This draws on Chesterton's perspective on tradition. He's most famous around here for his Fence. Past the part that is commonly cited, he says this [0]:

> The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable.

> ...

> If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

[0] https://archive.org/stream/G.K.ChestertonTheThing/G.K.Cheste...

Often those traditions may have important, forgotten reasons, but just as often traditions were created to say "we are our people, we're not those other folk."

See: dietary laws, circumcision, restrictions on what materials your clothes may be made out of, rules for what hair you're allowed to cut, and when you should or shouldn't cover your head, etc. etc.

(And before people jump in with "maybe there was a specific reason for the dietary laws, e.g. pork was unhealthy," that doesn't explain why you'd have peoples living side-by-side with opposing dietary laws.)

I agree, and Chesterton agrees. He's very explicit in saying that if you can accurately identify the reason a fence is there and that reason is no longer applicable or was never a very good one, you are justified in removing it. The point isn't to never tear down a fence, it's to question your impulse to tear down every fence the instant you see one.

It's very much the same idea as "don't start ripping out and refactoring 'legacy' code on your first day on the job." You may actually have inherited a completely garbage code base, but you may also simply not understand the constraints that dictated the architecture you've been given. Once you understand those constraints, refactor away!

With regards to your example: Dietary laws may well be outdated, but modern Jews may also argue that setting themselves apart is still a very worthwhile reason to avoid pork—it's probably part of the reason why they managed to remain a separate culture even without a proper homeland, and remaining a distinct culture is valuable to them.

It does explain how you would have people living side by side, if you look at how people tend to work.

Take cigarettes for instance. We know they’re unhealthy. There are also still millions (hundreds?) smoking them every day.

People give up and fall into habits unless there is strong reinforcement. If you get a parasite and have no way to get rid of it (because of lack of modern medicine) because you ate pork, not like you’re going to stop eating pork necessarily any more. Especially if it’s cheap in your area.

If there is another group of people who manages to not have those issues because they don’t eat pork - they’re going to keep not eating it after seeing that too!

What kind of fence is it when you think you know why the fence is there but you're obviously wrong?

Very applicable to programming as well.

Indeed, reminded me of this article from a few years back, which left quite the impression: https://scholars-stage.org/tradition-is-smarter-than-you-are...

Another interesting read with some ideological bends I can't completely buy into is Rob Henderson & his writing on "Luxury Beliefs".

Basically the concept you may notice if you are in HCOL blue urban elite circles..

Well to do left of center people who espouse discouragement of / being against many traditional concepts (monogamy, two parent households, kids after marriage, strict discipline, follow the law, being drug-free, going to college for a career, etc) .. but largely actually follow it and is how they / their parents got where they are.

And either way they have the means to not be effected by the negative effects of this non-traditionalism.

However if you are middle/lower class and follow the same non-traditional path, the personal costs to you & your offspring of frequent drug use, being a single parent, etc are almost insurmountable and are some of the leading causes of generational poverty.

That is - it is easy to say "hard work doesn't pay off, do drugs, break the law, and free love" when you are going from an elite (fully paid for by parents) university campus to start your career & live in NYC/SF/LA/Boston (with college & parents helping you with job connections, and parents helping underwrite your housing until you get on your feet). For them the worst cost of failure is moving back with mom&dad to their comfortable leafy suburb.

> discouragement of / being against...

I know lots of liberal elites, and don't know any who are actually against two parent households, kids after marriage, following the law, being drug-free, going to college for a career, etc

This is a ridiculous assertion.

But I know many of these same people who believe in not judging those who do not follow all of these ideals, and want systems in place that support, say, single mothers or whatever.

This is very different.

A fair critique I would probably rephrase it as "questioning the value of" rather than "discouraging / being against" x traditional values.

And yes, as these people age/mature it usually morphs more into - we should be much more supportive with systems in place to help single mothers, etc.

Unfortunately there's limits to what the state can do to replace family, and there are good reasons to encourage people to not fall for the same pitfalls that trap them into cycles of poverty, no matter how much the state does to make that poverty less painful.

Fantastic article. Thanks for sharing.

Reminds me of another quote: "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." -- Jaroslav Pelikan (per the web)

In the same way, N. N. Taleb talks of the wisdom of grandmothers. All the old sayings represent hard earned knowledge.

Some traditions are based on superstition, but certainly not all of them.