|
Articles
The
Cultural Calculus gives us a common pattern language with which to discuss
issues of culture. Polymathica is creating an attractor at one end of the
refinement and erudition dimensions of concept space that will begin to grow
through accretion and become more clearly defined through shared cultural
literacy. As this Polymathica
transnational culture emerges, it will do so within the context of many other
new cultures that will also be forming.
In the Future 101, we explore how this will fundamentally transform
the structure of civilization. It is
one of the six primary components of the profound and imminent event that we
refer to as The Transformation. We
consider the notion of culture as a fuzzy set in multi-dimensional concept
space. We will explain this using an
analogy.
Psychologist
Charles Spearman hypothesized that for every intellectual task the
performance of an individual is determined by traits specific to the task (s)
and traits general to all or most intellectual tasks (g). Suppose we chose
100 people at random and gave them a test on number progressions. A
performance rank order would result. Now suppose we gave the same 100 people
an analogy test. There are three distinct relationships the two results could
have to one another.
The first is that they are inversely correlated. In other words, a person who
scored in the top 50 on one test would have a greater than random chance of
scoring in the lower 50 on the second test. This is the constant intelligence
theory that says that everyone has about the same amount of intelligence and
if a person is better than average in one task it is because they are
applying more of their intelligence to it. Consequently, they have less to
apply to other tasks and they can be expected to score below average on those
tests.
The next theory is the random theory. In other words, g=0 and all the
proficiency a person has in a specific intellectual task is related to traits
that only affect that intellectual task. If Spearman is correct, the rank
order of a person on one test will have predictive value on the other test.
The greater the predictive value the more g dominates the explanation of
intellectual performance.
The problem of determining the predictive value between many tests was a
difficult one and Spearman developed Factor Analysis to deal with it. It
turned out that Spearman was correct. In fact, it turned out that g explained
most of the difference in intellectual performance between people. Thus, a
new and more rigorous definition of IQ was born. IQ is a measure of g, which
is extracted from the results of questions diagnostic of many types of
intellectual tasks.
Factor Analysis has been utilized polymathically in geochemistry, ecology,
hydrochemistry and economics. Marketing analysis has used a simpler form by
creating correlation matrices. Here we conceptually develop a Cultural
Calculus utilizing the principles of factor analysis. In doing so, we will
provide a theoretical basis for a new way to evaluate history, understand the
present and contemplate the future.
Suppose we gave a number of people a questionnaire that explored their
attitude toward abortion. We could then assign values to each person with 1
representing someone who believes that abortion should be illegal in all
circumstances and that anyone involved in an abortion should be considered to
have committed or been accessory to murder and 100 representing someone who
believes that abortion should be legal at all points in a pregnancy and,
nobody, including the father or the courts, my abridge that right. We would
expect that this questionnaire would result in a bimodal population if
plotted on a graph where the x axis is the value between 1 and 100 and the y
axis is the number of people with the specific rating. We would expect the
left mode to be represented by people who believe that abortion should be
illegal except in the cases of incest or rape or to save the life of the
mother. The right mode, we expect would be centered on people who believe
that abortion should be legal in the first trimester of a pregnancy.
Now suppose we gave the same people a questionnaire that explored their
attitude about welfare. We, again, would expect a bimodal population with one
group centering around a view that welfare should be
limited, locally administered and with significant assistance from the
philanthropic and religious communities and the other group centering around
a federally mandated suite of government entitlement programs.
Let us expand our graph to three axes, with x being the rating on the
abortion scale, y being the rating on the welfare scale and z being the
number of people at each particular (x,y). We believe that now we will find a
conical mound centering around those who take a low
numbered position with regard to both abortion and welfare and another
centering around those who take a high numbered position to both. We are not
sure whether those not among the two major nodes will be evenly distributed
or if there would be one or more smaller nodes. Some people might argue that
the graph would have more than two modes. Others may argue that concentrations
would be small and the majority of people would reside on a 100 X 100 plane
of relatively little topography. We are unaware of any studies of this nature
and, consequently, the disagreement cannot be definitively resolved.
Since very few people can visualize hyperdimensional objects, we are going to
add one more questionnaire and then stop. Now we will include a questionnaire
on the degree to which government should abridge the freedom of action of
citizens and enterprises for the sake of preserving the ecological status
quo. At the low end will be people who believe that the government has no
right to abridge such actions at all and on the other extreme are people who
believe that the government has an absolute obligation to proscribe and assess
fines for any act that may disturb the current environmental conditions. Now,
since we need the z axis for our third questionnaire, we will need to do this
a little differently. We will make a volume comprised of 100 X 100 X 100 =
1,000,000 cubes each of which represents one unique (x,y,z)
and capable of holding many dots.
We
believe that this exercise would render two very dense centers surrounded by
a halo of loci of decreasing density as the radius from the center increases.
For those familiar with astronomy, it would look like two globular clusters,
one centered around moderate positions in favor of
abortion, welfare and environmental restrictions and one that centered around
moderate positions against abortion, welfare and environmental restrictions.
Again, we are unsure whether there would be smaller clusters at different
locations. However, if we add enough
questions we are confident that they would emerge.
We can imagine that the same questionnaires are given to a statistically
valid and consistent group of people over time. We now can see our concept
space evolving. Perhaps clusters will become more dense
or less dense. Perhaps a piece of a cluster will break off and travel to a
different locus, picking up members as it goes. Perhaps portions of our
concept space will develop a new attractor and start growing and increasing
in density spontaneously. Perhaps we can see the distance between the two
major clusters become closer or farther apart. In other words, we will be
watching a movie of cultural fragmentation, coalescence and evolution.
Of course, Cultural Analysts, well versed in the more complex mathematical
methods required to extract meaning from a larger number
questionnaires will take this several steps further than we will here.
They will create hyperdimensional models that will move, transform and evolve
in ways that can only be approximately represented in three dimensional
models. Using factor analysis, they can create a kind of central definition
of culture, perhaps extracting central or core factors that define each
culture. Even though not easily visualized, characteristic statements, then,
can be made about the conformation of the concept space and how it has
changed over time.
This allows us to provide a more complete explanation of the meaning of
Polymathica. If questionnaires were given to people to assess their sense of
refinement and erudition, we consider it obvious that few people would find
themselves in the 90’s on a scale of 1 to 100. Most of civilization has
become rather crass, crude, hedonistic, vulgar and anti-intellectual.
Consequently, Polymathica is creating an attractor at one end of the
refinement and erudition dimensions of concept space that will begin to grow
through accretion and become more defined through shared cultural literacy.
The Cultural Calculus gives us a common pattern language with which to
discuss issues of culture. As a
Polymathica transnational culture emerges, it will do so within the context
of many other new cultures forming. Since
it would require extensive research funds to describe the contemporary world
in terms of the Cultural Calculus. It
would then take at least a decade to gain insight into the cultural evolution
that the Cultural Calculus would reveal.
However, we do believe that it is possible, without rigor, to
preliminarily describe the cultural landscape. We believe that there are five major
cultures and a number of nascent cultures.
The
major cultures are Judeo-Christian Traditionalists, Opportunity
Traditionalists, Race and Class Liberals, Humanist Progressives and Hedonist
Libertines. The most developed nascent
cultures are New Age and EcoStatists.
Traditional cultural viewpoints that either are invaded modern
civilization or being revived include Wicca, Islam and Nova Roma. Less developed nascent cultures include the
Zeitgeist Movement, Transhumanism, Marxist-Feminists, Polyamorists,
Prometheism and Polymathism. From
this, we surmise that the Information Age will need to contend with at least
twenty and probably more, cultural perspectives that will demand
progressively more cultural sovereignty.
Currently
the Judeo-Christian Traditionalist and Opportunity Traditionalists, on one
side, and Race and Class Liberals, Humanist Progressives and Hedonist Libertines,
on the other, are experiencing rapidly progressing cultural tension. This appears to be a very unstable
situation with the potential for violence.
It is likely to be exacerbated as the memic propogators of Internet
Television are likely to accelerate cultural evolution and isolation. This will be one of the primary causal
factors propelling us toward a radically different Information Age
Civilization.
|