3 ms·
> You're suggesting acting parasitically toward the group, in that you are gaining the benefits of others sacrificing their own goals for group goals, while not
by kerkeslager 7y ago
> You're suggesting acting parasitically toward the group, in that you are gaining the benefits of others sacrificing their own goals for group goals, while not sacrificing your own goals for group goals.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that not identifying as a member of the group allows you to make a conscious decision on whether to continue to cooperate with a group when the goals of the group no longer are compatible with your goals. Maybe that means ending or redefining your relationship with the group, maybe it means trying to change the group.
This is a particularly rich accusation coming from someone who thinks it's normal to behave out of rational self-interest. ;)
> In the long term, sure I could buy that. But the short term benefits could easily make it worth it overall to form the group. By the time the group degenerates as you describe, the members could be vastly ahead of where they would have been otherwise.
That's true, which is why you'd want to cooperate with groups and then exit them when they cease to be beneficial.
To be clear, a lot of your negativity on my position seems to be from your assuming that my goals are necessarily selfish. If you believe everyone acts only in rational self-interest, then all cooperation lasts only as long as you have the same goals anyway, so your position is self-contradictory. That is, unfortunately, how a lot of the capitalist economy works, but that's not how relationships and cooperation really work in a lot of cases. The reality is that when I cooperate with people, even if they have different goals than me, I often learn things from them that change my goals, or form a new goal of maintaining a relationship with that person. Goals can be prosocial.
- GCSAQCMIYI 7y ago>I'm saying that not identifying as a member of the group allows you to make a conscious decision on whether to continue to cooperate with a group when the goals of the group no longer are compatible with your goals. Maybe that means ending or redefining your relationship with the group But that is still parasitic in the sense that others are, as a consequence of identifying strongly with the group, sacrificing their own personal goals in order to achieve group goals, where you are not. >This is a particularly rich accusation coming from someone who thinks it's normal to behave out of rational self-interest. ;) Hah, well I don't mean it as an accusation. I'm not criticizing your position on any kind of moral basis, just on a practical one. >That's true, which is why you'd want to cooperate with groups and then exit them when they cease to be beneficial. Sure, but the point is that if the members strongly identify as members of the group, the group will be more effective in the short term. >To be clear, a lot of your negativity on my position seems to be from your assuming that my goals are necessarily selfish. Well, it's more that I think your position would not end up working for most people trying to further their own self interest, so it's not rational for them to act that way. I think it is generally rational for people to make membership of certain types of groups a significant part of their self-identity. >If you believe everyone acts only in rational self-interest I would not make a claim like that unless "rational self-interest" was defined in such a way as to make that claim tautological and therefore uninteresting.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- caamoqkkammcm 7y ago>I'm saying that not identifying as a member of the group allows you to make a conscious decision on whether to continue to cooperate with a group when the goals of the group no longer are compatible with your goals. Maybe that means ending or redefining your relationship with the group But that is still parasitic in the sense that others are, as a consequence of identifying strongly with the group, sacrificing their own personal goals in order to achieve group goals, where you are not. >This is a particularly rich accusation coming from someone who thinks it's normal to behave out of rational self-interest. ;) Hah, well I don't mean it as an accusation. I'm not criticizing your position on any kind of moral basis, just on a practical one. >That's true, which is why you'd want to cooperate with groups and then exit them when they cease to be beneficial. Sure, but the point is that if the members strongly identify as members of the group, the group will be more effective in the short term. >To be clear, a lot of your negativity on my position seems to be from your assuming that my goals are necessarily selfish. Well, it's more that I think your position would not end up working for most people trying to further their own self interest, so it's not rational for them to act that way. I think it is generally rational for people to make membership of certain types of groups a significant part of their self-identity. >If you believe everyone acts only in rational self-interest I would not make a claim like that unless "rational self-interest" was defined in such a way as to make that claim tautological and therefore uninteresting.