Some of us are aliens

[Tao]

Massive post here, read it or don't; I found it very interesting.

Some of us are aliens

Richard Feynman was a Nobel Prize winning physicist. He was also, well to put it mildly, a character. In this video clip -- trying to explain magnetism -- he addresses a very important concept.

Namely what it is we already need to have in order to settle for 'simple' answers. It's in the Aunt Minnie part of this video. (I seriously recommend you watch the clip before reading on.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

I'm going to propose a lot of us are like those aliens that ask 'why.' And a lot more of us need to start looking at the frameworks and assumptions that allow for our 'truths.' But for right now, I'll just focus on the aliens who ask 'why?' Since we don't have the same paradigms, assumptions and 'framework that allows for it to be true,' the 'simple' answers we get make no sense.

This is somewhat of a problem.

What I'm about to tell you will be very helpful when you find yourself feeling like an alien or dealing with someone when you can't understand WHY they're acting this way.

Let's start with when someone says something that is utterly self-evident to them, and they're looking at you like you have a second head and antennas for not automatically seeing it their way. Sound familiar? Let's start asking 'why?'

Many years ago, my cultural anthropology instructor said that EVERY society must address certain key elements that arise from humans living together.

What is called 'culture' is how a society addresses those. HOW these elements are addressed is less important than the fact that they are addressed.

I said, "So it's like Sturgeon's Law?" She didn't know who Theodore Sturgeon was (a sci-fi author) or his famous quote, "Ninety percent of everything is crud."

We then discussed it and agreed that Sturgeon's Law could apply to society and culture, as well. Namely: There are 10 percent of core issues that MUST be addressed. How a society handles them is the 90 percent that makes it a unique culture.

That conversation can go in many different directions (including about those who mistake their version of the 90 percent as the ultimate answer and only way to do thing).

The reason I mention it is to show how two diametrically opposite systems can exist and function. Not because either is 'right' or 'wrong,' but because BOTH systems somehow still address the 10 percent.

For example, should men be in charge? Should men and women share power equally? Or, using mythical amazons, should women be in charge? On one hand, you have the making for a great squabble. On the other hand, it doesn't matter who is granted the power in a particular culture. What matters is the distribution of power is established, gender roles are addressed and some kind of 'system' is worked out that an overwhelming majority follows -- in THAT particular culture. These are 10 percent issues.

Obviously, different cultures come up with different answers.

And despite what 'true believers' will tell you, there is NO universally 'right' answer on how to do things. This is what lead me to asking about Sturgeon's Law. They are mistaking their version of 'crud' (90 percent) for the whole and ultimate truth.

Tying this back to Feynman and 'Aunt Minnie in the hospital,' basically these people have underlying assumptions that not only have they never asked 'why' about, but they consider them unquestionably 'right.' These are the people of the simple answer crowd. (And woe unto you if you don't believe the same.)

It's easy to see this idea in the more extreme fanatics, crusaders and idealists. They want everyone to live the way they believe. When we bother to look, we can see this being exploited by the pundits who make money reinforcing people's underlying assumptions -- including the ones who exploit your unconscious assumptions (your 90%).

So what does this have to do with us being aliens?

Before I answer that, let me tell you about a conversation I had the other day.

A woman told me a story about a social group of rather affluent people. Her opinion of this group was they were new rich and rather insecure. One of the members was 'picking' on a different woman in a typical, 'ha ha, isn't this funny, I'm just teasing' attack mode. Well, teaser and teased had both been drinking.

Later, the teaser stepped out onto the deck to smoke a cigar. Someone mentioned his mother had just died of a smoking related disease. Teased woman -- who incidentally is a brown belt in the martial arts -- decided to take it upon herself to go outside and take the cigar out of his mouth.

The resulting altercation went physical.

But that's not the point of the story. The point concerns the woman who was telling the story. She commented about how immature, childish and stupid it was. Her observation was these people are in their 40s and 50s, and they 'should be past this.' The term 'grow up' was even used.

I laughed and told her, "We're human beings, we don't ever grow out of it. We just change our style." I then explained that jockeying for position, and establishing and maintaining status NEVER stops. What DOES change is the style and tactics one uses -- especially as it applies to age and social status.

(In the early years, we try to establish it, later we try to maintain it.) Whether fists or words are used, the struggle for status is part of a lifelong game. I then explained what was so appalling to her and why she thought it was immature. A physical fight is more a schoolyard strategy and not what you expect of mature, successful adults. (And to hell with being called a sexist, from a woman either.) That is what made the fight so shocking and unnerving to everyone.

All of that is background to for this analogy. If we look at people as individual computers, but with the same operating system, we can see an important idea: updates.

We also can look at most people as being set for 'automatic updates.' That means any time they go 'on line,' a program in the background goes out and checks for updates. Sooner or later, they get a 'package' downloaded, and they unknowingly start using the newer version.

This is what makes the woman's story so germane. She was shocked to see High School Status Seek 2.0 after all these years. But I cannot stress enough: We never grow out of establishing, maintaining, protecting and building our social status -- we just change tactics. Most people -- because of unconscious updates -- aren't really aware of these changes. It's just something that happens slowly over time.

This is an important concept in as much as these updates come from the 90 percent. For example, there are certain behaviors that are -- if not acceptable -- tolerated from certain age groups. But they aren't kosher for other age groups. If an individual is still engaging in them past a certain age, other folks are going to look askance at that person. (Like, say, getting in a fist fight on the deck.)

In the same light, there are accomplishments a person is 'supposed to have' done by a certain age. An example of that is someone who has never been married, who is into their 40s. If you're of that age, try telling strangers you've never been married and watch their reaction. All sorts of unconscious assumptions and updates will 'ping' inside their heads. The same with saying that you've never had children.

There is a cognitive disconnect for a second as the person tries to figure out 'what is wrong with you' for not having followed the normal pattern and age appropriate accomplishments. But this is not necessarily conscious behavior. It is, however, rolling around inside their heads before they do become conscious of it. This pre-conscious processing will strongly influence their conscious opinion of you and their behavior.

Where do these patterns come from? Why the 90 percent AND the updates. Most people get this stuff and keep on about their business, having no idea about the massive complexity of what is going on inside them and with everyone else.

Here at last, we return to the aliens. Some of us are 'wired differently.' Others of us missed important updates. (There was a memo about that?) Still others have completely different operating systems (e.g., someone from a different 90 percent). This can make it difficult to get along with folks.

First off, we don't have the automatic assumptions that Fenyman is talking about. As such, we tend to ask that annoying question: Why?

This puts us at odds with a lot of people because ... well, simply put ... they've just accepted the 'simple' answer based on assumptions they've never questioned or even realized existed. And yet they follow them religiously, because, well ... 'that's how it's done.''

They can't tell you 'why.' They only can tell you the obvious answer arising from the assumptions -- especially regarding behavior.

By the way, they tend to get testy if you dare to ask. (Try asking "why" when someone says, "We have to visit Aunt Minnie in the hospital.")

Then we get to the whole 90 percent (operating systems) and updates. If you're paying attention, you'll probably have noticed that not only human behavior, but cultural systems, can be somewhat contradictory. If you're one of the people who get automatic updates, this is not much of a concern. You'll assume the other 90 percent is 'wrong' and go about your business. (Made possible by the fact that you're surrounded by those who share your 90 percent.)

The second point is it isn't that simple for 'why aliens.' I mean here you have two, totally contradictory, systems EACH claiming, with absolute certainty, conviction and 'moral fiber,' they are RIGHT! And not just right, but 100 percent right. And neither one can actually explain the basis of that claim when you ask why?

Personally, I really wish I had known to say, "Look, I'm not being a smart ass asking 'why?' I didn't get the memo about why we're doing this." I was always asking why because the simple answer framework didn't satisfy me to warrant an action. (What do you mean I HAVE to do this?)

But for people who accept limited frameworks to provide self-evident truths and unconsciously get updates, 'why' is not a nice question. Often they will tell you that you have to live according to their rules -- and without question. Never mind the glaringly obvious contradiction and gaping holes in the logic. Just believe that I speak the ultimate truth on how things are to be done. You must conduct yourself according to this particular 90%.

That is, of course, after they've gotten over being pissed at you for daring to ask 'why.'

(Although a popular trend is to tell you you must ascribe equal value to everything -- even if it fails to meet the 10 percent. Uhhh, no. No I don't.)

This can be REALLY confusing for an alien. Primarily because, if you're wired differently, you don't get automatic updates. Nor are the normal operating assumptions obviously clear to you. In fact, some of the resulting behaviors look real stupid and insane. (Just believe me that they get really infuriated when you ask 'normal people' to pee in a bottle because you want to run some tests. Not my best response ever.)

The truth is these 'that's just how it's done' protocols actually DO serve a purpose. But a bigger, less-about-this-particular-issue- than-about-all-kinds-of-social-dynamics-group-identity-self-identity-monkey-brain-agenda -and-vague-90- percentage -stuff purpose. This can be kind of hard to understand when you're in a huff about having to get in the car to go see Aunt Minnie in the hospital. But having, following and staying current with these protocols is important.

This is a serious communication problem if you're wired differently. If other people don't know they're getting updates, how are they going to tell you what the operating system is, much less that you need to install updates?

The answer is they can't. You can't tell someone about something you don't know yourself. Unconscious elements guiding people's behavior are not something they can explain to you, but that won't stop them from getting pissed and frustrated because you don't understand such an obvious WHY it has to be done this way.

This, in turn, is likely to get your knickers in a knot.

This is why I tell people, who are wired differently that they have to do manual updates. Yes, there are rules. Yes, there are operating systems. And yes, the 90 percent does make sense -- especially in light of dealing with the 10%.

Except, you're the one who has to know about the different operating systems and the need to periodically update them. Then you actually have to do the downloads so you are current with other people within that system. (Note to self: Joke about the naked midget in this social venue, inappropriate.) You do this, not because the 90% is automatically 'right,' but because you too have to help achieve the 10%

So what does this have to do with conflict? Well, to be technical about it, a whole lot.

Many conflicts arise from people not using the same version of the 90 percent. A lot of the frustration is that you don't really know what's causing the fight. Oh, sure, you're fighting over this detail or that, but that's NOT what the fight is about. It sounds like a bad science fiction flick, one spouse yelling at the other, "WHY HAVEN'T YOU UPDATED?"

Here is where I'm going to tweak the idea of 90 percent to have slightly different connotations, but to keep a similar theme. Usually, what the conflict is about is how the group is going to be run. (Your localized version of 90 percent.)

As such, you can look at conflicts as updates. Or the refusal to update.

This is a giant leap for many people because it takes a conflict away from being about them and puts it into a broader perspective. This perspective can make even the most seemingly selfish and irrational behavior make sense.

Groups, in case we haven't established the fact, operate along certain rules. These are the 90 percent to achieve the 10 percent. As was discussed earlier, these rules aren't exactly set in stone. There ARE other ways to achieve that 10 percent. And you'll find a lot of conflicts are actually about that within a group.

For example, let's say you have a teenager who is acting up, making messes, arguing with you and behaving in other ways you find unacceptable. While it's really easy to get emotional and take it personally did it ever dawn on you the kid is trying to dictate the rules of behavior for the group?

There's something that needs to be stated for the record. As long at the 10 percent is achieved, it doesn't matter if everyone is happy, emotionally satisfied or that the labor division is 'fair.' Keep that in mind because it's going to make something real clear in a second.

For example, a clean house is an accepted standard and you -- as an adult -- expect everyone to pitch in and help. Like it or not, there is a division of responsibility, and everyone pitches in to achieve that goal. A goal that is arguably part of the 10 percent that has to be taken care of.

The kid, however, remembers the good old days when he or she was waited on hand and foot, didn't have to work (or if so, not much) and could do whatever he or she wanted. So what is the teen's goal? Well, one aspect is to get things back to that old standard.

Everyone else is supposed to do all the work, and you are not supposed to expect much in return. More than that, you are supposed to provide all these services (food, lodging, clothing, housekeeping and other resources) without expectations for the teen.

That's why I say the teen is trying to set the rules of behavior for the group. It is not just about his or her behavior, it's about everyone else's, too. The teen is influencing everyone's behaviors, causing them to do work-arounds. The fact that everyone is miserable and having to carry that person's weight is of NO consequence to the bigger issue that the 10 percent is STILL being achieved. The labor that group needs to function is still being done -- granted by you or after a huge fight. But that is both what the eternal jacket on the floor, and the ensuing arguments, are about.

It's about control over how things are done within the group. In a sense, it's a fight over downloading a new service package, updates that you want and the teen doesn't.

The reason the rebellious teen scenario is so interesting is because it goes beyond just getting out of work. It is a form of getting power without the responsibilities, obligations and requirements of leadership. And that, is a real siren's call. (Take a look around and see how many other places you can find similar patterns.) It is also part of a bigger 'upload' about age expected behavior and accomplishments, but that is beyond the scope of this article.

Using these ideas about influencing group behavior, conflict at work takes on an entirely new light. For example let's say there's a conflict about the 'best way' to do something. With this bigger picture in mind ask yourself, "How much of those disagreements are really about the best way? Versus, how much of it is about being the one saying how things are done?" There's that localized 90 percent again.

AND the updates. By this I mean, "We used to do it that way, but now *hitch and sniff* I've implemented a better way." Wow, status and controlling group behavior all in one.

Is it a better way? Well, maybe. But what's far more important is that the rules of how the group does something have been modified. (And this is the opposite -- but the same -- as the folks fighting to keep things the same.) As long as that 10 percent can still be met, the group will limp along. Will everyone be happy? Well, no, but that's not really the issue. The issue is that the group -- which provides the individuals with what they need -- is still there and functioning.

If you look at it this way, all kinds of conflicts take on whole new perspectives. This includes why someone can seem to be so totally irrational and not see the obvious, when, in fact, maybe you need to slow down and look at your own unconscious assumptions (e.g. about what to do about Aunt Minnie).

Humans in a group are always working to shift or maintain the dynamics of that group -- especially in relationship to each other's status.

Like I said, most people tend to operate out of these underlying assumptions and adapt to updates. Granted maybe with kicking, screaming and high drama, but, generally, they just go along with the flow. And by this I don't mean they are mindless sheep, but they navigate the rough spots and don't really have to think about what's moving the boat.

But for some of us, we have to stop, assess what is going on, take our bearings (manually install the updates) and plot an appropriate course given the circumstances. While everyone has to do it to a certain degree, for those of us with different wiring, it's important that someone can explain, "Okay this is what is going on, this is what you have to do, and this is why it works."

What can I say, I was that alien asking why?Like Fenyman said, "The deeper a thing is, the more interesting it is."

M

[UnluckyStuntman]

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting this Tao.

[vorpal blade]

There is some of this I don't understand. What is the 10%? What is the 90%? What are these percentages of? Does the author present any evidence that this is real?

The article does seem to relate to Feminism, among other things.

[Tao]

It is a bit of a lengthy post, and he has admitted his tendency to talk in circles. I think

"There are 10 percent of core issues that MUST be addressed. How a society handles them is the 90 percent that makes it a unique culture."

is his line that best describes what he's talking about. He goes on to point out that we don't have clear demarcations on what is core and what is culture, so we end up squabbling over things that in the end don't matter. Just because my culture has fluff that conflicts with the way Masud's culture treats their women doesn't mean I am right and he is wrong. Nor does it mean that he is right and I am wrong. As long as families can grow and flourish in a relatively stable environment it doesn't matter.

As I read it, many concepts that we often take as given actually fall into the 90% that in the end doesn't matter. Fairness is a good example. In nearly every setting, we'd like to be fair; yet when you get down to brass tacks, fairness falls under the knife before productivity. If not, you've placed something from the 90% of fluff over a 10% core value and may well find yourself falling apart over it. (Aesop, anyone?)

I'll play the lightning rod here and go so far as to say that every defining feature that I am aware of of each political party falls into the 90% "fluff" category. Which is why I don't really get riled up about politics. Even the big-ticket issues: gay rights, tax cuts, etc. almost always are all without any substance.

In 2061, is it going to matter if I paid 33% taxes or 38% in 2011? Is it going to matter if I paid an unfair hidden premium on rent due to my sexual orientation? If God came out tomorrow and decreed that only black-haired, brown-eyed men from 45-65 could hold leadership positions above the Stake level, or that marijuana is no longer prohibited by the word of wisdom, but chocolate is? Would it really matter?

Heh, and how many people would leave the church rather than give up their chocolate?

[krebscout]

There is some of this I don't understand. What is the 10%? What is the 90%? What are these percentages of?.

Also, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." The actual percentage values are arbitrary.

[vorpal blade]

This is bothering me because I still can't figure out what the author is trying to say. Oh well, thanks for trying to explain it to me Tao. If this blog makes sense to everyone else I must be an alien. No offense meant.

[vorpal blade]

There is some of this I don't understand. What is the 10%? What is the 90%? What are these percentages of?.

Also, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." The actual percentage values are arbitrary.

When I read something like this I think, really? Ninety percent of God is crud? Ninety percent of the gospel is crud? Ninety percent of the plan of salvation is crud? Ninety percent of truth, love, goodness, purity, is crud? Ninety percent of crud is crud? Then I think, no reasonable person is going to think or say that, so I must not be understanding what is meant.

[vorpal blade]

"There are 10 percent of core issues that MUST be addressed. How a society handles them is the 90 percent that makes it a unique culture."

Okay, I'm not feeling smart today. What are core issues? Why MUST roughly 10 percent of them be addressed? What does it mean to address an issue? Aren't all issues addressed in one way or another? How does handling 10 percent of the core issues get blown up to 90 percent? Just doesn't make sense to me. I think the guy has something important to say, but I can't get over the language used to say it.

[Whistler]

yes, roughly 90% of crud is crud. We're still not sure what the other 10% is...

I think a better way to think of it would be that 90% of things people say or get upset about won't matter in the long run.

[krebscout]

I took his meaning (the author of this essay, not Sturgeon himself - I know nothing about him) to be that 90% of EVERYTHING is crud, where EVERYTHING is one unit that includes God, love, truth, etc. God et al. fit into the 10% that really matters.

My interpretation of the essay (and hopefully this will help you understand it, VB) is that there's a lot of cultural fluff (such as what jokes are offensive in what contexts, the appropriate thing to say during a delicate conversation, political correctness, what you can wear to what occasions, and so on) that doesn't truly matter, but the whole society seems to understand and accept it. Even as it changes. But there are some (and the author seems to think he is one of these) who don't catch on to the changes and have a hard time fitting in with that fluff. But all of us - those who naturally catch on and those who don't - can probably agree on some things that truly matter, such as not murdering people.

[Marduk]

Here's my thoughts on it.

The author takes what would be an otherwise salient point; in brief, that various cultures put too much meaning on certain things and miss the bigger issue, or at least, don't bother understanding the bigger issue, and through over-dichotomising (is that how you spell it? Too lazy to look up right now) becomes guilty of his own assertion.

Yes, the overarching issues are critical; God, love, truth, and so forth, but the ways in which we decide to observe those are malleable. However, what there is no recognition of in this article is that there MUST be specifics to be observed routinely otherwise no consideration of the larger point can be made. We must have context to make judgements of our observance of caveats based on our current quotidian actions. No principle exists in a vacuum.

Tao, to disagree with you using the context of this article (I do find your abstracts of it to be accurate) it DOES matter the specifics of our observations if for no other reason than to allow for the adjecent possible. In other words, while the specifics of the Word of Wisdom may be of less importance, that the observation of it addresses in one form or another larger principles, it allows us a framework to try continually to better address it. I won't lecture you on chaos theory, but say for example that a country does not allow blacks any access to its government while allowing whites access, while another murders them in the streets with impunity, the latter going to the former would be an improvement in how it addresses the larger point of human equality. If we were to attempt to discuss allowing access to government in the first, it would not be so foreign as to stymy any potential progress made there, whereas that point would not be true of the second. The story of human evolution in terms of nebulous ideals is necessarily a gradual one.

[vorpal blade]

yes, roughly 90% of crud is crud. We're still not sure what the other 10% is...

I think a better way to think of it would be that 90% of things people say or get upset about won't matter in the long run.

I see you anticipated my question. If 10% of crud is not crud, what is it?

I can see that interpretation of the 90%, but it seems like the author is saying it does matter.

"This can make it difficult to get along with folks."
"The truth is these 'that's just how it's done' protocols actually DO serve a purpose."
"But having, following and staying current with these protocols is important."
"This is why I tell people, who are wired differently that they have to do manual updates. Yes, there are rules. Yes, there are operating systems. And yes, the 90 percent does make sense -- especially in light of dealing with the 10%."
"You do this, not because the 90% is automatically 'right,' but because you too have to help achieve the 10%"

[vorpal blade]

I took his meaning (the author of this essay, not Sturgeon himself - I know nothing about him) to be that 90% of EVERYTHING is crud, where EVERYTHING is one unit that includes God, love, truth, etc. God et al. fit into the 10% that really matters.

My interpretation of the essay (and hopefully this will help you understand it, VB) is that there's a lot of cultural fluff (such as what jokes are offensive in what contexts, the appropriate thing to say during a delicate conversation, political correctness, what you can wear to what occasions, and so on) that doesn't truly matter, but the whole society seems to understand and accept it. Even as it changes. But there are some (and the author seems to think he is one of these) who don't catch on to the changes and have a hard time fitting in with that fluff. But all of us - those who naturally catch on and those who don't - can probably agree on some things that truly matter, such as not murdering people.

Well, I can see your meaning on the phrase 90% of everything is crud.

It doesn't seem to me that the author is saying that the 90% doesn't matter. Maybe I still don't understand, but I think I'm getting closer. He seems to think it is very important, and if you aren't getting the automatic updates you need to do it manually, or else you are not going to be happy dealing with the rest of society. What kinds of jokes are offensive is very important to know, or else you get into trouble, and you aren't contributing to the stability and value of the 10%. You need to know the appropriate thing to say, you need to know the political correctness, you need to know what to wear on different occasions. All that really does matter and is important. All of that contributes in an important way to the 10% of things that the great majority must agree on or else the society or culture falls apart.

For example, should men be in charge? Should men and women share power equally? Or, using mythical amazons, should women be in charge? On one hand, you have the making for a great squabble. On the other hand, it doesn't matter who is granted the power in a particular culture. What matters is the distribution of power is established, gender roles are addressed and some kind of 'system' is worked out that an overwhelming majority follows -- in THAT particular culture. These are 10 percent issues.

Once the 10% is agreed upon the 90% that surrounds it is important to support the 10%. Different societies don't have to agree on how to address the 10% in the same way, but in a particular culture 100% of it is important.

Does that make sense to you, or am I still missing it? What do you think?

[krebscout]

Oh yes, that definitely makes sense. And I do think it matters to be sensitive with your words and all that. Maybe we're working with different definitions of what "mattering" means. The "90%", to me, has no intrinsic worth, and it's only important in the context of society. It does matter there, but it could be different elsewhere and that would be okay.

There's obviously a lot more to the article, and I picked my illustrations of "the 90%" and "the 10%" from two extremes that are easy to agree with while our author friend puts forth some harder questions, like gender roles. But I don't think the insights of this article are (or need to be) useful to everyone - it seems to me to be mostly the author finally making some sense of his own social struggles and refining his own perspective of the world.

[vorpal blade]

Marduk, I think the author is saying that it doesn't matter if "a country does not allow blacks any access to its government while allowing whites access, while another murders them in the streets with impunity." The important thing to the author is that "some kind of 'system' is worked out that an overwhelming majority follows -- in THAT particular culture." As long as the system in one culture is to murder blacks in the streets with impunity,and the overwhelming majority is okay with that, then the culture can hold together and the system works. Either way the culture has addressed the 10% issue of who is in charge. In that culture you need to learn all the 90% of stuff people take for granted so that you can support this core value. And you need to go along with it.

"As long at the 10 percent is achieved, it doesn't matter if everyone is happy, emotionally satisfied or that the labor division is 'fair.' "
"As long as that 10 percent can still be met, the group will limp along. Will everyone be happy? Well, no, but that's not really the issue. The issue is that the group -- which provides the individuals with what they need -- is still there and functioning."
"[T]here is NO universally 'right' answer on how to do things."

[NerdGirl]

Once the 10% is agreed upon the 90% that surrounds it is important to support the 10%. Different societies don't have to agree on how to address the 10% in the same way, but in a particular culture 100% of it is important.

I think this is a good summary of what he seems to be saying (at least the way I read it). And that most people in a culture just intrinsically understand the 90% and don't really ever question it, but some people stop and wonder why we do all the 90% things or don't automatically get the "updates" and those people are the aliens.

[vorpal blade]

You may be right, krebscout, this is only the author's personal experience and doesn't matter much to us. Yet, if I am reading this right, the author would also put the important 10% in the category of not having an intrinsic worth or right or wrong answer. A culture may decide it is perfectly fine to murder people, and as long as the overwhelming majority support this 10% core value it doesn't matter. You can't say that this approach to the value of a human life is wrong, according to the author. What matters to the author is only that some agreement is reached on issues that hold the society together, so it doesn't fly apart. Nothing has intrinsic value. I find that disturbing.

[Tao]

But all of us - those who naturally catch on and those who don't - can probably agree on some things that truly matter, such as not murdering people.

My understanding ran similar. Taking another's life is likely one of the core issues, (and in fact, is a significant reason why he considers himself an 'alien', as he has been faced with lethal situations for decades, a life that 'normal' people don't usually face).

Interestingly, while I was looking for a particular story of his that illustrated that 'alien-ness' of his, I came across an earlier post regarding Sturgeon's law and his interpretation of the 90/10%:

In my lexicon, 'normal' isn't defined by psychology. It's defined by cultural anthropology (CA). More specifically, I define it via a discussion with my CA. professor about Sturgeon's Law applied to CA. During a lecture, she stated there are certain core issues that must be addressed by humans living in groups. HOW they address them is what makes a culture. I sat there and thought about that for a second and then said, "So Sturgeon's Law applies here." She didn't know what that was, and I told her, "Ninety percent of everything is crud." We hashed it out and came up with the model of those core issues being the 10 percent and the 90 percent is how the locals handle them.

What's more important than how they do it is that everyone in the group does it -- roughly -- the same way. A huge issue and source of psychological trauma is the mistaken belief that a particular 90 percent is the ONLY way to do. This is also -- arguably -- a big point in the favor of people who say 'there's no such thing as normal.' There's all kinds of different 90 percents out there, and they often contradict each other. My definition of 'normal' is that, one way or the other, a group is still covering that necessary 10 percent. As screwed up as you think a culture is, the fact is it's covering those elements.

He then goes on to point out that there are people, places, behaviors and lifestyles that choose not to care about the core issues, much less the societally imposed issues.

@Marduk, I'm afraid I don't know where you are coming from, or really even what you are getting at. I do know of Kauffman's adjacent possible hypothesis, but I'm not seeing how what I understand of it applies to my reading of this text. Who is ruling is a non-issue; a "90%" or culturally determined subject. That someone is ruling and not allowing needless slaughter is much more likely to be core, and vital to the society's survival. To bring up another recently discussed topic: whether or not women hold the priesthood is a 90% issue to me. I could hardly care less if they did and men didn't, if it was a joint thing, or if only one tribe in thirteen did. As long as someone does, and the subsequent blessings are made efficacious, I'd say the core matter is covered.

[Marduk]

Yes, Vorpal, that's what the author was implying, and that's why I'm saying I disagree with it. Because those things are important in that they allow us a frame of reference from which to work.

[Tao]

You may be right, krebscout, this is only the author's personal experience and doesn't matter much to us. Yet, if I am reading this right, the author would also put the important 10% in the category of not having an intrinsic worth or right or wrong answer. A culture may decide it is perfectly fine to murder people, and as long as the overwhelming majority support this 10% core value it doesn't matter. You can't say that this approach to the value of a human life is wrong, according to the author. What matters to the author is only that some agreement is reached on issues that hold the society together, so it doesn't fly apart. Nothing has intrinsic value. I find that disturbing.

I don't read it as promoting mobocracy or moral relativism. He's not saying that if you can get 90% of people to agree, screw the rest. "EVERY society must address certain key elements that arise from humans living together." These are the 10% issues. This is what really matters. The rest of the arguments made over the color of the tapestries in the White House is fluff. The culture doesn't get to decide what those 10% issues are. Man is by nature a political animal, and when the body polis is formed, certain issues are vital to its stability and survival. Locke delineated some of the core issues as protection of "life, health, liberty, [and] possessions". The United States borrowed and modified this to declare certain unalienable rights. Each saying "This is core, this we must deal with if we are to survive."

Leagally speaking though, we find that the 90/10 may actually be a somewhat accurate ratio, rather than an arbitrary example. Looking at a lawbook (the full multi-volume set) how many of those pages of laws actually deal with matters that matter? (A local city back home has outlawed not smiling while within city limits; there's a wonderful waste of ink.) How many years have gone by since the coining of the phrase: "laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt"? Yet we still pass laws to throw our weight around, or to leave our imprint on society.

And, as I understand it, the 90% isn't dross to be ignored (we're talking about your culture here), but material to be aware of in yourself and in others, even if only so far as to not judge others by your cultural criteria. (The individual adamant that polygamy doesn't exist in heaven trying to impose her culture on Jacob, for example.) Refusing to understand that a vast percentage of why we do things the way we do them has only the most tenuous ties to vitality leaves us often roped to the that's-the-way-we've-always-done-it,-that's-the-only-way-it-can-be-done mentality. (I'm a Catholic because my father was a Catholic and his father before him. No, I don't know/care what Catholics believe, nor do I attend mass, nor do I support any of the theology, but I'm a Catholic and that will never change.)

This makes no value statements of the content of culture, but if you're so busy trying to fulfill a cultural commitment (make everyone happy) at the expense of core issues, you will not stand for long. To tie into yet another thread, being aware of that balance is what makes multi-cultural marriages work, putting the 90% before the 10% would likely be a good explanation for the divorce rate (as every marriage is a fusing of cultures, even if not immediately obvious).