Sweeping claims ahead

By Herman M. Lagon

One tendency that appears far too frequently in the whirlwind of political discourse is hasty generalization. This logical fallacy is common in daily discussions, news articles, and—unsurprisingly—political campaigns. It entails drawing general conclusions from sparse data. Fallacies can range from the harmless—like when a vendor asserts that “all politicians [bar none] are corrupt” based on one negative encounter with a local official—to the deliberate—like when a politician claims that “because one government program failed, all are doomed to fail.”

The local debates about smoking and health are a prime example of premature generalization. Someone might remark, “My grandfather smoked for fifty years and lived to be ninety-nine.” Therefore, smoking isn’t harmful.” While it is great that the person’s grandfather lived a long life, the argument leaps to a broad conclusion based on a single example, dismissing the mountain of evidence linking smoking to a variety of fatal diseases. This narrow, isolated experience becomes the shaky foundation of an overreaching statement, and we see this pattern reflected in political arguments repeatedly.

One need only look at recent political debates to see hasty generalizations at work. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were instances when leaders or media outlets would declare, “The lockdowns are not working because there are still new cases in Metro Manila.” This ignores the situation’s complexity—factors like testing, population density, and adherence to health protocols all contributed to the rise in cases. But by narrowing in on one piece of the puzzle, people could draw an inaccurate, sweeping conclusion that lockdowns, in general, were a failure. The same faulty reasoning leads some to claim, “The whole education system is completely broken because several schools performed poorly in national tests.”

Hasty generalization thrives in an environment where emotions run high and critical thinking is in short supply. In an age where social media amplifies every small incident into a national talking point, we see hasty generalizations almost daily. Take, for instance, the widely circulated news stories about crimes committed by foreign nationals in the country. It does not take long before the comment sections are filled with statements like, “Foreigners are always involved in illegal activities.” This type of overgeneralization not only fuels the flames of xenophobia but also ignores the fact that crime exists across all demographics.

The 2022 elections provided another fertile ground for hasty generalizations. A candidate might cite a few successful business ventures as proof that they are fit to manage the entire nation’s economy. “I built this mall [or city] so I can rebuild the economy,” they might say, glossing over the fact that running a country vastly differs from running a business or a city. The error in reasoning lies in the assumption that success in one specific area can be extrapolated to much larger, more complex systems without further evidence.

The political landscape also sees hasty generalizations in how candidates are judged. Painting every political family member—or even an entire political dynasty—as corrupt becomes all too simple when one family is implicated in corruption. This generalization undermines individuals who might be sincerely trying to improve their communities while also making it easier for the general public to lose sight of the incredibly complex power dynamics at work. Of course, a family found guilty of plundering public funds without remorse would be an exception in this case.

A 2018 study conducted by the Political Science Department at the University of the Philippines demonstrated how hasty generalizations cause polarization in political discourse. People latch onto these broad, oversimplified claims because they provide a convenient narrative that requires little effort to understand. The danger, however, is that this kind of thinking shuts down more nuanced discussions. When we say, “All politicians are corrupt,” we shut down any chance for real change and accept lifelong cynicism.

It is interesting to note that well-researched cognitive biases account for these propensities toward hasty generalization. Psychologists have long understood that people tend to make snap decisions based on scant information, especially if that information confirms something they already believe. People would naturally gravitate toward generalizations, especially in a place where political dynasties, corruption scandals, and unequal resource distribution are commonplace occurrences. They bring certainty in uncertain times and simplify a complex world. But as our elders would remind us, discovering deeper truths involves introspection and discernment. Although making snap decisions might feel good, they frequently need to catch up.

Within this framework, the media is extremely important. Even when a news report about a tragic incident only makes up a small portion of the whole picture, it can influence public opinion nationwide. Think about the heightened media coverage surrounding extrajudicial killings. Even though there are certainly terrible cases of abuse, some political pundits have used these few incidents to suggest that all police officers are violent and corrupt. Even though there are systemic problems, focusing on a small number of high-profile cases and excluding other issues hinders us from addressing the specific problems that require reform. It is simpler to declare that “all cops are bad” than to support deliberate, focused policy changes.

Hasty generalizations can be dangerous outside of the media and political spheres. It can also penetrate the field of education. Our teachers frequently deal with this problem, particularly in rural areas with limited resources. Legislators and school administrators often assume that the entire teaching staff is incompetent when a small percentage of a barangay’s students perform poorly on standardized tests. Policymakers might conclude that “teachers aren’t doing their jobs” instead of looking at possible root causes, including inadequate infrastructure, limited resources, or socioeconomic issues. This results in an atmosphere whereby teachers feel unfairly blamed and discouraged, which makes it more difficult for sensible, evidence-based solutions to be embraced.

In the end, hasty conclusions are a shortcut to grasping complexity. In a society as complicated as ours, avoiding basing political, educational, and daily living decisions on scant knowledge based on hasty judgments is imperative. We should be more aware of the institutions we disparage and ourselves. Voters, teachers, and citizens are invited to stop, think, and ask ourselves, “Do I have enough evidence to make this judgment, or am I falling into the trap of hasty generalizing?”

Not only is one aim to avoid logical fallacies, but the true goal is to promote a culture of more understanding. When we take the time to weigh all the options, look beyond our limited experiences, and gather additional information, we make ourselves available for deeper, more meaningful discussions. And that is what will advance us as a country more than any generalization or hasty judgment.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.