7 ms·

The War Nerd puts it clearly: "Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL: "my gang yay, your gang boo!" It really is that simple. The rest is cosmetics." "

The War Nerd puts it clearly: "Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL: "my gang yay, your gang boo!" It really is that simple. The rest is cosmetics." "Most" seems adequate because many adults do have preconceptions, for many of us being quite sure that "don't be an ignorant" is a requirement, and concluding that "knowing about everything" also is. http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8366 http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=8366

pojzon 5y ago
Its even simplier then that. “My feelings” > “Your rational points” We simply evolved like that and next step of evolution was to become more rational. We are somewhere in the middle.
- wruza 5y ago
  Others say that feelings is everything and there is no point in going any further.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Good luck in building an aqueduct.
  - jeofken 5y ago
    You may call it sophiststry rather than philosophy
    - dandanua 5y ago
      Not really, this is an egocentric philosophy (like solipsism) and you can't fight it with rational arguments.
  - atoav 5y ago
    As long as you have enough rational engineers, scientists and bureaucrats around you, you could indeed afford that luxury. But don't ever become naive enough to extrapolate yourself onto the rest of the world and call it a paradise.
    - wruza 5y ago
      I’m not in the feelings camp either. But these others have a point, I think. Full-rational world for what?
      - atoav 5y ago
        I don't say we need a full rational world. What we need however is a world that is not anti-rational to the point where it destructs the planet. Also the most hardcore rational science people will do things based on feeling in their everyday lives. If you feel like drinking 5 beers on a Wednesday, that might not be the most rational thing to do, but knock yourself out. Where we as a society however need to be rational, is when it comes to the fate of populations (e.g. during a pandemic) or the entire planet (e.g. climate change). The need for rationality changes with the scale of the problem and whether we are dealing with individual topics or collective ones.
        KronisLV 5y ago
        > What we need however is a world that is not anti-rational to the point where it destructs the planet. If we really needed it like we need air, more action would be taken to move towards better circumstances. I'd argue that it's not "really needed" for most people - almost no one alive today will experience the worst possible outcomes of climate change. Many of those who disregard epidemiological safety also won't experience the worst personal outcomes for themselves. Thus, they're free to disregard these, or even oppose them entirely, regardless of how far their arguments or feelings are detached from what would be best for the next generations and probably even believe that they're right in doing so. People's ability to ignore anything that they don't like is easy to overlook. I do agree with the actual point that you're making, though. We need more rationality in life.
        wruza 5y ago
        "We" is such a blanket word. I believe (correct me) that you're actually saing "they need more rationality in their life", because you, me and atoav are hopefully already rational and try to "save the planet from destruction" for some unclear reason, as if we were immortal or somehow responsible for it. The thing is, they are not we and, as you already noted, they may have completely different values (like feelings), which we ought to respect as well. For example, you can't tell a kid to stay calm and watch their youth slip through their fingers while the pandemic goes on.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  Tribal knowledge works when you find a way of maintaining it and evolving it collectively Tribes with a misguided person at the top used to get decimated pretty quickly. But hey, now "we live in a society"
- nindalf 5y ago
  I disagree that a more rational person would have higher fitness. Like the article points out, sticking with your beliefs even in the face of contrary evidence means sticking with your community. Having friends and a support system increases survival rates. A flat earther who has alienated all their previous friends and then stops believing in flat earth is now all alone. Loneliness kills. If the idea is to survive and thrive, the “rational” approach is to continue with what our species has always done - stick with the tribe.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Picking the wrong tribe or a tribe that doesnt really care about you also kills.
    - nindalf 5y ago
      Sure. But that has little to do with what the group believes. They could believe that the earth is flat or hollow, but as long as they’re there for each other, they would increase the fitness of everyone in the group. It just has nothing to do with how “rational” and evidence based the group is. Therefore there is no selective pressure towards being rational.
      - pydry 5y ago
        I wouldnt hold out much hope of a flat earth tribe being able to deal with objective reality well enough to aid me. I'm pretty sure there is selective pressure towards being rational, it's just really hard to select for and even then probably not the most important thing. I remember when I met my first evangelical fundamentalist I couldn't for the life of me figure out why he earnestly believed this nonsense about the world being 7000 years or whatever. It was only when he said that he used to be a homeless drug addict and he was helped out of addiction by a Christian group that it twigged - they showed him kindness that the rest of the world had not. I'm pretty sure being rescued not only rearranged his whole world view such that the world is 7000 years old. I'm pretty sure it also rearranged his world view to view facts as less important than kindness.
- Melting_Harps 5y ago
  > We simply evolved like that and next step of evolution was to become more rational. We are somewhere in the middle. While I'd never call myself agreeable, as I really enjoy argument as a means of engaging communication and establishing bonds with others. I have found this lack of rationality to be a widely spread defect and when reduced is as simple as you describe: I've never been steadfast in even my deepest held beliefs, I often question them myself and look for ways to validate their merit when given the opportunity. Whether that be engage with people who hold opposing views, or simply analyze them to exhaustion on my own. This philosophical outview is what I felt the Sciences would laud as it is the crux of what Scientific model which relies on and tries to achieve via the highy touted peer reviewed model wherein experiments are meant to be replicated and derive their credibility on these criteria: instead after my experience in undergrad in the life sciences and then having spent time in graduate level courses (not enrolled) and befriending two professors I soon realized it's really a petty, tribal, and often passive aggressive environment where it's less about merit of your experiments results and more about 'who knows you' and 'who they know.' On top of that, most experiments are never replicated and when they are they seldom get the same results. I'm not sure which dismays me more, but either way, we need to get past this and I fear social media's optimization models has entrenched this defect deeper into the Human psyche than anyone will ever admit. I think it's less about evolving and more about halting the regression of base feelings and reactions in the Human Condition to be honest.
- samuelizdat 5y ago
  "The specific distinction to which actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy."
tsimionescu 5y ago
I think this is very reductive. The reality is that facts are rarely indisputable, and people have to function in the absence of absolute truth. So, when presented with a fact that contradicts a preciously-held belief, there are several purely rational actions you can take: - give up the old belief - believe that the fact is false (either mistaken or a lie) - believe that the fact doesn't actually contradict the belief (that there is some missing context that would make the belief compatible with the fact, even if you are unable to see it now) None of these are irrational, tribalistic, feeling-based reactions, in general. Sure, there are some cases where a fact is simply overwhelmingly obviously true (e.g. it's raining outside), but those are an exception. The vast majority of facts we have to build our worldview on are not directly confirmable without huge amounts of personal effort - everyone would have to become a world-class experimental scientist, investigative journalist, jurist, l high-level diplomat and many others, to be able to get a true first-hand confirmation of many of the (potential) facts they are presented with. In the absence of such confirmation, we have to choose who to believe based on a complex web of tribalism, perceived history, social cues, emotional intelligence, and priors that have served us well.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > we have to choose who to believe based on a complex web of tribalism, perceived history, social cues, emotional intelligence, and priors that have served us well «Tribalism» vs «priors». That family became rich when the curse placed on the husband had him always lose money at gambling: the wife bet double on the complementary option. You do not have close friends you ask for advice in order to help decision - towards the opposite? Some people are more consistently right, some random, some wrong. This includes friends.
- natmaka 5y ago
  You describe a tiny fraction of cases. In my opinion most of us are most of the time mostly in tribal mode, therefore "Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL" is indeed 'reductive'... to most cases. Moreover such a 'tribal mode' mode often impedes the ability to perceive/understand, therefore 'facts' aren't even perceived/understood. You are right: overwhelmingly obviously true facts are very rare, and even less are decisively convincing (only one possible conclusion, without any counter-argument), therefore most facts aren't convincing. This 'tribal mode' seems natural to me because we learn thanks to analogies, and therefore are prone to imitate the most-enforced beliefs/behaviors: our tribe's.
johnisgood 5y ago
Then it is time to continue reading this book named Group Dynamics!

pojzon 5y ago

Its even simplier then that. “My feelings” > “Your rational points” We simply evolved like that and next step of evolution was to become more rational. We are somewhere in the middle.

wruza 5y ago
Others say that feelings is everything and there is no point in going any further.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Good luck in building an aqueduct.
- jeofken 5y ago
  You may call it sophiststry rather than philosophy
  - dandanua 5y ago
    Not really, this is an egocentric philosophy (like solipsism) and you can't fight it with rational arguments.
- atoav 5y ago
  As long as you have enough rational engineers, scientists and bureaucrats around you, you could indeed afford that luxury. But don't ever become naive enough to extrapolate yourself onto the rest of the world and call it a paradise.
  - wruza 5y ago
    I’m not in the feelings camp either. But these others have a point, I think. Full-rational world for what?
    - atoav 5y ago
      I don't say we need a full rational world. What we need however is a world that is not anti-rational to the point where it destructs the planet. Also the most hardcore rational science people will do things based on feeling in their everyday lives. If you feel like drinking 5 beers on a Wednesday, that might not be the most rational thing to do, but knock yourself out. Where we as a society however need to be rational, is when it comes to the fate of populations (e.g. during a pandemic) or the entire planet (e.g. climate change). The need for rationality changes with the scale of the problem and whether we are dealing with individual topics or collective ones.
      - KronisLV 5y ago
        > What we need however is a world that is not anti-rational to the point where it destructs the planet. If we really needed it like we need air, more action would be taken to move towards better circumstances. I'd argue that it's not "really needed" for most people - almost no one alive today will experience the worst possible outcomes of climate change. Many of those who disregard epidemiological safety also won't experience the worst personal outcomes for themselves. Thus, they're free to disregard these, or even oppose them entirely, regardless of how far their arguments or feelings are detached from what would be best for the next generations and probably even believe that they're right in doing so. People's ability to ignore anything that they don't like is easy to overlook. I do agree with the actual point that you're making, though. We need more rationality in life.
        wruza 5y ago
        "We" is such a blanket word. I believe (correct me) that you're actually saing "they need more rationality in their life", because you, me and atoav are hopefully already rational and try to "save the planet from destruction" for some unclear reason, as if we were immortal or somehow responsible for it. The thing is, they are not we and, as you already noted, they may have completely different values (like feelings), which we ought to respect as well. For example, you can't tell a kid to stay calm and watch their youth slip through their fingers while the pandemic goes on.
raverbashing 5y ago
Tribal knowledge works when you find a way of maintaining it and evolving it collectively Tribes with a misguided person at the top used to get decimated pretty quickly. But hey, now "we live in a society"
nindalf 5y ago
I disagree that a more rational person would have higher fitness. Like the article points out, sticking with your beliefs even in the face of contrary evidence means sticking with your community. Having friends and a support system increases survival rates. A flat earther who has alienated all their previous friends and then stops believing in flat earth is now all alone. Loneliness kills. If the idea is to survive and thrive, the “rational” approach is to continue with what our species has always done - stick with the tribe.
- pydry 5y ago
  Picking the wrong tribe or a tribe that doesnt really care about you also kills.
  - nindalf 5y ago
    Sure. But that has little to do with what the group believes. They could believe that the earth is flat or hollow, but as long as they’re there for each other, they would increase the fitness of everyone in the group. It just has nothing to do with how “rational” and evidence based the group is. Therefore there is no selective pressure towards being rational.
    - pydry 5y ago
      I wouldnt hold out much hope of a flat earth tribe being able to deal with objective reality well enough to aid me. I'm pretty sure there is selective pressure towards being rational, it's just really hard to select for and even then probably not the most important thing. I remember when I met my first evangelical fundamentalist I couldn't for the life of me figure out why he earnestly believed this nonsense about the world being 7000 years or whatever. It was only when he said that he used to be a homeless drug addict and he was helped out of addiction by a Christian group that it twigged - they showed him kindness that the rest of the world had not. I'm pretty sure being rescued not only rearranged his whole world view such that the world is 7000 years old. I'm pretty sure it also rearranged his world view to view facts as less important than kindness.
Melting_Harps 5y ago
> We simply evolved like that and next step of evolution was to become more rational. We are somewhere in the middle. While I'd never call myself agreeable, as I really enjoy argument as a means of engaging communication and establishing bonds with others. I have found this lack of rationality to be a widely spread defect and when reduced is as simple as you describe: I've never been steadfast in even my deepest held beliefs, I often question them myself and look for ways to validate their merit when given the opportunity. Whether that be engage with people who hold opposing views, or simply analyze them to exhaustion on my own. This philosophical outview is what I felt the Sciences would laud as it is the crux of what Scientific model which relies on and tries to achieve via the highy touted peer reviewed model wherein experiments are meant to be replicated and derive their credibility on these criteria: instead after my experience in undergrad in the life sciences and then having spent time in graduate level courses (not enrolled) and befriending two professors I soon realized it's really a petty, tribal, and often passive aggressive environment where it's less about merit of your experiments results and more about 'who knows you' and 'who they know.' On top of that, most experiments are never replicated and when they are they seldom get the same results. I'm not sure which dismays me more, but either way, we need to get past this and I fear social media's optimization models has entrenched this defect deeper into the Human psyche than anyone will ever admit. I think it's less about evolving and more about halting the regression of base feelings and reactions in the Human Condition to be honest.
samuelizdat 5y ago
"The specific distinction to which actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy."

tsimionescu 5y ago

I think this is very reductive. The reality is that facts are rarely indisputable, and people have to function in the absence of absolute truth. So, when presented with a fact that contradicts a preciously-held belief, there are several purely rational actions you can take: - give up the old belief - believe that the fact is false (either mistaken or a lie) - believe that the fact doesn't actually contradict the belief (that there is some missing context that would make the belief compatible with the fact, even if you are unable to see it now) None of these are irrational, tribalistic, feeling-based reactions, in general. Sure, there are some cases where a fact is simply overwhelmingly obviously true (e.g. it's raining outside), but those are an exception. The vast majority of facts we have to build our worldview on are not directly confirmable without huge amounts of personal effort - everyone would have to become a world-class experimental scientist, investigative journalist, jurist, l high-level diplomat and many others, to be able to get a true first-hand confirmation of many of the (potential) facts they are presented with. In the absence of such confirmation, we have to choose who to believe based on a complex web of tribalism, perceived history, social cues, emotional intelligence, and priors that have served us well.

mdp2021 5y ago
> we have to choose who to believe based on a complex web of tribalism, perceived history, social cues, emotional intelligence, and priors that have served us well «Tribalism» vs «priors». That family became rich when the curse placed on the husband had him always lose money at gambling: the wife bet double on the complementary option. You do not have close friends you ask for advice in order to help decision - towards the opposite? Some people are more consistently right, some random, some wrong. This includes friends.
natmaka 5y ago
You describe a tiny fraction of cases. In my opinion most of us are most of the time mostly in tribal mode, therefore "Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL" is indeed 'reductive'... to most cases. Moreover such a 'tribal mode' mode often impedes the ability to perceive/understand, therefore 'facts' aren't even perceived/understood. You are right: overwhelmingly obviously true facts are very rare, and even less are decisively convincing (only one possible conclusion, without any counter-argument), therefore most facts aren't convincing. This 'tribal mode' seems natural to me because we learn thanks to analogies, and therefore are prone to imitate the most-enforced beliefs/behaviors: our tribe's.

johnisgood 5y ago

Then it is time to continue reading this book named Group Dynamics!