"Among other things, you'll find that you're not the first person who was ever confused and frightened and even sickened by human behavior. You're by no means alone on that score, you'll be excited and stimulated to know. Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You'll learn from them - if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you. It's a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn't education. It's history. It's poetry." ~J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye
Human behavior has always fascinated me, but recently, I've had the opportunity of analyzing it with a novel perspective. Being a biomedical engineer comes with its perks, and one of them is the ability to break apart every aspect of human and represent it in terms of models and equations. While this ability has advanced us greatly in the field of technology and medicine, it brings me back to a very commonly asked question. Who are we?
None of the proposed mechanisms have been able to holistically represent the human. Even when taken apart into components of mind and body, not one definition justifies the numerous theories and observations that account for what we call human behavior.
However, this is not an attempt to analyze human behavior, but instead it is an effort to take a characteristic displayed by the majority and discuss its pros and cons. As represented by the urge to converge to a solution, ironically, one distinct human characteristic is the need to categorize. This is quite obvious in both history and science. We built societies, religions, and generalized equations to group similar subjects(people, phenomena, animals, etc). One may argue that this innate need is actually to develop an organized view of the world and function more efficiently in that model.
First of all, like any model, our personal human model of the world is also not honest. It is biased, tainted, and sometimes just absurd. Secondly, categories establish differences and in order to attain efficiency, these differences need to contribute to the easier accomplishment of something. But often, these differences aren't a medium for ease. They are instead obstacles that provide for worthless basis on which to separate ourselves. They are products of fear and insecurity. This brings me to my third point, that categories don't make us efficient, but they make us comfortable. They accommodate for our vulnerability.
So maybe they do have a functional role in our evolution, but is this need to group still necessary? Or better yet, would the human race be better off without self-proclaimed differences?
I recall an incident that occurred when I was just a naive freshmen, thrown into the world of engineering. As I aimlessly struggled with the post-processing of some very noisy data, my mentor intervened. "Adjust the cutoff frequency to eliminate your garbage data, leaving you with a clean signal." I wonder if we are modulating our cutoff frequencies in order to conveniently alienate certain groups. I also speculate whether the threshold could be lowered enough to include everyone in the entire human race as one giant group. Simplify each being's existence. Alternatively, the threshold could be set so high, that the group reduces to one person and each person becomes a group. The quality of individuality is what we refer to as "unique."
So, I leave you with some questions. Should we abandon this urge to group and find a belonging within that group? Is the nature of characterization hindering human progress? While we know that the recognition of differences may be the root cause of many evil conflicts, will embracing those differences make room for peace? Or will that in turn just seed a new way for human evil to emerge? How can society value conformity, but also uniqueness? Paradoxically, how can a person who claims to be unique(a quality highly prized by the community) conform to society's expectations of being unique?
I certainly hope you all will be rather creative and individualistic in your answers and conform to my high expectations! :)
I recall an incident that occurred when I was just a naive freshmen, thrown into the world of engineering. As I aimlessly struggled with the post-processing of some very noisy data, my mentor intervened. "Adjust the cutoff frequency to eliminate your garbage data, leaving you with a clean signal." I wonder if we are modulating our cutoff frequencies in order to conveniently alienate certain groups. I also speculate whether the threshold could be lowered enough to include everyone in the entire human race as one giant group. Simplify each being's existence. Alternatively, the threshold could be set so high, that the group reduces to one person and each person becomes a group. The quality of individuality is what we refer to as "unique."
So, I leave you with some questions. Should we abandon this urge to group and find a belonging within that group? Is the nature of characterization hindering human progress? While we know that the recognition of differences may be the root cause of many evil conflicts, will embracing those differences make room for peace? Or will that in turn just seed a new way for human evil to emerge? How can society value conformity, but also uniqueness? Paradoxically, how can a person who claims to be unique(a quality highly prized by the community) conform to society's expectations of being unique?
I certainly hope you all will be rather creative and individualistic in your answers and conform to my high expectations! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment