![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Declan on August 28, 2006, at 14:22:33
Once it was capitalism vs communism. Capitalism was run by a gang of criminals and their dupes. Communism was a vicious dictatorship.
Then there was that interestingly brief hiatus before we moved onto the West vs the Islamists.
Once again its a gang of criminals (bin Laden's description) and their dupes, against (lets just call them, for it's early in the morning) islamofacists.
What is it with humans?
Declan
Posted by Jost on August 28, 2006, at 19:51:08
In reply to Polarisation, posted by Declan on August 28, 2006, at 14:22:33
One thing is that we seem to be set up to experience/think about / make many things into zero-sum games.
For example, in a world of limited resources (which ours is), my resources are by definition not going to be yours. Since we also seem to be creatures of infinite desire, one person's good tends to subtract from another's.
Game theory is about this and other problems.
Jost
Posted by Dinah on August 28, 2006, at 20:34:33
In reply to Polarisation, posted by Declan on August 28, 2006, at 14:22:33
My guess would be affiliative needs. It's easier to feel part of an us if there's a them.
I don't have a lot of studies to back me up. Just middle and high school.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 29, 2006, at 14:09:55
In reply to Re: Polarisation, posted by Dinah on August 28, 2006, at 20:34:33
It's an old ploy.
You can either do a good job of governing or you can give the people a common enemy.
People forget how miserable they are when they have someone to hate.
Posted by Declan on August 29, 2006, at 19:52:14
In reply to Re: Polarisation, posted by AuntieMel on August 29, 2006, at 14:09:55
Maybe there's a perceptual problem. You know how we all tend to underestimate the role we play in generating the response we observe and frequently object to? We assume that our observing position is neutral, and from this we can draw an accurate judgement of the other. But the other person/whatever has a different story going on, which, needless to say, we do not accept.
As a small example or an aside, I have read (and it may not be true) that to a follower of Islam (or one of its variants) the interpersonal psychology involved in a supermarket checkout is unnacceptable. Instead you are meant to go into the carpet shop and bargain, drink tea and look at the photos of each others children. The quick throughput of a checkout is felt to be demeaning.
Mahommed Atta had done a thesis on the architecture of Aleppo. His parents had been relocated in Cairo(?) to a highrise where a certain kind of traditional life was no longer possible. (Please, please, do not assume I am trying to find extenuating circumstances.)
I wish I lived in Canberra. I'd enrol at the Department of Islamic Studies in a flash. It would be so easy. Then I'd be employable.
Posted by finelinebob on August 30, 2006, at 0:38:03
In reply to Re: Polarisation » Declan, posted by Jost on August 28, 2006, at 19:51:08
> One thing is that we seem to be set up to experience/think about / make many things into zero-sum games.
>
> For example, in a world of limited resources (which ours is), my resources are by definition not going to be yours. Since we also seem to be creatures of infinite desire, one person's good tends to subtract from another's.Ah, but most topics economical are NON-zero-sum games. The very fact that resources are limited means they cannot be a zero-sum game. The powerful seizing resources from the weak may give the appearance of some zero-sum dynamic playing out, but the resource has its limits and within that system you will end up with a lose-lose situation as the resource is depleted.
Zero-sum games always require a win-lose situation or, at best/worst a draw. Chess is a good example. It is impossible to play a game of chess where both sides lose, when there are no more pieces on the table. THAT is a zero-sum game. One side wins, the other side loses. Even if you have some sort of points system for pieces captured and keep a running score, there is always the possibility of a 0-0 tie without ending the "game".
Us/them dichotomies are essential to life, no less to human life than anything else. Any species has its predators and/or competitors. Starting with family units, through tribes, villages, cities, nations, whatever ... that biological imperative has remained. Without it, family groups of "pre-humans" would have never survived long enough to pass their "pacifist" genes on in the face of the success of its more aggressive competition.
We are genetically wired to recognize us/them distinctions. It seems that the rise of civilizations has allowed those more-than-likely recessive traits to remain in the gene pool, even nuture them to some extent. Maybe a definition of intelligent behavior is that which defies genetic programming to produce the same end goals through better, more efficient means.
Us vs. Them thinking will eventually lead to a lose-lose outcome. Removing the distinction **may** allow for win-win situations ... or, more simply and accurately put, a win situation ... more readily, but if humans can unite we'll probably find a new challenge to fill that other position. Overcoming millions of years of evolutionary-wired mental frameworks, going beyond our programming, is a "frontier" our society simply isn't ready to cope with yet.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.