| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On September 21 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote: The neat thing about humans is that we have brains to overcome the hunter gatherer lifestyle. Whenever I see people playing Pokemon Go in the streets, I'm not so sure of this anymore... | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On September 21 2016 02:28 farvacola wrote: Something like that, though the term "social construct" isn't quite right because the dynamics observed through historical analysis are never purely social nor are they constructs in the sense that they are built, they merely "are." They are surely built over many generations? I don't think amoeba have a lot of social construct going on, but perhaps fish do so a little bit, some have been known to build nest-like things, at least... and then mammals tend to have it even more, with the adults taking care of the kids until they're old enough, etc. It comes along with the same sort of development that drives evolution: whatever works best to ensure survival. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 21 2016 02:30 TheDwf wrote: Whenever I see people playing Pokemon Go in the streets, I'm not so sure of this anymore... We do have their weird trend of seeing the latest zeitgeist as our culture reverting to its primal roots. But since we do this with every generation, I think that is just a sign of age and confusion over youth culture. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 21 2016 02:28 farvacola wrote: Something like that, though the term "social construct" isn't quite right because the dynamics observed through historical analysis are never purely social nor are they constructs in the sense that they are built, they merely "are." My point is that whether or not humans are inherently tribalistic is not a "good" dispute to resolve because its both unprovable and not very useful after the fact. Unprovable with our current knowledge. As for how useful that knowledge would be, while appeals to naturalism are pretty useless for ethical discussions, I'm hard-pressed to say that any piece of knowledge is truly "useless". | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On September 21 2016 02:33 Stratos_speAr wrote: Unprovable with our current knowledge. As for how useful that knowledge would be, while appeals to naturalism are pretty useless for ethical discussions, I'm hard-pressed to say that any piece of knowledge is truly "useless". Even uselessness has a use, and I'd argue that inherency relative to the human condition is actually absolutely impossible to establish beyond circumstance, but that's a discussion for another time  | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
| ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On September 21 2016 01:59 farvacola wrote: The historical development of human organization, the one that people point to as they say that humans are naturally predisposed towards the dynamics observed through historical analysis (like tribalism), has no essential truth-bearing value vis a vie the human condition. In other words, the past is not proof that the past is the only possible path humans could have taken, it is merely an iterative narration of sorts. As much as I despise fallacy-talk, this is an outcropping of the naturalistic fallacy. The idea that we're predisposed towards Tribalism all comes down to how you can gain some measure of trust. We place our trust in family because we've nurtured each others from birth. The social contract is a simple one. My father and mother raised me, and fed me, and they expect to be helped when they are old enough to need it. By the words of Tony Montana "All I've got is my balls and my word." That's the social currency of the gangster, the mafia, the yakuza, the somali pirate, the middle eastern kurd, and everyone else that rejects modern government. Word of mouth and family. If you can't trust government then you gather together and the most trustworthy amongst your closest peers get saddled with the social responsibility to protect, or provide, and they also have to take care of any other needs the social structure being built around you has. You see it on the internet everyday. Echo-chambers form based around political thought, social inclinations, and belief-structures. We talk about how everyone is free on the internet, but when we all have the freedom to do what we want. We gather together in a tribe. This doesn't mean humans are "only tribalistic and individualistic." It just means we're predisposed to form tribes of thought, of familial / regional bonds based on familiarity. When Lawrence of arabia fought with the arabs during ww1 he got known as an honourable man. They respected him, and took him at his word. When he made deals on behalf of the british government he was really just a soldier following orders and carrying fourth the wishes of the british, but the arabs took him at his word because if he was this honourable man and respectable and all of this then naturally the british government would be just as good as that word. The arabs were wrong on all accounts. The social structure of the west had evolved past that point centuries before ww1. It goes all the way back to the french and the industrial revolution. The idea that we the people make a nation rather than putting faith in the king as empowered by the word of god. The french aspired towards ideals and while they failed at living up to that back then; it serves as the fundamental cornerstone of a modern democracy today. The world was never the same afterwards. Modern government cannot exist without the ideal of a nation to back it up. The nation is built upon the corpses of millions of people who would wage total war and give their lives to protect the ideal of the state. The sacrifice of our ancestors is what gives the ideal that "all are equal under the law" value. Those values are intrinsically western values, because in other nations people bled for other ideals. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Once trust in government goes away we see a larger inclination to revert to our old social structure, and the people who never trusted government at all largely group into the same neighborhoods. The universal factor is mostly based on mostly how wealthy they are, and they form communities based on that. Of-course this isn't science, and tribalism isn't the only factor, but it's the only way you can make sense of it all without going crazy. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 21 2016 02:51 BallinWitStalin wrote: Eh, I see this tribalism debate emerging everywhere and it's just basically a meaningless tautological argument that bugs the shit out of me. And then when people drag genetics into it...... ugh To the layman, genetics is the new phrenology. With just a whiff of scientific authority, baseless conjecture can be turned into a plausible theory. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On September 21 2016 02:40 BallinWitStalin wrote: Allright again I feel the need to chime in here as someone who works with genetics directly. I am strongly suspicious of claims such as these. They are fundamentally unscientific, despite being presented with an "air" of science (i.e. genetics is often used in a scientific context, so if I call this genetics it must be based in science!). Please, provide me experimental evidence that this is the case. I would bet there basically is none. This is not something that is empirically possible to study; on top of the fact that tribalism is not rigorously defined (read - wishy-washy concept whose meanign everyone interprets to support their own belief system), I know of no actual method that something as vague and general as "tribalism is in our genetics" could possibly be supported experimentally. What you're doing is basically the same shit ancient Greek philosophers did; they think up some kind of arbitrary system and try to categorize everything they see into it in an attempt to create a coherent worldview. This results in ludicrous things, like people claiming that a woman's uterus is a separate organism. In your own head you've arbitrarily created a set of meanings and definitions that self-reinforce your worldview. You have no empirical evidence to support this claim; it's fundamentally pretty meaningless for other people. My response to claims like this is usually to just say "ok guy" and move on. So "ok guy".... Edit: for the record, "strongly suspicious" is just polite science-speak for "I think you're full of shit" Yeah as you've demonstrated in your post, you don't work in genetics, quit lying. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 21 2016 03:03 RealityIsKing wrote: Yeah as you've demonstrated in your post, you don't work in genetics, quit lying. This is not the experimental evidence requested. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On September 21 2016 03:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/SethAbramovitch/status/778091768793407488 This guy probably have good intentions. But he missed the fact that there are beneficial people and there are some detrimental people. We probably want to reward the beneficial ones and give less incentives to the detrimental people. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On September 21 2016 03:06 Plansix wrote: This is not the experimental evidence requested. He didn't ask nicely. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 21 2016 03:04 Doodsmack wrote: This self-dealing story isn't even a headline on MSNBC's website. That, I am confused by. They must not expect to get many clicks out of it. Which is even more confusing. It is working it way around. I believe MSNBC does video with their stories, so they might be pulling something together. Other outlets have picked it up. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 21 2016 03:07 farvacola wrote: He likely has just as much as evidence as he does competence with the English language. Yesterday he seemed to be the average Trump supporter, but today its pure one liners and bait posts with nothing to back them up. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 21 2016 03:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/SethAbramovitch/status/778091768793407488 The faux outrage over this Skittles meme business is hilarious. I hope the trolling from the Trump campaign continues. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Replay Cast
Escore
PiG Sty Festival
CranKy Ducklings
PiG Sty Festival
Patches Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
