Comment by b0rsuk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by b0rsuk | Hacker News Reader

Tribal instincts are super strong, that's been proven over and over again [citation needed]. I'm afraid long-term empathy for the sake of Other can't work. It only seems to work when people still remember major disasters and wars. It's inevitable these fade away, isn't it? (except for very, very long term, when evolution and/or genetic engineering might change this)

In my country anti-Muslim sentiment is strong, made stronger by the government and its alliance with the church. When I see people get carried away, I often recommend them to learn more about Muslims to "know your enemy better". It's a trick and I think we need further studies to see if it's more likely to backfire (people hit another group they perceive as enemy much harder because they now know their weaknesses) or work towards peace and cooperation.

(I'm not a fan of any religion myself, as for Islam my main beef is it doesn't distinguish between the religion and the secular state. It can therefore be called a form of totalitarianism)

> Tribal instincts are super strong

> I'm not a fan of any religion myself, as for Islam my main beef is it doesn't distinguish between the religion and the secular state. It can therefore be called a form of totalitarianism.

I think one major shortfall of modern discourse is that we've largely lost the ability to debate ideas (including religious claims) without incorporating tribalism and a "those people are bad" mentality. It's entirely possible to have empathy for people who believe something else and yet strongly disagree with their beliefs (and politely tell them so).

"Lost"?

> Tribal instincts are super strong, that's been proven over and over again

Tribal instincts aren't as strong as you think. Every civil and egalitarian right that people have gained since the enlightenment are the result of overcoming tribal instincts. The definition of a "tribe" is more often than not mostly a social construct. If society can set it up, it can tear it down.

Tribal politics affect every social interaction. Family tribe, social tribe, political tribe, all of these subconscious imprints play a role in how we interact (or don't interact) with other people.

I would argue that they are not only human nature, but they are emergent from a set of baser tendencies necessary for self preservation in a reality which is resource and time scarce reality.

Tribal instincts will exist so long as individual compete. That goes for social status too.

> Tribal politics affect every social interaction.

You're broadening your definition of tribal instincts to encompass all of society. Sure, people make teams based on shared social values, but those aren't really tribes in the traditional sense, i.e., you look like me and/or reside near me, therefore I will team up with you.

Under your broader definition, a "tribe" can be anything. It could even emerge based on shared social values of egalitarianism, which directly contradict the more traditional notion of a tribe.

I think you are confusing tribal instincts (ie thought patterns and emotional drives) with tribal entities (ie the emergence and labeling of tribes themselves).

A given instinct (ie predisposed thought pattern or behavioral tendency) potentially applies to everything we do. In particular, our tribal instincts don't suddenly stop affecting us just because we're interacting with something that doesn't resemble a traditional tribe.

> A given instinct (ie predisposed thought pattern or behavioral tendency) potentially applies to everything we do

Behavioral tendencies can change remarkably quickly (i.e., a single generation), rendering the entire idea of "tribes" as you posit them obsolete. It's much more effective to measure and understand those behavioral tendencies directly, and the motivations behind them, than to create arbitrary "tribes" that try to encapsulate those buckets.

> It's much more effective to measure and understand those behavioral tendencies directly, and the motivations behind them

I never suggested otherwise? The term "tribal instincts" was meant to refer to precisely that.

> Behavioral tendencies can change remarkably quickly (i.e., a single generation)

I think you have some fairly fundamental misconceptions about how deeply tribal instincts are rooted - not just in humanity, but primates and a great many other animals. They appear to be tied to evolution in a fairly direct manner. Fractals by Peter Watts is fictional but highly illustrative (https://rifters.com/real/shorts/PeterWatts_Fractals.pdf).

>> It's much more effective to measure and understand those behavioral tendencies directly

> I never suggested otherwise? The term "tribal instincts" was meant to refer to precisely that.

You have a very broad definition of a "tribe", but at the very least, I would assume that it means defining a group of people with similar interests, no? My point is that it makes more sense to define and study the interests, rather than the groups.

People have lots of different interests, some overlap with others, some do not. Analyzing the underlying interests is much more important than defining groups of people who have "similar" interests.

> I think you have some fairly fundamental misconceptions about how deeply tribal instincts are rooted - not just in humanity, but primates and a great many other animals. They appear to be tied to evolution in a fairly direct manner.

I think you have a fundamental misconception on how people are different from other animals. People can change social structures and belief systems far more quickly than any other animal can. Most animal's social structure is dictated by evolution and instincts, which take thousands of years to modify. Humans are not limited to that, and can make huge fundamental changes in 20 years without any change in genetics.

The definition of tribes is a social construct. The existence of tribes is not.

Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another. The dogmatism of the Church gets replaced by the patriotism of the State. Racism gets replaced by classism. Discrimination on appearance gets replaced by discrimination on education.

Sometimes just this redefinition of groups is progress: I'd argue that group boundaries based upon choices or values are more useful than group boundaries based on origins or genetics. But the utopian vision of "and the world will be as one" is naive, and ignores basically all recorded history.

>Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another.

I completely agree with this. It seems as though that many(all?) people have some group that's the Other and it's acceptable to attack them in various ways. For example, it used to be socially acceptable to attack nerds, but it isn't anymore, however, people have simply picked new groups that are acceptable targets that are more specific, such as anti-PC people. What seems to have improved though, is that we seem to condone extreme measures less and less. Nerds used to be physically bullied, but that seems to be less acceptable nowadays.

While I think that the ideas of inclusiveness aren't going to work, because there's always going to be some Other that's acceptable to be demonized (eg incels right now) by the in-group, I hope that the demonization becomes less and less extreme over time.

Around here there are tons of image memes about vegans and anti-vaxers. On websites that are mostly associated with the more liberal side. Apparently not. I guess it's just a desire to unite by having a common enemy or at least a target for ridicule.

> Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another.

Yup: Also known as, "I can tolerate anyone except my outgroup" - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

> Yup: Also known as, "I can tolerate anyone except my outgroup"

However, the definition of "outgroup" is almost entirely subject to society. It has changed dramatically in the last 500 years. If the definition of "outgroup" is so fluid, then the strict belief of tribalism doesn't have much merit.

This is what I have problem with too. I dislike most forms of dogma, and dogmatic liberalism, freedom of faith, speech and so on can be toxic too. I mean too often it seems like it just makes taboos shift. The smile-or-die mentality, the rainbow crew of Star Trek, the outrage that Witcher rooted in ancient slavic history and myth doesn't contain black characters...

I think one of the healthiest approaches was shown by the Monty Python group. They made fun of religious people as well as of atheists.

I would like to live in a society where it's okay to make a joke about race, religion, sexual preferences and gender once in a while. Many things are fine in moderation. It's bad when someone keeps hammering one group over and over. People always told jokes about forbidden subjects. When you can't tell jokes about X at all, I think it signals a problem related to X.

I have yet to explore lectures of Jordan Petersen, but I found one of his remarks interesting. One of his studies shows many similarities between right wingers and social justice warriors.

One way to define conservatives is people who want to force most of their rules on others. One definition of liberals is people who want to enable all people to live however they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Going by these definitions, social justice warriors can be considered conservative. They've just moved to another camp.

I'm trying to say perhaps liberalism/conservatism is not the value of the variable, but the algorithm. What you do with your values. You can try to force your rules on others, or try to inspire and lead by example, or... just don't care. Or something in between.

I'm being vague and general with most of my points because comprehensive error handling can obscure the message.

A few points also to consider:

1) I haven’t personally seen outright outrage about it. I’ve seen some light criticism that there appears to be no black traders which would exist in those times, and that the characters are uniformly white while Slavic skin color is actually a range between pale and olive. These criticisms make sense to me and were not presented with anger. Could you show me example of outrage?

2) Jordan Peterson has not generally done much science lately, if at all about this subject with significant backing. He’s become more of an advocate of a specific viewpoint within his field(similar to other representatives Neil degrasse Tyson) and should not be considered an authority without several additional citations of more academically well regarded researchers. I wonder if perhaps this claim was more acceptable due to its palatability and not due to its actual veracity.

3) I agree that making jokes should eh universal, but as the OP mentioned empathy can teach someone why making a racist joke isn’t okay. Unfortunately we don’t live in a society where people make jokes but don’t actually act on them. Making jokes about oppressed groups in society, depending on their harshness, actually occurs in tandem with people tearing the same groups with harshness. For example, jokes about missing black fathers or single black mothers in America tend to be more hurtful than funny because it describes a real phenomenon where black men are disproportionately jailed and utilizes it for enjoyment. It’s similar to joking about assaulting a friend when one knows that that friend was recently stalked and assaulted by a stranger- it’s viewed as a ‘dick move’ because it is a joke that lacks empathy and understanding of ones audience. I believe this is an alternative viewpoint to your concerns that may he of interest to you to cosnsider.

> I’ve seen some light criticism that there appears to be no black traders which would exist in those times, and that the characters are uniformly white while Slavic skin color is actually a range between pale and olive.

Having been born and raised in a slavic country, I don't think I've seen a black person for the first 15 years of my life, except on TV. In a city with far more people than anything included in the Witcher. And skin color was very very close to uniformly white. So it's always fun to be told by Americans that no, actually, slavic countries have always been vibrant and diverse.

Well, there was this whole geopolitical fluffup throughout the twentieth century....

And there is evidence there were significantly more black people in slavic countries before that? Taking the example of Yugoslavia, this doesn't seem to be the case [1]. We're just assuming diversity, while demanding proof of homogeneity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia#Demograp...

> Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another.

Spot on. It's not always (or generally) under their control either; all it takes for someone else to start calling followers of a revolutionary by some name, and a group is born.

> group boundaries based upon choices or values are more useful than group boundaries based on origins or genetics

They're also much less likely to stay as groups for long. Immutable characteristics like skin color, origin (class and nation), culture, religion or even education (which is immutable in practice for most people past the point they need to become self-sufficient in life) make your membership in a group easy to verify, and out of your control. This makes these characteristics easier targets for people to wrap their identities around. You have to accept that you're $country-of-birth-an, but you don't have to accept being anti-vaxxer - you can leave that group the minute you don't feel like being in it.

> Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another. The dogmatism of the Church gets replaced by the patriotism of the State. Racism gets replaced by classism. Discrimination on appearance gets replaced by discrimination on education.

These are pretty poor examples, one type of tribalism did not "replace" the other. One was knocked down, and then the next one was attacked. In the middle ages, when the Church was strong, you could be sure that classism and racism were also alive and well. When the power of the Church fell, classism and racism did not increase or replace the Church, they were just the next hurdle to tackle.

Boundaries can and do change. They can become more equitable or less equitable. Of course, it's impossible to make everyone perfectly equal, but that isn't the goal. The goal is to diminish the influence of socially constructed non-intrinsic sources of judgment.

Given how much progress there has been over the last 500 years, I find it strange that many take such a fatalistic point of view.

In America, I imagine this is why people promote Nationalism -- to build a sense of the American Tribe. This seemed to work especially well while we had the Soviet bogeyman. Today, attempts to describe others as 'not real Americans' is fracturing tribal unity.

A lot of our modern focus on race also dates back to such well-meaning attempts, ironically enough. There was a very real focus in the Progressive era to try and get people to see themselves as "white", in preference to their more meaningful ethnic origin - this is something that impacted people from Germany and other parts of central Europe quite a bit, because of how wide-spread anti-German sentiment and discrimination was in the run-up to WWI. Of course racial self-identification is considered especially divisive today, but it used to not always be viewed as such.

> as for Islam my main beef is it doesn't distinguish between the religion and the secular state

A lot of muslims don't consider or care about the governance model

I think your 'trick' is still masking a lack of very basic understanding about the vast population of people that aren't doing anything radical

And I think it's hard to blame me for this because where I live there are very few Muslims. Muslims, homosexuals etc are always something you read about, not people you can distinguish on a street. They're afraid to identify openly, so you can't go and talk with them.

Hm... so I gather that you consider yourself the tolerant person in your society. Assuming that you are willing to imagine living in a more collaborative society all you need to understand is that people are just people. They have the same wants and desires. Connection, purpose, security, a general understanding that self-preservation requires respecting other people's goal of self-preservation.

It is that simple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com