The Fallacy of Monolithic Reduction (TEST POST 2)

There's a nuanced difference between grasping how members of a group share a representational entity as their base similarity whilst having variance & autonomy V.S. concluding that members are reducible to extended nodes of a monolith because of that base similarity. It's a wrong but prominent pattern of thinking that can be found within sociopolitical circles where ideas almost always base their axioms onto that stupid pattern of thinking.

An aggregate can be individuated when epistemics could factor characteristics that flow upstream within the aggregate & vice-versa when the opposite is true.

The question of the direction it flows should consider the axiom’s aggregation tendency, & not only assuming downstream effects.

It’s 100% possible that individuatednodes can form a heuristic that loosely connects to their main aggregation; a second-order consequence that can either feed into the aggregate or diverge completely.

Frameworks that deal with this is purely first-order & never accounts for these; tying back to how the nuance of grasping group dynamics is lost on many people.

This is a cybernetic lens which would become common once frameworks abandon first-order epistemics; ending the stupid assumption that aggregates solely flow downstream.