A Simple Experiment

I would like to describe a thought experiment that has been rolling around in my head the last couple of weeks. It's a thought experiment that I've been trying out to see if it would change the perceptions I have of the world around me. It's oddly simple, but so far, most insightful.....let's play along shall we.

The object of the game is to come up with a universal model (picture) that can be applied to any situation in which there are differing opinions for the given situation. In order to create this model you have available only four pieces (3 dots and 1 circle). For each situation you must place one dot for you, and one dot a piece (for a total of two) to represent the extreme polar opposites of the situation. Everyone's views must be accurately represented. These dots must be placed in relation to the circle so that a clear picture of where everyone stands is represented. Here is a simple example....

Meat eating: I eat meat....I eat far less of it than I use to and maybe only eat it three times a week since I moved to Sweden. The extreme sides of this case would be those who eat meat all day long at every minute, and those who have never eaten meat and will never eat meat. A model of this may look like the following...... The continual carnivore would be in the center of the circle, the dot representing me is above that and to the left....the person who has never eaten meat is outside the circle (outlier).

Now, we have a problem with the above picture. Remember, the goal was to create a universal model applicable to every situation that reflects everyone’s position on the issue. The above picture would not reflect the perception of someone who is a vegetarian. They would not see themselves as outliers in the society (circle)…that person’s picture would have one dot in the middle and two dots outside the boundaries of the circle. So, what shall we do now……well, let’s redraw the circle….let’s stop thinking of the circle as a circle at all…..after all, a circle is a single line that is connected at it’s ends in which (despite my poor freehand drawing skills) every point is equal distance from a central foci…if we were to cut the circle at one point and lay it flat we now have a line to work from as our base. So, the second attempt at the model may look like the following in which the two opposite ends of the issue are represented at the ends of the line and I am somewhere in between……
Ok, now this is starting to get better however, we still have a problem. I said that the only tools we had were a circle and three dots. So, while the circle is in fact a line, a line is not a circle….we must repair the circle to achieve the objectives of the experiment. By definition of a circle we will simply grab the two ends of the line and connect them. Now we’re left with something like this…..

I think we’re getting closer, but we’re still not there. In the above picture we’ve now happily married the vegetarian and the continual carnivore. We no longer can distinguish between the two parties and therefore…per the objectives of our game, not everyone’s view is being accurately represented….we must try again.......

Ok, let’s start with defining what is meant by ‘extreme polar opposites of the situation’. I am going to make a bold claim here that is the key to our puzzle. The claim is that no single person can accurately define what the absolute ‘extreme’ is. Understanding the ‘extreme’ is laying claim to the understanding of infinity….it’s not something that we as mortals can process. Here’s a great way to think about my above claim….think of the largest possible number you can think of…got that in mind, now, just add one to it and that’s a new ‘extreme’ in your world…..this cycle would go on infinitely and you would drive yourself to drink well before you came to the ‘extreme’ numerical answer. Same applies to society. If we think we know what the ‘most extreme’ behavior is in a society we can simply think of that behavior and ‘add one’.

With this in mind let’s take one more shot at our puzzle. Let’s start with a flat line again (a circle that has been cut at a single place). This time I have moved the dots off of the ‘extreme’ ends of the spectrum as we have proven that we don’t know what ‘extreme’ is……

Now, let’s connect the two ends and we’re left with something like this……

Ok, I think we’ve got it. Let’s test it to see if it truly is universal and a breakthrough in how we can think about life’s perceptions. Choose anyone of the single dots regardless of position. Think of your eating habits with regards to meat. Now, work your way around the circle to find the person that occupies the shortest distance from the dot you selected….you will move either clockwise of counterclockwise depending on which dot you selected….this is the person that is most like you (even if you are different). Now, go back to your dot and find the person that is furthest from you. This person is least like you (and your perceptions).

What can we deduce from this? Well there are a couple of take away points in my opinion:

1) No matter which dot (perception) we are we are never that far away from the other dots (perceptions) on the circle (society).

2) By working through the problem we ended with a picture where every dot (perception) is on the circle (society). Everyone is included in the macro society. Each view occupies equal importance and space. The first, horribly wrong, attempt we made at constructing this model left one dot outside and two dots inside (one as a central focus). This is the worst picture of all as it is completely centered on a single perception and voided the dot on the outside. No one’s perception is ‘wrong’…..if it is their perception, well, it is right to them and therefore not completely false to everyone (as they would be included in the group ‘everyone’).

3) It is always a shorter distance to visit all three dots in succession rather than to visit one dot, change direction and return to our dot, and then move on to the third dot. So, if we want to explore a topic it is most efficient to explore the other perspectives available on the topic rather than to explore one side, return to our base, and then explore the other.