7 ms·

Interesting. Obvious question is, why is that two people is excluded?

mcguire 8y ago
"With two people, you either have consensus or stalemate in all cases, so there is no systematic means of making decisions (absent unequal distribution of votes)." It's not quite true, but pretty close.
Avshalom 8y ago
Can't make alliances against each other I'd suppose
imgabe 8y ago
Because with two people it's just the two of you together. There can be no subgroups. With three there is the possibility of two aligning against one. With more than three you can get even more subgroups and different alliances that can form.
- vram22 8y ago
  >Because with two people it's just the two of you together. >There can be no subgroups. Groups of one is a thing. The two people can be against each other. Common. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18666445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18666445
  - imgabe 8y ago
    Right, but if there's two of you and you don't get along, you just separate. There's no backroom conniving that can go on to get the upper hand on the other person, because you'd need other people to connive with. You either come to an agreement or move along. We're talking about groups of people. Not the mathematical definition of a group.
    - vram22 8y ago
      >Right, but if there's two of you and you don't get along, you just separate. Not all pairs may be able to separate (immediately or even later). Real life stuff. >There's no backroom conniving that can go on to get the upper hand on the other person, because you'd need other people to connive with. You either come to an agreement or move along. Sure, about the conniving. But scheming against the other person is quite possible (and done plenty) for a single person against another single person. Real life again. >We're talking about groups of people. Not the mathematical definition of a group. I did not say or imply otherwise. I meant it in the real life sense.
      - imgabe 8y ago
        Two people can be against each other sure, but that's just adversaries. There's no politics because politics implies wrangling other people to your side against a different side. Politics is about building coalitions and alliances. If there's only two of you and you're working against each other, there's nobody for you to build an alliance with. You can't be an alliance of one. You don't have to convince yourself to do what you want to do because by definition you already want to do it.
        vram22 8y ago
        You could be right, for some definition of politics. Maybe we were thinking of different meanings of it. It's an overloaded word.
saltcured 8y ago
Well, the relationship between three or more is really the complex of pairwise relationships and how they are aligned with and against. I.e. forming alliances to gang up on another part of the group. If you have a complex of pairwise relationships with just two people, I think we tend to look at that as pathological or abusive...
snarf21 8y ago
It removes the 'talk behind your back' and ganging up.
sbuttgereit 8y ago
I must simply assume that Plato was never married.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  A marriage is more than just two people. A marriage necessarily involves at least one ather person, the one vested with the power to marry others. Or, marriage is a social contract. Therefore, it could be argued, marriage is fundamentally political. Edit: fixed speeling and gramar
james_s_tayler 8y ago
Because politics requires coalitions and you can't make a coalition with only two people.

"With two people, you either have consensus or stalemate in all cases, so there is no systematic means of making decisions (absent unequal distribution of votes)." It's not quite true, but pretty close.

Avshalom 8y ago

Can't make alliances against each other I'd suppose

imgabe 8y ago

Because with two people it's just the two of you together. There can be no subgroups. With three there is the possibility of two aligning against one. With more than three you can get even more subgroups and different alliances that can form.

vram22 8y ago
>Because with two people it's just the two of you together. >There can be no subgroups. Groups of one is a thing. The two people can be against each other. Common. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18666445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18666445
- imgabe 8y ago
  Right, but if there's two of you and you don't get along, you just separate. There's no backroom conniving that can go on to get the upper hand on the other person, because you'd need other people to connive with. You either come to an agreement or move along. We're talking about groups of people. Not the mathematical definition of a group.
  - vram22 8y ago
    >Right, but if there's two of you and you don't get along, you just separate. Not all pairs may be able to separate (immediately or even later). Real life stuff. >There's no backroom conniving that can go on to get the upper hand on the other person, because you'd need other people to connive with. You either come to an agreement or move along. Sure, about the conniving. But scheming against the other person is quite possible (and done plenty) for a single person against another single person. Real life again. >We're talking about groups of people. Not the mathematical definition of a group. I did not say or imply otherwise. I meant it in the real life sense.
    - imgabe 8y ago
      Two people can be against each other sure, but that's just adversaries. There's no politics because politics implies wrangling other people to your side against a different side. Politics is about building coalitions and alliances. If there's only two of you and you're working against each other, there's nobody for you to build an alliance with. You can't be an alliance of one. You don't have to convince yourself to do what you want to do because by definition you already want to do it.
      - vram22 8y ago
        You could be right, for some definition of politics. Maybe we were thinking of different meanings of it. It's an overloaded word.

saltcured 8y ago

Well, the relationship between three or more is really the complex of pairwise relationships and how they are aligned with and against. I.e. forming alliances to gang up on another part of the group. If you have a complex of pairwise relationships with just two people, I think we tend to look at that as pathological or abusive...

snarf21 8y ago

It removes the 'talk behind your back' and ganging up.

sbuttgereit 8y ago

I must simply assume that Plato was never married.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
A marriage is more than just two people. A marriage necessarily involves at least one ather person, the one vested with the power to marry others. Or, marriage is a social contract. Therefore, it could be argued, marriage is fundamentally political. Edit: fixed speeling and gramar

james_s_tayler 8y ago

Because politics requires coalitions and you can't make a coalition with only two people.