That's a good article. It starts off with some irrelevant material, but after about three screens it gets down to business.
"So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences."
Good point.
Thought for today: tolerance is an entitlement. Acceptance is a gift. A society has to have its groups tolerate each other to function well. They don't have to like each other. Insisting on acceptance may break tolerance and force division.
Politically, this created a situation in Congress where the leftmost Republican is to the right of the rightmost Democrat. That's historically unusual in the US.
Poul Anderson had one of his SF characters say "Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies."
Dear Scott Alexander. I've never heard of you before, but this article was an absolute pleasure to read. At an age where everything is competing for attention, and I end up skimming left and right to compensate, I really enjoyed reading this particular article from start to finish. Thank you for writing it.
And also thank you to the uploader for uploading it here. While the article itself is from 2014, it feels like it's as sorely needed today as ever. I needed to read this right now. Thank you.
He's great. Unfortunately, the New York Times is threatening to reveal his true name, which would affect his psychiatry practice. In response, he took down the blog at one point. Now it just seems to be an archive: he seems to have stopped updating the blog
Should add (2014) here for context, only noticed after reading and it changes some things.
My ever present thought while reading this was that the "paradox of tolerance" has been more or less already hashed out today and that out-groups can be "out" with valid reason which changes the game a bit here. The real fiery debate comes on the discussion of said validity, which of course is where Red/Blue/Grey disagree. The groups and how they self segregate is interesting, but in the end a sideshow symptom.
Given that date context though, it seems like Scott probably deserves a chance to directly respond to that issue, which I don't read enough of SSC to know if he has but would assume has been approached in some manner, even if not with a full piece.
That said, there were some useful nuggets and concepts in here even though I think the conclusion misses a broader issue of 2020. For the time it was written, I think it covered most common thought on the matter and synthesized well.
That's a vulgar interpretation of Popper's argument, he was very explicit that he intended for his principle to be applied only in the presence of a serious and actual threat to freedom, not merely whereever such a threat would be conceivable.
>Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: *Unlimited tolerance* must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend *unlimited tolerance* even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — *In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.* But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
The vulgar interpretation of Popper's argument justifies an eternal war of all against all, and defeats the point of ever discussing tolerance - group A correctly deduces that group B intends to use violence against their position, and so group A decides that violence is justified against group B; meanwhile group B is going through exactly the same logic, and together it's a self-fulfilling prophecy of an endless winner take all battle for the right to suppress everyone else's opinions.
While I do have an interpretation and thoughts on the specifics of said argument, I haven't actually stated any here so I'm not sure what you deemed to be the "vulgar interpretation".
I only claimed that it has been played out, which I used to mean it has entered a decent deal of public debate and progress on its application to current times seems to have stalled.
Personally I think the nuances here still very much need to be ironed out, as your presumptive comment on my potential stance illustrates it hasn't been on the cultural level yet. I just don't think public debate is likely to get there before some bigger event happens that makes the application no longer relevant, though I could very much be wrong there.
> the "paradox of tolerance" has been more or less already hashed out today
Could you elaborate on this? This is a second time in very short period where I see arguments dismissing the paradox without explaining too well why, and as someone who happens to currently pretty much agree with Popper here, I would be curious to see if I would learn something here?
What I love about the way I wrote this comment is that you read it as dismissing, and another reply read it as agreement, even though I did neither! But you're 100% right that "hashed out" needs more elaboration, which I think I covered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25725727
All that said, I don't intend to personally get into the nuances there today/here as I just don't find it to be good energy spent, but I'm sure you'll find many others in the comments going into that :)
Edit: I may return to this tomorrow if I have time, I actually really appreciate the wording of this reply. I'm just about to go to bed!
> The trick is to remember you're no less subject to these impulses than "the other side"
Why would that be true? Do you think that tolerance (on any dimension) is a constant across humanity?
Do you think that no group stratifies according to tolerance on some dimension?
We have groups of people intolerant of race. There's no reason to be confident that "both sides" of opposing ideologies would be the same on any dimension without even specifying what those ideologies are.
I interpreted that comment to not be “all groups are equally as tolerant”, but more that “you have subconscious impulses that drive your tolerance or lack thereof”, just like those outgroups you criticize for being intolerant.
When you figure out the secret for knowing you're right and they're wrong - objectively, such that you could prove it and none could deny it - let everyone else know.
Both sides think they have the facts on their side.
I'm not saying you personally are wrong, but the odds are stacked heavily against you, and the point is you have no way of knowing when you're right, and at least some of the time you'll be wrong.
And you'll be more certain than ever in the latter case.
This doesn't "wipe out nuance", it encourages nuance, because it encourages humility and curiousity when it's needed most.
Magnitude depends on a combination of both prior and current circumstance, personal assumptions, learned experience perceived or real. There might also be some genetic element involved, but I digress. Because of this, tolerance (or quanta of tolerance) is subject to an iterative prisoner's dilemma subject to the sometimes irrational form of pattern matching. Even if we all used the same coordinate system for tolerance, the quadrants for tolerable and intolerable will differ in both scope and magnitude.
As a result, every Blue Tribe institution is permanently licensed to take whatever emergency measures are necessary against the Red Tribe, however disturbing they might otherwise seem.
> Whereas in America we fiercely defend the principal of having fundamentally different worldviews.
> Both of those extremes seem to be poor solutions.
I'm not american and thus usually refrain from commenting in US politics threads. From my outside perspective i wonder if that's not an effect of having too few different worldviews in only two tribes. If you have more smaller tribes you just have to learn to live withem because crushing all the others is not an option. Of course that doesn't magically make all problems go away either. But i'm just not convinced yet that having different world views is actually the issue, vs a tribe (or two) becoming too dominant.
What's wrong with allowing fundamentally different worldviews? Today's secular status quo would not exist without such privilege. Seems hypocritical to turn around and deny it to others.
I'm not suggesting we disallow having very different worldviews.
I said the glorification of those differences is an extreme that is quite problematic. Just like disallowing them is a very bad extreme.
What I think would be ideal would be to separate group membership from worldview. And hopefully the differences in worldviews would be smaller and more subtle and disentangled. But still important for those new perspectives to evolve. But in a more subtle way.
This article seems to treat virtue points as inherently meaningful. The in-group is trying to change society in ways I agree with. The outgroup is trying to change society in ways that I disagree with, and may actually endanger people I care about. It's a fundamental conflict of values and ideas, with fairly high stakes. So pardon me (or don't) if I put practical matters higher than intangible virtue.
That's a good point. Having skin in the game and perceived existential threats are the real differentiators between in-groups and out-groups. Unfortunately, it's not so simple:
1. Many people believe that their view of existential threats is universal. They can't believe that the other group may reasonably see other things as existential threats.
2. Party, this skepticism is justified. To make things more complicated, the social/media bubbles do influence people and can make them perceive certain things as threats, while they are actually not so important to them. Of course, nobody admits that their own views could have been heavily influenced by their own social/media bubble. But the other side is, of course, uneducated bigots, or brainwashed clowns, or something similar.
3. I've seen people from both sides who would project values of their tribe when they have no skin in the game, but once they do, their stance reverses to the opposite. A girl I used to know is a staunch leftist and always talks pro-immigration. However, when she had to rent out her apartment, she rejected all candidates who looked/sounded like an immigrant.
> "I’m not sure if any of this can be reversed. But I think maybe we should consider to what degree we are in a hole, and if so, to what degree we want to stop digging."
I've realized that I have a hunger for liberals that I can actually talk with. I like seeing new perspectives and sometimes learning things. Although these two articles are critical of other liberals, he still portrays a lot of liberal positions that are actually interesting when they're not framed with some variety of "conservatives are fascists bent on installing a dictator".
I saw a book recently that was something like a Marxist Feminist interpretation of history, and I actually was pretty interested in reading it even though I might not agree with any of it. (I had already picked out five books, so I didn't buy it). I can read those academic-style books because they are more focused on theory and less on hatred of me. But I had to cancel my Time subscription because after a certain point I couldn't hear any more attacks on my demographics. Every single issue there would be something about how Texans are racist or similar. Usually at least one hateful attack, but often multiple.
The point is that there are definitely people like me who don't want to consume solely conservative material but are practically forced to due to the unending Two Minutes Hate-style propaganda in mainstream institutions. The conservative material shows bias, but at least it doesn't have hatred woven into every sentence.
This is a badly reasoned and well articulated piece that seeks a presupposed conclusion. This becomes painfully obviously when he realizes that the “blue tribe” he defines is actually engaged in a massive quantity of self-critical behavior, and then twists himself around to try to make it fit into his system. It’s far more likely that this indicates a flawed hypothesis, or at least highly incomplete and naive theory.
Too much of this article made me feel uncomfortably like the author doesn’t understand that the “out group” to an oppressor isn’t the same as the oppressor identified as “out group” by the people they oppress.
> And this isn’t a weird exception. Freud spoke of the narcissism of small differences, saying that “it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other”. Nazis and German Jews. Northern Irish Protestants and Northern Irish Catholics. Hutus and Tutsis. South African whites and South African blacks. Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Anyone in the former Yugoslavia and anyone else in the former Yugoslavia.
I’m not going to pick through every example here, but it’s plain as day there are examples where no reasonable person in this audience would characterize as “engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other”.
Imploring people to find grace in fault is one thing, but imploring people to find forgiveness for those who would murder them for who they are is another. And imploring people who don’t find themselves particularly in the middle of such violence to see them as “feuding” is despicable.
I’m sure there’s more nuance in the article but I honestly couldn’t get past this passage. And I’m comfortable with the fact that my tolerance has limits, including not treating nazis and German Jews as somehow morally equivalent in conflict, even rhetorically.
I think one valuable insight is that blind hate can twist the mind and soul of an individual, even if the hated group is clearly in the wrong. When you dehumanize others, you give up some of your own humanity.
It is one thing to make a stand and say something is wrong, it is another to give in to tribalism and lose perspective.
>I’m sure there’s more nuance in the article but I honestly couldn’t get past this passage. And I’m comfortable with the fact that my tolerance has limits, including not treating nazis and German Jews as somehow morally equivalent in conflict, even rhetorically.
The article did not touch on moral evaluations. It explored tribalism as a human tendency, how it manifests, and it who it targets. The example of Jews and Nazis illustrates this point.
> Imploring people to find grace in fault is one thing, but imploring people to find forgiveness for those who would murder them for who they are is another
Perhaps true, but Scott Alexander implored no such thing. I'm sure that he is quite intimately acquainted with the concept of people who would murder him for who he is
> not treating nazis and German Jews as somehow morally equivalent in conflict, even rhetorically
>Whether or not forgiveness is right is a complicated topic I do not want to get in here.
Seems rather important though?
>But since forgiveness is generally considered a virtue
By the medieval European state religion centered on maximum productivity of the serfs (which is also why suicide is a grave sin, not mentioned in the Bible).
Forgiveness, karma and other concepts were introduced into state religions because it makes your sovereign's life easier, not yours.
Oh, I seldom give myself the permission to “well, actually” on the subject of karma. But here we are.
Karma is widely understood in cultures that don’t have a prominent internal representation of it to mean something on the range of “you get what you deserve” to “you get what you put into the world”. But it doesn’t.
Karma means “deed”. As in, any action performed. Its philosophical role is that any action is a cause and has effects. When applied religiously, the idea is not that one’s actions and consequences are correlated, and not that one can use good deeds to cancel bad.
The idea is that one’s actions have an effect on the world. Sometimes bad actions have negative consequences for the actor. Sometimes the bad actor learns from those consequences. Sometimes other people feel the consequences. Sometimes the bad actor learns anyway. Sometimes [all of the above substituting “good” for “bad”]. Sometimes actions are complicated and have unpredictable effects.
The reason karma is philosophically important isn’t to control behavior but to provide a lens to reflect on it.
>Rebirth, as stated by various Buddhist traditions, is determined by karma, with good realms favored by Kushala (good karma), while a rebirth in evil realms is a consequence of Akushala (bad karma).
Still an "afterlife supernatural justice" concept. Something else with get the bad guy, go back to your rice field.
Fair enough, it might not come back to you. What people collectively put out into the world is what is collectively experienced in the world.
In my opinion, it is about taking personal ownership for your individual contribution to the collective experience, which you in turn will stochastically experience a subset of.
This man has written some brilliant articles, and this is not one of them.
Far as I can make sense of his somewhat roundabout reasoning, he's trying to say that if you tolerate everyone "except" some group, you're not really tolerant, because being tolerant is about accepting what you find distasteful.
Except this rather stupidly implies an equivalency between "accepting gay people" and "accepting people who hate gay people."
How fucking hard is this? Accept everyone except the racists and bigots. This isn't quantum mechanics. Nobody's missing out by kicking the nazis off the platform. I don't even remotely buy this argument that I have to accept the far right into my heart or else I'm not truly tolerant.
> he's trying to say that if you tolerate everyone "except" some group, you're not really tolerant, because being tolerant is about accepting what you find distasteful.
This is a decent summary.
> Except this rather stupidly implies an equivalency between "accepting gay people" and "accepting people who hate gay people."
Those would really only be equivalent if the person doing the accepting had an equal amount of animosity for both gays and gay-haters.
> Accept everyone except the racists and bigots
Accept the pedophiles and the pederasts and the sexists? and the greedy rich? And the pimps and the pushers and the slavers?
I think you missed the point of the article. You don't get virtue points for tolerating gays if you're not a homophobe. You just get to be known as a person who tolerates gays because that's how it is.
> Nobody's missing out by kicking the nazis off the platform.
Are you kicking nazis off the platform because you hate nazis or are you kicking nazis off the platform because of the potential for harm?
> Where is the boundary between kicking gays out because you hate them and kicking then out because of potential harm by means of god's wrath?
This is an apt question and there's no solid answer because motives are private. Failure to understand that motives are necessarily private causes otherwise well-laid plans to fail. Imperfectly, we can examine the behavior of the person to determine whether their behavior is consistent with one motive or another. This is not guaranteed to be correct but if done sincerely and charitably can help to catch the more egregious cases.
At this point, I’d count any one that voted for Trump “far right”. Presumably, they’re all racists and bigots, or misinformed.
The point of the article (in a 2020 lens) is that a majority of the US (blue camp) apparently feels this way about the other >40% (red camp) of the population. That should be concerning, and hopefully lead to some introspection.
"So what makes an outgroup? Proximity plus small differences."
Good point.
Thought for today: tolerance is an entitlement. Acceptance is a gift. A society has to have its groups tolerate each other to function well. They don't have to like each other. Insisting on acceptance may break tolerance and force division.
Politically, this created a situation in Congress where the leftmost Republican is to the right of the rightmost Democrat. That's historically unusual in the US.
Poul Anderson had one of his SF characters say "Maybe they is not evil. Maybe they is just enemies."