Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Overcoming Us vs. Them

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 249 posts

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#51

Post by thomastjeffery »

anigbrowl wrote: post #38
thomastjeffery wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of any examples in which it is good. I also think that is a mischaracterization of the problem, and of the solution. Our instinct is to trust those in our communities, and distrust those outside our communities. While that was useful in the past, two significant things have changed: 1. We are in a civilized society where it is to our advantage to begin relationships with trust rather than distrust. 2. W…

I can't think of any examples in which it is good. Bad actors exist in the world and can and do team up. If you adhere to the view that Nobody Is Truly Bad that's nice but you won't be able to defend yourself or anyone else when attacked and thus raise the incentives for non-cooperators.There's a reason your body has an immune system.

> If you adhere to the view that Nobody Is Truly Bad

I do.

It is their actions and ideas that are bad.

Even if you do not agree with me, I think it is important to show others trust until you have a real reason not to.

What the "Us vs. Them" attitude does is ignore the potential for people in the "Them" group to have anything of value to the "Us" group, or the potential for both groups to work together.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#52

Post by DanAndersen »

anigbrowl wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #2

I think this is going to be the next big challenge in social tech: Contact: The consequences of growing up amid diversity just discussed bring us to the effects of prolonged contact on Us/Theming. In the 1950s the psychologist Gordon Allport proposed “contact theory.” Inaccurate version: bring Us-es and Thems together (say, teenagers from two hostile nations in a summer camp), animosities disappear, similarities star…

Forced anonymity perhaps? Suppose you're a Striper and I'm a Dotter (from the deadly enemy Stripe and Dot tribes), but we both like to play guitar. Well if you show up on my guitar forum I'll be 'who let that filthy Striper in here?!' and will interpret even innocent participation as attempts to stripe up the place, regardless of whether I have been trying to take it over for the Dots or not. But if we're just Guitar…

There's an interesting contrast between completely-anonymous communities (like the chans) and pseudonymous communities (like forums where people have usernames). The issue is that people tend to want to not be constantly on guard in all their interactions, and if they chat about subject A they will often want to chat with the same people about subject B. This is why forums so often have an "off-topic" section that tends toward flamewars.

One issue with the sort of pseudonymous communities, where there is a common identity that persists across discussions, is that once someone is "outed," they can never be un-outed. Systems that rely on forced anonymity assume a single communication channel and no leaks. Also, if a group of dedicated people wants to subvert a community, they can easily do so in a group where their opponents are "playing fair" under completely individual/atomized notions that "we're all just guitar fans!" If a collection of Stripers is able to know that they are Stripers beforehand, or tend to have certain ways of talking about things that secretly reveal their Striperness to each other but not to Dotters, then they can coordinate and increase their own influence to drive Dotters out of the community.

At the end of the day, these systems require some sense of common civility where enough people on both sides are wanting to have the system actually work. If you have to design the system to be completely trustless, that's a hard thing.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#53

Post by snerbles »

anigbrowl wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #2

I think this is going to be the next big challenge in social tech: Contact: The consequences of growing up amid diversity just discussed bring us to the effects of prolonged contact on Us/Theming. In the 1950s the psychologist Gordon Allport proposed “contact theory.” Inaccurate version: bring Us-es and Thems together (say, teenagers from two hostile nations in a summer camp), animosities disappear, similarities star…

Forced anonymity perhaps? Suppose you're a Striper and I'm a Dotter (from the deadly enemy Stripe and Dot tribes), but we both like to play guitar. Well if you show up on my guitar forum I'll be 'who let that filthy Striper in here?!' and will interpret even innocent participation as attempts to stripe up the place, regardless of whether I have been trying to take it over for the Dots or not. But if we're just Guitar…

Even when staying on-topic, shibboleths will still leak through. The discrimination rate will remain above zero, especially for motivated participants.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#54

Post by Swizec »

anigbrowl wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #2

I think this is going to be the next big challenge in social tech: Contact: The consequences of growing up amid diversity just discussed bring us to the effects of prolonged contact on Us/Theming. In the 1950s the psychologist Gordon Allport proposed “contact theory.” Inaccurate version: bring Us-es and Thems together (say, teenagers from two hostile nations in a summer camp), animosities disappear, similarities star…

Forced anonymity perhaps? Suppose you're a Striper and I'm a Dotter (from the deadly enemy Stripe and Dot tribes), but we both like to play guitar. Well if you show up on my guitar forum I'll be 'who let that filthy Striper in here?!' and will interpret even innocent participation as attempts to stripe up the place, regardless of whether I have been trying to take it over for the Dots or not. But if we're just Guitar…

I remember internet forums as a teenager. Back when people didn't use real names and profile pics were of random characters or celebrities not our faces.

It honestly never crossed my mind that the people I was talking to could be anything other than white and mostly guys. I come from a country where races basically don't exist so that worldview made sense kinda.

Sometimes I wonder how many racist jokes I made to people who were black or asian and I had no idea. In my defense, those were just jokes/opinions I picked up on the internet, completely learned behavior as I was trying to learn how this "American Society" thing works because most of the internet seemed to follow american society rules.

Anonymity is great, but it has its drawbacks. Had I known the people I'm talking to are black/asian, I would've asked about their cultures and how they perceive this American Society thing I was exploring.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#55

Post by malvosenior »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #46
malvosenior wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve come to the exact opposite conclusion. We live in a world driven by marketing/advertising, hyper politicalization of all things, dark user patterns, spy-ware, government agendas... Entering any relationship with a default of distrust and allowing trust to be earned seems very prudent in 2017 (and probably any other time period).

I think we can differentiate between trusting people's words and trusting individuals themselves. The distinction is that people who disagree with us are not out to do us harm. We can disagree and work together. Trust is a nuanced subject, which is the very fact the "Us vs. Them" attitude ignores. If we clump everyone who disagrees with "us" into one group, we turn a prudent critical attitude into blatant distrust. I…

Interesting. Again, I have the polar opposite position. I can trust an idea because I can evaluate it on its own merit. I can’t trust a person because they’re inherently driven by emotion instead of logic. I may trust someone in some capacity but not another. For instance I might trust someone to feed my dog but not invest my money.

I also see the problem with “us vs them” with the “us” side of the equation. I’m a unique individual who’s thoughts, wants and needs don’t overlap with any group. To me everyone else is a “them” until I build a personal relationship with them.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#56

Post by vkou »

creaghpatr wrote: post #36
legitster wrote: post #8

This is where countries with some sort of mandatory service may have us beat. And maybe it explains why American policy was so focused after the big national wars. I don't think there's a better way to force camaraderie. But then it becomes Us vs Them on the other side of the border.

I am very in favor of mandatory service as a strategy to improve nations but I do want to point out that some of the most impressive ones (South Korea and Israel come to mind) are extremely homogenous.

Israel is an apartheid state. That is neither homogenous... Or particularly impressive.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#57

Post by clairity »

r00fus wrote: post #39
thomastjeffery wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a catch 22, since that divisiveness strengthens the divide, and that divide strengthens the two parties. The biggest thing we are missing in the fight against the two party system is confidence. We need people to be confident that they can elect someone from outside the two parties, and that those people can effect change in politics. The problem is that individuals see greater participation by others as a depen…

No, the biggest thing we're missing in the fight against 2-party system is an actual representative voting scheme. A first-past-the-post [1] voting scheme will always result in 2 parties (assuming it doesn't collapse into a single-party autocracy) due to the spoiler [2] 3rd party vote problem. It's not psychology but basic probability math and game theory. Why is not fixed? Because this is the cheapest way for the mo…

> “It's not psychology but basic probability math and game theory.”

while it’s true that a system set up that way with the given behavioral preconditions likely devolves into those stable solutions, you have the causality backwards. the math is descriptive of a behavioral phenomena, rather than prescribing the outcomes. human behavior seems fixed but it’s highly adaptive. just when you think you’ve figured it out, the system changes on you.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#58

Post by temp-dude-87844 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #2

I think this is going to be the next big challenge in social tech: Contact: The consequences of growing up amid diversity just discussed bring us to the effects of prolonged contact on Us/Theming. In the 1950s the psychologist Gordon Allport proposed “contact theory.” Inaccurate version: bring Us-es and Thems together (say, teenagers from two hostile nations in a summer camp), animosities disappear, similarities star…

Forced anonymity perhaps? Suppose you're a Striper and I'm a Dotter (from the deadly enemy Stripe and Dot tribes), but we both like to play guitar. Well if you show up on my guitar forum I'll be 'who let that filthy Striper in here?!' and will interpret even innocent participation as attempts to stripe up the place, regardless of whether I have been trying to take it over for the Dots or not. But if we're just Guitar…

"Forced" anonymity exists in some online communities today. If most participants maintain and assume good faith, and are tolerant of some efforts by bad actors to troll, then it works remarkably well. Problems tend to emerge once these assumptions no longer hold true.

Anonymity allows the content to be judged by every reader on the content's own merit, and colored solely by the reader's perception.

However, it's also rather depersonalizing, as every participant will often interpret the others as manifestations of a generic individual, based on their own mental model of what generic individuals look, act, and sound like. It therefore creates the illusion of homogeneity from every point of view, where in truth the real membership might be quite diverse.

The resulting interaction means that over time, the community will develop a sort of institutional identity, complete with etiquette, mannerisms, and tropes they are expected to adhere to to be welcome in the in-group. Some people will don the institutional identity despite it being radically different from their own, just to feel part of a community.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#59

Post by bduerst »

komali2 wrote: post #23
jpfed wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first isn't a self-contradiction; it just places the speaker in the first camp.

Oh, good point. The sith one must be a contradiction, then, because it was said by a Jedi, so clearly both sith and Jedi can deal in absolutes.

Only if you believe Obiwan when he says it. The line is more or less pointing out the arrogance of the Jedi with Obiwan's hypocrisy. It comes up a few other places too, but like the rest of the prequels, messages aren't delivered very well.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#60

Post by autarch »

They reference the implicit bias tests that have now been widely debunked (to the best of my knowledge). This makes me question the other psychology studies they cite as well. The whole psych field is notorious for unreproducibility. How seriously should we take an article that relies on such studies as the basis of its thesis?
Post reply on HN