I protest.

Patterns of perception.

In "Racism, or, Why they don't understand us," Prometheus 6 suggests an experiment in which one approaches ten random people for a noun of their choice, then, later, approach any number of others and have them divide those nouns into two categories by whatever quality they wish. Earl suggests this experiment to point out the fact that every person asked to categorize the words was able to do so, despite the fact that none of the nouns had any a priori relationship to any of the others.

As Earl indicates, intelligence "finds or creates patterns in events and memories." (Emphasis mine.) I would go further and say that we can find patterns in anything, even in random noise. Our brains have evolved to be very, very good at finding patterns; this pattern-matching touches everything from recognizing the faces of our loved ones (face-recognition is something that we are particularly good at) to noticing the relationship between the seasons and the positions of the stars.

Earl takes this process a step further, though, and asks,

… what if you and I, the people who are trying to figure out why something that affected both of us happened, had no significant experiences in common?

He suggests that although both of us would come up with an explanation, those explanations may well be very different.

And if our explanation is used to determine our response to the event, what are the chances that we'll find ourselves at odds?

Earl asserts that we "always find a reason for things that fits into our knowledge," whether or not that reason is objectively accurate and that to find the truth, that knowledge must be as complete as possible. Further, we cannot rely only on our own perspective, since it is by definition biased. He concludes,

… justice requires the recognition of absolute values and relative knowledge, with the most relative knowledge being that which we claim for our own.

Although I disagree somewhat with his concept of "absolute" values, this is nonetheless a very interesting insight. The very basis of our differences may be in our adeptness at pattern-matching. While we have an inherent ability to recognize many kinds of patterns, other, more abstract patterns we only recognize based upon our experience. Individuals vary in their experiences, and groups can vary much more. The experience of an Iraqi Sunni muslim, for example, is quite different from a wealthy Texas born-again Christian. Despite the fact that they see the same events, they find in them completely different patterns. If they don't realize this difference and allow for it, chances are that they will not be able to communicate effectively, or perhaps not at all.

Perhaps "culture" is, in a way, the sum of the experience of a large group of people? The basic commonality they share and the unspoken agreement they have reached based upon their shared experience? I have had to learn that my Chinese wife sees the behavior of others in a very different way than I do, since to her those behaviors are part of a pattern of relationship and interpersonal hierarchy that is not at all a part of my world. That pattern, however, is a part of Chinese society, a very important part.

So a full understanding of these differences is not only important if we want to find the truth of a thing but also if we want to communicate about that thing. Without that understanding, it may not even be possible for us to agree as to the existence and nature of the thing in the first place.

An interesting insight.

UPDATE: Earl fixed his permalink so I added it and removed the (incorrect) date reference.