Elections in various countries

[rotting bones]

That has become my hypothesis as well. Humans have an instinct for tribalism and other components of reactionary ideology just as they have an instinctual taste for sugar and fat. Much as food corporations have engineered hyperpalatable junk food loaded with calories to get us hooked, so have reactionary propagandists crafted an ideology that appeals to our baser instincts. Hence why I emphasize the importance of education and favoring dense cosmopoles over isolated homesteads. People can learn to curb their tribal instincts just as they can learn to choose whole grains and cruciferous vegetables over snack cakes and soda pop. Nonetheless they will not gravitate toward the better choice on their own. If you lock people in a candy store, you can hardly condemn them for giving into the temptation to gobble up lollipops.

Oh God why won't you people listen. It was common for undeveloped tribes to take care of outsiders. Depending on the tribe, of course.

If anything, I think humans have evolved with an instinct for repeating wrong ideas. My whole life, I have observed this phenomenon: One person says something obviously wrong, and then everyone keeps repeating the wrong thing, ignoring every attempt to correct it.

The instinct to be wrong is probably what the right-wing feeds on. The next time you hear something that seems obviously correct, try your best to lose faith in your sanity. You are probably wrong again, like always.

[rotting bones]

Papuans are mostly agricultural, not huner-gatherers.

Like I have said before (probably in this thread): The highlanders were mostly farmers. The coastal peoples were mostly hunter-gatherers.

The war looks the same. I read about the strategy of hunter-gatherer wars elsewhere, and it wasn't in the context of Papuans.

[rotting bones]

Regarding what wrong ideas humans find believable, these are the cognitive biases that have been posted all over the internet. In this case, the bias is probably giving more credence to bad news, etc.

[Raphael]

If anything, inferior peoples might be wish fulfillment for humans. They are people you get to win against easily.

I think you're confusing "being hostile to outsiders" and "seeing outsiders as inferior". The former is so very common that I really think it's deeply rooted in human biology, but it doesn't automatically require the latter. The latter is just one specific case of the former, although it has been a very common specific case in recent centuries.

It's perfectly possible to hate people or be bigoted against people without seeing them as in every way inferior.

One common example is antisemitism. Yes, Jew-haters usually see Jews as in some ways inferior, but they also almost always see them as in some ways superior to non-Jews - more cunning, better at coming up with devious plans, and so on. And they assume that this means that non-Jews must be very much on their guard to protect themselves against Jews getting the better of them.

Another example is one particular version of white Western racism against East Asians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril Here, too, East Asians are portrayed as in some ways inferior, but also as, in some other ways, superior to white people, so that white people will supposedly be in really big trouble if they can't successfully "defend" themselves against East Asians.

And I suspect that in many historical and current cases of xenophobia, the targeted groups are simply seen as strange, different, and enemies, without caring too much about whether they're superior or inferior - "never mind that, the important thing is just that we beat them!"

So the main point of racist or xenophobic attitudes is often not so much to see people as inferior, but to see them as potential trouble for one's own group.

That has become my hypothesis as well. Humans have an instinct for tribalism and other components of reactionary ideology just as they have an instinctual taste for sugar and fat. Much as food corporations have engineered hyperpalatable junk food loaded with calories to get us hooked, so have reactionary propagandists crafted an ideology that appeals to our baser instincts. Hence why I emphasize the importance of education and favoring dense cosmopoles over isolated homesteads. People can learn to curb their tribal instincts just as they can learn to choose whole grains and cruciferous vegetables over snack cakes and soda pop. Nonetheless they will not gravitate toward the better choice on their own. If you lock people in a candy store, you can hardly condemn them for giving into the temptation to gobble up lollipops.

Oh God why won't you people listen.

Just because people don't agree with you, it doesn't automatically mean that they don't listen to you.

It was common for undeveloped tribes to take care of outsiders. Depending on the tribe, of course.

Perhaps sometimes one aspect of inter-group relations, but not the only one.

If anything, I think humans have evolved with an instinct for repeating wrong ideas. My whole life, I have observed this phenomenon: One person says something obviously wrong, and then everyone keeps repeating the wrong thing, ignoring every attempt to correct it.

The instinct to be wrong is probably what the right-wing feeds on.

Good point. I think a core problem here is a human instinct to trust people the more, the better they are at coming across as confident. Of course, in real life, the more confident people are, or successfully pretend to be, the more likely they are to be full of shit. So people who are good at bullshitting others get trusted, while people who are aware of the limits of their knowledge and say so openly get distrusted.

[rotting bones]

I think you're confusing "being hostile to outsiders" and "seeing outsiders as inferior". The former is so very common that I really think it's deeply rooted in human biology, but it doesn't automatically require the latter. The latter is just one specific case of the former, although it has been a very common specific case in recent centuries.

Elites in developed societies have spread hate to secure their power for a long time. This is the alternative explanation: propaganda. This period hasn't lasted long enough for the instincts to become biological. Yet.

So the main point of racist or xenophobic attitudes is often not so much to see people as inferior, but to see them as potential trouble for one's own group.

Yes, it's a meme by now that fascists see the hated minority as both all-powerful and pushovers at the same time. Come to think of it, this is compatible with the "inferiors as wish fulfillment" hypothesis.

Just because people don't agree with you, it doesn't automatically mean that they don't listen to you.

The issue is not the disagreement. It's ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps sometimes one aspect of inter-group relations, but not the only one.

How does this fit with the innate hostility theory? I'm not saying innate hostility is necessarily wrong. I think it needs a lot of qualifications at the very least. Undeveloped tribes shared resources with other tribes all the time.

Good point. I think a core problem here is a human instinct to trust people the more, the better they are at coming across as confident. Of course, in real life, the more confident people are, or successfully pretend to be, the more likely they are to be full of shit. So people who are good at bullshitting others get trusted, while people who are aware of the limits of their knowledge and say so openly get distrusted.

Based on no rigorous evidence, the gossiping instinct might have developed to spread information quickly. It's like when one monkey makes a noise, all the others take up the call.

We might have to teach students general research methodologies in school. I would like to learn them too, honestly.

[Raphael]

I think you're confusing "being hostile to outsiders" and "seeing outsiders as inferior". The former is so very common that I really think it's deeply rooted in human biology, but it doesn't automatically require the latter. The latter is just one specific case of the former, although it has been a very common specific case in recent centuries.

Elites in developed societies have spread hate to secure their power for a long time. This is the alternative explanation: propaganda. This period hasn't lasted long enough for the instincts to become biological. Yet.

Again, my point is that yes, of course it's propaganda by the paid propagandists of the elites. What I'm talking about is why that propaganda works: because it appeals to ancient aspects of human brains.

In computer terms, you're talking about who the hackers are and how good they are at their work and who pays them; I'm talking about the vulnerabilities deeply embedded in the hacked system that the hackers take advantage of to do their hacking.

Good point. I think a core problem here is a human instinct to trust people the more, the better they are at coming across as confident. Of course, in real life, the more confident people are, or successfully pretend to be, the more likely they are to be full of shit. So people who are good at bullshitting others get trusted, while people who are aware of the limits of their knowledge and say so openly get distrusted.

Based on no rigorous evidence, the gossiping instinct might have developed to spread information quickly. It's like when one monkey makes a noise, all the others take up the call.

Interesting idea. Well possible that it happened that way.

We might have to teach students general research methodologies in school. I would like to learn them too, honestly.

In theory, that's part of what should be done. But I remember reading a post elsewhere - I've forgotten the link, title, or author's name, sorry - which convincingly argued that a lot of people were taught those things in school, and hated them, as examples of them smartypants know-it-all teachers telling them what and how to think, and therefore, as adults, make a point of going against what they were taught in those contexts.

[rotting bones]

Again, my point is that yes, of course it's propaganda by the paid propagandists of the elites. What I'm talking about is why that propaganda works: because it appeals to ancient aspects of human brains.

In computer terms, you're talking about who the hackers are and how good they are at their work and who pays them; I'm talking about the vulnerabilities deeply embedded in the hacked system that the hackers take advantage of to do their hacking.

According to the propaganda hypothesis, humans are not innately hostile to all outsiders. They are innately hostile to some specific kinds of outsiders. The purpose of state propaganda is to make the scapegoat minority falsely appear to fit those criteria.

Pushing our buttons is not even that hard. Undeveloped tribes declare war if even one member of the tribe is killed by an outsider. If a minority is an urban underclass, they probably have members in a criminal gang. The Jewish mafia used to be a thing. Blacks and Muslims still are still in this category.

Play up violent crime perpetrated by minority gangsters and ask people to feel deep in their hearts how "those people" need to be put in their place. What this propaganda style elides is that even though the gangs do need to be dealt with: 1. The minority is not one tribe with the gang, and 2. We need social programs to create alternatives in poor neighborhoods.

In theory, that's part of what should be done. But I remember reading a post elsewhere - I've forgotten the link, title, or author's name, sorry - which convincingly argued that a lot of people were taught those things in school, and hated them, as examples of them smartypants know-it-all teachers telling them what and how to think, and therefore, as adults, make a point of going against what they were taught in those contexts.

Maybe there are ways to teach these programs that are more helpful. Humans think in very specific ways. If fascists can trick people into voting against their interests, we should be able to trick them into doing the right thing. Maybe we can frame these programs as the only thing stopping fascists from gassing our families. This is an exaggeration, but we might not have an alternative.

[Raphael]

Again, my point is that yes, of course it's propaganda by the paid propagandists of the elites. What I'm talking about is why that propaganda works: because it appeals to ancient aspects of human brains.

In computer terms, you're talking about who the hackers are and how good they are at their work and who pays them; I'm talking about the vulnerabilities deeply embedded in the hacked system that the hackers take advantage of to do their hacking.

According to the propaganda hypothesis, humans are not innately hostile to all outsiders. They are innately hostile to some specific kinds of outsiders. The purpose of state propaganda is to make the scapegoat minority falsely appear to fit those criteria.

OK, not much disagreement on that statement.

[rotting bones]

My cousin who is a reporter thinks BJP probably won't win West Bengal in 2026. He says they don't have a "saleable face" yet.

I hope he's right. Previously, BJP has promised to root out "all the Communists" from Jadavpur University such as the disgusting female students who sleep with anyone, even Muslims.

[rotting bones]

Speaking of Lithuanian (in Languages), I saw Lithuania got a center-left Prime Minister recently. Sure, it's a small country. Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised given the things I had previously read about Lithuanian politics.

[Raphael]

This is not about any actual election in any actual country, but it is about a political issue that's a thing in several countries, so I thought it might fit into this thread.

For the trans community, it seems to be very important to state very clearly that a trans person has always been the gender as which they eventually came out, and that they just used to be misgendered by the rest of the world when they were younger (and of course, transphobes still misgender them). Many individual trans people seem to see it as a very important aspect of who they are that this is so.

But I sometimes wonder if that might not be a bit over-restrictive. Should there, perhaps, be the option, even if very few people want to take it, that someone identifies as, for instance, "a person who was male until age 30 and them became a woman"?

Then again, I guess it's theoretically possible that in some secluded corner of the Internet that I just haven't heard about yet, a few people who want to self-identify along those lines have already found each other, formed communities, come up with a name for themselves, designed their own pride flag, and everything.

So my question is: is that the case?

[Raphael]

This is not about any actual election in any actual country, but it is about a political issue that's a thing in several countries, so I thought it might fit into this thread.

For the trans community, it seems to be very important to state very clearly that a trans person has always been the gender as which they eventually came out, and that they just used to be misgendered by the rest of the world when they were younger (and of course, transphobes still misgender them). Many individual trans people seem to see it as a very important aspect of who they are that this is so.

But I sometimes wonder if that might not be a bit over-restrictive. Should there, perhaps, be the option, even if very few people want to take it, that someone identifies as, for instance, "a person who was male until age 30 and them became a woman"?

Then again, I guess it's theoretically possible that in some secluded corner of the Internet that I just haven't heard about yet, a few people who want to self-identify along those lines have already found each other, formed communities, come up with a name for themselves, designed their own pride flag, and everything.

So my question is: is that the case?

Bump?

[Torco]

i'm no expert of trans stuff, but for my money the further left you go in the field of people-who-think-about-this-stuff, the least people stick to the essentialism: a liberal trans ally will likely insist that a trans woman is a person who was a woman before even they themselves knew it. a more radical one will probably admit that no one is essentially anything, that a trans woman is as much of a woman as a cis woman (which is to say, not at all in the sense of having a female soul, but fully in the social sense).

[rotting bones]

It looks like an Islamist party will get a large share of the votes in Bangladesh assuming it doesn't win outright. Apparently, humans are impressed by the pageantry and prestige of traditional institutions. Following up on Raphael's idea, I still don't think behaviors can be copied directly (without creating fascism like in modern Japan), but maybe liberals (including leftists) need classical educational institutions similar to religious institutions to propagate some of our values.

Some languages like Bengali have native liberal thinkers who produced large quantities of text. For Bengalis, Sukumar Ray, Tagore and Nazrul probably furnishes enough materials for multiple lifetimes. Nazrul (the national poet of Bangladesh) alone has around 6000 pages of varying quality: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing This is a drop in the ocean compared to Tagore, almost all of which is high quality. (Tagore led a life immersed in beauty since childhood. Nazrul, by contrast, grew up poor and occasionally enjoys writing in coarse language.) Both Tagore and Nazrul have philosophical and social works. I picked up more of this literature from my parents than from formal education.

I believe the comparable poet in Urdu was Muhammad Iqbal, an Islamist. For languages that don't have as much liberal study materials as Bengali, I suggest that instead of using existing national languages like English (which brings international rivalries into play), we can go back to Latin. Instead of the gospels, we could teach Horace for poetry, Lucretius for naturalistic metaphysics and Spinoza for logical theology. I'm not sure what to use for social works.

[zompist]

Interesting: Portuguese center-right politicians are supporting the left-wing presidential candidate so the far-right candidate doesn't win.

[rotting bones]

It's interesting that in India, the Jain community supports BJP, but Buddhists don't. There is the factor that Jains are indigenous, whereas most Buddhists are either foreigners or recent converts. I wonder if the philosophy behind the religions is a factor. Buddhism is metaphysical skepticism motivating ethical moderation. Jainism is metaphysical pluralism motivating extreme self-abnegation. Is this a more conservative philosophy, or is being indigenous the only factor?

[rotting bones]

Anyway, I don't understand why people think Islamists know how to run a country. Pakistan's economy is always failing. They have a strange system where the economy is propped up by loans and remittances sent by Pakistanis working abroad. When it still fails, more money mysteriously appears from the shadow economy to stop the state from collapsing.

Pakistan has important people who get approved for loans. They use that money to buy factories. Then they send their servants to falsely declare bankruptcy for them. Those factories then become part of the shadow economy that never pays taxes.

[zompist]

Anyway, I don't understand why people think Islamists know how to run a country. Pakistan's economy is always failing. They have a strange system where the economy is propped up by loans and remittances sent by Pakistanis working abroad. When it still fails, more money mysteriously appears from the shadow economy to stop the state from collapsing.

My understanding, mostly based on Anatol Lievin's Pakistan: A Hard Country, is that the country is ruled by clans, who in turn rule by rough redistribution. You are a grandee because, and to the extent that, you distribute the money looted from the state to your followers. It's not an attractive system, but because almost everyone has access to a clan leader, it's better than a pure kleptocracy.

Also, the only functioning state institution is the army. Every once in awhile they decide they can run the country better than civilians, and then spend ten years proving that they can't.

The "War on Terror" makes everything worse, since its main effect has been to bring terrorism to Pakistan. It also induced the government to try to actually control the Pashto-speaking region, which basically no one has been able to do ever. (The Brits, and the previous Pakistani governments, only pretended to.)

[rotting bones]

My understanding, mostly based on Anatol Lievin's Pakistan: A Hard Country, is that the country is ruled by clans, who in turn rule by rough redistribution. You are a grandee because, and to the extent that, you distribute the money looted from the state to your followers. It's not an attractive system, but because almost everyone has access to a clan leader, it's better than a pure kleptocracy.

Also, the only functioning state institution is the army. Every once in awhile they decide they can run the country better than civilians, and then spend ten years proving that they can't.

The "War on Terror" makes everything worse, since its main effect has been to bring terrorism to Pakistan. It also induced the government to try to actually control the Pashto-speaking region, which basically no one has been able to do ever. (The Brits, and the previous Pakistani governments, only pretended to.)

Thanks.

most Buddhists are either foreigners or recent converts.

Non-Indians might not know this: The converts largely come from lower castes. Many indigenous communities in India have caste stratifications.

[Travis B.]

most Buddhists are either foreigners or recent converts.

Non-Indians might not know this: The converts largely come from lower castes. Many indigenous communities in India have caste stratifications.

Isn't a primary reason, aside from rule by foreigners such as the Mughals, for the spread of Islam historically in the Indian subcontinent is that there are no castes in Islam, which made it very attractive to lower castes and like?