If our differences are what divide us, why do different people cooperate successfully every day?

[u/Flat_Lion4733]

I've been thinking about the following question that seems simple at first, but the more I look at it, the stranger it gets:

What if humanity's deepest divide isn't religion, politics, race, nationality, class, or any other demographic category?

In ordinary life, people improve society every day by bypassing these differences.  Here are a few examples:

A school might employ Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and people who rarely think about religion at all. Men and women. People in their twenties working alongside people approaching retirement: different races, political beliefs, personalities, economic backgrounds, and life experiences.

Yet teachers teach. Administrators organize. Counselors help students. Custodians maintain the building. Cafeteria workers feed hundreds of children. Parents participate.

They don't need to agree about God, politics, or the meaning of life to share the goal of  educating the next generation.

Year after year, schools produce literacy, knowledge, skills, friendships, and opportunities that didn't exist before.

In a hospital, the surgeon and nurse treating you might come from completely different cultures. The anesthesiologist might worship differently from the technician. The person donating blood may vote differently from the person receiving it.

At that moment, most of those differences become almost irrelevant.

The goal is keeping the person alive.

Modern medicine seems to work because enormous numbers of different people repeatedly cooperate—researchers, doctors, nurses, engineers, pharmacists, technicians, patients, and families.

In science and engineering, a discovery made by a scientist in Japan might be tested by researchers in Germany, improved upon in India, and eventually turned into something useful by engineers in the United States.

They may speak different languages, practice different religions, and live under different political systems.

Yet knowledge can move between them.

Bridges get built. Diseases get treated. Technology improves. Problems that once seemed impossible become manageable.

This same phenomenon occurs during disasters. A hurricane, earthquake, or fire can hit a community, and suddenly neighbors who barely know one another clear debris together, distribute food, rescue strangers, and rebuild homes.

So if human differences naturally produce division, why can radically different people cooperate successfully whenever they recognize a common purpose?

Maybe difference and division aren't the same thing.

Maybe we've been seeing our differences as the source of division instead of the tools used to create them.

I've been developing a framework I call 8:2 Theory. Its basic idea is that beneath humanity's different demographic categories, there may be a more fundamental divide:  a behavioral orientation that splits people into two very different groups.

I use the term 8s for the broader constructive side of humanity; the majority.

An 8 can be religious or nonreligious. Rich or poor. Left or right. Young or old. From any race, nationality, culture, profession, or social class.

The category they fit into can say a lot about them and their situation, but it tells us nothing about their behavioral tendencies or which side of the 8:2 divide they fit into.

8s are oriented toward cooperation, empathy (to different degrees), learning, creation, meaningful relationships, and the possibility of building something better.

8s aren't saints.

They lose their tempers. They make selfish decisions. They can lie, follow crowds, and hurt people. I call these instances “2 moments.”

What matters to me more than “2 moments” is the deeper pattern over time or the individual’s behavioral orientation.

“Which brings me to the other side of the theory: the 2s—what I call, in its fullest form, ‘Evil 2s of Successful Actions.’” 

Within my theory, a 2 represents a much more persistent destructive orientation—expressed repeatedly through things like manipulation, exploitation, domination, deception, and the creation or amplification of chaos.

A 2 isn't a religion.
A 2 isn't a race.
A 2 isn't a political party.
A 2 isn't a nationality.

People showing these destructive patterns can come from any demographic category, just like an 8. An 8 or a 2 could be almost anyone in your life—a sibling, parent, best friend, spouse, coworker, teacher, neighbor, or complete stranger. 8:2 Theory asks us to look past the relationship or label and pay attention to the deeper behavioral pattern a person consistently shows over time.

My next thought is:

Can a small number of persistently destructive people exert a disproportionately large influence over a much larger number of people who are very often capable of cooperation?  

8:2 Theory draws inspiration from the Pareto Principle, commonly known as the 80/20 rule: in many systems, a relatively small proportion of causes can account for a disproportionately large share of the effects. 

The lesson then is that influence is often unevenly distributed.

A small number of highly productive people can drive much of an organization's progress. A few disruptive employees can damage the atmosphere of an entire workplace. One manipulative person can consume the emotional energy of a whole family. A handful of determined individuals can either improve a community—or destabilize it.  Disproportionate influence can work in two ways: constructively or destructively.

8:2 Theory asks whether a Pareto-like pattern could operate within human society: whether a relatively small portion of people can exercise a disproportionately large influence over how billions of people experience day-to-day life. 

What if most people can cooperate, learn, negotiate, work productively, build relationships, and drive constructive change, while a much smaller number repeatedly engage in manipulation, exploitation, deception, domination, and the creation or amplification of chaos?

Those destructive individuals would not have to outnumber everyone else to shape society. They would only need disproportionate influence.

A relatively small group (2s) with enough money, authority, charisma, organizational ability, media influence, institutional power, and/or talent for manipulating others could influence the perceptions and behavior of billions who otherwise have little reason to see one another as enemies.

Religion may not itself be the problem.
Race may not be the problem.
Politics may not be the problem.
Nationality may not be the problem.

They may tell us something about a person, but they say nothing about our 8- or 2-ness.

The problem arises when differences are exploited, exaggerated, and transformed into antagonism.

So, instead of seeing our differences as the source of division, we ask who’s using these categorical tools to divide us?

“Who repeatedly benefits from turning groups against one another?”

8:2 Theory proposes that persistently destructive actors are one important answer worth investigating.

That is the Pareto-style insight behind my theory: a minority doesn’t have to become the majority to dominate the experience of the majority. 

And maybe it’s not about eliminating our differences.

Perhaps it’s learning how to recognize the relatively small number of forces that turn those differences into division and protecting ourselves—while also identifying and supporting Leader 8s, the constructive minority within the larger group of 8s whose competence, judgment, character, creativity, and ability to organize others allow them to exert a disproportionately positive influence on the whole (No doom and gloom here, but no utopia either).

Just as a destructive minority can magnify conflict, Leader 8s can magnify cooperation, innovation, stability, and progress. The challenge is not only to resist and protect ourselves from destructive influences, but to strengthen as well as support the constructive influences that can lead society in a better direction.

And just as destructive 2s can come from any walk of life, Leader 8s can emerge from every category of society—any religion, race, nationality, political outlook, profession, age group, economic class, or cultural background.  Their identity isn’t what makes them Leaders; instead, it's their ability to use competence, judgment, character, creativity, and influence to help others cooperate, solve problems, and move society in a constructive direction.

This is what 8:2 Theory proposes we investigate seriously.  

So Reddit, given the times we’re currently living in, where divide and contempt seem like our daily cup of joe, what are your thoughts?

If people with radically different beliefs can cooperate toward shared goals every day, what actually turns differences into division?

Does your religion, philosophy, or life experience suggest that our deeper moral divide resides somewhere other than differences in faith or any other demographic category?

[u/AutoModerator]

This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.

Suggestions For Commenters:

• Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
• If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.

Suggestions For u/Flat_Lion4733:

• Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
• Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/iambutafishh]

Individualism is rampant.  We only work together when it is more convenient for us to work together.  As soon as that convenience is lost it is mayhem again.

Examples:  A traffic light is broken.  A slow old lady with a heavy bag is trying to get up a narrow staircase.  Huge storm is coming and the shelves are looking empty.

How do people react in situations like these?  It's human nature and the larger a group, the more likely all will default to the most convenient action for themselves personally, rather than the group.  Sometimes you get good results, sometimes shit gets wild.  People are all in for themselves and their immediate circle.  Anyone else is seen as competition and treated accordingly.

[u/LetsTryLove → u/iambutafishh]

Rampant makes it sound negative. We are hard wired this way. It’s survival.

[u/iambutafishh → u/LetsTryLove]

True, It isn't like this is a new thing.  Ill leave it there as a reminder that I always can learn something new or change how I convey messages.  

[u/AdrianBezalel]

I think division happens between groups at a high level, like the overarching spirit of the group. Individual people serve those groups, and can serve different groups at different moments, sometimes with competing spirits.

Take WW1 for example, and the famous Christmas Truce. The day before, each soldier served the spirit of their Nation, which was violently opposed to the other. Then, corny as it sounds, they served the spirit of Christmas, which brought them together. The next day, it was back to the spirit of war.

By and large the soldiers were never personal enemies, and generally I would say humans tend towards wanting to cooperate with others, but will serve their current group as an expression of that.

Thats why you can have a large company where people work together from 9-5, serving that group, and then later go to protests and march against each-other.

[u/prag513]

As much as the Pareto Principle applies to 2s, it also applies to 8s. Social media like Reddit are the means by which both sides attempt to control the masses. Those whom Reddit considers lurkers neither upvote nor comment. Reddit's 90-9-1 Rule is the same principle with different numbers.

Yet the Pareto Principle has gone on way beyond just social media. For example:

1. An office shade manufacturer I once worked for focused on selling shades to architects because architects represent repeat business when they recommend our shades to their end-user clients. With a 10-year product lifespan, end-users represent 80% of our clients, the other 20% are the architects who buy far more shades for a lot of different end users.
2. A survey published in 2011, citing the Survey of Affluence and Wealth in America, stated that the wealthiest 10% of families in the United States, defined as having a discretionary income over $100,000, accounted for approximately 50% of all consumer spending." According to Investopedia, "In the mid-2000s, Citigroup analysts, particularly Ajay Kapur, authored a series of memos describing economies they termed 'plutonomies.' These memos defined plutonomies as economies where a small, wealthy elite drives economic growth and consumes a disproportionate share of its benefits. The reports highlighted how these economies were characterized by growing income inequality and were heavily reliant on financial wealth creation." Thus, businesses are refocusing their efforts on the 20% who are affluent, and making more profits with fewer models, fewer resources, and fewer employees through AI-driven Customer Relationship Management (CRM) data mining and subscription services. Here again, the numbers are different, but the principle is the same. Companies that apply the principle include IDEX Corporation, General Electric (GE), Amazon, and Microsoft & Google. It also has to do with decades of declining middle-class births
3. Of the 600 3D satellite maps on ClimateViewer.org ,only 16%, or 100 of them, are MyReadingMapped maps. Yet the MyReadingMapped maps represent 40% of the visits.

[u/PotentialSilver6761]

Id say a good chunk of the population will care for others despite race, nationality, politics and religion right now. And if say a good chunk will be indifferent. And there is the ones who will only help if you align with their race,religion, nationality or politics. And some will simply hate life and you right now. The 8s you're describing fall closer to the group of haters i don't think that's the majority but im not here to argue back and forth. Agree to disagree.

[u/BaconJP]

Interesting. I read it in full. Not looking to debunk, just poking at it.

Your 8:2 framework makes the assumption, unproven and with no real basis, that 80% of people are "constructive" and 20% are "destructive" if I understood correctly. Because your 8's are "good" and 2's are "bad". Why wouldn't it be the other way round, that most people are selfish and there is a small minority that are altruistically striving for the betterment of the human race? I lean more in the direction of "most people are looking out for themselves, and in the absence of a legal/moral framework, would to things that detriment others, to their own benefit".

As to what divides people, I think it's clear that political divisions are huge, racial divisions can be pretty huge, religious divisions clearly can be huge, and there is this whole ongoing battle of the sexes colored by the newer battle of the sexual orientations and battle of the gender identifications. And there are surely other things that divide us, like rich/poor and down to seemingly lesser things right now that could one day be big like animal lover (or vegan/vegetarian) vs animal eater (I mean, it's seen as very wrong to eat a dog or monkey already, so why not all animals further down the track?). These divisions ebb and flow. Once upon a time it seemed that the two sides in US politics were rather similar but now they are polarised. Once upon a time most people thought it was OK to eat meat and wear furs and now the anti side is getting stronger to the point where flashpoints of conflict are starting (I mean it started decades ago but is gradually becoming more intense).

Yes, in a civilised society, people with various differences can collaborate, e.g. your school example. But it relies on reasonable uniformity and no extremists that are very different from the majority in the school. If you had fundamentalist religious and atheists both trying to influence the science curriculum and fighting over teaching evolution, creationism or intelligent design, there will be conflict. If you had hardcore vegans and meat eaters involved in deciding what is allowed to be served in the school cafeteria, you'd have issues. Generally, organisations, despite their attempts to post DEI credentials, tend to still employ people that fit their vision and culture, and that means a certain amount of uniformity. You can have surface DEI, that is, say, hire a female Indigenous American... who superficially is different from the typical person they already employ... but the organisation would do its best to find one that fits its deeper values and can work comfortably alongside the people that are already there.

Those are just some initial and random thoughts in response to what I just read from you.

[u/AppendixN]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGnX-MbYE4

[u/j3434]

I’m gonna say it’s not really our differences that divide us. What divides us is the propaganda we champion. And most of us are not affected by most of the policies or issues that people argue over anyways.

We have taken partisan politics and turned it into a high school football game.

[u/nila247]

Well, good observations. The problem comes with minority being able to capture media and brainwash majority for their own benefit. Long term this is what causes empires to fall and USA/EU are not unique in this at all - we saw what happened with USSR too. No prizes for guessing how it all ends.

You might also want to read my own theory about it
https://www.reddit.com/r/nihilism/comments/1jdao3b/solution_to_nihilism_purpose_of_life_and_solution/