3 ms·

What this doesn't address is why many people don't conform to this. My primary friend group is about half male, half female. Half left-ish, half right-ish, so

What this doesn't address is why many people don't conform to this. My primary friend group is about half male, half female. Half left-ish, half right-ish, some more or less authoritarian/individualistic. Some techie, some med people, some business, some arts. We disagree on tons of stuff, political, cultural, and more, but still get along fine. None of this is intentional, either; it's not as though any of us consciously selected anything. The obvious question, then, is why this is not the case here? What is different?

mistermann 7y ago
> We disagree on tons of stuff, political, cultural, and more, but still get along fine. None of this is intentional, either; it's not as though any of us consciously selected anything. Does your friend group perhaps engage in a sort of a curation process, only allowing in new members who can disagree but still get along fine? > The obvious question, then, is why this is not the case here? What is different? It seems to me that this is the question humanity should be trying to answer right now. The majority of the problems the world faces right now (political polarization, inequality, climate change, you name it) share one common core problem: the inability of humans to get along as well as they "should" be able to (if each out-group would "just <do x>"). I wonder if you started intently observing the nuanced nature of conversations and "conflict" in your group, and compare that to similar conversations you observe among other people (IRL, on social media, in the news) and making a list of difference in behavior and style, perhaps some interesting patterns and ideas might rise to the top. I also wonder if some way could be found to scale this exercise up, and collaborate with people in various fields (psychologists, neurologists, linguists, historians, mediators, rationalists, spiritualists, autism-spectrumists (neuro-Atypical people in general), etc), if some really important and pragmatic ideas might result that could actually be used to make some widespread improvements in this problem.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  I guess there is some curation, yeah; we don't really invite back those who are unpleasant or can't handle being wrong. I personally don't use much social media, so that might be a difference? I'm tempted to say that people just don't do too well arguing behind a screen, me included. It's difficult to see the other person as a person. I also thinks it takes some willingness: just the other evening I conversed with someone else, not a typical acquaintance, and trying to persuade him of a point. Went through my chain of logic, got to the end, and watched him shut off when he realized where I was going. Not everyone is interested, plain and simple.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > Not everyone is interested, plain and simple. "Not many people can read and write, plain and simple" was a true statement for much of the planet not that long ago. I wonder what changed between then and now, was it just a run of good luck, or was the change somehow man-made.
- nradov 7y ago
  We have no shortage of important and pragmatic ideas. The problem is that the people with really good ideas lack the power and influence to implement them.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    That we already have many useful ideas doesn't seem like a particularly good reason to not continue looking for others, or just looking to see if anything interesting is going on in the world, like the majority of the public seemingly becoming more irrational as time progresses. > The problem is that the people with really good ideas lack the power and influence to implement them. I wonder if anything could be done about that. I guess it would require at least some new kinds of thinking and likely cooperation, so perhaps not.
usefulcat 7y ago
One possible explanation is that the present diversity of your friend group is a temporary phenomenon, and over time the group will tend to divide along one or more lines. I've personally experienced that.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  I'd expect as much, but the opposite happened. It started somewhat skewed and larger, but a bunch of people sloughed off to the current state.

mistermann 7y ago

> We disagree on tons of stuff, political, cultural, and more, but still get along fine. None of this is intentional, either; it's not as though any of us consciously selected anything. Does your friend group perhaps engage in a sort of a curation process, only allowing in new members who can disagree but still get along fine? > The obvious question, then, is why this is not the case here? What is different? It seems to me that this is the question humanity should be trying to answer right now. The majority of the problems the world faces right now (political polarization, inequality, climate change, you name it) share one common core problem: the inability of humans to get along as well as they "should" be able to (if each out-group would "just <do x>"). I wonder if you started intently observing the nuanced nature of conversations and "conflict" in your group, and compare that to similar conversations you observe among other people (IRL, on social media, in the news) and making a list of difference in behavior and style, perhaps some interesting patterns and ideas might rise to the top. I also wonder if some way could be found to scale this exercise up, and collaborate with people in various fields (psychologists, neurologists, linguists, historians, mediators, rationalists, spiritualists, autism-spectrumists (neuro-Atypical people in general), etc), if some really important and pragmatic ideas might result that could actually be used to make some widespread improvements in this problem.

big_chungus 7y ago
I guess there is some curation, yeah; we don't really invite back those who are unpleasant or can't handle being wrong. I personally don't use much social media, so that might be a difference? I'm tempted to say that people just don't do too well arguing behind a screen, me included. It's difficult to see the other person as a person. I also thinks it takes some willingness: just the other evening I conversed with someone else, not a typical acquaintance, and trying to persuade him of a point. Went through my chain of logic, got to the end, and watched him shut off when he realized where I was going. Not everyone is interested, plain and simple.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > Not everyone is interested, plain and simple. "Not many people can read and write, plain and simple" was a true statement for much of the planet not that long ago. I wonder what changed between then and now, was it just a run of good luck, or was the change somehow man-made.
nradov 7y ago
We have no shortage of important and pragmatic ideas. The problem is that the people with really good ideas lack the power and influence to implement them.
- mistermann 7y ago
  That we already have many useful ideas doesn't seem like a particularly good reason to not continue looking for others, or just looking to see if anything interesting is going on in the world, like the majority of the public seemingly becoming more irrational as time progresses. > The problem is that the people with really good ideas lack the power and influence to implement them. I wonder if anything could be done about that. I guess it would require at least some new kinds of thinking and likely cooperation, so perhaps not.

usefulcat 7y ago

One possible explanation is that the present diversity of your friend group is a temporary phenomenon, and over time the group will tend to divide along one or more lines. I've personally experienced that.

big_chungus 7y ago
I'd expect as much, but the opposite happened. It started somewhat skewed and larger, but a bunch of people sloughed off to the current state.