3 ms·

Tribalism necessitates an “other”. If we discovered intelligent life on other planets and were suddenly given that “other”, I imagine humans would very quickly

Tribalism necessitates an “other”. If we discovered intelligent life on other planets and were suddenly given that “other”, I imagine humans would very quickly all come together as the same tribe. Minor differences between humans (including nationality) would stop mattering in less than a lifetime.

slver 5y ago
Yes it needs "other". We can however define this "other" intelligently to encircle the negative phenomena of society and define the rest as the society we are. And hopefully it doesn't split even parents and children or husbands and wives like it does right now, based in silly things like sports, religion and politics. By saying this I've pretty much killed my cred for anyone reading this in the US right now. But that's kind of the problem.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > By saying this I've pretty much killed my cred for anyone reading this in the US right now. Because you're saying that we need to unite and expel the "negative," but you're either suggesting that we don't use any criteria for that, or you're using a special definition of "religion and politics" that doesn't encompass all forms of human organization and ranges of perceptions of our environment. I suppose this is just another suggestion that we use rational, objective criteria, like the ones the person making the suggestion uses (when they're at their self-assessed best.) Once we're using those criteria, uniting to eradicate the "other" is fully rationalized, er, rational.
  - slver 5y ago
    You know, I think the "rational" approach is completely hopeless actually. You need a rational frame, but you can't inspire people by telling them how it's rational to do what you want them to do.
- kodah 5y ago
  Tribalism doesn't necessitate an other, that's just where our understanding is at, imo. I'm not a Democrat or Republican, but the amount of deceptive and straw man arguments I see between the constituents of both is a real spectacle. For instance, try mentioning Democrats or Progressives by name in criticism anywhere and you'll get a flood of negative reactions, even if it's a mild criticism or obvious behavioral note. If you mention the two, you "must" be the other right? Yet this forum has a lot of independents, which I think is fairly well known. One could argue people are tired of hearing groups cast broadly, but wide criticism of Republicans seems to be fairly in-game still. I think if you commit yourself to listening to critique then the "other" fades away. If you commit yourself to the party, or inextricable party ideals then the other is always a reasonable option to reach for.
kwhitefoot 5y ago
Unless those aliens were some kind of threat I don't think most people would care on jot and would certainly not cease looking at people from across the river, round the corner, of different colour, height, car type, wealth, etc., as inferior. We are each members of many tribes not just one.

slver 5y ago

Yes it needs "other". We can however define this "other" intelligently to encircle the negative phenomena of society and define the rest as the society we are. And hopefully it doesn't split even parents and children or husbands and wives like it does right now, based in silly things like sports, religion and politics. By saying this I've pretty much killed my cred for anyone reading this in the US right now. But that's kind of the problem.

pessimizer 5y ago
> By saying this I've pretty much killed my cred for anyone reading this in the US right now. Because you're saying that we need to unite and expel the "negative," but you're either suggesting that we don't use any criteria for that, or you're using a special definition of "religion and politics" that doesn't encompass all forms of human organization and ranges of perceptions of our environment. I suppose this is just another suggestion that we use rational, objective criteria, like the ones the person making the suggestion uses (when they're at their self-assessed best.) Once we're using those criteria, uniting to eradicate the "other" is fully rationalized, er, rational.
- slver 5y ago
  You know, I think the "rational" approach is completely hopeless actually. You need a rational frame, but you can't inspire people by telling them how it's rational to do what you want them to do.
kodah 5y ago
Tribalism doesn't necessitate an other, that's just where our understanding is at, imo. I'm not a Democrat or Republican, but the amount of deceptive and straw man arguments I see between the constituents of both is a real spectacle. For instance, try mentioning Democrats or Progressives by name in criticism anywhere and you'll get a flood of negative reactions, even if it's a mild criticism or obvious behavioral note. If you mention the two, you "must" be the other right? Yet this forum has a lot of independents, which I think is fairly well known. One could argue people are tired of hearing groups cast broadly, but wide criticism of Republicans seems to be fairly in-game still. I think if you commit yourself to listening to critique then the "other" fades away. If you commit yourself to the party, or inextricable party ideals then the other is always a reasonable option to reach for.

kwhitefoot 5y ago

Unless those aliens were some kind of threat I don't think most people would care on jot and would certainly not cease looking at people from across the river, round the corner, of different colour, height, car type, wealth, etc., as inferior. We are each members of many tribes not just one.