[grego]

As a European myself, I think it is fine to generalize* about Europe. Many points in Varsavsky's blog post were correct and it raised awareness of some things to consider. Sure, it had its omissions and errors, but also remember it was a blog post, not an article in a peer reviewed journal. Reading the article + the ensuing hacker news discussion one is already much better informed.

What is naive is to expect some blog post to give you an overarching view of a very complex subject. Kind of like reading a wikipedia article something and expecting to be expert on the subject matter after that.

*Making generalizations is a wonderful property of the human brain. Without that we'd all be lost in the fractal complexity of everyday detail.

[jonascopenhagen]

> Making generalizations is a wonderful property of the human brain. Without that we'd all be lost in the fractal complexity of everyday detail.

Sure - the problem is when the generalizations are so broad as to become complete falsehoods. If I went to Upper East Side in New York and concluded that Americans are extremely wealthy persons who live in townhouses, I would be incorrect.

[grego]

In my opinion Varsavsky's blog post was ok. Sure it mostly covered Spain and France, but that's where he's worked at. It conveyed actual experience from one person's perspective.

Some responsibility always lies with the reader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_reading

[jonascopenhagen]

That's like saying that it's alright if I write a blog post about how all Americans drive Chevrolets, and then it's up to the reader to figure out the truth by applying critical reading.

While the reader should apply critical reading, the writer should certainly make sure his facts are straight.