What follows is hypothetical. ConserveLiberty has no anthropological evidence that the abstract social environments implied actually occurred. On the other hand, knowing what we know about humans today and the way that we perceive, behave, and react from a large group perspective (statistically) it is not much of a stretch to consider the environments implied to have been among those likely to have occurred.

In an environment where the correct interpretation of facts and experience is not certain, what is the selective advantage for one to reconsider what they have already been taught by one's culture?

Alternatively, how might that compare with the selective advantage of simply following along with the beliefs of one's culture?

For example, let's say a culture randomly takes a certain position (Position A1), and a different culture takes a different position (Position A2) on the same topic (Topic A). ConserveLiberty is not proposing that these positions are taken due to explicitly genetically determined Filter instincts or preferences (although there are certainly those too!). Rather, in this hypothetical example, these two differing positions are taken on Topic A as the result of choices being made by two different people in two different cultures. Those people (LEADERS) are so influential for whatever reason that eventually their cultures embrace the decisions made by them and do not revisit those decisions. The issue could have been a religious one, a social one, a food prep one, whatever. One culture winds up taking Position A1, and the other culture winds up taking Position A2.

Suppose further that in this example there really is a (known or unknown) selective advantage to one perspective over the other. Meaning, the people adopting one of the perspectives or practices will actually have a greater chance than the people adopting the other of surviving long enough to reproduce and raise offspring again.

If the Filter preference for most of the community is to believe and embrace the preference being taught, regardless of what it is, simply because it is being taught, then this is what happens → the culture which adopts the selectively advantageous perspective outsurvives the other. Period. Whether they know why or not. And those that survived did so because they were a.) indoctrinatable, and b.) were lucky enough to be indoctrinated with the advantageous perspective.

You might say, "... well wait! If they had been more cerebral or rational or logistically thoughtful in what they accepted, rather than simply instinctive and lucky enough to be influenced in the advantageous way, then the optimal decision might have been arrived at by several independently within each culture and that might have saved an entire culture from being lost."

That's a nice thought to have, but is that true?

More relevant from an epidemiological point of view is actually the question, "How many (counting all from both groups) would have survived if they were allowed to work out their decision cerebrally and rationally? And, alternatively, how many would have survived if instead they came to their perspectives by an instinctive embrace of what was being taught them, with the further restriction that what they are actually being taught was arrived at randomly first, and perpetuated by indoctrination thereafter?

Those also are interesting questions. However, evolution and selection for survival doesn't actually consider any sort of numerical decision making at all.

Evolution does not "pick" the optimal numerical population survival solution. Evolution is NOT conscious, and thus, it does not consciously choose. Anything. At all. Evolution strictly describes what happens when things with longevity (such as lineages that continue via reproduction) are "challenged" by an environment that will favor one variety over another. The fittest among the variants survive longer, whether 1% of the rest die, or 99% of the rest die. Evolution (if we were to anthropomorphize it for a moment for illustrative purposes only) doesn't even know what sort of selection is going to be required for the survival of the lineage tomorrow, or for some future generation. Thus, the only thing needed to keep a lineage going is that multiple variations are generated, and that enough of the generated variations survive for the next selection crucible. The varied features that come through the selective process are legion, and the population quantity of surviving "advantaged" lineages can be understood mathematically.

In the realm of the living, there obviously isn't simply one selectively advantageous solution. Look around you. Every living species you see has come through the selective gauntlet that your lineage has, and also exists now, very differently, and alive, with you.

And this has been going on just fine for at least 3 billion years on Earth. Through some incredible epochs of extinction. And, here we are.

Thus, in all likelihood, since no species, including homo sapiens, is intellectually advanced enough to understand the cosmic math that will determine the next selection survivor, what we are most likely left with are groups of people within cultures who instinctively embrace what they were indoctrinated with, AND who have been lucky enough to be indoctrinated with perspectives that enable them to survive.

→ The section above was last updated 17 Sep 2016 18:15 PST ←

---

If everyone was thinking for themselves, generation to generation, then the selective advantage of the successful cultural decision is not retained by the generation that follows except by the very few who are again lucky enough to have discovered or redeveloped the advantageous decision (again,) each time for each generation.

If instead the decision is retained generation to generation by indoctrination, and it is not revisited (except by a very few) because of an instinctual preference to embrace what is being taught by the culture one has been indoctrinated with ... then the selective advantage of the surviving decision is retained by more of the indoctrinated population that follows, generation after generation.

Let's do some side by side math and go out a few generations for both groups. The assumptions, for illustration only are:

• 1000 people initially in both groups.
• The very first generation in both groups finds their solution by discovery.
• When using derivation or discovery, only 10% will adopt the solution that enables their survival.
• When the group adopts solutions based on indoctrination, 90% will.
• For simplicity, the populations are 50% male, 50% female, both before and after selection.
• Those left after selection will mate with each other, with each couple producing 4 children.

If you think other assumptions are more likely, use your own estimates. If using your own numbers, remember, the percentage of those adopting in the group that indoctrinates each generation will always be higher than the percentage adopting in the group that requires re-discovery with each generation.

		Derivation or Discovery (10% Population derives solution)				Indoctrination after 1st gen (90% Population adopts solution)
		Prior born	After selection	Live Couples	New Births	Prior born	After selection	Live Couples	New Births
Gen #	1	1000	100	50	200	1000	100	50	200
Gen #	2	200	20	10	40	200	180	90	360
Gen #	3	40	4	2	8	360	324	162	624

Thus, for traits that are not genetically determined and that aid survival, and need to be adopted by each generation, it is likely that more of those who adopt the advantageous traits by indoctrination will survive, thrive, and reproduce than those who must instead rederive or rediscover them on their own.

What if the discovery of the solution enabling survival is easier? For example, what if a full half (50%) of the free thinkers would derive, or rederive it? Would our outcome be significantly different? Let's run the math in the table below using all the same assumptions except that by derivation or discovery alone, 50% will discover and adopt the solution that enables survival, the rest will die before procreation.

		Derivation or Discovery (50% Population derives solution)				Indoctrination after 1st gen (90% Population adopts solution)
		Prior born	After selection	Live Couples	New Births	Prior born	After selection	Live Couples	New Births
Gen #	1	1000	500	250	1000	1000	500	250	1000
Gen #	2	1000	500	250	1000	1000	900	450	1800
Gen #	3	1000	500	250	1000	1800	1620	810	3280

Thus, if a solution that guarantees survival is required, and deriving it cognitively or through discovery is difficult, then adoption via indoctrination will result in longer term (multi-generational) survivability after the discovery by the first generation. Even when discovery is easier, adoption via indoctrination results in a larger population over time. Meaning that most (if not all) of a population may have a strong Embrace of Indoctrinated Preferences Personality Spectrum Ensemble if such a filter was involved in mechanisms selecting for survival.

Hence (using our example of The Knee,) if the Embrace of Indoctrinated Preferences Personality Spectrum Ensemble is sufficiently active, and if one then finds that isopropyl alcohol (IPA) is superior overall to promote wound healing over other alternatives that have been previously indoctrinated within a group ... then the likelihood is that the IPA observation will not be paid attention to. At least not by very many at all.

The IPA observation may only have a chance of eventually influencing the culture if it is presented to people with a less active Embrace of Indoctrinated Preferences Personality Spectrum Ensemble who are also in LEADERSHIP positions that can indoctrinate the culture. These few would be more open to assessing whether there is a greater benefit to IPA use. And, of course, these indoctrinators cannot have competing reasons to suppress the IPA observation.

→ The section above was last updated 31 Aug 2016 16:10 PST ←

---

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic."

"Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
- John F. Kennedy

It is both interesting, and often (though not always) unfortunate, that the culturally learned perspective we retain is often one that is simply rhetorically convincing, and often desirable, even if known to be in conflict with what we actually understand to be the truth. Most people are indoctrinatable, they become "believers", and embrace various narratives without at all taking a concrete, rational, skeptical and fact oriented effort at verifying whether or not the declarations they believe are actually true. And, once indoctrinated, they will most often dismiss information that competes with the narrative they have already embraced.

That this trait is prevalent in the majority of us is why we have survived as a species on this planet to the current time. It is also why, anthropologically, our technological development (always a change to the way things are currently done) has been so slow for such a very long time.

This creates a paradox for those seeking Competent Truth: There are many areas important to our understanding of Truth and for participating with the world from a harmonic perspective that require a truth-oriented understanding of things within the Culturally Learned Realm. Yet because these Truths may occasionally conflict with the culture we are instinctively drawn to embrace, many either ignore or dismiss the alternative information we are exposed to that contradicts what we have culturally learned. Truthful or not. To the extent that we avoid the factual in the Culturally Learned domain, our harmony with Creation is then prevented.

Some of us are built with filters that have an affinity for being in harmony, even though we may not understand what harmony means. Thus, when encountering the difficulties in reaching harmony when the truthful aspects of the Culturally Learned Domain are ignored ... we often "redefine" what we think "harmony" is, usually to something that we perceive is within our ability to experience.

That is another unfortunate irony. Many are compelled to Harmony, and may believe they are experiencing a harmonic relationship with Creation, but unbeknown to them they may not be in true harmony at all.

From ConserveLiberty's perspective, the achievement of Harmony becomes more likely when one has the Liberty to embrace Creation truthfully. An active Embrace of Indoctrinated Preferences Personality Spectrum Ensemble may interfere with that.

On the other hand, selective advantage may not require Harmony at all.

→ The section above was last updated 18 Oct 2016 13:50 PST ←

---

← Previous - Introduction & the Big Picture       Summary Essays       Next - Multiple Filters in Play →

Consider thoughtfully.