The element of violence in human society (actually, any biological system) is inevitable. It is intrinsic to us, and the only difference is the varying degrees.

The real questions come up when it is of an extreme degree, i.e., killing another. How can one kill another human? The only explanation that I can think of, is that it’s because the perpetrator does not think of the victim as a “human”. Here, this generic term takes a more specific meaning of “who is of one’s own”. For an individual murder case, one can often attribute this to insanity (on an extreme sense, “anger” is an insane state respective to rationality). And it is an insanity to think that the other is not a “human.”

So, in a war, how can one get such a determination to annihilate your enemy who happens to be “humans”? This is especially more perplexing when it involves huge group of people who are mostly sane. But if you look at the governments and the media at such times, their efforts internally consist of such campaigns that are designed to convince its people that the perceived enemy is no “human.” That’s all it’s doing and in that way, you can go out and kill another “human” with minimal guilts.

I’ve come to an unrealistic conclusion that if we had the capacity to know every other people on this world, we would have no lethal violence at all (well, realistically, it can’t be zero, but…). The thing is our mental capacity is such that we can only remember those who are immediate to us. Our memories can only contain those with our immediate associates, and we are rarely capable of thinking about those outside our circles.

I believe the communication between individuals is the most important thing for any society to function and survive (this “society” includes from a group of two (e.g., lovers) to a nation and more).

The main problem is that we naturally tend to think that others would think and act exactly the same way as we do. This comes from the fact that we live in a similar environment. This “environment” includes the earth we live on, the shape and the function of our body and sensory systems, the time we live in, and the social and the cultural backgrounds. What this means is that a lot of the times, we do think and act similar.

However, since we are not the kind of beings that share our consciousness (unless we are under-utilizing our ability to use our telepathic powers), we would never know what others are really thinking. Without truthful communication, all we have is guesses, estimates and assumptions (which are often incorrect). The human race can only communicate with each other through explicit methods (talking, writing, reading, etc.). Even with the limits of the human language, that is probably the best way.

We have to realize this fact and always remember that until we find a common ground (actually, even after that, since we as individuals go through different experience), we have to constantly “sync up” with each other by communication.

I am not saying that we should all be the same. That’s boring, impossible and unnatural. What I am saying is that recognize the differences and understand the others as who they are.

Most of these thoughts came from reading science fictions where some of them deal with extra-terrestrials (e.g., “Ender’s Game” and Star Trek). The fact of the matter is that even we encounter an alien race, it might not be possible, at least in the beginning, to even find a common ground, let alone to communicate.

However, on a smaller, down-to-earth scale, it has to do with communicating with your loved ones. Let them understand you and understand them.

As grand as it might sounds, it’s a very informal analogy of a distribution curve to characteristics of a society, mostly used to compare a homogeneous and a diverse society. You all remember a typical distribution curve that looks like a bell in high school, right? In any distribution, you always talk about a mean and a standard deviation. The mean is a statistical average and the standard deviation is how far away the samples are from the mean. In case of bell-like curves, graphically the mean can be thought of as where the peak is and the standard deviation can be thought of as the “thickness” of the curve.

So, for a homogeneous society, the deviation would be small (the curve will be narrow) and for a diverse one, large. My observation and analogy is that when the deviation is small, there tends to be less samples in the extremities. And in converse, a diverse group will have more extremities. And the important thing to note is the extremities are on the both ends.

I find it quite useful and seems to apply quite well when comparing societies such as Korea and the United States. So, a very homogeneous country like Korea has a very small deviation and slightly higher mean, I guess. The force trying to keep the deviation to a certain limit, is very strong, so it is very stable with little change. It usually has a good base, translated to a slightly higher mean. What this means is that it has a fewer “geniuses”, along with less “sociopaths.” On the other hand, with a very diverse country such as the States, there are more “geniuses,” but as many “sociopaths” (e.g., serial killers).

I often use this to point out that there is no perfect society when people starts to argue about which is better or “advanced.” They are just different and one can be more successful than another in a certain situation, but not always and not for everyone.

I’ve once read in a newspaper several years ago about the “average” Korean with such height, such weight, certain clothes, such income, etc. Did this “average” man exist? It didn’t say, but very unlikely. But people still continue this constant search of an average. And I must say, they do bring some useful, even insightful sometimes, results.

Why did I bring up this thing everybody knows? Because it seems many people often forget a group (or a society) is comprised of individuals. Because people constantly compare themselves (or their personal experiences) to the “average” (mostly what the media portrays) and lay too much weight on it. Because people too often try to fit the individual (the “cause” or the source) into the average (the result or the outcome).

An average implies a distribution and a deviation. Why is it so hard to accept this fact?

So, what’s the consequences of this short-coming? Well, we will have to go through the same mistakes over and over again, inevitably. Fortunately, we have methods to transfer some of our collected knowledge across time (any kind of recording and communicational means). This allows us, as a society, to go through the same mistakes a lot fewer and the periods of these cycles longer. However, just transferring the end result without the background experiences leading to it has its limited usefulness as a perfect information transfer method if you think about it. Without all the relevant background information, the result is often mis-interpreted and we have to go through some of the past experience over again. Most parents like to tell their children that they’ve lived longer and knew better so it’s better that they listen to them. Partially true. However, I think that deprives of an individual a most exciting part about life: having one’s own experience and building one’s own knowledge as a result. That is, becoming an “individual.” It seems people would very much like to ignore the fact that pain and suffering (which are “value-added” terms, by the way) are also a part of what I would like to call a life.