The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America (2013) • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by beachy » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:00 AM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #77

beachy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a country with universal healthcare and it works pretty well much of the time, so perhaps I don't have the same perspective as you. But some of your examples ring a little extreme. Do you really suggest "having a big family" as the way to survive health problems and retirement? Because that's how it works in some (e.g.) SE Asian countries, and life there can be very harsh indeed if you strike adversity and…

> ...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.

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

#82

Post by closeparen » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:02 AM UTC

pdwetz wrote: post #48

tardygrad wrote: post #35

This was touched upon heavily in the book 'The Righteous Mind' by Jonathan Haidt, an amazing book if you're interested in this sort of thing and part of Bill Gate's reading list where I first found it. This quote (by Bertrand Russell) stood out: "Social cohesion is a necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely rational arguments. Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: o…

I'm not sure I follow his thought process on why "through the growth of individualism and personal experience that makes cooperation impossible." On a simple personal level, I'm for individualism and cooperation, so I'm not seeing the inherent conflict. Perhaps it's a matter of definitions?

When we celebrate rather than punish differences, we a get a population where people are more self-actualized and less oppressed, but have little in common with each other. If we are to have any semblance of community, we need to build it through voluntary associations.

Trust, empathy, bonding, etc. are going to be a lot harder when someone's identity, life experiences, and circumstances are completely foreign to your own. I don't think it makes cooperation impossible, but as a practical matter it means we're more likely to need huge, complex institutions like the federal government to mediate cooperation. People also seem less likely to want to cooperate or sacrifice their resources for others who are nothing like them.

One way societies have historically dealt with this is to close their borders, beat the shit out of internal nonconformists and, if they remain unrepentant, torture them to death in the public square by lighting them on fire. Subtler variants persist; for example, the official government's indifference to vigilante enforcement actions ranging from bullying (Japan) to beheading (Saudi Arabia).

It seems clear to me that our culture of welcoming and celebrating differences is more just and causes better outcomes for more people, but it does mean that we aren't all in the same boat.

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

#83

Post by cameldrv » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:04 AM UTC

In the specific measures of civic organizational membership, you have to put a lot down to women entering the workforce. People of my grandparent's generation (middle aged in the 50s and 60s) participated heavily in these activities, Elks and church in their case. A lot of the planning and organization of these groups was done by women who stayed home. Particularly after the kids had gone off to school, homemakers put a lot of effort into civic groups during the day. Now, of course, there were lots of women who worked, but there were enough women who didn't to keep these groups running. With women staying home now rare, especially after the kids are old enough for school, the people with free time to keep these organizations going don't exist. If you want to see a subculture where these organizations are still thriving, look at members of the LDS church.

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

#84

Post by okaram » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:07 AM UTC

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 government hasn't recently grown in scope, in any meaningful way. Since the 1980's, the government as percent of GDP has stayed about the same 30-35% ... our taxes are lower and our 'welfare' is arguably lower than in the 80s, so if it was growth of government, you'd see it it correlated with that

I know it is cool to blame everything on the government, but ...

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

#85

Post by lsc » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:11 AM UTC

coop-throwaway wrote: post #32

RickS wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot to unpack in that comment, and I'm not going to take a swing at much of it, except to say that you should be careful of confusing visibility with reality. Both the haves and the have nots are equipped with increasingly large megaphones (instagram, et al). Most people are regular, and guys have been "taking" other guy's girls since we were beating each other with sticks. The idea that this phenomenon is…

Never before could a woman open an app and literally have hundreds of men at her door within minutes (all while men struggle to get a single match). This has created such an imbalance that the women are able to reject roughly the bottom 80% of men leaving most men struggling to get the attention of the bottom 20% of women. And yes, there are lots of men with shortcomings, physical ones, that have rendered them out of…

I think it is worse (and better) than it seems when you assume that your competition is other men.

It's not that you have to prove yourself better than other men; you have to prove that being with you is better than being alone.

Harder than that, you don't only have to prove yourself, you have to continue to remain better than being alone.

(I mean, I'm typing this from a male perspective, because that's what I know, and because I think that men have always had more freedom to 'opt out' than women, meaning that women having this power to 'opt out' is a relatively new phenomena, but I imagine that this cuts both ways)

Emancipation, I think, is a social good... and yes, that means we all will spend more time alone, but being alone is dramatically better, in my experience, than being in a bad relationship, even if it's dramatically worse than being in a good relationship. But maintaining a relationship is difficult, and now that most people have the option of saying "I'd rather be alone" many of them do, at least some of the time.

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

#86

Post by Bucephalus355 » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:13 AM UTC

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…

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 were incredibly high levels of cooperation between people? I don't want to put a huge burden of evidence of you, but am curious.

Also if anyone gets a chance please look into the book "The Way We Never Were" by Stephanie Coontz. Good examination of American family trends and activities over time.

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

#87

Post by themacguffinman » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:14 AM UTC

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…

That must be why citizens of other countries like Australia and the UK are awfully uncooperative and uncharitable, right? /s

I also hate this idea that helping the poor should be left to personal whim. "Programs that solve problems" sounds more effective and egalitarian than "people helping people" if you ask me.

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

#88

Post by observation » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:19 AM UTC

dsjoerg wrote: post #80

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…

Why should I believe what you say? It sounds truthy and has plenty of logic to it, but I've come to ask for more before believing something.

It could be kin selection. In the past people lived closer to and interacted more with people of similar genetic ancestry.

The real question is why wouldn't civic qualities decline.

You can look at this on an economic lens - people don't need to depend on familial relations as much because of money.

You can look at this with a racial/ethnic lens - more genetic variance reduces cooperative behaviours (see Charles Murray).

Then there's the libertarian version you've heard above.

Then there's the social lens - people have become atomized by individualism in their manners, social conditioning etc.

I like to think there's a non-relativistic way in which all of them are true, sometimes some of them more at certain times than others, but that they are models of the same phenomena.

Should we genetically manipulate ourselves to increase our pro-social behaviours? It seems clear that if society flies apart then all the critiques I've mentioned will be true simultaneously, I do not see how that can plausibly be positive. What about genetic intervention?

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

#89

Post by schiffern » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:25 AM UTC

brian-armstrong wrote: post #70

RealityNow wrote: post #62

This is due to the entrenchment of neoliberalism since the 70s (famously Reagan in the 80s), the ideology that government's sole responsibility is to enforce free markets, any other function of government is bad, and that every aspect of life should be dictated by free markets. Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society, only individuals" sums it up. Rising wealth inequality is simply a byproduct of this.…

You're going to try to point at such a large, complex phenomenon through a single cause?

Not OP, but the entrenchment of neoliberalism is itself a large, complex phenomenon. https://chomsky.info/profit01/

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

#90

Post by observation » Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 2:32 AM UTC

crispinb wrote: post #54

Consultant32452 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. It seems to be that collectivism, ironically, has made cooperation impossible rather than individualism. The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped. Government guarantees you healthcare and income in retirement, so there's no need to have a family big enough to take care of you. And as the kid, your parents are taken care of, so your role is diminished. Whe…

Why then does the society with the flimsiest socialised provisions amongst rich nations (the US) also have on most measures by far the most precipitous collapse in social cohesion?

European countries are much smaller than the USA. I realize that within the USA there exist differences but I think your population centers are far larger than ours. Europe has a larger population but it is very dense with small, medium and then rarer large communities (similar to Japan I think). The USA appears to me (this could be quite wrong) to have large, very large and then sparse communities.

I wish I could summon up a one of those nice charts on this subject from gapminder! That would show immediately if there's something to it.

It could also be simply that the American media and intellectual class are unusually neurotic and there similar issues exist everywhere but the local reporting in my country doesn't emphasize it as much.