My penguin friend, I am all good with your NOT tell us your four categories. Your story is a bit surprising, and informative.

Two counter points to some of your assertions. I agree with your view of marriage as having truth. Here are two other truths too: Men's attraction to women as a (strong) generalization is inversly proportional to their distance from age 20. So marriage also affords some (modest) protection for women who are on a sharp decline than men are on. Second, marriage is a commitment to reducing ones own future choices. If one takes that commitment seriously, then it provides a thing someone else can depend upon. Neither of these things invalidates your view of marriage as women as chattel. that also has had, and can have truth too.

When I go to a party... I cannot help myself. I love to ask what a person does. What I come to believe about the person based on their answer is a massive over generaliation. Still information gain per second (as measured by my ability to guess things about their life) is likely higher from those seconds, than from any other way I could learn about them. It is SUPER CONCENTRATED information. the same is true about, gender, race, social class, sexual preference.

This is just a fact. (I could design an experiment that could measure this fact.)

for me, this issue is not the informativeness of those association (they are actually quite strong). The issue is that they are overgenearlization (as are ALL things I might know about someone). The problem is that they are the SAME overgenearliations one will be subject to, since everyone will bin you in that way from minute number one.

so this is a bit of a theoretical point. The problem is not that these are overgeneralizations -- everything one can know are even worse overgenearlations about you. What is wrong is that it is a systematic overgenearlation that will follow you everywhere.

.... and I will confess, I have to resist temtation to sleuth out which human on earth you are!!!