The surprising anthropology of group identity | Hacker News Reader

The surprising anthropology of group identity

nautil.us

26 pointsdnetesn10 comments

Whereas chimps will usually only copy something if they completely see how doing that action will produce this desirable outcome, human infants will copy whole sequences of actions even though they haven’t a clue what the value is of the thing that they’re copying.

You could have quite elaborate and effective medical procedures, for example, and no one has a clue how they work. It could be that rituals also become widespread as a byproduct. If we’re the kind of species that will copy all kinds of causally opaque behaviors, then that would help explain why we get the profusion of ritual behaviors as well as instrumental behaviors that we don’t understand.

Seems like a profound observation.

> You could have quite elaborate and effective medical procedures, for example, and no one has a clue how they work.

This isn't a hypothetical; it is the norm for humans. Most obviously, traditional methods of food preparation often coincidentally ensure that the food is digestible and not poisonous, where the most obvious way of preparing the food would be missing one or both of those properties.

Google Cargo Cults.

> Whereas chimps will usually only copy something if they completely see how doing that action will produce this desirable outcome, human infants will copy whole sequences of actions even though they haven’t a clue what the value is of the thing that they’re copying.

Might be because human children are better at socializing. http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/apes...

Group think explains most irrational behavior like politics. It explains why Trump supporters let him lie and gaslight and can't admit he is an idiot.

On the other side super nutty liberals (and media, but I repeat myself) can't accept he is the actual president. Nor can they admit the Democratic party really 'bent' some laws and several federal agencies probably broke laws somehow and has already directly caused a couple shooting incidents (if not more). It has been two years of investigation and the continuation just makes them mentally sicker just like racists and Obama.

We knew what Clinton specifically did and how he lied about it before there was even an investigation. The only question was whether it rose to impeachment(it didn't, though he definitely should be in jail for all the harassment/rape). Liberals protect the same agencies that they hated and would believe any conspiracy theory about 20-50 years ago (and most were true just as now).

I don't trust anyone in power and don't 'have to believe' in any group. I believe in megalomania and greed (heck the legislature's pension alone is insane) and that power corrupts and no one healthy or smart wants to be a politician.

Why do these conversations seemingly invariably break down into — if not start from "But liberals..." or "But conservatives..."

What about "But humans?"

Yep, but that is the point. It is group think and almost always irrelevant and has no regard for actual truth. Even the voting here shows quite a bit of reactive non-thinking emotions.

>no one healthy or smart wants to be a politician

This is probably more true on the national level than on the state and local level. Plenty of people get involved at the local levels because they see problems with their community that government could fix. Given that many national politicians started as state and local politicians, one would think at least some of them started with a good moral system

I agree it does happen, though the party system really limits the possibility. It keeps nationally popular but not moderate idealists like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders sidelined and picks winners long before primaries in local elections.

I live in a state with caucus primaries and it prevents any non-party candidates. Even at the local level you get some horrible choices of picking the least bad, corrupt, or even crazy guy.

Luckily, for at least some positions there is not enough party interest and there are 3 or more candidates that have to explain their platform and reasoning. If only that was the case with the more important positions.

Also the national parties groom way too much. It is one thing to have Hillary move to an easy to win seated state in national politics. However, it appears that Obama's local efforts were all organized to get him to President asap. That left quite a mess locally.

Similarly, the Republicans where I live are always sending DC interns to us for state legislature. I guess it is an attempt to give the intern running experience. The campaigns hardly ever seem to be an actual attempt to win.

The area is full of good paying jobs. What that means is the local politicians are usually some rich person's partner. Otherwise the crop is usually public employees with an ax to grind or personal trainers/masseuses looking for a steady income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com