3 ms·

The edit to my previous post addresses your comment. More generally, the possibility of punishment does little to diminish violence, because people who perform

by pygy_ 10y ago

The edit to my previous post addresses your comment. More generally, the possibility of punishment does little to diminish violence, because people who perform it generally expect not to get caught.

thriftwy 10y ago
I don't understand how this is supposed to work. People look very closely to what happens in their neighboring countries when deciding what to try and what to avoid. It is not true that one politician, who does not expect to get caught, is a sole responsible and everybody else is passive. "Country Y had revolution and country X didn't. Turns out country Y never recovered economically and didn't make much progress. I will probably cut down on protests" "Country C had ethnic cleansings and country B had reasonable ethnic policy. Country C did not suffer any punishment and is now successful. Country B suffers serious ethnic tensions and is an undesirable place. I would demand going harder on minorities" You may be shielded from those narratives, living in a stable country. Guess what, not all of us do.
- pygy_ 10y ago
  Your understanding of tribal psyche is wrong. 1) Human bonding (mother-child, family, and extended, symbolic tribes) is mediated in the brain by oxytocin. It turns out oxytocin also boosts xenophobia. Someone who claims to hail patriotism without being racist is therefore full of shit. They are two sides of the same coin, enlarging one enlarges the other. 2) Stigmatizing people for belonging to a group strengthens their tribal attachment to said group [a]. By punishing or threatening to punish a group of people, you enhance their tribal bonds and, per 1) their xenophobia, the very thing you're trying to rein in. It's not about being moral, it's about effectiveness. The only way to dispel tribal identity is to dilute it in a larger, weaker one, by being open to their members. --- a. Which is why laws against "the public display of religious signs" are counterproductive. Likewise, ostracizing people who vote for extreme, hateful politicians is counterproductive.
  - thriftwy 10y ago
    You are right about "punishing or threatening to punish". However, the goal of genocide or ethnic cleansings were not to punish, it was to make said people go away from you. To make them physically disappear. Turks has no problems with Armenian tribal attachment because there are no longer any Armenians in Turkey (They however still have the problem with Kurds). The same thing with Croatia and Serbs. We have to admit that the plan worked.
    - pygy_ 10y ago
      The problem here is that tribal attachment among Turks got haywire. I don't know enough about the tribalism tendencies of Armenians at the time. Victim groups can have developed a strong tribal identity, but that's not always the case (tribalism was strong among Jews and Gypsies, but AFAIK being gay was quite confidential during WW2). Regardless, the story is the same all over the place. People's tribal instincts are amplified and manipulated by a few hateful/interested people, which turns peaceful crowds into genocidal herds. The danger is the potential for excess that we have when thinking in terms of ingroup/outgroup, not a specific group (which is why it keeps happening all over the place, and sometimes victim tribes later become perpetrators of bigoted violence). A desire for justice/vengance is understandable, BTW, but our intuitions are wrong when dealing with populations rather than individuals. See also: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html Edit: Whether strong tribal identity among small groups lead larger groups of otherwise neutral people to resent them is an interesting question as well, BTW. I don't know if it is the case. Gypsies and Jews are historical examples, I don't know if there are counterexamples.
      - thriftwy 10y ago
        I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. You talk about danger but danger for whom? One person's danger is another person's gain.
        pygy_ 10y ago
        Danger of massively killing one another? Unending vendetta? Cultivating cross-cultural resentment makes the world more violent, and less safe, for everyone. Another example of the tragedy of the commons.
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 10y ago
  Punishing Germany almost directly led to massive instability in Europe. Helping Germany recover led to extended peace for the first time (ever?) in western Europe. That narrative is the one the western Europeans thank for their stability.
- mercer 10y ago
  I think what's missing in your assessment is time. Yes, in the short term allowing X in country Y might make country Z feel like they can get away with X. But I think people generally have short memory, and anything beyond a generation (or two?) doesn't quite work that way. To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong or proposing an alternative theory. I just think there's lack of evidence that you're correct, and personally I'm deeply uncomfortable with any form of punishment that isn't well-supported by evidence.
  - thriftwy 10y ago
    Is there anyone here who forgot the Armenian genocide? I don't think so, and it's 100 years old. People stick to that kind of thing. I'll be a happy criminal around you. Why not take advantage if I know I'll get away with it?

by pygy_ 10y ago

The edit to my previous post addresses your comment. More generally, the possibility of punishment does little to diminish violence, because people who perform it generally expect not to get caught.

thriftwy 10y ago

I don't understand how this is supposed to work. People look very closely to what happens in their neighboring countries when deciding what to try and what to avoid. It is not true that one politician, who does not expect to get caught, is a sole responsible and everybody else is passive. "Country Y had revolution and country X didn't. Turns out country Y never recovered economically and didn't make much progress. I will probably cut down on protests" "Country C had ethnic cleansings and country B had reasonable ethnic policy. Country C did not suffer any punishment and is now successful. Country B suffers serious ethnic tensions and is an undesirable place. I would demand going harder on minorities" You may be shielded from those narratives, living in a stable country. Guess what, not all of us do.

pygy_ 10y ago
Your understanding of tribal psyche is wrong. 1) Human bonding (mother-child, family, and extended, symbolic tribes) is mediated in the brain by oxytocin. It turns out oxytocin also boosts xenophobia. Someone who claims to hail patriotism without being racist is therefore full of shit. They are two sides of the same coin, enlarging one enlarges the other. 2) Stigmatizing people for belonging to a group strengthens their tribal attachment to said group [a]. By punishing or threatening to punish a group of people, you enhance their tribal bonds and, per 1) their xenophobia, the very thing you're trying to rein in. It's not about being moral, it's about effectiveness. The only way to dispel tribal identity is to dilute it in a larger, weaker one, by being open to their members. --- a. Which is why laws against "the public display of religious signs" are counterproductive. Likewise, ostracizing people who vote for extreme, hateful politicians is counterproductive.
- thriftwy 10y ago
  You are right about "punishing or threatening to punish". However, the goal of genocide or ethnic cleansings were not to punish, it was to make said people go away from you. To make them physically disappear. Turks has no problems with Armenian tribal attachment because there are no longer any Armenians in Turkey (They however still have the problem with Kurds). The same thing with Croatia and Serbs. We have to admit that the plan worked.
  - pygy_ 10y ago
    The problem here is that tribal attachment among Turks got haywire. I don't know enough about the tribalism tendencies of Armenians at the time. Victim groups can have developed a strong tribal identity, but that's not always the case (tribalism was strong among Jews and Gypsies, but AFAIK being gay was quite confidential during WW2). Regardless, the story is the same all over the place. People's tribal instincts are amplified and manipulated by a few hateful/interested people, which turns peaceful crowds into genocidal herds. The danger is the potential for excess that we have when thinking in terms of ingroup/outgroup, not a specific group (which is why it keeps happening all over the place, and sometimes victim tribes later become perpetrators of bigoted violence). A desire for justice/vengance is understandable, BTW, but our intuitions are wrong when dealing with populations rather than individuals. See also: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html Edit: Whether strong tribal identity among small groups lead larger groups of otherwise neutral people to resent them is an interesting question as well, BTW. I don't know if it is the case. Gypsies and Jews are historical examples, I don't know if there are counterexamples.
    - thriftwy 10y ago
      I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. You talk about danger but danger for whom? One person's danger is another person's gain.
      - pygy_ 10y ago
        Danger of massively killing one another? Unending vendetta? Cultivating cross-cultural resentment makes the world more violent, and less safe, for everyone. Another example of the tragedy of the commons.
gjjrfcbugxbhf 10y ago
Punishing Germany almost directly led to massive instability in Europe. Helping Germany recover led to extended peace for the first time (ever?) in western Europe. That narrative is the one the western Europeans thank for their stability.
mercer 10y ago
I think what's missing in your assessment is time. Yes, in the short term allowing X in country Y might make country Z feel like they can get away with X. But I think people generally have short memory, and anything beyond a generation (or two?) doesn't quite work that way. To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong or proposing an alternative theory. I just think there's lack of evidence that you're correct, and personally I'm deeply uncomfortable with any form of punishment that isn't well-supported by evidence.
- thriftwy 10y ago
  Is there anyone here who forgot the Armenian genocide? I don't think so, and it's 100 years old. People stick to that kind of thing. I'll be a happy criminal around you. Why not take advantage if I know I'll get away with it?