Thread by @swardley

X : People who claim to have a monopoly on tolerance can be so intolerant.
Me : That can be perfectly reasonable. It is right to refuse to tolerate the intolerance of others. There is no place for bigotry, hatred and ignorance in society. These are not virtues.

... to tolerate such behaviour is to help normalise and agree to that which should be unacceptable. You cannot ignore it and you should not accept it.

X : There is no consistency, you can't be tolerant of some things, intolerant of others and claim to be tolerant especially when things which were once acceptable no longer are.
Me : Oh but you can. Let us take my map of culture and focus on the issue of values i.e. beliefs

Now let us expand those values. It's a pipeline of values (beliefs) which are evolving. Some that are now accepted and some which are still emerging.

That pipeline can be further expanded into its own map and the connections between values (beliefs) illustrated including beliefs which have so deeply accepted that they are often hidden from view.

Now, as a society we tolerate variability and differences in some beliefs which are still emerging. But we cannot tolerate variances in values (beliefs) that are accepted. They have become fundamental to our collective (be it family, church or nation state).

So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to be intolerant of bigotry because fairness and equality are accepted beliefs in our society. At the same time, it is perfectly reasonable to be tolerant of differences in beliefs around universal income because it is still emerging ...

... all of those beliefs evolve (within the collective) and some are even universal. So yes, some beliefs which we were once tolerant of, we become less tolerant of and that is perfectly reasonable as well.

What is unreasonable is to expect people to be tolerant of your views when they differ from what is accepted in society. Which is why we have laws, particularly negative rights to speech in the UK, to stop people doing this and causing offense to society as a whole.

This is why in UK it is perfectly reasonable & logical to be intolerant of bigotry, to tear down statues celebrating slavery but at the same time be tolerant of different views on other values. What has not been reasonable are far right racists claiming to be history protectors.

X : Where's the anchor?
Me : Further up the chain.

X : Values or practices?

Me : Values are things and qualities we consider as important as described by belief. They are statements of belief.

Principles are the rules by which we operate as described by action. They are statements of action.

Practices are how we do things.

X : I don't understand your culture map.
Me : That's ok, it's not ready yet. Do you use mapping?
X : No.
Me : Focus there. Gain situational awareness of your competitive landscape first. Ignore culture.
X : But culture is really important.
Me : Yes but people can't describe it.

X : Why does that matter?
Me : If you can't even describe the field you're exploring then everything is going to be stumbling in the dark. We've also no references or past points to learn from because we didn't even understand the past context.
X : But I read ...

Me : I've read many articles claiming this or that secret of success of culture but failing the test of time nor able to explain the context. In essence, you're on a ship, pulling levers, you have no idea where you're going nor whether you're on the bridge or in the engine room.

X : What about subcultures?
Me : The values are to the collective and socierty (a collective) consists of many collectives. But some values / beliefs will have become accepted in that society. Others are still evolving, subject to competition between collectives.

i.e. one collective has a belief which is accepted within it, another collective has an opposing belief ... in society (a collective of collectives) then that belief will still be evolving. Assuming, this is an exclusive belief. Many beliefs are not exclusive.

X : Not exclusive?
Me : Polar opposites in belief can be valid at the same. Take project management and the belief in "people over process" versus "process over people". Both are true depending upon the context.

X : This stuff is complex.
Me : Worse than that, it's complex, complicated, chaotic and simple all at the same time. Which is why I'm still working through culture. If it was easy then it would have been done long ago.

X : Any ideas when you'll be finished?
Me : No idea. At the moment I've edged open the door to look at culture through the use of a map. The problem with culture is language is part of it, so you can't describe culture using language .... hence the need for a map.

Using maps, it seems to be clear that context plays a huge role in culture (same with eocnomic systems) but if you can't map it, you can't see the context and you're limited to the political battleground of stories and narrative.

Which is probably why, as Kroeber pointed out that in hundreds years of study, anthropologists still can't agree on what culture is. If you're going to use langauge (i.e. stories) you will never explain culture ever ... 1,000 years, 100 years ... doesn't matter.

X : I don't see why not?
Me : Godel's incompleteness theorem. If language is part of the model of culture then good luck in trying to create a complete and accepted definition of culture using language. You'll have to go outside of language and stories to explain it.