Do you have a family? Have you heard of a family? That is a group.
Have you ever played on a sports team? Are you aware that sports teams exist? That is a group.
Have you ever talked about redheads, or Republicans, or do you simply look at humans as blank, featureless masses devoid of individual characteristics?
Do you refuse to recognize the boundaries of nations? Of towns? Those are groups of people. Do you refuse to recognize that people belong to the religions that they profess? They are grouping themselves. Etc. etc. etc. etc etc.
Once again, your point is moot, however, since I did not say that one member of the family is equivalent to another. Just that both would be better off never heard from.
“While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but the percentages remain constant.”
You are correct about pattern recognition.
In database design.
We have
one to one one to many many to many relationships.
I create software for a living. I understand the benefits of labeling things.
Grouping people is something I just never do. Simple because people are too complex and different to use grouping successfully.
Do you have a family? Have you heard of a family? That is a group.
Have you ever played on a sports team? Are you aware that sports teams exist? That is a group.
Have you ever talked about redheads, or Republicans, or do you simply look at humans as blank, featureless masses devoid of individual characteristics?
Do you refuse to recognize the boundaries of nations? Of towns? Those are groups of people. Do you refuse to recognize that people belong to the religions that they profess? They are grouping themselves. Etc. etc. etc. etc etc.
Once again, your point is moot, however, since I did not say that one member of the family is equivalent to another. Just that both would be better off never heard from.
Sherlock Holmes to Watson:
“While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but the percentages remain constant.”