If You're Gonna Use Any Model To View Others...

[alyra]

Just a quick thought I wanted to write down while it's on my mind as it is now. 

 

I'm currently watching leo's "why people seem crazy" vid. He's starting off talking about dismantling your "sameness" model - that you, well, that most people operate off this model that all people are the same. 

 

 

So I'm wondering -- what is it about this that I'm not really agreeing with? it's in my mind abstractly, intuitively, but not in a way that I even know where to grab at it. 

 

but then leo says "[negate that] most people are basically the same" and that's when it hit me. 

 

so, the sameness that I see is not the sameness of an apple = an apple, it is the sameness of an apple = an orange = a tomatoe. the'yer all juicy plant produce. therefore, they're all the same! see! this is my version of the sameness model that I operate off of. 

 

and naturally maybe I should dismantle this model but what I have to say for now is -

 

 

if you use any model to model humans, use a 80/20 model. or maybe, a 90/10 or maybe it makes more sense to see it as 98/2. let me explain - assume that 20% of most humans make us 80% the same. and 80% of us make us 20% different. 

 

 not sure if that will "click" for others as it does for me - perhaps in discussion I can better explain my vantage in this for inquisitive, or others may have their own thoughts to contribute on the apparent sameness of us humans. we're both the same in many ways but differ in many ways - and it isn't right to assume that all people are exactly like us, even if many of them appear to be on our page. 

[alyra]

 

(context in spoiler, if needed)

 

@alyra says:

Quote

Leo you said, people who are X must be X this is incorrect because, if terrorists must be terrorists. why are they more common when under a certain vantage in a certain environment? you wouldn't have such a trend. Maybe in this moment, they are X because what else would they be? but in the life-long scheme of things It is, people who are X are usually more prone to be X (but not always).

@Leo Gura says:

Quote

Of course environment is a HUGE factor. But you do not control your environment really. It controls you. You don't have much choice as to where you are born and how you are indoctrinated. Imagine you were born to fundamentalist Islamic parents who beat you and made you spend 12 years memorizing the Quaran, and you were in part of the world which had little economic opportunity and your little brother was killed by USA drone strikes, and your country's government was exploited by the USA for profit and your culture corrupted. How would you feel and what would you do?

 

 

I better worded the thoughts of my OP on the youtube: 

(well I'm editing it to be better worded):

Quote

right, this is true! Definitely there is the "biological" predisposition as well as the "cultural" predisposition. but, even so there is... I guess you could call it consciousness but IMO that could imply more than what I mean. more like I'd say, free will; growth; reaction. The development: As the individual experiences their culture, according to the strengths and weaknesses of their biology, (and of course in context with the prior development of individuality, their memory, both the active "aware memory" and the passive subconscious memory -  that will have the final say. I'd say it is "reactionary" predisposition; naturally, you'd still say that a human is a machine in this way.

While even that "reactionary" is a "x must be x"  - you could expand this to say -  the "reactionary" predisposition is much more volatile than the others, to the point that that is the free will as the claim goes - or the illusion thereof lol - but either way. It allows for individuality to appear - in fact in a way it IS individuality. if it were just biology and culture - then we'd all be synonymous, even tho we'd likely repeat within hundreds of patterns. a fourty bio tiems fourty cult is still a finite number of samesies. But in reality - when we match one of those patterns between individuals- we'd only be the same to the point that it implies the apparent sameness. But in the reality of the world - when you find two people who are "repeats" of each other - they still are hugely variant from each other.

The 80/20 model. or 90/10 or however - our similarities are really only a small percentage of our whole being as it is so far, and yet we see those similarities as if they are the large percentage of our sameness. and likewise, a large percentage of who we are, as it is apparent only seems to contribute to a small percentage of uniqueness. But this can be better explained as: only a small percentage of our individuality is standard, expected, same - but dominates our behavioral expression so that we appear similar. But the large percentage that is different barely makes us appear different. Whether that difference is hidden within us, or shows behind closed doors at our work or at home. That uniqueness is what more dominates our existence you could say, but when social the sameness model is what is most apparent. 

and furthermore you could say this apparent sameness - the sameness model - is how two people relate to eachother (most of the time). As Leo details in the video - it is more accurate to find the difference model - and then what I am adding to that, is to notice how the similarities - the sameness - is there, and when we relate to one another, dictates the majority of that interaction. I look for that sameness when social with others - but I always have a skeptical mind of it  we are not really the same. we are just interacting on common grounds. 

 

(not to claim that I'm super amazing or anything I'm not this is just my thoughts on the subject)

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by alyra
the spoiler/quote bugged xD

[sweater]

5 hours ago, alyra said:

Of course environment is a HUGE factor. But you do not control your environment really. It controls you. You don't have much choice as to where you are born and how you are indoctrinated. Imagine you were born to fundamentalist Islamic parents who beat you and made you spend 12 years memorizing the Quaran, and you were in part of the world which had little economic opportunity and your little brother was killed by USA drone strikes, and your country's government was exploited by the USA for profit and your culture corrupted. How would you feel and what would you do?

Daaaaamn never thought of it like that. 

[alyra]

yeah leo's pretty smart for pointing that out to me    I admit it was something I'd accounted for at some point in the past contemplation of the topic, but at the time of our discussion it wasn't on my mind.