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

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Granfalloon technique

#41

Post by bmn__ »

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'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.

You slightly misremember that (Robbers cave study). The effect is even more powerful: all it took was the seperation into two groups and being made aware of the existence of the other group for them to develop an identity and name for their respective group.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#42

Post by bmn__ »

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.

> please consider where this will lead the country.

Procopius of Caesarea wrote in History of the Wars in 545 CE:

In every city the population has been divided for a long time past into the Blue and the Green factions [...] And they fight against their opponents knowing not for what end they imperil themselves [...] So there grows up in them against their fellow men a hostility which has no cause, and at no time does it cease or disappear, for it gives place neither to the ties of marriage nor of relationship nor of friendship, and the case is the same even though those who differ with respect to these colours be brothers or any other kin.

Spoiler: Blue and Green were indeed sports teams.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#43

Post by jnbiche »

renewiltord wrote: post #37
jnbiche wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I think that as a American who disdains both major political parties, I can claim that honor. > The best use it well. Sure, modern politicians are great at that. > The worst are used well by it. Yep. Sounds about right. By the way, it's going to destroy your country, too. Surprised that's not obvious. Civil wars suck, I've worked in the aftermath of two. Likely will not go that far in the UK, likely just a breaku…

Oh, I knew the UK was doomed when triple-lock pensions were made real. I live in America! I think the most common reason large groups of people gather to express emotion is sports. And it is so joyful. And it's a nice substitute for war[0] 0: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

Ah, you had me going until you referred to the Orwell essay.

Poe's Law strikes again.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#44

Post by GCSAQCMIYI »

kerkeslager wrote: post #40
GCSAQCMIYI wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He suggests keeping your identity small. There is only so much you can do on that front. Some potential government policies are beneficial for people with certain characteristics, including immutable ones or ones that are difficult to change, and harmful for other people. Why would it not be rational for people to align politically along the lines of those characteristics to push for policies that benefit them on tha…

No, I don't think that's rational at all. Part of what you're saying is right: it's rational to cooperate to achieve goals. However, you're wrong in 2 ways: 1. Group identification is not a necessary component of cooperation. I can vote to support gay rights without being gay. I can vote to support gun freedom without owning a gun. You're using the vague word "align" to mean both identifying as part of a group and co…

>Group identification is not a necessary component of cooperation.

I didn't say or suggest it was.

>if you identify as part of a group, then you will have the human impulse to take actions that achieve the goals of the group, even if those goals are incompatible with your own goals.

Sure, but the goals that you have in common with your group are more likely to be achieved if members of your group strongly identify as members of that group.

Of course, it's certainly possible for groups that aren't really in the interest of the members of the group to form.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#45

Post by GCSAQCMIYI »

crispinb wrote: post #39
GCSAQCMIYI wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly agree that everyone's values are ultimately arbitrary, but that's pretty far outside of this discussion. Most people are self-interested, and the person I originally replied to was talking about normal people. "This phenomenon is root of all evil in modern day America. People identify with political parties as though they are sports teams."

That's fair enough, but I think the conflation of self-interest with rationality is so ubiquitous (and like most official ideologies, dangerously mistaken) that it's worth challenging when it arises. Or at least to the extent permitted by one's energies and everyone's good humour. (I don't btw agree that values are entirely arbitrary, but that's a discussion for another day).

I'm curious why you see it as "dangerously mistaken". What is the danger in making that mistake?

Re: Granfalloon technique

#46

Post by crispinb »

GCSAQCMIYI wrote: post #45
crispinb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair enough, but I think the conflation of self-interest with rationality is so ubiquitous (and like most official ideologies, dangerously mistaken) that it's worth challenging when it arises. Or at least to the extent permitted by one's energies and everyone's good humour. (I don't btw agree that values are entirely arbitrary, but that's a discussion for another day).

I'm curious why you see it as "dangerously mistaken". What is the danger in making that mistake?

It's a longer discussion than I have time for now, but in short: it creates ethically worse people (unnaturally selfish) without them being any more 'rational' (just as subject to biases as ever). And it creates worse societies, eg. the US. The two feed back and forward to each other, making for a downward spiral very hard to arrest.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#47

Post by kerkeslager »

GCSAQCMIYI wrote: post #44
kerkeslager wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think that's rational at all. Part of what you're saying is right: it's rational to cooperate to achieve goals. However, you're wrong in 2 ways: 1. Group identification is not a necessary component of cooperation. I can vote to support gay rights without being gay. I can vote to support gun freedom without owning a gun. You're using the vague word "align" to mean both identifying as part of a group and co…

>Group identification is not a necessary component of cooperation. I didn't say or suggest it was. >if you identify as part of a group, then you will have the human impulse to take actions that achieve the goals of the group, even if those goals are incompatible with your own goals. Sure, but the goals that you have in common with your group are more likely to be achieved if members of your group strongly identify as…

> Sure, but the goals that you have in common with your group are more likely to be achieved if members of your group strongly identify as members of that group.

That might be true, but so what? Keep your identity small. That doesn't say you shouldn't cooperate with people who don't keep their identities small. You can cooperate with people who strongly identify as members of a group without identifying as a member of that group yourself.

> Of course, it's certainly possible for groups that aren't really in the interest of the members of the group to form.

It's a property of groups that if they believe the group is beneficial, they'll make compromises to maintain the existence of the group. Each compromise takes them farther from their ideals, until they're no longer really serving their original goals. As a result, I would argue that all groups tend toward not really being in the interest of the members, unless careful measures are taken to prevent that.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#48

Post by GCSAQCMIYI »

kerkeslager wrote: post #47
GCSAQCMIYI wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Group identification is not a necessary component of cooperation. I didn't say or suggest it was. >if you identify as part of a group, then you will have the human impulse to take actions that achieve the goals of the group, even if those goals are incompatible with your own goals. Sure, but the goals that you have in common with your group are more likely to be achieved if members of your group strongly identify as…

> Sure, but the goals that you have in common with your group are more likely to be achieved if members of your group strongly identify as members of that group. That might be true, but so what? Keep your identity small. That doesn't say you shouldn't cooperate with people who don't keep their identities small. You can cooperate with people who strongly identify as members of a group without identifying as a member o…

>That might be true, but so what? Keep your identity small. That doesn't say you shouldn't cooperate with people who don't keep their identities small. You can cooperate with people who strongly identify as members of a group without identifying as a member of that group yourself.

You're suggesting acting parasitically toward the group, in that you are gaining the benefits of others sacrificing their own goals for group goals, while not sacrificing your own goals for group goals. That sort of behavior is quite destructive to the group, and groups have (of course imperfect) mechanisms to punish people that behave that way. If you can get away with behaving that way, so be it, but the group has a strong incentive to stop you from doing so.

>It's a property of groups that if they believe the group is beneficial, they'll make compromises to maintain the existence of the group. Each compromise takes them farther from their ideals, until they're no longer really serving their original goals. As a result, I would argue that all groups tend toward not really being in the interest of the members, unless careful measures are taken to prevent that.

In the long term, sure I could buy that. But the short term benefits could easily make it worth it overall to form the group. By the time the group degenerates as you describe, the members could be vastly ahead of where they would have been otherwise.

Re: Granfalloon technique

#49

Post by [deleted] »

crispinb wrote: post #46
GCSAQCMIYI wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you see it as "dangerously mistaken". What is the danger in making that mistake?

It's a longer discussion than I have time for now, but in short: it creates ethically worse people (unnaturally selfish) without them being any more 'rational' (just as subject to biases as ever). And it creates worse societies, eg. the US. The two feed back and forward to each other, making for a downward spiral very hard to arrest.

[deleted]

Re: Granfalloon technique

#50

Post by kerkeslager »

GCSAQCMIYI wrote: post #48
kerkeslager wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but the goals that you have in common with your group are more likely to be achieved if members of your group strongly identify as members of that group. That might be true, but so what? Keep your identity small. That doesn't say you shouldn't cooperate with people who don't keep their identities small. You can cooperate with people who strongly identify as members of a group without identifying as a member o…

>That might be true, but so what? Keep your identity small. That doesn't say you shouldn't cooperate with people who don't keep their identities small. You can cooperate with people who strongly identify as members of a group without identifying as a member of that group yourself. You're suggesting acting parasitically toward the group, in that you are gaining the benefits of others sacrificing their own goals for gr…

> You're suggesting acting parasitically toward the group, in that you are gaining the benefits of others sacrificing their own goals for group goals, while not sacrificing your own goals for group goals.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that not identifying as a member of the group allows you to make a conscious decision on whether to continue to cooperate with a group when the goals of the group no longer are compatible with your goals. Maybe that means ending or redefining your relationship with the group, maybe it means trying to change the group.

This is a particularly rich accusation coming from someone who thinks it's normal to behave out of rational self-interest. ;)

> In the long term, sure I could buy that. But the short term benefits could easily make it worth it overall to form the group. By the time the group degenerates as you describe, the members could be vastly ahead of where they would have been otherwise.

That's true, which is why you'd want to cooperate with groups and then exit them when they cease to be beneficial.

To be clear, a lot of your negativity on my position seems to be from your assuming that my goals are necessarily selfish. If you believe everyone acts only in rational self-interest, then all cooperation lasts only as long as you have the same goals anyway, so your position is self-contradictory. That is, unfortunately, how a lot of the capitalist economy works, but that's not how relationships and cooperation really work in a lot of cases. The reality is that when I cooperate with people, even if they have different goals than me, I often learn things from them that change my goals, or form a new goal of maintaining a relationship with that person. Goals can be prosocial.

Post reply on HN