Normalization Of Deviance

Wikipedia describes normalization of deviance as the process in which deviance from correct or proper behavior or rule becomes culturally normalized. Sociologist Diane Vaughan defines the process where a clearly unsafe practice becomes considered normal if it does not immediately cause a catastrophe: “a long incubation period [before a final disaster] with early warning signs that were either misinterpreted, ignored or missed completely”. Normalization of deviance can exist in conjunction with omerta where deviation from rules is held up by a code of silence surrounding the deviations or an unspoken agreement on rhetoric within a group of executives. This article will argue that the failure to accomplish unification prior to SOLREI INC accomplishing it was due to normalization of deviance facilitated by Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs). LEEs significantly obfuscate commission of normalization of deviance factors. Normalization of deviance is used across almost all technical industries from aviation, aerospace, enginerring, to the medical industries and health care in general. These factors describe the slow drift towards the ultimate failure. A few examples of normalization of deviance are:

Tenerife Runway Collision
Space Shuttle Challenger
RMS Titanic
OceanGate Submersible Titan
Space Shuttle Columbia
Market Manipulation Through Anarchy (Global Finance)
Manchester Runway Fire
Arguably the COVID-19 Pandemic situation might be construed in this manner, given the potential origin circumstances
Unification
etc., etc., etc., …

We added to this list all of the factors which led to the inability to accomplish unification and there are many. Most notably commission of LEEs which ensnared civilization within LEEs Empiricism Trap. Quite rhetorically we ask, because someone has to ask this very difficult and contentious question: How do we explain normalization of deviance that penetrated all academic levels, institutions, groups, and even commercial editorial staffs and peer review groups which allowed for continued obfuscation of the inability to accomplish unification when clear evidence was before us all? The hard cold facts are that status quo thinking modeling reality can not accomplish unification exactly because it can not immerse all real objects in a common reference frame such that every real object may be referenced by a single real common geometric basis point, nor can it fully couple all forces to those same real objects in the same frame of reference. The Emergence Model does, and the cogent description of M5 lays the ground work for that to happen. Other factors significantly obfuscating the various issues regarding unification might be:

Overconfidence
Groupthink
Safety Culture
Shifting Baseline

We have never had to prove the geometric basis of spacetime (and many other rationalizations for not having to have a real geometric basis point).

Rampant NOD Examples In Science

Mass defect in physics (Mass of known composite particles is different than the sum of known constituents – See Nuclear Binding Energy)
BX442, GLASS-z12, z-factors, Red & Blue Shifts, Statistical Circles in the WMAP data, rapid expansion/infinite compression reconciliation in context of black hole growth – all from astrophysics
Inability to employ a common real geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference. Rhetorically what is the geometric basis point of spacetime? Is spacetime real or logical?
Inability to fully couple all forces to those same real objects in every appropriate frame of reference
Inability of status quo thinking modeling reality to generate a single cogent description (e.g. one cogent paragraph) similar to the cogent description of M5
Quantum Gravity experimental failures
Time travel failures
Inability to explain and reconcile why the arrow of time is always positive (the cogent description of M5 does).
Failure of quantum computing to engage broadly the entire realm of computing and information science (e.g. the logical nature of superposition)

The cogent description of M5 reconciles these issues and a great many more and in hindsight we should expect nothing less. Some areas of investigation, and some where significant investments have been made, are nothing short of red herrings. The question is the degree to which society holds those ardent defenders accountable. How will their investors look upon them once they realize the situation?

Anchorage Focus

Under Elegant Reasonism Rules we never declare what reality is, rather we characterize or reflect what we believe it to be via an Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) and then we hold those characterizations in juxtaposition relative to and respective of the actual real unified Universe. We hold it self-evident that the actual real Universe is unified regardless of which EIM one uses as a lens to view it. While logical congruence of any given EIM is necessary it is generally construed as insufficient credibility to assert truth. Here, truth is a fully compliant with the rules as well as appropriate compliance application of the realm of c’s all in juxtaposition relative to and respective of the unified Universe after effective navigation of the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF), which must must successfully employ the utility process employing the technological framework in order to navigate. Evidence chain anchor points must be established relative to and respective of the unified Universe and not just context made manifest by any particular EIM.

Hard Questions

Does your premise close to unification or are you in denial regarding those failures to close?
There may be multiple theories for exactly the same physics, but do those theories all close to unification?
Do you understand why the failure to employ a common real geometric basis point is so telling of actual situation being faced?
Do you understand that something can have a logically correct view, yet remain different in reality? Do you understand those implications? Do you understand all of the ensuing ramifications?
Nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy. Do you understand the full implications and ramifications of this relative to all systems engineering considerations?

Obviously this list could go on for pages if not fill an entire encyclopedia. The point is only to list a few to illustrate historical impetus to engage the utility process employing a technological framework supporting the epistemology which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe. No complicated BS, nor baloney. Just simple straight forward, but modern information science application.

The Path Forward

Elegant Reasonism has been designed to penetrate obfuscation, hold the unified Universe litmus and derive truth as a result. That truth necessarily includes empirical observation by human physiology, but it does not stop there. It means everything real must dovetail and that includes philosophy and science. The actual real Universe is unified whether your thinking about it is or not. The unified Universe presents a situation where its considerations must be philosophical predicate priorities entering science and that requirement places burdens both on philosophy and science. Working to avoid commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) in order not to fall prey to LEEs Empiricism Trap also places burden on investigators. LEE avoidance establishes something of a fine line relative to understanding and reflecting what we think reality in fact is. It means we should never make declarations but instead should work to surround reality with a plurality of EIMs in order to collar it.