Simple Is Best?
A motto I frequently hear on the Bias planet is "Simple is best." That motto seems to be causing many biases.
Hmm.
I can guess why that motto is popular on the Bias planet: simplicity fawns on the intuition. As the prime directive of the intuition is speed, the intuition can understand only what is simple, or it forcefully simplifies things to make judgments quickly. Simplicity is loved by the intuition, therefore is loved by that majority of people who are dictated by their intuition.
To what we apply the motto is the issue. If we are creating a product, the motto is OK: as the product is our creation, we can do as we like. As people love simplicity, a wise business decision will be to make the product simple. In fact, otherwise, the product won't sell.
However, if the motto produces statements like "Muslims are terrorists" or "Immigrants are the root of all evil," that's a problem.
They are simple. They are easy to understand. That's why such statements are loved. However, a statement's being easy to understand doesn't make the statement true.
Usually, the reality isn't that simple, and it causes problems if we apply that motto to our understandings.
As the reality exists objectively regardless of our liking, it isn't our call to decide whether the reality should be simple or not. If the reality isn't simple, to make it simple is to skew things: unless we understand the reality as complicated as it is, our understandings can't be accurate. The reality isn't our creation, and we can't apply that motto to what aren't our creations.
There seem to be some Earthians who think they can create their understandings as they like.
Ah, that's a matter of definitions of terms. If one defines the term, understanding, as 'imagining a world that doesn't accurately reflect the reality', he or she can create his or her understandings as he or she likes. But in our terms, we call such imaginations fantasies or delusions. I admit that anyone has the right to adopt any definition as he or she likes, but I don't understand the necessity to use the term, understandings, in that meaning while there are other terms like fantasy or delusion that exactly matches the meaning.
What's Wrong with Simplifying Things in Understandings
I understand that simplifying things in understandings causes biases and harms others around the one who simplify things, but what are harms of it to the one? Does he or she just get away with it?
It makes his or her understandings inaccurate . . .
For someone who thinks that fairness is an absolute necessity, that explanation is enough as our conclusion is that inaccuracy inevitability causes unfairness. For someone who doesn't give a damn about fairness, isn't there any harm?
As harm is a subjective term, if someone doesn't deem something as harm, it isn't our call to name something harm to him or her.
I see. . . . Then, what would happen to us if we simplify things in understandings, as causality?
Well, assuming that we are under a democracy system, most certainly, demagogues would manipulate us. Usual tactics by demagogues is to show simplified versions of the reality. If we have the attitude to accept simplifying things in understandings, we will inevitably jump to those simplified realities. Where demagogues would lead us would be in their wills. Do we want to be their puppet or a free man? That's our decision.
Ah-ha. . . . There will be such cases. However, when we adopt a simplified reality like "Immigrants are the root of all evil," we are probably thinking that we are in control of the situation: we know we are in the oppressing side, and there will be no harm to us.
About immediate effects, we may be right. However, whether we accurately understand long-time effects is another story. As such simplified understandings aren't accurate, actual effects would eventually betray our expectations.
The 'I first' principle may seem beneficial to me at first glance, but if I adopt that principle, others will also take up the principle against me. After all, is the 'I first' principle beneficial to me? It's doubtful.
The man at the top in the power hierarchy might really receive only benefits from the principle. However, usually, we are under many people in the hierarchy, and will be oppressed by them.
We won't have any right to object to the oppressors, as we advocate the principle.
And there is a power hierarchy for each issue. We may be at the top in the immigrant issue power hierarchy, but may be at the bottom of the money issue power hierarchy.
Ah, some of the people who advocate the 'I first' principle in the immigrant issue are people who claim that they lost their jobs or their payments are cut because of immigrants. So, they are probably in lower layers of the money issue power hierarchy. Nurturing the 'I first' culture, if they assume they won't be treated in the 'I first' principle by upper layers of the money issue power hierarchy, they will be delusional.
Only by accurately understanding the reality as a whole, we will begin to more accurately understand what we have to expect as results of our insistences.
Can someone who is at the top of every power hierarchy, if such a person exists, get away with it?
I guess, he or she may. He or she can't change the reality, but can force his or her fantasies on to others.
That's a sad thing. . . . What if the climate change is the reality? Won't he or she be troubled even then?
That depends on how bad the climate change will be. If there is no inhabitable land left, even he or she will be troubled. Otherwise, he or she will just occupy the best place. However, if he or she thinks that he or she can keep being at the top of the power hierarchies, he or she will be too optimistic.
