4 ms·

> We instinctively feel safest when we hear the chatter and hub-bub of relaxed tribemates puttering around nearby. We know we're not alone, that there are other

> We instinctively feel safest when we hear the chatter and hub-bub of relaxed tribemates puttering around nearby. We know we're not alone, that there are others will also be alerted if something happens, and that they also feel safe. I can confirm that is false. If it were an actual instinct, I would possess it as would essentially all people. I do not possess that instinct what-so-ever. I do not gain an increased feeling of safety from the chatter and hub-bub of relaxed tribemates puttering nearby. That context annoys me, rather than increasing my sense of comfort. There are multiple types of primary human personalities, not one. I'm a non-tribalist personality type. That means tribes don't tend to like me and I don't tend to like tribes. The tribe and I are not friends, we're closer to suspicious enemies. I disagree with tribal order. By default my personality rebels against tribal structures and most systems like that. I don't do well following others that attempt to command me (tribal systems always have some manner of hierarchy). I operate at a vastly higher degree of effectiveness without lots of other people around. I'm happier and more productive on my own or in small teams. This isn't a personality I developed over time through great effort. It has been that way at least as far back as 4-6 years of age. I've also spent my life from 15-40 years of age as an entrepreneur. I can be a decent employee, however I dislike it. I'm a disagreeable personality (to others), as such I'm poorly suited to government, consensus structures, tribal systems, politics and the like. I also don't enjoy asking permission first and I never seek approval from others, I very rarely get a personal sense of reward from the approval of others. That said, the people I do like, I like immensely; and I'm kind toward others who are kind toward me, I believe manners are important, politeness/kindness are important. I used to refer to myself as a lone wolf personality type, as opposed to a tribalist personality type; however that phrase has a particularly negative connotation these days. I seek to pile up a lot of money to get away from most aspects of society (in a comfortable manner), rather than to sit on top of society or eg receive prestige from a prominent place in society.

Jensson 5y ago
> The tribe and I are not friends Then they aren't "chatter and hub-bub of relaxed tribemates", rather to you it is "the whispers and noises of your enemies". Of course that wont get you relaxed. The effect comes from hearing people you are comfortable around talking, if you have a distrustful personality then likely you aren't comfortable around many people but the effect is still there, just that you lack another link.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  That really borders on the no true scotsman fallacy. I agree with gp.
twofornone 5y ago
>If it were an actual instinct, I would possess it as would essentially all people. I do not possess that instinct what-so-ever. I don't think it's necessarily valid to expect that all peoples have evolved the same set of instincts. Particularly given adaptation to vastly different environments over the last 200k or so years after leaving africa. This particular instinct would not likely be a prerequisite for survival and may not have occured even among all members of a given tribe.
- throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
  Or OP is simply the kind of person who would end up dead 200k years ago. But a more civilized world allows them to survive and potentially thrive. Technology (especially medical) and civilization are forces that act against evolution; to the extent that they probably seek to stop human evolution.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    I don't disagree - call it the uniquely human tendency for self-domestication.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Today there are certainly drastically more opportunities for someone like me to not comform with the tribe. The risk is far lower than it would have been in past times. I tend to function like a robot in a traditional job context, my brain does some manner of emulation in those situations. Instead, I can be a remote software developer and never have to fit into a traditional team environment in an office, or slog through a corporate hierarchy. I can pursue high value contracting/consulting tasks that pay for the rest of my time to do what I want to do. I can trivially invest my earnings at zero cost into massive scale markets, again without requiring that I go through tribal/caste/cartel networks (bankers, brokers) to partake; specifically there is no permission required, no kissing of the banker's ring needed, I don't have to work through tribal networks to gain access, I don't have to win their favor (and they largely have no idea who I am in this context, whereas a thousand years ago the situation would have been entirely different for someone like me). I can fairly easily and safely roam at will, whether within the US or internationally courtesy of a passport. I plainly benefit from society, and I happily pay taxes into it (I benefit from the order and systems that helps deliver), even if I don't enjoy all aspects of society. There has never been a better time to be someone constructed as I am. I suspect that I would have operated on the edge of civilizations many thousands of years ago. I would be more likely to do fringe things, and trade. I've always enjoyed trading, the economic action of it, although I dislike traditional sales. Roaming trader or hunter would be most likely rather than shop owner in a bazaar. The roaming would be ideal for multiple reasons. I also prefer to be awake during the night and always have; I can easily sleep during daylight hours and without a darkened space.
munificent 5y ago
> f it were an actual instinct, I would possess it as would essentially all people. I do not possess that instinct what-so-ever. The existence of variation does not disprove the existence of trends.
- adventured 5y ago
  Of course. However the parent stated it as a "We" that was implied to span humanity. It doesn't.
  - 542354234235 5y ago
    When talking about all of humanity, does saying “we” really imply that every single person has this or that trait, or does it imply that people in general have this trait? We are social creatures. Do you think I mean every single human being that lives or has ever lived was social, or in general we are a social species? This just seems like intentionally reading their comment in the least charitable light as an excuse to argue.

Jensson 5y ago

> The tribe and I are not friends Then they aren't "chatter and hub-bub of relaxed tribemates", rather to you it is "the whispers and noises of your enemies". Of course that wont get you relaxed. The effect comes from hearing people you are comfortable around talking, if you have a distrustful personality then likely you aren't comfortable around many people but the effect is still there, just that you lack another link.

johnchristopher 5y ago
That really borders on the no true scotsman fallacy. I agree with gp.

twofornone 5y ago

>If it were an actual instinct, I would possess it as would essentially all people. I do not possess that instinct what-so-ever. I don't think it's necessarily valid to expect that all peoples have evolved the same set of instincts. Particularly given adaptation to vastly different environments over the last 200k or so years after leaving africa. This particular instinct would not likely be a prerequisite for survival and may not have occured even among all members of a given tribe.

throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
Or OP is simply the kind of person who would end up dead 200k years ago. But a more civilized world allows them to survive and potentially thrive. Technology (especially medical) and civilization are forces that act against evolution; to the extent that they probably seek to stop human evolution.
- twofornone 5y ago
  I don't disagree - call it the uniquely human tendency for self-domestication.
- adventured 5y ago
  Today there are certainly drastically more opportunities for someone like me to not comform with the tribe. The risk is far lower than it would have been in past times. I tend to function like a robot in a traditional job context, my brain does some manner of emulation in those situations. Instead, I can be a remote software developer and never have to fit into a traditional team environment in an office, or slog through a corporate hierarchy. I can pursue high value contracting/consulting tasks that pay for the rest of my time to do what I want to do. I can trivially invest my earnings at zero cost into massive scale markets, again without requiring that I go through tribal/caste/cartel networks (bankers, brokers) to partake; specifically there is no permission required, no kissing of the banker's ring needed, I don't have to work through tribal networks to gain access, I don't have to win their favor (and they largely have no idea who I am in this context, whereas a thousand years ago the situation would have been entirely different for someone like me). I can fairly easily and safely roam at will, whether within the US or internationally courtesy of a passport. I plainly benefit from society, and I happily pay taxes into it (I benefit from the order and systems that helps deliver), even if I don't enjoy all aspects of society. There has never been a better time to be someone constructed as I am. I suspect that I would have operated on the edge of civilizations many thousands of years ago. I would be more likely to do fringe things, and trade. I've always enjoyed trading, the economic action of it, although I dislike traditional sales. Roaming trader or hunter would be most likely rather than shop owner in a bazaar. The roaming would be ideal for multiple reasons. I also prefer to be awake during the night and always have; I can easily sleep during daylight hours and without a darkened space.

munificent 5y ago

> f it were an actual instinct, I would possess it as would essentially all people. I do not possess that instinct what-so-ever. The existence of variation does not disprove the existence of trends.

adventured 5y ago
Of course. However the parent stated it as a "We" that was implied to span humanity. It doesn't.
- 542354234235 5y ago
  When talking about all of humanity, does saying “we” really imply that every single person has this or that trait, or does it imply that people in general have this trait? We are social creatures. Do you think I mean every single human being that lives or has ever lived was social, or in general we are a social species? This just seems like intentionally reading their comment in the least charitable light as an excuse to argue.