Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Granfalloon technique

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Granfalloon technique

#21

Post by rirjdjkagsi »

I think Ad Hominems are sometimes a trivial instance of this. The idea being that you have said this or that which apparently contradicts what you've just said and, basically, you wouldn't want to disagree with yourself, do you? (the Granfalloon). Which is infuriating on multiple levels. One is that the person sometimes shifts from asking a question (but then why did you say...?) to an accusation (but you've said...!), as if they knew your thoughts better than you. But the other is that, sometimes, I do actually change my mind and, as a matter of fact, I don't judge others for doing so.

The other instance would be those debates where the only bipartisan position is that that non-partisanship is not an option. As if people couldn't find both sides stupid and think if either side got their way, they would get us all killed, because they're idiots.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#22

Post by renewiltord »

jnbiche wrote: post #3

This phenomenon is root of all evil in modern day America. People identify with political parties as though they are sports teams. Team R or Team D. If you're one of such people (and there seem to be relatively few of them on HN), please consider where this will lead the country.

No, it is a beautiful and powerful thing. Everyone claims to not obey it but the force of tribalism is strong. There is no enlightened man above it. All are subject to it.

The best use it well. The average deny it. The worst are used well by it.

In its simplest form it lifts you up on a dreary Thursday as you get off the train, walk to the stadium gates, and yell a chant that is picked up by others who know nothing of you but that you know the chant and that you wear the colours. Such power in that unity.

In its most powerful form it motivates people to form great civil change. You are a civil rights activist, not merely a person who believes in the inherent rights of all people. You are a gay rights activist, or a climate change activist, or a revolutionary.

Learning to harness that mindhack of unity was so fulfilling to me. Yell the right words and you have sixty thousand at your back yelling them with you. You feel gigantic, not like a single man, but like a giant ocean swell. And it is such a trick. I do not share that much with the coal miner and the bus driver and the man who bought a flat in Highbury. But we share this. And over this we can talk. And through the talking we come to share more.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#23

Post by Igelau »

smitty1e wrote: post #5
jnbiche wrote: post #3

This phenomenon is root of all evil in modern day America. People identify with political parties as though they are sports teams. Team R or Team D. If you're one of such people (and there seem to be relatively few of them on HN), please consider where this will lead the country.

"All" seems a bit inclusive. From a team building and gamification perspective, granfalloons (while perhaps as objectively specious as TFA) points out, can help to focus group activities. Whether the direction of that focus be good or evil is another discussion. But if there is a natural disaster, and some granfalloon relief agency shows up to help you out, will you be quick to denounce it?

> granfalloon relief agency

That's an oxymoron. By definition, the group "relief agency" has a specific purpose that the group "Hoosiers" does not.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#25

Post by fallingfrog »

jnbiche wrote: post #3

This phenomenon is root of all evil in modern day America. People identify with political parties as though they are sports teams. Team R or Team D. If you're one of such people (and there seem to be relatively few of them on HN), please consider where this will lead the country.

Don’t forget that the primary reason to divide people up into groups based on superficial characteristics is to prevent them from forming groups based on their real shared economic interests.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#26

Post by fallingfrog »

Management and politicians are notorious for doing this; if there is threat of a union forming, historically the management’s first move is to sow discord between immigrants and natives, French and Irish, or black and white- anything to keep people from forming groups based on actual shared economic interests. 90% of the acrimony in politics is just this phenomenon writ large. Urban vs rural, native vs immigrant, it’s just a control mechanism.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#27

Post by gowld »

lukifer wrote: post #14
asldihgiyug wrote: post #7

My granfalloon is anyone who knows the meaning of granfalloon.

I love these sorts of "conceptual onomatopoeias" :) - "word" - every Audible book begins with: "this is audible" - "shibboleth" works perfectly well as a shibboleth

The tent you are looking for is "self-referential".

Is the word "non-self-referential"

self-referential?

Is it non-self-referential?

> shibboleth" works perfectly well as a shibboleth

You know why that is, right? The concept is named after the use of the word.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#28

Post by lukifer »

gowld wrote: post #27
lukifer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love these sorts of "conceptual onomatopoeias" :) - "word" - every Audible book begins with: "this is audible" - "shibboleth" works perfectly well as a shibboleth

The tent you are looking for is "self-referential". Is the word "non-self-referential" self-referential? Is it non-self-referential? > shibboleth" works perfectly well as a shibboleth You know why that is, right? The concept is named after the use of the word.

The category I'm thinking of is a subset of self-referential; a concept which is encapsulated in its expression, where it is an example of itself: "This is a sentence" or "is sentence fragment" or ``. It's an admittedly fuzzy/arbitrary category that I made up. :)

> Is it non-self-referential?

Haha, nice. I also like "non-descript".

> The concept is named after the use of the word.

Cool, TIL :)

Re: Granfalloon technique

#29

Post by perl4ever »

lukifer wrote: post #4

I'm reminded of the experiments where camp kids were randomly given blue and red shirts, and it took them less than an hour to form in-group/out-group dynamics and tribal loyalty based on shirts alone. The thing is, from a game-theoretic standpoint, tribal loyalty is a Schelling focus [0]: your calculation about what alliance(s) to invest in, are inherently influenced by your calculations of the calculations of other…

I am not sure I believe in the implicit premise. Why would, in effect, everyone vote to avoid the randomness? That isn't the way society works in practice, is it?

Re: Granfalloon technique

#30

Post by smitty1e »

Igelau wrote: post #23
smitty1e wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"All" seems a bit inclusive. From a team building and gamification perspective, granfalloons (while perhaps as objectively specious as TFA) points out, can help to focus group activities. Whether the direction of that focus be good or evil is another discussion. But if there is a natural disaster, and some granfalloon relief agency shows up to help you out, will you be quick to denounce it?

> granfalloon relief agency That's an oxymoron. By definition, the group "relief agency" has a specific purpose that the group "Hoosiers" does not.

So: Hoosier Relief Agency.
Post reply on HN