3 ms·

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

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.

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.