I guess my take on this is 50% "tautology" and 50% "wrong". I don't like the idea of there being fixed social groups. Human nature is so dynamic, is it fair to say that I am in X social group when I am also in A, B, C, and the rest of them? It may be true but it is always going to be a very limited and flawed definition of anyone.
If you want to make a general point about how some set of people behave, say football hooligans, or women who wear large hats at Ascot, then you'll never be able to say anything generally about, for example, their take on modern art, but you can say something about their behaviour at those sporting events, as that's how you've defined them for that point.
Even within those groups there'll be exceptions to most statements, but the interesting statements are the ones that minimise the number of exceptions.
Yes, I suppose you can say something about people who wear large hats at Ascot, but if it's going to be true, isn't it pretty much limited to "people who wear large hats at Ascot, wear large hats at Ascot"?
You could say more. Like I suspect they will likely have "disposable income"* in the top 50% of the UK, and they don't see horse racing as unforgivably cruel.
But the more specific things you say, the less true they will be.
* in terms of discretionary spending funds available as opposed to actual income.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-21 01:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-21 01:37 pm (UTC)Even within those groups there'll be exceptions to most statements, but the interesting statements are the ones that minimise the number of exceptions.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-21 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-21 02:28 pm (UTC)But the more specific things you say, the less true they will be.
* in terms of discretionary spending funds available as opposed to actual income.