Object Bias

This is part of my attempt to outline my thinking about thinking. Consider it a proposal, open to revision and refinement.

The core of my practice of theory is an appreciation of [the "reification fallacy," or] what I call “object bias” — our tendency to conceive experience composed of distinct and permanent objects.

We identify patterns of more or less consistent phenomena over time and turn these into concepts which we talk about as if they’re concrete.

For example we notice the quality of redness appearing on many different things and we conceive there to be a thing called the colour red; we imagine it exists independently, in some pure form.

Likewise for concepts like “freedom” and “truth.”

People say “we found freedom” or “we’re bringing freedom to the people” as if freedom is an object that can be picked up and handed over (or taken away).

Freedom is not a thing in reality; it’s a concept we imagine and use to make life understandable, and in effect more manageable.

Concepts like freedom allow us to tie patterns of experience that are effectively similar into bunches.

These concepts are heuristics that are “close enough” to reality that they tend to work. They may break down in some situations, but most of the time their benefits let us (or compel us) to overlook their shortcomings.

The portions of experience that get associated with these concepts might meet explicit criteria or they might not. Much of the time (and ultimately, if you dig far enough) the terms of a concept can’t be defined; the process is largely tacit and felt — even involuntary.

It’s as natural and constant as breathing — and just as difficult to consciously control.

We think and talk this way because it generates results that have helped us survive and thrive as a species.

There’s no abstract proof to account for it.

In fact, our insistence on making it logically objective is itself evidence of object bias.

There is no logic that compels us to explain everything logically, there is no purely objective account of why or how we can be purely objective; instead we have deep undeniable feelings that we must make ideas objectively explained.

Start with that simple fact and work backwards: instead of obeying the rules of objectivity, account for them.

Evolution is the ultimate explanation for all of our knowledge and beliefs.

It’s about what’s practical — whatever works in the long run, whatever manages to survive and succeed.

We’re the species that happened to acquire imagination and memory capable of transposing the real world into a conceptual world of symbols — abstract objects that aren’t subject to the physical laws of change and motion affecting the rest of reality.

The impulse for manipulating abstract objects and transposing them back into real-world action eventually developed into principles and laws, which in turn provided frameworks for civilizations.

Civilizations themselves are conceived as objects that come into contact with other communities — “the barbarians,” etc.

History indicates that (at least where and when the environment allowed), civilizations which accommodated the most complex systems of abstract objects tended to persevere and succeed over those that used less complex abstractions.

Occasionally there have been exceptional disruptions, but in general the civilizations which dominated have tended to have the most effective systems of ethics and discipline, the most sophisticated mastery of science and engineering, and the most powerful religious symbols.

A hypothetical pre-historic group that wasn’t comfortable with abstractions like “freedom” or “justice” (or “me” or “us” and “them” — or truth itself) may have been more empirically sound but they wouldn’t have been as effective at communicating and collaborating.

Such a group would have found it more difficult to surviving — especially if they lived in the same area as proto-humans better-developed systems for working, living, and fighting together.

But eventually our objective systems reach a point of diminishing returns.

At some point, rather than expanding, the system starts to require more and more energy to merely maintain the integrity of the structures, rules, and information they already have.

Large empires find themselves with infrastructure and other resources that need to be protected. Monuments deteriorate and need to be rebuilt. Institutions acquire their own momentum, making them difficult to steer.

Meanwhile knowledge accumulates and becomes hyper-specialized.

One teacher might have a hundred students, each working in their own narrow sub-specialty. When the teacher passes away there’s nobody left who remembers how all the paths once parted — and anyone who tries to reunify the field will have to contend with ninety-nine accusations of ignorance and meddling.

I’m afraid this is the point we’re at now: earlier generations built amazing things, but as we work with the ideas and institutions they passed onto us, nobody knows how how it all works together.

It’s time we take a close look at all of our ideas and institutions with an evolutionary appreciation.

The ideas and institutions of the past aren’t permanently true and good, they simply worked for some time. Now it’s time to reassess whether they’re still as generative and sustainable as they once were.

But we also need to be careful of new ideas and institutions.

We may recognize a problem but then become attracted to the first new abstraction that occurs to us — and sometimes we might be attracted to a new abstraction even while the old ones still work fine.

We have to assess every idea that occurs to us by reminding ourselves how powerfully attractive abstractions can be to our imaginations — especially the simplest and most obvious ones — and evaluate every idea with the question, “What are the real effects of this idea?”

Even the idea of object bias is subject to object bias, we have to consider this as well.

By turning the idea of object bias on itself you might send yourself in seemingly endless circles.

It might seem meaningless and futile.

It isn’t futile.

It’s possible, with practice, to overcome the discomfort of uncertainty. It’s possible to cultivate the habit of doubting ideas without dismissing them altogether. The hard-earned ability to manage ideas is more valuable than any idea will ever be.

“Teach a man to fish…”

***

To be continued…

Needless to say a lot of citations are conspicuously absent. We can have a discussion about Hume, James, Wittgenstein, and whoever. In the mean time I’ll argue it isn’t wrong to prioritize vigorous thinking over rigorous scholarship [that's what this piece is about]. If you follow my blogging and twittering you’ll know who my influences are [start here]… still a lot more to be written and said.

Also, this post has referred to evolution in two different ways: biological and intellectual. I’ll have to clear that up (and anything else I may have missed) but for now I want to start getting these ideas out.