Introduction: Seeing Patterns, Not Essences
In the previous post, we introduced the idea that human nature is not a static essence but a set of sedimented relational patterns. Now we examine a frequent cognitive trap: when regularities are misread as intrinsic traits, they are reified, giving the false impression of necessity.
Understanding this distinction is crucial for maintaining explanation that is oriented rather than closed.
1. Regularity: What Actually Occurs
Patterns of behaviour, coordination, and preference often appear stable across individuals or populations. These are regularities:
they emerge from repeated interaction,
they persist because of relational reinforcement,
they reflect distributions and frequencies, not intrinsic necessity.
Recognising them as patterns keeps explanation grounded in observation rather than assumption.
2. Reification: When Patterns Become Traits
Reification occurs when regularities are described as inner, fixed traits:
a behaviour is “part of human nature,”
a capacity is “hardwired,”
a preference is “inherent.”
This move feels explanatory because it internalises and stabilises patterns. But it erases the relational and contingent processes that actually produce the pattern.
3. Why Reification Feels Satisfying
Reification satisfies several explanatory instincts:
it makes prediction seem simple,
it creates a sense of inevitability,
it anchors complex, distributed phenomena in a single locus.
These comforts, however, are illusions. They replace understanding with appearance.
4. From Sedimented Patterns to Relational Insight
By distinguishing regularity from reification, we can see human nature as emergent from relational processes:
patterns exist without intrinsic traits,
variation is intelligible without invoking essence,
explanation stays responsive rather than prematurely closed.
This shift preserves the explanatory power of recognising continuity while avoiding the pitfalls of essentialism.
Conclusion: Reading Human Nature Carefully
Recognising the difference between regularity and reification allows us to:
interpret patterns as relational and contingent,
resist the seduction of essentialist explanations,
maintain an open inquiry that can handle variation, plasticity, and coordination.
The next post will explore Population Statistics vs Individual Ontology, showing how averaging across distributions often disguises the ontological realities of individual existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment