3 ms·

Part of the problem is that most human beings are fairly wired through various selection criteria and conditioning to accept even maladaptive behaviors through

Part of the problem is that most human beings are fairly wired through various selection criteria and conditioning to accept even maladaptive behaviors through mimetics. The people that seem to quickly go against societal rules for whatever reasons they may be tend to be viewed as "anti-social" and quickly judged harshly by at least roughly 40% of the population at large. After all, "criminal" behavior and "protest" is mostly distinguished in terms of defining the current social contract as not valid or inconsistent and how many people overall agree, not whether something is simply written down and codified.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Concur completely. Having the capacity to differentiate or make an explicit distinction for why one set of actions is preferable over the other in any type of way that has a epistemological grounding, is not something the vast majority people have the time, patience, training, personality type, etc. to be able to do. So then we have a problem don’t we? Either the expectation is that some plurality of humans have the ability to coherently manage this kind of epistemological chain reasoning. Or it is untenable for that level of coherency to be able to drive functional assumptions that are generalizable across all human communities. And us, we’re back to where all moral philosophers have always gotten stuck, which is to say, we have no objective epistemological grounding for any particular type of moral reasoning chain - making every single, moral debate impossible to agree on generalized first principles. So how do you structure society in a way such that the default behaviors diffuse power and increase pro social responsibility, given the fact that the current social structures demonstrate infinite examples of anti-social behaviors leading to power and wealth. That is to say, how do you create a society where nobody even wants to be a millionaire because that level of relative over-consumption relative to others would just feel too bad.
- devonkim 3y ago
  There is a huge difference between the arguments I'm seeing for large groups of people disagreeing completely upon what people have control over, which very quickly devolves into what control and rules we should exert upon others. There seem to be thankfully some general ideas about consent that seem pretty obvious like for the most part people don't want to be murdered and dismembered, but the hardest part of the human species IMO is basically cat herding - how do we get collective action performed when both its strengths for evolution (ability to splinter off and form separate groups) is precisely the evolutionary biases that keeps it from achieving higher aggregate functions as a species. It seems kind of unfathomable to me how people do not understand that privatized tyranny is still tyranny by a system that is socially reinforced - it doesn't have to be a government that does it whatsoever and the general rules of power kind of matters more for first principles than some arbitrary definition of "capitalism" or "socialism" or whatnot that may be irrelevant in another thousand years. It's always been about how to organize collective actions compatible with the context of human social development.
c22 3y ago
A lot of the people who quickly go against societal rules are anti-social, so the stereotype is not undeserved. The two primary personality types are "always-go-with-the-herd" and "always-go-against-the-herd", it takes a lot of attention to detail and strong will to only buck the trends that are actually bad; so nuanced rule-cutters are pretty rare and easily lumped into the anti-social camp by the common rule-followers...

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

Concur completely. Having the capacity to differentiate or make an explicit distinction for why one set of actions is preferable over the other in any type of way that has a epistemological grounding, is not something the vast majority people have the time, patience, training, personality type, etc. to be able to do. So then we have a problem don’t we? Either the expectation is that some plurality of humans have the ability to coherently manage this kind of epistemological chain reasoning. Or it is untenable for that level of coherency to be able to drive functional assumptions that are generalizable across all human communities. And us, we’re back to where all moral philosophers have always gotten stuck, which is to say, we have no objective epistemological grounding for any particular type of moral reasoning chain - making every single, moral debate impossible to agree on generalized first principles. So how do you structure society in a way such that the default behaviors diffuse power and increase pro social responsibility, given the fact that the current social structures demonstrate infinite examples of anti-social behaviors leading to power and wealth. That is to say, how do you create a society where nobody even wants to be a millionaire because that level of relative over-consumption relative to others would just feel too bad.

devonkim 3y ago
There is a huge difference between the arguments I'm seeing for large groups of people disagreeing completely upon what people have control over, which very quickly devolves into what control and rules we should exert upon others. There seem to be thankfully some general ideas about consent that seem pretty obvious like for the most part people don't want to be murdered and dismembered, but the hardest part of the human species IMO is basically cat herding - how do we get collective action performed when both its strengths for evolution (ability to splinter off and form separate groups) is precisely the evolutionary biases that keeps it from achieving higher aggregate functions as a species. It seems kind of unfathomable to me how people do not understand that privatized tyranny is still tyranny by a system that is socially reinforced - it doesn't have to be a government that does it whatsoever and the general rules of power kind of matters more for first principles than some arbitrary definition of "capitalism" or "socialism" or whatnot that may be irrelevant in another thousand years. It's always been about how to organize collective actions compatible with the context of human social development.

c22 3y ago

A lot of the people who quickly go against societal rules are anti-social, so the stereotype is not undeserved. The two primary personality types are "always-go-with-the-herd" and "always-go-against-the-herd", it takes a lot of attention to detail and strong will to only buck the trends that are actually bad; so nuanced rule-cutters are pretty rare and easily lumped into the anti-social camp by the common rule-followers...