The Triad Traits Problem
The problem is not specifically about triad traits — really any fairly common evil human behavior will do.
The problem is that we unfortunately cannot accept everyone; that would be so easy but the existence of evil in any form prohibits such a simple approach.
We are forced into simultaneously having to abhor and adopt an “us versus them” mentality.
This includes even our own thoughts — we must love ourselves but at the same time reject triad impulses to flex on, belittle and dominate others.
We must similarly reject irrational thinking and at the same time embrace some form of humanistic religion. This would be fairly simple except that undesirable traits are so common that every day is practically a triad trait parade.
The Hobbes vs Rousseau debate is played out over and over across all forms of media and Hobbes and Rousseau mostly disagree on whether the evil is innate or learned.
So one is forced to ask is the problem organized religion or just that most of our organized religion is so out of date? As children humans pass through a period of naivety where indoctrination is much easier. Are we over utilizing or under utilizing that window of opportunity?
Are we too “us versus them” or not enough?
Maybe it was reasonable at one time to hope that the wealth of technological innovation would remove the burden of making these decisions if we suffered triad trait fallout long enough. We can continue to wait but its more likely that technological innovation just increases the risks of coexisting with those that embrace negative traits.
Nor is it as simple as waiting for socialism or an end to capitalism or the fruition of any ism. The problem is not what economic system we choose; its that any system will be warped while psychopathy flourishes.
As difficult as #metoo or racism conversations are, these entire movements are only nibbling at the edges of confronting and dealing with human nature. We are sending justice canaries into a mine so vast that all of human history has barely lit a corner.
Take the problem of intelligence, humanity’s greatest weapon, and an immediate us versus them trap. We are socialized in school to form hierarchies around proxies for intelligence and then move into a workplace that continues some of these hierarchies.
There is no scientific basis for any measurement of intelligence and having the ability to measure or even define intelligence would likely make things much worse. The simplest approach would be to steer clear of all intelligence categorization.
However then we immediately hit the triad traits problem. People could easily remain willfully ignorant and uneducated if education were not applauded as good. Society could crumble.
Attempts to measure intelligence and reward education are probably causing much more harm than good. It establishes hierarchies of respect and causes people to doubt who is fully human and who is not.
Once you allow such hierarchies to flourish racism and misogyny can easily follow. People compete to get on top of the hierarchy and since measures of intelligence were unscientific to begin with might as well substitute nearly any us versus them categorization.
IE introducing any concept of a “better” human increases us versus them aggression but not introducing such a concept allows evil traits to flourish (surely murderers are worse humans). Is it a finger trap puzzle where relaxing and avoiding judgement of other humans is the solution or are we too permissive of bad behavior already?
Tying educational outcomes to financial outcomes is surely a recipe for disaster. First it turns schools into an us versus them jungle where every race and gender vies for an environment slanted in their favor.
Second educational outcomes are no better a tool than old fashioned lineage for determining human worth and in many cases academic success is reduced to a proxy for lineage anyway.
The primary purpose of education has transitioned from being responsible for stamping out triad traits to teaching winner takes all human worth competition. The former system educated everyone of faith to be equal under the rule of their class superiors and the latter instructs everyone to try to scholastically dominate one another.
Either way major educational systems teach that everyone is not equal and its just a matter of who is “us” and who is “them”. Does all social achievement require a “them”? Does the nature of achievement dictate that someone not achieve?
For instance could humanity live by achievements that almost everyone accomplishes? A hill that we all climb, a poem we all memorize, etc. — must we make that hill higher and higher and that poem longer and longer in order to achieve a sense of satisfaction? After choosing a sufficiently high hill must it be us versus them between top and not top?
We don’t know the answers to these questions but at the same time cavalierly use praise and shame as if there were not a high cost for using either. Inventing grades and then proclaiming some students are better than others is not something that should be done so casually.
Even praising great classical music, art and literature comes with a cost and, though it’s usually worth paying, we should be careful not to cross into the zero sum territory of cultural appreciation. At the same time how far can we go tip toeing around the egos of people whose sense of worth is solely dependent on promotion through hierarchy?
The first step is to at least be aware of us versus them triggers. Just cleaning up our language is a good start but won’t mean much if it remains acceptable to thoughtlessly apply us versus them throughout our economy, media, politics, schools and social circles.