Think like a Heretic
The tree shapes the forest
... as the forest shapes the tree.
The macro affects the micro. Or is it the other way 'round?
Both are true in various cases, to various degrees. But what if we generally assume one over the other?
Those who assume the macro is the driving force, which runs roughshod over the micro as a matter of routine, exhibit a deterministic worldview:
The past has momentum and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
Those who assume the micro is the driving force, since the macro is simply an aggregate of the micro, enjoy a more empowering worldview:
It is probably unhealthy to swing too dramatically in either direction. Going full macro will blind you to any purpose in being. Going full micro will have you watching "The Secret" on repeat.
But we're human. We will adopt one assumption as our favoured pet and receive plenty of confirmation bias in return — whichever we choose. So, which side is it healthier to err on?
If you can agree that both affect each other to any degree, it is evident the worldview which places an emphasis on your own capabilities is healthier. Not only for yourself (the micro), but for the world at large (the macro).
The heretic is far less likely to put up with abuse, no matter how institutionalized, if he understands that micro refusals make all the difference eventually.
But he is far more likely to "know his place" and comply to get along if he assumes the micro refusal, the short essay, the poignant comment will go unnoticed, or even if it is noticed, not add up to anything in the end.
Which tendency do you suppose is healthier?
The heretic's choice is obvious.
Further reading:
- Fractals, e.g. Mandelbrot Set
- Alan Watts - Living in the present (boat analogy)