The reason it becomes a problem is that there the only options for each "tribe" is one of two extremes, and that these are perceived so fundamentally different it is hard for people to find common grounds. When you have many more parties, you have a wider spectrum where you can have partial agreement and disagreement with much softer borders between political strongholds, and tribes can incrementally move within the spectrum without having to switch all their beliefs and ideologies from one day to the next.
Being more understanding of tribes with other ideas rather than making them villains would also help both sides in communication and political mobility.
Watching, they discuss a study about gun control and I though omg I was thinking about that recently and the study they presented answers the question I've been pondering about gun control. If you watch the video, you will understand my disappointment.
I had been living in New Orleans including when it had the 8th highest murder rate ... not in the United States but the world in 2022 (it was #1 in US hence not 8th). The city couldn't hire police officers and close 120 position had been unfilled. There is a very strange phenomena happening in the past 2 years, the crime rate in New Orleans is plummeting without police. [1] So, in the Veritasium video, they talk about a gun violence study and I think, that is exactly the question I'm asking. Does gun violence go down if law enforcement is removed from the equation because that is exactly for unknown reasons happening New Orleans today. Nobody is taking away guns in New Orleans and everyone I know has at least 2. I was a little disappointed with the study but tapped my self on the shoulder asking the correct question when presented with it.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_OApdxcno
[1]https://www.fox8live.com/2024/09/19/how-new-orleans-went-mur...
Smarter people did better than Dumber people. The people with a score of 8,9 on numeracy did the best [1] but not as good as they should've. This is basically best shown on page 12 [2] on the actual paper, people with high numeracy have a better chance of correct answer than low numeracy.
I suspect the effect is even across low & high numeracy but because high numeracy people were more likely to get the correct answer to begin with. Akin to say you playing a toddler in Counter-Strike. You're more likely to win a round than them. So if for a round I disconnect one of your controllers then the disconnection is more likely to cause you a loss than the toddler because the toddler was going to lose anyways, the effect of disconnection for them is dwarfed by their innate ability.
[1]: https://youtu.be/zB_OApdxcno?t=413
[2]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992
The dude isn't some rushed working single mother. He had amble time to choose what he wanted to convey and instead chose that title.
When your study creates 2 populations (those with good numeracy and those without) and you make a claim that one of those populations "do worse" than it's always implicitly with respect to the other population.
That is a good theory, but coalitions can also easily create stalemates on many topics and effectively rendering a government incapable of any significant action. There are recent examples in EU countries.
Coalitions can partly negate the benefit of the “spectrum”, but each member still answers to a different body of voters and going along with too many conflicting proposals would put them at risk of losing the confidence of their voters. Not differentiating from the other coalition members puts the party at risk of voters jumping ship to the others, and each party ultimately wishes to grow their own voter base.
Nah, tribalism of this sort is absolutely not human nature. People naturally form tribes and define ingroup/outgroup boundaries around their actual relationships and communities.
It takes alignment of a lot of unusual circumstances to get people to attach their identities to "tribes" that are actually aggregations of completely unrelated strangers grouped together on the bases of abstract symbols.
People are naturally loyal to their families and local communities, not to continent-spanning political organizations.
People are indeed loyal to their local communities - which includes having ideologies that would not greatly offend your peers - but everyone has different communities. Yours might include family A and B. Theirs might include C and D, and E and F, respectively. Continue a few rounds and you’ll see that each social circle is unique and inter-connected.
No one within this “super-tribe” can have a different ideology without offending their local community by aligning with the opposite extreme - even if your opinion only differed slightly, your choice is one of two extremes.
In order to fix this, you need people to have more choices so that they can select something slightly different from your community without offending it.
The point is that equating these ideologically polarized aggregations of strangers with tribalism is a huge stretch, and not really valid. They're two very different phenomena.
Yes, social circles are unique and inter-connected, and most people are simultaneously members of multiple "tribes", but this has nothing whatsoever to do with vast aggregations of strangers linked only by abstract symbolism.
What we are dealing with is a local community (for which I believe "tribe" is a perfectly valid use), which is directly and closely linked to nearby communities in such a way that, when combined with a binary and divisive choice, makes the whole network form a virtual supertribe.
With only two choices, so you are either 100% aligned or 0% aligned which makes it very difficult to have connected communities with differing opinions. Each individual is either aligned with their local community, or at risk of being ejected from it. With no connected communities of differing opinions, this in turn means you get ejected from all other possible local communities - the entire virtual supertribe. This makes it far less likely that someone will deviate than if it only affected their own direct connections.
If you had, say, 10 choices, you would be able to have a community that was only 70-90% aligned with its connected communities while still being tolerated, so no virtual supertribe would form.
Call it whatever you want: tribalism may be an omnipresent manifestation of human nature, but "supertribalism" is something qualitatively different and not remotely as normal.
Heh.. well.. California *was* majority white not even a decade and a half ago. And, the judge that put the final nail in on that issue for California wasn't exactly a white person.
So..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_18...
Inflation has been a shocker. The border being flooded is terrifying. The economy is and has been struggling in many peoples lives. And the democrats want to still focus on identity politics.
I think they can easily win in 4 years but they need to change their ways. They need to abandon the poisoned ideology that Obama inspired.
...
> And the democrats want to still focus on identity politics.
Does typing this out not cause the slightest pang of cognitive dissonance?
The idea of illegal immigration being "complete disregard for law and order" is based solely in feelings of fear or animosity, not in facts.
Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like a better pro-immigration strategy for Democrats would be to agree with the fact illegal immigration must be stopped and to debate the methods to stop it. And then secondly, argue for opening LEGAL immigration to more people since there are many benefits to it when done in a controlled and deliberate manner.
No amount of border wall or lawfare will change that for Mexico (I personally believe we should be working hard with Mexico to re-assert law and order, that WOULD reduce illegal immigration). No matter what we say, the horde of bodies will continue.
So what are you going to do? Are you going to shoot them? How many strangers will we shoot, how many mothers and children, just to insist that we really care about that border? Will America be better when we kill a thousand people a day in the south? How will doing that improve the economy?
The permanent, irreversible demographic shift that conveniently favors Dem politics is only one of the many, many problems caused by turning a blind eye to unprecedented hordes of inherently law-disregarding third-worlders taking advantage of our weak border enforcement.
There are actual real genetic disorders Trans people are dealing with.
Republican's just chose Trans people as some small group dealing with a difficult to explain condition and decided to pile on them.
Not really. If you want to go back a Decade, then it was legitimate equality issues.
You can't just say, people shouldn't be equal and claim you are fighting against 'identity' politics. Like women being allowed to open bank accounts without their husbands permission. Why do Republicans want to go back to those days? Unless you actually listen to them, and they quote some Bible Versus about Women being property, then you see the actual agenda.
What is the term for 'take a couple isolated examples and call it a movement'? motte-and-bailey goes both ways.
There is no widespread 'trans women competing against biological women'.
Completely made up issue to stir outrage with the radical base.
It's more common than you may think - see https://www.shewon.org
The people who bring the issues back to identity politics are not dems.
Unless… perhaps the solutions didn’t matter, and the polls themselves were much stronger than the results.
On the issue of identity politics, Democrats have been all in for nearly a decade, and only in the last year or so, when it has become apparent they are out of step with the majority of Americans, have they begun to back off. It’s not unexpected for the Republicans to now be the ones bringing up identity politics given how closely the Democrats have aligned themselves to it for so long, and the current backlash towards it. The damage is done and it will take many years of priority shifting for Democrats to get over it.
> identity politics
This has squarely been a republican plank to rile and invigorate their base, regularly creating issues where none existed to get their team up to vote,
The fact that this can be blamed on the dems is always strange. I mean, the whole point of Fox was to create a counter narrative to address the march of “liberal science”. The goal was entirely to handle science and research, and present ways to combat this with feelings. Again - my favorite example is creationism.
And Kamala Harris was an uninspiring candidate, the democrats have proved to be the definition of "lesser evil" without any true identity with teeth to speak off. Still, Donald Trump is a pedophile, a rapist, a good friend to Jeffrey Epstein. I don't understand how anyone can be morally bankrupt enough to vote for someone like that.
A woman? Lots worse than "liar" could be said about one of them, I'm curious what makes you think both candidates are equally bad but don't dare say it.
The single greatest thing the American people can do from this moment on is to stop hating each other for political beliefs, put that aside, and just talk without expectation or trying to convince someone. Just talk. America has let political identity supersede all else.
Many conservatives, including many of my own family members, have enthusiastically declared "all democrats should be shot", for usually really odd and mundane things too, like Michelle Obama saying children should eat healthily. They blame her for school lunch programs in my state going downhill, primarily from reduced budgets that prevent the school from buying anything to eat other than a shitload of frozen chicken patties. But no, apparently that reduction in funding, which was decided at the state level and mostly done during Bush's admin when no child left behind fucked with school funding, is her fault.
None of the hate came from democrats. The first mean spirited thing said by democrats was when Hillary called republicans a basket of deplorables.
Republicans have been calling democrats satan worshippers, literal biblical demons, degenerates, sexual deviants, etc since the 70s.
Republicans walked away from basic decency. Not democrats. None of us feel comfortable talking to our Trumper friends and family because they are our parents who raised us to hate others and we had to individually of our own accord grow past that. They are our brothers who literally tell us we should be shot back in the mid 2000s, before you can even blame identity politics. They are our mothers who taught us we were sluts for wearing a skirt and deserved to be raped. They are our grandparents who taught us that having a baby out of wedlock is an ostracization worthy event. They are teachers who spent a lecture talking about how slavery wasn't so bad. They are bosses who force you to watch anti-union propaganda before you can work.
Fox News specifically has been declaring and waging regular war on most things that aren't stereotypical 50s americana since it's inception.
Like what fucking more do you want from us? How do you talk to that?
The tribalism at this point is insane, it’s basically organized religion. You choose your tribe and get assigned a (terrible) religious leader and a list of dogmas you have to subscribe to without getting ostracized. Why should my view on trade be linked to regulations be linked to climate be linked to drugs be linked to criminal justice be linked to refugees be linked to Israel be linked to identity politics be linked to abortion be linked to guns? No idea, but take it or leave it. And the choices of religious leaders? Between someone who lies as readily and confidently as he drinks water and someone who’s a boring ladder climber and <omitted because this is an overwhelmingly one-tribe site>. No thank you.