6 ms·

Why is this form of self-reliance a virtue? To me, it looks pathological; certainly not something we should collectively be working towards.

bgibson 9y ago
Reducing interdependence in human society mitigates systemic risk. It absolutely is a virtue to be collectively working towards.
- sagichmal 9y ago
  Systemic risk reduction is one effect of reducing interdependence. What are the others? On balance, are they net-negative or net-positive?
ergothus 9y ago
I can't say if it's better or not, but we do know that human organizations function poorly at scale. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to communicate, the easier it is to feel powerless, the more the problems of a large chunk of the group are remote and abstract (and thus ignored/missed/downplayed/deprioritized) I suspect that you also have more corruption and/or abuse of power because (a) the previous entries all empower sociopathic individuals, (b) you have a larger pool from which to find such sociopaths, and (c) you have more positions of power for said sociopaths to fill. You have all of these problems in small groups, but many of our policing/accountability systems don't function well in very large groups.
- kbenson 9y ago
  I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. Is our larger society more corrupt? Is it more difficult to communicate? I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy, which might lead to more wars. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounds plausible to me. In the end, actually examining data is what's needed. Until there are facts to assess, we're just spouting wild conjecture.
  - ergothus 9y ago
    > I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number has a decent collection of the research I know of. There is a little hand-waving involved when it comes to "why", but it's notable that multiple researchers over decades disagree about the number, not the base concept. Likewise, studies related to the base concept of the non-technical Brooks Law support the non-linear impact on communication as a group grows (off hand I can't find a study on that, but I know I've read of multiple). Edit: Also https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201108/statistical-numbing-why-millions-can-die-and-we-don-t-care https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/... points out some research about the distance/abstractness I mentioned. Anecdotally, plenty of governing and/or economic systems (e.g. communism) have historical success in small groups and no examples of success in large groups, but that's a completely different kind of evidence. The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect" Given the above, and what we know about leaders (executives, politicians) and how sociopathic tendencies are an asset to personal success I find it very plausible but I have no actual evidence, thus "I suspect". > I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences. That's orthogonal to my point though, as I was only addressing internal workings, not interactions between groups.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      > The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect" My main point was that the theory was labeled as something you suspect, but the evidence you listed to back up that theory sounded like it was being presented as fact. You've provided resources to back up the claim, at least to some degree (as you note), which is what I was looking for, so thanks. :) > You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences. I don't have any, but I also would be interested to see it. I was using it as an example of something that sounded true and that I suspected was true that I had no real evidence of, and thus should be hesitant to assert as true. Unfortunately, by its nature that makes it interesting to a certain type of person, so it ends up teasing us. :/
hathawsh 9y ago
I'm upvoting you just for engaging in this conversation, even though I thoroughly disagree with you. :-) The "distributism" described above is the dream of virtually every rural community. People choose to live in rural communities because it's a little piece of heaven for them: they are surrounded by people they know, they have clean air, the earth is right beneath their feet, the stars are bright, the pace is slow, and so on. They want to serve their neighbors and receive services from their neighbors. How is that mindset pathological? I am always encouraged by innovations that help rural folks be more self-reliant so they can work toward their dream of self-sustaining, independent communities.
- scribu 9y ago
  The problem is that a small community can’t develop or even maintain advanced technology, including that required for sanitation and healthcare. So, you either choose total independence and low technology or interdependence with other groups and advanced tech.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Well, at least until we reach the science fiction utopian dream of nanoassemblers that can make nanoassemblers. Then rural communities could truly be independent. Although that independence would be like a group of proto humans that knew about fire and how to use it, but not how to make it, and thus carefully guarded it and kept it fed, lest it go out.
  - hathawsh 9y ago
    Certainly. There will always be interdependence and rural communities understand that; that's why they drive modern pickup trucks rather than horse-drawn carriages. Still, they are always looking for ways to reduce their dependence on cities.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - ehead 9y ago

bgibson 9y ago

Reducing interdependence in human society mitigates systemic risk. It absolutely is a virtue to be collectively working towards.

sagichmal 9y ago
Systemic risk reduction is one effect of reducing interdependence. What are the others? On balance, are they net-negative or net-positive?

ergothus 9y ago

I can't say if it's better or not, but we do know that human organizations function poorly at scale. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to communicate, the easier it is to feel powerless, the more the problems of a large chunk of the group are remote and abstract (and thus ignored/missed/downplayed/deprioritized) I suspect that you also have more corruption and/or abuse of power because (a) the previous entries all empower sociopathic individuals, (b) you have a larger pool from which to find such sociopaths, and (c) you have more positions of power for said sociopaths to fill. You have all of these problems in small groups, but many of our policing/accountability systems don't function well in very large groups.

kbenson 9y ago
I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. Is our larger society more corrupt? Is it more difficult to communicate? I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy, which might lead to more wars. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounds plausible to me. In the end, actually examining data is what's needed. Until there are facts to assess, we're just spouting wild conjecture.
- ergothus 9y ago
  > I'm not sure any of your claims are backed up by data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number has a decent collection of the research I know of. There is a little hand-waving involved when it comes to "why", but it's notable that multiple researchers over decades disagree about the number, not the base concept. Likewise, studies related to the base concept of the non-technical Brooks Law support the non-linear impact on communication as a group grows (off hand I can't find a study on that, but I know I've read of multiple). Edit: Also https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/201108/statistical-numbing-why-millions-can-die-and-we-don-t-care https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-risky-is-it-really/... points out some research about the distance/abstractness I mentioned. Anecdotally, plenty of governing and/or economic systems (e.g. communism) have historical success in small groups and no examples of success in large groups, but that's a completely different kind of evidence. The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect" Given the above, and what we know about leaders (executives, politicians) and how sociopathic tendencies are an asset to personal success I find it very plausible but I have no actual evidence, thus "I suspect". > I could just as easily argue that smaller, more insular groups promote distrust of outsiders and lack of empathy You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences. That's orthogonal to my point though, as I was only addressing internal workings, not interactions between groups.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > The corruption/abuse item is not part of the research, which is why I separated that as "I suspect" My main point was that the theory was labeled as something you suspect, but the evidence you listed to back up that theory sounded like it was being presented as fact. You've provided resources to back up the claim, at least to some degree (as you note), which is what I was looking for, so thanks. :) > You could, and I'd actually be interested to see any research on the topic because I've not thought about that one but it does match our general experiences about exposure and tolerance to social differences. I don't have any, but I also would be interested to see it. I was using it as an example of something that sounded true and that I suspected was true that I had no real evidence of, and thus should be hesitant to assert as true. Unfortunately, by its nature that makes it interesting to a certain type of person, so it ends up teasing us. :/

hathawsh 9y ago

I'm upvoting you just for engaging in this conversation, even though I thoroughly disagree with you. :-) The "distributism" described above is the dream of virtually every rural community. People choose to live in rural communities because it's a little piece of heaven for them: they are surrounded by people they know, they have clean air, the earth is right beneath their feet, the stars are bright, the pace is slow, and so on. They want to serve their neighbors and receive services from their neighbors. How is that mindset pathological? I am always encouraged by innovations that help rural folks be more self-reliant so they can work toward their dream of self-sustaining, independent communities.

scribu 9y ago
The problem is that a small community can’t develop or even maintain advanced technology, including that required for sanitation and healthcare. So, you either choose total independence and low technology or interdependence with other groups and advanced tech.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Well, at least until we reach the science fiction utopian dream of nanoassemblers that can make nanoassemblers. Then rural communities could truly be independent. Although that independence would be like a group of proto humans that knew about fire and how to use it, but not how to make it, and thus carefully guarded it and kept it fed, lest it go out.
- hathawsh 9y ago
  Certainly. There will always be interdependence and rural communities understand that; that's why they drive modern pickup trucks rather than horse-drawn carriages. Still, they are always looking for ways to reduce their dependence on cities.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ehead 9y ago