Page 4 of 4 [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Sep 2010, 10:47 am

Quartz11 wrote:
So then would you argue that a human superiority complex is a natural trait

Actually yes. I think that most human beings regard themselves as in some way superior to other human beings, and even tend to outright dehumanize those that they disagree with.



Quartz11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: New England

26 Sep 2010, 2:25 pm

I realize there is a lot of that mindset out there, but I just had hoped some of the world was better than that.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Sep 2010, 2:30 pm

Quartz11 wrote:
I realize there is a lot of that mindset out there, but I just had hoped some of the world was better than that.

Nope! Just better at hiding it. You're probably a slave to the same, regardless of whether you admit it or not.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

26 Sep 2010, 2:44 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quartz11 wrote:
I realize there is a lot of that mindset out there, but I just had hoped some of the world was better than that.

Nope! Just better at hiding it. You're probably a slave to the same, regardless of whether you admit it or not.

i think that this kind of midset is a default in isolated cultures, but that experience and education can change the default attitudes (and this does change over time). there is no reason to simply accept the "us vs. them" mentality. people can change, and their perceptions of self and their communities can be flexible.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Sep 2010, 3:06 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
i think that this kind of midset is a default in isolated cultures, but that experience and education can change the default attitudes (and this does change over time). there is no reason to simply accept the "us vs. them" mentality. people can change, and their perceptions of self and their communities can be flexible.

Eh, people will still passively do this. The human brain likely only has a limited number of people that it can effectively consider human. Our interactions with reality beyond that group tend to be more arbitrary. The notion of a limited number of people we can effectively call human is called Dunbar's number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number This idea is expressed very well on the lay level by cracked.com in an article about the monkeysphere. http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_wh ... phere.html

This arbitrariness of those outside of our normal social circle is also perceived by economist Steven Landsburg. http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/09/ ... fficiency/ Instead, our engagement is often highly emotionally driven, whether we want to bomb these people to death, or give selective aid, but it is not rational.

Even further, the fact that the percent of people who believe themselves in a particular range of ability in any given field is significantly greater than the percent possible in the population. As it stands, most people think they are smarter than they really are, better drivers than they actually are, that their predictions are better than those predictions really are, and so on and so forth.

While we might not have a strict "us vs them" attitude, it is still very basic to human thinking patterns, and most people have some degree of dehumanization of other people, whether it is the entire world, Muslims, kiddy rapists, or anybody else.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

26 Sep 2010, 3:24 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i think that this kind of midset is a default in isolated cultures, but that experience and education can change the default attitudes (and this does change over time). there is no reason to simply accept the "us vs. them" mentality. people can change, and their perceptions of self and their communities can be flexible.

Eh, people will still passively do this. The human brain likely only has a limited number of people that it can effectively consider human. Our interactions with reality beyond that group tend to be more arbitrary. The notion of a limited number of people we can effectively call human is called Dunbar's number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number This idea is expressed very well on the lay level by cracked.com in an article about the monkeysphere. http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_wh ... phere.html

This arbitrariness of those outside of our normal social circle is also perceived by economist Steven Landsburg. http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/09/ ... fficiency/ Instead, our engagement is often highly emotionally driven, whether we want to bomb these people to death, or give selective aid, but it is not rational.

Even further, the fact that the percent of people who believe themselves in a particular range of ability in any given field is significantly greater than the percent possible in the population. As it stands, most people think they are smarter than they really are, better drivers than they actually are, that their predictions are better than those predictions really are, and so on and so forth.

While we might not have a strict "us vs them" attitude, it is still very basic to human thinking patterns, and most people have some degree of dehumanization of other people, whether it is the entire world, Muslims, kiddy rapists, or anybody else.

but our social circles change on a fairly regular basis, therefore the people we associate with as being 'human' will likely change over a lifetime. and we can make a choice to associate with those poeple who are 'different', which can help us to widen our concept of 'humanity'.

moving to another location is a great example of that. a nebraskan who moves to california may at first cling to his nebraskan heritage, but over time he will likely either consider himself californian... OR he will widen his group to include both states. the latter is often the case.

in this way, a person of croatian heritage may consider herself croatian-canadian, and ascribe to a wider circle.

most people have extensive social networks, or have an affinity with a wide range of groups. in my case, i am an aspie, i am from the Craig clan by descent, my husband is dutch, i have gyspsy ancestors, i have lived in 6 communities, i work for the government, i lived amongst native canadians, etc... these are a few examples of groups of which i am at least a peripheral member, and they are quite diverse. and the groupings will change over time.

dunbar's number refers only to an estimate based on population sizes of sustainable groupings in undeveloped communities; it has nothing to do with actual social networks in the developed world. and it is does not mean that outsiders would not be embraced or integrated into another grouping. in fact, most smaller groupings in undeveloped areas also have membership in bigger clans or ethnic groups. in this way, i live in a certain community, within a ward of a city, in the city itself, in a province, in a nation, etc.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


rchamberlin
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Age: 80
Gender: Male
Posts: 83
Location: Rochester, MN

26 Sep 2010, 3:50 pm

How did we get here - that's a question I'm hearing -

Have not vetted this journal fully, but it's observations and time lines may have merit.

http://www.scp-inc.org/publications/journals/J2704/

I have not had a chance to read the whole thing, but would like to hear opinions on it from this thread.

Please note, I am probably on a watch list of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, so take it with a grain of whatever.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Sep 2010, 4:05 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
but our social circles change on a fairly regular basis, therefore the people we associate with as being 'human' will likely change over a lifetime. and we can make a choice to associate with those poeple who are 'different', which can help us to widen our concept of 'humanity'.

Not that regular. Our social circles may change after a few years, but honestly, not that often. Even further, there are some people one really wouldn't associate with. How many evangelical Christians do you tend to associate with for instance? Why do you have the level of association with them that you do?

Quote:
moving to another location is a great example of that. a nebraskan who moves to california may at first cling to his nebraskan heritage, but over time he will likely either consider himself californian... OR he will widen his group to include both states. the latter is often the case.

The problem is that the group of people that one can identify with is still relatively small out of the possible set of groups. Some subsets one is never going to join anyway, and perhaps one never could simply because of how the subset works. Some subsets one will not want to be affiliated with.

Quote:
most people have extensive social networks, or have an affinity with a wide range of groups. in my case, i am an aspie, i am from the Craig clan by descent, my husband is dutch, i have gyspsy ancestors, i have lived in 6 communities, i work for the government, i lived amongst native canadians, etc... these are a few examples of groups of which i am at least a peripheral member, and they are quite diverse. and the groupings will change over time.

No, most people really don't have "extensive social networks". Most people associate with those who are like them, and enjoy that. People who are unlike them make most people somewhat uncomfortable, and make dialog very difficult. If people were really as cosmopolitan as you seem to think, then the phenomena of culture shock from just moving to a slightly different area of the same nation(as often occurs in the US) wouldn't be so big of an issue.

Even further, your "peripheral connections" don't really indicate a deep connection with any of these people. All that it indicates is a bit of a background with them. This does not mean that you really have a social philosophy that can account for all of the issues that the people you have dealt with may have. This does not mean that you actually have a deep knowledge of these people's worldview. (ancestors are just genetic, but ideas are not genetically transmitted) This does not mean that you are somehow immune to the focus on the people you see vs those who you do not see, such as with Dr. Landsburg's example of the trapped miner.

Quote:
dunbar's number refers only to an estimate based on population sizes of sustainable groupings in undeveloped communities; it has nothing to do with actual social networks in the developed world. and it is does not mean that outsiders would not be embraced or integrated into another grouping. in fact, most smaller groupings in undeveloped areas also have membership in bigger clans or ethnic groups. in this way, i live in a certain community, within a ward of a city, in the city itself, in a province, in a nation, etc.

Dunbar's number refers the number one can be really connected to, it is not a matter of the integration of outsiders, but rather it is a matter of the ability to consider various individuals as human given the cognitive resources of a person. While there are nations and cities and all of that, this does not entail that you actually have a real connection with any of these people, that you understand them, or anything like that. It just entails that you have some positive emotion about them. However, given human disagreements, it seems very likely that there are some people who you don't have this positive emotion for, and that you see as a threat to you or your way of life, and who disgust you in some form or fashion. Most people do have something that will outrage them.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Sep 2010, 5:00 pm

It is not a crime to wish the U.S. ill. It is a crime to actively plan to commit acts of force or violence against the government or people of the U.S. Curse the U.S. all that you wish. It is not illegal.

ruveyn



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

26 Sep 2010, 5:29 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
but our social circles change on a fairly regular basis, therefore the people we associate with as being 'human' will likely change over a lifetime. and we can make a choice to associate with those poeple who are 'different', which can help us to widen our concept of 'humanity'.

Not that regular. Our social circles may change after a few years, but honestly, not that often. Even further, there are some people one really wouldn't associate with. How many evangelical Christians do you tend to associate with for instance? Why do you have the level of association with them that you do?

Quote:
moving to another location is a great example of that. a nebraskan who moves to california may at first cling to his nebraskan heritage, but over time he will likely either consider himself californian... OR he will widen his group to include both states. the latter is often the case.

The problem is that the group of people that one can identify with is still relatively small out of the possible set of groups. Some subsets one is never going to join anyway, and perhaps one never could simply because of how the subset works. Some subsets one will not want to be affiliated with.

Quote:
most people have extensive social networks, or have an affinity with a wide range of groups. in my case, i am an aspie, i am from the Craig clan by descent, my husband is dutch, i have gyspsy ancestors, i have lived in 6 communities, i work for the government, i lived amongst native canadians, etc... these are a few examples of groups of which i am at least a peripheral member, and they are quite diverse. and the groupings will change over time.

No, most people really don't have "extensive social networks". Most people associate with those who are like them, and enjoy that. People who are unlike them make most people somewhat uncomfortable, and make dialog very difficult. If people were really as cosmopolitan as you seem to think, then the phenomena of culture shock from just moving to a slightly different area of the same nation(as often occurs in the US) wouldn't be so big of an issue.

Even further, your "peripheral connections" don't really indicate a deep connection with any of these people. All that it indicates is a bit of a background with them. This does not mean that you really have a social philosophy that can account for all of the issues that the people you have dealt with may have. This does not mean that you actually have a deep knowledge of these people's worldview. (ancestors are just genetic, but ideas are not genetically transmitted) This does not mean that you are somehow immune to the focus on the people you see vs those who you do not see, such as with Dr. Landsburg's example of the trapped miner.

Quote:
dunbar's number refers only to an estimate based on population sizes of sustainable groupings in undeveloped communities; it has nothing to do with actual social networks in the developed world. and it is does not mean that outsiders would not be embraced or integrated into another grouping. in fact, most smaller groupings in undeveloped areas also have membership in bigger clans or ethnic groups. in this way, i live in a certain community, within a ward of a city, in the city itself, in a province, in a nation, etc.

Dunbar's number refers the number one can be really connected to, it is not a matter of the integration of outsiders, but rather it is a matter of the ability to consider various individuals as human given the cognitive resources of a person. While there are nations and cities and all of that, this does not entail that you actually have a real connection with any of these people, that you understand them, or anything like that. It just entails that you have some positive emotion about them. However, given human disagreements, it seems very likely that there are some people who you don't have this positive emotion for, and that you see as a threat to you or your way of life, and who disgust you in some form or fashion. Most people do have something that will outrage them.
evangelical christians? how about my in-laws. i do not have any specific groups i would not associate with. you are projecting your own deficits onto me.

you dd not make a valid argument against the nebraska-california point. you are conjecturing that the groups people would associate with would be similar, but really you have no idea.

there are no people 'unlike me' who would make me uncomfortable, so that point is absurd. and why would you assume that otehr people have narrow social networks? based on what?

having peripheral contact with people who are different from myself provides a connection and understanding, so that i do not have a sense of "us vs. them". having contact and interaction is enough, especially if some shared affiliation is included.

right within the link you provided about Dunbar's number, the limitation of it only appyling to less developed countries is explained. i'm afraid your own source belies you - it does not apply to modern culture.

why wouldn't i feel positively about all people equally? i really think you are projecting your own dislike of 'otherness' onto me. i don't feel that way, and honestly, i think that with exposure and education most people would be (and are) way more openminded than you are postulating.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105