6 ms·
Each individual person is liable to become a "them" once one asserts one's individuality from the group identity. Group coalitions that do not respect individua
by briantakita 4y ago
Each individual person is liable to become a "them" once one asserts one's individuality from the group identity. Group coalitions that do not respect individuality often fall prey to base emotions as they collectively punish individual identities. Individual creators are largely responsible for the actual work, new ideas, innovations, things...
The feedback loop described in the OP creates groupthink, politically correct culture, an abundance of blind spots, & a narrow path of evolution specifically tailored to the group's worldview. Group "whips" are given positions of power to mete out punishment against those who cross lines defined by group & interpreted by the "whip".
If one sees all models as being false, the teleological fate of the OP's group feedback loop unchecked is group delusion, irrelevance, harming a perennial ever changing subgroup of outlier individuals, & eventual collapse. The perennial ever changing subgroup of outliers individuals is necessary to feed the base emotional reward circuitry of the "in group", a necessary sacrifice to cohere the "in group", feeding the group's evolutionary descent...
Perceived morality is important for the "whip". There's always a statement of alibi & justification while the "whip" is punishing others. "For the greater good" is often an alibi to justify the emotional reward circuitry "hit" of those afflicted with these addictions
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- feet 4y ago
- briantakita 4y agoI agree that Republicans are a group identity with the group problems. Just be careful that "the Republicans" is not the "out group" of any group identity that you may participate with. The effects described by the OP can be subtle & sneaky & applies to everyone. Just like a seemingly innocuous bug or an abstract primitive can cause deep cascading ramifications in a complex system. Symbols or proxies for thought effect one's entire worldview without through examination.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- feet 4y agoIts all politicians, republicans are just the most insane and brazen about it
- acheron 4y agoExcellent example of what the article was talking about. What kind of dopamine hit did you get when you posted that?
- ben_w 4y agoI'm not American and I've only visited for four months total, so my view of the politics is mainly from the news and forums like this one. From this, given how often I see Republicans saying it's the Democrats who are restricting freedoms, I have to assume the two camps (as in being or the other as identity, not necessarily just voting red or blue last time) actually want to do different things — if you'll bear with the obvious stereotypes, reds want to have guns and limit birth control, while and blues want to have birth control and limit guns.
- feet 4y agoThe freedoms that republicans care about is the freedom to deny gay people marriage, the freedom to purchase assault weapons before your brain fully matures and without any training whatsoever, the freedom to use your religion as an excuse to shit on people and indoctrinate the children of others Democrats only care about corporations and profits. Republicans are social conservatives, Democrats are fiscal conservatives
- ben_w 4y agoI thought Democrats also cared about keeping the church out of the state? Which is also a restriction on the freedom of the teachers to get preachy, and I can easily imagine someone upset and demanding "I want the right to pray before each class"… not that I would sympathise with them: my memories of school include being annoyed by the mandatory religion, as my parents sent me to a Catholic school (in the UK, though IIRC in the UK even non-religious schools are currently required to have regular Christian-themed assemblies).
- meany 4y agoSomething things you might want to consider. as this article points out human brains evolved to push the individual to identify with a group and be hostile to other groups because it improved fitness. Through most of human existence this group survival pressure outweighed objective rational perception of reality . Political parties often tap into this in group out group emotional connection. While I agree that Republican Party logic is often weak and often emotional, I would argue that the Democratic Party is as well, just on different issues.
- meany 4y agoSomething thing you might want to consider. as this article points out human brains evolved to push the individual to identify with a group and be hostile to other groups because it improved fitness. Through most of human existence this group survival pressure outweighed objective rational perception of reality . Political parties often tap into this in group out group emotional connection. While I agree that Republican Party logic is often weak and often emotional, I would argue that the Democratic Party is as well, just on different issues. Another thing to think about is that by attacking an “out group” (I assume you’re not a republican) in this post you are potentially showing the behavior described in the article. Edit- grammer
- TexanFeller 4y agoAnd that’s why us libertarians hate the Republican party as much as the Democrats.
- feet 4y agoLibertarians also don't seem to recognise the inherently exploitative characteristics of capitalism and refuse to accept that regulation is necessary for the protection of workers and the populace from assholes with too much time, money, and power
- TexanFeller 4y agoSome of us are very aware of such exploitation, but we’re skeptical that we’ll be less exploited by those given political power to deal with those immoral capitalists. History is full of examples of party leaders in Marxist countries wining and dining while the populace lives in poverty. It happens when too much power rests in any institution. So I personally oppose large businesses as much as I oppose large government, and pretty much all large institutions in general(though a few types of them are almost unavoidable).
- int_19h 4y agoBut what kind of policy does that opposition to large businesses translate to? How do you prevent them from actually arising? Left answer to that is that large businesses are the result of unbounded concentration of capital. Left authoritarians (the ones I think you refer to as Marxists? even though not all of them are, and not all Marxists are authoritarian) want to limit it by state action. Left libertarians think that taking the government out of the picture and reworking property rights around some notion of usufruct is sufficient. But what's the right libertarian answer?
- feet 4y agoThat's what I'm wondering. Maybe we agree about the apparent root cause of the issue but we need a tangible solution to it, which could be restructuring ownership of businesses to better suit the people that make up those businesses. Regulation is a way to do that, or other things. But whatever we do will take some sort of regulation, or those same people who have too much money and power are going to keep doing the same old shit
- ChubbyGlasses 4y agoThis is a remarkably extreme take for what was actually presented in the article.
- briantakita 4y agoSure, if you take a positivist view where it does not exist unless it's published in a Science Journal...
- briantakita 4y agoNote that the scientific materialist positivist view is effectively controlled by groups of scientists & journals which are funded by institutions...large pools of capital...controlled by socially powerful groups