Looking At the Macro Perspective

Home >> Articles >> Global Socio-Politics >> Looking At the Macro Perspective

Written by johnleemk on 4:20:02 am Feb 24, 2007.

From personal experience, it seems to me that I look at the big picture far too much. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does create rather awkward situations in a debate. When you're arguing with someone, and he's looking at some small detail while you have the whole thing in view, even if both of you really agree on something, odds are both of you will end up disagreeing.

A lot of my disagreements with intelligent people actually stem from different viewpoints. Usually, I have found that because they look at things from a microperspective, they end up with an opinion quite different from mine, even though we are looking at the same data and facts.

Why? Because looking at the big picture, and placing those same facts into the context of this picture, you tend to get a different view on things. What holds true for the short run might not be true for the long run, or vice-versa.

Other times, people might look at the big picture, but look at it through tinted glasses. One common mistake is to follow the economic assumption of ceteris paribus, i.e. that all variables except those you are studying remain unchanged.

Another mistake might be to avoid looking at the interplay between the variables being studied. If you change X and the result is Y, you have to see what the impact of Y might be as well.

The effect of these mistakes is that people end up with a very linear and overly simplified view of the big picture. Things in real life are rarely as simple as just cause and effect. The effect might in turn cause something else. And if the cause involves altering other variables, then these variables could have an impact on the desired effect.

It is crucial to look at the big picture, and to look at it properly. What seems important at the micro level may really be unimportant at the macro level. At the same time, when plotting the big picture, it is imperative that we not lose sight of all the things we have changed.

Evolving on the African plain, life was very simple for our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Things were simple: if you ran from the predator, you didn't get eaten. If you ran after the prey, your stomach became full. But in the modern world, and in modern society, things are not so simple anymore.

Our brains aren't equipped to think in terms of systems and in terms of the big picture. (That's actually a reason communism failed. The communists thought everyone would understand the big picture and not work against the system, but that's not what happened in reality.) We have to train ourselves to view things from a broad perspective, and to account for all effects of the things we change.

If you liked this article, check out these related articles:

Here are the most popular articles in Global Socio-Politics:

If you'd like to keep informed about updates to the site, consider subscribing to our web feed:

Raw feed (Atom 1.0)

Want to know when new articles are published? Subscribe to our newsletter:

(What's this?)

Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.

Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.

Comments

Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)

Related comments from forum thread "Evolution vs Creationism?":
johnleemk Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 949 IP Logged	Posted at 11:51:25 am Jan 17, 2007 I imagine this recent piece about evolution should attract a number of interested opinions, so I've gone ahead and started a topic for it. I already received one comment from a medical student, YoungYew; I hope he won't mind if I reproduce it here, together with my response. What a well-written rebuttal, John! The fact that it comes from a Christian like you deserves a salute from an atheist like me. I have been feeling unease for quite a while about how Malaysians in general have been unexposed to evolution. The author is clearly at a lost by the publicity stunt by the creationists, who are trying to confuse everyone by the manipulation of the word "theory". Passing off the evolution as "unproven" and stuff like that, they are capitalising on the public's unawareness that _no scientific theories could be proven conclusively in the absolute sense, but it doesn't detract from their validity as the best explanation of the human endeavour about their observations_. Some other attacks, on the other hand appeal to ridicule by saying things like "so you really think your ancestors are monkeys". Little do they know that such ridicule has nothing to do with the validity of evolution, and that it had been countered and ignored since the age of Darwin himself. And the ridicule is even more laughable when we realize that our ancestors are not the same monkey we see today, the fact is the monkeys and us share the same ancestors. If the author thinks removing creationism as God is a form of "censorship", maybe he would nod heartily when people start adding Flying Spaghetti Monster in our science textbooks. Teach the controversy, right? I am a medical student but most people around me including my coursemates have very little, if any at all idea about evolution. In Malaysia, evolution is not mentioned at all in SPM biology, and in my opinion it is such a big disgrace. I think it has to do with the influence of religion in our education. But it is at least a slight relief that our ministry of education agreed that the creationism _hypothesis_ is not supported by scientific facts. I think you ought to forward this article to the Sun, as I think any people who are capable of reasoning should be enlightened by this well-written article. I think books such as "the selfish gene" etc ought to be more well known and well read by the public. Or at the very least, people should have read up relevant articles in wikipedia before levelling invalid arguments regarding the controversy. For those who are unaware, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God of Pastafarianism. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is undetectable and invisible, and uses his "Noodly Appendage" to manipulate the evidence to make the universe seem that it was created by evolution. It's a parody of intelligent design, if you don't get it. And yes, I think it's a major omission in our syllabus - although Singapore doesn't mention evolution in its biology curriculum either. Anyway, it seems rather close-minded of our textbooks to omit one of the most important theories in modern science. I wrote a shorter version of the original article summarising my points and emailed it to The Sun. Their email address is, if I'm not mistaken, feedback@thesundaily.com so you can contact them yourself and complain about the article if you're in the mood.
Last five replies (13 comments not shown):
youngyew Member Posts: 8 IP Logged	Posted at 3:44:41 am Jan 28, 2007 Quoted from: whodhellknew Indeed you have the right to object in all cases. What I was pointing out about your arguments was that you were imposing your own values as if they were global absolutes (Science must take precedence over faith, and here, saying "in a science textbook, no one has the right to include non-scientific arguments, even if the majority want to". If the majority wants it, then they have it. For they do not neccesarily subscribe to any of your absolutes. It's an Existentialist world. Everyone's living by their subjective perception. There are no absolutes. I'm personally a Catholic but I disagree with the pope when he says there are absolutes. The moral or ethic codes we go by are all subjective, and even what we consider to be God's law is he's subjective view. cheers I get what you meant there, whodhellknew. I actually kind of agreed with your line of thought. In any case, when I said "should" in my previous posts, I was not trying to say that "hey you Christians, you all MUST follow my line of reasoning". That's certainly not what I meant at all. I am not trying to force my "set of belief" on others. I was only sharing my opinion of what I think is better for people, just like when our parents tell us “you should be strong in the face of challenge”, when the police tell us “you should not drive haphazardly”, or even when a Christian tells me “you should accept Christ into your life and turn to God”. There’s inherently nothing absolute about the word “should”, it’s not as strong as you might infer, and I certainly am ready to apologise if I have offended you in any way. However, as much as I try not to step over the line, I would still like to maintain that "reason should come before blind faith" is likely to be better to humankind in a long run. I would say that Sam Harris makes a strong case about this in his book "Letter to A Christian Nation". Again, this guy might appear too anti-religion that some deeply religious people would not even read his book, not to mention thinking about his reasoning. I could empathize that if I am a religious person I would be very disturbed by his reasoning which is perilously close to “religions are evil”. However, I would strongly recommend everyone to consider his argument of the damage blind faith could do to human kind. Note that in any case, I am not against the existence of and the belief in religions. The spiritual value of religions is undeniably precious to humankind. I also respect everyone’s right to not listen to me. The only thing I am against, as with many other atheists, is the value that “blind faith is never a bad thing even when it means denying logical thinking.” That is a bad thing. I think that it's unfair for you to point to me that I SHOULD not be so absolute about my opinion that people should not give blind faith precedence over faith: Don't you notice the irony that, you are using the word "should" when you are saying that I SHOULDn't have said "should"? You're saying that absolute doesn't exist in this world, but shouldn't this principle apply to itself as well? I guess you might have heard of this famous quote before: "No generalisation is valid, including this one." You have just showed me an argument plagued with a related dilemma: “Nothing is absolute, except the first part of this sentence.” You don’t really think that “everything is not absolute”, because you absolutely think that “nothing is absolute”. I have always subscribed to a viewpoint that might shine some light in the dilemma we are having here: Everyone lives on a set of axiom(s). Axioms are the highest beliefs in somebody, they take the highest priority of one’s thoughts and lines of reasoning, and they cannot be arrived from any other premises without making use of the axioms themselves. In short, axioms are what someone thinks as an “unsurpassable”, independent and unprecedented truth. I know the definition above is too abstract and I am certainly not doing a good job of describing it. So let’s take some examples: For me, the axiom of my life is “the validity of logical axioms”. Things like “If A --> B, and if B --> C, THEN A --> C” and so on. Logic is my highest belief in the sense that nothing is “truer” than logic. It takes the highest priority of my thought, because nothing is true without meeting a rigorous logical deduction. And logic can’t be arrived from any other premises, as it just is. For you, your axiom is the idea of “nothing is absolute”. In this paragraph, I am going to assume that you actually mean “nothing is absolute, except this claim”, instead of “nothing is absolute, including this sentence”. The latter is an example of a paradox and it does not qualify as an argument at all. Or in other words, the latter does not mean a thing. Back to “nothing is absolute, except this claim”. It’s necessarily your highest belief, because according to this statement, nothing can be “truer” than this claim. It's an axiom by tautology because to you even logic's validity is considered "not the universal truth". It’s on the highest priority of your reasoning because you can’t form any higher belief without using “non-absolute” statements. It also can’t be arrived from any premises, it just is for you, unsurpassable. For some people with blind faith, their axiom is “The Bible’s claims and God’s existence are the inerrant ultimate truths”. This is their highest belief because when there are logical contradictions or difficulties posed by the Bible, they comfortably go back to “That must be God’s will” or “We can’t understand God, God must have His reason” and win the battle based on their original axiom. When scientific evidence (which is based on logical axioms, by the way) says that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old, some young-earth creationists let this axiom take over and say things like “God created the world in 6 days and did some tweaking to befuddle scientists”, or “God created light from distant galaxies to make them look as if the light was en-route to the Earth since 4 billion years ago, although they in fact were created 6000 years ago” This is the highest priority of their thought, and it can’t be arrived from any other premises. The Bible and the God are just true, unsurpassable, in no need of external validation. In any religious debates, you would notice that some people begin by quoting the Bible as if it’s the most valid starting point. That is when they are basing their arguments on this axiom. I am not trying to propose that my axiom is the “truer” axiom, because I can’t do it. My points are: 1. Yes everyone has their right to hold on to their axioms. 2. Everyone also has the right to share their axioms. 3. I believe that if people with blind faith (who hold the last axiom above among others) become the majority in our society, it will inflict harm to the world in the future. 4. I would like more people to agree with and subscribe to no.3, but I am not forcing it.
whodhellknew Member Posts: 17 IP Logged	Posted at 1:05:45 pm Jan 29, 2007 Quoted from: youngyew I get what you meant there, whodhellknew. I actually kind of agreed with your line of thought. In any case, when I said "should" in my previous posts, I was not trying to say that "hey you Christians, you all MUST follow my line of reasoning". That's certainly not what I meant at all. I am not trying to force my "set of belief" on others. I was only sharing my opinion of what I think is better for people, just like when our parents tell us “you should be strong in the face of challenge”, when the police tell us “you should not drive haphazardly”, or even when a Christian tells me “you should accept Christ into your life and turn to God”. There’s inherently nothing absolute about the word “should”, it’s not as strong as you might infer, and I certainly am ready to apologise if I have offended you in any way. Oh no no no, no offence taken. All perfectly within the bounds of a nice intellectual discourse Quoted from: youngyew Don't you notice the irony that, you are using the word "should" when you are saying that I SHOULDn't have said "should"? You're saying that absolute doesn't exist in this world, but shouldn't this principle apply to itself as well? I guess you might have heard of this famous quote before: "No generalisation is valid, including this one." You have just showed me an argument plagued with a related dilemma: “Nothing is absolute, except the first part of this sentence.” You don’t really think that “everything is not absolute”, because you absolutely think that “nothing is absolute”. Irony indeed. Hit right back at me Quoted from: youngyew I have always subscribed to a viewpoint that might shine some light in the dilemma we are having here: Everyone lives on a set of axiom(s). Axioms are the highest beliefs in somebody, they take the highest priority of one’s thoughts and lines of reasoning, and they cannot be arrived from any other premises without making use of the axioms themselves. In short, axioms are what someone thinks as an “unsurpassable”, independent and unprecedented truth. I know the definition above is too abstract and I am certainly not doing a good job of describing it. So let’s take some examples: For me, the axiom of my life is “the validity of logical axioms”. Things like “If A --> B, and if B --> C, THEN A --> C” and so on. Logic is my highest belief in the sense that nothing is “truer” than logic. It takes the highest priority of my thought, because nothing is true without meeting a rigorous logical deduction. And logic can’t be arrived from any other premises, as it just is. For you, your axiom is the idea of “nothing is absolute”. In this paragraph, I am going to assume that you actually mean “nothing is absolute, except this claim”, instead of “nothing is absolute, including this sentence”. The latter is an example of a paradox and it does not qualify as an argument at all. Or in other words, the latter does not mean a thing. Back to “nothing is absolute, except this claim”. It’s necessarily your highest belief, because according to this statement, nothing can be “truer” than this claim. It's an axiom by tautology because to you even logic's validity is considered "not the universal truth". It’s on the highest priority of your reasoning because you can’t form any higher belief without using “non-absolute” statements. It also can’t be arrived from any premises, it just is for you, unsurpassable. For some people with blind faith, their axiom is “The Bible’s claims and God’s existence are the inerrant ultimate truths”. This is their highest belief because when there are logical contradictions or difficulties posed by the Bible, they comfortably go back to “That must be God’s will” or “We can’t understand God, God must have His reason” and win the battle based on their original axiom. When scientific evidence (which is based on logical axioms, by the way) says that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old, some young-earth creationists let this axiom take over and say things like “God created the world in 6 days and did some tweaking to befuddle scientists”, or “God created light from distant galaxies to make them look as if the light was en-route to the Earth since 4 billion years ago, although they in fact were created 6000 years ago” This is the highest priority of their thought, and it can’t be arrived from any other premises. The Bible and the God are just true, unsurpassable, in no need of external validation. In any religious debates, you would notice that some people begin by quoting the Bible as if it’s the most valid starting point. That is when they are basing their arguments on this axiom. I am not trying to propose that my axiom is the “truer” axiom, because I can’t do it. My points are: 1. Yes everyone has their right to hold on to their axioms. 2. Everyone also has the right to share their axioms. 3. I believe that if people with blind faith (who hold the last axiom above among others) become the majority in our society, it will inflict harm to the world in the future. 4. I would like more people to agree with and subscribe to no.3, but I am not forcing it. Oh no I don't believe nothing is absolute. I believe that there are subjective absolutes, in which a subjective conciousness (our minds, I guess) imposes their own absolutes upon their worldview. And the sentence "nothing is absolute, except this claim" is not really a paradox. It's just being more precise, or a linguistic tool to claim that only one item is absolute while the rest is not. For the record, I'd prefer the more scientific and loical route too. My opinions are that the Bible never explicitly tells us how to interpret it, and a literalist interpretation can thus be wrong. cheers
youngyew Member Posts: 8 IP Logged	Posted at 2:03:23 pm Jan 29, 2007 No worries. Anyway if you read my post carefully, the paradox I referred to was "nothing is absolute, including this sentence", not "nothing is absolute, except this claim". And yeah I agree that a literal interpretation of the Bible may be wrong, but that's where the dichotomy arises between some fundamentalists and the more liberal Christians. The fundamentalists would point finger at the more liberal Christians and say things along the line of "if you don't believe in the Bible in the entirety, you're not a true Christian". This dilemma is part of what this classic joke is pointing out: I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. Of course this joke is to be taken with a pinch of salt, but the strong message is that of the intolerance between difference beliefs or even different sects under the same belief, and that was what I have been trying to convey. Anyway we are digressing, aren't we?
idealist Member Posts: 2 IP Logged	Posted at 12:25:09 pm Feb 15, 2007 I just couldn't resist. Hope everyone finds this as amusing as I do. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/happy_intelligent_design_day.php#trackback For those who don't know what Cargo Cults are, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6363843.stm
johnleemk Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 949 IP Logged	Posted at 8:00:04 pm Feb 15, 2007 Haha, IDers are amusing - they seem to think calling a religious belief science makes it valid science. Btw, I edited your post to fix a minor problem with the formatting caused by the site software - will try to fix the original bug later.

Looking At the Macro Perspective

Comments

Most Recently Read