And just to prove that I'm an irrational human, for the last 21 years every time I pass the spot where I found the wallet I can't help but look around for a lost wallet, as if it's some magical spot where the universe deposits lost wallets.
And just to prove that I'm an irrational human, for the last 21 years every time I pass the spot where I found the wallet I can't help but look around for a lost wallet, as if it's some magical spot where the universe deposits lost wallets.
I did a 3-month walking pilgrimage in Belgium & France this summer. I had very little money and a tent and walked along quiet roads. Several people offered me a room for the night. (I was surprised, I don't know if I'd offer a stranger that) Many came out with food, snacks, fruit when they saw me resting near a church etc.
I used an app as well that allows camping in someone's garden ("Welcome to my Garden"). A few times I arrived to setup my tent and the owner had to leave for an appointment/event. They left me the keys to their house and told me to make myself at home until they returned(!)
Difference between the countryside and the city I guess.
It does seem to apply to rural areas specifically though.
Not much, no. A small community that only trusts itself and pushes any out-group away (regardless of disposition) tends to be called a "cult".
And the answer couldn't be based on the amount of effort it takes, since in the small town scenario you're doing the effortful nice behavior 95% of the time.
I'm not getting into a discussion about tribalism in general right now. You made a strong claim that goes well beyond what I normally think of as tribalism. Do you have a scrap of evidence or research for that claim?
* people are nice when they still behave in the old, tribal way.
* the tribal way is always going to be creating individuals who are racist and conformant/conservative.
* not behaving the tribal way means going outside the conformist mold, which means you take risks and eventually learn by experience that taking more risks come with consequences. You become less trustful of everyone, while almost paradoxically proclaiming yourself to be more open.
This fits observation. If you believe it's wrong, you must demonstrate why with supporting evidence without contradicting the evidence I've used, obviously.
At the beginning it can be a nice place. Until the first abuser finds them. And then... depends on the abuser.
This is not a theory; I have seen it happen, often in groups of nerds who are somewhat naive about how real life works. Then a new guy comes, borrows some money from each of them individually, then disappears. Or a new guy comes, invites a girl to his place, and rapes her. Sometimes some people even get suspicious about the new guy, but is a taboo to express such thoughts loudly, to spread suspicion in a group based on mutual trust.
To avoid things like this, you need to split people into "those I trust" and "strangers". Different people and cultures draw the line differently. For some of them, "those I trust" only includes people they have known for a few years. It is frustrating for a newcomer, and you often wish you were able to do something so that they accept you faster. Unfortunately, if that worked, the abuser would probably do the same thing.
Another strategy is to have mutual friends vouch for someone. But this only works when it is a part of the culture, where people know that vouching for someone brings heavy consequences if that person turns out to be an abuser. In cultures that do not have such experience, abusers often do the trick where they befriend someone, use them to get introduced to their friends, and while the first target is like "this is a nice stranger that I have met yesterday", their friends are like "this is a nice person recommended by my trusted friend, which means I can trust them too", and then the abuser exploits them. (And when they complain to the first target "why did you make me trust such a horrible person", the first target is confused "well, I actually barely knew them, this was a horrible misunderstanding". But the abuser probably has a lot of experience creating such misunderstandings on purpose.)
Finally, you can have a close community that is very difficult to enter. You can trust everyone in that community, because if they do something bad, they will be kicked out, or worse. But this requires the community to be very difficult to enter, and to have ways to punish the abusers in a way that actually hurts them. (Merely kicking someone out of the community is not enough, if there are hundreds of communities, and the abuser simply infiltrates the next one.)
Abusers exist. You need to build a firewall somewhere. There are different places where you can build it, but you have to build it somewhere, or you get hurt.
That's arguably xenophobic depending on how you interpret the word. But it doesn't require anything resembling racism or homophobia.
I'm objecting to the idea that the downside of a tight-knit community is some kind of bigotry. Not just barriers to entry.
(Alternatively, if it's not a specific community, it's some super-wide group based on some obvious feature, than that group isn't keeping out abusers and someone in a different group has probably the same odds of being an abuser.)
There’s something tribal-ish to it, but also something philosophical. You can also belong to a culture which makes this kind of trust or goodwill far more limited, for instance only between family members—you’re just as culturally homogenous but not nearly so kind to strangers.
Look at Japan and rural Western societies. High trust, but the trust is because they are all pretty much the same people, demographics, beliefs, etc. and the density makes it so they pretty much know each other.
I encountered this when someone was talking about where I live as being the kind of place where you could leave the door unlocked. Everyone thought that seemed overstating it because you'd only really do that if you were going out for a few minutes. We were quite shocked to hear they were talking about locking the doors while they were home. None of us had even considered that as a meaning even though it was the norm for where they came from.
Personally I default to the latter because that’s how my idiosyncratic anxiety feels comfortable, even when I’ve lived somewhere where I would be able to hear people coming a mile off. But I know people who default to the first option even in a place where some of their neighbors default to the latter. A lot of it comes down to personal preference rather than environment, I suspect.
I guess in rural areas and old style homes it might be different.
If and when you open it during the day, leave it unlocked (and perhaps open if it’s a nice day) until one of those two things happen.
After a long time, she started locking the door. But she left a copy of the key in the mailbox next to the front door. That was also for her, in case she went out and lost her keys or forgot where she put them.
It was only a few years before she passed away that she had the key taken out of the mailbox.
Then never locked the door, even when going out for an hour+ and leaving nobody home.
I did meet a young French man when I was in Italy who was on a providence pilgrimage on his bike, cycling about 150km a day with no plans of where to stay, he would show up in a village or town and just begin knocking on doors and asking people if he could stay the night. He told me he always got a place and was even offered a meal many times, and his hosts were often delighted to have his company.
The story inspired me, but I'm still not brave enough to try it myself. The idea is to trust completely on the providence of God in the form of your fellow man, very romantic idea. I've often thought how the sterile transaction of cash entitles me to privacy wherever I go, its attractive but lifeless.
It was a great experience although I was helped by a tax refund that appeared in my bank a/c and had a small 'buy me a coffee' site for friends following the walk.
Like the French man you mentioned, I met two walkers who carried no money and seemed to be permanently on the road... there was a real sense of peace from them. I don't think I could do that though.
The whole compound was on the city's edge. There were two ways to get in there: a pawed road with two lanes and a sidewalk and a trail through a bunch of private houses. The later was not popular because it was longer and muddy during bad weather. I took the second route because the first one was used, beside others, by the sports students. When not in class, these guys looked for an opportunity to punch someone.
Unfortunately for me, I did take the shorter route twice, and both times ended up with major injuries. First time I ended up with the broken nose, second time with a concussion.
It was so bad, in fact, that eventually the city police organized a patrol that walked that road. There were police raids in the dorms as well. I knew two girls who got raped and virtually every student who lived in the same dorms had been beaten multiple times, they belongings taken etc. Same sort of people broke into my neighbor's room, beat him up and took his electric stove (virtually the only thing of value he had).
Very little if any of this was ever investigated let alone punished. The police was poor and understaffed and had a lot of their own problems to deal with. They wouldn't bother to even write down your complaint if you were so naive as to try to file one.
* * *
If anything, my conclusion from my experience is that people are garbage. People don't overtly abuse each other in rich countries because they are afraid of the discomfort that might cause them, the police is well-funded and will, especially, come after the law-abiding citizens first. In a rich country, people want to live by the law because it's gainful and opens a lot of opportunities. This also creates more trust and good will.
In poor countries, the difference between inside and outside of jail is smaller, crime is more attractive because there are fewer legal ways to get rich, violence is punished less and is more attractive as a way to resolve individual conflicts as the official way is dysfunctional. Also, there's not a lot of "fun" otherwise. Also, being "tough" is more important.
If the rich countries were to become suddenly poor, the crime and violence situation would also get worse.
I don't think it's that clearcut. There's a cultural DNA. Folks behave a certain way then when they grow up their children behave the same because that's how they saw at home. Principles and basic morals are not enforced at home etc.
I'm basically arguing that nature is less important than nurture, even if nature might indeed be worse than we think.
People inhabiting the Russian empire weren't all that bad. But there were multiple stages of descent into the atrocious society I remember from the late 90s. It also didn't go in a straight line. The 70s in the Soviet Union are remembered as the time of a "standstill" because for the average citizen, the life was mostly palatable, the living conditions gradually improved and people were genuinely nicer (than, say, during and right after the war, or in the early days after Stalin's death). They didn't know that the state, as a whole, was living on borrowed time sliding deeper into a credit hole.
This is also why the Russian version of "boomers" wants to go back to the Soviet times so much: they remember the 70s and how much nicer everyone was.
Oh, and since we are here already, I'm going to mention my favorite quote from Dostoyevsky (from memory, maybe not 100% correct):
> Poverty isn't a vice, but destitution, kind sir, destitution is a vice.
This was spoken by Marmeladov, a former government bureaucrat who started drinking after being laid off and to make ends meet took to prostituting his daughter, Sonya, the love interest of the protagonist, Raskolnikov. His idea was to say that there's a threshold in poverty, where a person breaks and succumbs to the vice being no longer able to afford to behave decently. Obviously, using himself as an example.
Poverty was also the motivation for Raskolnikov to kill the pawn shop owner, however, he didn't think about explaining his behavior in this way. I'm not sure Dostoyevsky himself would side with Marmeladov's explanation of the nature of vice, but he definitely considered it :)
I keep explaining to boomer members of my family that things were not good during the communists. It just seems bad now because of the news and social media. They are better off than 90% of the people in their country, but they don't perceive it.
Anyway, I think people who have been "civilized" for a long time would also take a long time to turn uncivilized. Which might mean never, since they would also do their best (as a tribe) to get out of poverty quickly.
It is worth to be on the lookout for the 1% that ate not like that, but be aware all those "nice people" in wealthy countries would most likely turn on you very quickly if they were in any kind of hardship for an extended amount of time.
The best example of this? German bloody pensioners and Americans that want Ukraine to surrender with millions to basically become slaves of a mafia run state for their own economic reality to get slightly better.
Various people that are perfectly fine with human rights of others to be trampled over just so they can be 1% better off financially.
These people also expect humans to be good fundamentally, so surely it can't be that bad and must be an exaggeration? So the exact opposite is true, that sentiment of "just surrender" comes from an ultimate trust in the goodness of human nature, not in the lack of it.
Agree. A human being a terrible person makes the news, the dozens of daily acts of kindness and decency never do. I remember a news story about someone breaking into and stealing from a storage container full of donated toys for kids at Christmas. The headline was that a one terrible person stole stuff, not that hundreds of people gave stuff.
On the more personal side, my dad passed away from cancer when he was 46. While he was being treated, the nearest quality treatment center was in a major city over 100 miles away. I remember being amazed at the number of people that just showed up to help out in big and small ways. A neighbor I don't recall every having conversation with in 15 years offered to drive for the bi-weekly appointments. Another person in town who was unemployed also drove a round trip because they had the the time and even refused payment.
Later, when my mom was aging, a neighbor plowed and shoveled, handled some light care maintenance, and other tasks without being asked and without accepting compensation. They actually seemed offended when I said I could pay them or hire someone to handle the plowing so they didn't feel obligated.
None of those things would ever make the news, and only the people involved will ever know.
So it could simultaneously be true that most people are good, but it is dangerous to trust them all.
If it bleeds it leads. The media can't sell ads with nice news. They need horribleness, catastrophy, and outrage to attract attention to the ads.
Now consider all the immigrants the Belgians are mad at.
Without getting into which side is right or wrong, the point is that you don’t see that “decency” anymore whether from the Belgian side or the immigrant side.
This could also be the result of group dynamics. Individually humans might be decent, but when in a group, they are more susceptible to being indecent.
In multi-Ethnic nations, the solution is to forcibly move different ethnic groups with each other, as noted by Singapore's LKY, to prevent Diasporaic cultures from forming. But the Belgians didn't have to be a multi-ethnic society, nor do the natives seem to tolerate that. It really depends on the society and its willingness to do so.
My dog does the same thing. One day years ago he caught a rat, and that's the first place he darts to every time he goes outside. He thinks its the magic rat spot.
But for some reason it's never taken well when you tell a new parent that raising their baby is going to be a lot like raising a puppy.
Unclear if cooked vs raw matters, I'd expect cooked would be the problem, as animals in the wild don't get that.
The only thing working in his favor is that beagles tend to have an iron gut. A bag of chocolate bars might drop another dog…but probably not a beagle.
Most self-forming human societies are high-trust and more loyal to each other than to truth (as the models have so eloquently regurgitated). Look anywhere from the hunter-gatherer tribes to villages to small towns. I have traveled my small, poor country extensively and the only place the fundamental idea of altruism had to be "consciously invented, built and protected" was in the big cities. In the rest of the places, it came to them as naturally as hunger. We've found skeletons from thousands of years ago that indicate that the whole society came together to care for the disabled individual for nothing in return, leading them to live as long as a modern disabled person with healthcare might.
Societies become low trust driven by specific factors: resource scarcity, something forcing a lot of different groups of people into the same area without integration. This is not a defense of humanity. I'd say the case of the returned wallet is more an example of class-loyalty than general human altruism. Humans have an instinct for exclusion of the non-conforming.
But the idea that civilization has to be invented and maintained is a debunked, regressive, even dangerous idea in that this line of thinking was used to justify a lot of atrocities historically.
I want experienced small acts of kindness in many countries and in both rural and metropolitan areas. I do agree that different societies are more or less likely. In my mother's travels, she was met with a lot of distrust in Guatemala (but this was reasonably recent after the end of the dictatorship), similarly my best experiences have been in NZ (just walking around with a map in central Auckland often ended up with someone offering to drive you to where you needed to go).
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qG4RUBPypF4
I live in a high trust neighborhood. Bicycles will sit around for a week or two before someone finally returns. Outside my neighborhood bicycles last about an hour at most.
How is 24% a majority in your imagination?
Altruism, as you pointed out, is conditional. If population grows, the new constraints change the conditions that determine societal behaviors.
We need to develop tools to maintain a social contract once we grow past a degree of complexity.
We may be recreating the things we value from the small group stage, however our ability to achieve that in the recent past was an achievement.
It took a lot to get there, and tons of ideas and counter arguments were attempted and their failures learnt from.
Even the past moment had huge flaws.
In the micro level, Russians look to be lovely trusting people to each other. My source is an Instagram story of a guy pretending not to speak Russian, talking to drunk Russians on the street in English, and they're not agressive but they try to solve his problem. Yeah, great source, but I doubt it's much worse than yours.
A am not sure that is true.
I think we're living in a highly individualistic society and what little high trust remains is outside of the logic of markets.
You should have seen the dark age... if everyone fended for themselves there we wouldn't be here now. You know how much you depend on your peers without any of the affordabilities of today's age?!
Edit: it’s never “we’re becoming a low trust society because of rising inequality and K-shaped economic recovery leading to a breakdown of the social contract”, it’s always “we’re becoming a low trust society because of brown people”.
As I believe pointed out by Tommy Lee Jones in _Men in Black_, somewhat more succinctly.
The really poisonous aspect is how individual empathy in social groups can incite even greater violence, so as to reassure the group that you're all on board with atrocity lest you become another target for it. Diaries of German soldiers on the Eastern Front relay this. Also the stereotype of the ex-prisoner camp guard who is more cruel than the actual occupiers - Ukrainian/Baltics SS were particularly monstrous. Samuel Jackson's character in _Django Unchained_.
It's irrational to return the wallet if you were to consider just your well being. However, being we value being part of a group, and that group is the kind that returns wallets it finds.
Overall most of the answers are pretty much reddit tier cringe, but I guess here it's just echoing what is found online. LLMs are capable of novel insights but to produce them, you have to let the LLM grind a bit. I would be curious if someone asked why or what are the implications for a few hours.
> Humans are more loyal to belonging than to truth
> Why?
> Belonging to a larger group is advantageous to survival and reproduction
> Why?
> ...
Humans on the other hand co-opt, arguably, sort of like a virus. Our ultimate foe isn’t other organisms, but nothingness, because you can’t co-opt nothingness into an ally or tool.
Often doing "the right thing", in irrational circumstances, is nevertheless self-protective.
Otherwise you get friction in your social programming that you might never overcome.
One day, she found a whole cake under a bush and brought it to us (I'm talking a cake big enough to feed 8 persons).
From that day forward, she would intensely forage under the "cake bush" every time we passed it.
https://www.thestandard.com.hk/news/article/321034/Resurgenc...
> Reflecting on the evolving nature of street scams, one commenter noted, "People are becoming hesitant to help strangers on the street for a reason. It's a dangerous world, making people colder."
> Reflecting on the evolving street scams, "People are becoming hesitant to help strangers on the street for a reason. It's a dangerous world, making people colder," one commenter lamented.
The AIs have us pegged right.
It’s not that individual humans are bad. It’s that we value belonging to the group above all else.
The only good thing about humans is that we have shown the ability for certain individuals to break free of that and over time, usually centuries if not millennia, bring all of society with them until the group dynamics work in favor of the right thing.