The Importance of Categorization
Of course, if you’re not accustomed to categorizing entities, you may question it’s worth. Let me try to address this important question in the context of society (with an American bias) and how it compels certain conclusions.
In general, the process of categorization consists of the identification of certain characteristics of entities that are considered critical to understanding the behavior of those entities. The differentiation of those entities on those characteristics will dictate final differences or similarities, depending on their selection. When classifying living organisms, scientists use the similarity of differences on certain characteristics, such as being warm blooded, to infer common ancestors on the evolutionary tree, which in turn will have consequences for important biological and behavioral differences – such as sluggishness, or not, in cold weather. Or possible vulnerability to certain poisons.
In the context of human society, it’s common to talk about sectors such as health, education, business, government, and others, and we can categorize activities according to the context in which they primarily occur. Each sector has a purpose, which serves as the primary (and perhaps only) differentiation point for each sector: health for improving the individual and collective health of society, education for improving the knowledge base and thinking capabilities of individuals, etc.
Now, how is this useful? Once we understand that activities are primarily part of one category by virtue of their use in the operationality of that sector, we can also clearly understand this very important point: activities are naturally oriented in purpose and operationality to support the purpose of their category or sector. If they were not, then their efficiency in contributing to the accomplishment of the overall purpose would be compromised; in fact, we often see activities “optimized” in order to improve their usefulness in just such a pursuit.
From the point that sector’s do not share immediate purposes, since that’s their point of differentiation, we may draw the conclusion that activities optimized for one sector’s purposes are not necesssarily optimized for another’s. Furthermore, it’s just as reasonable to assume the members of one sector, regardless of their success, are not to be regarded as equally qualified in another sector without proof; indeed, they most probably are not.
A contemporary example would be to refuse to attribute such competencies to Donald Trump; his business sector success has little predictive power to his competencies in the government sector, nor to his proposed policies in same. Which is not to suggest that it cannot occur. George Romney, CEO of American Motors Corp, was also a popular governor of Michigan in the 1960s, if one may take popularity as a fair proxy for success in the governmental realm.
But the real point is that the individual must prove themselves in a transition from one sector to another, and both candidates and the voting citizenry must be aware the processes of one sector may not be appropriate to the purposes of another sector. Thus, the ongoing proposals for the privatization of certain governmental functions, such as prisons (discussion starting here, ending here), should be viewed with the great suspicion and with the application of the points above.
