This is wrong, there is nothing as hasty generalization, since generalization is there to make hasty judgment to begin with. Generalization is already in our brain as a stored knowledge, wrong or right is not the issue here. And as it's purpose, it provides us with prejudgment in which help human and animal kind to live through thousands of years. It helped us to prejudge an animal as aggressive and dangerous one when they have sharp teeth's and claws. when the generalization is wrong, it results with the negative output we call prejudice. We are wired that way and for a good purpose, we naturally have generalization, prejudgment and bias capabilities. What you call here is being or behaving sure of something even when it is not called for, for example like being so sure and positive of a lawyer to be an immoral person. You may wrongly or rightly have a general idea about lawyers to be relatively immoral compared to other general public, but you can not be sure if it is a fact for the individual at hand. Those concepts are all messed up
No prejudice is a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience. Hasty generalization needs a anecdotal or personal experience to make a unwarranted statement over a group of things. So I guess it’s similar but still it’s different and the logical fallacy definition exsist
Nice Video!
I think everyone knows someone who does this. And if you don't, then that person is you.
This is wrong, there is nothing as hasty generalization, since generalization is there to make hasty judgment to begin with. Generalization is already in our brain as a stored knowledge, wrong or right is not the issue here. And as it's purpose, it provides us with prejudgment in which help human and animal kind to live through thousands of years. It helped us to prejudge an animal as aggressive and dangerous one when they have sharp teeth's and claws. when the generalization is wrong, it results with the negative output we call prejudice. We are wired that way and for a good purpose, we naturally have generalization, prejudgment and bias capabilities. What you call here is being or behaving sure of something even when it is not called for, for example like being so sure and positive of a lawyer to be an immoral person. You may wrongly or rightly have a general idea about lawyers to be relatively immoral compared to other general public, but you can not be sure if it is a fact for the individual at hand. Those concepts are all messed up
No prejudice is a preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience. Hasty generalization needs a anecdotal or personal experience to make a unwarranted statement over a group of things. So I guess it’s similar but still it’s different and the logical fallacy definition exsist