I get how Hoosiers are a granfalloon (the borders of the state of Indiana being essentially arbitrary), but how are groups defined by a shared philosophy and belief system like the Communist party a granfalloon? Like, what are some examples of groups that everyone would agree are definitely a “karass” rather than a “granfalloon”?
Granfalloon technique
31–40 of 53 posts
Re: Granfalloon technique
#32This 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 o…
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 breakup and some civil unrest, but there is that risk with any breakup. In the US, I'd say there's a much higher chance.
> You feel gigantic, not like a single man, but like a giant ocean swell.
It's always amazing to me how different individuals can be. The idea of gaining power and feeling great because I'm shouting with thousands of other people gives me the willies. Sure, protests are necessary, but it's not a feeling we should relish. It means our government is failing.
And more often, when large groups of people gather to express emotion, it's for far more malevolent ends.
Re: Granfalloon technique
#33This 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.
More generally, all of identity politics is based around this.
I agree.
Re: Granfalloon technique
#34I'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?
I think the idea is similar to statistical sampling, or Nielsen ratings: to have a branch of government which is, on average, mathematically representative of the public, in a way that no electoral process could ever hope to accomplish.
The specific proposal I would make for the US is what I call the People's Congress, replacing the House of Representatives, leaving the Senate and executive roles as-is (other than unrelated electoral reforms like RCV).
As a check against abuse of power, or nominating someone unfit, every randomly-selected candidate can be voted out, albeit requiring a very high margin (maybe 66%: "the People's Veto"). Note that this position would be a mandatory form of public service, not unlike jury duty. Terms would be two years, and representatives would cycle in and out on a regular, rolling basis.
A realistic proposal? Not even slightly. In the current climate we can barely get basics like mail-in voting right. (Maybe it's something that be done as proof-of-concept at the scale of an eccentric municipality?) Nonetheless: my hunch is that having a branch of government, possibly even the entire legislative body, being statistically comprised of We The People in a way that is impossible to game, would generally be less corrupt, and more responsive to the needs and preferences of constituents.
Re: Granfalloon technique
#35Is the group of all humans a granfalloon?
It will be the moment we make contact with aliens.
Re: Granfalloon technique
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paul Graham explains it well: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
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…
There's nothing inherently 'rational' about self-interest (which is entirely orthogonal to the justification or lack thereof for the latter). It has literally never occurred to me to consider whether party policies are good for me personally when assessing who to vote for. This is not irrational behaviour on my part (I'm well aware of my values and the relationship, as far as I'm able to calculate it, between those values and proposed policies).
The conflation of self-interest and rationality is just ideology (often forcefully conveyed by evangelists for the most salient superstition of our age, ie. economics).
Re: Granfalloon technique
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
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...
Re: Granfalloon technique
#38Earlier 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…
There's nothing inherently 'rational' about self-interest (which is entirely orthogonal to the justification or lack thereof for the latter). It has literally never occurred to me to consider whether party policies are good for me personally when assessing who to vote for. This is not irrational behaviour on my part (I'm well aware of my values and the relationship, as far as I'm able to calculate it, between those v…
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."
Re: Granfalloon technique
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing inherently 'rational' about self-interest (which is entirely orthogonal to the justification or lack thereof for the latter). It has literally never occurred to me to consider whether party policies are good for me personally when assessing who to vote for. This is not irrational behaviour on my part (I'm well aware of my values and the relationship, as far as I'm able to calculate it, between those v…
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).
Re: Granfalloon technique
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paul Graham explains it well: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
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 cooperating, but these are not the same thing.
2. Your post is only looking at cooperating toward goals that arise from shared identification as part of a group. This is a myopic view: there are lots of people who despite identifying as part of the same groups, have different, incompatible goals. This is exactly why not identifying as part of a group is rational: 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.
For example: I find myself cooperating with a certain political party more often than not--I've fairly consistently voted for them, and even worked for some of their political campaigns. But I don't identify as part of that party. This means that when someone criticizes that political party, I'm not offended: they're not criticizing me, because I don't identify as part of that party. I don't take it personally. And it also means that when I disagree with that political party, I don't fall prey to the Granfalloon technique. If I disagree with them (and I do) I don't feel any pressure to conform my views to the political party. I can rationally support my own goals, not theirs.