The times., 1901-04-02
congratulations.

one of the most dangerous intellectual
habits into which person can fali is
that of careless generalization. 1t is,
in nine cases out of ten, born OF IN
teIlectual vanity. 1t sounds well 10
generalize. and for that reason some
people like to do it. 1t is so easy TO
make a sweeping statement for the sake
of argument, and then to dispose OF
contradictions with the lofty assertion
that this is an exception that there
is a sort of fascination about the
process.
All the same, it is dangerous habit;
dangerous for this reason: That 1t
obliges one to make many mistakes pc
fore he gets his general laws arranged
and usually results in more or less un-
reasoning prejudice. The fact that IN
tkree-fourths of the people of ones ac-
quaintance certain peculiarities exist is
no warrant for the assertion that they
exist in all humanity, and at any
rate there is always the other one
fourth. the exception, TO be reckoned
with: and unless one can easily dtstin-
guish between the two ones knowledge
is not so very valuable.
Suppose, for example. that a man is
brought up in community where the
Church is particularly corrupt, and
where some Of the hypocrites would de-
ceive the very elect He may jump at
the erroneous conclusion that II Is the
New Testament and not the conditions
of that particular community winch
caused the trouble; in which case he is
likely to be robbed of considerable sat
isfaction in life. If, on the contrary.
he had set himself TO discover the cause
| Of the trouble. seriously and without
| prejudice, he might in time have found
out how TO know a hypocrite when he
saw one, which would have been a
| truly valuable thing to know.
There is a kind of reasoning some
| times called feminine, but often pos
| sessed by poets. dramatsts, and shrewd
| business men, which is intuitive in its
character. and usually considered il
logical 1t is a fact. however, that the
person endowed with this kind of rea-
son is correct in judgment, as rule.
The way in which he arrives at his
conclusions may not be very clear to
him or anybody else, but it is cer-
tain that the conclusions are correct.
There have been many speculations as
to the method pursued by this type of
mind, but it has never been quite set
tied.
1t may be, however that the explana-
tion of il is just this: The ordinary,
slow, logical mind, on coming upon new
conditions, endeavors TO explain and
formulate them according to experience
and previously constructed rules. On
meeting a man. for example, such a
mind viii seek TO pigeonhole him with
his class. Now, as every man is an in
| dividual, with curious little crooks and
turns and contradictions in his makeup
which are unlike those of other people,
the chances are that no one specimen
win exactly fit in his class. The in
tuitive mind instead of wasting time
in classification looks at the man as he
is, and tries to see him exactly as If
he We're the first of his kind on earth.
The result is an accurate view, which
omits no details. After this view is
gained. the classification can go on.
1t is safe for men like Darwin. or
Bafzac, or Shakespeare, to generalize.
because their data are innumerable; but
for the ordinary limited, everyday man
il is rather unwise.