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

181–190 of 249 posts

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#181

Post by quantumofmalice »

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.

That's a reductio ad absurdum. There are reasonable levels of division well above tribal levels. Singapore is basically a city state, and I don't notice a collapse of civilization there.

Territories with strong social identity would maintain political union, territories with weak social identity and severe political disagreements would split. As much as is possible, no one is ruled by people they hate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

We are taught this is impossible because the ruling class, who favors ever more centralization, wishes that to be so.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#182

Post by rdtsc »

joe_the_user wrote: post #141
rdtsc wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . Given that that current American society is hyper-competitive, There is slight snag in there I think, because the level of competitiveness is also determined by culture, media, propaganda, education etc. In other words it is not something that's just there, perceptions of competition is easily manufactured. Think of telling black people that illegal immigrants are taking their jobs. There is all of a sudden a pol…

Of course competition isn't just-there. But that hardly means it's not there. Apartment rents don't go up whatever large percentage in a vacuum, for example, they have a context. But whatever the context, the competition for apartments if that happens is going to become more intense as more people fight for the fewer apartments that are in their budget. Broad brush conclusions, of course, are hard to give full suppor…

> US is now extremely competitive and has become more competitive over the last twenty and fifty years.

I don't disagree. I was mainly trying to point out that competitiveness is also easy to manufacture, especially in the political arena.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#183

Post by [deleted] »

WalterSear wrote: post #180
whatshisface wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

[deleted]

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#185

Post by contravariant »

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.

The problem with Us vs. Them thinking isn't that there is a group of people that you fundamentally disagree with, but rather that you've constructed a somewhat nebulous "them" which you've ascribed all negative qualities about "them".

The way to recognise this is to ask yourself if you can actually name any particular example of the "them" you're arguing against. Because if not, you risk arguing against a straw man you yourself created.

We're at the point where whole communities are being erected to argue against a "them", usually with an opposing community arguing against a similarly distorted image of the "us".

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#186

Post by nradov »

WalterSear wrote: post #180
whatshisface wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

It depends on the religion. The modern Catholic Church now accepts that evolution through natural selection occurs, and they no longer claim that the Earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#187

Post by jacobolus »

notduncansmith wrote: post #169
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…

This exactly. Critical thinking, psychology, and interpersonal communication (with emphasis on building shared understanding) need to be explicitly taught in schools. We already have children memorize state capitals: they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow…

> they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow children to effectively deal with their own flaws, and those of others.

This reads like a parody.

Memorizing a list of definitions isn’t going to accomplish much of anything, any more than memorizing a list of equipment names will turn someone into a doctor or engineer. These are tricky concepts/tools, and wielding them properly takes serious expertise.

Students need (years of copious) experience reading, making, and analyzing increasingly subtle and sophisticated arguments with significant amounts of feedback from other students and expert teachers/mentors to come to a journeyman-level understanding of logic and rhetoric. Critical introspection is even harder; adults have trouble with it after decades of liberal arts education, professional school, work, personal relationships, meditation, therapy, ....

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#188

Post by foxylad »

ekr wrote: post #146
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 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.

Depends on resources. When resources are plentiful, we happily work together to maximise them. But when you're starving, you'll kill your siblings and eat them.

With inequality rising, expect more anti-social behaviour.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#189

Post by foxylad »

I've always been aware I have these subconscious biases. At a fundamental level, I think we are all racist and sexist.

But the special thing about being human is that we have higher level thought. When I see a black person at a party, I acknowledge my bias and remind myself that there is every chance this person would be interesting to get to know.

But not everyone does this, and many people "go on their gut". And ironically, this is one of the most significant us/them divisions; between head-rules-heart and heart-rules-head.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#190

Post by thethirdone »

nemo1618 wrote: post #86
onewhonknocks wrote: post #7

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…

> For example, our "rational brain" tells us that racism is bad, but our "lizard brain" is still going to fail the implicit bias test every time.

This is not true. People vary in how much they are biased about race. I normally think of myself as fairly free for innate racism (largely because my early schooling was very multicultural). When I took a light-dark skinned association test, I go a neutral result.

Though to be clear, I don't think I am free from such innate biases in general, but I am fairly unbiased from on race.

> Even if you believe that you can consistently override your bias, surely you don't expect that the average person could.

I don't expect people to completely override their biases, but I do expect that people could mostly eliminate bias for important decisions (hiring, court, etc).

Post reply on HN