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

171–180 of 249 posts

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#171

Post by hkmurakami »

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…

Not technology, but we can start by not self segregating in where we live, not even just on a national or state level, but at the neighborhood level.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#172

Post by guelo »

quantumofmalice wrote: post #143
pklausler wrote: post #133

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.

There is a mechanism for dealing with this: secession. A lot of violence will be saved if we start agreeing to amicable divorces. I don't expect us to do that, so, sadly, I expect a lot of violence.

If states secede why not parts of a state? Why not cities? Why not neighborhoods. You're pretty much advocating the end of civilization and the return to tribal groupings. But tribal warfare was actually much more violent and unstable than the nation state.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#173

Post by mjevans »

ebspelman wrote: post #170
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…

One interesting thing I took away from the article - most of the scientific evidence cited by Professor Sapolsky is built on fMRI analysis of reactions to faces. Given that most of our online interactions are completely text-based, what cues are we using to determine if someone is Us or Them? Do the same emotion-first impulses apply when our entire perception of another person's identity is based on the content of th…

Those who speak fluently and with correct grammar in the language being used and those that do not.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#174

Post by ryanbrunner »

TimPC wrote: post #123
TimPC wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for the most part it's the two party system that causes us to see the separate solutions as opposite rather than the other way around. It's hard to think of the trump tax plan as the exact opposite of a democratic solution because it has some measures democrats originally liked and some they originally proposed (although the core thrust of it is quite republican). We also still have it be the case that the ma…

Or perhaps most convincingly, as a former Canadian living in the US, I see the democrats as far to the right of the Canadian Conservative party (Canada's right wing party) on healthcare and the Republicans as some radical far-right. It's hard to think of the two solutions as opposites in any meaningful way because from a global perspective it seems like the Republicans want to do 3/100 on healthcare and most of the d…

This is often overstated. While there's certainly a lot of aspects of American government where both sides are to the right of Canada (or whatever social democracy you want to insert), it's by no means completely universal.

Take immigration - Canada has merit-based immigration with language requirements, and not a lot of tolerance for illegal immigration, which is considered firmly a right wing position in the states.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#175

Post by ewjordan »

A sidenote on one thing brought up in the article, it's worth noting that the implicit association test (IAT) is of highly dubious utility, despite common use. While it measures something (as does any test), there are very serious questions about what it actually measures, how reliably it measures it, whether what it measures actually correlates with real world bias, etc. There are very good reasons to think that, however clever the test may sound, and however real implicit bias is (its existence is almost indisputable), the test doesn't accurately measure it.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#176

Post by textor »

pklausler wrote: post #133

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.

It's natural and sometimes correct to assume that "Them" have an inferior epistemology, or even no explicit and coherent epistemology at all. But far too often I've been appalled by the disregard for optimal procedure that's displayed by people who are most of the time "Us" for me, who can talk meta-epistemology with the same ease "Them" tend to discuss first-order personal conflicts. It's called compartmentalization, I guess. Teaching cognitive biases to offenders only makes them more annoying, in my experience; gives them better weapons to arm their argument-soldiers with.

Mapping epistemology to tribal grouping only holds as long as the questions separating tribes appear the most important and one tribe is factually correct. Throw in another set of dividing issues, and you observe redistribution of irrationality.

«Isolated demands for rigor, half-sincere yearning for truth: it would seem we're all far too eager to preach virtues we can abuse.» Just a little rhyme Reddit inspired me to the other day.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#177

Post by andrewflnr »

guelo wrote: post #172
quantumofmalice wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a mechanism for dealing with this: secession. A lot of violence will be saved if we start agreeing to amicable divorces. I don't expect us to do that, so, sadly, I expect a lot of violence.

If states secede why not parts of a state? Why not cities? Why not neighborhoods. You're pretty much advocating the end of civilization and the return to tribal groupings. But tribal warfare was actually much more violent and unstable than the nation state.

> why not parts of a state? Why not...

Because they won't want to. Breaking down at that granular level would be too inconvenient to be worth it, even before considering the issues you laid out yourself.

If we all believe that government requires consent of the governed, why structurally require violence to achieve that state? That's the status quo you're defending.

Meta: this is how a real-life slippery slope argument and response should go. It's not a fallacy, it's just not always applicable, just like every other concept

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#178

Post by obscurantist »

TimPC wrote: post #123
TimPC wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for the most part it's the two party system that causes us to see the separate solutions as opposite rather than the other way around. It's hard to think of the trump tax plan as the exact opposite of a democratic solution because it has some measures democrats originally liked and some they originally proposed (although the core thrust of it is quite republican). We also still have it be the case that the ma…

Or perhaps most convincingly, as a former Canadian living in the US, I see the democrats as far to the right of the Canadian Conservative party (Canada's right wing party) on healthcare and the Republicans as some radical far-right. It's hard to think of the two solutions as opposites in any meaningful way because from a global perspective it seems like the Republicans want to do 3/100 on healthcare and most of the d…

This just further proves how incoherent the entire unidirectional left-right spectrum is.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#179

Post by tmp123tmp123 »

Us vs. them is not just mindset, it is in evolved biology. Overcoming biology is nonsense.

Nevertheless, an intelligent person must be aware of workings of ones biology and physiology and try to correct his behavior.

It is same like riding a bicycle - difficult to learn but once the skill set is acquired it becomes a habit. Meditation is the another name for it.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#180

Post by WalterSear »

whatshisface wrote: post #157
dwaltrip wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except pragmatically, one is a conclusion based on observation and the other is driven by a willful need to make reality meet emotional needs.

Religious people, by and large, do not respect observation as much as dogma. There's no commonality to be found with that.

Post reply on HN