The Territory and the Map: Personal Edition ~ by Ransom

Consider a pile of sand, a good-sized pile. Now remove a single grain. Is it still a pile? Yes. Remove another and another. The pile of sand continues to be a pile of sand; removing a single grain does nothing to change its “pile-ness.” As the number of grains dwindle you will eventually discover that it is no longer a pile. At which point did it cease to be a pile? How could the removal of a single grain make that difference?

Now look at it from the opposite side; deposit grains of sand one by one where they did not exist. One grain is not a pile. Two grains, three grains, four grains do not make a pile. Keep adding sand one grain at a time and you will find yourself with a pile of sand. At which point did it become a pile? Did the addition of a single grain change it from a not-pile to a pile? How can this be?

The human mind is a busy thing, creating ideas & forms and projecting them outward to make sense of the physical world. Though our minds deal most comfortably in perfect abstractions it is useful to understand that these are overlays pushed onto the world and not generally extant in the world itself.

The Territory and the Map

A term that expresses this distinction is “the territory and the map,” where the territory is the world itself and the map is the model of the world carried about in your head. While the map may be useful it is not perfect. Appreciating the differences between the territory and the map may guard you against certain mistakes and open your mind to a more useful understanding of yourself and your situation.

What is the solution to the paradox of the pile of sand? It is this; a “pile” is an evaluation inside our heads, and not a property of the universe itself. The universe knows atoms, molecules, and forces. The mind looks out and perceives that something comfortably fits its idea of “pile.” As grains of sand are removed, the correspondence of concept to physical reality approaches a boundary condition past which the mind can no longer comfortably sustain the idea of “pile.” The universe itself knows nothing of piles and never will.

As another example consider a mountain and a hill. Make a hill large enough and it is no longer a hill but a mountain. At what height does that change occur? Can a mountain be so short that shaving a single atom demotes it to the condition of a hill? This is nonsense, but why?

It is nonsense because a hill and a mountain are concepts that the mind overlays upon the world just as it overlays the idea of a pile. A mass of stone and earth satisfies the mind's concept of a hill so it is called a hill. A larger mass satisfies the concept of a mountain. The universe possesses the concept of neither.

This is not to say that the universe has no form. Mathematics is pure concept and the universe seems pervasively obedient to physics. Still, the mind runs on ideal forms to a far greater extent than does the physical universe in which we live.

Breakdown

We rarely run into those boundary conditions where perceptions consciously break down. We have many strategies to avoid it. Observing little and thinking little does the trick for many. We have so many concepts that where one is tenuous others are easily satisfied (“Is it a fish or a mammal?” “It's a marine vertebrate.”). Once we ascribe a concept to our perception we will comfortably ride it well past its best use (confirmation bias).

In addition to projecting forms upon the formless we also perceive one thing to be another. An object designed to satisfy one form can serve to satisfy another, one the designer neither intended nor conceived. One example of this is parkour, where the map of possible movement in the constructed environment is changed by using different concepts of movement.

A thing may be perceived differently depending on the perceiver. To a town, a river may be a boundary. To a car, an obstacle; to a fisherman, entertainment; to a boat, passage. How it is perceived is determined by its function for the perceiver. The river just does its thing and pays no notice.

Now, turn the concept of the territory and the map inward from the physical universe to yourself. Your mind contains a map of you, a set of beliefs and expectations about who you are and what you can do. Just as your map of the physical world is simplified and idealized, with a loss of perhaps critical information, your map of yourself is optimized for speed and comfort rather than detail or fidelity.

Let us explore some of these mapping errors.

Bending the Map

Bending the Map is a common mistake where one's perception of the world is inappropriately constructed in order to sustain the perception of a desired outcome. The term originates from actual map reading where discrepancies between geographical features and the map are dismissed by backpackers or navigators from the desire to /feel/ that they are in the correct (or at least identifiable) location. “The river must have eroded since the map was made.” “There must be an iron deposit nearby that's distorting the magnetic field.” “The motion of the seas must have affected my reading of that island over there.”

Just as we misrepresent the outside world for our (almost certainly short-term) relief, so also we misrepresent ourselves. This may be described as a top category of mapping errors because many others proceed from this.

The term “bending the map” is somewhat deceptive when used to describe self-perception because it suggests we are working with an existing, correct document. Rather, we construct the maps as we go through our lives and our cartography is often influenced by wishful thinking.

Sufficiently Flexible (Mis)Perception

A bogus map that works well enough for the person under the circumstances. This is the equivalent of a paper map covered with the words “stuff,” and “things.” This is true but not useful for navigation.

Vagueness and ambiguity spares a man from discovering unpleasant things about himself during introspection but deprives him of the long-term benefits of accuracy & true-seeing. With a map like this he is not likely to notice the deficit but there it is none-the-less.

Misunderstood Traits

A trait that appears to be one thing under the tight constraints of normal life but turns out to be something else under different circumstances.

Most day hikers are quite friendly when passing on the trail. I think this is partially due to the narrow trail imposing an unusual proximity between hikers. The friendliness is a subconscious & reasonable response to a proximity that might otherwise excite fight-or-flight instincts. Passing the same people on a sidewalk might scarcely result in a nod.

Here Be Dragons

Similar to the above, attributing traits to oneself in areas of life that have not yet been experienced. It is easy to claim – or believe – one's courage in an exceptional circumstance that has not taken place. In such a case a man enjoys the the perception of a trait without the cost of living it. Such virtues are cheap, and worth the price.

Education

Some education only creates beliefs without building the underlying structure to make those beliefs true.

In some cases, such as affirmations, the belief may be used to create the structure. In others, not so much. The ability to identify logical fallacies may lead a man to believe he values and practices logic, but unless it is incorporated into his daily life it's just a warm and fuzzy fiction.

Solutions

There are no solutions to these things in the sense that learning information does nothing; it can change the map but not the territory. The only way to reconcile the map with the territory is to strike out and explore the territory itself.

This is not an easy thing. Our wills and decisions do not exist in isolation from our desires and beliefs. The most serious errors in our maps are there because we want them there, because we on some level need them there. The big lessons & truths are often brought to us against our will in circumstances not of our choosing.

Even the big lessons can be incomplete or lead to an incorrect conclusion. Like science, much of self-knowledge is the shedding of self-deception, verifying negative statements more often than positive ones. Making a perfect map is an impossible task; reducing errors is achievable.

While I cannot give you a series of steps to follow, I can present some of the circumstances in which the process can happen in the hope that awareness may help you make the right decision at the right time.

Pride yourself on ignorance. You need to be proud of something so why not make it useful. If nothing else the habit of saying “I don't know” will set you apart from your peers.

You cannot know what you can do, only what you have done. We often fill the unexplored portions of our maps with speculation designed to please ourselves. Just as actions speak louder than words, experience speaks louder than fantasy.

Willingness to suffer, learn, redraw. Many errors in your map are there because they please you or served some purpose in the past. Under ordinary circumstances we have little incentive to question the map. Suffering often changes the economics of relearning because we no longer possess something we were afraid to lose, opening other possibilities we would not before have considered.

First do, then understand. Our culture places much value on “understanding” things academically with little emphasis on action. Early action preempts the growth of intellectual cobwebs with first-hand knowledge that is probably more accurate than the musings of the unengaged.

Be suspicious of paradoxes. Inaccuracies in your map will eventually lead to collisions where two or more map elements can't all be right.

As stated above, changing incorrect beliefs is no simple thing; they are part of us. I hope this article gave you useful ideas you can file away for those times when God and circumstance lead you to hard lessons. May they make the journey easier.