Sunday School

[unapologeticParticipant]

Is-lame is weaponized religion. Not A weaponized religion as if it already existed. It was created by a warlord and followers to be used as a weapon to conquer a people. It IS a weapon first.
‘Join or die’ was always part of the dogma. Sure, most muslims are peaceful. Have forgotten or ignore that part of it. But the leadership is still out to conquer the world. Even by force.
And while christianity has grown out of that phase, is-lame has not.

[UnseenParticipant]

What is the logic of in-group bias? When the most basic group (in mathematical terms, a set*) is the self, it’s hard to distinguish it from simple narcissism.

Expand the set to one’s group (however defined, which is a problem: family? neighborhood? village? territory? nation-state? humankind?) and you have to decide to what extent do you have to set pure self-interest aside? Should we expect people to be heroes willing to throw themselves under the bus for the benefit of the collective?

* Set being a useful term because a mathematical set can have just one member—or even no members, a null set.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Set being a useful term because a mathematical set can have just one member—or even no members, a null set.

That’s the difference.  A collaborative group must have at least two members (a partnership, team, etc.).

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

What is the logic of in-group bias? When the most basic group (in mathematical terms, a set*) is the self, it’s hard to distinguish it from simple narcissism. Expand the set to one’s group (however defined, which is a problem: family? neighborhood? village? territory? nation-state? humankind?) and you have to decide to what extent do you have to set pure self-interest aside? Should we expect people to be heroes willing to throw themselves under the bus for the benefit of the collective? * Set being a useful term because a mathematical set can have just one member—or even no members, a null set.

John Lennon wondered about that too. Religion, commerce and resources, language and culture often define these “us and them” sets. For example, rural residents have interests in common that impact their wellbeing. City folk have different priorities. Same with suburbanites. I think this rural/urban divide explains much of the current political rift in the US.

And also, for simple efficient division of labor. For example, local garbage collection and school boards, and local town/county roads, but State and Federal agencies for larger and “interstate roads”.

We end up with one hell of a hierarchy.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Favoring those within one’s own group lead to more cohesive and cooperative units, enhancing group survival against external threats. It allowed us to protect our territory and resources and build up trust between members as we watched out for each other. This trust relationship is likely where our ethical behavior and moral standards first took root.

First there were large tribal groups (split into small bands) with division of labour, from around 150-100,000 years ago.  Then there was the age of warfare between groups (12,000 years ago to present day).

In the first phase, there was group loyalty as members depended on each other to make daily life work.  In the second phase, there began in-group bias and out-group antipathy, as members depended on each other to fight wars.  That would seem to be logical.

Since there’s no way to get rid of groups, since only groups can cooperate (internally) – there’s no way, in this competitive world, to get rid of in-group bias and out-group antipathy.  The only thing we can do is be aware of it and how it works, and then maybe it can be overcome to some extent.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Set being a useful term because a mathematical set can have just one member—or even no members, a null set.

That’s the difference. A collaborative group must have at least two members (a partnership, team, etc.).

Okay, but I asked a question which wasn’t I guess, worth answering when one might split linguistic hairs instead:

Expand the set to one’s group (however defined, which is a problem: family? neighborhood? village? territory? nation-state? humankind?) and you have to decide to what extent do you have to set pure self-interest aside? Should we expect people to be heroes willing to throw themselves under the bus for the benefit of the collective? * 

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Simon and Robert

One can belong to various groups almost without limit and often with incompatible or conflicting interests. One might work for Willie’s Widgets and own Willie’s Widget’s stock as a retirement investment. So, joining in a strike for higher wages for oneself and one’s fellow union members (yet another group) could adversely impact the value of one’s stock.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Since there’s no way to get rid of groups, since only groups can cooperate (internally) – there’s no way, in this competitive world, to get rid of in-group bias and out-group antipathy.  The only thing we can do is be aware of it and how it works, and then maybe it can be overcome to some extent.

A group that evolve dynamically and for the benefit of its members is not the problem. Their power is derived from the combined membership of the individual members. It exists to help everyone flourish by its collective power. So long as everyone has a role and fulfills that role according to the group’s expectations, all is well.  But religion fucks all that up. It imposes it magical thinking and usurped power on the group and takes it over like a parasite does to an otherwise health system. It creeps its way to total control of the group, be it a small sect or an entire population. It no longer allows the group to evolve dynamically. It now tells everyone what to think and not how to think. The in-group is poisoned by that religion and can only survive by spreading itself like a brain pox. Atheism is the vaccine.

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

@ Simon and Robert One can belong to various groups almost without limit and often with incompatible or conflicting interests. One might work for Willie’s Widgets and own Willie’s Widget’s stock as a retirement investment. So, joining in a strike for higher wages for oneself and one’s fellow union members (yet another group) could adversely impact the value of one’s stock.

Yep, life’s dilemmas of loyalties. I have them crop up nearly every day in one form or another. Makes you think about your priorities carefully. Can make you feel like a hypocrite.

 

[_Robert_Participant]

Yeah Reg,

There is no way to tell how badly religion damages people’s lives by priming them to believe in nonsense. To me they sound insane at times.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Romeo dies??? Well I guess I won’t be watching that movie then.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

What is the logic of in-group bias?

The logic of in-group bias is that I depend on all my group-members to help me live.  I don’t depend on out-group members, who may well be competitors.

Groups are nested and intersecting.  So, like you say, there are circles of concern and ever-larger groups that I belong to.  We can belong to many small or large groups at once.

[UnseenParticipant]

The complexities of one’s groups come to the fore at election time. One might have to weigh how one feels about the current administration’s policies on Israel’s handling of Hamas vs. their handling of Russia vs. Ukraine vs. China’s wanting hegemony over East Asian trade routes, but then want to rein in military spending in order to spend more on domestic needs.

And then you may agree or disagree with the administration’s social policies. You may be all for LGBTQ right generally while being against allowing transgender “girls/women” compete in women’s sports, for example.

And one may feel that abortion is/is not murder.

And one may be heavily invested in some segment of the business markets and worry about how government policies will affect one’s retirement plans.

And then, the candidate you feel might most benefit you is acting a little crazy in recent press conferences and might be a bit mentally unstable.

All that, and one has to make a binary choice in November.

• This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  Unseen.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

All that, and one has to make a binary choice in November.

I still fear that Trump can win. If Harris can keep the honeymoon going and also let the voters hear more of her actual policies, without the rhetoric, then I think she will have a much better chance.  If Trump can’t keep himself in check during the debate and Harris displays a diplomat skill and speaks as an orator to all citizens then it will be difficult to see her losing. Trump will not be diplomatic. His MAGA fan base won’t want him to tone down his vulgarity. MAGA is nothing without him. I can’t see how Trump will manage to sit quietly and let an articulate and educated black woman speak without becoming vulgar. He is too weak a man to allow a powerful woman show him up. I really think Harris will do so much better than in 2020 in the early rounds. Just ignoring Trump might be the best strategy to take. I have the popcorn ready.

[Author]

Posts