you uncover and agree with you? Do they reach the same conclusion as you from the same set of facts and evidence?
Are they seeing something you’re not? Would other interpretations be more effective in coping or in achieving your desired outcome? If someone were handling this situation more effectively, how might their thinking be responsible for their success?
So, none of this is simple or straight forward, but neither is getting to the actual facts of a situation sometimes. Is this evidence good, “actual evidence, or is it possible you’re letting your feelings guide your thinking about this matter?”
Why is this? Well... it is because:
Emotions tend to color our thinking, altering our conclusions we make and exacerbating natural errors in thinking. If you were feeling better or were in a better mood, what’s your best guess as to how you’d think about this situation?
So, if you have avoided the online social media version of DYOR, you overcome the perhaps overly emotional reasoning getting in the way of your logical processing, then you can be more open to the actual nuance that will help you get beyond the oversimplification and hasty generalization that can lead one astray.
Well, that is it for now!
See you on Wednesday for the Paid Post on Graphic Novel Recap for Neil Gaiman’s Midnight Days and Friday for covering Dichotomous Thinking.