The Societal Filter
The reason I created this blog is to spare my friends the incoherent rants I tend to spew at them when I have some elementary 'revelation.' This was one of them: incredibly simple, incredibly stupid, and I feel pretty naïve saying this is the type of thing I call a "revelation," but that seems to be the type of thing teenagers do, so I suppose I'm normal.
"Normal" is actually a large part of the revelation. Truly, what is normal? How many people have asked this cliché, exhausted question? I tend to get annoyed at them: Normal means average. Commonplace. Not outstanding. But what is "outstanding"? "Outstanding" according to whom? My usual answer has always been, the average person. A random man you pull of the street. But none of these people have a truly objective view, none of these people can give the truth I'm looking for, none of these people have the longevity to see that in the long run, there are millions of cases identical to the first. The answer is as exhausted as the question: good ol' Ecclesiastes, I suppose there really is "nothing new under the sun." There is virtually nothing that fits the original definition of "unique." Nothing regarding character traits, at the very least. Nothing regarding the way we live. Nothing regarding the role we play in society. This latter idea is what struck me. This latter idea is what jumped in to shock me with a defiant contradiction of most of my idealistic perspective on individuality. Laugh at me, all ye who have thought about this long before and in much greater depth than me... This is what I do as a teenager instead of standing on a hill with my arms raised, singing Disney songs. :) Here's more or less what I was thinking:
I'll focus on contemporary American society since that is what I'm most familiar with. Each person in this society has been put through a filter. A filter filtering society. A Societal Filter. People naturally separate into many different groups, or filter, as a result of their different callings and interests and personality and such: "birds of a feather flock together," right? Surprise, surprise, it makes a deal of sense.
At the beginning of each life, all little American children are sent to school, where almost no filtering has been done: I suppose the rare exceptions would be the homeschoolers and private school brats (I say this having being one myself the past four years). Children headed in all kinds of directions laugh and play and live together in a big jumbled mass, bonding by way of whatever they have in common: school, parents, problems, games. This isn't particularly expedient: education could probably be substantially more efficient if children could be sorted accurately into groups with other children of similar styles and interests. The only reason it's all so jumbled is because society has not yet had the time to sort them into the place where they will most properly function: and for this reason, or perhaps as a result of this, they DO not yet "function."
Soon, they land in middle and high school, where they choose their first classes and step through their first Societal Filter. Here they begin to mingle with peers with interests more similar to their own, having left those that have less in common with them behind in the wall of mesh. The funnel narrows slightly throughout the course of highschool, but for the most part, each individual is surrounded by a very generic, unfiltered group of peers. The next step is obvious: the individual sorts themselves out into colleges and classes (or the lack thereof) and is surrounded by hundreds of people with identical interests. It is no longer necessary to surround the individual by so many people outside their chosen section of the filter. The individual has more in common with its peers. I believe it'd be accurate to draw the conclusion that this would lead to the formation of deeper bonds with those peers.
The next step through the filter is even greater. Here, individuals enter the adult world, free of requirements entirely (ironic?), falling naturally into the places they are of most use to society as they had been preparing to, the first couple decades of their lives. (It's like the converse of Locke's social contract theory: when the individual is unhappy with the section he has been placed in or has placed himself, he is obligated by natural law, he has the inherent freedom- the duty, perhaps- to move into a new one.) The individual now ideally associates with those that resonate best with them both on an outwardly and inwardly level. I say 'ideally' because just as there are corrupt governments that have not yet been overthrown and replaced by new more just ones, as Locke would suggest people would, individuals take a length of time to reform their 'personal governments,' to move themselves into a more fitting section of the Social Filter.
What this impacted on me was the incredible weight of the inevitability of change. That perhaps what old people ("old" by complete coincidence, I'd wager) have told me for so many years may actually be true (YES! I get to be cliché again. I can just never stand to pass by that opportunity), that it's a very exceptional friend that doesn't fall away, and that family, the one piece of an individual's life that cannot be shed by the societal filter, will remain constant. This whole pattern of thought left me with a remarkably bitter taste on my palate. I would like to think that there is such a thing as unconditional love outside of the bond of family. I would like to think that there are other constants throughout our lifelong whirlwinds. I would like to think that there is more that can bond people together than simply what they have in common.
I'd hope it's not too optimistic to dream of exceptions.
"Normal" is actually a large part of the revelation. Truly, what is normal? How many people have asked this cliché, exhausted question? I tend to get annoyed at them: Normal means average. Commonplace. Not outstanding. But what is "outstanding"? "Outstanding" according to whom? My usual answer has always been, the average person. A random man you pull of the street. But none of these people have a truly objective view, none of these people can give the truth I'm looking for, none of these people have the longevity to see that in the long run, there are millions of cases identical to the first. The answer is as exhausted as the question: good ol' Ecclesiastes, I suppose there really is "nothing new under the sun." There is virtually nothing that fits the original definition of "unique." Nothing regarding character traits, at the very least. Nothing regarding the way we live. Nothing regarding the role we play in society. This latter idea is what struck me. This latter idea is what jumped in to shock me with a defiant contradiction of most of my idealistic perspective on individuality. Laugh at me, all ye who have thought about this long before and in much greater depth than me... This is what I do as a teenager instead of standing on a hill with my arms raised, singing Disney songs. :) Here's more or less what I was thinking:
I'll focus on contemporary American society since that is what I'm most familiar with. Each person in this society has been put through a filter. A filter filtering society. A Societal Filter. People naturally separate into many different groups, or filter, as a result of their different callings and interests and personality and such: "birds of a feather flock together," right? Surprise, surprise, it makes a deal of sense.
At the beginning of each life, all little American children are sent to school, where almost no filtering has been done: I suppose the rare exceptions would be the homeschoolers and private school brats (I say this having being one myself the past four years). Children headed in all kinds of directions laugh and play and live together in a big jumbled mass, bonding by way of whatever they have in common: school, parents, problems, games. This isn't particularly expedient: education could probably be substantially more efficient if children could be sorted accurately into groups with other children of similar styles and interests. The only reason it's all so jumbled is because society has not yet had the time to sort them into the place where they will most properly function: and for this reason, or perhaps as a result of this, they DO not yet "function."
Soon, they land in middle and high school, where they choose their first classes and step through their first Societal Filter. Here they begin to mingle with peers with interests more similar to their own, having left those that have less in common with them behind in the wall of mesh. The funnel narrows slightly throughout the course of highschool, but for the most part, each individual is surrounded by a very generic, unfiltered group of peers. The next step is obvious: the individual sorts themselves out into colleges and classes (or the lack thereof) and is surrounded by hundreds of people with identical interests. It is no longer necessary to surround the individual by so many people outside their chosen section of the filter. The individual has more in common with its peers. I believe it'd be accurate to draw the conclusion that this would lead to the formation of deeper bonds with those peers.
The next step through the filter is even greater. Here, individuals enter the adult world, free of requirements entirely (ironic?), falling naturally into the places they are of most use to society as they had been preparing to, the first couple decades of their lives. (It's like the converse of Locke's social contract theory: when the individual is unhappy with the section he has been placed in or has placed himself, he is obligated by natural law, he has the inherent freedom- the duty, perhaps- to move into a new one.) The individual now ideally associates with those that resonate best with them both on an outwardly and inwardly level. I say 'ideally' because just as there are corrupt governments that have not yet been overthrown and replaced by new more just ones, as Locke would suggest people would, individuals take a length of time to reform their 'personal governments,' to move themselves into a more fitting section of the Social Filter.
What this impacted on me was the incredible weight of the inevitability of change. That perhaps what old people ("old" by complete coincidence, I'd wager) have told me for so many years may actually be true (YES! I get to be cliché again. I can just never stand to pass by that opportunity), that it's a very exceptional friend that doesn't fall away, and that family, the one piece of an individual's life that cannot be shed by the societal filter, will remain constant. This whole pattern of thought left me with a remarkably bitter taste on my palate. I would like to think that there is such a thing as unconditional love outside of the bond of family. I would like to think that there are other constants throughout our lifelong whirlwinds. I would like to think that there is more that can bond people together than simply what they have in common.
I'd hope it's not too optimistic to dream of exceptions.
Interesting theory. There are more forces than just the interest filter, I would guess. My family still gets together with people who have long since walked out of our lives. In fact, the entire goal of Facebook is to keep these relationships going. Unconditional love is a choice, not simply an aspect of family (otherwise family would be a prerequisite and the label 'unconditional' would not apply). So these forces can indeed "bond people together." Often a marriage will contain two entirely different people.
ReplyDeleteExceptions? Anything general enough to contain more than one event will have exceptions. A wise man once said, "All generalizations are wrong, including this one."
I'm curious: why would education be more efficient if children were only with others, who had, as you say, "similar styles and interests." Perhaps I'm slow, but please spell out for me the correlation.
ReplyDeleteYou go on in that paragraph to say that "society has not yet had the time to sort them into the place they will more properly function..." I hate to be asking for definitions, but define or at least elaborate on the word 'function?' Additionally, the way you phrase it makes it sound as though society should be shouldering some sort of blame for not having "sorted" children, yet do you think there is even as way to do that? You mention an example of early sorting by mentioning private, public, and homeschooling, but do you think that this type of sorting necessarily correlates to the children? It seems to me that it would correlate direclty to their parents and background, not them (especially at the elementary age).
Haha, Stick. (Quick preface: this post was just me testing out an idea that doesn't seem entirely right but that I haven't yet figured out what's wrong with yet. So bear with me while I make arguments I don't necessarily agree with.) True, our friends aren't all clones of ourselves. People get along well even though they *seem* to have nothing in common. But this is what I was talking about when I said "on an outwardly and inwardly level"- perhaps I should have addressed this in greater detail. There are certain aspects of each person, such as hobbies, callings, academic interests, etc, the things we all spend our lives doing, that are observable from the outside... and there's the "inwardly" things, by which I meant the way we think, how our brains work, a mutual understanding of some sort, a common past, perhaps... it’s a bit fuzzier. For example, I might meet someone that might… say, be on the NFL, love writing music, listen to the same stuff I do, be from Seattle, enjoy languages, something to that extent. That doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to get along. Yet I could get along very well with a Chemistry and Algebra whiz if we have SOMETHING in common. But there's nothing to talk about if we have absolutely no mutuality, we can’t even disagree, because there’s no topic to discuss. There's really nothing to do if we don't care about the same things AND can't understand each other.
ReplyDeletePseudonymous: it's difficult to come up with a perfect scenario because it's entirely hypothetical (there's a reason this doesn't exist in reality), so pretend for the mean time that there are 5 basic types of learners: visual, audio, read/write, kinesthetic, and evenly-mixed. If each group could learn almost entirely in their perfect style, reducing confusion and improving comprehension, it's natural that classes would move much quicker. Confusion is a terribly inefficient thing. Furthermore, if all the perfect future lawyer kids and all the perfect future doctor kids and all the perfect future cash register operator kids were grouped in their respective groups, unnecessary information could be bypassed; this way a child could receive more education having to do with his professing subject and spend only as much time as would be necessary learning things that would give him a rounded education. It seems obvious to me that one would learn things much differently if the information were given with the assumption that it would be used only to gain a wholesome general knowledge and have no practical application. (There are plenty of things like that. When do normal people ever use things like Calculus?)
"Function: to perform a specified action or activity; work; operate." Basically, the place their individual talents would be put to use most effectively. Where they would “function” best.
No, there is no way for society to sort children, unfortunately. And so, no, society isn’t really to blame.
I would guess that typically, more scholars come out of rigorous academic schools, that more Christians come out of Christian schools, Jews out of Jewish schools, and so on. It doesn't necessarily correlate to the children, but I believe it's fairly accurate generalization.
I believe that such a filter, especially so early on, would breed ignorance and nurture inability to adapt. Confusion may be inefficient, but it is something that people must learn to work through. Without that ability, one becomes more dependent on others and doesn't learn to use his skills in less-than-optimal circumstances, nor does he develop skills that come less naturally to him.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, all that "unnecessary information" helps people to be well-rounded and develop their interests,even if they are not used while the person in question is performing their job or "function." Such information helps people to relate to others or at least have the opportunity to use it to understand things outside of oneself and one's immediate surroundings. This type of understanding is something that I believe is often over-looked today.
That seems to be a different type of filtering than what you were actually getting at in the original post; even an inversion of it. Scholars from rigorous academic schools and Jews from Jewish school is shaping the child to the environment, not necessarily finding the optimal environment for the child.
1. In a flawless world, no one would have to adapt. There would be no "less-than-optimal" circumstances. This is one of the reasons we have a Societal Filter and not Societal Placement.
ReplyDelete2. "It seems obvious to me that one would learn things much differently if the information were given with the assumption that it would be used only to gain a wholesome general knowledge and have no practical application." It's not that there would be no information without direct, real-world application. It's that education could cater specifically to the eventual profession of the child, modifying everything being taught to apply, whether in concept or application, to their occupation in the most direct way possible. It would be a radically different education.
3. Okay, I was writing under the assumption that the family system would still be in opperation. If it weren't, what you say would be correct.
Ahahaha I'm used to the "rants" by this point.
ReplyDeleteCan't there be more than one type of "normal"? Like....objectively normal, which is just...an abnormal event. It's not "normal" to have the 0.001% chance cleft lip. It *happens*, obviously, but it's not "normal".
And then...subjectively "normal"...your reality or the fact that you're used to what you live with or that to *you*, your life is "normal" even if you were the 0.001%.
And yes, there are no "unique" character traits. But the idea of the word "unique" is the *combination* of said traits. It's not "unique" to be a good reader, say, but if you're a good reader and nine million other things....it's "unique" because you *don't* have a genetic clone (and then I guess you'd say that identical twins are not "unique"....but life experiences have to do with it, too).
Careful with making generalizations about "private school". I have gone to four private schools, and I can't think of a single generalization (other than "the parents pay money") that applies to all of them....
Doesn't joining people with SOME common interest or experience (which happens naturally) actually *expose* people to differences? Like...I'm friends with a bunch of speech&debaters, or people on the "honors/AP track", so obviously there's that similarity...but then within that group, there's SO much difference that you can't help being exposed to differences. So Pseudonymous's worry about not-adapting doesn't work...there's NO way everybody who shares certain similar interests is identical. The similar interest just provides a...common ground, with which to maybe make people see that we're not ultimately so different?
And yes, you need some common ground to perhaps start being interested in talking to somebody (whether it's being two shy girls or two debaters or two soccer players or musicians or whatever it is). But it's not ultimately the common ground that will make you friends....it's a mutual interest in the relationship and mutual respect/trust (which sounds cliché but...).
Of course there are exceptions. They're not "commonplace", but they exist.
In defense of my point about adapting: yes, people would be exposed to certain differences but remember that we are discussing a "societal filter" which filters people into certain groups. The similar people can adapt to the difference among themselves but there's people who are going to be radically different enough and not even share that one common ground, so many types of people will not get filtered into that group. There will definitely be types of people they will not be used to dealing with. And my concern is larger than just type of people- if everything (learning style/environment, information that you learn, etc) is perfectly tailored to YOU, how are you going to handle it when all of a sudden, it no longer is?
ReplyDeletePseudonymous, I think you're right that it doesn't make sense to tailor EVERYthing to a person's interests (or everything possible).
ReplyDeleteI think the extent of "filtering" that needs to happen happens naturally. It doesn't make sense to tell the English whiz who can't do math to save her life to go to AP Calc BC and take regular English. So in that extent, we're filtering ourselves.
At the same time, it IS worthwhile (especially for a smaller child) for a teacher to take note of that child's learning style and try to help him develop it. That way, he learns to *learn* the way that is most suited to him (which will benefit him in the future, when teachers won't go out of their way to take care of that), and he learns to appreciate learning (instead of the all-too-common "my teacher's making me do this, but doing this DOESN'T help" leading to a "school is boring"/"I don't want to do homework" attitude). It's challenging, yes, but necessary.
However, I disagree that we'll ever meet people who don't share that "one" common ground. Obviously, there will be people with different interests in school and different interests in life, but, firstly, just the fact that everyone's *human* gives you some common ground. We're all sad or happy or angry or something at different times (I run the risk of sounding VERY cliché here, but), which automatically gives us something to talk about.
Also, even ignoring that similarity, I'm NOT likely to meet someone who's so different that there's nothing to share with them. I'm just...not. Because we would never be in the same situation (otherwise we'd *have* something to share).
Patrice: I think objective truth > subjective truth, when both apply to a given situation. The former seems more... universal. I wonder why ;)
ReplyDeleteMost of what I say about "private school" and "public school" is MY private and MY public schools.
I like the conclusion you come to: that common ground is what I mean to be adressing. The point of the Societal Filter is not to make everyone clones or even necessarily substantially narrow one's worldview, it's to give people a basis for common association.
That's a fascinating idea: a Societal Filter unnecessary due to mutual humanity. Hmm. I obviously don't agree with that, but it's interesting.
Pseudonymous: if we're talking about the existing Societal Filter, in any given situation people naturally gravitate away from people who have nothing in common with them so there's no issue. (Conservation of energy.) If they must, people find a way to understand each other... seperate doesn't mean ignorant or something. The original blog was on what already exists in the world today. If we're talking about Societal Placement, then the entirety of the argument is different because it's all hypothetical (and this I adressed in my last post- there is no need to adapt at all in a world with Societal Placement).
AdDressing. SepArate.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. But if objective truth is greater than subjective truth, then you have to agree that "abnormal" exists. (And then I win an argument with my mother.)
I know...because that's SUCH a broad range of experience. (Haha. Sorry.)
Sorry. I miss some when there's no spell check (which drives me crazy).
ReplyDeleteI don't see the logical link in your argument. Just because objective truth is greater than subjective truth doesn't mean that abnormal exists. In fact, it would be the opposite, as I've made the case that there is no objective abnormality.
My computer does some amount of spell check on these comments (but not 100%...which is strange).
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who told me - in these words - that my current situation with the expander is "abnormal" (it might have been "not normal"). Because objectively, based on the vast (overwhelming) majority - and some amount of common sense - this *doesn't* happen, it's abnormal in the context of the situation.
Just because something has happened once or twice before does not make it normal.
I was speaking subjectively. I meant that it was not acceptable more than I meant that it has never happened and wasn't objectively normal.
ReplyDeleteThat depends on what you define as "acceptable". (And don't you start a debate about that now, Maire.)
ReplyDelete*I* don't think just because something has happened once it makes it "normal". It just means it's not unheard-of.
According to dictionary.com, "normal" is defined as "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal [shocker]; regular; natural". In psychology, a "normal" attitude is defined as "approximately average"; in medicine, "free from any infection, form of disease, or malformation". (Although I guess that makes "malformation" open to interpretation or discussion and I don't particularly like the word.)
But. Beyond the finer wording of that definition, normal = average. Not has-this-ever-happened.
And I don't think it's a big issue or that we should run around classifying people as "you're normal and I'm not" or whatever, because if "normal" = "average", then *everyone's* somewhat abnormal - excuse my phrasing; I don't like "abnormal" too much but it works here - in their own ways. (And then if everyone's somewhat abnormal, than having some abnormality is normal/average.)
Why did you bring it up if you didn't want it debated? But "acceptable" is subjective as well. Opinion. I don't believe it should be tollerated because I don't believe it is necessary. As far as I am concerned it is unnecessary pain caused by careless stupidity.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a definition. I have a concept. A philosophy, if you will. In the technical sense, you are not normal. Technicality is trapped within human dimentions and perception.
And if everyone's normal, nobody is. (*attempted reference to The Incredibles*)
*deciding to be a brat* That depends on what you define as "necessary". And she's not stupid. She just believes the end justifies the means.
ReplyDeleteToLerated. Better to tolerate it than not to.......actually, maybe that's not true. I don't know.
And dimenSions. In the technical sense, *nobody's* completely "normal", as I said. My point is that if we all have our out-of-average things; stuff that's technically "not normal".
I see the reference, but the statement is untrue. If everyone's normal, everyone's normal.
I was calling her actions stupidity not the doctor herself. As far as I am concerned it is preventable and therefore unnecessary.
ReplyDeletelol I was making fun of it. The actual quote is "When everyone's super, nobody will be." But take the opposite and it holds considerably more truth. If everyone is outstanding, then really no one is because... What are they standing out from? Everyone else is 'outstanding' as well.
If you have a way to prevent it, let me know.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's "everyone's special, Dash". "Which is another way of saying no one is."
Well, that's because everyone's outstanding in different ways (which is how you *are* "outstanding").
I was quoting Syndrome. Who was actually Incrediboy at that stage.
ReplyDelete