Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

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

"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."

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

krebscout wrote:

vorpal blade wrote: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.

"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."

Whistler wrote: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.

"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%"

krebscout wrote: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.

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.

"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."

vorpal blade wrote: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.

krebscout wrote: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.

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.

vorpal blade wrote: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.