5 ms·

The Ideology Is Not the Movement

88 points by l1n 10y ago

bovermyer 10y ago
That is a fantastic read. I need to take some time and think about how this changes my viewpoint on certain things (esp. politics).
- Smaug123 10y ago
  Scott Alexander has at least one, and possibly several, other piece(s) which completely changed my thought architecture: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
  - Symmetry 10y ago
    Here's a "Best of" collection https://nothingismere.com/2015/09/12/library-of-scott-alexandria/ https://nothingismere.com/2015/09/12/library-of-scott-alexan...
    - Analemma_ 10y ago
      Scott's own "Top Posts" link is also a useful starting point if you don't have time for the entire archive. The top 4 posts (The Control Group Is Out Of Control, I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup, Toxoplasma of Rage, and Meditations on Moloch) were all world-changers for me.
- lliamander 10y ago
  It is indeed good, but my concern is that some will take this to mean that they don't need to take other people at there word, and that consequently any attempt to form a common ground philosophically will not even be made (let alone whether such attempts could actually be successful). More suspect is the notion, not necessarily implied by Scott's piece but but explicitly stated in the post he linked[0], that those with religious beliefs specifically should not be taken at their word. This is not a defense of religion. Rather, why does a belief in some bearded guy in the sky suddenly invalidate the content of your other, when belief in "The Equality of Humanity" or "The Progress of History" or "The Zeitgeist" or "Free Markets" or other such fluffy abstractions not[1]? Also, because this notion of tribalism is trending, I fear it risks becoming the new psychoanalysis (i.e. "everything wrong with you can be explained by repressed childhood trauma!"). We don't behave philosophically as often as we like to pretend, but that doesn't mean we don't ever. I think the realizations about tribalism are primarily useful insofar as we are introspecting to understand our own motivations behind our political/social behaviors, and hopefully allow us to overcome those aspects of our psychology in an attempt to reach that philosophical common ground with our enemy tribes. The only other application will be those who employ such knowledge in a pursuit of power[2] or money[3]. [0]http://www.meltingasphalt.com/religion-is-not-about-beliefs/ http://www.meltingasphalt.com/religion-is-not-about-beliefs/ [1]https://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/ https://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how... [2]https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-Primer-Realistic/dp/0679721134/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469221142&sr=1-1&keywords=rules+for+radicals https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-Primer-Reali... [3]https://www.amazon.com/Tribes-We-Need-You-Lead/dp/1491514736 https://www.amazon.com/Tribes-We-Need-You-Lead/dp/1491514736
  - Analemma_ 10y ago
    > that those with religious beliefs specifically should not be taken at their word For better or worse, the idea that religious people shouldn't be taken at their word is a core belief of the LessWrong crowd, of which Scott is one of the most notable members. "Belief in Belief" [1] is one of the earliest grounding chapters of the beloved Sequences, and I'm pretty sure that's where the meltingasphalt post got its inspiration. > Rather, why does a belief in some bearded guy in the sky suddenly invalidate the content of your other, when belief in "The Equality of Humanity" or "The Progress of History" or "The Zeitgeist" or "Free Markets" or other such fluffy abstractions not[1]? It is, at least for some people. For example, I feel roughly the same way about people who "believe in Free Markets" as I do about people who believe in God; interpret that as you will. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/
  - golemotron 10y ago
    I see no evidence that we can permanently overcome tribalism. The people who think we can are a tribe themselves, and particularly antagonistic to people who don't share that view. Maybe the best we can do is recognize tribalism, not see it as inherently bad, and find ways to secure peace among people who sort themselves into different groups by their differences in religion, politics, or any other criterion.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Animats 10y ago
This is moderately useful, but not new. He may be underestimating the effect of attention. Attention is a scarce resource, because there's only so much time. Part of tribe creation is absorbing a considerable amount of attention. This is seen most strongly in the religions designed to consume attention multiple times per day. Islam and Haredi Judaism are the most obvious examples. We also see this with the types of video games that demand regular attention, from World of Warcraft to Pokémon Go. This is different from popularity; Angry Birds, although popular, did not require constant attention and did not develop a cult-like following.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Because 21st century internet-facilitated media has created a seller's market for attention, there have arisen media practices which take advantage of potentially toxic innate instincts. People have long been wary of the use of sex to gain attention. Variable schedules of reward are in-fact addicting, therefore potentially toxic. However, the use of outrage to gain attention in the 21st century attention economy is far more toxic. Why? Because the use of outrage strongly degrades discourse between groups as well as discourse within a group, on both an emotional and intellectual level. Outrage politics is basically like steroid use. It can aid in quickly bulking up (a group) but it has detrimental long term effects on the body politic.
  - Animats 10y ago
    I think you mean "buyer's market for attention". There are more sellers wanting attention than buyers looking for something to which to attend.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      Seller's market for attention. Viewers and users are giving their attention. The party you're calling buyers are buying media. Often they are trading their attention for access to media. Don't confuse media with the consumption of media. (I guess social media blurs this, however.)

88 points by l1n 10y ago

That is a fantastic read. I need to take some time and think about how this changes my viewpoint on certain things (esp. politics).

Smaug123 10y ago
Scott Alexander has at least one, and possibly several, other piece(s) which completely changed my thought architecture: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
- Symmetry 10y ago
  Here's a "Best of" collection https://nothingismere.com/2015/09/12/library-of-scott-alexandria/ https://nothingismere.com/2015/09/12/library-of-scott-alexan...
  - Analemma_ 10y ago
    Scott's own "Top Posts" link is also a useful starting point if you don't have time for the entire archive. The top 4 posts (The Control Group Is Out Of Control, I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup, Toxoplasma of Rage, and Meditations on Moloch) were all world-changers for me.
lliamander 10y ago
It is indeed good, but my concern is that some will take this to mean that they don't need to take other people at there word, and that consequently any attempt to form a common ground philosophically will not even be made (let alone whether such attempts could actually be successful). More suspect is the notion, not necessarily implied by Scott's piece but but explicitly stated in the post he linked[0], that those with religious beliefs specifically should not be taken at their word. This is not a defense of religion. Rather, why does a belief in some bearded guy in the sky suddenly invalidate the content of your other, when belief in "The Equality of Humanity" or "The Progress of History" or "The Zeitgeist" or "Free Markets" or other such fluffy abstractions not[1]? Also, because this notion of tribalism is trending, I fear it risks becoming the new psychoanalysis (i.e. "everything wrong with you can be explained by repressed childhood trauma!"). We don't behave philosophically as often as we like to pretend, but that doesn't mean we don't ever. I think the realizations about tribalism are primarily useful insofar as we are introspecting to understand our own motivations behind our political/social behaviors, and hopefully allow us to overcome those aspects of our psychology in an attempt to reach that philosophical common ground with our enemy tribes. The only other application will be those who employ such knowledge in a pursuit of power[2] or money[3]. [0]http://www.meltingasphalt.com/religion-is-not-about-beliefs/ http://www.meltingasphalt.com/religion-is-not-about-beliefs/ [1]https://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/ https://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how... [2]https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-Primer-Realistic/dp/0679721134/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469221142&sr=1-1&keywords=rules+for+radicals https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-Primer-Reali... [3]https://www.amazon.com/Tribes-We-Need-You-Lead/dp/1491514736 https://www.amazon.com/Tribes-We-Need-You-Lead/dp/1491514736
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  > that those with religious beliefs specifically should not be taken at their word For better or worse, the idea that religious people shouldn't be taken at their word is a core belief of the LessWrong crowd, of which Scott is one of the most notable members. "Belief in Belief" [1] is one of the earliest grounding chapters of the beloved Sequences, and I'm pretty sure that's where the meltingasphalt post got its inspiration. > Rather, why does a belief in some bearded guy in the sky suddenly invalidate the content of your other, when belief in "The Equality of Humanity" or "The Progress of History" or "The Zeitgeist" or "Free Markets" or other such fluffy abstractions not[1]? It is, at least for some people. For example, I feel roughly the same way about people who "believe in Free Markets" as I do about people who believe in God; interpret that as you will. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/
- golemotron 10y ago
  I see no evidence that we can permanently overcome tribalism. The people who think we can are a tribe themselves, and particularly antagonistic to people who don't share that view. Maybe the best we can do is recognize tribalism, not see it as inherently bad, and find ways to secure peace among people who sort themselves into different groups by their differences in religion, politics, or any other criterion.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Animats 10y ago

This is moderately useful, but not new. He may be underestimating the effect of attention. Attention is a scarce resource, because there's only so much time. Part of tribe creation is absorbing a considerable amount of attention. This is seen most strongly in the religions designed to consume attention multiple times per day. Islam and Haredi Judaism are the most obvious examples. We also see this with the types of video games that demand regular attention, from World of Warcraft to Pokémon Go. This is different from popularity; Angry Birds, although popular, did not require constant attention and did not develop a cult-like following.

stcredzero 10y ago
Because 21st century internet-facilitated media has created a seller's market for attention, there have arisen media practices which take advantage of potentially toxic innate instincts. People have long been wary of the use of sex to gain attention. Variable schedules of reward are in-fact addicting, therefore potentially toxic. However, the use of outrage to gain attention in the 21st century attention economy is far more toxic. Why? Because the use of outrage strongly degrades discourse between groups as well as discourse within a group, on both an emotional and intellectual level. Outrage politics is basically like steroid use. It can aid in quickly bulking up (a group) but it has detrimental long term effects on the body politic.
- Animats 10y ago
  I think you mean "buyer's market for attention". There are more sellers wanting attention than buyers looking for something to which to attend.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Seller's market for attention. Viewers and users are giving their attention. The party you're calling buyers are buying media. Often they are trading their attention for access to media. Don't confuse media with the consumption of media. (I guess social media blurs this, however.)