Indentify the logical fallacy here

Also would be fallacy of composition .

hasty generalization

This is more precisely an Appeal to Anecdote, Anecdotal Fallacy and a subset of hasty generalization. At first glance, it may seem like a Fallacy of Composition except for some critical elements:

In a Fallacy of Composition, we have to at least have some evidence that what is being claimed of the part is true. ( See Dr. Bo's syllogism)

A is part of B.  (He claims to be a part of a village)

A has property X. (He claims he and the village are not hungry)

Therefore, B has property X. (He claims that he, the village, and the world are also not hungry). 

The claim is anecdotal and unpersuasive. We have no way of determining that it is true since the anecdote could be made up, misconstrued, a statistical outlier, or just a distracting debate strategy. 

The second claim about others in the village is one of Amazing Familiarity and hearsay so it can be readily dismissed as unsupported fiction.

Since what is being claimed is anecdotal, hearsay, and amazingly familiar it cannot be relied upon to be true of either the part or the whole.

I feel like this is could be considered either anecdotal (This is true for me, so it must be true for everyone) or composition (This is true for part, so it must be true for the whole).