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

The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

peterturchin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#141

Post by rusk »

smokeyj wrote: post #130
rmchugh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are proposing that high cooperation is dependent on low government intervention. This seems incorrect. In Denmark for example there is a far more interventionist state than in the US, while membership of associations and clubs is also very high.

Part of it is game theory. If your community is your means of survival then being cooperative in your community increases the chance of reciprocation when needed. But I think the size of the community isn't something that can be institutionally grown to scale. A community without accountability devolves into anarchy very quickly. Instead of trying to get out what you put in, the game is to take as much and contribute…

Game Theory, is based on the premise that all individuals are selfish. It makes sense in an atomised society, where all relationships are utilitarian. It's an economic theory, not a sociological one, and it breaks down once you factor in actual "society" as a premise. If you take the position that society exists first, then the individual rather than the other way round it all becomes quite messy an unwieldy. A society will typically reject members that only take, and there are many studies (sorry, no citation at hand) that demonstrate this with animal groups and actual human groups. You "can" attempt to explain many social phenomena using game theory but you have to integrate all sorts of remote concepts in order to make it work.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#142

Post by mattmanser »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #75
reactor4 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full quote doesn't reverse the meaning at all.

Of course it does. Which part of Thatcher's quote do you see as promoting the idea that we should "suppress our humanity"? Do you see that in there anywhere? And can you imagine why the out-of-context "there is no such thing as society" quote could be construed as a dishonest interpretation of her philosophy?

No, have to agree with the others here, it doesn't say what you think it does at all.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#144

Post by netcan »

This is one of those questions where people can reference their pet Big Theory: corporate dominion, government coercion, individualism vs collectivism, insurance, secularization, leaderlessness...

It's hard to pin cultural changes to anything definiteively. So, my 2c with the same grain of salt...

Personally, I think it's the regionalism vs globalism dynamic. At least, I think that's the force acting on me.

We think of our political & cultural identities as part of a much bigger whole. Solidarity and identitiy are closely related. Take HN, for example. If HN was regional and something happened in our region then we'd be far more inclined mobalize. If we regulalry met in person to discuss ideas, we'd have more solidarity. We'd probably be an impactful force.

As an online group, we draw from a much bigger pool. The intellectual aspects are richer. But, the community is weaker.

TLDR, solidarity of mass culture, maybe. Could be something else.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#145

Post by croon »

tcbawo wrote: post #100
Bucephalus355 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is well written but you seem to be referencing some past golden age of inter-person cooperation before "big government" got involved. I'm not saying your wrong but anytime our thoughts lead us to imagine the past as a place wth less problems, it's a good clue we're maybe thinking about the situation less well than we could. In your mind, when you imagine the 1920's, or the 1960's, do you think that there w…

I don't buy the golden age of giving scenario either, but it seems there was an era where people had more time (single income households), more disposable income, less pressure to save for education, retirement, medical expenses, etc. My parents tell a story about how in the 1950's, my grandfather built his house himself. One day after work, he came to the site and his neighbors were at work helping out on it. Of cou…

I think one aspect is income equality during the 1950s:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/income-...

Especially these graphs:

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/median...

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/mean%2...

And during this time, the GDP growth rate was great:

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

Of course the average worker would be less stressed, have more time for communal activity, as well as rotate A LOT more money back into the economy compared with money sitting still on top.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#146

Post by PrimalDual »

Perhaps this has to do with the increasing heterogeneity of American society. The US probably looked more like Sweden, Denmark and Japan in the past. People may feel more compelled to partake in civil engagement and similar things like helping your neighbors out if you have the same background. At the very least you must trust the members of your community to play fair. Homogeneity comes at a cost but it's definitely useful to be able to assume correctly that you are a reasonable model for other people in your community.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#147

Post by humanrebar »

beachy wrote: post #81
humanrebar wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...life there can be very harsh indeed if you strike adversity and don't have family to care for you. Life can be very harsh if you're unfortunate but don't qualify for government benefits. Or maybe you've genuinely turned a corner in your life but government rules don't have mercy like individuals can.

I guess I don't know what sort of scenarios you're alluding to. In the context of healthcare, universal healthcare means by definition that its available to everyone. But yes, unfortunate you if you get something that's not covered under the universal deal, e.g. some kind of leading edge cancer treatment. That's when you hope your private insurance (if any) will pick up the tab.

> In the context of healthcare, universal healthcare means by definition that its available to everyone.

The government doesn't literally pay for anything you want or need. It picks what things it will pay for and what things it won't. You can't always ask government to make a special exception in extenuating circumstances like you could with a parent or cousin.

I'm not saying family is always better. I'm saying there are certainly downsides to government-based charity.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#148

Post by chimprich »

tomohawk wrote: post #72

Cooperation used to be by free association through civic organizations. As the government has grown in scope, it has eclipsed these, and it really isn't surprising that civic society has declined as a result. When people freely participate in civic activities, they are being generous. There is no coercion. When government does the same thing, it is coercive. The activity does not occur unless taxes are collected. Cho…

> This is the final tragedy of the government intervention. It turns activities where people are helping people into programs that solve problems.

It's interesting that you think this is a tragedy. The point of such programs is to solve significant human problems, such as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless. This seems to me to be a superior goal to the alternative you propose, which seems to be to allow some altruistic people to feel good about themselves.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#149

Post by croon »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #75
reactor4 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full quote doesn't reverse the meaning at all.

Of course it does. Which part of Thatcher's quote do you see as promoting the idea that we should "suppress our humanity"? Do you see that in there anywhere? And can you imagine why the out-of-context "there is no such thing as society" quote could be construed as a dishonest interpretation of her philosophy?

The rest of the quote just describes the same thing in a euphemism. The quality of your life depends on your own responsibility (meaning you're SooL if you have any disabilities or are born poor/with less opportunities). But your quality of life also depends on someone else freely wanting to help you, so government shouldn't bother with it, which is basically just reiterating objectivism. Some people will help others to their own detriment out of the goodness of their hearts. Most wont.

> "There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate"

I think this whole argument is mostly a problem because some people view government as an adversary, instead of the product of populace cooperation. Sure you get "oppression of the majority", but that's what policing has always been. Being free to do whatever you want means being free to oppress others. The only difference with government involvement is that it's using collective knowledge/intellect over individual.

Re: The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013)

#150

Post by pnutjam »

george_ciobanu wrote: post #119
tomohawk wrote: post #72

Cooperation used to be by free association through civic organizations. As the government has grown in scope, it has eclipsed these, and it really isn't surprising that civic society has declined as a result. When people freely participate in civic activities, they are being generous. There is no coercion. When government does the same thing, it is coercive. The activity does not occur unless taxes are collected. Cho…

The weight shifts but the overall value stays relatively constant: Quebecers give less than most Americans to homeless people because there are lots more social programs in place. Overalk, those in need get roughly the same amount of support.

I think your wrong, Quebec is one of the poorer Canadian provinces. You can't give what you don't have. I don't see Kansan's charity increasing as taxes went down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and...
Post reply on HN