Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 31, 2009 11:07:24 GMT
The final icing on the cake, as it were:
Analytical Principles Of Humanology
People are not ideal beings who always behave in the way that we might wish them to. As such, the Humanologist is concerned only with the way that humans do behave, and should make no attempt to construct a false ideal or set of behavioural patterns that run counter to reality.
Put more simply - the principles, attitudes and behavioural patterns of any given individual are unique to them alone. Where general patterns of behaviour exist, they are predicated upon perceived social norms and rooted in the herd or tribal instinct that still underpins a great deal of human social reaction and inter-reaction.
The Humanologist must at all times remember the three types of reality - Consensual, Subjective and Objective - and remember that any given theory or supposed fact may vary widely in importance (And indeed truthfulness) when considered in each of these lights.
Trying to determine the effectiveness of a doctrine or the truth of a theory is thus a painstaking process, but nonetheless one which is very necessary to anyone who truly wishes to understand the way people think and act.
A useful process for analysis may be as follows. Please note that the actual order of use should depend on the theory to be tested, and not all of these tests will be useful in every case. This should hopefully be useful for testing both your own theories and those of others.
1. Determine the historical and geographical origins of the theories involved.
Once you are aware of the time and place in which a theory or doctrine was first proposed, you are well placed to understand both the biases which the author might bring to the work and also the framework of knowledge they are operating within. By an understanding of the worldview of the people of that time, one can understand how the theory may have come about, and also how it might have been viewed or applied by those who created it.
To truly understand a people, one must understand the effects that environment and history have had in the shaping of their lives.
As a general rule, humans usually consider their own culture or country to be either superior or inferior to that of others (This will likely display itself within the theory or work involved), and mostly it is considered that 'present' is superior to 'past'. Humans as a species always like to feel that we are far cleverer and more developed than our ancestors, despite all evidence that might be raised to the contrary - yet perversely we always seem to feel that succeeding generations are less capable than our own. Yet another example of human egotism. While humanity has undoubtedly gained in collective knowledge down the ages, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest we are either more intelligent or wiser than our forefathers.
It is worth noting here that the one bias most humans do share is that they have a very 'humanocentric' view of the world, in that they see humans as either higher or lower life forms, but somehow special regardless. This bias is the first thing that a Humanologist must strip out of any theory if they are to get at any underlying truth it may hold.
No country, no society, and no individual can ever escape a degree of delusion about themselves and the society in which they live. This is simple fact. It is also the ultimate irony of Humanology - that the purpose is to escape a bias that cannot ever be completely overcome.
2. Test the theory against genuine human behavioural patterns
One of the most tempting of all human beliefs is that all other humans would see the inherent wisdom of one's own beliefs or behavioural patterns if only they could somehow be made to understand just how much better the world would be should everyone only embrace the 'correct' path or way of thinking.
This idea, though an easy trap to fall into, is nothing more than wishful thinking. Each human being will view anything and everything through the filter of their own experiences, perspectives, and inherent biases - and then will accept or reject those things based on how comfortable they are with bringing them into their lives. Some might find new purpose or new direction, while others might find the same concept to be uninteresting or complete anathema.
It is thus obvious that any workable theory or doctrine must fit neatly into the generally accepted social framework of the time and place in which it is to be adopted. Any attempt to enforce a system that becomes outmoded or proves itself to be ultimately unworkable will result only in abject failure - and often in the collapse of the group or society that tried to implement it.
This level of unreality is mostly found in political or economic systems, but is worth considering as it can crop up unexpectedly in many other places.
Note that the way in which a society thinks will change naturally over time in accordance with the Cycle Of Civilisations, so any doctrine that is entirely inflexible will always be unworkable, and thus will always fail.
Learn from Order and Chaos - a flexible pattern always works best.
Always remember that habit is the prime human motivator.
3. Test and define the concepts involved
Many ideas contain or refer to concepts that may or may not be valid within the context of the theory. If, for example, we look at a theory which states "Humans are born good but are corrupted by the world" (A genuine theory proposed by one of the ancient Greek philosophers, BTW) it is immediately possible to see the theory holds no validity, because 'good' is a concept that is entirely defined by the society in which any individual lives, and what might be 'good' in one generation or society may be 'evil' in another. Similarly, definitions of 'corrupt' are also entirely based in Consensual Reality.
By contrast, a theory stating "What is good for one person may not be good for another" is clearly using 'good' in a way that does not refer to a purely arbitrary system of social definition. 'Good' in this case simply means 'beneficial' and thus the concept would be valid in terms of this theory.
Always ensure that you understand precisely what is meant by the theory you are testing. If necessary (As is frequently the case when creating one's own theories) define (Or redefine) a term or word to give the precise meaning that you require it to have to ensure absolute clarity. A muddled theory may hold truth - but who will ever find it?
4. Are there any proven facts that negate the theory?
If there are, and the facts prove to have such a body of evidence as to be indisputable, the theory must be discarded regardless of how attractive you find it to be. One's own feelings are sometimes a guide, but never a test of validity. It is very easy to cling to a pet theory in face of the evidence, but all that ultimately does is creates a ripple-effect of ever-growing falsehood that will damage your understanding of many other related subjects.
By now you understand that all subjects are related I am sure: that the whole of reality is entwined in a webwork of attachments so complex as to make each strand indivisible from the whole. All things truly are one - and thus the damage that can be done by even a single mistaken belief can be incalculable.
5. Allow for gender based differences
Men and women do not see things in the same way. If your theory requires men to think or react like women or women to think or react like men, it will fail.
6. People are not machines
Every person has feelings as well as thoughts, and they are often guided by intuition. They can be smart or stupid, innocent or worldly - and they will always surprise you. No matter how good it might be, no theory will ever apply to every single person for this reason. A good theory is one that is true for the majority of cases, and that is the best you will ever get.
Do not assume a theory is wrong simply because you find one person it does not apply to. Logic is a tool, not a straitjacket - and anything you are applying by rote is automatically flawed. Even if you are applying a principle for the thousandth time, each person you apply it to will be different, so the nuances will also be different, and the end result may well be very different. Be aware of what you are doing at all times..
7. Be prepared to ignore all of the above.
Always remember that Humanology is not a science with clear cut rules - it is an art. Sometimes the only way to get something right is by seemingly doing it all wrong. There are no rules - only guidelines.
***
A great number of theories seem to be true if one were only to consider them from a Subjective viewpoint, but the ultimate goal of the truthseeker must be to find those which are Objective.
Good luck, and happy seeking
***
Anyone who has persevered through everything I've posted should now see how it all fits together, and how it can be used to analyse any aspect of human behaviour in order to find out why people do what they do. I hope
Analytical Principles Of Humanology
People are not ideal beings who always behave in the way that we might wish them to. As such, the Humanologist is concerned only with the way that humans do behave, and should make no attempt to construct a false ideal or set of behavioural patterns that run counter to reality.
Put more simply - the principles, attitudes and behavioural patterns of any given individual are unique to them alone. Where general patterns of behaviour exist, they are predicated upon perceived social norms and rooted in the herd or tribal instinct that still underpins a great deal of human social reaction and inter-reaction.
The Humanologist must at all times remember the three types of reality - Consensual, Subjective and Objective - and remember that any given theory or supposed fact may vary widely in importance (And indeed truthfulness) when considered in each of these lights.
Trying to determine the effectiveness of a doctrine or the truth of a theory is thus a painstaking process, but nonetheless one which is very necessary to anyone who truly wishes to understand the way people think and act.
A useful process for analysis may be as follows. Please note that the actual order of use should depend on the theory to be tested, and not all of these tests will be useful in every case. This should hopefully be useful for testing both your own theories and those of others.
1. Determine the historical and geographical origins of the theories involved.
Once you are aware of the time and place in which a theory or doctrine was first proposed, you are well placed to understand both the biases which the author might bring to the work and also the framework of knowledge they are operating within. By an understanding of the worldview of the people of that time, one can understand how the theory may have come about, and also how it might have been viewed or applied by those who created it.
To truly understand a people, one must understand the effects that environment and history have had in the shaping of their lives.
As a general rule, humans usually consider their own culture or country to be either superior or inferior to that of others (This will likely display itself within the theory or work involved), and mostly it is considered that 'present' is superior to 'past'. Humans as a species always like to feel that we are far cleverer and more developed than our ancestors, despite all evidence that might be raised to the contrary - yet perversely we always seem to feel that succeeding generations are less capable than our own. Yet another example of human egotism. While humanity has undoubtedly gained in collective knowledge down the ages, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest we are either more intelligent or wiser than our forefathers.
It is worth noting here that the one bias most humans do share is that they have a very 'humanocentric' view of the world, in that they see humans as either higher or lower life forms, but somehow special regardless. This bias is the first thing that a Humanologist must strip out of any theory if they are to get at any underlying truth it may hold.
No country, no society, and no individual can ever escape a degree of delusion about themselves and the society in which they live. This is simple fact. It is also the ultimate irony of Humanology - that the purpose is to escape a bias that cannot ever be completely overcome.
2. Test the theory against genuine human behavioural patterns
One of the most tempting of all human beliefs is that all other humans would see the inherent wisdom of one's own beliefs or behavioural patterns if only they could somehow be made to understand just how much better the world would be should everyone only embrace the 'correct' path or way of thinking.
This idea, though an easy trap to fall into, is nothing more than wishful thinking. Each human being will view anything and everything through the filter of their own experiences, perspectives, and inherent biases - and then will accept or reject those things based on how comfortable they are with bringing them into their lives. Some might find new purpose or new direction, while others might find the same concept to be uninteresting or complete anathema.
It is thus obvious that any workable theory or doctrine must fit neatly into the generally accepted social framework of the time and place in which it is to be adopted. Any attempt to enforce a system that becomes outmoded or proves itself to be ultimately unworkable will result only in abject failure - and often in the collapse of the group or society that tried to implement it.
This level of unreality is mostly found in political or economic systems, but is worth considering as it can crop up unexpectedly in many other places.
Note that the way in which a society thinks will change naturally over time in accordance with the Cycle Of Civilisations, so any doctrine that is entirely inflexible will always be unworkable, and thus will always fail.
Learn from Order and Chaos - a flexible pattern always works best.
Always remember that habit is the prime human motivator.
3. Test and define the concepts involved
Many ideas contain or refer to concepts that may or may not be valid within the context of the theory. If, for example, we look at a theory which states "Humans are born good but are corrupted by the world" (A genuine theory proposed by one of the ancient Greek philosophers, BTW) it is immediately possible to see the theory holds no validity, because 'good' is a concept that is entirely defined by the society in which any individual lives, and what might be 'good' in one generation or society may be 'evil' in another. Similarly, definitions of 'corrupt' are also entirely based in Consensual Reality.
By contrast, a theory stating "What is good for one person may not be good for another" is clearly using 'good' in a way that does not refer to a purely arbitrary system of social definition. 'Good' in this case simply means 'beneficial' and thus the concept would be valid in terms of this theory.
Always ensure that you understand precisely what is meant by the theory you are testing. If necessary (As is frequently the case when creating one's own theories) define (Or redefine) a term or word to give the precise meaning that you require it to have to ensure absolute clarity. A muddled theory may hold truth - but who will ever find it?
4. Are there any proven facts that negate the theory?
If there are, and the facts prove to have such a body of evidence as to be indisputable, the theory must be discarded regardless of how attractive you find it to be. One's own feelings are sometimes a guide, but never a test of validity. It is very easy to cling to a pet theory in face of the evidence, but all that ultimately does is creates a ripple-effect of ever-growing falsehood that will damage your understanding of many other related subjects.
By now you understand that all subjects are related I am sure: that the whole of reality is entwined in a webwork of attachments so complex as to make each strand indivisible from the whole. All things truly are one - and thus the damage that can be done by even a single mistaken belief can be incalculable.
5. Allow for gender based differences
Men and women do not see things in the same way. If your theory requires men to think or react like women or women to think or react like men, it will fail.
6. People are not machines
Every person has feelings as well as thoughts, and they are often guided by intuition. They can be smart or stupid, innocent or worldly - and they will always surprise you. No matter how good it might be, no theory will ever apply to every single person for this reason. A good theory is one that is true for the majority of cases, and that is the best you will ever get.
Do not assume a theory is wrong simply because you find one person it does not apply to. Logic is a tool, not a straitjacket - and anything you are applying by rote is automatically flawed. Even if you are applying a principle for the thousandth time, each person you apply it to will be different, so the nuances will also be different, and the end result may well be very different. Be aware of what you are doing at all times..
7. Be prepared to ignore all of the above.
Always remember that Humanology is not a science with clear cut rules - it is an art. Sometimes the only way to get something right is by seemingly doing it all wrong. There are no rules - only guidelines.
***
A great number of theories seem to be true if one were only to consider them from a Subjective viewpoint, but the ultimate goal of the truthseeker must be to find those which are Objective.
Good luck, and happy seeking
***
Anyone who has persevered through everything I've posted should now see how it all fits together, and how it can be used to analyse any aspect of human behaviour in order to find out why people do what they do. I hope