A thought on a few core ideas.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

It's the Garbage-In-Garbage-Out effect. Most people are predictable because they live predictable lives and believe predictable things. Their world is predictable, so they behave in a way that fits that world.

The All-is-Chaos view is essentially useless on its own, since it basically negates the use of analysis and pattern-recognition. If you assume everything to be chaotic and meaningless, then you won't be able to make much sense of things.

The useful (IMHO) outlook is rather to recognize the chaos that exists in a system (or among systems) as well as the predicable nature of the systems in question. That allows you to make useful predictions and draw useful conclusions about events and circumstances, from a wider range of situations than you would have access to if you subscribed solely to a single Aneristic system. It also allows you to deal with the unexpected by making room for chaos before something unexpected happens.

[Honey]

making room for chaos

I really like these words.  I like all the other words too but making room for chaos, for me, seems to grab the basic meaning of everything else (& is that vague enough?)

If you want people to "get" an idea, metaphors & stories really work for me I'm thinking.  Involving as many of the senses as you possibly can also works too.  You can see this happen with people.  Tell them something, then involve one of their senses, then just watch them.  Many times you will see people look up a little (often their eyes wander either to the right or left as they look up).  They are remembering something.  You may have triggered a past memory & now they are there!  Not even with you anymore.  Then, when they come back, they usually tell you a story.

The words, making room for chaos, for me, did just that.  I'm gone.  The associations include memories of when all I wanted from a situation was space (& not a lot to ask I'm thinking, so much of what is, is just space)  & freedom to think & to have the time to do it in.  To be able to slow down time so I could make a choice or a decision or even just giving me enough room to escape.  I've had experiences where time seemed to slow down.  These experiences were not drug induced.  I'm also not sure how they were induced.

Perhaps some of you have had these experiences too?  Several times it's happened to me while driving.  I mostly drive in very busy places.  Most times the driving part is pretty much automatic on my part, automatic responses to the signals of the road.  Sometimes tho something odd will happen while driving that is completely unexpected & out of my control.  Another driver or drivers will do something that very definitely should cause an accident involving my car.  Something kicks in then.  It is as if I see it coming.  Time seems to slow down for several (I dunno what measurement or length of time to say here) & then seems to speed up for several (again I dunno what length of time to say here). Immediately after I am able to recapture what just happened.  While time seemed to slow, my mind picked up on what was happening.  Then, while time seemed to speed up, my body did what it needed to do to avoid the accident.  Then, after, time returns to I guess what you would say, is the normal perception of the passage of time.

This is an easy example to explain even though I may not have done such a good job describing.  The other experiences I've had, similar to the 1 described, are not so easy to describe but involve the same kind of process or mechanism or whatever.  I don't know how to do it "at will" although I've tried different ways & they sometimes work but not consistently. 

Are order and disorder illusions?  Yes, imho they are useful illusions.

Is human behavior on a large scale essentially predictable?  If you could understand what is happening in the present perfectly or even essentially, imho, you could probably predict essentially what would happen in the near future.  There are so many variables tho (some essential & some non-essential to whatever goal it is you're trying to make sense of).  & we all have blind spots which prevent us from seeing the essential parts of what is happening all around us.  Even with peripheral vision.  Is this a human limitation?  Is it related to the way we perceive & yes experience time?  Is there a way to alter the perception of how we experience time?  Is there a way to alter how we experience time?  I know research has been done in these areas.  I try to verify findings whenever I can.     

[Cainad (dec.)]

Order and disorder are useful illusions because I just thought of an analogy (and we all know that if you can make a clever enough analogy, it must be true).

Does anyone remember those murder-mystery games that would include a little booklet with the story and the solution would be "hidden" behind a bunch of squiggly red dots? You couldn't read the solution unless you looked at it through the red-tinted glasses, because the mess of red and white made the text nearly impossible to read.

Sometimes, we need to look at the world through a tinted lens, to filter out the noise and make the signal clearer. The trick is remembering when to take the lenses off.

[Valerie - Gone]

Order and disorder are useful illusions because I just thought of an analogy (and we all know that if you can make a clever enough analogy, it must be true).

Does anyone remember those murder-mystery games that would include a little booklet with the story and the solution would be "hidden" behind a bunch of squiggly red dots? You couldn't read the solution unless you looked at it through the red-tinted glasses, because the mess of red and white made the text nearly impossible to read.

Sometimes, we need to look at the world through a tinted lens, to filter out the noise and make the signal clearer. The trick is remembering when to take the lenses off.

I like your analogy, though I don't know those games. The game that came to my mind was the Jumanji game. But that's neither here nor there. It also made me think of the phrase "looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses". People who wear those don't generally know they wear them, though, so they cannot take them off. Those glasses have to be ripped off.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

 it's like the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz - the city is green, because everyone wears green glasses. it's absurd to suggest that the city isn't really green. the evidence is right there in front of their eyes, as far as they're concerned. most people look at the world through fear-tinted glasses, and they're justified in wearing them, after all they believe the realities they subscribe to are absolute, and there are real consequences in those realities for removing your spectacles.

once you realize that there's nothing fundamentally, naturally requiring you to care about your dead-end job, it's hard to keep caring. but that doesn't stop you from wanting the material benefits that dead-end job can provide you. a lot of people get to that point and immediately turn back, because if you just up and walk away from your bullshit responsibilities, nobody will give you a line of credit to live the life you think you deserve to live.

the biggest and strongest bars in the BIP aren't what you beleive about other people or how you think the world works, they are aspirations and fantasies about where you think you're going. most of that depends on your acceptance of the daily-grind game. maybe that would translate in this metaphor to the shackles that keep you from ever getting as far as the actual bars of your cell in the first place.

[Cain]

Why are people predictable is the basic question we are grappling with here, right?

If we accept the proposition that the brain, while containing a certain amount of hardwiring, also has some software ie; reprogrammable segments (through repitition, deprivation, drugs etc).

The hardwiring would tell us the limits of the software programming.  It seems that inbetween those limits there is a wide amount of variation.  For example, two humans.  One fearlessly sacrafices itself for the good of its tribe, in accordance with its customs.  The other, is an abject coward who is willing to kill its own children for its own continued survival.  Same species, radically different worldviews.

The programming, therefore, seems to be fairly flexible.  While some people, such as Pinker, have made a case for there being something akin to human nature, it is weak and limited.

So we can look at the programming.  Cultural, sociological and personal factors are all going to have impacts.  Like Vex stated, GI-GO.  The more homogenized the inputs are, the closer in terms of worldview and identity people are going to become.  In the past, this was limited at the more cultural level by a lack of mass media.  Today, this may be offset by the ability to mostly choose your own media.  But by and large, people have the same experiences.  They go to the same sort of schools, learn the same sort of things from similarly trained teachers, before going to the same sort of homes to eat the same sort of dinners while watching the same sort of shows.

The inputs are the same.  The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.

[LMNO]

Cain's got hold of something here.  I think I'll try pulling on it tomorrow.

[singer]

The inputs are the same.  The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.

In either event the input changes will work more reliably on younger systems.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Why are people predictable is the basic question we are grappling with here, right?

If we accept the proposition that the brain, while containing a certain amount of hardwiring, also has some software ie; reprogrammable segments (through repitition, deprivation, drugs etc).

The hardwiring would tell us the limits of the software programming.  It seems that inbetween those limits there is a wide amount of variation.  For example, two humans.  One fearlessly sacrafices itself for the good of its tribe, in accordance with its customs.  The other, is an abject coward who is willing to kill its own children for its own continued survival.  Same species, radically different worldviews.

The programming, therefore, seems to be fairly flexible.  While some people, such as Pinker, have made a case for there being something akin to human nature, it is weak and limited.

So we can look at the programming.  Cultural, sociological and personal factors are all going to have impacts.  Like Vex stated, GI-GO.  The more homogenized the inputs are, the closer in terms of worldview and identity people are going to become.  In the past, this was limited at the more cultural level by a lack of mass media.  Today, this may be offset by the ability to mostly choose your own media.  But by and large, people have the same experiences.  They go to the same sort of schools, learn the same sort of things from similarly trained teachers, before going to the same sort of homes to eat the same sort of dinners while watching the same sort of shows.

The inputs are the same.  The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.

Indeed, also, the rise of mass media has made it commonplace for all of us to see people that have different tribal views... and the monkey hates them.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The inputs are the same.  The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.

In either event the input changes will work more reliably on younger systems.

I demand you make a post in the introductions fread, this instant! 

[Adios]

The inputs are the same.  The only chance they have for differentiation is to either change the inputs, or hope they get some decent personal ones, from family and close friends.

In either event the input changes will work more reliably on younger systems.

I demand you make a post in the introductions fread, this instant! 

singer is O.K.

[LMNO]

It also seems that while the choices narrow, the perception of choice expands.

A grocery isle with 20 brands of cereal.  Ingredients: corn, sugar.

Our choices today consist of cosmetic things.  We think we are different because my T-shirt says Adidas, and yours says Nike.

Meanwhile, the fundamental choices we can make have become limited through various social, political, and economic means.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Truth. For example - how many times have you been at a lower-end department store looking for a shirt or something, and finding nothing because everything has to have some logo or advertisement or one-liner all over it? I know that happens to me quite a bit. People are generally "individuals" within an increasingly narrowing definition of what is acceptably unique.