Live data from Hacker News

Overcoming Us vs. Them

nautil.us

231–240 of 249 posts

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#231
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 derai…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s

> Memorizing state capitals won’t make anybody Governer, but skipping that step early on can be a major derailment from path.

“Major derailment”? You can’t be serious. Nobody at my school ever memorized state capitals, and as far as I can tell they’re all doing about as well as you would expect (a couple decades later) in their various careers, including careers as lawyers, activists, policy analysts, journalists, politicians, scholars of political science, ...

Anyone who does the real work (reading hundreds of topical books, keeping up with current events for decades, getting involved in political activism, engaging with peers in years of university seminars about related topics, ...) is going to end up having a reasonable grasp of the names of most states and their capitals, but being able to rattle off a list is mostly useless, except as a stunt.

> Knowing the names encourages curiosity and inspires asking questions that otherwise could not be asked.

Memorizing lists of random trivia engenders boredom and makes kids think school is bullshit. The questions they ask are things like “why are we doing this pointless busywork?” and “why doesn’t my teacher respect kids’ intelligence?”

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#232

I got to the end and realized I'd been reading Robert Sapolsky. His "Biology of Human Behavior" Stanford lecture course in about 25 parts is on youtube. It's absolutely amazing; he's a great lecturer, articulate, funny, fascinating, a great storyteller about remarkable experiments and legendary scientists. It starts with evolutionary biology/sociobiology and goes down via a dozen levels of explanation ('buckets' he c…

Thanks for that! The lecture series is a true gem.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#233
post #215

I got to the end and realized I'd been reading Robert Sapolsky. His "Biology of Human Behavior" Stanford lecture course in about 25 parts is on youtube. It's absolutely amazing; he's a great lecturer, articulate, funny, fascinating, a great storyteller about remarkable experiments and legendary scientists. It starts with evolutionary biology/sociobiology and goes down via a dozen levels of explanation ('buckets' he c…

Nautilus has great articles I wish there was a way to make a compilation of the best ones then binge read

Just search for them on HN.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the downvoting of this comment. What is being described is effectively tribalism. Tribalism worked well for humans for roughly 350,000 years. Then we idiots come along and think that we've got a better way that is already showing its weaknesses and strain after just a couple of thousand years. Really? Maybe, just maybe our ancestors were on to something and there's something we can learn from them.…

Tribalism is red in tooth and claw, it's the culture of might makes right. Technology stops tribalism being a viable or desirable culture today. Tribalism scaled up as technology necessarily permits and forces it be scaled up is fascism.

Those are some pretty extreme claims that have no basis in fact. I tend to look at the other way around: tribalism becomes viable (again) because of technology.

Because of course, today's society is completely free of violence now that we've eliminated tribalism?

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#235
post #215

I got to the end and realized I'd been reading Robert Sapolsky. His "Biology of Human Behavior" Stanford lecture course in about 25 parts is on youtube. It's absolutely amazing; he's a great lecturer, articulate, funny, fascinating, a great storyteller about remarkable experiments and legendary scientists. It starts with evolutionary biology/sociobiology and goes down via a dozen levels of explanation ('buckets' he c…

Nautilus has great articles I wish there was a way to make a compilation of the best ones then binge read

I've enjoyed quite a lot of articles on Nautilus, but it's a shame the the people who write them aren't getting paid.

http://nautil.us/blog/a-letter-from-the-publisher-of-nautilu...

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good strategy in the aggregate but complete defenselessness is no more sustainable than complete hostility

Defense against value invasion doesn't require offense against other values, does it?

Well, it depends on the content of those values. I'm opposed to eliminationist ideologies for example.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#237

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…

Part of me wonders whether separating parts of identities through multiple accounts could be a solution for doing this on future social media sites.

You'd have one login, but the ability to set a different persona for certain audiences, like on specific subreddits, Twitter hashtags, etc. That way, the people who want to talk about gaming or TV or movies won't also be able to go through your history and tell that you also post about say, politics or personal fetishes or whatever else.

And bots couldn't be developed to auto ban people for 'wrongthink' based on the other parts of the network they post on.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#238
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its just a False Dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma More an artifact of our language and people wanting to condense/compress ideas down too far.

komali2's point is that the phrase is self-referential: someone saying "only a sith deals in absolutes" implies that they're also a sith, even though presumably being a sith is a bad thing here.

It isn't self referential though. Lets diagram a little, as only a surface level of contemplation could arrive at that viewpoint.

Possible sets of people: - sith - non sith

Known attributes sith have: - deals in absolutes

Presumption of the phrase being used is that the phrase itself is an absolute, thus meaning the person speaking has to be a sith even if they claim not to be a sith.

But that is flawed, as there are more than just those sets of individuals as we well know. There are non sith that also deal in absolutes, so thus the statement can't be taken at face value. Thus cannot be self referential.

But as with all of this, it also misses the mark by ignoring that describing a state doesn't necessarily mean your state has changed. Its also nonsensical in that if the only definition needed to be in the sith set is to deal in absolutes, the category is likely overbroad and meaningless.

Think about it, if we take the statement at face value, everyone is a sith, as everyone at some point will deal in absolutes. Even yoda uses do or do not, there is no try. So we arrive at the fundamental flaw in attributing a description of a thing or group, to the thing being described.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Inequality will by itself fuel resentment even if the number of people in absolute poverty is low. And resentment causes people to disengage from the political process or to be more extreme in their politics.

Re: Overcoming Us vs. Them

#240

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…

Unity against a common enemy has historically put an end to such internal strife. The Second World War wiped away domestic conflicts in the face of an existential threat, and gave a generation of men so much valor as to put them beyond reproach. It was unthinkable to target the men of the Greatest Generation with the kind of attacks and vicious reporting we are used to today, whether they deserved it or not. Edit: I'…

It doesn't last. The divisions remain and are simply put on ice for the duration of the greater threat.
Post reply on HN