4 ms·

Retake political science please. The advent of the agricultural revolution, the telegraph, and the teletype each resulted in massive increases in "tribal size"

Retake political science please. The advent of the agricultural revolution, the telegraph, and the teletype each resulted in massive increases in "tribal size". To the point that after the teletype, it was a bipolar cold war. So I don't think you have any qualifications to say a single word in this matter.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
I have no idea what your comment is trying to convey, but to help clarify my comment, this might help: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-wh... I posit that at the root of all societal friction is the widening income/wealth gap within the US, along with shifting socioeconomic statuses with some losing ground and some gaining ground. Note that people are in many tribes of many sizes simultaneously, and constantly shifting priorities and allegiances as it suits them, and trying to figure out others’ priorities and allegiances.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > I posit that at the root of all societal friction is the widening income/wealth gap within the US, Why would you think this when there is little meaningful difference income-wise between Democrats and Republicans? A significant chunk of the US votes on single issue matters that have nothing to do with economic status (abortion, gun rights).
  - mlyle 4y ago
    I don't agree that the root is the income/wealth gap, but it certainly is playing a big role in the divide. > little meaningful difference income-wise between Democrats and Republicans? https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/income-distribution/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... is striking-- and when you look into the sub-demographics of the lowest and highest band it gets more interesting still-- e.g. that 27% in the lowest income band is shockingly rural.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      >certainly is playing a big role in the divide. The only divide is in whether it’s something that is even a problem that needs to be addressed. Income inequality doesn’t divide people itself, just the focus on it does.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > Income inequality doesn’t divide people itself I don't agree. We're increasingly divided along lines that are very well correlated with demographic factors. Like, age, sure, but also income, religion, race, etc. And the link makes it pretty clear income is a pretty strong predictor of political leanings. (And when you combine income + rural/urban split, it's a very strong one).
      - jessaustin 4y ago
        In other nations (e.g. Mexico, Peru, Ghana, Thailand, etc.) health care is provided to all. In USA lots of people can't afford any sort of health care. The family left behind by someone who dies at 48 because he couldn't afford e.g. blood pressure medication doesn't need any sort of "focus" to see the divide. Health care is just the starkest illustration of this. One sees the same phenomenon with any other necessity: housing, food, transportation, etc.
    - moistly 4y ago
      What is shocking about it? Rural is by nature less efficient than high-density urban. Less productive. Everything costs more and pays less because rural living isn’t as “good” (in the ways that relate to income/velocity of money) as high density living. You trade off dollar wealth green wealth: more trees, bigger land, less crowding, cleaner air, quieter environment, private living. The costs are in Longer drives, higher prices, less selection, lower pay, greater energy use, potentially far fewer cultural/educational/social opportunities.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        I don't understand how what you said here relates to what I said. I didn't say that lower income people are more rural; I said that if you look at the left leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very urban, and the right leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very rural.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > A significant chunk of the US votes on single issue matters that have nothing to do with economic status (abortion, gun rights). I wonder if the design of our so-called democracy has something to do with it. It's funny how this major foundation of our society escapes scrutiny, and it is mostly only the players within it who get any attention.
mlyle 4y ago
I don't see how his comment justifies yours-- either your reading of it (I don't see any claims about "tribal size" in his comment, and I'm sure we're all aware that there's a whole range of affiliations we have from large-- 'Murica-- to small-- HN fans) or the vitriol. Be kind, please.
dang 4y ago
Your comment has broken the site guidelines badly. We ban accounts that do that, so could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? We definitely don't want swipes or flamebait in HN comments.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

I have no idea what your comment is trying to convey, but to help clarify my comment, this might help: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-wh... I posit that at the root of all societal friction is the widening income/wealth gap within the US, along with shifting socioeconomic statuses with some losing ground and some gaining ground. Note that people are in many tribes of many sizes simultaneously, and constantly shifting priorities and allegiances as it suits them, and trying to figure out others’ priorities and allegiances.

kortilla 4y ago
> I posit that at the root of all societal friction is the widening income/wealth gap within the US, Why would you think this when there is little meaningful difference income-wise between Democrats and Republicans? A significant chunk of the US votes on single issue matters that have nothing to do with economic status (abortion, gun rights).
- mlyle 4y ago
  I don't agree that the root is the income/wealth gap, but it certainly is playing a big role in the divide. > little meaningful difference income-wise between Democrats and Republicans? https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/income-distribution/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... is striking-- and when you look into the sub-demographics of the lowest and highest band it gets more interesting still-- e.g. that 27% in the lowest income band is shockingly rural.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    >certainly is playing a big role in the divide. The only divide is in whether it’s something that is even a problem that needs to be addressed. Income inequality doesn’t divide people itself, just the focus on it does.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > Income inequality doesn’t divide people itself I don't agree. We're increasingly divided along lines that are very well correlated with demographic factors. Like, age, sure, but also income, religion, race, etc. And the link makes it pretty clear income is a pretty strong predictor of political leanings. (And when you combine income + rural/urban split, it's a very strong one).
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      In other nations (e.g. Mexico, Peru, Ghana, Thailand, etc.) health care is provided to all. In USA lots of people can't afford any sort of health care. The family left behind by someone who dies at 48 because he couldn't afford e.g. blood pressure medication doesn't need any sort of "focus" to see the divide. Health care is just the starkest illustration of this. One sees the same phenomenon with any other necessity: housing, food, transportation, etc.
  - moistly 4y ago
    What is shocking about it? Rural is by nature less efficient than high-density urban. Less productive. Everything costs more and pays less because rural living isn’t as “good” (in the ways that relate to income/velocity of money) as high density living. You trade off dollar wealth green wealth: more trees, bigger land, less crowding, cleaner air, quieter environment, private living. The costs are in Longer drives, higher prices, less selection, lower pay, greater energy use, potentially far fewer cultural/educational/social opportunities.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      I don't understand how what you said here relates to what I said. I didn't say that lower income people are more rural; I said that if you look at the left leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very urban, and the right leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very rural.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > A significant chunk of the US votes on single issue matters that have nothing to do with economic status (abortion, gun rights). I wonder if the design of our so-called democracy has something to do with it. It's funny how this major foundation of our society escapes scrutiny, and it is mostly only the players within it who get any attention.

mlyle 4y ago

I don't see how his comment justifies yours-- either your reading of it (I don't see any claims about "tribal size" in his comment, and I'm sure we're all aware that there's a whole range of affiliations we have from large-- 'Murica-- to small-- HN fans) or the vitriol. Be kind, please.

dang 4y ago

Your comment has broken the site guidelines badly. We ban accounts that do that, so could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? We definitely don't want swipes or flamebait in HN comments.