What is your paradigm? Are you WEIRD?
I have been writing for quite some time about how the paradigm of the Western/Modern world is its own world. It bases all of its knowledge off of this platform, how can it not. Its sciences are based upon this. The blindness of its people is only due to this. It is like water and there is no comprehension or awareness of it to the fish that swims in it.
Wikipedia is based off of consensus. It is not based off of truth of anything. What is the belief of the masses. And the masses go to it as if it is correct knowledge.
If you are from a culture that is based off the material world, the eternal, a sociopathic society, based in subjective importance and self absorption, what is the baseline for normalcy? Where is that line drawn.
I am reminded of a quote from Jiddu Krishnamurti: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
Western medical science continues has lowered the bar as to what is considered healthy. According to the CDC, two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. (notice both of these links have in use the BMI calculations. More on that in a second) Now that the average body weight average is higher than what it was when most of us were kids, the perception of what’s normal is also changed. The average American is 23 pounds heavier than his or her ideal body weight. If we equate “normal” with average, it’s normal to be fat.
BMI (body mass index) which is the basis of what western medical science employs to tell if one is considered obese or not is not only a wrong way to look at health and they also have changed what the “normal” is.
It was changed in 1998. Prior to 1998, the old criteria, the average woman — with a height of 5 feet, 4 inches (1.6 meters) and weighing 155 pounds (70 kilograms) — was considered overweight.
Under the new definition post 1998, that weight drops to 145 pounds (66 kg). A person at the same height who weighs 175 pounds (79 kg) would be considered obese.
Someone who is 5 feet, 10 inches (1.8 meters) tall and weighs 185 pounds (83 kg) was considered overweight under the old guidelines. Now, for the same height, 175 pounds (79 kg) is overweight and 209 pounds (94 kg) is obese.
This is the normal absurdity of the Western world. The calculation is for height and weight which does not take into consideration what ones weight is made of at all. If some one is 15% body fat of 68% body fat, it does not matter. Their weight remains the same.
Then guidelines are created from this. Absurd. and if you do not care to be educated or knowledgeable, all you get in the trickle down is the superficial information in that paradigm and then life is based upon that. This is that rock dropped into the still pond and the ripples that are created by it. The entire paradigm is then based upon this.
The research article below is a good explanation of this in the world of psychology and how it is based upon a paradigm and also how the Western paradigm has created its own markers based in itself.There is much more out there that does not fit the paradigm. The “normal” thought is of anything that does not fit the paradigm is wrong, but this is not the case. Without knowing the paradigm that anything comes from one is blinded from the knowledge of that paradigm and one is limited to their own view only.
The following article starts out with the story of an aboriginal tribe’s rite of passage for a boy. From a Western view this looks absurd but without comprehension of the paradigm does one have any validity in judging it or even speaking of it? Anything they will say is based upon their own paradigm. And what is their paradigm?
Abstract: Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world’s top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers—often implicitly—assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these “standard subjects” are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species—frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior—hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.