<p>The purpose of my last post was to satirize your post - to use the same kind of language and comparisons that you used to give you a taste of your own medicine. The fact that you were obviously offended at my "generalized attacks on white people" proves my point exactly - that your language was offensive. </p>
<p>In case you haven't learned in school yet, science includes generalizations (named the "hypothesis" first) that are investigated thoroughly and multiple times in carefully controlled experiments by multiple people (the "evidence") and then are deemed "theories" or even "laws" if they are true. Thus, the "generalizations" in science have progressed into "specific theories" because of the fact that they have hard, clear evidence that is aways consistent. If one animal disproved the idea that DNA is the blueprint for our bodies, that "generalization" would be thrown out. Science has extremely rigorous standards for its "generalizations" which you do not uphold. Your "evidence" (personal experiences) are not consistent; people in different areas who encounter different people will always have different experiences. I obviously had a different experience than you; Berkeley students who have a Chinese man as the director of their Lawrence Berkeley Research Center will also have a different experience, people at Haas will have a different experience...etc. Your generalization remains exactly that because a) it has no evidence in support of it and b) it has evidence against it. It is in no way comprable to a scientific theory with legitimate evidence supporting it, validated multiple times and in multiple ways.</p>
<p>"Ebonytear: I 100% agree with you. There's always a lot of truth to all the generalizations that put shade on white people. But all generalizations that put shade on non-white people are "stupid, wrong, and harmful". I'm just curious - why are you attacking me and not the person who said that Americans are dumb, disrespectful, and lazy (the one who started this threat). Do you think there's a lot of truth to his/her generalization?"</p>
<p>Myself and many other people have discussed the truth to his/her generalization and have concluded it to be exactly that - a stereotype. Just like what I called your "observations." I'm not legitamizing stereotypes at all - the post I made right before yours discussed how this entire thread is full of generalizations b/c the OP's questions were about generalizations. </p>
<p>"Generalization is natural and essential in our life. If someone starts chasing you with a knife, you generalize that the guy wants to kills you."</p>
<p>I think the fact that he's chasing you with a knife is pretty clear evidence that they don't exactly want to make friends. </p>
<p>"I think Standford alone has several Nobel prize winners working there. And most of American Nobel prize winners are "true" Americans - that is they are not people who came to study to the US from abroad."</p>
<p>The only "true" Americans are Native Americans. I hate how some people in nativist movements think that immigrants (not just the Latinos now, but the Asians before them, and even the Irish before them - seen Gangs of New York?) are somehow intruding on "their" land and diluting "true American" values and hurting "true Americans" when they themselves immigrated to America. I think it's sad that you, being Russian, think that. Who is a "true" America in your terms by the way? How many generations back? Are only people who came on the Mayflower "true" Americans? Because then you or I certainly don't qualify, and these people from Stanford University also don't qualify:</p>
<p>Felix Bloch, Nobel Laureate, physics professor - immigrated from and educated in Switzerland
Steven Chu, Nobel Prize-winning physics professor - immigrated from and educated in Taiwan
Myron Scholes, Nobel Prize-winning economics professor - immigrated from and educated in Canada
Richard Taylor, Nobel Laureate - immigrated from and educated in Canada
Henry Taube - immigrated from and educated in Canada, etc. etc.</p>
<p>MANY "American" Nobel Larueates/Winners immigrated here from other countries. Not just at Stanford. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1217%5B/url%5D">http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1217</a>
"# The United States is indeed one of the top countries producing Nobel Prize winners, but looking only at native-born winners per capita, it ranks below the UK, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, and Norway.</p>
<h1>International migration of scientists places the United States above Austria, Norway, and the UK in number of winners per 100 million inhabitants, but Sweden and, surprisingly, Switzerland still had more winners per capita working there.</h1>
<h1>While 25 winners per 100 million inhabitants (70 people in all) migrated into the United States, not a single U.S.-born scientist won a Nobel Prize working overseas. (The other countries that received immigrants all also sent emigrants.)....The bottom line is that the great advantage of the United States over other advanced countries is not its superior ability to train top scientists but its exceptional ability to attract them through migration. Yet SwitzerlandÂ’s even greater attractiveness should stand as a warning to the United States that others can pursue enlightened migration policy."</h1>