4 ms·

> blaming an entire ill-defined group for the failings of its individuals The failings of individuals bring down whole groups, and vice versa. I mean in the en

by devoply 10y ago

> blaming an entire ill-defined group for the failings of its individuals The failings of individuals bring down whole groups, and vice versa. I mean in the end if you belong to a disadvantaged group, due to network effects, it makes everything harder to do. Want to make money? You can't because your group does not have money. These problems compound. Want to raise capital for your startup? Love money? Everyone is broke. There is none. Success of the individual depends on the community and vice versa. The relationship is complicated and interwoven. In any group there are a small number of people that affect any group positively or negatively in disproportionate ways. Companies worry about these problems, of the weakest links in the organization. Don't get me wrong, as a maxim you should judge people individually, but reality does not work that way. It's much more complicated than that. Even if individuals judge individuals fairly, it does not mean that individuals will get treated fairly no matter what they do.

anigbrowl 10y ago
Well that sounds like the sort of problem that actually needs solving, unlike a lot of what people are chasing money for these days.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Want to make money? You can't because your group does not have money. So join a different group. Or just trade something of value to an individual from a different group in return for money. This idea that people are tied to their group, and that group interests exist, is simply nonsense. I have no interest in increasing the wealth, population or influence of my own group, I only have interest in increasing my wealth, the number of my descendents and my influence. And if the best way to do that is to abandon my group and work with another group (or none at all), so be it.
- Retra 10y ago
  You can't just 'join a different group'. You have to understand a group's culture to join it, and you can't do that as an outsider.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Joining as a full fledged member might be difficult and time consuming, but it can be done. And in the short run you can still gain many benefits by interacting as an outsider. I'm not Indian and in India I'll rarely be mistaken for an Indian (though it has happened in the US a few times). I haven't 'joined' this group. But looking at my whatsapp right now, 4 of my 5 most recently contacted people are Indian. Via trade (I work for an Indian company) and 1-on-1 relationships I gain most of the benefits of group membership. There is nothing tying you to whatever you think of as your group except your own choices. If you can provide value to individuals in other groups they will provide value to you in return. I understand that this concept of 'group interests' and group-centric politics is pretty popular among the alt right these days. But this idea ignores basic game theory. It is simply not in my interest to help what you think is my group to succeed.
- actuallyalys 10y ago
  I think devoply overstated their case in saying you can't make money if your group doesn't have it, but it does make it harder, and occasionally impossible. In the worst case, you face an effective catch-22 because your group doesn't provide the resources you need but joining groups that have them takes those same resources. Also, in practice, people tend to identify with the groups they belong to, so rationally or not, they are more reluctant to leave groups than you are.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    What group with resources do you think it actually takes equivalent resources to join? In any case I'm disagreeing with devoply's use of "can't". If he wrote this I wouldn't have disagreed: "Want to make money? You choose not to because your group does not have money and you prefer not to join or associate with a group that does." I agree that many people have feelings tying them to a particular group and are unwilling to leave their group. That's a matter of willingness, not ability.
    - actuallyalys 10y ago
      I agree that there are many situations where joining a group gives you access to more resources than it costs. My point is that, in some cases, you might not have the resources to pay the costs, even if you could recoup them later. For example, it might cost only a small amount of gas money to attend a group that provides mentorship. If you don't have that money, you can't attend, even if that mentorship would lead to a job that gives you a huge return on your time and gas money.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by devoply 10y ago

anigbrowl 10y ago

Well that sounds like the sort of problem that actually needs solving, unlike a lot of what people are chasing money for these days.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Want to make money? You can't because your group does not have money. So join a different group. Or just trade something of value to an individual from a different group in return for money. This idea that people are tied to their group, and that group interests exist, is simply nonsense. I have no interest in increasing the wealth, population or influence of my own group, I only have interest in increasing my wealth, the number of my descendents and my influence. And if the best way to do that is to abandon my group and work with another group (or none at all), so be it.

Retra 10y ago
You can't just 'join a different group'. You have to understand a group's culture to join it, and you can't do that as an outsider.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Joining as a full fledged member might be difficult and time consuming, but it can be done. And in the short run you can still gain many benefits by interacting as an outsider. I'm not Indian and in India I'll rarely be mistaken for an Indian (though it has happened in the US a few times). I haven't 'joined' this group. But looking at my whatsapp right now, 4 of my 5 most recently contacted people are Indian. Via trade (I work for an Indian company) and 1-on-1 relationships I gain most of the benefits of group membership. There is nothing tying you to whatever you think of as your group except your own choices. If you can provide value to individuals in other groups they will provide value to you in return. I understand that this concept of 'group interests' and group-centric politics is pretty popular among the alt right these days. But this idea ignores basic game theory. It is simply not in my interest to help what you think is my group to succeed.
actuallyalys 10y ago
I think devoply overstated their case in saying you can't make money if your group doesn't have it, but it does make it harder, and occasionally impossible. In the worst case, you face an effective catch-22 because your group doesn't provide the resources you need but joining groups that have them takes those same resources. Also, in practice, people tend to identify with the groups they belong to, so rationally or not, they are more reluctant to leave groups than you are.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  What group with resources do you think it actually takes equivalent resources to join? In any case I'm disagreeing with devoply's use of "can't". If he wrote this I wouldn't have disagreed: "Want to make money? You choose not to because your group does not have money and you prefer not to join or associate with a group that does." I agree that many people have feelings tying them to a particular group and are unwilling to leave their group. That's a matter of willingness, not ability.
  - actuallyalys 10y ago
    I agree that there are many situations where joining a group gives you access to more resources than it costs. My point is that, in some cases, you might not have the resources to pay the costs, even if you could recoup them later. For example, it might cost only a small amount of gas money to attend a group that provides mentorship. If you don't have that money, you can't attend, even if that mentorship would lead to a job that gives you a huge return on your time and gas money.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]