The Nature of Hoi Polloi

So much is said about human nature and the effects of social and environmental influences. Some folks insist that we are the way we are because of our genes, the systems inherent in society, or something else beyond our control. Others insist that everything is a choice. Both sides have their evidence. That leads observers to conclude that our nature comes from a mixture of these two. On close examination, the nature versus nurture distinction is, at best, a description of a simple continuum of time scales. At worst, its an entirely false dichotomy.

NOTE: There are ideas in this chapter that are inseparable from formal logic, and that aren’t especially common in general conversation. The dense intellectualism can be kind of a barrier for some folks, but I’m going to try to make it all as clear as possible. And, while I’d like to say that all of the concepts in this book are important, only a few of the concepts in this book are absolute constraints of reality, are well understood by the people who malevolently run parts of society, and are almost entirely misunderstood by their victims. This is one of those. If you don’t understand the ideas in this chapter, you lose. Period. Whatever you want to do in the world, whatever kind of positive change you want to make, you will sabotage it — with or without opposition. Without understanding this common error, you cannot form a worldview that will either protect you from predation or help you to find and cultivate mutually beneficial networks. Grandiose, I know. Stick around. You’ll see it all come together.

Some people are born into strongly predetermined lives. Some people encounter powerful influences. Some people are very self-aware and open-minded. Some individual choices, pivots, and breakthroughs are palpably volitional. The variance in conditions and conditioning is fluid. Such is the way of fortune. Like so many aspects of life and society, the urge to split the difference misses the mark. It isn’t that we are simply a mixture of predetermined influence and personal decisions. The entire framing is broken. What we think that predetermination means is a mathematical and scientific impossibility. And, we base an enormous amount of thinking on this impossibility, and with great consequence.

In this chapter, I will show that it is impossible and also meaningless to attempt to establish a simplified framework for predicting the nature of a person or for extending statistical probabilities into specific scenarios. I will also show that it is incredibly sensible to think predictively in the aggregate.

At the conclusion, we will see that the nature of hoi polloi is to become whatever the incentive structures of society dictate, which tells us nothing about any specific individual. When this is understood, one cannot hold any of the popular views on race, sex, class, or gender. One gains a great advantage in thinking about resource decisions, organizational design, policy-making, etc.

This is one of those things that seems like a paradox, but isn’t at all. It is the boundary of an epistemology. And because we don’t want to think that we can really know something — but only up to a line — most folks either overextend statistical thinking or reject it outright. Both are critical mistakes which destroy our ability to discuss and solve social problems.

This chapter gets really math-y. But you don’t need to be good with numbers. You just need the horse sense to understand that three apples plus two oranges is still only three apples. Yes, that’s a horse joke.

If you want to follow this project, and you aren’t already, follow along here.