Everyone knows nobody’s perfect. So put a lot of imperfect people together, what do you get: imperfect world. Surprise surprise. So why try to change it? The more important question is: even if you knew after a long, hard fight, you could change this world for the better, would it be worth it?
Well, maybe you’re not interested. You’ve already tried, or you’ve seen others fail at trying to make things better, or you really just don’t care much about these kinds of things. Anyway, in most cases, such fights are distractions at best. At worst, they’re demoralizing to people who really wanted to make a difference.
So, instead, what about this: it’s a start if you’re willing to see a possibility where you looked a thousand times and didn’t see anything. It’s about taking one more good, hard look with a fresh pair of eyes at the same old-same old.
But you could respond: you gotta play the hand you’re dealt. That’s true.
If you already said you’d play the game, that’s right. Play the hand you’re dealt. It’s fair. Try to make the best of it and just enjoy whatever part of the game you can. It could be you just like the food, or the other players, or the chance to just relax at home.
But let’s say no one’s having fun. While we’re playing the hand we’re dealt, not having any fun, we could be thinking of ways to improve the game. Then, if all the players agree—after this round—if we first came up with better rules, we could then play a new, more enjoyable game. So let’s play the hand we’ve been dealt and, at the same time, think up some rules for a more satisfying game—rules that, after this round is over, we could propose.
It might be good to begin with some hard-to-disagree-with statements. So, for example, “prevention is better than intervention,” i.e., it is better to prevent a problem, or nip it in the bud, than to wait until the it gets really bad before taking action.
“Prevention is better than intervention” sounds fine. What’s the problem? Why is it even worth mentioning something so obvious as “prevention is better than intervention?” Because people love conflict. At least many of us like to watch it from a safe distance. For example, few people want to see a romantic movie in which two characters—without any drama—1. fall in love, 2. get married, 3. live happily ever after. Perhaps it is because of their preference for (at least mild) conflict that many people focus on solving problems that have already arisen rather than preventing problems.
A more serious example would be when a serial killer is on the loose, during which there is a lot of media attention, and once caught, everybody wants the killer to be severely punished. But equal media attention is not allotted to preventing future serial killers from taking the life of their intended first victim. There may be many reasons for this, including that it often takes a much longer time and more work to prevent a problem. Also, it’s hard for activists and politicians to get the larger public’s political will behind an effort to stop an issue that isn’t “shocking news” and, really, isn’t even in news at all: it hasn’t happened yet. So, in order to prevent serial killings, you’d have to approach parents whose kid looks more or less normal and advise them to change their parenting styles so that in twenty years the kid won’t be as likely to commit murder. It’s only probable. It’s twenty years away. Nobody likes to be told how to parent. You’re likely to get the door slammed in your face. So even if someone agrees with the statement that prevention is better than intervention, they might not act on it, especially if the “preventing” involved anything they considered to be unpleasant.
NOTE: In this proposal, an ingroup refers to a group of people with a shared identity and goals and an agreed-upon outgroup. The outgroup are those people who are not considered to be part of the ingroup. It’s an understatement to say there have been a lot of ingroup-outgroup conflicts in human history.
There appears to be a similar preference for intervention over prevention with ingroup-outgroup conflicts. When an outgroup is perceived by the ingroup to threaten or actually attack (verbally or physically) an ingroup member, the ingroup’s impulse is often to protect the ingroup and to intervene with a counterattack. If intervention rather than prevention is the strategy, it may create an ingroup-outgroup attack cycle (as in the case of feuding family members, political parties, and so on). This could potentially become a downward spiral. Some people choose to stay out of such ingroup-outgroup conflicts. But even this stance is difficult due to how dangerous the world is. There are members of groups (e.g., terrorists) who set out to harm and destroy complete strangers in other groups.
So in a situation of heightened emotions, it will be ineffective to ask the ingroup members to rise above their feelings, to work on preventing future conflicts, and to reconcile. Anger or hatred as a primary motivation brings about insensitivity to another’s point of view. Insensitivity to other’s viewpoints makes communication with those others difficult. Such heightened feelings on both sides are likely to escalate the conflict, and in some cases, at the end of the conflict, there will be a clear winner. The U.S. abolitionists were angry about slavery. Eventually, the abolitionists got their way. Slavery was abolished. So, at least in some cases, such anger is justified and effective.
Even without any overt conflict, a member of the ingroup may view the outgroup as hostile: “We must be strong and prepare for attacks and stand up to the enemy.” Even those who do not throw their support behind this goal of strength may be considered an enemy. For example, someone who does not support gun rights may be seen as trying to render gun owners defenseless against criminals.
In some sense, the ingroup member’s identity is defined by their hostility to what they consider the outgroup. The ingroup and its outgroup determine each other. For some people, the harsh world is what made them who they are: “It’s good that the world is harsh. It’s something to stand up to. You can’t get tough unless you’re exposed to harsh circumstances.” The only way this person would be satisfied with bringing their outgroup opposition to an end would be if the outgroup disappeared. Barring that, the ingroup member would have to change their fundamental understanding of their relationship to the outgroup, which happens rarely if at all when one has arrived at adulthood and at their considered worldview. After that, it is unlikely they will ever be at peace knowing the opposing group is out there.
Everybody is entitled to their own worldview, that is, their own way of looking at things. More specifically, your “worldview” is your view of how the world is along with how you think it ought to be, and possibly even how to get from here to there. For those interested in history, your worldview may also include your understanding of how we got to where we are now.
This worldview includes not only how you think others in the world are and should be, but also how you think you yourself are and should be: your real identity and your ideal identity, that is, what—after considering everything through and through—you wish that your identity would become.
You may not know the deepest values behind your worldview or be able to articulate those values to yourself. But your worldview can be represented both to yourself and to others in some way. This is what most young people are working out for themselves and what most adults feel they have worked out at least to some extent.
It is possible, though extremely difficult, to consciously change your worldview. A big part of the problem with society is that people involved in making society run (namely, adults) have already made up their minds. It would be better if before they set their worldviews in stone, people first established some bare minimum ground rules for worldviews. The ground rules would be the most minimal structural requirements possible. The intent is that the ground rules would be so basic that they are unobjectionable. If you compare a worldview to an apartment building then the ground rules would be equivalent to the building codes that require fire escapes, emergency exits, water sprinklers, and structural integrity (so that the building doesn’t collapse upon its occupants or neighboring buildings). In almost all cases, the ground rules wouldn’t stop anyone from having whatever worldview they would like. The world of architecture provides an analogy: even working in accordance with a restrictive building code, or construction code (e.g., the requirement of fire escapes, etc.), architects can be extremely creative in the design of their buildings.
Nevertheless, even at this minimum level, many people may feel reluctant to work on something like the ground rules for worldviews, or what could be called a worldview construction code. The reason is probably not that you are completely happy with everything. For most people, their reality falls short of their ideal. But maybe this proposal is just not enough to motivate you. It’s almost definitely the case that there are more enjoyable things to do with your life.
It’s also possible that you have seen others fail and that it just seems impossible. And even if you think it’s possible, this construction code approach may not seem like it’s worth the time and effort. So, there are a lot of things stacked against this approach.
It’s worth emphasizing this point: the construction code and the worldviews should always be up for revision. As future younger generations develop new critiques of the society they were born into, the construction code and the worldviews will need to be revised. The construction code should never be set in stone. Social mechanisms can be instituted for continually critiquing the construction code and the worldviews that accord with it.
If more people would just be willing to change their minds about something after the age of thirty, that would be a step in the right direction. Arguably, the single greatest threat to humanity is the belief that to change one’s mind in the light of new experience is a sign of weakness. Instead, it is how you change your mind that matters (i.e., thinking with greater and greater comprehension, coherence, clarity, and sophistication as opposed to shuffling from one stance to another). So, changing one’s mind can in fact be a sign of great strength. In order to construct a broader-minded, more integrated worldview, such strength will be needed over the long haul of thoughtfully adjusting to each other’s value systems and being open to changing who we are in the process.
But can people really change in a lasting way? I would like to give examples here of famous cases in history where people changed their minds. Unfortunately, it’s rare to see this in public figures who often feel that they are losing face if they show that they are conceding to an opponent’s position. There are some Hollywood movies that show people changing their minds: The Defiant Ones, Dances with Wolves, Midnight Run, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Schindler’s List, Return of the Jedi, and probably the best example: 12 Angry Men. If you can find it, it is interesting to watch 30 Days, a documentary-style show in which someone undergoes an “outgroup experience” for a month .
If at this point you’re interested in finding out about the worldview construction code, then it may be helpful to take a look at one of the many existing attempts at something like this that are already out there, e.g., lists of universal values, lists of universal rights, etc. These lists usually include things like power; achievement; tradition; compassion; the ability to live a decent, full, healthy life; to imagine and create; to participate in politics; to control one’s environment; to have property. There are also general statements like this: “A majority of the populace agrees that young children should be given food, clothing and shelter”, or “Many people agree that human life has worth”. Some other lists that might be useful for starting on a construction code would be in the form of what should not be the case, for example, the right not to be randomly tortured, not to be forcibly removed from your home for no legal reason, not to be treated as property. Again, any of these values should be revisable at any time.
NOTE: “Social arrangement” could refer to small scale organization, such as family or work place, or to a larger scale entity, such as a country or even the world.
All these could be helpful to start a conversation about a construction code. Really, any list just has to be something that will get someone talking at a basic level about what their ideal social arrangement would look like. The only problem would be if people felt shoehorned or otherwise constrained by these past attempts at listing universal value-like things. If so, these past lists should be put aside and everyone can just start fresh on the construction code.
This process of working out a worldview construction code with others is likely to be difficult, e.g., to involve a lot of sessions, a lot of back and forth without making much progress, a lot of bickering and ego trips. As a result, you may become discouraged and lose confidence in the process.
Also, at any point you might be inclined to bring up things you’re more passionate about as opposed to limiting the conversation to the less interesting “fire escape” basics of the construction code, i.e., those “universal” characteristics that any worldview should have. All this to say, try to have realistic expectations of how difficult and protracted a process this might turn out to be. Try your best to keep yourself and others focused on the task at hand (namely, working out the basic, universal characteristics that any worldview must have) in order that distractions not get the best of everyone.
There are some people who simply don’t believe in universal values of this kind, i.e., characteristics that all worldviews have or could have in common. Beyond physical universals like air, what some people say is that there are no meaningful societal values that everyone shares at anything other than a general or superficial level (e.g., all cultures value music or rituals or medicine or so on). Well, this might be enough. For example, if the only thing you will admit to having in common with someone else is that in order to live you both need to breathe air, eat, and sleep, even that could serve as the elementary beginnings of a construction code.
Other people wouldn’t want such universal societal values to be promoted and maintained even if they exist. They want certain valued things for themselves and for their ingroup (e.g., education, safety) and the opposite or outright destruction for their outgroup. If you are one of these people, maybe for now you can try to think about the construction code just for your ingroup. If you are not willing to try that, perhaps just read a few more paragraphs to see if there are any ideas that you consider to be interesting. Try to keep an open mind. Who knows: there might be something that turns out to be of benefit to you and possibly to your ingroup.
In some cases there is no forgiving: for example, some horrible firsthand memory is lodged in the ingroup member’s brain that makes it impossible for them, now or ever in the future, to work with any members of the outgroup—not even if those outgroup members choose to “convert” and become ingroup members. What then? If it is too late for this ingroup member, is it possible to prevent such a horrible firsthand memory from becoming fixed in the mind of the ingroup member’s child?
Even if you believe human nature is evil, no doubt there are things that can be done in childrearing to mitigate that evil: to make a Hitler into a struggling, bad-tempered painter; to make a Dahmer into a voluntary psychiatric patient. If some other adults in the ingroup have chosen prevention over intervention, then they may have worked on a preventive strategy and communicated this to the ingroup, even though as mentioned before, it is difficult to convince a particular individual to change their parenting style.
Other people think it would be great to have an integrative construction code, but, unfortunately, human beings are too selfish, possessive, distrustful, belligerent, or otherwise flawed for such cooperative projects to ever get accomplished. They are probably right. Cynics tend to have the most accurate view of reality. The chances are against all proposals for real and lasting improvement of society.
Nevertheless, with 99% of our DNA the same as that of chimpanzees, humans are far more similar in our essential needs than we are different. There are many important things that humans can easily agree on as necessary to survival (as mentioned above, things like air, water, food, shelter, safety, and so on) though we tend to get emotional about those few relatively rare things we disagree about (e.g., guns, sexual partners, etc.). What is more, human beings in great numbers are capable of enormously complex tasks. With computers and other technology, even more so. Even if someone can’t see how a construction code might accommodate all human values, that person can still be open to the possibility that somebody else—or, more likely, a large number of people using advanced technologies—might some day figure it out.
NOTE: If the notion of coming to respect an outgroup member makes you uncomfortable, you may want to stop reading at this point. It is not likely you will agree with much of what is presented hereafter. If it would help you to continue reading this, you may want to think about the “outgroup” not as your most extreme opposite, but a group that you are not too passionate about (For example, if you belong to a political party in a representative democracy, rather than think of an opposing party as the outgroup, you could think of the eligible voters who are not affiliated with a party.)
In some cases, there may even be a change of heart. The ingroup member may actually come to integrate some of the values of the outgroup so as to undergo a change in identity or worldview, even if it is only a modest change.
How can an ingroup and outgroup work collectively to come up with a workable construction code? Any workable construction code must ultimately accommodate the values of people other than members of the ingroup. But if this is the case, knowing what we know about human ingroup-outgroup relationships, how will the ingroup ever work toward preventing conflicts with the outgroup long enough to cooperate on the construction code? For example, how can a politically engaged person empathize with their political opponent, especially if this might involve fundamentally changing their understanding of the outgroup, possibly resulting in lasting changes to the ingroup member’s worldview ?
At least one possibility is compartmentalizing. Compartmentalizing refers to dividing parts of your life into sections or categories, keeping one part separate from the other. For example, some people find it helpful to compartmentalize their work life from their home life. Sometimes this is referred to as putting on a different hat for a different task. So, to work on the construction code, everyone (ingroup and outgroup) would choose to temporarily compartmentalize their “hot button” issues in order to concentrate on the “cool button” issues of the construction code. “Hot button” issues in politics or religion can often result in counter-productive conflict and stifle the spirit of cooperation. In some cases, broaching such issues might, for example, ruin a holiday gathering with family. This kind of compartmentalizing would allow the ingroup and outgroup members to start by discussing the topics that people find the least controversial. This “start with the basics,” “easy to difficult” progression seems to make sense in other contexts, e.g., primary education (e.g., learn the alphabet before trying to read a book), professional training (e.g., learn anatomy before performing surgery). The idea is to discuss and come to an agreement on all possible cool-button issues before moving on to warmer-button issues.
It would help to have a dedicated workspace (e.g., online or a physical space) where ingroup and outgroup members could come together agreeing to temporarily compartmentalize, or “bracket”, hot button issues in order to work on the construction code.
The “split identity” involved in such compartmentalization may be difficult to work with, especially at first. For example, perhaps an ingroup member who regularly expresses their strongly held values and political views, etc., outside the “workspace”‘ will find it difficult to hold their tongue during the work on the consruction code. Such a person might feel as though they are being two-faced or as though they are compromising their integrity.
If you feel strongly about not adjusting your behavior to fit a certain context, then such workspaces may not be for you. However, it may help to consider an example in which someone modifies their behavior without compromising their integrity: most adults agree that it is the proper thing to do to switch to using child-appropriate language when talking with young children . This is not considered two-faced, lacking in integrity, etc.: in this case, it’s considered to be the right thing to do to adopt the appropriate behavior for the context. Perhaps you can think of the examples from your own experience where such changes were “for the best”.
One could argue that because of the seriousness of the issues that are being compartmentalized, or “bracketed” in the workspace and because of how they are being asked to work with the outgroup, an ingroup member might feel that they risk watering down their own personal identity, i.e., their committed and passionate sense of who they are. The idea of talking with an outgroup member and reconsidering something that one has believed in all or most of one’s life could elicit trepidation. The prospect of being persuaded to change one’s worldview even slightly in this way will probably seem like admitting a shortcoming. The prospect of admitting an imperfection in the worldview often evokes a fear of losing the entire worldview, as though if you remove one brick the entire edifice will come crumbling down.
It is possible to integrate others’ values without watering down your own values. Will you have to compromise, to sacrifice? No, because “you” will be more sophisticated, with a stronger stance, and you will know that you are bettering yourself. You will come to understand your own values better through this engagement with others’ values. You will become stronger with every additional outgroup belief that you can in good conscience accommodate in your worldview. This process might take a long, long time (every person should take as long as they need), but the more you engage in this process, the more you will be able to work on the construction code with outgroup members.
It is almost always possible to increase one’s ability to understand another human being’s values. To better understand another’s values it is recommended to intellectually cognitively at least—if not emotionally—empathize with the other person, to be respectful of their values even if you do not value their values.
There isn’t any way of telling exactly what the construction code will eventually turn out to look like in detail because so many different ingroups and outgroups will need to be involved. Neither the ingroup nor the outgroup will be satisfied with values that preclude their own. Nevertheless, it is possible—although in many cases extremely difficult—to integrate at least some conflicting values.
Another point in favor of compartmentalizing the hot-button issues is that it may make sense to a serious ingroup member to engage in the conflict from a position of strength. You would increase your numbers if you could build a coalition with one or more outgroups.
Perhaps people who were initially against building a construction code would not be against it if they knew others were interested in working on such a code.
As mentioned above, someone might not want both the ingroup and outgroup to prosper. For example, such a person may prefer to recruit members of the outgroup into the ingroup even if this strategy is less effective than building a coalition with the outgroup. Still another possibility is that someone might even be interested in somehow hurting the outgroup even if this doesn’t help the ingroup or society in general. Such actions do not seem to be based on a motivation for true, sustainable social change.
The recommendation for handling this problem is to use the same methods described above, namely, to compartmentalize hot button issues and (when possible) to take a preventionist (rather than interventionist) approach in order to broaden the ingroup. Failing that, the next best thing would be if the ingroup member (or their children) could change from opposing any coalition with the outgroup to being neutral on the issue. That is, the ingroup member would not stand in the way of fellow ingroup members who are open to collaborating with the outgroup. Such a change in thinking could be brought about by things like dispelling stereotypes about the outgroup, and other methods described below.
The ingroup-outgroup relationship could conceivableconceivably move from mutual hatred to tense co-existence, or possibly even to friendly rivalry: instead of killing, you have a competitive sports match, or maybe even a creative one-upping relationship.
Far from being expected to actively embrace any member of the outgroup, an ingroup member could start by refraining from “non-essential” actions (e.g., opting not to vituperate an outgroup member to their face). It is often easier to hold one’s tongue than to bring oneself to actively praise the outgroup. So, the general tendency is from Live-and-Hate to Live-and-Let-Live to possibly even Live-and-Like or, who knows, even love. At various points in history, a royal family welcomed the marriage of an heir to a rival dynasty’s heir, e.g., for the sake of diplomacy.
It may help to know this: unless almost everybody on earth agrees with the construction code, it should not be binding. In other words, the construction code should not be imposed on any individual, much less on society. The construction code should be proposed, not imposed. The worldviews based on the construction code should be like artworks, which, if they inspire you, fine; if not, fine. However, the more accordant a worldview is with the construction code, the higher the number of participating people who will not be put off by that worldview, and who may be inspired by it. The construction code would ideally be worked on by everyone and, ideally, everyone would develop their worldview in accordance with it.
Let us say at this point that an ingroup member is ready to interact with an outgroup member. It is best to start with an outgroup member who is the most likeable (i.e., the least unpleasant). The ingroup member should be matched with a person they consider to be the most aboveboard member of the outgroup, perhaps someone who is considered wrongheaded but at least earnest, e.g., they are at least working for what they believe is a better community.
Also, indirect contact with someone who is perceived as unpleasant is easier than direct contact with them. For example, it is easier to be exposed to unpleasant personalities via one-way media such as written material, audio recodingsrecordings or videos than to interact with an outgroup member, especially face to face. In such mediated, non-interactive exposure, the ingroup reader, listener, or viewer can find out about their own strengths and weaknesses with respect to understanding the outgroup member’s perspective in a low-pressure scenario. So the first interaction might be through a text-based medium, then perhaps through a video conference, and then face to face.
Over time, the ingroup member will likely get better at temporarily taking the perspective of the outgroup member. The ingroup member may even come to see that the outgroup member has a point, at least with regard to some part of the outgroup member’s worldview. Eventually, the ingroup member may come to respect (if not necessarily like) the outgroup member.
Such a respected outgroup member can provide the ingroup member with facts that legitimately call into question the false beliefs about the outgroup. The ingroup member will be far more open to a respected outgroup member’s facts and arguments than to those of a non-respected outgroup member. The ingroup member’s conception of the outgroup worldview might then start to become more nuanced and accurate. Because one-sided views tend to leave important things out, this process could provide the ingroup member with insights into their own worldview.
One important step in increasing one’s ability to understand another’s values is to dispel outgroup stereotypes. Stereotypes and false beliefs about outgroups can often be shown for what they are when an ingroup member learns more about a respected outgroup member’s position. The outgroup position closest to one’s own is probably the most eligible candidate to investigate first.
It is even better if the respected outgroup member is not only respected but empathized with and liked. Ideally, this should not just be intellectual empathy (i.e., “just the facts”) but the emotional kind. Perhaps the outgroup member can show you where they are coming from—literally. Maybe the ingroup member can even take part in the activities of the outgroup, with the outgroup member now as their guide. Until someone has really gotten into doing something and felt it, they probably don’t really know what they’re talking about.
So, it is important for at least one ingroup member to come to respect and if possible empathize with at least one outgroup member. Perhaps the ingroup member has even become an ally of and an advocate for the outgroup. If the ingroup member described above is respected and identified with by their ingroup, they could provide guidance to other ingroup members in their interactions with outgroup members. The other ingroup members are likely to listen to one of their own members—far more than to an outgroup member—defending the worth of the outgroup.
If the rest of the ingroup is open to it, the ingroup member can tell a story about the outgroup that may resonate with the ingroup. The story can emphasize common fears, common experiences, amusing situations and so on, of both groups. Laughter is important to overcoming hostile feelings.
And people “warm” sometimes after their opponent warms. The story can at least reduce the intense emotions to a level of indifference. (In ingroup-outgroup conflict situations, mutual indifference is an important milestone.)
Some people do believe that a sustainable, broadly integrated minimalist set of principles (like the construction code for building worldviews) can be developed. Moreover, these people truly want social change. Nevertheless, they still don’t see how something like the construction code can ever be implemented in the real world, i.e., turned into a plan that can realistically be put into action within society.
So, there are people who genuinely want a society in which everyone’s values can be realized, but they do not see how such a society could ever come about. If you are one of these people, I would ask you to imagine that you are part of a politically powerful group. Imagine that it is the most politically powerful group within your society. This group is effective at getting their plans implemented. If at that point, you and your entire group really want a specific change and you all have a workable plan and you all agree on how to put into practice, then it won’t be easy for others to stop the plan from becoming a reality.
There are three things that should be sufficient to achieve sustainable social improvement given the current situation (a situation that is contingent on political, economic, geographic, ecological, and other factors):
(1) a significant increase in many individuals’ motivation to bring about true social improvement.
NOTE: as much as possible, this should be true motivation, in that the individuals really want social improvement for its own sake and are not “tuned out” of what’s happening or motivated by other concerns more than by true social change motivation.
(2) a sustainable policy for social improvement based on a broadly integrative set of principles (like continually working on and adhering to a construction code that the worldviews of the members of one’s community should adhere to)
(3) a significant increase in many individuals’ self-perceived and actual collective power (i.e., the power to implement a social policy).
To bring about this triple threat, intellectual and emotional empathy are needed more than anything else. This empathy is needed for true social change motivation and will be important in framing the construction code. The construction code makes possible mutually compatible worldviews. These integrative worldviews are likely to increase the number of supporters as well as of those ruling elite who are sympathetic to the construction code approach. At that point, if the conditions are otherwise propitious, a sustainable minimalist policy for social improvement based on the worldview construction code can be proposed.
However, even if there are large numbers of people who are motivated to bring about sustainable social change, they will almost certainly need to participate in some kind of learning program (not necessarily formal education) in order to raise their awareness of their existing collective power and to harness this power. (The majority of the populace do not fully recognize their current collective power much less their potential collective power.)
Ideally, people would have the opportunity to learn to swim in the shallow end of the pool (i.e., informal and formal education and training) before trying out the deep end (i.e., real-world political experience). As more people improve their collective political abilities as well as their awareness of this improvement, there will be an increasing number of people to provide guidance to less advanced and/or newer people. But eventually, even the advanced people will need to participate in either mainstream politics or other political action if there is to be real change.
Both self-perceived and actual collective power, or effectiveness, increase as change is brought about. As effectiveness increases, there will be more change. It will be an “upward spiral” to counteract the “downward spiral” of ingroup-outgroup conflict. This entire endeavor will take monumental effort. The transformation will not take place everywhere and at once. It is like changing a tire: don’t take off one lug nut at a time and then take off the next one. Instead, loosen one a little, then the next one a little, then the next one, in round-robin fashion. As the construction code becomes more viable, the motivation will become greater and more widespread; with greater numbers, collective effectiveness will increase; there will then be more people and energy to improve the construction code; and so on.
So, in conclusion, this manifesto proposes that people who get along with each other should form a small group to work on creating the construction code. The group—call it a studio—might also work on developing a worldview or set of worldviews, each of which accords with the construction code. In addition, you could try to communicate this notion of a construction code to others. This could be your wider circle of friends, loved ones, and so on, or, as described in the compartmentalizing, preventionist approach above, these people could be those you don’t like so much: members of your outgroup.
Postscript
In the best case scenario, you would have th ese discussions with the optimal members of your outgroup. For those of you who are computer programmers, in order to form the optimal outgroup for each person, it would be great to have an online social matching program, something like a dating application that matches you with people who are compatible with your interests. Except that this would be an optimal incompatibility matching program, i.e., the worldview of each of the outgroup members would be optimally divergent from the studio member’s own worldview. There could be one studio member to every four or so outgroup members, each of whom has the studio member’s respect. (The outgroup could include any number of people, but there is research that indicates five is a good number for groupwork.)
As part of this process, the studio would give an online or face-to-face presentation to the combined group of four or so optimal outgroup members. The studio would offer a presentation of their attempted construction code and also possibly the worldviews based on the construction code attempts. So, for example, if there are three studio members, the studio would give a presentation to all three outgroups. The twelve members that compose the three outgroups (four members in each of the three outgroups) would play the role of a “jury of critics” to provide feedback on the studio’s presentation.
In some cases, you and your studio members might have to go back to the drawing board after receiving criticisms. If your worldview changes and you are able to accommodate the optimal outgroups’ views, you could be matched with a new set of four other people who respectfully challenge the work your studio writes up, puts together, designs, or otherwise develops.
Closing Thought
Nobody said life is fair. But then again, nobody said it couldn’t be. In other words, life could be made more fair.