5 ms·

Unpopular opinion - Is this something that we should seek to overcome entirely? These judgement calls are hard-wired into us for a reason. Whilst there are scen

Unpopular opinion - Is this something that we should seek to overcome entirely? These judgement calls are hard-wired into us for a reason. Whilst there are scenarios in which it is bad, there are scenarios in which it is good.

nine_k 9y ago
We can overcome them without removing them, by extending "us" widely enough. This is how a number of religions handled it, leading to their expansion over large swaths of diverse nations. Seeing most everyone on Earth as ingroup improves collaboration and thus propels culture / prosperity.
- laretluval 9y ago
  But what if there is a group whose strategy is to take advantage of the trusting nature of everyone else for its own gains? In that case it would be advantageous to unite against them. Universal cooperation and trust is great when there are no attackers but it needs to be hardened against attacks somehow. Also, does universal collaboration necessarily bring the best results? Seems like there might be a number of people over which universal coordination becomes infeasible.
  - komali2 9y ago
    If you mean a culture war scenario, this was discussed briefly in the article - do you focus on the success of your Us, or on the relative success of your Us as compared to your Them? I prefer the former, because it is a pure "improvement" mindset, whereas the latter allows for "success" via subjugation of other people while your Us stagnants.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      That's a good strategy in the aggregate but complete defenselessness is no more sustainable than complete hostility
      - komali2 9y ago
        Defense against value invasion doesn't require offense against other values, does it?
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        Well, it depends on the content of those values. I'm opposed to eliminationist ideologies for example.
        komali2 9y ago
        What is an eliminationist ideology, and does it require an offensive to avoid it influencing your cultural values?
  - undersuit 9y ago
    >Ingroup favoritism raises a key question—at our core, do we want Us to do “well” by maximizing absolute levels of well being, or merely “better than,” by maximizing the gap between Us and Them? Universal individualism and distrust is great when there are no attackers but it needs to be hardened against cooperative attacks somehow. Also, does universal individualism necessarily bring the best results? Seems like there might be a number of people over which universal individualism becomes infeasible.
- jotm 9y ago
  Aren't most Indians Hindu yet they still judge and separate each other by the shade of their skin or the family they were born in? There is no extending, there's always going to be some arbitrary point for Us vs Them.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    It's worth noting the influence British colonialism played in emphasizing caste in India, a strategy otherwise known as divide et impera.
- bluthru 9y ago
  >Seeing most everyone on Earth as ingroup improves collaboration and thus propels culture / prosperity. Not when this isn't a shared sentiment. Whites are resented, not praised, for their anti-identity politics and inclusiveness. Now we're called racist for trying to ignore race or judging people based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Also it's a pretty radical proposition to overcome nature regarding in-group preferences, since that has a genetic component.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nine_k 9y ago
    I see your point. The "you're my ingroup by default" approach works best when reciprocated. It still works tolerably well when not, as long as overt hostility is met with an adequate reaction. Otherwise it still works with those who agree to collaborate, and ends up in a disappointment with those who don't. (Moral panic that can grow or not from such a disappointment is another issue.)
bllguo 9y ago
I'm drawing a blank. When is it good nowadays?
thomastjeffery 9y ago
I can't think of any examples in which it is good. I also think that is a mischaracterization of the problem, and of the solution. Our instinct is to trust those in our communities, and distrust those outside our communities. While that was useful in the past, two significant things have changed: 1. We are in a civilized society where it is to our advantage to begin relationships with trust rather than distrust. 2. We are not in separate communities fighting over basic resources, but in a large community where smaller parts work together. These changes mean that the problem stems from us not trusting each other, and fragmenting the larger community. The solution is for us to realize our limitations, and overcome them, by trusting those with whom we are unfamiliar, and working together as a larger community.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  I’ve come to the exact opposite conclusion. We live in a world driven by marketing/advertising, hyper politicalization of all things, dark user patterns, spy-ware, government agendas... Entering any relationship with a default of distrust and allowing trust to be earned seems very prudent in 2017 (and probably any other time period).
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    I think we can differentiate between trusting people's words and trusting individuals themselves. The distinction is that people who disagree with us are not out to do us harm. We can disagree and work together. Trust is a nuanced subject, which is the very fact the "Us vs. Them" attitude ignores. If we clump everyone who disagrees with "us" into one group, we turn a prudent critical attitude into blatant distrust. It is important for us to be critical of ideas, but not of people.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      Interesting. Again, I have the polar opposite position. I can trust an idea because I can evaluate it on its own merit. I can’t trust a person because they’re inherently driven by emotion instead of logic. I may trust someone in some capacity but not another. For instance I might trust someone to feed my dog but not invest my money. I also see the problem with “us vs them” with the “us” side of the equation. I’m a unique individual who’s thoughts, wants and needs don’t overlap with any group. To me everyone else is a “them” until I build a personal relationship with them.
nemo1618 9y ago
There's a more practical question here. Perhaps it's possible that such biases could be totally overcome, i.e. requiring no conscious effort. But clearly we're not on the verge of doing so. So, if we accept that our society is going to be composed of Us-vs-Them tribalists for the time being... what implications does that have for social policy? For example, our "rational brain" tells us that racism is bad, but our "lizard brain" is still going to fail the implicit bias test every time. We can consciously override that bias some of the time, but it's still there. Even if you believe that you can consistently override your bias, surely you don't expect that the average person could. So how can a society comprised of "average" people avoid being plagued by racial bias? Our rational brain -- the part that tries to overcome bias -- is also the part that is responsible for designing our society. And the people designing society tend to be more rational than most. As a result, society is in direct conflict with our lizard brain. If you are not adept at suppressing your automatic responses, you are a bad citizen. For the most part, this is what we want; after all, your lizard brain generates a lot of unsavory impulses, like the desire to enact violence. But I think it's a mistake to disregard the lizard brain entirely. "Whatever your lizard brain says, do the opposite" is unlikely to result in a perfect society. We should continue to push the limits of what we can successfully repress, but we should also be willing to admit when repression has failed. Thousands of years ago, we began to experiment with repressing our urges to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc. That experiment was largely successful. In modern times, we are launching new experiments, many of which concern implicit bias. We don't know yet whether we can suppress those impulses. And we don't seem to have very good criteria for deciding whether the experiment has succeeded or failed. That concerns me, because it likely means that things have to get really bad before the experiment can be deemed a failure.
- BRAlNlAC 9y ago
  First off, I really like your framework of "lizard brain"/"rational brain" >We should continue to push the limits of what we can successfully repress, but we should also be willing to admit when repression has failed. I think we are there already to some extent. This movement to try and repress implicit bias, and to hold people accountable for their implicit bias is a radical failure. Consider that since this movement got started in the West we have become more divided, and more militant about it. Micro-aggression, sexual harassment (becoming very broad and ill defined), and the general expectation that everyone be hyper-PC has riled up the lizard brains of many and even the rational brains of some. You could argue that this is an application of tribalism for good, but I think the problem is that it is too much too fast and is therefore a force of evil. Gay marriage just became legal. Now a certain population wants to normalize in-your-face transsexuals, a spectrum of genders, and social slights as criminal behavior amongst a slew of other wants; hard pushes like this radicalize people, and that's what we are seeing on the right at the moment. This sexual harassment campaign is especially alienating for a lot of people specifically because sex requires you to disengage your rationale brain and give over to your animalistic desires. I'm not saying all of these men should get a pass, some of them appear to have committed truly heinous acts, but when things are said like "Even though my situation with Matt was consensual, I ultimately felt like a victim because of the power dynamic." [1] It is going to alienate a lot of people who would call that poor willpower. Like, Mr. Lauer is giving in to his lizard brain when he does this and cheats, but so is she when she accepts his offer. Going back to the main point, I think that this in particular is driving a huge wedge between the sexes in America because it comes across as a double standard, and I think that in order to effectively utilize tribalism for the social good, it is critical to eliminate double standards. [1]https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/inside-matt-lauer’s-secret-relationship-with-a-‘today’-production-assistant-exclusive/ar-BBGKSRZ?li=BBnbfcL https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/inside-matt-lauer’s-secret...
corford 9y ago
The (excellent) article agrees with you: "From massive barbarity to pinpricks of microaggression, Us versus Them has produced oceans of pain. Yet, I don’t think our goal should be to “cure” us of all Us/Them dichotomizing (separate of it being impossible, unless you have no amygdala). I’m fairly solitary—I’ve spent a lot of my life living alone in a tent in Africa, studying another species. Yet some of my most exquisitely happy moments have come from feeling like an Us, feeling accepted, safe, and not alone, feeling part of something large and enveloping, with a sense of being on the right side and doing both well and good. There are even Us/Thems that I—eggheady, meek, and amorphously pacifistic—would kill or die for. If we accept that there will always be sides, it’s challenging to always be on the side of angels. Distrust essentialism. Remember that supposed rationality is often just rationalization, playing catch-up with subterranean forces we never suspect. Focus on shared goals. Practice perspective taking. Individuate, individuate, individuate. And recall how often, historically, the truly malignant Thems hid themselves while making third parties the fall guy. Meanwhile, give the right-of-way to people driving cars with the “Mean people suck” bumper sticker, and remind everyone that we’re in this together against Lord Voldemort and House Slytherin."

nine_k 9y ago

We can overcome them without removing them, by extending "us" widely enough. This is how a number of religions handled it, leading to their expansion over large swaths of diverse nations. Seeing most everyone on Earth as ingroup improves collaboration and thus propels culture / prosperity.

laretluval 9y ago
But what if there is a group whose strategy is to take advantage of the trusting nature of everyone else for its own gains? In that case it would be advantageous to unite against them. Universal cooperation and trust is great when there are no attackers but it needs to be hardened against attacks somehow. Also, does universal collaboration necessarily bring the best results? Seems like there might be a number of people over which universal coordination becomes infeasible.
- komali2 9y ago
  If you mean a culture war scenario, this was discussed briefly in the article - do you focus on the success of your Us, or on the relative success of your Us as compared to your Them? I prefer the former, because it is a pure "improvement" mindset, whereas the latter allows for "success" via subjugation of other people while your Us stagnants.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    That's a good strategy in the aggregate but complete defenselessness is no more sustainable than complete hostility
    - komali2 9y ago
      Defense against value invasion doesn't require offense against other values, does it?
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Well, it depends on the content of those values. I'm opposed to eliminationist ideologies for example.
        komali2 9y ago
        What is an eliminationist ideology, and does it require an offensive to avoid it influencing your cultural values?
- undersuit 9y ago
  >Ingroup favoritism raises a key question—at our core, do we want Us to do “well” by maximizing absolute levels of well being, or merely “better than,” by maximizing the gap between Us and Them? Universal individualism and distrust is great when there are no attackers but it needs to be hardened against cooperative attacks somehow. Also, does universal individualism necessarily bring the best results? Seems like there might be a number of people over which universal individualism becomes infeasible.
jotm 9y ago
Aren't most Indians Hindu yet they still judge and separate each other by the shade of their skin or the family they were born in? There is no extending, there's always going to be some arbitrary point for Us vs Them.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  It's worth noting the influence British colonialism played in emphasizing caste in India, a strategy otherwise known as divide et impera.
bluthru 9y ago
>Seeing most everyone on Earth as ingroup improves collaboration and thus propels culture / prosperity. Not when this isn't a shared sentiment. Whites are resented, not praised, for their anti-identity politics and inclusiveness. Now we're called racist for trying to ignore race or judging people based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Also it's a pretty radical proposition to overcome nature regarding in-group preferences, since that has a genetic component.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nine_k 9y ago
  I see your point. The "you're my ingroup by default" approach works best when reciprocated. It still works tolerably well when not, as long as overt hostility is met with an adequate reaction. Otherwise it still works with those who agree to collaborate, and ends up in a disappointment with those who don't. (Moral panic that can grow or not from such a disappointment is another issue.)

bllguo 9y ago

I'm drawing a blank. When is it good nowadays?

thomastjeffery 9y ago

I can't think of any examples in which it is good. I also think that is a mischaracterization of the problem, and of the solution. Our instinct is to trust those in our communities, and distrust those outside our communities. While that was useful in the past, two significant things have changed: 1. We are in a civilized society where it is to our advantage to begin relationships with trust rather than distrust. 2. We are not in separate communities fighting over basic resources, but in a large community where smaller parts work together. These changes mean that the problem stems from us not trusting each other, and fragmenting the larger community. The solution is for us to realize our limitations, and overcome them, by trusting those with whom we are unfamiliar, and working together as a larger community.

malvosenior 9y ago
I’ve come to the exact opposite conclusion. We live in a world driven by marketing/advertising, hyper politicalization of all things, dark user patterns, spy-ware, government agendas... Entering any relationship with a default of distrust and allowing trust to be earned seems very prudent in 2017 (and probably any other time period).
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  I think we can differentiate between trusting people's words and trusting individuals themselves. The distinction is that people who disagree with us are not out to do us harm. We can disagree and work together. Trust is a nuanced subject, which is the very fact the "Us vs. Them" attitude ignores. If we clump everyone who disagrees with "us" into one group, we turn a prudent critical attitude into blatant distrust. It is important for us to be critical of ideas, but not of people.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    Interesting. Again, I have the polar opposite position. I can trust an idea because I can evaluate it on its own merit. I can’t trust a person because they’re inherently driven by emotion instead of logic. I may trust someone in some capacity but not another. For instance I might trust someone to feed my dog but not invest my money. I also see the problem with “us vs them” with the “us” side of the equation. I’m a unique individual who’s thoughts, wants and needs don’t overlap with any group. To me everyone else is a “them” until I build a personal relationship with them.

nemo1618 9y ago

There's a more practical question here. Perhaps it's possible that such biases could be totally overcome, i.e. requiring no conscious effort. But clearly we're not on the verge of doing so. So, if we accept that our society is going to be composed of Us-vs-Them tribalists for the time being... what implications does that have for social policy? For example, our "rational brain" tells us that racism is bad, but our "lizard brain" is still going to fail the implicit bias test every time. We can consciously override that bias some of the time, but it's still there. Even if you believe that you can consistently override your bias, surely you don't expect that the average person could. So how can a society comprised of "average" people avoid being plagued by racial bias? Our rational brain -- the part that tries to overcome bias -- is also the part that is responsible for designing our society. And the people designing society tend to be more rational than most. As a result, society is in direct conflict with our lizard brain. If you are not adept at suppressing your automatic responses, you are a bad citizen. For the most part, this is what we want; after all, your lizard brain generates a lot of unsavory impulses, like the desire to enact violence. But I think it's a mistake to disregard the lizard brain entirely. "Whatever your lizard brain says, do the opposite" is unlikely to result in a perfect society. We should continue to push the limits of what we can successfully repress, but we should also be willing to admit when repression has failed. Thousands of years ago, we began to experiment with repressing our urges to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc. That experiment was largely successful. In modern times, we are launching new experiments, many of which concern implicit bias. We don't know yet whether we can suppress those impulses. And we don't seem to have very good criteria for deciding whether the experiment has succeeded or failed. That concerns me, because it likely means that things have to get really bad before the experiment can be deemed a failure.

BRAlNlAC 9y ago
First off, I really like your framework of "lizard brain"/"rational brain" >We should continue to push the limits of what we can successfully repress, but we should also be willing to admit when repression has failed. I think we are there already to some extent. This movement to try and repress implicit bias, and to hold people accountable for their implicit bias is a radical failure. Consider that since this movement got started in the West we have become more divided, and more militant about it. Micro-aggression, sexual harassment (becoming very broad and ill defined), and the general expectation that everyone be hyper-PC has riled up the lizard brains of many and even the rational brains of some. You could argue that this is an application of tribalism for good, but I think the problem is that it is too much too fast and is therefore a force of evil. Gay marriage just became legal. Now a certain population wants to normalize in-your-face transsexuals, a spectrum of genders, and social slights as criminal behavior amongst a slew of other wants; hard pushes like this radicalize people, and that's what we are seeing on the right at the moment. This sexual harassment campaign is especially alienating for a lot of people specifically because sex requires you to disengage your rationale brain and give over to your animalistic desires. I'm not saying all of these men should get a pass, some of them appear to have committed truly heinous acts, but when things are said like "Even though my situation with Matt was consensual, I ultimately felt like a victim because of the power dynamic." [1] It is going to alienate a lot of people who would call that poor willpower. Like, Mr. Lauer is giving in to his lizard brain when he does this and cheats, but so is she when she accepts his offer. Going back to the main point, I think that this in particular is driving a huge wedge between the sexes in America because it comes across as a double standard, and I think that in order to effectively utilize tribalism for the social good, it is critical to eliminate double standards. [1]https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/inside-matt-lauer’s-secret-relationship-with-a-‘today’-production-assistant-exclusive/ar-BBGKSRZ?li=BBnbfcL https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/inside-matt-lauer’s-secret...

corford 9y ago

The (excellent) article agrees with you: "From massive barbarity to pinpricks of microaggression, Us versus Them has produced oceans of pain. Yet, I don’t think our goal should be to “cure” us of all Us/Them dichotomizing (separate of it being impossible, unless you have no amygdala). I’m fairly solitary—I’ve spent a lot of my life living alone in a tent in Africa, studying another species. Yet some of my most exquisitely happy moments have come from feeling like an Us, feeling accepted, safe, and not alone, feeling part of something large and enveloping, with a sense of being on the right side and doing both well and good. There are even Us/Thems that I—eggheady, meek, and amorphously pacifistic—would kill or die for. If we accept that there will always be sides, it’s challenging to always be on the side of angels. Distrust essentialism. Remember that supposed rationality is often just rationalization, playing catch-up with subterranean forces we never suspect. Focus on shared goals. Practice perspective taking. Individuate, individuate, individuate. And recall how often, historically, the truly malignant Thems hid themselves while making third parties the fall guy. Meanwhile, give the right-of-way to people driving cars with the “Mean people suck” bumper sticker, and remind everyone that we’re in this together against Lord Voldemort and House Slytherin."