What do you think about "generalization"

[danjustlovescoffee]

Hello!
I find the term "generalization" to be very confusing. It confused me and it is not very concrete at all, at least for me. What often works for me is thinking what is behind a term. Does this term also confuse you?
I have some thoughts what "generalization" and "difficulties with generalization" are:
First of all, most, maybe all but I don't know, "aspies" (not a term I want use but people use it) find it difficult to focus on many things at once. Then we the aspies have difficulties specific situations and skills.
We often struggle with being interested in something unless we make it something personal. Sometimes we try to motivate ourselves but fail to become motivated.

When people who have difficulties with generalization of skills fail to generalize it is often because of one thing: they had a difficulty but never looked at that particular difficulty. The difficulty will still remain.
Another thing is that NTs are better at focusing on many things at once. When an NT is given an exercise it might be seen as one exercise but for an aspie the exercise might need to be broken down into three different exercices. Then after a while one can focus on puting all the skills together.
Another thing is motivation. For many aspies the issue of concentration is a big issue. Most of us need specific things to focus on. We need focus but in a way that works for us.

I see many people with ASD who find it difficult to learn to use one coffe maker and then use another coffe maker.
This has to do with people having difficulties with analysing what are the details and what are the whole picture.
This is why most of us need to compare how different coffe makers work before we really understand coffe makers.
This can take longer time for us.
My goal when I learn something is looking at how things connect and do not connect, ie comparing different situations with eachother. What are the details of specific coffe makers and what they have in common.

What I see is that we often go to the symptoms and not the reason for the symptoms, ie the difficulties. I mean it is easy to give someone aids and tools to make a situation easier but without really dealing with the difficulty itself.
It's like trying to learn by using training wheels. When you take them away you can't ride the bike.


What do you think?

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

My thought about generalization is that it is the use of inference about making application to a broader class. That has given me the flexibility to figure out how things work from first-principles. But, whether coffeemakers or computer programs, we are constrained by how designers/developers want us to think and sometimes it is pretty damned stupid. And in this world frequently the best does not win out.

 

[danjustlovescoffee]

My thought about generalization is that it is the use of inference about making application to a broader class. That has given me the flexibility to figure out how things work from first-principles. But, whether coffeemakers or computer programs, we are constrained by how designers/developers want us to think and sometimes it is pretty damned stupid. And in this world frequently the best does not win out.

first-principles?
Let's say that I am learning to sing. How can I take first-principles in to singing?
Are you saying that when you have difficulty finding patterns easily, ie not finding the whole picture easily, you have a strategy that is called "working from first-principles"?
Has "working from first-principles" helped you go directly to you real difficulty rather than just doing exercises and hoping you'll succeed, be it maths, singing or cooking?

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

first-principles?
Let's say that I am learning to sing. How can I take first-principles in to singing?
Are you saying that when you have difficulty finding patterns easily, ie not finding the whole picture easily, you have a strategy that is called "working from first-principles"?
Has "working from first-principles" helped you go directly to you real difficulty rather than just doing exercises and hoping you'll succeed, be it maths, singing or cooking?

I was thinking of technical endeavors accessible to inference. Inference requires understanding fully a specific case from which you can generalize to an applicable group. Maths is a good example of that since blind exercises without understanding the basis of operations and you get GIGO. Case in real life is factorial design of experiments where I have seen people collapse designs in a non-orthogonal manner, yielding false conclusions of significance. You are talking about acquiring skills where there is no substitute for creating ingrained reflexes. Yes, I could generalize flatwater canoe and kayak handling to moving water and whitewater, but putting in the 10,000 hours of work and practice means that I need not ponder my line or angle, momentum, and lean, in the middle of a Class IV rapid. Yet I still make mistakes. I was off my line at Wire Fence on the Green in Desolation at 29,000 cfs (cubic feet of water flow per second) and did not react well enough to avoid a 6 foot pourover into a highly aerated hole. Lost boyancy completely and was maytagged, ending in a long swim. But, I've practiced self rescue and safely swimming through rapids, so kept my wits about me.

 

[Aspychata]

Great point. Motivation has always been a issue for me. Because a lot of things don't motivate me. And the things that motivate me aren't conducive to society in general. I loving working by myself. I don't have a super need to socialize and hate it when it's shoved on me by anybody. I bore easily. I left many lower jobs once l knew the routine. Yet certain jobs are fine but others would bore me to death. Being a teller right out of high school bored me to tears until the SWAT team showed up. That was interesting. Missing be robbed, l was in a different office when that happened.

But jobs that are detailed, l really love doing. I love learning new software.
Maybe you have to figure out your passions?

 

[Thinx]

If the coffee machines all worked similarly then I would be ok once I had learned how to use one, but if they significantly differed then I wouldn't. That doesn't show a problem with generalising.

I do have difficulty multitasking. But generalising doesn't really come into multitasking. It's about doing some different things at once. Which generally, I can't easily do. This includes skills that have multiple facets or actions like driving, (let alone negotiating rapids in a canoe or on a raft). I may be able to learn the basics and be adequate in some multifaceted skills if I persevere. I think what limits me is dyspraxia. And fear. But my fear is well founded.

 

[Au Naturel]

Generalization is a noun and generalize is a verb. It is an act of inductive reasoning, going from a specific observation to a general conclusion. Inductive reasoning is probabilistic and a weak way to ascertain truth but it is easier than deductive reasoning. Humans are lazy so they play the odds.

You see an individual animal. You are told that it is a horse. Any time you see an individual that shares some traits you assign it to the more general category of "horse." Probably some truth to it. If you overgeneralize, you might include zebras and donkeys and ponies in the horse category. You might even assume that all 4 legged furry creatures are a horse. If you undergeneralize you might exclude miniature horses or Clydesdales or horses of a different color. If the horse you saw was limping, you might assume all horses limp. Bad generalizations are often "sweeping "or "hasty."

But generalizations work often enough to be useful. All cars drive in a similar manner so you don't need to relearn to drive. (Well, maybe its a bit rough if you are going from an automatic to a stick.) OTOH not all coffee makers work the same so trying to generalize can lead to confusion.

 

[Suzette]

Honestly, I am confused as to what you mean by "generalizing".

Do you mean having a boad set of skills that can be applied in multiple areas?

As to the question of "multitasking", I think the whole concept is a myth. If you watch someone supposedly good at "multitasking", they aren't actually doing more than one thing at a time. They switch task with a little pause but it is always one thing at a time.

Sometimes people tell me I am good at "multitasking" but I am not. I am good at preplanning what I am going to do. And I can only do the things I have done many times before. Basically all my steps are preplanned out but if you interupt me from my map, I can not return to my task so easily. To someone looking at me they might think I am multitasking, but I am just doing the next step on my map.
Stir the soup
Get the spoons from the drawer
Put the bread into toast
Put the spoons on the table
Stir the soup
Butter the toast
Etc.

But this does not help you with "generalizing"

 

[Au Naturel]

And NTs are not better at thinking about many things at once. "Multitasking" is a lie. It does not happen. What really happens is that the mind switches rapidly back and forth between different subjects. That switching time detracts from overall efficiency in thought. It may be that Aspies have a slower "switching" time but are ultimately faster and more accurate if they are allowed to tackle issues in a logical sequence.

It has been shown over and over that if you have ten jobs and one worker it is better to have the individual focus on each job sequentially. The problem is that in the modern office nobody wants their problem to be the tenth problem in line to be resolved. And the boss thinks that he can speed your work up by standing over your shoulder and repeatedly nudging you or is keeping other customers happy by constantly forcing updates. In the end, everyone has their problem resolved over a longer period of time and with more errors than it would have taken otherwise.

But the boss is happy. And keeping the boss happy is the most important part of any job's description.

 

[Aspychata]

@Suzette

Very good reasoning. This is where l screw up in cooking. If it isn't in front of me to do, l will forget the step in a complicated recipe that l am making for the first or second time.

In jobs, l will forget steps unless it's machinery. I can remember machines and how to take them apart and put them together because my interest is getting all those pieces gone and a tidy workspace.

So we can't multitask unless we have some type of interest in the project

In software, l will do something different and surprised my boss who didn't do that way. Because l can't remember but l can use logic to get the task done. I had people trying to sabotage me at work on the POS system, but l figured out ways to get around it because l like the challenge of figuring it out. They finally gave up on that and eventually screwed me over elsewhere. Lol