14 ms·

I guess I just don't see "tribalism". I know it's a popular description though for the divisiveness we find ourselves in politically. But I consider the things

I guess I just don't see "tribalism". I know it's a popular description though for the divisiveness we find ourselves in politically. But I consider the things important to me, the beliefs, the issues: and they, all of them, align with a progressive, left-leaning ideology. I'm not just glomming on to everything one "tribe" or another stands for ... one group actually reflects everything I believe. (I think I could split a few hairs here and there, but we're still talking perhaps 95% alignment.) But I don't think that is too surprising. Others, smarter than me, have gone into great detail about the underpinnings of left-leaning or right-leaning world views in people. Fear of change, empathy ... a number of ideas have been put forth. By this reasoning it naturally follows that those of a certain "personality" will also share common beliefs, ideologies. The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive.

tdb7893 2y ago
The graph in the article of "what the political spectrum actually is" where independent thought was only found in the middle was so funny to me that I had to do a double take. Maybe this is a joke or April Fool's prank or something? I read the article quickly so maybe I'm misreading it but if that graph is serious it really undermines his position as a thoughtful moderate to me. But maybe he really does believe that everyone on the left and the right only has groupthink. I agree with you that it's definitely not all tribalism
- rf15 2y ago
  European here. I'm on the left, but I don't hang out much with people from the left: they're really often driven by ideology and cannot for the life of them come up with working political plans to push the needle. They're completely rejecting the complexity of compromise and gradual change towards the ideal, convinced that any act that isn't absolute is a betrayal of their values.
  - tdb7893 2y ago
    Sure I mean a lot of people on every political leaning don't have practical policies but that's besides the point (people can even have bad independent thoughts so impractical policies aren't inherently relevant). The graph isn't even "often people who disagree with me are tribal" it's "literally only some people near me ideologically are independent thinkers". Edit: this is the graph, everything outside of a group of moderates is 100% on the "groupthink" side of the graph. It's an inherently condescending way to look at people who you disagree with and a disservice to your point if you're trying to get people to listen to each other. https://images.spr.so/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/j42No7y-dcokJuNgXeA0ig/e072ad2f-d19f-4158-bc9c-3aa1b88c8eaf/image/w=1920,quality=90,fit=scale-down https://images.spr.so/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/j42No7y-dcokJuNg...
    - bodiekane 2y ago
      I think you're taking the graph way too literally. The Republicans and Democrats are both coalitions made up of many different groups, and their policies are constantly shifting depending on which individuals get elected and which of those sub-groups hold more power, as well as due to different sub-groups shifting allegiances. It's statistically almost impossible that someone would agree 100% with the platform of the Republicans or Democrats at any given moment. Even if you just pretend there are exactly two stances on a given issue (R or D) you'd still be looking at like 2^1000 different possible outcomes (for 1,000 different issues). The more perfectly someone claims to align to one party, the more likely it is that they're doing so out of tribalism than because they actually matched the exact one-in-a-zillion set of opinions.
      - shw1n 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - gonzobonzo 2y ago
        Even more so when you see how quickly these coalitions will shift their beliefs or take on new beliefs when they’re signaled to do so by leaders of the coalition. You often see this in real time during political conversations (both online and offline). Someone will say, “No one on my side ever said X, that’s a vicious smear perpetrated by the other side.” Someone will response with an example of a prominent leader on their side saying X. The first person will suddenly do a 180, and start explaining why X is just a commonsense position and it’s silly for anyone to be offended by it.
- shw1n 2y ago
  it was meant as a visual specifically for Paul Graham's article here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html I should probably generate a new one or just remove since it appears to have sent this message to multiple people But yeah I don't think it's entirely tribalism, but I do largely agree with PG's essay, though I'd understand a contesting of his statement that "the left and right are equally wrong about half the time"
  - trinsic2 2y ago
    I read that I think he means it is tribal thinking if you have a desire to convince instead of search for truth in a curious way. I didnt read that people on the left or the right are always tribal. But yeah, its easy to go that way when you are not able to see the truth in opposite viewpoints.
  - shawndrost 2y ago
    But which is it? Do you agree with Graham's essay and your own graph, or do you disagree? It sounds like you believe in the graph, but don't want to turn people off. Just own your belief. FWIW I think you should disagree with Graham's essay and your own graph. Saying that "left" and "right" were both 50% wrong is like saying the same about "federalist" and "anti-federalist". Even if the sides are 50% wrong, the free thinkers would be widely distributed.
    - shw1n 2y ago
      Ironically this seems like an example of the tribalism my essay is about -- I agree with his essay, but only partially agree with the graph I think the hump could be slightly shifted left or right, but the points on the graph are the averages of an individual's entire collection of views I don't believe an independent thinker would come up with a set of views that perfectly match the left or right's doctrine since at least some of those views are somewhat arbitrary -- in that sense I agree with him
      - hgomersall 2y ago
        You even say so in your essay. I'd say an issue is people picking up on the graph but ignoring what you wrote.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  It's not uncommon for people who decide they have "discovered" the "real political spectrum" by simply adding a new axis to the traditional left-right spectrum to coincidentally idealize one pole on that new axis, viewing all variation on the left-right axis as indicative of distraction from what is important. Asserting that people varying on the left-right spectrum also cluster around the anti-ideal pole of the idealized axis while everyone closer to the ideal pole clusters around the left-right center is not as common, but reflects the same cognitive bias, though it is particularly amusing when that axis independent thought (ideal) vs. groupthink (anti-ideal), such that freethinkers are asserted to by ideological uniform even outside of the shared commit to "free" thought, while sheepish adherents of groupthink are more ideologically diverse. (And, yes, that graph is deadly serious -- as well as, IMO, hilariously wrong [0] -- and fairly central to the theme of the post.) It's even more funny that this "free thinker" is decrying tribalist groupthink, asserting (as already discussed) that free thought exists only in an extremely narrow band in the center of the left-right axis, and talking about how they can't talk politics with anyone outside their group and are "desperate for like-minded folk". The lack of self-awareness is...palpable. It's even more funny that all the ideas he embraces and purports to have trouble finding people he agrees with are the standard doctrines of the rationalist/EA/longermist faction that is so popular in the tech/AI space (and the conceit of being uniquely free thinking is also common to the faction.) [0] Actual free thinkers are, IME, distributed widely -- not necessarily evenly, but certainly not clustered in one spot -- across both the left-right axis and a number of other political axes [1][2], such as the authoritarian-libertarian axis, so both the distribution shown and the assertion that the "real" political spectrum is two dimensional with only freethought vs. groupthink added to the classic left-right axis are incorrect. [1] For a number of reasons, including both differences in life experiences and thus perceived probabilities on various factual propositions, but also on fundamental values which life experiences may impact, but not in a deductive manner, because you can't reason to "ought" from "is". [2] Free thinkers do differ from groupthinkers in that their positions in the multidimensional space of political values are likely not to fall into the clusters of established tribes, but to have some views typical of one tribe while other others fall out of that tribes typical space (and possibly even into the space of an opposing tribe.) But there are enough different tribes
  - 2y ago
- musicale 2y ago
  Yes, you're misreading it. Independent thought vs. groupthink is the vertical axis.
  - Lendal 2y ago
    What he means is that according to the graph if you call yourself an "independent thinker" then you can't be an extremist. You are automatically a centrist. All the dots on the "independent thinker" half are all centrist. None are left or right. An interesting bias that he's admitting to. Made me roll my eyes and stop reading right there, and just skim the rest for all the "independent thinker" tropes. If you want to feel superior and virtue signal, just label yourself an "independent thinker." It's so easy.
    - musicale 2y ago
      I was thinking that as well until I read the caption on the graph, which I might still take issue with, but which was also a bit more nuanced since it was trying to visualize someone else's viewpoint.
- thinkingemote 2y ago
  It's common in tribalism to see ones own tribe as rational and the other tribes as groupthink. We can see this in discussions about misinformation today. "Brainwashed masses" is a tribal concept about a tribe.
- chromatin 2y ago
  Yes, that also struck me as nonsensical. If he were really trying to demonstrate a 2d Gaussian, it would instead be a circle or elipse of points with highest density at the origin. perhaps in the end he was not
keiferski 2y ago
My thought is that if someone aligns exactly with X political ideology, they aren’t really thinking for themselves and are just adopting whatever their tribal group believes about X subject. I see this all the time - collections of beliefs that otherwise have nothing to do with each other, but are adopted by the same people because “that’s what X group thinks about it.” This is very rarely a conscious thing. This becomes even more obvious when you look at how these collections of beliefs have changed over time, which to me just shows how they aren’t based on any fundamental intrinsic personality traits but are trendy and groupthink-based. Ditto for geographic differences. So I don’t think being a centrist implies one is not tribal, rather that the degree to which your beliefs on a variety of issues align with the “default” of a group implies how tribal you are. In other words, a politically thoughtful and independent person probably has a basket of opinions that don’t fit into neat left or right, liberal or conservative, etc. categories.
- shw1n 2y ago
  this is exactly it, from here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
  - n4r9 2y ago
    This essay feels shallow and dismissive to me. The sentiment is that you can't be a smart, independent thinker whilst going too far left or right. As with many of his essays, my take is that PG - who lives a highly privileged life - is basing this opinion on the caricature of reality that he gleans from the media and internet forums. It's easy to think what he thinks when the only representation you see of the far left is mindless "woke"ism. Firstly, does he think that Marx was dumb? And leading left-wing figures like AOC, Sanders, Varoufakis, Zinn, or Zizek? No, for all you might disagree with them, they're smart and independent. They did not acquire their opinions in bulk. I even admit that right-wing figures like Shapiro, Bannon etc... are smart and independent, even though I think they're snakes. Secondly, the essay overstates the degree of uniformity within the far left and right. Have you not seen the animosity between anarchists and Trotskyites? They only agree insofar as believing we can do better than capitalism. And those on the far right who have a global free market ideology will be at odds with those who want to restrict movement and apply protectionist tariffs. [EDITED TO ADD] Thirdly, he presupposes that the distinction between right and left is purely one of logical competence. This is captured by him saying "both sides are equally wrong". But personal values also drive the polarisation. Those on the right tend to highly value tradition, loyalty, and family. Those on the left tend to highly value universal welfare and the environment. It's not really possible to label these "right" or "wrong", they are expressions of our fundamental desires for ourselves and the world. If you start from different axioms, you'll tend to get different corollaries even if perfect logic is applied.
YZF 2y ago
I think the claim is that a lot of people stick with the tribe regardless of how closely it matches their world views. It might be dismissive but it resonates. I've seen people keep voting for the same parties even when the policies have shifted very significantly. Since you are left leaning, presumably American, a good example is the Republicans. The current policies and values of the Republicans seem to be very different than let's say those of 20 years ago. But you don't see a lot of movement, i.e. you don't really see people saying because your actions of policies changed I'm going to re-evaluate my support for you. Maybe the other team is now closer to my world views. It's a lot more common that people just keep voting for their camp or team. I'm sure there are studies, this is very anecdotal. There are also many e.g. single issue voters, they only care about a single issue and nothing else. Independent thinkers, who dive deep into issues, who challenge beliefs, who weigh multiple issues and considerations, who potentially shift their position when the goal posts have moved or they've evaluated new information, are rare. It's much easier to stay in an echo chamber/team/tribe. We see this all the time, another example is the pandemic. It's lack of nuance. You see this in the political discourse. Instead of debating things of substance it's more of a rally around the team approach. You're never going to see in-depth discussion/analysis on tax policies, or security policies. Anything that doesn't meet your world view is automatically discredited whether it has merit or not, It's going to be they bad we good/polarizing/conspiracies etc. This pushes people farther apart and I think it also pushes policies farther apart. Maybe sometimes it is that simple but plenty of times it's not.
- shw1n 2y ago
  exactly
- crote 2y ago
  A lot of this is due to the failure of the American political system: there is simply no room for a third party. A lot of people don't want to vote for "their" party, it's merely a strategic vote in an attempt to keep the worse of two evil out of power. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you might just as well not have voted at all. The parties will only genuinely start caring about policy when that gets fixed, and voters will only start looking into politics when there is more than one option on their side of the aisle.
wwarner 2y ago
By definition, reason can only take you so far in politics, as it’s the arena in which decisions must be made without complete information. No matter how well reasoned your arguments, no matter how well informed you are, you’re still going to resist switching allegiances. So, imo, politics is just about 99% loyalty.
protocolture 2y ago
I think it refers to people, who I have run into quite a lot, who when faced with a new fact about politics or the behaviour of politicians, back the team over the idea. Like if you were to say consider yourself a progressive. I would consider you a progressive, unless you for instance, supported something incredibly conservative that was performed by a "Good Guy" politician on your team. For instance, we used to have this chap Daniel Andrews. Who was for better or worse, a mild progressive. He took a very hard stance on Covid related issues. Progressives, backed the man regardless. Conservatives criticised his every move. However, his own human rights review, found that he had violated the human rights of citizens in certain circumstances. If you mention this to his critics, it reinforces their team. But if you mention this (incredibly obvious good faith criticism) to his supporters, not only does it reinforce their team, but they immediately seek to identify you as someone on the other team. A "crazy anti lockdown conservative" or similar. - That for me is the essence of tribalism. To be fair I think this is a symptom of social media rather than just political awareness.
- shw1n 2y ago
  agreed -- I also think social media exacerbated this
- Devilspawn6666 2y ago
  I've seen another example over the last few days. Quite a few people who have been vociferously pro-EU and in favour of their protectionism, tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers have been going crazy over the US imposing tariffs, even though the US rates are far lower than the EU's. A similar group has historically been strongly against government corruption but recently have been attacking efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government. Unserious. The big cheques in Wisconsin don't count? The presidential cryptocurrency?
  - myrmidon 2y ago
bsder 2y ago
Martin Luther King was pretty clear what he thought of "the middle": > I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
- shw1n 2y ago
  yep, this is the "intentional" moderate which I also classify as tribal distinctly different from the "accidental" moderate who could harbor indignation against racial prejudice as one of their views https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
  - bsder 2y ago
    The person receiving the pointy end of a spear doesn't much care whether you explicitly chose to stab him or whether you stabbed him because you are following your tribe.
    - shw1n 2y ago
      the difference is the person stabbing of their own independent accord can be convinced to stop the tribe-following stabber cannot
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  I think holding political opinions on the basis of what a famous (historical) person feels about them is sort of the thing being criticized here.
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Sounds like a kind of dumb thing to criticize, then. Picking the side of Martin Luther King Jr. on civil rights is…uh…kind of a difficult position to argue against.
dkarl 2y ago
> The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive. It's not about where you are on the spectrum. I know neoliberal moderate Democrats, people who would have voted for George H.W. Bush in 1988, who are more tribal about current U.S. politics than any socialist I've met. What makes it unpleasant to talk politics with them is a combination of two things: the narrow set of answers they're willing to accept on every topic, and the anger and suspicion they broadcast at anyone who says anything else. For example, they have an acceptable set of answers for why Trump won in 2024 (racism and sexism) and if you suggest any other contributing factors (like arrogance, elitism, and various screw-ups in the Democratic party) then you must be on the other side, blaming the victims and making excuses for Trump supporters. You can say a dozen things morally condemning Trump and the Republican Party and then make one strategic criticism of the Democrats, and they'll look at you like maybe they can't ever trust you anymore. They'll parade their emotional distress and look at you sideways if you don't have the energy to mirror it. All this without being especially politically informed, politically engaged, or politically radical, or caring if anybody else is informed, engaged, or radical -- they judge themselves and others purely by fervor and narrowness.
- shw1n 2y ago
  yep, this is exactly it -- it's not where you end up, it's the inability to separate from a group there are tribalists on the left, right, and in the middle
- lupusreal 2y ago
  I think one of the distinguishing characteristics of tribalism is the inability to have low-stakes conversations about politics. To somebody who is deep in tribalism, every private ephemeral one-to-one conversation they have is a vital battle which very well may decide the fate of the world, so their vigilance and inflamed passion entirely justified and rational. Being a part of the tribe ruins their humility, the tribe is important, they are wed to the tribe, any political discussion they have is on behave of the tribe, and therefore very important. Alliance with the tribe confers importance to themselves and they thereby lose their humility. They lose the ability to recognize that the conversation isn't actually important, that they can relax and treat the other person like a human rather than a faceless representative of the enemy who they have a vital responsibility to defeat.
jader201 2y ago
One quality of “tribal” that I think gets overlooked is that those that are part of a “tribe” are not willing to be wrong. I feel like those that are more in the middle - in addition to be “accidentally in the middle” as pg says — they’re open to hearing the other side, and even open to being wrong. Those that I know that I might define as “tribal” — and that goes for either side — are certainly not open to being wrong, and not even really open to listening to the other side — even a rational discussion. Some may pretend to listen and maybe even engage in a discussion, but only out of being polite, not out of genuine, open curiosity.
toasterlovin 2y ago
> one group actually reflects everything I believe If you swap “group” for “religion,” this is how I feel about Catholicism. Make of that what you will.
lynx97 2y ago
How do you avoid being "tribal" if you are not centerish?
- shw1n 2y ago
  just by being able to understand why you believe what you believe, for each individual view center-ish is not a requirement, but a correlation -- rarely will someone independently come up with views that 100% match the somewhat-arbitrary positions of the left or right
- StefanBatory 2y ago
  And what if "middle" is a tribe too ;)
lend000 2y ago
Is it really likely that an intelligent person like yourself could hold 95% intellectual alignment with one of the two lowest common denominators (largest pluralities) in a country on complex political topics? Consider how much each party's platform has changed in the last 20 years, and how much more they will change in the next 20. I would say it's more likely that someone like yourself is quite intelligent and creative and is instead unaware of those deeply ingrained tribal instincts. Media in the US, especially now via incessant social media feeds, fuels this. It showers us with information showing how the "other side" is bad. So you can have a correct opinion that the other tribe is bad without any quantitative metrics to compare how bad it is compared to your tribe, which is also very bad. Btw, regarding the basic personality traits thing. I found this paper very interesting [0]. Sort of refutes the "conservatives lack empathy and fear change" angle. On average, I suspect most liberals and conservatives have very similar averages across most personality traits and are mostly just a product of their environment. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our%20meta%2Danalysis%20results%20suggest,giving%20varies%20under%20different%20scenarios. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our%20meta...
s1artibartfast 2y ago
If you think these beleifs are inherent in the temperament of people, that doesnt explain the change of these beliefs over time. Progressive, left leaning ideology had different stances 20 years ago, let alone 50 years or in China or India. Sometimes this is easier to see from the outside. For example, if the conservative right all independently arrived at the same conclusion based on personality, isnt it strange how the consensus all moves together and changes over time
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  My impressions were they meant values and you meant policies.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think you are probably right. If you find people with shared values, and follow their changing policies, That still seems like tribal behavior to me.
douglee650 2y ago
In the US, you vote for one party or the other. It reduces to tribalism, so why do the extra work to get to the reductive result?
thinkingemote 2y ago
It's natural to internalise the groups we belong to. In other words they become me. Or my identity is formed by the group. When social scientists say something is socially constructed that's approaching this. It's hard to see oneself apart from the group one belongs to. In fact to separate oneself causes real pain. In the article it says that people don't want to look outside their tribe; I would say that people shouldn't even think about looking outside as it will cause trauma. It would literally cause psychological identity wounds. One aspect of politics is this pain avoidance.
michaelt 2y ago
I once read an interesting article that said in multipolar political systems, coalitions between opinion groups happen after the election; whereas in two-party systems, the coalition forms before the election. So you get people who think taxation is theft allied with people who Back The Blue. You get people who think life is so sacred abortion should be banned allied with people who'd like to see an AR-15 under every pillow. You get people who think nazi flags and the N word are free speech, allied with people who think books with gay and trans characters should be banned. And personally I'm pro-environment and think nuclear power has a part to play; I think we should help the homeless by increasing the housing supply and letting builders do their thing; that the police should exist but need substantial reform to stamp out corruption and brutality; and that women's issues like abortion and trans women in abuse shelters should be decided by women, not men like me. But I'm in a political coalition with people who think nuclear power is bad, that we need rent control, that we should defund the police, and so on. In an electoral system with proportional representation, largely unrelated views would all be different parties, no party would have a majority, and after the election they'd form alliances to build a ruling coalition. But because of America's electoral system, someone has to take all those views, duct-tape them together and call it a consistent political ideology.
- shw1n 2y ago
  this is probably my favorite comment on this post so far, super interesting if you can find the article I'd love to read it
- netsharc 2y ago
  [flagged]
- verisimi 2y ago
  > that women's issues like abortion and trans women in abuse shelters should be decided by women, not men like me. This got me wondering... Thinking in reverse, are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only? Underlying your thought, seems to be the idea that some people should be excluded from certain political/ideological conversations. Whereas for me, I see all people as individuals, each with a right to their opinions. Ie, I wouldn't start from a point of separation as this bakes in special interests, sexism, racism, etc.
mFixman 2y ago
Always remember that internet conversations are carried by a small group of antisocial losers, and a most of media articles complaining about society are specifically targeting that small but loud group. An average person has a lot more in common with you than with the imaginary protagonist of this blogpost, who is really smart and wants to show that everyone else is really dumb. Like other normal people, I discuss politics with friends; both with the ones I mostly agree with and the ones I mostly disagree with. We need to understand game theory and military strategy to have a useful conversation.
short_sells_poo 2y ago
You are right that you don't take part in tribalism, because you first have a value structure and then you looked critically at the political landscape and found where you have the largest overlap. But tribalism is absolutely an issue in the modern age with huge swathes of population falling into social media echo chambers. People first find their tribe, and then they define their own personality by the views of that tribe, not the other way around. Just look at all the people spewing "own the libs" or "maga fucktards". A significant portion of the population doesn't vote based on rational analysis, but by being part of a crowd. They don't even care or know what they vote for, as long as they are sticking it to people they perceive as enemies. I think this is basically the terminal/minimum of the modern social network algo optimization. Everything is maximally polarized, nobody is willing to engage in good faith discussion with people who hold different views. Everyone has a known enemy and known allies and they can be fed what they like to hear and thus continue being addicted. I don't know how to get out of this :(
potato3732842 2y ago
>By this reasoning it naturally follows that those of a certain "personality" will also share common beliefs, ideologies Is this not borne out in your own life experience? Because it sure is in mine.
hobs 2y ago
The United States especially is having a face to face with tribalism - if you live here and you don't see it you are basically blind. We have parents posting that they are glad their child is dead instead of getting the measles vaccine, an entire pandemic that was ignored and downplayed, an election denied. These are all simple examples of tribalism - choosing the tribe over ones own self interest and well being. Most sane people don't offer their children up to Baal.
heresie-dabord 2y ago
> align with a progressive, left-leaning ideology. Cooperation and scalability are two objectively good principles that our species can apply effectively... if and only if there is a genuine desire for cooperative, scalable, positive outcomes. If social/political discourse has degraded to the point that cooperative, scalable, positive outcomes are off the table, look to those who have taken control of the discourse. Propaganda undermines language itself. The difference between destructive behavior and constructive behaviour... has a bias.
belorn 2y ago
Looking at it from a left-right one-dimensional space, the middle would be the non-tribal choice. The political spectrum is however not a one-dimensional space, and countries with multiple political parties, with center parties, can demonstrate that well in polls and self tests. It is perfectly possible for a single individual to be in 50% agreement with every single political party, from left, center and right, agreeing to the individual policies from each party that they find to be correct and disagreeing with policies they disagree with. As it happens, if I personally looks to what is important to me, I find that from the extremest left to the extremest right, the best political party get 60% support and the worst get 40% support. They all have some policies that I strongly support, and some policies that are terrible, and the middle of the gang is exactly the same. To take an example. I am in strong support of the green party when it comes to train and bike infrastructure, fishing policies, eliminating lead in hunting ammunition, getting rid of invasive species, and banning heavy fuel oil in shipping. I strongly disagree with their support of using natural gas as a transactional fuel in the energy grid in hopes of green hydrogen (a pipe dream), and their dismantling of nuclear power. I also strongly disagree with their political attempts to mix in the war in Gaza with environmentalism, as if taking up the flag for either side in that war has any relevance in nation/local politics on what is almost the other side of the world. That is one political party out of 8 that my country has, and the story is similar with all the rest.
- duckduckquaquak 2y ago
  Looking at this as a non-American. American politics is seems very much tribe minded as an outsider,left vs right. And where someone stands largely can tell you about their views on a lot of other things. At least that's how it is portrayed in media. I know in practice a lot of people are more nuanced. Most countries have sometimes up to 10 political parties and what party/ies someone supports often does not say much about their views on different social issues. In the USA it seems you can't want a secure border and civil rights for minority groups.
jl6 2y ago
Tribalism is part metaphor, part euphemism. What it’s really getting at is cult behavior. Agreeing with someone on a lot of things isn’t tribal and isn’t cult. The actual problems of “tribalism” are exactly those of cults: worship of a leader or ideology, zero tolerance for criticism, cutting you off from other support networks, conspiracies, narratives of doom, promises of salvation, framing enemies as degenerates and deplorables, claiming exclusive ownership of truth and morality… Red and blue alike have cult wings.
- calf 2y ago
  Tribalism is just really bad pop-sociology, by people who can't be arsed to read and do their homework on a vast subject matter.
subpixel 2y ago
The most visible example of tribalism is when groups fail to update their ideas and beliefs as facts start to come in. You can't escape the religious parallel. This occurs clear across the political spectrum, but a standout example is record-breaking levels of immigration in European countries like Sweden and Germany. Instead of realizing the policy failure and acting to fix it, the line becomes "it was the right thing to do, it was just done poorly."
jmyeet 2y ago
Just in the last election cycle, we saw tribal Democratic voters try and silence those protesting the Biden administration and then immediately go "we have always been at war with Eurasia" and do the exact same thing for Kamala. And MAGA goes beyond being tribal: by any objective measure, it's a cult. Plus you see an awful lot of people who will criticize one side for doing one thing while supporting the other side for doing the exact same thing. Obama, for example, was the Deporter-in-Chief (~3 million deported), Biden continued the Trump policy of using Title 42 to deny asylum claims and Kamala proposed building the very same border wall that all Democrats protested when Trump proposed it in 2020. I'm a leftist and any leftist will have seen so many liberals who love progressive aesthetics but turn into a jack-booted fascist the second you want to address any of the underlying economic issues. For example, tell people "house prices need to come down" to solve any number of issues such as homelessness and see how they react. > The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive. On this, I 100% agree. There are several reasons why: 1. Intellectual laziness. People think they're "above the fray" by bothsidesing everything; 2. Ignorance. This is particularly an issue for Democratic voters in the US. Both Democrats and Republicans are neoliberals. US foreign policy is bipartisan. Full-throated support for capitalism is bipartisan. But a large segment of Democrats tell themselves they're good people for wearing a pride pin while at the same time thinking homeless people should die in the stree; or 3. Deception. This is particularly the case for Republicans who will try and center their positions by appealing to "common sense" and label Democrats, who are a center-right party, as "the far Left" or "the radical Left". So, yes, people do use "tribalism" as an epithet to silence legitimate criticisim but there is also tribalism.
DeathArrow 2y ago
>Others, smarter than me, have gone into great detail about the underpinnings of left-leaning or right-leaning world views in people. People also change. Until 25 maybe 30,I was left leaning in many issues. Now I am mostly right aligned.
MSFT_Edging 2y ago
I think there sadly exists an overlay in a lot of politics, basically tribalism, but I think the better phrasing is "teams" as in "team sports". You don't like a team for an ideological reason, usually physical closeness or some other arbitrary connection. For many, the team is the extent at which they analyze politics. You see this when conservatives will reference historical events in terms of the name of the political party. For example, it's relatively common to see someone say "Oh the Democrats are bad because during the Civil war they were on the side of slavery". Their analysis doesn't include the actual policy or ideology at hand, it's simply the team "Democrats". It doesn't matter to them if the flavor of policies that the early 20th century dems supported are similar or even the same as the policies modern Republicans support. Only the team. I think there exists multiple layers of "tribalism" or "team sports" in politics that effects people differently. The bottom layer is sadly "<Name of party> good, <name of other party> bad". I think at some point we must acknowledge that some people are simply stupid. If they think making an argument based on the politics of a party 100 years ago is convincing, they might just not have the facilities for critical thinking. A lot of those people are now @-ing grok on twitter to explain even the simplest of jokes.
- Isamu 2y ago
  Thanks, I came here to say the same. Sports fandom is the better metaphor. It’s lazy participation.
moduspol 2y ago
> I'm not just glomming on to everything one "tribe" or another stands for ... one group actually reflects everything I believe. I don't think that's unreasonable, but if you're in the US, you should really re-evaluate if this is true just because there are several significant issues over which the parties have flipped over the past few decades (and more if you go back further). Obviously you didn't specify a party, but as one example: In the 1990s, the left wing party was where the free speech absolutists were. If you were a big "free speech" enthusiast back then and you still are now, then great! If your views have changed, that's fine, too, but there should be alarm bells going off in your head that your views changed along with the tribe.
kjkjadksj 2y ago
I think tribalism is being thought of as a pejorative when it isn’t. It merely is a phenomenon. What you describe above about yourself is pure tribalism of how you identify with the liberal tribe and could never even picture yourself as a member of other tribe. This is no different to me than a rabbi or priest talking about the tenets of their faith and how that leaves them no option but to be a member of that religion due to the moral underpinnings of those tenets that they believe in. Tribal politics happen when we take these various tribes in our society and essentially blind them to their biases to the point where they can’t imagine at all why someone would even be in that other tribe. A complete loss of critical thinking ability emerges once it becomes us and them and not some of us and others of us, one species, no tribes, many ideas. Do you actually believe all liberals are good and can do no evil? Do you actually believe all conservatives are cartoonishly evil idiots? I’d hope you could see the nuance but your description makes it seem like there is one way but the highway. And the reflexive counter argument from the liberals is “but racism” but then again, explain the phenomenon of the black or latino Trump supporter? Clearly there is more nuance going on in what is sensible to people than what we can gleam out of the black and white painted descriptions from the thought leaders in our tribe.
yungporko 2y ago
imo it's not dismissive it's just the truth. the chances of someone's values completely lining up with the current agenda of any political party are effectively zero, so anybody who fits that description has just picked a team and decided to roll with it, there just isn't any other explanation.

tdb7893 2y ago

The graph in the article of "what the political spectrum actually is" where independent thought was only found in the middle was so funny to me that I had to do a double take. Maybe this is a joke or April Fool's prank or something? I read the article quickly so maybe I'm misreading it but if that graph is serious it really undermines his position as a thoughtful moderate to me. But maybe he really does believe that everyone on the left and the right only has groupthink. I agree with you that it's definitely not all tribalism

rf15 2y ago
European here. I'm on the left, but I don't hang out much with people from the left: they're really often driven by ideology and cannot for the life of them come up with working political plans to push the needle. They're completely rejecting the complexity of compromise and gradual change towards the ideal, convinced that any act that isn't absolute is a betrayal of their values.
- tdb7893 2y ago
  Sure I mean a lot of people on every political leaning don't have practical policies but that's besides the point (people can even have bad independent thoughts so impractical policies aren't inherently relevant). The graph isn't even "often people who disagree with me are tribal" it's "literally only some people near me ideologically are independent thinkers". Edit: this is the graph, everything outside of a group of moderates is 100% on the "groupthink" side of the graph. It's an inherently condescending way to look at people who you disagree with and a disservice to your point if you're trying to get people to listen to each other. https://images.spr.so/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/j42No7y-dcokJuNgXeA0ig/e072ad2f-d19f-4158-bc9c-3aa1b88c8eaf/image/w=1920,quality=90,fit=scale-down https://images.spr.so/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/j42No7y-dcokJuNg...
  - bodiekane 2y ago
    I think you're taking the graph way too literally. The Republicans and Democrats are both coalitions made up of many different groups, and their policies are constantly shifting depending on which individuals get elected and which of those sub-groups hold more power, as well as due to different sub-groups shifting allegiances. It's statistically almost impossible that someone would agree 100% with the platform of the Republicans or Democrats at any given moment. Even if you just pretend there are exactly two stances on a given issue (R or D) you'd still be looking at like 2^1000 different possible outcomes (for 1,000 different issues). The more perfectly someone claims to align to one party, the more likely it is that they're doing so out of tribalism than because they actually matched the exact one-in-a-zillion set of opinions.
    - shw1n 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - gonzobonzo 2y ago
      Even more so when you see how quickly these coalitions will shift their beliefs or take on new beliefs when they’re signaled to do so by leaders of the coalition. You often see this in real time during political conversations (both online and offline). Someone will say, “No one on my side ever said X, that’s a vicious smear perpetrated by the other side.” Someone will response with an example of a prominent leader on their side saying X. The first person will suddenly do a 180, and start explaining why X is just a commonsense position and it’s silly for anyone to be offended by it.
shw1n 2y ago
it was meant as a visual specifically for Paul Graham's article here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html I should probably generate a new one or just remove since it appears to have sent this message to multiple people But yeah I don't think it's entirely tribalism, but I do largely agree with PG's essay, though I'd understand a contesting of his statement that "the left and right are equally wrong about half the time"
- trinsic2 2y ago
  I read that I think he means it is tribal thinking if you have a desire to convince instead of search for truth in a curious way. I didnt read that people on the left or the right are always tribal. But yeah, its easy to go that way when you are not able to see the truth in opposite viewpoints.
- shawndrost 2y ago
  But which is it? Do you agree with Graham's essay and your own graph, or do you disagree? It sounds like you believe in the graph, but don't want to turn people off. Just own your belief. FWIW I think you should disagree with Graham's essay and your own graph. Saying that "left" and "right" were both 50% wrong is like saying the same about "federalist" and "anti-federalist". Even if the sides are 50% wrong, the free thinkers would be widely distributed.
  - shw1n 2y ago
    Ironically this seems like an example of the tribalism my essay is about -- I agree with his essay, but only partially agree with the graph I think the hump could be slightly shifted left or right, but the points on the graph are the averages of an individual's entire collection of views I don't believe an independent thinker would come up with a set of views that perfectly match the left or right's doctrine since at least some of those views are somewhat arbitrary -- in that sense I agree with him
    - hgomersall 2y ago
      You even say so in your essay. I'd say an issue is people picking up on the graph but ignoring what you wrote.
dragonwriter 2y ago
It's not uncommon for people who decide they have "discovered" the "real political spectrum" by simply adding a new axis to the traditional left-right spectrum to coincidentally idealize one pole on that new axis, viewing all variation on the left-right axis as indicative of distraction from what is important. Asserting that people varying on the left-right spectrum also cluster around the anti-ideal pole of the idealized axis while everyone closer to the ideal pole clusters around the left-right center is not as common, but reflects the same cognitive bias, though it is particularly amusing when that axis independent thought (ideal) vs. groupthink (anti-ideal), such that freethinkers are asserted to by ideological uniform even outside of the shared commit to "free" thought, while sheepish adherents of groupthink are more ideologically diverse. (And, yes, that graph is deadly serious -- as well as, IMO, hilariously wrong [0] -- and fairly central to the theme of the post.) It's even more funny that this "free thinker" is decrying tribalist groupthink, asserting (as already discussed) that free thought exists only in an extremely narrow band in the center of the left-right axis, and talking about how they can't talk politics with anyone outside their group and are "desperate for like-minded folk". The lack of self-awareness is...palpable. It's even more funny that all the ideas he embraces and purports to have trouble finding people he agrees with are the standard doctrines of the rationalist/EA/longermist faction that is so popular in the tech/AI space (and the conceit of being uniquely free thinking is also common to the faction.) [0] Actual free thinkers are, IME, distributed widely -- not necessarily evenly, but certainly not clustered in one spot -- across both the left-right axis and a number of other political axes [1][2], such as the authoritarian-libertarian axis, so both the distribution shown and the assertion that the "real" political spectrum is two dimensional with only freethought vs. groupthink added to the classic left-right axis are incorrect. [1] For a number of reasons, including both differences in life experiences and thus perceived probabilities on various factual propositions, but also on fundamental values which life experiences may impact, but not in a deductive manner, because you can't reason to "ought" from "is". [2] Free thinkers do differ from groupthinkers in that their positions in the multidimensional space of political values are likely not to fall into the clusters of established tribes, but to have some views typical of one tribe while other others fall out of that tribes typical space (and possibly even into the space of an opposing tribe.) But there are enough different tribes
- 2y ago
musicale 2y ago
Yes, you're misreading it. Independent thought vs. groupthink is the vertical axis.
- Lendal 2y ago
  What he means is that according to the graph if you call yourself an "independent thinker" then you can't be an extremist. You are automatically a centrist. All the dots on the "independent thinker" half are all centrist. None are left or right. An interesting bias that he's admitting to. Made me roll my eyes and stop reading right there, and just skim the rest for all the "independent thinker" tropes. If you want to feel superior and virtue signal, just label yourself an "independent thinker." It's so easy.
  - musicale 2y ago
    I was thinking that as well until I read the caption on the graph, which I might still take issue with, but which was also a bit more nuanced since it was trying to visualize someone else's viewpoint.
thinkingemote 2y ago
It's common in tribalism to see ones own tribe as rational and the other tribes as groupthink. We can see this in discussions about misinformation today. "Brainwashed masses" is a tribal concept about a tribe.
chromatin 2y ago
Yes, that also struck me as nonsensical. If he were really trying to demonstrate a 2d Gaussian, it would instead be a circle or elipse of points with highest density at the origin. perhaps in the end he was not

keiferski 2y ago

My thought is that if someone aligns exactly with X political ideology, they aren’t really thinking for themselves and are just adopting whatever their tribal group believes about X subject. I see this all the time - collections of beliefs that otherwise have nothing to do with each other, but are adopted by the same people because “that’s what X group thinks about it.” This is very rarely a conscious thing. This becomes even more obvious when you look at how these collections of beliefs have changed over time, which to me just shows how they aren’t based on any fundamental intrinsic personality traits but are trendy and groupthink-based. Ditto for geographic differences. So I don’t think being a centrist implies one is not tribal, rather that the degree to which your beliefs on a variety of issues align with the “default” of a group implies how tribal you are. In other words, a politically thoughtful and independent person probably has a basket of opinions that don’t fit into neat left or right, liberal or conservative, etc. categories.

shw1n 2y ago
this is exactly it, from here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
- n4r9 2y ago
  This essay feels shallow and dismissive to me. The sentiment is that you can't be a smart, independent thinker whilst going too far left or right. As with many of his essays, my take is that PG - who lives a highly privileged life - is basing this opinion on the caricature of reality that he gleans from the media and internet forums. It's easy to think what he thinks when the only representation you see of the far left is mindless "woke"ism. Firstly, does he think that Marx was dumb? And leading left-wing figures like AOC, Sanders, Varoufakis, Zinn, or Zizek? No, for all you might disagree with them, they're smart and independent. They did not acquire their opinions in bulk. I even admit that right-wing figures like Shapiro, Bannon etc... are smart and independent, even though I think they're snakes. Secondly, the essay overstates the degree of uniformity within the far left and right. Have you not seen the animosity between anarchists and Trotskyites? They only agree insofar as believing we can do better than capitalism. And those on the far right who have a global free market ideology will be at odds with those who want to restrict movement and apply protectionist tariffs. [EDITED TO ADD] Thirdly, he presupposes that the distinction between right and left is purely one of logical competence. This is captured by him saying "both sides are equally wrong". But personal values also drive the polarisation. Those on the right tend to highly value tradition, loyalty, and family. Those on the left tend to highly value universal welfare and the environment. It's not really possible to label these "right" or "wrong", they are expressions of our fundamental desires for ourselves and the world. If you start from different axioms, you'll tend to get different corollaries even if perfect logic is applied.

YZF 2y ago

I think the claim is that a lot of people stick with the tribe regardless of how closely it matches their world views. It might be dismissive but it resonates. I've seen people keep voting for the same parties even when the policies have shifted very significantly. Since you are left leaning, presumably American, a good example is the Republicans. The current policies and values of the Republicans seem to be very different than let's say those of 20 years ago. But you don't see a lot of movement, i.e. you don't really see people saying because your actions of policies changed I'm going to re-evaluate my support for you. Maybe the other team is now closer to my world views. It's a lot more common that people just keep voting for their camp or team. I'm sure there are studies, this is very anecdotal. There are also many e.g. single issue voters, they only care about a single issue and nothing else. Independent thinkers, who dive deep into issues, who challenge beliefs, who weigh multiple issues and considerations, who potentially shift their position when the goal posts have moved or they've evaluated new information, are rare. It's much easier to stay in an echo chamber/team/tribe. We see this all the time, another example is the pandemic. It's lack of nuance. You see this in the political discourse. Instead of debating things of substance it's more of a rally around the team approach. You're never going to see in-depth discussion/analysis on tax policies, or security policies. Anything that doesn't meet your world view is automatically discredited whether it has merit or not, It's going to be they bad we good/polarizing/conspiracies etc. This pushes people farther apart and I think it also pushes policies farther apart. Maybe sometimes it is that simple but plenty of times it's not.

shw1n 2y ago
exactly
crote 2y ago
A lot of this is due to the failure of the American political system: there is simply no room for a third party. A lot of people don't want to vote for "their" party, it's merely a strategic vote in an attempt to keep the worse of two evil out of power. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you might just as well not have voted at all. The parties will only genuinely start caring about policy when that gets fixed, and voters will only start looking into politics when there is more than one option on their side of the aisle.

wwarner 2y ago

By definition, reason can only take you so far in politics, as it’s the arena in which decisions must be made without complete information. No matter how well reasoned your arguments, no matter how well informed you are, you’re still going to resist switching allegiances. So, imo, politics is just about 99% loyalty.

protocolture 2y ago

I think it refers to people, who I have run into quite a lot, who when faced with a new fact about politics or the behaviour of politicians, back the team over the idea. Like if you were to say consider yourself a progressive. I would consider you a progressive, unless you for instance, supported something incredibly conservative that was performed by a "Good Guy" politician on your team. For instance, we used to have this chap Daniel Andrews. Who was for better or worse, a mild progressive. He took a very hard stance on Covid related issues. Progressives, backed the man regardless. Conservatives criticised his every move. However, his own human rights review, found that he had violated the human rights of citizens in certain circumstances. If you mention this to his critics, it reinforces their team. But if you mention this (incredibly obvious good faith criticism) to his supporters, not only does it reinforce their team, but they immediately seek to identify you as someone on the other team. A "crazy anti lockdown conservative" or similar. - That for me is the essence of tribalism. To be fair I think this is a symptom of social media rather than just political awareness.

shw1n 2y ago
agreed -- I also think social media exacerbated this
Devilspawn6666 2y ago
I've seen another example over the last few days. Quite a few people who have been vociferously pro-EU and in favour of their protectionism, tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers have been going crazy over the US imposing tariffs, even though the US rates are far lower than the EU's. A similar group has historically been strongly against government corruption but recently have been attacking efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government. Unserious. The big cheques in Wisconsin don't count? The presidential cryptocurrency?
- myrmidon 2y ago

bsder 2y ago

Martin Luther King was pretty clear what he thought of "the middle": > I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice

shw1n 2y ago
yep, this is the "intentional" moderate which I also classify as tribal distinctly different from the "accidental" moderate who could harbor indignation against racial prejudice as one of their views https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
- bsder 2y ago
  The person receiving the pointy end of a spear doesn't much care whether you explicitly chose to stab him or whether you stabbed him because you are following your tribe.
  - shw1n 2y ago
    the difference is the person stabbing of their own independent accord can be convinced to stop the tribe-following stabber cannot
FeepingCreature 2y ago
I think holding political opinions on the basis of what a famous (historical) person feels about them is sort of the thing being criticized here.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Sounds like a kind of dumb thing to criticize, then. Picking the side of Martin Luther King Jr. on civil rights is…uh…kind of a difficult position to argue against.

dkarl 2y ago

> The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive. It's not about where you are on the spectrum. I know neoliberal moderate Democrats, people who would have voted for George H.W. Bush in 1988, who are more tribal about current U.S. politics than any socialist I've met. What makes it unpleasant to talk politics with them is a combination of two things: the narrow set of answers they're willing to accept on every topic, and the anger and suspicion they broadcast at anyone who says anything else. For example, they have an acceptable set of answers for why Trump won in 2024 (racism and sexism) and if you suggest any other contributing factors (like arrogance, elitism, and various screw-ups in the Democratic party) then you must be on the other side, blaming the victims and making excuses for Trump supporters. You can say a dozen things morally condemning Trump and the Republican Party and then make one strategic criticism of the Democrats, and they'll look at you like maybe they can't ever trust you anymore. They'll parade their emotional distress and look at you sideways if you don't have the energy to mirror it. All this without being especially politically informed, politically engaged, or politically radical, or caring if anybody else is informed, engaged, or radical -- they judge themselves and others purely by fervor and narrowness.

shw1n 2y ago
yep, this is exactly it -- it's not where you end up, it's the inability to separate from a group there are tribalists on the left, right, and in the middle
lupusreal 2y ago
I think one of the distinguishing characteristics of tribalism is the inability to have low-stakes conversations about politics. To somebody who is deep in tribalism, every private ephemeral one-to-one conversation they have is a vital battle which very well may decide the fate of the world, so their vigilance and inflamed passion entirely justified and rational. Being a part of the tribe ruins their humility, the tribe is important, they are wed to the tribe, any political discussion they have is on behave of the tribe, and therefore very important. Alliance with the tribe confers importance to themselves and they thereby lose their humility. They lose the ability to recognize that the conversation isn't actually important, that they can relax and treat the other person like a human rather than a faceless representative of the enemy who they have a vital responsibility to defeat.

jader201 2y ago

One quality of “tribal” that I think gets overlooked is that those that are part of a “tribe” are not willing to be wrong. I feel like those that are more in the middle - in addition to be “accidentally in the middle” as pg says — they’re open to hearing the other side, and even open to being wrong. Those that I know that I might define as “tribal” — and that goes for either side — are certainly not open to being wrong, and not even really open to listening to the other side — even a rational discussion. Some may pretend to listen and maybe even engage in a discussion, but only out of being polite, not out of genuine, open curiosity.

toasterlovin 2y ago

> one group actually reflects everything I believe If you swap “group” for “religion,” this is how I feel about Catholicism. Make of that what you will.

lynx97 2y ago

How do you avoid being "tribal" if you are not centerish?

shw1n 2y ago
just by being able to understand why you believe what you believe, for each individual view center-ish is not a requirement, but a correlation -- rarely will someone independently come up with views that 100% match the somewhat-arbitrary positions of the left or right
StefanBatory 2y ago
And what if "middle" is a tribe too ;)

lend000 2y ago

Is it really likely that an intelligent person like yourself could hold 95% intellectual alignment with one of the two lowest common denominators (largest pluralities) in a country on complex political topics? Consider how much each party's platform has changed in the last 20 years, and how much more they will change in the next 20. I would say it's more likely that someone like yourself is quite intelligent and creative and is instead unaware of those deeply ingrained tribal instincts. Media in the US, especially now via incessant social media feeds, fuels this. It showers us with information showing how the "other side" is bad. So you can have a correct opinion that the other tribe is bad without any quantitative metrics to compare how bad it is compared to your tribe, which is also very bad. Btw, regarding the basic personality traits thing. I found this paper very interesting [0]. Sort of refutes the "conservatives lack empathy and fear change" angle. On average, I suspect most liberals and conservatives have very similar averages across most personality traits and are mostly just a product of their environment. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our%20meta%2Danalysis%20results%20suggest,giving%20varies%20under%20different%20scenarios. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our%20meta...

s1artibartfast 2y ago

If you think these beleifs are inherent in the temperament of people, that doesnt explain the change of these beliefs over time. Progressive, left leaning ideology had different stances 20 years ago, let alone 50 years or in China or India. Sometimes this is easier to see from the outside. For example, if the conservative right all independently arrived at the same conclusion based on personality, isnt it strange how the consensus all moves together and changes over time

pseudalopex 2y ago
My impressions were they meant values and you meant policies.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think you are probably right. If you find people with shared values, and follow their changing policies, That still seems like tribal behavior to me.

douglee650 2y ago

In the US, you vote for one party or the other. It reduces to tribalism, so why do the extra work to get to the reductive result?

thinkingemote 2y ago

It's natural to internalise the groups we belong to. In other words they become me. Or my identity is formed by the group. When social scientists say something is socially constructed that's approaching this. It's hard to see oneself apart from the group one belongs to. In fact to separate oneself causes real pain. In the article it says that people don't want to look outside their tribe; I would say that people shouldn't even think about looking outside as it will cause trauma. It would literally cause psychological identity wounds. One aspect of politics is this pain avoidance.

michaelt 2y ago

I once read an interesting article that said in multipolar political systems, coalitions between opinion groups happen after the election; whereas in two-party systems, the coalition forms before the election. So you get people who think taxation is theft allied with people who Back The Blue. You get people who think life is so sacred abortion should be banned allied with people who'd like to see an AR-15 under every pillow. You get people who think nazi flags and the N word are free speech, allied with people who think books with gay and trans characters should be banned. And personally I'm pro-environment and think nuclear power has a part to play; I think we should help the homeless by increasing the housing supply and letting builders do their thing; that the police should exist but need substantial reform to stamp out corruption and brutality; and that women's issues like abortion and trans women in abuse shelters should be decided by women, not men like me. But I'm in a political coalition with people who think nuclear power is bad, that we need rent control, that we should defund the police, and so on. In an electoral system with proportional representation, largely unrelated views would all be different parties, no party would have a majority, and after the election they'd form alliances to build a ruling coalition. But because of America's electoral system, someone has to take all those views, duct-tape them together and call it a consistent political ideology.

shw1n 2y ago
this is probably my favorite comment on this post so far, super interesting if you can find the article I'd love to read it
netsharc 2y ago
[flagged]
verisimi 2y ago
> that women's issues like abortion and trans women in abuse shelters should be decided by women, not men like me. This got me wondering... Thinking in reverse, are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only? Underlying your thought, seems to be the idea that some people should be excluded from certain political/ideological conversations. Whereas for me, I see all people as individuals, each with a right to their opinions. Ie, I wouldn't start from a point of separation as this bakes in special interests, sexism, racism, etc.

mFixman 2y ago

Always remember that internet conversations are carried by a small group of antisocial losers, and a most of media articles complaining about society are specifically targeting that small but loud group. An average person has a lot more in common with you than with the imaginary protagonist of this blogpost, who is really smart and wants to show that everyone else is really dumb. Like other normal people, I discuss politics with friends; both with the ones I mostly agree with and the ones I mostly disagree with. We need to understand game theory and military strategy to have a useful conversation.

short_sells_poo 2y ago

You are right that you don't take part in tribalism, because you first have a value structure and then you looked critically at the political landscape and found where you have the largest overlap. But tribalism is absolutely an issue in the modern age with huge swathes of population falling into social media echo chambers. People first find their tribe, and then they define their own personality by the views of that tribe, not the other way around. Just look at all the people spewing "own the libs" or "maga fucktards". A significant portion of the population doesn't vote based on rational analysis, but by being part of a crowd. They don't even care or know what they vote for, as long as they are sticking it to people they perceive as enemies. I think this is basically the terminal/minimum of the modern social network algo optimization. Everything is maximally polarized, nobody is willing to engage in good faith discussion with people who hold different views. Everyone has a known enemy and known allies and they can be fed what they like to hear and thus continue being addicted. I don't know how to get out of this :(

potato3732842 2y ago

>By this reasoning it naturally follows that those of a certain "personality" will also share common beliefs, ideologies Is this not borne out in your own life experience? Because it sure is in mine.

hobs 2y ago

The United States especially is having a face to face with tribalism - if you live here and you don't see it you are basically blind. We have parents posting that they are glad their child is dead instead of getting the measles vaccine, an entire pandemic that was ignored and downplayed, an election denied. These are all simple examples of tribalism - choosing the tribe over ones own self interest and well being. Most sane people don't offer their children up to Baal.

heresie-dabord 2y ago

> align with a progressive, left-leaning ideology. Cooperation and scalability are two objectively good principles that our species can apply effectively... if and only if there is a genuine desire for cooperative, scalable, positive outcomes. If social/political discourse has degraded to the point that cooperative, scalable, positive outcomes are off the table, look to those who have taken control of the discourse. Propaganda undermines language itself. The difference between destructive behavior and constructive behaviour... has a bias.

belorn 2y ago

Looking at it from a left-right one-dimensional space, the middle would be the non-tribal choice. The political spectrum is however not a one-dimensional space, and countries with multiple political parties, with center parties, can demonstrate that well in polls and self tests. It is perfectly possible for a single individual to be in 50% agreement with every single political party, from left, center and right, agreeing to the individual policies from each party that they find to be correct and disagreeing with policies they disagree with. As it happens, if I personally looks to what is important to me, I find that from the extremest left to the extremest right, the best political party get 60% support and the worst get 40% support. They all have some policies that I strongly support, and some policies that are terrible, and the middle of the gang is exactly the same. To take an example. I am in strong support of the green party when it comes to train and bike infrastructure, fishing policies, eliminating lead in hunting ammunition, getting rid of invasive species, and banning heavy fuel oil in shipping. I strongly disagree with their support of using natural gas as a transactional fuel in the energy grid in hopes of green hydrogen (a pipe dream), and their dismantling of nuclear power. I also strongly disagree with their political attempts to mix in the war in Gaza with environmentalism, as if taking up the flag for either side in that war has any relevance in nation/local politics on what is almost the other side of the world. That is one political party out of 8 that my country has, and the story is similar with all the rest.

duckduckquaquak 2y ago
Looking at this as a non-American. American politics is seems very much tribe minded as an outsider,left vs right. And where someone stands largely can tell you about their views on a lot of other things. At least that's how it is portrayed in media. I know in practice a lot of people are more nuanced. Most countries have sometimes up to 10 political parties and what party/ies someone supports often does not say much about their views on different social issues. In the USA it seems you can't want a secure border and civil rights for minority groups.

jl6 2y ago

Tribalism is part metaphor, part euphemism. What it’s really getting at is cult behavior. Agreeing with someone on a lot of things isn’t tribal and isn’t cult. The actual problems of “tribalism” are exactly those of cults: worship of a leader or ideology, zero tolerance for criticism, cutting you off from other support networks, conspiracies, narratives of doom, promises of salvation, framing enemies as degenerates and deplorables, claiming exclusive ownership of truth and morality… Red and blue alike have cult wings.

calf 2y ago
Tribalism is just really bad pop-sociology, by people who can't be arsed to read and do their homework on a vast subject matter.

subpixel 2y ago

The most visible example of tribalism is when groups fail to update their ideas and beliefs as facts start to come in. You can't escape the religious parallel. This occurs clear across the political spectrum, but a standout example is record-breaking levels of immigration in European countries like Sweden and Germany. Instead of realizing the policy failure and acting to fix it, the line becomes "it was the right thing to do, it was just done poorly."

jmyeet 2y ago

Just in the last election cycle, we saw tribal Democratic voters try and silence those protesting the Biden administration and then immediately go "we have always been at war with Eurasia" and do the exact same thing for Kamala. And MAGA goes beyond being tribal: by any objective measure, it's a cult. Plus you see an awful lot of people who will criticize one side for doing one thing while supporting the other side for doing the exact same thing. Obama, for example, was the Deporter-in-Chief (~3 million deported), Biden continued the Trump policy of using Title 42 to deny asylum claims and Kamala proposed building the very same border wall that all Democrats protested when Trump proposed it in 2020. I'm a leftist and any leftist will have seen so many liberals who love progressive aesthetics but turn into a jack-booted fascist the second you want to address any of the underlying economic issues. For example, tell people "house prices need to come down" to solve any number of issues such as homelessness and see how they react. > The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive. On this, I 100% agree. There are several reasons why: 1. Intellectual laziness. People think they're "above the fray" by bothsidesing everything; 2. Ignorance. This is particularly an issue for Democratic voters in the US. Both Democrats and Republicans are neoliberals. US foreign policy is bipartisan. Full-throated support for capitalism is bipartisan. But a large segment of Democrats tell themselves they're good people for wearing a pride pin while at the same time thinking homeless people should die in the stree; or 3. Deception. This is particularly the case for Republicans who will try and center their positions by appealing to "common sense" and label Democrats, who are a center-right party, as "the far Left" or "the radical Left". So, yes, people do use "tribalism" as an epithet to silence legitimate criticisim but there is also tribalism.

DeathArrow 2y ago

>Others, smarter than me, have gone into great detail about the underpinnings of left-leaning or right-leaning world views in people. People also change. Until 25 maybe 30,I was left leaning in many issues. Now I am mostly right aligned.

MSFT_Edging 2y ago

I think there sadly exists an overlay in a lot of politics, basically tribalism, but I think the better phrasing is "teams" as in "team sports". You don't like a team for an ideological reason, usually physical closeness or some other arbitrary connection. For many, the team is the extent at which they analyze politics. You see this when conservatives will reference historical events in terms of the name of the political party. For example, it's relatively common to see someone say "Oh the Democrats are bad because during the Civil war they were on the side of slavery". Their analysis doesn't include the actual policy or ideology at hand, it's simply the team "Democrats". It doesn't matter to them if the flavor of policies that the early 20th century dems supported are similar or even the same as the policies modern Republicans support. Only the team. I think there exists multiple layers of "tribalism" or "team sports" in politics that effects people differently. The bottom layer is sadly "<Name of party> good, <name of other party> bad". I think at some point we must acknowledge that some people are simply stupid. If they think making an argument based on the politics of a party 100 years ago is convincing, they might just not have the facilities for critical thinking. A lot of those people are now @-ing grok on twitter to explain even the simplest of jokes.

Isamu 2y ago
Thanks, I came here to say the same. Sports fandom is the better metaphor. It’s lazy participation.

moduspol 2y ago

> I'm not just glomming on to everything one "tribe" or another stands for ... one group actually reflects everything I believe. I don't think that's unreasonable, but if you're in the US, you should really re-evaluate if this is true just because there are several significant issues over which the parties have flipped over the past few decades (and more if you go back further). Obviously you didn't specify a party, but as one example: In the 1990s, the left wing party was where the free speech absolutists were. If you were a big "free speech" enthusiast back then and you still are now, then great! If your views have changed, that's fine, too, but there should be alarm bells going off in your head that your views changed along with the tribe.

kjkjadksj 2y ago

I think tribalism is being thought of as a pejorative when it isn’t. It merely is a phenomenon. What you describe above about yourself is pure tribalism of how you identify with the liberal tribe and could never even picture yourself as a member of other tribe. This is no different to me than a rabbi or priest talking about the tenets of their faith and how that leaves them no option but to be a member of that religion due to the moral underpinnings of those tenets that they believe in. Tribal politics happen when we take these various tribes in our society and essentially blind them to their biases to the point where they can’t imagine at all why someone would even be in that other tribe. A complete loss of critical thinking ability emerges once it becomes us and them and not some of us and others of us, one species, no tribes, many ideas. Do you actually believe all liberals are good and can do no evil? Do you actually believe all conservatives are cartoonishly evil idiots? I’d hope you could see the nuance but your description makes it seem like there is one way but the highway. And the reflexive counter argument from the liberals is “but racism” but then again, explain the phenomenon of the black or latino Trump supporter? Clearly there is more nuance going on in what is sensible to people than what we can gleam out of the black and white painted descriptions from the thought leaders in our tribe.

yungporko 2y ago

imo it's not dismissive it's just the truth. the chances of someone's values completely lining up with the current agenda of any political party are effectively zero, so anybody who fits that description has just picked a team and decided to roll with it, there just isn't any other explanation.