Conversational turn signal: let’s take a break from the Hamas atrocities of October 7th and turn our attention to something less concrete but just as important.
Introduction
So, long story short, I got into it with some folks on Facebook (spoiler alert, I’m the ‘boomer’ in question - despite being very GenX), who are deeply committed to what can best be described as an identity synthesis view point. There is seemingly no good path to find common ground in these kinds of discourses. It’s a good microcosm of classical liberal bias meets social justice warriors.
The debate on the post revolves around the issue of how overly confident men, particularly those espousing white-biased platitudes such as "We just need to not see color," are perceived and responded to in society. The discussion includes various viewpoints, some supporting the criticism of these attitudes and others defending or questioning this stance. Key themes include the dynamics of privilege, the effectiveness of colorblind approaches to social issues, and the impact of societal biases in discussions about race and equality. The conversation illustrates differing perspectives on how to address and understand racial issues and the role of individual attitudes in broader social contexts.
For one of my friends it seems to have placed in jeopardy a long standing (and hitherto positive and fruitful) relationship. For many on the thread it was an opportunity to show their bona fides in a “take down” of a “boomer” and his “out-dated” and “disproven” views. I think they were able to (amongst themselves) achieve this self-congratulatory verbal revanchist reset of my beliefs through the sheer volume of comments.
All of it reminded me of exactly why I decided to pursue an advanced degree in philosophy in the first place. My natural proclivities run towards those of the late Jerry Gaus. Jerry Gaus, was a prominent political philosopher and theorist, who was primarily known for his work in the field of public reason liberalism.
His main project revolved around developing a comprehensive framework for understanding how diverse individuals and groups, each with their own values, beliefs, and perspectives, could coexist and cooperate within a liberal democratic society. Gaus's approach to public reason liberalism emphasized the importance of reasonable pluralism, acknowledging that in a free society, people will inevitably come to hold a wide variety of moral and religious views. He argued that political institutions and public policies should be justified based on reasons that all reasonable citizens can accept, even if they don't agree on underlying moral or religious doctrines.
This emphasis on public reason and justification aimed to create a framework for social cooperation that respects individual freedom and diversity while maintaining social stability and justice. Gaus's work has had a significant impact on contemporary liberal political theory, influencing debates on topics like democratic legitimacy, social justice, and the role of morality in politics. I know he has profoundly influenced the way I think about these things.
People’s Behavior Starts with Perception
If we want to better understand why humans tend to encamp themself in tribal units, we need to first understand human perception. That begins with some of the more recent the theories of neuroscience, particularly those of Vernon B. Mountcastle. Mountcastle's work suggests that the neocortex, a part of the human brain, operates in a columnar structure (see below), with each column processing different types of sensory information. This structure plays a crucial role in how we perceive the world. It processes stimuli from our environment, allowing us to recognize patterns, make predictions, and understand our surroundings. This fundamental understanding of perception is essential in exploring the more complex interactions of individuals within a society.
Building upon these foundational concepts, Jeff Hawkins in his book "On Intelligence," introduces the idea of Hierarchical Temporal Memory (HTM). HTM is a theory that models how the brain processes and stores information. It suggests that the brain uses a hierarchy of memory patterns to predict and interpret sensory input. This means, essentially, that our perception is not just a passive reception of data but an active process of interpretation based on past experiences and current context. HTM, therefore, offers a framework for understanding how humans perceive and interact with the world in a dynamic and ever-changing manner (and why we apply hierarchies to (nearly?) everything).
The way individuals perceive the world around them is fundamental to their actions and decisions. Perception shapes our understanding of reality, influences our beliefs, and guides our interactions. This concept is crucial in the context of an individual actor within a society. Each individual's actions are a response to their unique interpretation of the world, filtered through their personal experiences, biases, and cognitive processes. In a sense, there is a model of them, in their world, that they alone can access and update. This subjective perception is the driving force behind individual behavior, decision-making, and in action within the social fabric.
The transition from individual perception to social interaction is a critical leap. As individuals act based on their perceptions, they inevitably interact with others who have their own unique perspectives. This interaction is not merely a collision of differing views but a complex interplay where perceptions are shared, challenged, and often modified. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for comprehending how individuals function within a society, as their actions are continuously influenced and altered by their interactions with others.
Jerry Gaus, in "The Open Society and Its Complexities," explores the implications of these individual interactions in society. He proposes that a truly open society must accommodate the diverse perceptions and values of its members. Gaus argues that for a society to be free and just, it must create an environment where individual perceptions and actions are not only acknowledged but also integrated into the larger social and political discourse. This integration is vital for the development of social norms and policies that are inclusive and representative of the society's multifaceted nature.
Understanding human perception through neuroscience and the implications for individual actors in society is a complex (those interested should read more) but necessary. It lays the groundwork to say that individual perception, shaped by cognitive processes like HTM, is the cornerstone of social interaction. Mountcastle, Hawkins, and Gaus collectively underscore the importance of recognizing and valuing individual perceptions in the formation of a cohesive, dynamic, and open society. My sense is that such an understanding is crucial for political philosophers, policymakers, and society at large, as it emphasizes the need for a political and social framework that respects and incorporates the diverse views and experiences of its constituents.
The Complexity of Dynamic Nonlinear Systems and Human Behavior:
Unpredictability and Inconsistency
Dynamic nonlinear systems are a fundamental concept in understanding complex phenomena in various fields, from physics to social sciences. These systems are characterized by their ability to exhibit unpredictable and often chaotic behavior, even when the underlying rules are well-defined and deterministic. This unpredictability arises from the system's sensitivity to initial conditions and the intricate interplay of its components. In such systems (e.g. a Lorenz system), small changes can lead to vastly different outcomes, making long-term prediction challenging. This inherent complexity is crucial in understanding the behavior of individual actors within these systems, particularly in social and political contexts.
One of the most intriguing aspects of dynamic nonlinear systems is the inherent difficulty in predicting outcomes based on known inputs. In theory, knowing all initial conditions and rules should allow for accurate predictions. However, in practice, the intricate interconnections and feedback loops within these systems make precise prediction nearly impossible. This phenomenon, often referred to as the "butterfly effect," highlights the extreme sensitivity of such systems to initial conditions. This unpredictability is not merely a technical limitation but a fundamental property of nonlinear systems, profoundly impacting our understanding of human behavior and social dynamics.
Humans, as individual actors, are quintessential examples of elements within a dynamic nonlinear system, particularly in the context of social and political structures. Each individual is a complex entity with unique experiences, motivations, and decision-making processes. When these individual actors interact within a society, the system becomes exceedingly complex. The nonlinear nature of human interactions means that small changes in one individual's behavior can have disproportionate effects on the overall system, making the prediction of social outcomes extremely challenging.
While it is sometimes possible to observe consistent patterns of behavior in individuals over short periods, these patterns rarely hold over the long term. Short-term consistency can be attributed to immediate factors such as specific goals, environmental conditions, or stable personal circumstances. However, over longer periods, the multitude of variables affecting human behavior – including changing personal experiences, external influences, and the evolving social context – contribute to a lack of consistency. This inconsistency is a natural consequence of the dynamic, nonlinear nature of human behavior within complex systems.
The unpredictability and inconsistency inherent in human behavior present significant challenges in social and political planning. Policies and strategies that assume linear, predictable responses from individuals often fall short when faced with the complex realities of human behavior. This mismatch can lead to unintended consequences and the failure of well-intentioned initiatives. Recognizing the nonlinear nature of human interactions is crucial for policymakers and social planners, as it necessitates a more flexible, adaptive approach to managing social and political issues.
The necessary Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts and related policies, must, by their very nature, be dynamic and evolving. They need to be continually adapting to new data and changing circumstances. This necessity stems from the fact that DEI initiatives operate within the realm of dynamic human systems, where societal norms, cultural contexts, and individual behaviors are in constant flux. As our understanding of these complex interactions deepens and as societal landscapes shift, DEI policies that once seemed effective may become outdated or misaligned with current needs. Equally obvious must be that a one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to failure.
Incorporating the principles of Hierarchical Temporal Memory (HTM) with our understanding of DEI initiatives highlights both why regular re-evaluation is challenging and yet essential. HTM, as a model of how the brain processes and predicts information based on patterns, suggests that human understanding and response to social phenomena, including DEI policies, are deeply rooted in accumulated experiences and learned patterns. Consequently, as DEI initiatives unfold, they interact with a myriad of pre-existing, often deeply ingrained societal and cognitive patterns, varying significantly across different groups and environments.
This complex interplay means that the outcomes of DEI efforts are not linear or predictable, but subject to the dynamic, ever-evolving nature of human cognition and social structures. Therefore, a nuanced approach that continuously adapts to new information and shifting societal dynamics is crucial. By re-evaluating DEI efforts in this light, organizations and communities can better navigate the intricate and changing landscape of human understanding and behavior, ensuring their strategies are not only effective but also resonant with the diverse and evolving nature of the societies they aim to serve.
Aside: this is a great paper: “What are the chances you’re right about everything? An epistemic challenge for modern partisanship” by Hrishikesh Joshi which hits at much of what we’ve been exploring here.
The understanding of dynamic nonlinear systems and their relationship to human behavior underscores an inherent unpredictability and inconsistency in social and political contexts. In turn, emphasizing the need for a paradigm shift in how we approach these complex human systems. Embracing the uncertainty and intricacy of these systems requires adaptive, resilient, and inclusive strategies, offering a more nuanced and realistic understanding of social dynamics. This perspective is not just theoretical but has practical implications for the real world, particularly in how we approach and interpret cultural and societal phenomena. Such an approach is crucial in the analysis of Identity Synthesis.
The Interplay of Human Cognition and Social Ideologies:
A Perspective on Knowledge, Reality, and Freedom
Returning now to the neo-cortex and HTM model in neuroscience, these constructs provide a framework for understanding human knowledge production. They suggest that our cognition is a complex, pattern-based process, heavily reliant on individual experiences and contextual interpretations. Knowledge, in this light, is not an absolute truth but a construct shaped by our neural pathways and past interactions, making it inherently subjective and fluid.
Given this understanding of cognition, it becomes clear that the search for an objective truth in human knowledge is a futile endeavor (an idea that Michael Foucault suggested a long time before now). Our perceptions and understandings are filtered through a personal lens, heavily influenced by our unique cognitive processes. This implies that what we regard as 'truth' is often a consensus reality, shaped by communal experiences and shared interpretations, rather than an objective fact.
Different communities, each with their unique experiences and cognitive patterns, will naturally develop distinct consensus realities. These realities are shaped by the collective interpretations and understandings of the group, often diverging significantly from other communities' views. This divergence is a natural outcome of the varied cognitive processes and experiences inherent in different social and cultural groups.
This existence of multiple consensus realities poses a significant challenge in social discourse and interaction. It often leads to conflicts and misunderstandings, as what is perceived as 'truth' or 'reality' in one group may be vastly different from another's. This necessitates a careful and empathetic approach to understanding and engaging with diverse perspectives, recognizing the legitimacy of different consensus realities. Essentially being humble that “your truth” is unlikely to be “the truth.”
Much of Foucault’s work was inspired by a nightmare. He distrusted simplistic narratives of good and evil. He rejected the idea that anybody could be defined by virtue of the group to which they belong. He was deeply worried about the way in which prevailing discourses exerted power over every single member of society. And he hated the way in which exemplary punishments for aberrations from a social norm could induce people to become their own taskmasters, striving as best they can to discipline their own thoughts and actions.
In the decades since Foucault’s death, his work has proven to have an astonishing staying power. Some of the ways in which it has helped to form the “identity synthesis,” such as his skepticism about universal truth, would look recognizable to him. But in other important respects, Foucault would, I believe, have pushed back against the ideology his work inspired. He would have recognized that the attempt to reshape existing discourses for political ends, though conceived as an act of liberation, was likely to create new forms of repression. And he would have abhorred the ways in which big social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have transformed public debate into a modern-day panopticon, with every misstep subject to draconian punishment and all users trying to follow an amorphous set of rules about what they can or cannot say in an act of anticipatory obedience.
Mounk, Yascha. The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time (pp. 73-74). Penguin Publishing Group.
The principles of liberalism – emphasizing the dignity and freedom of thought and speech for all individuals – become a crucial path for those who seek genuine equality for all. These principles advocate for the respect of diverse viewpoints and the freedom to express them, as long as they do not infringe on the freedoms of others. Such an approach allows for a respectful coexistence of multiple consensus realities, fostering a society where diverse perspectives can coalesce without imposing a singular 'truth'.
Recognizing and respecting these realities, as advocated by classical liberalism, is essential for harmonious social interaction. It underscores the importance of continually re-evaluating our understandings and maintaining an open discourse that honors the dignity and freedom of all individuals, regardless of their cognitive and cultural backgrounds. It is the aspiration oft most of us that we ought to be free to conduct our lives in a manner consistent with the maximum of liberty without infringing on others.
Conclusion:
Sensory Perception, Cognitive Organization, and Community Transformation
Our experience of the external world begins with sensory perception. Our senses, such as sight and sound, capture stimuli that are converted into electrochemical signals. These signals travel to the neo-cortex, where they are processed, creating a slightly delayed model of reality. This process highlights the intricate and complex nature of how we perceive and interact with our environment.
Once these sensory signals reach the neo-cortex, a fascinating transformation occurs. The neo-cortex, a master at pattern recognition and hierarchical organization, begins to interpret these signals, forming coherent images (in your mind’s eye) and sounds from the raw data. This hierarchical processing is crucial for making sense of the vast array of information we encounter daily, enabling us to understand and respond to our surroundings effectively.
The need for hierarchical organization in the neo-cortex is not just a matter of cognitive efficiency; it's a biological necessity. Our brains are wired to categorize and prioritize information, allowing us to focus on what's most important and make rapid decisions. This hierarchy is evident in how we perceive social structures, cultural norms, and even our personal relationships, reflecting the complex interplay between our biological makeup and our experiences.
Do you ever drive home from work and loose track of the last few miles? This happens because you’ve done it so many times your attention can wander from the driving task to other things you might be thinking about. In turn, the vast number of automobile accidents occur in close proximity to the home of one of the drivers.
With a grasp of the neuroscience underlying human perception and the hierarchical nature of our cognition, we can better appreciate the dynamic, non-linear complexity of human systems. This understanding is pivotal in recognizing the unpredictable and often chaotic nature of human interactions and societal development, underscoring the need for flexible and adaptive approaches in community and social planning.
Armed with this knowledge, we are better equipped to tinker thoughtfully with the fabric of our communities. By acknowledging the unique perceptions and experiences of individuals, we can devise strategies that cater to diverse needs and aspirations. Such an approach allows for the creation of societies that offer maximum potential for individuals to find like-minded companions and embark on fulfilling life journeys, ultimately leading to more harmonious, inclusive, and progressive communities.
Ultimately, I will end up writing a thesis in the area of Political Philosophy with the goad of extending Gerry Gaus’ project along with a health dose of neuroscience to provide data to trump intuition (see cartoon below, hat tip → Gaus). Until then, you’ll have to put up with my missives on this stuff. Or not. I hope you found this at least a little bit interesting …