When 1 + 1 ≠ 2

One plus one is not always two. 

There is a fundamental flaw in teaching people abstract concepts without letting them know that these are abstract concepts that have real life implications and applications. That they are not real in and of themselves. These persons grow up finding it hard to navigate life because they don’t know how to reconcile what they know with what Life shows them. 

One is a concept. Two is a concept. Numbers are concepts. You need to define them. You need to set parameters for them to make sense. You need to be able to say one watermelon plus one watermelon makes two watermelons. This is probably why that person in your Mathematics textbook bought so many watermelons.

If you are presented with incompatible objects, say if you add one orange and one apple, you don’t get two oranges or two apples; you get an orange and an apple. However, if you add one fruit and one fruit, you get two fruits. Your units need to be compatible. Otherwise you get nonsense.

Or if you take indistinguishable objects, like a drop of water. One drop of water plus one drop of water gives you one drop of water, albeit larger. You don’t get two drops of water. Or laundry, perhaps. You add your pile of laundry to your sister’s pile and then you get one larger pile of laundry, not two.

If you want to get philosophical, two votes merge into one concept or a compromise maybe. Or two votes can produce a tie.

Or forget philosophy, even in Economics, when one business and another business joins, they become a merger, a synergy, a joint venture. A single unit. Or sometimes three. Think of your Google plus Android, is that two? Or one? Or Disney plus Pixar – somehow this becomes philosophically a quantum economics unit where it is owned by one, but function like two! Or your Instagram plus Facebook – is that Meta, or two platforms?

There was a joke in mathematics about how 1 + 1 in base 2 is 10 but I am too unfamiliar to get the joke for it to be funny in that I needed it to be explained and please, no joke that requires an explanation is any longer truly funny. But for this blog, the joke holds. Again, there are calculations where even abstract numbers don’t always hold. If you add 1.4 and 1.4, which are still technically read as 1 each becaus they get rounded down, you get 2.8 which you have to round up to 3, so now 1+1=3.

Or in Marital Maths, where on the one hand, you have one human plus one human and you get what is considered One Couple now. Paradoxically, at the same time, the addition of these two persons also end up not just 1 but also simultaneously, two entire khandaans so I don’t know how big your families are, but one plus one equals a hell lot more than two persons!

I think my entire obsession with this contention that 1+1≠2 always is that these days I have been noticing people who can’t seem to work with Context. 

Context matters so much, you guys. Without it, your frame of reference gets all screwed up. You search for black and white where there are only greys. If you teach yourself or some poor sod under your guardianship that one ball plus one ball equals two balls, they’ll understand and apply the same logic elsewhere and understand. If you just force them to accept that one plus one equals two, they’ll remember the equation but application in real life will frustrate them. If they don’t know why it is frustrating, which is to say they don’t know where or what the problem is, they can’t work towards a solution. You can’t score a goal if you don’t know what you’re shooting at. When you must perform a one plus one equation, you have to know exactly what units you are working with! Otherwise logic falls flat. Reason will fail you. 

In Sociology, we talked about Ideal Types. These are not ideal as to mean they are perfect. They are Ideal by way of saying they are the highest abstraction of a Standard of Measure so that you can examine real life characters using them. 

We talked about Bureaucracy because Max Weber talked about bureaucracy. He’d say Bureaucracy is defined by a strict hierarchical structure, with clear division of labor, written rules and formal procedures, impersonal, hiring and operations being merit-based. That’s what a Bureaucracy is to you too, no? But think of your office, your organization, your church, your society. Do you still think it? Yes but now you see how there is an Ideal Type and how Real Life deviates from it? Basic. Fundamental. More people need to learn this, IMHO.

One plus one, I contend therefore, is not always two.