3 ms·

There is always an "Us vs Them" (or tribal) mindset and that's not wrong in itself. There are tribes, teams, and companies and as long as resources are limited

There is always an "Us vs Them" (or tribal) mindset and that's not wrong in itself. There are tribes, teams, and companies and as long as resources are limited (aka always), there will need to be a way to prioritize. * It's why you provide for your child first. * It's why you root for your team over those "other guys." * It's why you help your family before worrying about someone else's. * It's why your city, state, or country must worry about things within its own borders first. It doesn't mean the other child is bad, the other family is evil, or some other country is less worthy. It's a matter of "who do I worry about first?" Once those needs are met enough (think Maslow), you will worry about #2.

empath75 9y ago
> * It's why you help your family before worrying about someone else's. Do you always? You're always going to buy your kid a $50 video game before you donate to a charity or volunteer at a soup kitchen?
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  You're choosing to ignore this line: > Once those needs are met enough (think Maslow), you will worry about #2. I know where I stand on your hypothetical but I won't hold you accountable to my values.
golemotron 9y ago
The problem is that there are many people in the world who think that these are problems to be fixed - that human nature is fixable. If we change those parts of ourselves we'll become less than human. The better approach is to accept our nature and work with it rather than against it.
- pron 9y ago
  The better approach is to argue and decide what it is that we want to try and improve rather than decide a priori based on arbitrary heuristics[1]. It is not in human nature to fly, yet many would agree that inventing airplanes was a good idea. This is exactly what politics is for: to collectively decide what goals we should collectively try to achieve. [1]: You see this approach in people who like following a fixed, simple set of rules, rather than exercising fluid judgment. E.g. you'll see some who claim that the line for coercion falls at physical violence, that changing attitudes is "fighting nature" but technology isn't, etc..
  - golemotron 9y ago
    Trying to grow wings is different from inventing a flying machine. That's what I meant by "changing human nature." The value judgements that the GP was describing are both rational and evolutionarily reinforced. When time, attention, and resources are scarce people choose their family or tribe first. It's a basic survival imperative - the people closest to you will help you too. Civilization can try to smooth the rough edges but without civilization our innate programming will reassert itself. You mentioned "we" as well. What is the "we" you speak of? If you check around you'll see that not everyone agrees with you. Us v. Them surfaces again, strangely in the context of advocacy against it.
    - pron 9y ago
      > Trying to grow wings is different from inventing a flying machine. Sure, but no one is talking about brain implants. Is encouraging certain behaviors like growing wings? Political action has been phenomenally effective over the ages in shaping behavior. Norbert Elias's The Civilizing Process[1] (1939) is a wonderful study of how behaviors (and even feelings) we now deem natural are just the result of a long chain of social change. But what matters most isn't underlying sentiments (the feeling of us vs. them) but rather behavior (behaving as us vs. them). The fact that the intensity of us vs. them behavior has changed considerably (in both directions) throughout history, shows that we're not talking about essential human nature, but how that nature is channeled. > What is the "we" you speak of? If you check around you'll see that not everyone agrees with you. "We" is society, and I don't think anyone disagrees that societies work to improve the condition of their members. Deciding which improvements we should make and how we should make them is precisely what political debate is about, but I don't think that the ideal of improving our lives is controversial in the least. > Us v. Them surfaces again, strangely in the context of advocacy against it. I completely disagree. The context of us vs. them isn't the existence of groups who disagree, but the belief (and the subsequent behavior) that assumes that the debate is a zero-sum game. I don't necessarily frame the (sometimes vehement) debates I have with those I disagree with as ones where if I win they lose and vice versa. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process
rhizome 9y ago
I think one of the biggest existential problems facing humanity is exactly the "Us vs. Them" in the sense that it's xor'ed, where it should be "Us and Them." (cf. Pink Floyd) Priorities and proximity are one thing, but the "vs" necessitates a hard separation where I feel it isn't warranted.
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  If resources were infinite, I would agree 100%. You could be all things to all people and no one would have to prioritize. As is, resources - cash, time, etc - are limited and therefore, the "Us" has to choose who gets which resources first. Even Bill Gates who has effectively infinite cash resources has to prioritize his attention.. which is probably his only scarce resource.
  - namlem 9y ago
    Bill Gates chooses to spend his money largely on "them" though. The Gates foundation is, if anything, a great example of what we can achieve once we look past us v. them thinking.

empath75 9y ago

> * It's why you help your family before worrying about someone else's. Do you always? You're always going to buy your kid a $50 video game before you donate to a charity or volunteer at a soup kitchen?

caseysoftware 9y ago
You're choosing to ignore this line: > Once those needs are met enough (think Maslow), you will worry about #2. I know where I stand on your hypothetical but I won't hold you accountable to my values.

golemotron 9y ago

The problem is that there are many people in the world who think that these are problems to be fixed - that human nature is fixable. If we change those parts of ourselves we'll become less than human. The better approach is to accept our nature and work with it rather than against it.

pron 9y ago
The better approach is to argue and decide what it is that we want to try and improve rather than decide a priori based on arbitrary heuristics[1]. It is not in human nature to fly, yet many would agree that inventing airplanes was a good idea. This is exactly what politics is for: to collectively decide what goals we should collectively try to achieve. [1]: You see this approach in people who like following a fixed, simple set of rules, rather than exercising fluid judgment. E.g. you'll see some who claim that the line for coercion falls at physical violence, that changing attitudes is "fighting nature" but technology isn't, etc..
- golemotron 9y ago
  Trying to grow wings is different from inventing a flying machine. That's what I meant by "changing human nature." The value judgements that the GP was describing are both rational and evolutionarily reinforced. When time, attention, and resources are scarce people choose their family or tribe first. It's a basic survival imperative - the people closest to you will help you too. Civilization can try to smooth the rough edges but without civilization our innate programming will reassert itself. You mentioned "we" as well. What is the "we" you speak of? If you check around you'll see that not everyone agrees with you. Us v. Them surfaces again, strangely in the context of advocacy against it.
  - pron 9y ago
    > Trying to grow wings is different from inventing a flying machine. Sure, but no one is talking about brain implants. Is encouraging certain behaviors like growing wings? Political action has been phenomenally effective over the ages in shaping behavior. Norbert Elias's The Civilizing Process[1] (1939) is a wonderful study of how behaviors (and even feelings) we now deem natural are just the result of a long chain of social change. But what matters most isn't underlying sentiments (the feeling of us vs. them) but rather behavior (behaving as us vs. them). The fact that the intensity of us vs. them behavior has changed considerably (in both directions) throughout history, shows that we're not talking about essential human nature, but how that nature is channeled. > What is the "we" you speak of? If you check around you'll see that not everyone agrees with you. "We" is society, and I don't think anyone disagrees that societies work to improve the condition of their members. Deciding which improvements we should make and how we should make them is precisely what political debate is about, but I don't think that the ideal of improving our lives is controversial in the least. > Us v. Them surfaces again, strangely in the context of advocacy against it. I completely disagree. The context of us vs. them isn't the existence of groups who disagree, but the belief (and the subsequent behavior) that assumes that the debate is a zero-sum game. I don't necessarily frame the (sometimes vehement) debates I have with those I disagree with as ones where if I win they lose and vice versa. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process

rhizome 9y ago

I think one of the biggest existential problems facing humanity is exactly the "Us vs. Them" in the sense that it's xor'ed, where it should be "Us and Them." (cf. Pink Floyd) Priorities and proximity are one thing, but the "vs" necessitates a hard separation where I feel it isn't warranted.

caseysoftware 9y ago
If resources were infinite, I would agree 100%. You could be all things to all people and no one would have to prioritize. As is, resources - cash, time, etc - are limited and therefore, the "Us" has to choose who gets which resources first. Even Bill Gates who has effectively infinite cash resources has to prioritize his attention.. which is probably his only scarce resource.
- namlem 9y ago
  Bill Gates chooses to spend his money largely on "them" though. The Gates foundation is, if anything, a great example of what we can achieve once we look past us v. them thinking.