Most People

Why is it necessary when documenting a testimonial to use terms that represent others, without first establishing the source of this information and assuring it's accuracy? For example: “most people”, “the masses”, etc.

Seems, the only people I can truly represent are those that I receive prior permission from or those that are represented in some form of data. The data should be accessible and have associated integrity. Yet this section is inundated with similar abstract terms that are unsubstantiated. Making statements that infer someone knows what "most people" think or that they somehow represent them without supporting data is ludicrous. Without said data or approval, would it not simply be an individual opinion (as in singular)?

Am I the only person that notices these terms when perusing this section?

I personally think that those types of comments are just a common language usage that admittedly are used inappropriately. But personally, I am one of those that just look for the "meat" of the statement or question, and don't sweat the usage or punctuation. After all, I have enough problems living my life without worrying about how others live theirs. :p

One of the pitfalls of generalities (such as those that begin with "most people....") is that they can be based on too small a sample....

Linguistics and syntax are the answers to your question. The brain generally uses correlated data to find answers which fit into our personal reality or perceptions. The scientific method of finding a as=if truism or a answer to a hypothesis is a lot of work and generally has faults in the variables. I would agree with your assessment though, it would be nice if generally we all recognized our opinions are ours alone even if it seems others agree, we don't ever really know what others think even if they tell us; we perceive it from our own reality. Life would be kind of boring if we actually understood each other rather then thinking we do. #-o ](*,) :-\"

gettinoriginal said: I personally think that those types of comments are just a common language usage that admittedly are used inappropriately. But personally, I am one of those that just look for the "meat" of the statement or question, and don't sweat the usage or punctuation.

+1. I agree with Tamlynmac's sentiments, but I was never one to nitpick over semantics. You can get the gist of what someone is saying and still discard the abstract terms and the frustration-driven accusations and snipes.

gettinoriginal said:

After all, I have enough problems living my life without worrying about how others live theirs. :p

+1 to that, too. We each usually have enough worries *without* having to borrow someone else's. :)

frankleeee

I would agree with your assessment though, it would be nice if generally we all recognized our opinions are ours alone even if it seems others agree, we don't ever really know what others think even if they tell us; we perceive it from our own reality. Life would be kind of boring if we actually understood each other rather then thinking we do.Basically, that's all I'm requesting. I must agree that the world would be an extremely dull place if we only lived in our own reality.

gettinoriginal

*I personally think that those types of comments are just a common language usage that admittedly are used inappropriately. But personally, I am one of those that just look for the "meat" of the statement or question, and don't sweat the usage or punctuation.* I'm not complaining about punctuation or usage (I'm certainly not an English major) just inappropriate terms that imply something other than knowledge based on individual interpretation. When communicating I truly believe one should refrain from using terms that impart a consciousness beyond our own, unless we have data to support the statement(s). I tend to question the intent of these statements when supported by said terms. However, I will admit they probably are a form of expression that is based solely in perception.:-k

I imagine such terms are used in order to exaggerate the seriousness of the problem that the user is experiencing, creating the mindset that "it must be a serious problem if others have it and you should help us quickly" thus somehow elevating the statement's urgency and credibility.

Tamlynmac said: Why is it necessary when documenting a testimonial to use terms that represent others, without first establishing the source of this information and assuring it's accuracy? For example: “most people”, “the masses”, etc.

Seems, the only people I can truly represent are those that I receive prior permission from or those that are represented in some form of data. The data should be accessible and have associated integrity. Yet this section is inundated with similar abstract terms that are unsubstantiated. Making statements that infer someone knows what "most people" think or that they somehow represent them without supporting data is ludicrous. Without said data or approval, would it not simply be an individual opinion (as in singular)?

Am I the only person that notices these terms when perusing this section?

I basically agree with what you are saying, but, the longer I live, the more I discover just how many people do think, feel and live in ways that I thought I was the only one who thought, felt or lived in such a similar manner. There just may be a place to state what you are addressing here and not be over generalizing. The cultural usage of such phrases is just how it is.

Do not demand documented support for everything people say. A person can spend too much time examining the bark and completely miss the beauty of the tree.

For a while there I tried to couch most things I said in personal terms: "I find such-and-such" or "in my experience" or "yes, that happens to me too" in an attempt to avoid generalizing and to show that I identified with what people were saying. But instead, that made it sound as though 'it was all about me' - not my intention at all.

So then I replace it with "it is possible" and "some people" and "yeah, it can be like that, can't it" and so language becomes even more vague and meaningless.....

Having said that: I agree that "most people" is often used entirely inappropriately. Usually by someone who wants to claim membership of 'most people' in order to give weight to their argument, eg, "Most people prefer vi to emacs" or "most people prefer coffee" as if the emacs users and tea drinkers really care what most people do.

As others have said or implied, the key thing here is to asses why they are using the 'most people' or similar generality, whether it's identifying with, setting themselves apart from, etc.

scottuss Re: Most People

I imagine such terms are used in order to exaggerate the seriousness of the problem that the user is experiencing, creating the mindset that "it must be a serious problem if others have it and you should help us quickly" thus somehow elevating the statement's urgency and credibility.

I wholeheartedly agree. Which is generally why I tend to be suspicious when such terms are used by individuals in this section. These terms are often associated to hostile content generated either out of frustration or an attempt to "exaggerate" what the writer perceives as an exasperating issue. One of my primary concerns is based solely on content with regards to new or potential users. If one should convey the concept that "most people" have specific issues, it could easily be misconstrued that the OS is fundamentally flawed. When seeking knowledge - perception can potentially alter choice (only my opinion).

It's time for me to bid farewell for the "morning" (here). Thank you for all your responses. Hopefully, this will continue without me. Upon returning I hope to find a plethora of enlightening responses.

Tamlynmac said: If one should convey the concept that "most people" have specific issues, it could easily be misconstrued that the OS is fundamentally flawed. When seeking knowledge - perception can potentially alter choice (only my opinion).

Good point.

I remember having a similar arguement about art. One side being that art was too elitist and should make itself accessible to 'the masses', the other that 'the masses' were ignorant and should learn to appreciate art. (A third point, that artists might be happy making art for the elite and the masses might be happy ignoring it, was not considered).

Thing is, if 'most people' DO in fact have those issues, DOES that make the OS flawed? Some might say yes, becuase in theory it should be useable by anyone; personally, I say no, because the OSs that are designed to be idiot proof are a right royal pain in the patootie.

Most people will ignore this thread.

Tamlynmac said: I wholeheartedly agree. Which is generally why I tend to be suspicious when such terms are used by individuals in this section. These terms are often associated to hostile content generated either out of frustration or an attempt to "exaggerate" what the writer perceives as an exasperating issue. One of my primary concerns is based solely on content with regards to new or potential users. If one should convey the concept that "most people" have specific issues, it could easily be misconstrued that the OS is fundamentally flawed. When seeking knowledge - perception can potentially alter choice (only my opinion).

huh? you're too well spoken for me to follow. ):P

scottuss said: i imagine such terms are used in order to exaggerate the seriousness of the problem that the user is experiencing, creating the mindset that "it must be a serious problem if others have it and you should help us quickly" thus somehow elevating the statement's urgency and credibility.

+1

wolfen69

huh? you're too well spoken for me to follow. ):PBelieve me, I'm not that well spoken. LOL My point was, that if we permit people to use terms similar to "most people" and they make statements that imply that Ubuntu has major issues for "most people" then a new or potential user could misunderstand. They might even decide to not install Ubuntu based on their research in this section.

For example: If someone wrote "Most people can't install Ubuntu" - if I were investigating an OS and read this, what reaction would I have? Could it possibly change my choice (to install Ubuntu). That is why I sometimes challenge individuals that use similar terms in this section. I try and keep in mind how I would react should I read a posting containing this type of wording.

Allow me some poetic license here.

"Most people use Windows".

However, Most people fear computers.

And, Most people hate computers.

Hmmmm, is there something in that?

Tamlynmac said: Basically, that's all I'm requesting. I must agree that the world would be an extremely dull place if we only lived in our own reality.

Actually my point is that we may really see the world from our own personal reality, notice I said may. This is a existential depth psychology point of view, not necessarily for everyone to grasp or consider.

mdsmedia said: Allow me some poetic license here.

"Most people use Windows".

However, Most people fear computers.

And, Most people hate computers.

Hmmmm, is there something in that?

And most people use google which runs on Linux.

mdsmedia Re: Most People

Allow me some poetic license here.

"Most people use Windows".

However, Most people fear computers.

And, Most people hate computers.

Hmmmm, is there something in that?

As I indicated, my problem isn't actually with the term "most people" but how it's applied. The concept that someone could arbitrarily make a negative comment and then support said comment with the term "most people", could have a direct impact on a reader. I've actually had a person ask me specifically about a posting they read in this section that inferred "most people" had a problem installing Ubuntu and that it require extensive knowledge (their words). After assisting them with the install (8.04), they were actually impressed at the simplicity. I told the person not to believe everything they read. LOL

frankleeee said: Actually my point is that we may really see the world from our own personal reality, notice I said may. This is a existential depth psychology point of view, not necessarily for everyone to grasp or consider.

Reality is what people discover when they make bad choices. In that case I wonder what fantasy might be like.....):P