Helen: "I think this ‘collectivist huddling’ and ‘allegiance testing’ reaction is a very human response to threat that has probably served our species well in its evolutionary past when survival really has depended on unwavering solidarity with an in-group and single-minded focus on defeating an out-group."
Spot-on! And is reinforced, even today, by human physiology.
As Mark Johnson wrote in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2021, "From birth we depend on the friendship and protection of others. Infants, "must instantly engage their parents in protective behavior, and the parents must care enough about these offspring to nurture and protect them," said [John] Cacioppo, the University of Chicago researcher."
"Even once we're grown we're not particularly splendid specimens. Other animals can run faster, see and smell better, and fight more effectively than we can. Our evolutionary advantage is our brain and our ability to communicate, plan, reason and work together. Our survival depends on our collective abilities not on our individual might." And thus, on the mutual protection and cooperation of the members of our tribe or band.
That dependency is reinforced physiologically. "Other threats to survival — hunger, thirst and pain — trigger messages to the brain that something is wrong and steer us toward solutions. Studies have found that loneliness prompts a similar warning, generating higher-than-normal levels of cortisol, a hormone released in response to stress."
Excellent. There are parts of this I am going to memorize in order to have at my disposal, should I find myself in an argument with one of the many people I love who are clinging to ideas, the implications of which they do not seem to understand. After all, Thanksgiving is coming.....
We live in more expressed polarising times that readily stir up any human being’s natural tribalism. I’m forever grateful, Helen, for your rare calm persistent therapeutic voice of liberal reason and reasoning that helps centre us for this challenge. I’ve always liked how your classy thinking is for the practical purpose of humans teaming up in particular situations. And also more generally for a global human tribe that you’d think would have a common interest.
(My doubt there arises from the human race’s general disdain for any reasoned and evidenced principles. In particular I’ve just read Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” and noted the USA’s malignantly political (QE-recently-D) “Christian Taliban” including many who welcome world destruction as that would mean being rescued by the return of Jesus. Oh whoopee. And “God help us” indeed!
The pragmatic principle is well known but hard to do: we must find ways and words that don’t scare the (emotional) horses - or scare Jonathan Haidt’s powerful elephant - so that the (intelligent) riders can find common ground to work out their differences and team up on a path for the common good. It’s not so much about being blind to others on a political spectrum but seeing the practical sense of getting those who already have more common ground to work out the problematic differences. Hence eg your advice over the years to embrace EDI objectives that for example one’s employer has signed up for, but engage with the boss or HR to discuss choosing the best of several ways to do it.
I appear, to HP, to be a right-wing nazi. But of course to RWN:
Left ----HP--------GT-------------RWN----Right
both HP and GT look much the same and like communists.
So, where you are defines your vision of others.
Of course, to REALLY understand political thinking, you need to work in 12 dimensional space, because there are multiple dimensions of political thinking. Left vs right is an impoverished and over-simplified view of the political thought universe.
"Left vs right is an impoverished and over-simplified view of the political thought universe."
Exactly!!
Regarding "left-wing or right wing," am thinking of just some of the ways that various assessment tools try to provide more nuance and depth at capturing a particular person's political, economic, and social beliefs, in contrast to that simplistic binary axis.
For starters, there's the well-known Political Compass (perhaps initiated by Wayne Brittenden?), with its "economic (Left–Right) and social (Authoritarian–Libertarian)" axes:
These consist of "22 distinct beliefs about the world as a whole. ... most of these cluster into 3 overarching beliefs called Safe, Enticing, and Alive. In turn, these 3 overarching beliefs cluster into 1 overarching belief about whether the world is a fundamentally good or bad place, called Good."
And of course, Moral Foundations (Jon Haidt et al.):
"According to Moral Foundations Theory, differences in people's moral concerns can be described in terms of five moral foundations: [an] Individualizing cluster of Care and Fairness, and the group-focused Binding cluster of Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity. ... A sixth foundation, liberty (opposite of oppression)," has also been theorized."
And riffing a bit on Freud's quote, here's Scott Alexander:
"So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences. If you want to know who someone in former Yugoslavia hates, don’t look at the Indonesians or the Zulus or the Tibetans or anyone else distant and exotic. Find the Yugoslavian ethnicity that lives closely intermingled with them and is most conspicuously similar to them, and chances are you’ll find the one who they have eight hundred years of seething hatred toward."
Yes to all, Helen, and thanks. Two things in response:
1. You’ve reminded me of a diagram I wish I could find now (I saw it several years ago, luckily I can easily describe it here): it was seven circles in a row, representing locations along a political spectrum, to illustrate the author’s advice that we can expect our advocacy efforts to be most successful with folks who are one step or, at most, two steps from where we are.
2. As it happens, your post arrived *just* after I’d finished reading a piece which introduced me to an unfamiliar concept: “mistake theory vs. conflict theory.”
After learning about it (it’s got some connection with high vs. low decoupling, if that means something), I’m realizing it could help explain why, even when I’ve gone out of my way to assure an interlocutor that I’m a member of the same tribe but I think our tribe may be getting something wrong, they’ve nonetheless been hostile to my message—possibly because their approach is more of a conflict theorist, while mine is more of a mistake theorist. It’s at least an interesting way to think about the clash…
Are you familiar with high vs. low decouplers, mistake vs. conflict theorists? Any thoughts about these concepts?
My post, made after yours, has some common elements. The line of "political positioning" defines what we say about others. That depends on where we stand. And, yes, we are most able to make fine distinctions in persons not too far from us.
I had a blinding flash of the obvious at university when I read Klaus Holzkamp - "You can't have a meaningful debate with someone who has a totally different philosophical basis". Of course! (And also: "If you share a goal, you can debate the means"). That made my life easier. I still take part in "debates" on SoMe that are totally meaningless - but I do it in the hope that some people who read my arguments while they're sitting on the fence can use it ...
Thank you for clarifying it in this clever way. I'll share this!
Helen: "I think this ‘collectivist huddling’ and ‘allegiance testing’ reaction is a very human response to threat that has probably served our species well in its evolutionary past when survival really has depended on unwavering solidarity with an in-group and single-minded focus on defeating an out-group."
Spot-on! And is reinforced, even today, by human physiology.
As Mark Johnson wrote in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2021, "From birth we depend on the friendship and protection of others. Infants, "must instantly engage their parents in protective behavior, and the parents must care enough about these offspring to nurture and protect them," said [John] Cacioppo, the University of Chicago researcher."
"Even once we're grown we're not particularly splendid specimens. Other animals can run faster, see and smell better, and fight more effectively than we can. Our evolutionary advantage is our brain and our ability to communicate, plan, reason and work together. Our survival depends on our collective abilities not on our individual might." And thus, on the mutual protection and cooperation of the members of our tribe or band.
That dependency is reinforced physiologically. "Other threats to survival — hunger, thirst and pain — trigger messages to the brain that something is wrong and steer us toward solutions. Studies have found that loneliness prompts a similar warning, generating higher-than-normal levels of cortisol, a hormone released in response to stress."
Excellent. There are parts of this I am going to memorize in order to have at my disposal, should I find myself in an argument with one of the many people I love who are clinging to ideas, the implications of which they do not seem to understand. After all, Thanksgiving is coming.....
We live in more expressed polarising times that readily stir up any human being’s natural tribalism. I’m forever grateful, Helen, for your rare calm persistent therapeutic voice of liberal reason and reasoning that helps centre us for this challenge. I’ve always liked how your classy thinking is for the practical purpose of humans teaming up in particular situations. And also more generally for a global human tribe that you’d think would have a common interest.
(My doubt there arises from the human race’s general disdain for any reasoned and evidenced principles. In particular I’ve just read Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” and noted the USA’s malignantly political (QE-recently-D) “Christian Taliban” including many who welcome world destruction as that would mean being rescued by the return of Jesus. Oh whoopee. And “God help us” indeed!
The pragmatic principle is well known but hard to do: we must find ways and words that don’t scare the (emotional) horses - or scare Jonathan Haidt’s powerful elephant - so that the (intelligent) riders can find common ground to work out their differences and team up on a path for the common good. It’s not so much about being blind to others on a political spectrum but seeing the practical sense of getting those who already have more common ground to work out the problematic differences. Hence eg your advice over the years to embrace EDI objectives that for example one’s employer has signed up for, but engage with the boss or HR to discuss choosing the best of several ways to do it.
“Hyperbolic and deeply uncharitable mindreading is an individual character flaw and not the domain of any particular group.”
That is perfectly put and completely true.
Here is the line of political thought
Left -------------------------------------Right
Here is the line with H Pluckrose on it
Left ----HP-------------------------------Right
So, I am on the line (George Tyrebyter) as such
Left ----HP--------GT--------------------Right
I appear, to HP, to be a right-wing nazi. But of course to RWN:
Left ----HP--------GT-------------RWN----Right
both HP and GT look much the same and like communists.
So, where you are defines your vision of others.
Of course, to REALLY understand political thinking, you need to work in 12 dimensional space, because there are multiple dimensions of political thinking. Left vs right is an impoverished and over-simplified view of the political thought universe.
"Left vs right is an impoverished and over-simplified view of the political thought universe."
Exactly!!
Regarding "left-wing or right wing," am thinking of just some of the ways that various assessment tools try to provide more nuance and depth at capturing a particular person's political, economic, and social beliefs, in contrast to that simplistic binary axis.
For starters, there's the well-known Political Compass (perhaps initiated by Wayne Brittenden?), with its "economic (Left–Right) and social (Authoritarian–Libertarian)" axes:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/
Plus an interesting variant, the Tilted Political Compass (John Nerst), with "Survive-Thrive" and "Coupled-Decoupled" axes:
https://everythingstudies.com/2019/03/01/the-tilted-political-compass-part-1-left-and-right/
Then there's Primal World Beliefs (Jer Clifton):
https://myprimals.com/the26beliefs/
These consist of "22 distinct beliefs about the world as a whole. ... most of these cluster into 3 overarching beliefs called Safe, Enticing, and Alive. In turn, these 3 overarching beliefs cluster into 1 overarching belief about whether the world is a fundamentally good or bad place, called Good."
And of course, Moral Foundations (Jon Haidt et al.):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#The_foundations
"According to Moral Foundations Theory, differences in people's moral concerns can be described in terms of five moral foundations: [an] Individualizing cluster of Care and Fairness, and the group-focused Binding cluster of Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity. ... A sixth foundation, liberty (opposite of oppression)," has also been theorized."
Helpful. These are things I need to look at to inform myself as I write another essay.
"The narcissism of small differences"
True!
And riffing a bit on Freud's quote, here's Scott Alexander:
"So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences. If you want to know who someone in former Yugoslavia hates, don’t look at the Indonesians or the Zulus or the Tibetans or anyone else distant and exotic. Find the Yugoslavian ethnicity that lives closely intermingled with them and is most conspicuously similar to them, and chances are you’ll find the one who they have eight hundred years of seething hatred toward."
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
Yes to all, Helen, and thanks. Two things in response:
1. You’ve reminded me of a diagram I wish I could find now (I saw it several years ago, luckily I can easily describe it here): it was seven circles in a row, representing locations along a political spectrum, to illustrate the author’s advice that we can expect our advocacy efforts to be most successful with folks who are one step or, at most, two steps from where we are.
2. As it happens, your post arrived *just* after I’d finished reading a piece which introduced me to an unfamiliar concept: “mistake theory vs. conflict theory.”
After learning about it (it’s got some connection with high vs. low decoupling, if that means something), I’m realizing it could help explain why, even when I’ve gone out of my way to assure an interlocutor that I’m a member of the same tribe but I think our tribe may be getting something wrong, they’ve nonetheless been hostile to my message—possibly because their approach is more of a conflict theorist, while mine is more of a mistake theorist. It’s at least an interesting way to think about the clash…
Are you familiar with high vs. low decouplers, mistake vs. conflict theorists? Any thoughts about these concepts?
My post, made after yours, has some common elements. The line of "political positioning" defines what we say about others. That depends on where we stand. And, yes, we are most able to make fine distinctions in persons not too far from us.
I had a blinding flash of the obvious at university when I read Klaus Holzkamp - "You can't have a meaningful debate with someone who has a totally different philosophical basis". Of course! (And also: "If you share a goal, you can debate the means"). That made my life easier. I still take part in "debates" on SoMe that are totally meaningless - but I do it in the hope that some people who read my arguments while they're sitting on the fence can use it ...
Thank you for clarifying it in this clever way. I'll share this!