27 ms·

I don't think that's what was meant by not taking it personally. If you were "taking it personally" in the sense being discussed here, you would be holding mode

by mwfunk 11y ago

I don't think that's what was meant by not taking it personally. If you were "taking it personally" in the sense being discussed here, you would be holding modern-day British citizens accountable for the opium imported by the British merchants in the 19th century, maybe even actively plotting their demise. Everyone is personally affected by history, but this article is more about holding grudges against people or nations for centuries after the events that spawned those grudges. We need to understand history to understand how it shaped us and how we can avoid repeating events that we don't want to repeat, but we also need to resist the urge to allow injustices of the past to become an emotional impetus for present and future conflicts.

catnaroek 11y ago
No, that is fundamentally wrong. Every self-respecting nation holds grudges, and bids her time until the time is ready to avenge them. Also, 100 or even 200 years are the blink of an eye in a nation's history. I'm particularly distressed by the fact my country doesn't do so, which is in great part why I find it much easier to identify with my Chinese ancestors (even though I only have partial Chinese ancestry) than my fellow countrymen (who are a spineless bunch).
- ktRolster 11y ago
  >No, that is fundamentally wrong. Every self-respecting nation holds grudges, Every rational nation doesn't hold grudges, and merely does what is beneficial at the time. Trying to avenge wrongs done to your grandparents or farther back is one of the dumbest things you can do.
  - Radim 11y ago
    This is naive beyond belief. Reciprocation is a fundamental concept in keeping social systems healthy and balanced. Read up on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (or any number of the copious academic research on this subject; but PD is a great entry point). "Merely doing what is beneficial at the time" is just bad advice, both on personal and social (national) level. "Spinelessness" is only a part of it; worse, such greedy strategies lead to poor socioeconomic results in the long run.
    - ktRolster 11y ago
      > "Merely doing what is beneficial at the time" is >just bad advice, both on personal and social >(national) level Maybe, but it sure beats doing what was beneficial centuries ago.
    - mindcrime 11y ago
      Reciprocation is a fundamental concept in keeping social systems healthy and balanced. Very likely. But... Read up on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (or any number of the copious academic research on this subject; but PD is a great entry point). I am not a game theorist, but I have a passing interest in this topic and have done some reading on it over the years. And offhand, I'm not aware of any research that shows that IPD strategies, developed using computer simulations that run over the span of hours, are applicable to time-spans on the order of decades or centuries or that they apply at the level of nation-states. If you are aware of that research and could share a reference or two it would be much appreciated. Note that I'm not saying it doesn't exist or even necessarily disagreeing with you. I do a feel a mild degree of skepticism, just because in these scenarios you're talking about reciprocating against people who weren't the enemy in previous iterations... indeed, people who weren't even alive in previous iterations. I don't think it makes any sense to treat, say, "1650 England" and being synonymous with "2016 England", or to say that Germany circa 1917 is the same country as Germany today. As such, I question if "tit for tat" or similar strategies apply in the same way as they do in the simulations.
- fsloth 11y ago
  "Every self-respecting nation holds grudges, and bids her time until the time is ready to avenge them" Why would you cherish irrational vengeance instincts. Psychologically, I understand long term grudges from any slight are considered pathological personality traits. It's much more healthier and productive to forgive. As a society, people can be totally clueless and immoral - but this is no-ones fault, it's a species trait. Political leaders can use their position to drive their societies to do any silly thing. One can hold political leadership morally and legally responsible for their countrys action. Nationalities are an abstract layer on the tribalistic basic mode of our psyche - where we ask, what is our team - and who is our big chief. In general, we need to feel part of a group. But the need for vengeance is totally not necessary for a healthy psyche.
  - catnaroek 11y ago
    > Why would you cherish irrational vengeance instincts. It's very much a calculated thing, not an “instinct”. Social systems are driven by the signals the involved parties send each other. If you tell them “I won't retaliate”, they will act accordingly. > Psychologically, I understand long term grudges from any slight are considered pathological personality traits. It's much more healthier and productive to forgive. Why is it “pathological”? Are there any observable negative effects? Nobody is saying “don't think about anything else” or “stop being productive”. Just “bide your time and take revenge at the most appropriate time”. This is perfectly sensible. > One can hold political leadership morally and legally responsible for their countrys action. No free nation can have an unpopular leader for a long time. In the long run, the actions of a free nation, good or bad, can be entirely attributed to its people. If you don't want to be responsible for what your leaders do, move to North Korea or something. > Nationalities are an abstract layer Nonsense. Nationhood is as concrete as is your mother tongue and culture.
    - adwn 11y ago
      > Why is it “pathological”? Are there any observable negative effects? Yes: decreased happiness, productivity, and mental health. > Nobody is saying “don't think about anything else” or “stop being productive”. That's not how long-term grudges work in the real world. > No free nation can have an unpopular leader for a long time. In the long run, the actions of a free nation, good or bad, can be entirely attributed to its people. [...] Nationhood is as concrete as is your mother tongue and culture. Thas is a very, very, simplified opinion about complex matters. People with strong, oversimplified opinions about complex matters are dangerous to the rest of society. Please don't vote.
- mwfunk 11y ago
  You are not your nation, you are you. You are not even your family, you are you. Whatever groups you were born into, cherish them as appropriate but not to the point where you are no longer you. Otherwise it's just a neverending cycle of bloodletting where everyone is avenging everyone avenging everyone else for events that none of the current participants had anything to do with. It's a pointless neverending cycle of shit and you would do well to break it, as would we all.
  - catnaroek 11y ago
    Acknowledging yourself as a part of a community whose well-being is your own, doesn't deny - au contraire, elevates - your individuality.

by mwfunk 11y ago

catnaroek 11y ago

No, that is fundamentally wrong. Every self-respecting nation holds grudges, and bids her time until the time is ready to avenge them. Also, 100 or even 200 years are the blink of an eye in a nation's history. I'm particularly distressed by the fact my country doesn't do so, which is in great part why I find it much easier to identify with my Chinese ancestors (even though I only have partial Chinese ancestry) than my fellow countrymen (who are a spineless bunch).

ktRolster 11y ago
>No, that is fundamentally wrong. Every self-respecting nation holds grudges, Every rational nation doesn't hold grudges, and merely does what is beneficial at the time. Trying to avenge wrongs done to your grandparents or farther back is one of the dumbest things you can do.
- Radim 11y ago
  This is naive beyond belief. Reciprocation is a fundamental concept in keeping social systems healthy and balanced. Read up on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (or any number of the copious academic research on this subject; but PD is a great entry point). "Merely doing what is beneficial at the time" is just bad advice, both on personal and social (national) level. "Spinelessness" is only a part of it; worse, such greedy strategies lead to poor socioeconomic results in the long run.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    > "Merely doing what is beneficial at the time" is >just bad advice, both on personal and social >(national) level Maybe, but it sure beats doing what was beneficial centuries ago.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    Reciprocation is a fundamental concept in keeping social systems healthy and balanced. Very likely. But... Read up on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (or any number of the copious academic research on this subject; but PD is a great entry point). I am not a game theorist, but I have a passing interest in this topic and have done some reading on it over the years. And offhand, I'm not aware of any research that shows that IPD strategies, developed using computer simulations that run over the span of hours, are applicable to time-spans on the order of decades or centuries or that they apply at the level of nation-states. If you are aware of that research and could share a reference or two it would be much appreciated. Note that I'm not saying it doesn't exist or even necessarily disagreeing with you. I do a feel a mild degree of skepticism, just because in these scenarios you're talking about reciprocating against people who weren't the enemy in previous iterations... indeed, people who weren't even alive in previous iterations. I don't think it makes any sense to treat, say, "1650 England" and being synonymous with "2016 England", or to say that Germany circa 1917 is the same country as Germany today. As such, I question if "tit for tat" or similar strategies apply in the same way as they do in the simulations.
fsloth 11y ago
"Every self-respecting nation holds grudges, and bids her time until the time is ready to avenge them" Why would you cherish irrational vengeance instincts. Psychologically, I understand long term grudges from any slight are considered pathological personality traits. It's much more healthier and productive to forgive. As a society, people can be totally clueless and immoral - but this is no-ones fault, it's a species trait. Political leaders can use their position to drive their societies to do any silly thing. One can hold political leadership morally and legally responsible for their countrys action. Nationalities are an abstract layer on the tribalistic basic mode of our psyche - where we ask, what is our team - and who is our big chief. In general, we need to feel part of a group. But the need for vengeance is totally not necessary for a healthy psyche.
- catnaroek 11y ago
  > Why would you cherish irrational vengeance instincts. It's very much a calculated thing, not an “instinct”. Social systems are driven by the signals the involved parties send each other. If you tell them “I won't retaliate”, they will act accordingly. > Psychologically, I understand long term grudges from any slight are considered pathological personality traits. It's much more healthier and productive to forgive. Why is it “pathological”? Are there any observable negative effects? Nobody is saying “don't think about anything else” or “stop being productive”. Just “bide your time and take revenge at the most appropriate time”. This is perfectly sensible. > One can hold political leadership morally and legally responsible for their countrys action. No free nation can have an unpopular leader for a long time. In the long run, the actions of a free nation, good or bad, can be entirely attributed to its people. If you don't want to be responsible for what your leaders do, move to North Korea or something. > Nationalities are an abstract layer Nonsense. Nationhood is as concrete as is your mother tongue and culture.
  - adwn 11y ago
    > Why is it “pathological”? Are there any observable negative effects? Yes: decreased happiness, productivity, and mental health. > Nobody is saying “don't think about anything else” or “stop being productive”. That's not how long-term grudges work in the real world. > No free nation can have an unpopular leader for a long time. In the long run, the actions of a free nation, good or bad, can be entirely attributed to its people. [...] Nationhood is as concrete as is your mother tongue and culture. Thas is a very, very, simplified opinion about complex matters. People with strong, oversimplified opinions about complex matters are dangerous to the rest of society. Please don't vote.
mwfunk 11y ago
You are not your nation, you are you. You are not even your family, you are you. Whatever groups you were born into, cherish them as appropriate but not to the point where you are no longer you. Otherwise it's just a neverending cycle of bloodletting where everyone is avenging everyone avenging everyone else for events that none of the current participants had anything to do with. It's a pointless neverending cycle of shit and you would do well to break it, as would we all.
- catnaroek 11y ago
  Acknowledging yourself as a part of a community whose well-being is your own, doesn't deny - au contraire, elevates - your individuality.