4 ms·

People often get intense over perceived heritage. That tends to be true from the US to Japan and everywhere inbetween. The typical person will almost always se

People often get intense over perceived heritage. That tends to be true from the US to Japan and everywhere inbetween. The typical person will almost always seek to wrap their self up in - associate with - an identity greater than their own existence. Whether that's a sports team, or Alexander the Great, or a long dead empire or culture, or the success of another person/company/thing. It's seemingly so common as to apply to almost everyone on the planet I'd wager. I think even unusual persons - those able to stand apart from standard tribalism - end up doing it to one degree or another. For example even if you focus on work, or art, instead of relating yourself to typically tribalistic things culturally, you end up wrapping your identity up in that work/art/stuff/hobby (consciously or subconsciously). Have you ever seen people on forums lead a comment with: "I'm from such and such place, and here's how we do a thing" - they're borrowing credibility for their self, from some past people that built that credibility. I'm from Greenland and here's why we're so amazing and why you suck so much. It's exceptionally common all over discussion forums. They've wrapped themselves up in an identity greater than their self, they want to associate with it and steal some of the perceived value/amazingness (that they weren't responsible for creating).

mrangle 2y ago
Are those people not part of the culture that they reference? They're literally telling you how they do things, as a member of said culture. Are people not allowed now to reference successful methods that they practice, and their origin for social proof, lest they be too uppity? That's a weird take. If they aren't part responsible for the referenced culture, as a member of it, than who is? (Forgetting for a moment that this is irrelevant, to the point in question, and the question is solely being used to tear the person down).
- adventured 2y ago
  That's not why people do it so extremely frequently. You could just argue in favor of the method. That's not what they're doing, they're looking to capture: I'm better than other people because of where I come from, my culture is superior and I'm part of that culture. Otherwise you could just drop the location identity and argue the point by itself. They want the easy credibility capture, it's a form of virtue signaling (and all you have to do is location drop and you get magic virtue points, even if you didn't earn any of those points).
  - mrangle 2y ago
    Nah. You're over-reacting to an extremely common, normal, and acceptable social tool because you have an agenda. What that is could be a couple of things, from a petty dislike of anyone who has anything to be proud about to an imbalanced flinch reflex against any cultural affinity. Referencing the method's origins offers social proof that it works. That's often a critical aspect of persuasion. It's completely normal and common. "Credibility capture" is an invented and weird term, and it would both apply and not apply here in the inverse that you would want it to. In the manner that it applies when offering a positive connotation, again, social proof is necessary much of the time. In the manner that it doesn't apply when attempting negative connotation, this person has every right to "capture credibility" from the culture to which they belong; especially when referencing a cultural method. This is a nightmare autistic-style conversation, by the way. In your attempt to de-normalize the normal. Appreciate it.
noizejoy 2y ago
> They've wrapped themselves up in an identity greater than their self, they want to associate with it and steal some of the perceived value/amazingness (that they weren't responsible for creating). I agree with most of your post. However, there’s also the desire to paint one’s own context, biases and giving credit to the shoulders one stands on. How can you differentiate between negative and positive intentions of communicating one’s context? Just by (often faked) humility? And how do you spot the fake?

mrangle 2y ago

Are those people not part of the culture that they reference? They're literally telling you how they do things, as a member of said culture. Are people not allowed now to reference successful methods that they practice, and their origin for social proof, lest they be too uppity? That's a weird take. If they aren't part responsible for the referenced culture, as a member of it, than who is? (Forgetting for a moment that this is irrelevant, to the point in question, and the question is solely being used to tear the person down).

adventured 2y ago
That's not why people do it so extremely frequently. You could just argue in favor of the method. That's not what they're doing, they're looking to capture: I'm better than other people because of where I come from, my culture is superior and I'm part of that culture. Otherwise you could just drop the location identity and argue the point by itself. They want the easy credibility capture, it's a form of virtue signaling (and all you have to do is location drop and you get magic virtue points, even if you didn't earn any of those points).
- mrangle 2y ago
  Nah. You're over-reacting to an extremely common, normal, and acceptable social tool because you have an agenda. What that is could be a couple of things, from a petty dislike of anyone who has anything to be proud about to an imbalanced flinch reflex against any cultural affinity. Referencing the method's origins offers social proof that it works. That's often a critical aspect of persuasion. It's completely normal and common. "Credibility capture" is an invented and weird term, and it would both apply and not apply here in the inverse that you would want it to. In the manner that it applies when offering a positive connotation, again, social proof is necessary much of the time. In the manner that it doesn't apply when attempting negative connotation, this person has every right to "capture credibility" from the culture to which they belong; especially when referencing a cultural method. This is a nightmare autistic-style conversation, by the way. In your attempt to de-normalize the normal. Appreciate it.

noizejoy 2y ago

> They've wrapped themselves up in an identity greater than their self, they want to associate with it and steal some of the perceived value/amazingness (that they weren't responsible for creating). I agree with most of your post. However, there’s also the desire to paint one’s own context, biases and giving credit to the shoulders one stands on. How can you differentiate between negative and positive intentions of communicating one’s context? Just by (often faked) humility? And how do you spot the fake?