In my last I argued that 'rights' in general and FoS in particular, are subjective culturally (group) based aspirations. I also argued that these groups were statistically predictable (within an accepted error margin) where as the individual isn't.
Individuals they have the innate capacity to accept virtually any solution, Where as a Group must either be single focused (all else is subordinate or suborned to that single goal) or subjected to so many accommodations that the goals are so vague and ethereal as to be open for manipulation or manipulative self serving interpretation. Arguably this is an unwanted artefact.
It is a truism of life that for every yin there is a yang, “there is no such a thing as a free lunch”, more specifically for every “solution” has consequences. The skill or wisdom (the benefit of all) is to think beyond the momentary goal to the consequences and chose the option that best mitigates the bad consequences.
Nature in one sense is over time very efficient, in that attributes that have no use in survival in either the individual species and all species are eliminated. One only needs to consider the Koala. It has the brain the size of a walnut virtually no cerebrum or frontal cortex (where we make decisions), it doesn't need one. Its survival attributes are hard wired and is perfectly suited to survive in the niche it evolved for.
We on the other hand evolved with both, mind you both have their limitations. Investigating these limits is an interesting field of human research. This research has shown that an average human has the capacity for about 150 real relationships (in varying degrees) .
(the average on the social media like Facebook is somewhere between 25 and forty). Imagine trying to keep up to date with 150 people in any meaningful way? How many of us are still in intimate contact with good neighbours 10 years after? Once a year Christmas cards, facebook? Are these real contacts/relationships? Even extended families only work works well in limited geography.
Interestingly enough this number is well represented in nature too.
A road less travelled in this line of thinking is how this tendency towards 'myopic focus' and its consequences affects us as a community and or in the worst case scenario, species survival. What isn't generally understood or even considered are what these limitations say about the human condition.
Perhaps the most pernicious consequence of “unnatural groupings*”(UG) is we tend to abrogate our responsibility to act and make decisions wisely.
UG(s) are exclusively artificial to benefit a selected minority. They include Governments, to P&Cs and they tend to be ideologically/power driven.
At this point I would mention that only humans have the notion of responsibility, beyond that of the potential breeding group.
I wonder given evolution's efficiency what are the links between the above facts? And what they might represent by way of more appropriate alternatives (solutions) to our problems.
What do you reckon?
If the world consisted simply of self-evident reality that everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there might be no disagreement among people. But the truth of the matter is that what we see in the world is not determined by what exists "out there." It is shaped by what our past experience has prepared us to see and by what we consciously or unconsciously want to see. Knowledge and belief about the world do not exist in a vacuum; they are social products whose content depends on the context in which they are produced. A fundamentalist preacher will tend to view pornography in one way; the owner of a strip club in another way. Each is inclined to perceive facts selectively and to interpret them accordinlgy.
ReplyDeleteOn the basis of the individual within the context of a culture I tend agree.
ReplyDeleteThe intended point of the article was that despite the variation in individuals as a statistical group we tend to be scientifically predictable (within the parameters of statistically significant and an uncertainty margin). This is argued as giving a base trend that is separate from the individual.
i.e. a fishes movements on its own is largely unpredictable within the mentioned statistically significances etc.
Yet as a school there mass movements are predictable and can comparatively easily manipulated....dolphins.
The scientific observations in the blog indicates useful information about our (group) nature.
The comparison is like the atomic principle that says one can measure either a single atomic particle's position or it's velocity but not both, as the actual measuring alters the other. However, as a statistical mass both measurement can be made with in tolerances.
This is demonstrably so with humans. People will react differently if observed than when they believe they aren't.....the difference is potentially a window onto partially the individuals cultural programming. With careful testing to confirm the hypothesis drawn from the raw data it is possible then to look at what is left and that gives indication of the non-culturally influenced person. Further testing with many people it is possible to draw proto- conclusions.
Be well aware that this indepth study is successfully used by those with the means to load outcomes in their favour. Not being a determanist I posit that we as individuals are able to change the outcomes of this science endeavour thus changing our world perhaps for the better.
The challenge (?) I posed in the blog was for others to try and untangle what they could mean in the context of constructing of solutions to our many issues.
One that comes to mind is the welfare of others and the way we abrogate any responsibility to do something. e.g. We through our groups assume that say international aid/ refugees are SEPs (Somebody Else's Problem) i.e. the government.
Virtually all say the system is broken. I deem the problem is that the 'system' is counter to the real nature of humans and therefore inappropriate. Simply tinkering with the edges without a clear idea of the destination is equally futile.
In marketing, psychological terms know your subject warts and all. Frankly we don't nor do we really try to .
Cheers Meeeeeeeeeeee
One final word on the basis of social life.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason interactionist theorists are wary of the emphasis other sociologists place on the major components of society is that concepts such as "the economy" or "the state," are, after all, abstractions; they cannot exist or act by themselves. It is people that exist and act, and it is only through their social behaviour that society can come into being at all. Society is ultimately created, maintained and changed by the social interaction of its members.
Don't you think it's time to close down this blog? People have had long enough to contribute and nobody else seems interested. With just the two of us contributing - it hardly seems worthwhile to continue. Don't you agree?
ReplyDelete