Live data from Hacker News

Overcoming Us vs. Them

nautil.us

151–160 of 249 posts

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#151

Unpopular opinion - Is this something that we should seek to overcome entirely? These judgement calls are hard-wired into us for a reason. Whilst there are scenarios in which it is bad, there are scenarios in which it is good.

There's a more practical question here. Perhaps it's possible that such biases could be totally overcome, i.e. requiring no conscious effort. But clearly we're not on the verge of doing so. So, if we accept that our society is going to be composed of Us-vs-Them tribalists for the time being... what implications does that have for social policy? For example, our "rational brain" tells us that racism is bad, but our "l…

First off, I really like your framework of "lizard brain"/"rational brain"

>We should continue to push the limits of what we can successfully repress, but we should also be willing to admit when repression has failed.

I think we are there already to some extent. This movement to try and repress implicit bias, and to hold people accountable for their implicit bias is a radical failure. Consider that since this movement got started in the West we have become more divided, and more militant about it. Micro-aggression, sexual harassment (becoming very broad and ill defined), and the general expectation that everyone be hyper-PC has riled up the lizard brains of many and even the rational brains of some. You could argue that this is an application of tribalism for good, but I think the problem is that it is too much too fast and is therefore a force of evil. Gay marriage just became legal. Now a certain population wants to normalize in-your-face transsexuals, a spectrum of genders, and social slights as criminal behavior amongst a slew of other wants; hard pushes like this radicalize people, and that's what we are seeing on the right at the moment.

This sexual harassment campaign is especially alienating for a lot of people specifically because sex requires you to disengage your rationale brain and give over to your animalistic desires. I'm not saying all of these men should get a pass, some of them appear to have committed truly heinous acts, but when things are said like "Even though my situation with Matt was consensual, I ultimately felt like a victim because of the power dynamic." [1] It is going to alienate a lot of people who would call that poor willpower. Like, Mr. Lauer is giving in to his lizard brain when he does this and cheats, but so is she when she accepts his offer.

Going back to the main point, I think that this in particular is driving a huge wedge between the sexes in America because it comes across as a double standard, and I think that in order to effectively utilize tribalism for the social good, it is critical to eliminate double standards.

[1]https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/inside-matt-lauer’s-secret...

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#152
post #144

Wow, liberal fascism distilled, pretty much a call to arms for the destruction of individual cultures and global imposition of wrongthink. South Park's Death Camp of Tolerance comes to mind. I await the introduction of the reeducation gulags. Edit: I'm just amazed that people cannot see this guy is blantantly arguing for the exact thing he claims to despise: 'Meanwhile, give the right-of-way to people driving cars wi…

Sapolsky is just arguing for us to understand each other a little bit more, recognize unconscious biases, and move towards judging one another on individual merits rather than groupthink. These are basic free-society, founding fathers kind of ideals. I think you're projecting modern (maybe justified) worries onto these old and common ideals. > and then LITERALLY ARGUES FOR an us and them attitude :| I'll argue that h…

OK, but look at the context - out of nowhere we have obvious diversity at all costs propaganda. I'm watching the BBC's Christmas trailer now which involves a brown skinned single father and his daughter. This in no way represents the average in the UK in fact the UK is almost 90% white - so what message is the BBC trying to send? Am I one of the bad guys to recognise the colour of the skin? Because you can bet that whoever came up with the idea certainly had race at the front of their minds. Is the UK really so racist that we deserve to be subjected to this type of manipulation? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the people behind this agitprop are in fact the very same nefarious forces you mention?

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#153
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has little to do with epistemology. The main cause for human conflicts is the fact that we are playing zero-sum games. Humans are constantly fighting/jockeying for status, acquiring resources for themselves, and simply getting ahead of the others. This is in the genome unfortunately.

Not all of the important games we play are zero-sum, fortunately.

Political power does seem to be one, and it's a pretty pervasive and contagious one.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#154
post #66

In America today, you've got multitude of "us vs them" dynamics - anti-terrorist, liberal-vs-conservative, rich-vs-poor, black-vs-white, etc. And at lot of this comes because, as the article says, "us versus them" is a powerful psychological dynamic. Given that that current American society is hyper-competitive, it seems likely this situation will continue. If pulling "us versus them" is akin to chemical warfare - a…

Isn't this just the nature of reality though? A never-ending battle for resources and territory? On time lapse, even tree roots are fighting for water, and leaves are fighting for sunlight. I feel like this article might as well be called, "Overcoming Reality." Which the article basically admits, since these in-group / out-group distinctions are so deeply hardwired into our neurology. Yes, cooperation works sometimes…

I thought exactly as you did. But then I read this book. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/189989.Finite_and_Infini...

Your conception of "Reality" doesn't even include Zero Sum Games. Once you incorporate that, you can then look at the Finite and Infinite distinction.

The book is a tough read, but I guarantee you will love it, and will conclude that your model here explains 25% of "reality" at most.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#155
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all of the important games we play are zero-sum, fortunately.

Political power does seem to be one, and it's a pretty pervasive and contagious one.

I think political power varies widely from negative-sum to positive-sum, depending on the circumstances.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#156
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Although I agree with you that the plurality voting system (aka FPTP) is a big problem, I think your theory of why it isn't changed is silly and overlooks the very real difficulties. One of those difficulties is that there isn't a clear winner among the alternatives. Approval voting, the STV(/IRV), and the Borda Count all have adherents, who disparage the other two. Worse, none of them is perfect. For example, STV an…

Really sounds like a case of perfect being the enemy of good-enough.

I long for the problems with strategic voting over the cluster-f* that is FPTP.

We have essentially, through gerry-mandering and other slice/dice mechanisms in some cases 20% of the electorate having more say than the 80%.

I don't care if it's STV/Borda/Approval/whatever. What we have is fare more broken.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#157

This would be easier if We and Them simply differed in arbitrary preferences. But I fear that when We and Them disagree on basic epistemology, we simply sound crazy to each other. And this irreconcilable difference, if it exists, will eventually always come out if you talk long enough.

Perhaps we should come up with better methods that people can use to critique/improve their own epistemology as needed, and spread the idea that it is highly worthwhile to do so? The mindset that "realizing you are wrong" can be a joy, not something to fear. After reading Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", it seems to me this difficulty could also be described as people operating from different base layer…

>"Natural laws are sufficient to explain everything we see" vs "A supernatural element is needed".

Both of those positions share the base epistemology of seeing and explaining, fortunately for discussions between the two very large groups that believe each of them.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#158
post #9
post #6

>“There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don’t.” "Only a sith deals in absolutes" I love phrases like these. Not sure what to call them but they're fun. Recursive contradictions?

Every blanket statement is wrong! Self-referential jokes like this are always funny. :)

[deleted]

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#159
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this just the nature of reality though? A never-ending battle for resources and territory? On time lapse, even tree roots are fighting for water, and leaves are fighting for sunlight. I feel like this article might as well be called, "Overcoming Reality." Which the article basically admits, since these in-group / out-group distinctions are so deeply hardwired into our neurology. Yes, cooperation works sometimes…

I thought exactly as you did. But then I read this book. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/189989.Finite_and_Infini... Your conception of "Reality" doesn't even include Zero Sum Games. Once you incorporate that, you can then look at the Finite and Infinite distinction. The book is a tough read, but I guarantee you will love it, and will conclude that your model here explains 25% of "reality" at most.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Edit: The one star reviews on Amazon are hilarious.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also see the problem with “us vs them” with the “us” side of the equation. As someone who is often mischaracterized in a "them" category, I have the same frustrations. For example, my dad, rather often, dismisses real conversation as me being a "liberal", a group which he refuses (possibly cannot) define. Rather than tackle the ideas themselves, he chooses to dismiss them, and, whether he recognizes this fact, us…

At a certain point, other people's ideas just don't matter that much. For someone who has years of expertise, or who has spent decades fine-tuning his or her worldview based on real evidence and life experience... what need to they have of uninformed opinions or debate. At some point, it only slows you down. All that matters is what you can or can't achieve, and that comes down more to persuasion.

If everyone is as belligerent and stubborn as you seem to be right now, then you are right that it is a waste of time.

In my experience, that is not the case, and I benefit from hearing others' perspectives even if they do not persuade me.

Some advice: you aren't likely to persuade many by ignoring their viewpoints or dismissing their character by grouping "Them".

Post reply on HN