Every person and group lives within their own paradigm/worldview. One person’s or group’s paradigms will work better with some things, worse with some things, than any other, but no paradigm is ultimately superior. Paradigms develop, so you can say one paradigm is ‘less developed’ than another, but the lesser developed paradigm necessarily will include things which are missed in ‘better’ paradigms, just as a dog sees things a cat does not see.
Albert Einstein for example ‘mastered’ physics within a paradigm which is supported / understood by many, perhaps most, people, but not all people. https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-theorem-maps-out-the-limits-of-quantum-physics-20201203/ A vast physics has been developed using that paradigm, but at some point it will all wash away when somebody with a different background and education develops a more inclusive ‘physics’ paradigm. In other words anybody could develop a comparable paradigm within their cognitive circle, within their circle of likeminded people.
The thing which limits paradigms is the duality of the world. Anything physical, or which can be perceived, has an opposite. Disciplines can be used to broaden one’s paradigms but there will never be ‘a paradigm’ which does not have an equally valid, and imperceptible, opposing paradigm.
This duality has been studied extensively by cultures around the world. Nonduality can be extrapolated, you can find evidence of it, but it is not perceivable through any means available to any physical body, except through that indirect evidence. Many traditions spring up which offer some payoff for following the evidence. Most of the elaborate disciplines which develop that evidence tend to be further East in human migration, but every culture has some tradition.
Human groups naturally develop different paradigms, and one of the consequences of forcing one cultures’ paradigms on others is that nature becomes the new enemy until balance is found through a competing group which was not forced or indoctrinated.
Paradigms and 'world views' are a natural limiter of melting pots.
As the word is used here it means 'the underlying belief system that unifies all of the arts and sciences of a population'.
Here is a dictionary definition.
1. a typical example or pattern of something; a model: "there is a new paradigm for public art in this country"
2. a set of linguistic items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles: "English determiners form a paradigm: we can say “a book” or “his book” but not “a his book.”"
3. a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community. Or such a cognitive framework shared by members of any discipline or group: the company’s business paradigm.
A group of people who interact in any way whatsoever will develop a common language of some sort, and it's individuals also develop overlapping, or common, paradigms.
Because a paradigm is 'corrected by nature', in other words for example people who believe or feel or think that they can fly if they jump off a cliff will die, paradigms cannot deviate too far from hard reality over the long term.
But nature neither supports nor opposes a particular group's paradigms ultimately, and group survival is based not on the strength or accuracy of a paradigm, but on its flexibility and ability to be changed.
The nature of paradigms is 'zero sum', meaning that if you reduced every belief a person had to its most archetypal elementary form, it would be the same in some basic way as anybody else's paradigm or complete set of paradigms. But that equality of paradigms leads to a lot of traps.
A person who has one eye will see as much, and as far, as a person with two eyes, they just won't perceive the third dimension of depth as well. If you test a one eyed person and a two eyed person using an eye chart either one might score better. But if you test them in something that requires perceiving depth the one eyed person will wash out. From that you can deduce that there might be some advantage to a third field of vision, etc.
Melting pots consume groups with different paradigms, then try to assimilate the survivors. This 'fresh blood' gives a temporary boost to the strength of the melting pot world view, or paradigm, but it stops the melting pot world view from growing as fast as it did.
Two isolated indigenous groups will develop far faster than one melting pot containing the same two groups.
There are many examples of things that change paradigms.
When a person becomes hypothermic, when their body temperature drops below a certain point, their logic begins to shift. You can examine the 'logic' of a hypothermic person and see it is not the same as the logic of a person whose body temperature is 'normal'.
The first impression of a non hypothermic person to the logic of a hypothermic person is that the logic is 'wrong', the way "1 + 1 = 3" is usually considered wrong.
Any paradigm, in fact all 'interpretation', is derived from a group, a collective, whose interests are served through some common view.
Related to this cold induced change of paradigm are situational memories.
A drunk person 'lives in a role' during their intoxication and the paradigm their persona lives in while intoxicated, the world they live in, is different than the one they live in while sober.
Intoxication has a commonly understood effect on perception of paradigms, and can be called an archetype, but the actual archetypal concept includes all sorts of other things which have in common that they serve to integrate paradigms.
A very melting potted society will generally restrict intoxicants because they reduce predictability, they interfere with the stagnant consolidation of melting pots. But no society advances except to the extent that they expand their paradigms through this archetype.
China famously had a lot of opium use in the past. This caused short term harm to their melting pot, but it also gave them the ability to expand.
A similar vague archetype, which is to some extent a reaction to the instability of this archetype, could be called the ‘death penalty archetype’ but includes many things aside from the death penalty.
Just as the ‘intoxication’ archetype enables expansion, the ‘death penalty’ archetype disables it. A country which kills its own citizens is always in decline, and the ease with which a country’s ‘leaders’ kills its own citizens is a good indicator of the fragility of that country.