On balance, generalizations about political ideologies are true

It covers a lot of ground.1. We generalize to better understand the worldDogs are furry mammals that have four legs and a tail. They bark and chase cats. No, wait! There are hairless dogs, one breed that doesn't bark, some dogs have lost a leg, and some dogs don't don't chase cats. So maybe it's best to avoid generalities altogether for fear of imposing stereotypes. There are thousands of exceptions to point to. Perhaps children should only be told that dogs are mammals, and beyond that nothing can be said. Sorry, I'm going with the generality. Understanding that there are exceptions to generalities is much less of a problem than avoiding generalities. There are at last three ways to construct a generality:a. The definition of something is a true generalization. In the case of political ideologies, the definitions are imprecise, but they are unquestionably useful. For example, the Wikipedia entry for"libertarian" . http://en.wikipedia.org... on starts with an overarching definition and then defines seven ideological variations. Definitions are enormously useful in discussion. A person may establish his general outlook in a few words rather than going on at great length in describing the details. People may also usefully say things like, "I'm a libertarian on that social issues. " and we have a good idea what they mean. The definitions are invaluable in history and in analyzing political issues. We might read about the evolution of libertarian thought, who the noted thinkers and authors are, and what brought about each of the seven described variations. We might examine an issue like heat care from the libertarian perspective and the perspective of other political ideologies. The definitions facilitate discussion and analysis but allowing us to quickly establish a baseline from which we can proceed to the particular points of interest. b. The second way to construct a generalization is by formal statistical analysis. We can take a survey of people who describe themselves as subscribing to a particular ideology and see how the stand on various particular issues of the day. We can discover that Conservatives are generally religious. I think that's a valid generalization even though I'm a conservative and not religious. People have asked me how that works. Statistical generalizations are valid because statistics is an established branch of mathematics. Statistics says what is true, but we must then figure out why it is true. Does it follow from the tenets of the political ideology, or is it a result o a common cause. We pursue those questions to understand how the world works. Statistical generalizations are true, but we need insight to say why they are true. c. We can derive generalizations from analysis of events. This is informal statistical analysis. It's fraught with possible errors, but if done carefully it leads to valuable insights. How did all the definition get into the dictionary? I was rarely through official edicts on meanings and not through massive polls giving statistics about the meanings of words. It was through analysis of examples of word usage captured by citations from published literature. That's an example of our third method, and it applies to much more than deriving dictionaries. However generalities are constructed, we cannot operate without them. In the realm of politics, we must use generalities togive meaning to words and phrases, like "House Republicans passed the Ryan budget. " Not every Republican voted for it, but it would be ridiculous to confine our description to long lists of House members that voted for it. Even when we go to a level more precise, saying exactly how many voted for it and how many voted against it, it still does not specify the logic that each member used. Generalities are required for communication. We operate based upon generalities and exceptions.2. Forming generalities is fundamental to intelligenceIt is possible to err in generalization, but it is also possible to get genuine insights from the analysis. Noted conservative William Buckley claimed that you could identify a liberal because "they throw a baseball like a girl. " That's not literally true, but it suggests Buckley's opinion on the differences between liberals and conservatives. Buckley also said, "Conservatism is the doctrine of evolutionary change. " Not all conservatives would agree, but it is a definition to ponder. A question for this debate is whether we learn anything by attempting to learn which generalizations are true and which are not. Then if we find a true generalization, what can we understand from it? One of the fundamental mechanisms of intelligence is pattern matching. A site devoted to IQ testing summarized: Pattern recognition Out of all mental abilities this type of intelligence is said to have the highest correlation with the general intelligence factor, g. This is primarily because pattern recognition is the ability to see order in a chaotic environment; the primary condition for life. Patterns can be found in ideas, words, symbols and images and pattern recognition is a key determinant of your potential in logical, verbal, numerical and spatial abilities. It is essential for reasoning because your capacity to think logically is based on your perception of the logic around you. . http://www.intelligencetest.com...A generality about a political ideology is a pattern of associated beliefs or behaviors. Recognizing patterns is fundamental to intelligent understanding. There is large body of true generalities presented in works like the Wikipedia articles on ideologies and in scholarly works. Those are part of the process of developing an understanding of the political arena. The patterns of beliefs explain behaviors. One example is the communist belief that there is no cost of capital, and that all value derives from labor. That belief put to practice leads to unwise financial decisions that damage a nations economy. The generality about communism leads to a generality about governing decisions. It's a simple example, but it shows the nature of improved understanding. If we failed to connect the dots and refused to generalize, we would miss the central understanding. We understand that the pattern is not unchangeable. The pattern makes it worthwhile examining if China, still claiming to be communist, ignores the cost of capital. If they count capital costs, that tells us they are departing from the ideology. The way a generality is validated is similar to the way a scientific theory is validated. The generality is tested to see if held n the past and whether the expectations of behavior in accord with the generality are met. The generalities that are validated tend to survive and work their way into encyclopedia articles and political books. Those that fail may survive outside of serious thinking, but they dominate. The reason is the same as why false scientific theories may linger as superstitions, but scientists abandon them because they lack predictive or explanatory power. The existence of false theories does not deter scientists from proposing and validating new theories. The same is true for generalities about political ideologies. The value of valid generalities far outweighs the consequences of invalid ones.3. Generalizing is the goalRecognizing patterns, i. e. generaities, is a fundamental attribute of intelligence. We can only understand how the world works in terms of recognized generalities. That's obvious in science, where individual laws of nature are picked out from the clutter of the world. It's every bit as important to understanding political ideologies. The goal is to make generalities, not avoid them. If we avoid generalities we understand nothing. Generalizing is top priority.