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

201–210 of 249 posts

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#201

Post by patcon »

joe_the_user wrote: post #61

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…

I feel pretty optimistic about this, in part due to methods and practices being worked out in Taiwan: https://civichall.org/civicist/vtaiwan-democracy-frontier/

My assessment is that we've been building tech to help us FIND one another, but rarely building tech to help us BRIDGE with one another. With the former, we build ubiquitous messaging platforms, and so we can now find and spend time with more people who are more like us than ever before -- engaging in "candy" conversation with very similar people for more and more hours of our waking life. The latter, BRIDGING tools, would instead encourage and help us to break down those silo's that we're creating -- the silo's which are leaving us less and less prepared to engage with folks unlike us, who have perhaps developed whole other forms of language and culture in their own silos.

But as I said, Taiwan is experimenting with some really interesting processes that are breaking that down. Definitely worth reading the article :)

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#202

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#203

Post by fareesh »

fzeroracer wrote: post #150
fareesh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What? Citation needed. I haven't heard of any conservatives getting banned from these services due to their political affiliation. See: Professor Gad Saad, whose YouTube videos are regularly demonetized. Sometimes they are demonetized while they are processing. Dennis Prager's "Prager University" is currently suing Google for a similar situation with their channel ( https://www.prageru.com/press-release-prager-univ…

Would you believe that if I cherry picked a few examples of left-leaning people being censored or harassed out of their company that there exists large, right-leaning groups and companies whose sole purpose is to censor people even slightly left of center? For example, there are a fair amount of liberal channels being demonetized on youtube as well.

You are free to make that case if you believe it has merit. I can reinforce mine with plenty of examples and lots of other evidence. I am for freedom of speech in principle. Nobody should be censored for discussing a political opinion.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#204

Post by simula67 »

foxylad wrote: post #188
ekr wrote: 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.

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.

> With inequality rising, expect more anti-social behaviour.

You mean with poverty rising, right ?

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#205

Post by adrianmonk »

contravariant wrote: post #185
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 y…

Perhaps along the same lines, elimination of us vs. them thinking shouldn't be predicated on elimination of all differences. Mainly because it's totally unrealistic to think that will ever happen.

Instead, we should be able to move beyond the us vs. them approach to the world without first making sure that the "them" are exactly like"us".

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#206

Post by jesperlang »

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.

I just recently read a bit about different ways that human understand and I think there is an interesting point you can make in this 'us vs them' in relation to this. I'm still digesting it but it's a very interesting view of the mind.

I will try to keep this short, so bare with the simplifications. The idea is that humans understand in many different types of ways and they are connected/overlapped. These ways are: mythic, romantic, philosophic, ironic and somatic. Mythic understanding comes out of oral culture and brings along with it narrative, fantasy, metaphors, binary structuring, etc. Romantic understanding came out of literacy and brings romantic rationality, humanized knowledge, transcendence within reality, etc. Ironic understanding brings self-reflection, and so on. One type of understanding is not better/worse than the other, they are important in different ways. For those who are interested, check out "The Educated Mind" by Kiearn Egan.

So, us-vs-them comes out of a mythic understanding of the world. The gut reaction is often to reject the source from which the bad behaviour comes from completely. But mythic understanding and it's binary structuring (along with fantasy, metaphors, abstract thinking) is crucial for human sense-making. So I don't think we should suppress mythic understanding and all that comes along with it, we need to have a balance between these different ways of understanding. Just imagine how many great things invented started as fantasy and strange metaphors in someones head!

That's the epistemological view of it, then you have the political one, that's a totally different beast and so I will end my comment here.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#207

Post by gt_ »

jacobolus wrote: post #200
notduncansmith wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to say that if they memorize some definitions they'll have a deep understanding of the human condition. I'm saying that by simply normalizing that level of analysis and understanding of human behavior, we can begin shaking off a lot of unproductive cultural baggage. It helps to know to categorize the ineffective behavior you experience as pathological as opposed to attribution to gender, race, religion…

Sure, but the way you get there is by focused work for years and years, not memorizing a list of definitions.

How do you get to the years and years of focused work?

Vocabularies are the building blocks and mapping points of our knowledge stores. I think the suggestion is that emphasis on awareness and, at least some symbolic reverence to the concepts in grade school may offer a better path that what is traditional now.

Memorizing state capitals won’t make anybody Governer, but skipping that step early on can be a major derailment from path. Memorizing the capitals offers one of many maps to understanding more about what America is, and how it’s government works. Knowing the names encourages curiosity and inspires asking questions that otherwise could not be asked.

It sounds entirely reasonable to me that this could be what we need. I agree years and years is what is required, but I notice many people my age (early 30s) still lack basic vocabulary of these topics, so I have a hard time opposing teaching exactly that, but certainly agree many years, and a significant curiosity seems necessary. How do help that along?

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#208

Post by gt_ »

programmarchy wrote: post #191
notduncansmith wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People with sub-100 IQs are probably not going to be able to achieve the level of critical thinking you're talking about. There's a genetic component to that level of intelligence, and it's not an easy problem that can be solved by teaching people a few tips and tricks. On top of that, the public education system is not designed to produce critical thinking people, but rather people who can memorize and follow orders…

All good points, hard to argue with. What would you suggest be done?

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#209

Post by gt_ »

dwaltrip wrote: post #192
nradov wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is that an official position? I knew they were more accepting of it in general.

If it isn’t, it will be.

Religious texts can be revered studied like mythology (because they are). Critiques of biblical literalism are already fairly old-fashioned and surprisingly unnecessary.

I have a very religious family, which was uncomfortable for me when I was younger. But, that didn’t last long. Once I began studying more art history, mythology and theology, the ‘Us vs. Them’ around the topic has largely dissipated. I participate in all the happenings and have helped my cousins of similar age in contextualizing it all. I feel like I am ushering a healthy shift forward and new atheism now feels old. I’m open to critique of this, of course.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#210

Post by gt_ »

joe_the_user wrote: post #61

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…

The ‘rich-vs-poor’ division is no equivalence. This should need no explanation.
Post reply on HN