4 ms·

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 g

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.
  - jampekka 2y ago
    It's the technocratic or perhaps "enlightened centrist" tribe. There's similar vibe in the post, and even though there's some introspection about the author's own tribe, he doesn't seem to question whether his political thinking could be tribal. It's indeed typical for this tribe to off-hand dismiss thinking that they deem somehow "ideological" without even really trying to figure out what the thinking is. Also a lot of self-congratulation, exceptionalism and motivated reasoning is exhibited, but these are typical features of any tribe.
    - shw1n 2y ago
      I actually wonder this constantly, hence the footnotes about wondering what my tribe is, accounting for being wrong in probabilities, and even the purpose of this post: finding people that can spot mistakes in my thinking
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    You are describing the problem of getting a picture of a party or movement from media and without interacting with them.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      That could explain the second issue I describe. Maybe the first. But I do not think he has such an excuse for the third.
      - rightbyte 2y ago
        Ye sure the third point is a attempt to differentiate left and right on a fundamental level. If I were to do that, I would say something like "pull the ladder up behind you or tear it down before you" with a comical touch. I don't think it is possible to keep such descriptions short or stringent.
jjani 2y ago
At the risk of sounding very arrogant, I've found this incredibly obvious even when I was just 18 years old. Decades have passed, plenty of my beliefs have changed, but this one hasn't. The chance that one "ideology", whether it's liberalism, conservatism, anarchism , fascism or any-ism is always the right answer to every single societal question, is 0. It's comparable to the idea of exactly 1 of the (tens of) thousands of religions being the true one, correct in everything, with all of the others being wrong. And this extends to politics. Where I'm from, the political landscape is very different from the US, with at least 5+ different parties that support different policies in various ways. At the same time, it's similar - there isn't a single one that approaches things on a case-by-case basis, each of them being ideology-based. > 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. Absolutely, "centrism" is an ideology in itself. This is also why the usage of the word "moderate" in the article and by PG is very unfortunate. That word too comes with a whole lot of baggage, and saying that independent thought leads to one being "moderate" in the way that most people think of that word, is straight up wrong. We need a different word, but I'm not great at coining those. "pragmatic" is the best one I can come up with. I can feel a "pragmatism is an ideology!" coming, but "the ideology of not looking at things from an ideological perspective" is entirely different from anything else. I'm sure the bright minds here can give better words. > 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. Very much so. And as the article points out, this is unfortunately a very lonely experience, so it's completely logical that most don't opt for this, instead choosing the warmth of a dogmatic community.
- keiferski 2y ago
  Funny that you say pragmatic, because that’s exactly the word I tend to use when describing my own political beliefs. The best that I have come up with is “pragmatic with a propensity for…” and a few sub-categories that more accurately define what I’d like to see politically happen. For example - preventionism. It seems to me that many issues could be avoided or eliminated entirely if we tried to prevent them from happening in the first place, rather than choosing between two actions, both with unavoidable negative consequences. Another is aesthetics. For some reason, the simple desire to make public spaces more beautiful is not really a policy position adopted by any political group, at least in a primary way. And so maybe the solution is an issue-based political system in which votes and resources go toward specific issues and not parties. (Or work toward eliminating those issues in the first place.)
yibg 2y ago
Maybe one counter indication of tribalism is how often you disagree with your "tribe". I'm fairly left leaning too, but I also find myself disagreeing with a lot of left leaning policies or talking points. Maybe that's a good sign.
- bluescrn 2y ago
  It's only a good sign if they're able to speak out, and aren't terrified of expressing their dissent in public. Both the left and the right seem captured by a small minority of radicals, using social media echo chambers/purity spirals to shut down often-quite-reasonable disagreement. And we're clearly past the point at which we can just ignore 'social media politics', given how much it seems to have led to the current state of things in the US.
- Arisaka1 2y ago
  At the risk of sounding pessimistic, and as someone who also identifies himself as leftist: If the end result is voting between black/white binary choices, and that act of voting is itself one of the most important self-expression, does the fact that I disagree with them in a few points matter?
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    >does the fact that I disagree with them in a few points matter? Perhaps not, but you're also lending legitimacy to a system that is abusing you.
    - 542354234235 2y ago
      But this isn't a board game that you can quit and go home. You are subject to your government rules regardless of if you participate or not. So it is probably better to try and get political representation that you agree with 60% of the time, rather than one you agree with 5% of the time.
      - 9rx 2y ago
thrance 2y ago
To be fair, I've rarely seen a group fighting itself more than the progressive left. If tribalism truly exists, it exists mostly on the right.
- infecto 2y ago
  Right but that’s because there are more micro interests on the left. It’s still tribal though. If I start to bring up deregulation of building housing, there will be a strong immediate backlash by certain factions on the left. I see it more that there is little room for discussion, within these different groups there are only binary options and if you are with them on all talking points, well you are the enemy.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Emotional investment is a subtly different issue to package-deal opinions.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    > If I start to bring up deregulation of building housing, there will be a strong immediate backlash by certain factions on the left. I do suspect that if you what the deregulation actually meant to both left and right people you'd find two (probably overlapping) camps aligned on NIMBY and Housing prices go up as your largest groups. Structural and safety engineers regardless of political affiliation will tell you why deregulation of some standards is a bad idea.
nkrisc 2y ago
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The platforms of political parties are amalgamations of specific interests and agendas, and not necessarily a cohesive world view born of an aligned set of principles. Most (all) political parties have positions that conflict logically, spiritually, or practically. Yes, that includes your preferred party on the right or left. So anyone who’s views align perfectly with a party are probably just parroting what they’ve heard because no sensible individual would arrive at that set of values naturally on their own; it would - and does - take some serious mental gymnastics to hold these contradictory values in your head.
- lanfeust6 2y ago
  You're correct. Most people's views (i.e. moderates) are ideologically inconsistent with party-line. The loud X/bsky types refuse to decouple, and will double down even if the facts are wrong. Mind you on social media blue-tribe is much further left than the Democratic party.
potato3732842 2y ago
>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. That doesn't stop them from voting a straight red or blue ticket every time if that's what they've been indoctrinated to do. We've all encountered some old man who by all accounts should be a republican. They own a small business, have conservative social views, like their guns, minimize taxes, etc, etc. But they vote a straight blue ticket because that's what they learned to do back in the 1960s. And on the other side is the stereotypical southern white woman who believes in every social thing the democratic party has but still votes red because she was raised in a religious household and came of age during the peak of the right's lean toward peddling to christians.
- keiferski 2y ago
  Sure, but to be fair, we’re talking about political discussions and not strictly voting behavior. It seems like a given to me that most voting behavior is only a vague approximation of what people actually think and want.
- brightlancer 2y ago
  This is such a great contrast: > But they vote a straight blue ticket because that's what they learned to do back in the 1960s. and > but still votes red because she was raised in a religious household and came of age during the peak of the right's lean toward peddling to christians. There's no explanation for why the old man votes "blue" other than he learned it in the 60s. OTOH, the woman votes "red" because "she was raised in a religious household" and started voting when The Right was "peddling to christians". "peddling" -- that's a pretty negative term. I don't know if it's ironic or demonstrative that an article about how difficult it can be to have political conversations produces a comment thread with such biased viewpoints.
DeathArrow 2y ago
You don't have to consider yourself part of a tribe. Others will consider you anyway. You are a man or a woman, young or old, Asian, White, Black, Latino, straight, gay, rich, poor slim, fat, etc.
- roenxi 2y ago
  The technical terms for the first few in that list are sexism, ageism and racism. While it is true people do that, it is considered a bad idea because it doesn't capture reality in a productive and meaningful way. And doesn't seem relevant to keiferski's comment. The aim should be that people have to voluntarily associate with their tribe. It might be the hermit tribe where all the hermits sign up to be alone together.

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.
- jampekka 2y ago
  It's the technocratic or perhaps "enlightened centrist" tribe. There's similar vibe in the post, and even though there's some introspection about the author's own tribe, he doesn't seem to question whether his political thinking could be tribal. It's indeed typical for this tribe to off-hand dismiss thinking that they deem somehow "ideological" without even really trying to figure out what the thinking is. Also a lot of self-congratulation, exceptionalism and motivated reasoning is exhibited, but these are typical features of any tribe.
  - shw1n 2y ago
    I actually wonder this constantly, hence the footnotes about wondering what my tribe is, accounting for being wrong in probabilities, and even the purpose of this post: finding people that can spot mistakes in my thinking
- rightbyte 2y ago
  You are describing the problem of getting a picture of a party or movement from media and without interacting with them.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    That could explain the second issue I describe. Maybe the first. But I do not think he has such an excuse for the third.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      Ye sure the third point is a attempt to differentiate left and right on a fundamental level. If I were to do that, I would say something like "pull the ladder up behind you or tear it down before you" with a comical touch. I don't think it is possible to keep such descriptions short or stringent.

jjani 2y ago

At the risk of sounding very arrogant, I've found this incredibly obvious even when I was just 18 years old. Decades have passed, plenty of my beliefs have changed, but this one hasn't. The chance that one "ideology", whether it's liberalism, conservatism, anarchism , fascism or any-ism is always the right answer to every single societal question, is 0. It's comparable to the idea of exactly 1 of the (tens of) thousands of religions being the true one, correct in everything, with all of the others being wrong. And this extends to politics. Where I'm from, the political landscape is very different from the US, with at least 5+ different parties that support different policies in various ways. At the same time, it's similar - there isn't a single one that approaches things on a case-by-case basis, each of them being ideology-based. > 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. Absolutely, "centrism" is an ideology in itself. This is also why the usage of the word "moderate" in the article and by PG is very unfortunate. That word too comes with a whole lot of baggage, and saying that independent thought leads to one being "moderate" in the way that most people think of that word, is straight up wrong. We need a different word, but I'm not great at coining those. "pragmatic" is the best one I can come up with. I can feel a "pragmatism is an ideology!" coming, but "the ideology of not looking at things from an ideological perspective" is entirely different from anything else. I'm sure the bright minds here can give better words. > 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. Very much so. And as the article points out, this is unfortunately a very lonely experience, so it's completely logical that most don't opt for this, instead choosing the warmth of a dogmatic community.

keiferski 2y ago
Funny that you say pragmatic, because that’s exactly the word I tend to use when describing my own political beliefs. The best that I have come up with is “pragmatic with a propensity for…” and a few sub-categories that more accurately define what I’d like to see politically happen. For example - preventionism. It seems to me that many issues could be avoided or eliminated entirely if we tried to prevent them from happening in the first place, rather than choosing between two actions, both with unavoidable negative consequences. Another is aesthetics. For some reason, the simple desire to make public spaces more beautiful is not really a policy position adopted by any political group, at least in a primary way. And so maybe the solution is an issue-based political system in which votes and resources go toward specific issues and not parties. (Or work toward eliminating those issues in the first place.)

yibg 2y ago

Maybe one counter indication of tribalism is how often you disagree with your "tribe". I'm fairly left leaning too, but I also find myself disagreeing with a lot of left leaning policies or talking points. Maybe that's a good sign.

bluescrn 2y ago
It's only a good sign if they're able to speak out, and aren't terrified of expressing their dissent in public. Both the left and the right seem captured by a small minority of radicals, using social media echo chambers/purity spirals to shut down often-quite-reasonable disagreement. And we're clearly past the point at which we can just ignore 'social media politics', given how much it seems to have led to the current state of things in the US.
Arisaka1 2y ago
At the risk of sounding pessimistic, and as someone who also identifies himself as leftist: If the end result is voting between black/white binary choices, and that act of voting is itself one of the most important self-expression, does the fact that I disagree with them in a few points matter?
- potato3732842 2y ago
  >does the fact that I disagree with them in a few points matter? Perhaps not, but you're also lending legitimacy to a system that is abusing you.
  - 542354234235 2y ago
    But this isn't a board game that you can quit and go home. You are subject to your government rules regardless of if you participate or not. So it is probably better to try and get political representation that you agree with 60% of the time, rather than one you agree with 5% of the time.
    - 9rx 2y ago

thrance 2y ago

To be fair, I've rarely seen a group fighting itself more than the progressive left. If tribalism truly exists, it exists mostly on the right.

infecto 2y ago
Right but that’s because there are more micro interests on the left. It’s still tribal though. If I start to bring up deregulation of building housing, there will be a strong immediate backlash by certain factions on the left. I see it more that there is little room for discussion, within these different groups there are only binary options and if you are with them on all talking points, well you are the enemy.
- n4r9 2y ago
  Emotional investment is a subtly different issue to package-deal opinions.
- pixl97 2y ago
  > If I start to bring up deregulation of building housing, there will be a strong immediate backlash by certain factions on the left. I do suspect that if you what the deregulation actually meant to both left and right people you'd find two (probably overlapping) camps aligned on NIMBY and Housing prices go up as your largest groups. Structural and safety engineers regardless of political affiliation will tell you why deregulation of some standards is a bad idea.

nkrisc 2y ago

You’ve hit the nail on the head. The platforms of political parties are amalgamations of specific interests and agendas, and not necessarily a cohesive world view born of an aligned set of principles. Most (all) political parties have positions that conflict logically, spiritually, or practically. Yes, that includes your preferred party on the right or left. So anyone who’s views align perfectly with a party are probably just parroting what they’ve heard because no sensible individual would arrive at that set of values naturally on their own; it would - and does - take some serious mental gymnastics to hold these contradictory values in your head.

lanfeust6 2y ago
You're correct. Most people's views (i.e. moderates) are ideologically inconsistent with party-line. The loud X/bsky types refuse to decouple, and will double down even if the facts are wrong. Mind you on social media blue-tribe is much further left than the Democratic party.

potato3732842 2y ago

>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. That doesn't stop them from voting a straight red or blue ticket every time if that's what they've been indoctrinated to do. We've all encountered some old man who by all accounts should be a republican. They own a small business, have conservative social views, like their guns, minimize taxes, etc, etc. But they vote a straight blue ticket because that's what they learned to do back in the 1960s. And on the other side is the stereotypical southern white woman who believes in every social thing the democratic party has but still votes red because she was raised in a religious household and came of age during the peak of the right's lean toward peddling to christians.

keiferski 2y ago
Sure, but to be fair, we’re talking about political discussions and not strictly voting behavior. It seems like a given to me that most voting behavior is only a vague approximation of what people actually think and want.
brightlancer 2y ago
This is such a great contrast: > But they vote a straight blue ticket because that's what they learned to do back in the 1960s. and > but still votes red because she was raised in a religious household and came of age during the peak of the right's lean toward peddling to christians. There's no explanation for why the old man votes "blue" other than he learned it in the 60s. OTOH, the woman votes "red" because "she was raised in a religious household" and started voting when The Right was "peddling to christians". "peddling" -- that's a pretty negative term. I don't know if it's ironic or demonstrative that an article about how difficult it can be to have political conversations produces a comment thread with such biased viewpoints.

DeathArrow 2y ago

You don't have to consider yourself part of a tribe. Others will consider you anyway. You are a man or a woman, young or old, Asian, White, Black, Latino, straight, gay, rich, poor slim, fat, etc.

roenxi 2y ago
The technical terms for the first few in that list are sexism, ageism and racism. While it is true people do that, it is considered a bad idea because it doesn't capture reality in a productive and meaningful way. And doesn't seem relevant to keiferski's comment. The aim should be that people have to voluntarily associate with their tribe. It might be the hermit tribe where all the hermits sign up to be alone together.