整不会了 / It Just Wouldn’t Parse
Author: Dexin Kong
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3831-5725
Structured and refined with assistance from ChatGPT
AI Automatic Translation (Unreviewed)
Background
Around 1968, American behavioral researcher John B. Calhoun conducted a series of well-known experiments later referred to as “Universe 25.”
The laboratory created a near “idealized” long-term living environment for a mouse population: abundant food, stable temperature, no predators, no disease, and no continuous competition for survival resources.
At first, the population expanded rapidly.
But gradually, some individuals began losing social behaviors. Some female mice abandoned parenting. Some individuals were eventually left with little more than eating, sleeping, and grooming.
In the end, the entire population gradually stopped reproducing and ultimately disappeared.
Observation
For many years, this experiment has continued to resurface in public discussion, especially in recent years alongside the development of AI and growing conversations about whether human beings may eventually no longer need to work.
These discussions also triggered many objections, such as:
- “Human society cannot be directly compared to mice.”
- “The experimental environment was too artificial.”
- “There is no strict causal proof.”
- “The experiment lacks sufficient statistical significance.”
- “No conclusions about civilization can be derived from it.”
These objections are undoubtedly reasonable and fully aligned with the rigor required by modern research systems.
Discussion
However, perhaps the truly noteworthy part is neither the experiment itself nor the objections against it.
Hidden within this discussion is a very subtle phenomenon.
If human society is viewed as a “system,” and the experimental result is treated as a Projection produced through a scientific research activity, it becomes possible to observe that not every Projection can successfully enter the “system.”
Over time, “systems” often gradually develop their own mechanisms for filtering external inputs.
As a result, before entering the “system,” many Projections must first satisfy certain “conditions,” for example:
- being quantifiable
- being structurally expressible
- forming stable causal relationships
- fitting within existing research paradigms
- being expressed in an accepted form
Otherwise, discussions surrounding that Projection will gradually begin shifting toward statements such as:
- “The evidence is insufficient.”
- “There is no strict proof.”
- “The conditions for inference are not satisfied.”
- “No valid conclusion can be formed.”
Eventually, the Projection is set aside or ignored, because the “system” cannot really process Projections that fall outside those conditions.
If observed carefully, similar examples can be found everywhere in everyday life, much like the situation described in The Mischievous Child.
Is it a problem? Of course it is.
But from the school’s perspective:
- Does it qualify as a public health or safety incident? Not really.
- Does it count as serious damage to public property? Not quite either.
Most of the time, it can only be treated as “children playing pranks.”
So what is the school supposed to do?
In the end, many times, the only option is to look the other way.
As a result, many times the issue is not that the “problem” itself is wrong.
Rather, the “system” can no longer quite find a way to deal with it.
In more colloquial terms:
“It just wouldn’t parse.”
Note:
This project is an ongoing independent research effort developed in spare time.
Some concepts and terminology may continue to evolve over time.
The English version may contain translation imperfections or semantic deviations.
The Chinese version remains the primary semantic reference.