Is tribalism a problem we should be attacking?

Recently here the suggestion was made that tribalism was a problem we need to be attacking. Now by we I'm not sure the poster meant other Jedi or humanity in general. But of course there was a dissenting opinion to this comment that I tend to agree with. In that light I wanted to present this question to the general audience.

Is tribalism a problem we need to be attacking? Why or why not?

What is tribalism?



Edit: To clarify, obviously I can read. At the time I didn't want to use all the words it would take to write "Could you please define Tribalism, for the purposes of this question, or in the context it was originally given?"

but then I remembered, this place scores points on how much it sounds like you paid for your education, so I didn't want to just be given a link to the word "tribalism" on google dictionary for asking "what is tribalism?"

JamesSand wrote: What's tribalism?

Im asking you, what is it and why or why not should "we" be attacking it?

EDIT right back: How do you define it?

Oh, okay, in that case, I bow out of the discussion.

It's 9am on a Saturday, and at no point this morning, or even this week did I wonder about the evils of tribalism so I'm pretty sure I have no active or relevant views on it, in the context of I have to also think of the problem in order to determine how to address it.

It's winter, and I'm not busy, so if this gets spicy and there are definitions left right and centre by the time the cold sets in tonight, perhaps I can interject something pithy, or at least a non sequitur, for the lulz.

What I surmise you saying is that you have never considered it a problem to be "attacked" then?

Surmise whatever you like, as far as I can tell you have not asked a question, so I've not given an answer.

(well you have asked a question, that question seems to be "can anyone else use tribalism in a sentence?")

rather than "I define tribalism as [X] and this is (or is not) conducive to a successful individual/society outcome for [X] reasons - do you concur/differ? how can we reach a meaningful understanding taking into consideration any and all valid points?"


Edit: If for whatever reason you want to create this conversation, but have no skin in the game personally, can you at least quote the "recent suggestion" so anyone turning up for try outs at least knows what sport we are playing?

I put no prequalifiers on the term. That is the point. In such a case I am not at liberty to define it. Im asking you to define what you think it means and why it is either a bad thing or a good thing. It was never defined for me in the original comment and so I cannot provide that definition to you.

JamesSand wrote:

Edit: If for whatever reason you want to create this conversation, but have no skin in the game personally, can you at least quote the "recent suggestion" so anyone turning up for try outs at least knows what sport we are playing?

Sure, I can do that.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Initiates-Programme-suggestions/122773-ip-suggestion-jordan-peterson?start=80#341110

Well I suppose we can all stand around twiddling our thumbs and eyeing off the buffet table until Manu turns up, but I'd take a punt and say he's referring to what he sees as mobs forming around...almost nothing, their main defining factor is that they are not "those other mobs" and people being more attached to being in an in-group and attacking an out-group than in improvement of themselves or their situation. The "defining" factor seems to be mud-slinging at other tribes.


if I'm on the money (ish) there - then I do have a problem with this, in a specific fashion - being my country's government.

We have numerous parties, with "seats" - now at the moment (and often in the past) no one party has a controlling number of seats, so they need the agreement of other seats to get a majority vote on any issue.

This would be a good thing - it means any changes to the country need to get the agreement of multiple people that are (arguably) philosophically of different mindsets.

HOWEVER - what actually happens is they are all to busy making sure everyone sees that they DON'T AGREE on any matter, to preserve their apparently independent viewpoints, and the "respect" of their constituents, that no good changes really ever come of it, because even if two parties more or less agree, and propose almost identical acts or amendments, it is so important (for tribalism?) that they don't agree with each other enough to pass a decision or vote for each others ideas - that a third (usually worse in my view, but that's a matter of own political preferences and not objective) option is usually implemented.


I think it is a problem - this sort of group-identity-without-purpose issue, but I do not know how to attack it.
You can't just form a new group of free-thinkers and call all the other groups wrong. For what would seem to be very obvious reasons.

You have to change an entire culture, the internet would seem to have made it worse, but it is not exactly a novel concept, protestant vs catholic is almost too obvious an example, and I don't like to include religious groups - but the comparison may be accurate, as the fervor with which many attach themselves to their "tribe" and attack other tribes is possibly comparable to strong belief in a higher-purpose, or divine mandate.....

Interesting points James. I am drawn in particular to your comment about Catholic vs Protestant. (mostly because I know very little about Australian govt) What about other types of tribes, Republican vs democrat or nation vs nation or rich vs poor as other examples. Is it feasible to bring these disparate groups together, as you mention, but how would we do that without creating a new tribe? Or is it better that these groups exist and thrive and the strongest side eventually win out over the other... or alternatively, each side continue to take turns in its victories and thus sustaining some sort of back and forth balance in accordance with their particular social or political structures?

Its easy to say we need to attack tribalism, but not so easy to execute it seems. Without that plan it seems like complaining without providing a solution.

It's just easier to attack people, then ideas, so any conflict that starts out about something quickly devolves into an argument about someone's..... which is daft as funk, but attacking it is just the proverbial laying down with dogs, and then getting angry at the dog for getting fleas from it. And let's be honest, silly people do silly better then normal folk, and it might be all they've got to feel good about their existence so...... if your going to attack something with the goal of destroying it, then do it once, otherwise it's just agitation. Agitation can diminish an opponent to exhaustion but given the platform and time taken in siege warfare.... reinforcements are likely, so as a exercise in attacking it might have some conditional benefit, but likely associated costs. Society evolves to equalize individuals, and tribalism is just retrograde movement into groupthink IMO. So look for the benefits of that, and make them more effective in a context of individuality and freedoms of self expression and don't attack it directly, but just out perform it- as starving something of oxygen is the fastest siege warfare probably!

Republican vs democrat or nation vs nation or rich vs poor as other examples. Is it feasible to bring these disparate groups together,

You can imagine my understanding of Democrat vs Republican....

Nation vs Nation seems less of an issue, world-peace aside, there are presumably good reasons for two nations to compete, both in practical terms, and in "Brand"

You want your people to love your nation, you want them to cherish it's resources, you want them to support it's economy, it's infrastructure systems, possibly it's growth and acquisition of new resources (be they lands, knowledge, income sources, other forms of influence) there is a tangible benefit to promoting your Nation vs Another Nation - and often, in these cases, that is what it is, the tagline of the Australian government something like "For Australians" (i'm guessing, I can't be arsed checking their website) and not simply "Fuck Norway!" - which I don't think is the sort of "tribalism" issue that is being suggested to be "attacked"

as for Rich vs Poor - rich people don't hate poor people. Poor people are incredibly useful, there's not too many Rich People Gatherings where everyone talks about how much better the world would be if we just dumped all the poor people in Antarctica and got on with eating our gold flaked truffle soup and sinking all our yachts to create private scuba diving wrecks.

Poor people quite possibly hate the rich, but there is a justifiable position, at least emotionally, and when someone else has pretty much everything you want, it's easy to also blame them for everything, correctly or not - and while there *might* be a bit of tribalism here, to the point where if you *were* a poor person, and at all the poor person parties (whatever they are? stealing bread off pigeons in parks probably) and you suddenly become well off, you might even find yourself condemned by your old friends as no longer understanding their woes....

I do understand this to a certain extent - I am a capitalist of sorts, and a nationalist, and a few other things - but a lot of my friends and associates identify as communists or socialists or globalists (not sure that last one works for what I think I mean) and I am often the "bogeyman" of the dinner table debate, and I have to spend a great deal of time and patience politely trying to explain how often my methods and processes are trying to (and occasionally succeed) achieve the same rough end-goal they are, I just tend to do it with less dreadlocks, and I use easier to read fonts in my newsletters.

I probably applied a poor choice in words when I wrote “attack tribalism”, mostly because “we” (as a group) cannot attack it without becoming a tribe in the process.

A better expression would be “be in guard against tribalism”, which we (each of us, as individuals) could certainly do.

I define tribalism as a way of thinking in which people are loyal to their social group above all else, and thus arguments and behaviors are shaped not by an individual’s assessment of a case-by-case basis that includes pros and cons, but by latching on to proof that confirms whatever their tribe holds as true, while dismissing proof that might counter the tribe’s views. This is what I believe Jordan Peterson means when he uses the term “cultural marxism”.

I also chuckled at the quite paradoxical phrase "attack tribalism").

This thread (and a few others of recent) shows us why what kind of language we choose to use is probably more paramount to any topic than anything else we expect to come from it. And the idea of tribalism as explained by Manu is a phenomenon that frequently arises from things such as faulty language.

Manu, you had me 100% agreeing with you until the last sentence

"Cultural" or "postmodern" Marxism is a manufactured boogeyman used to artificially create tribalism in the JP ideology. It's the chaos in opposition to his lobster-esque order. In reality, Marxism is a structural approach to history (so Feminist Marxism is valid), while postmodern philosophy stems from post-structuralism: Foucault, Derrida etc. The post structuralists were all influenced by Marxism, but rejected it in favor of something less "geist-y"

The whole first salvo between vixen and sand just illustrates how absolutely pointless it is to have discussions using ambiguous terms.

Rex wrote: Manu, you had me 100% agreeing with you until the last sentence

"Cultural" or "postmodern" Marxism is a manufactured boogeyman used to artificially create tribalism in the JP ideology. It's the chaos in opposition to his lobster-esque order. In reality, Marxism is a structural approach to history (so Feminist Marxism is valid), while postmodern philosophy stems from post-structuralism: Foucault, Derrida etc. The post structuralists were all influenced by Marxism, but rejected it in favor of something less "geist-y"

The whole first salvo between vixen and sand just illustrates how absolutely pointless it is to have discussions using ambiguous terms.

Thank you for the clarification. I had only been introduced to the term via Peterson’s interviews, but after doing a quick internet search after your reply I see it’s not a commonly agreed upon term.

Yes I think Tribalism is a problem. As I said in the Moderates thread:

Brick wrote: I think it is due to society becoming obsessed with 'being right'. So you pick a 'side' and you stick with it no matter what, and anyone who picks the other side is your sworn enemy. Anyone who voted for Trump is a 'Dumb Racist', and anyone who supports Berine is 'Communist Scum'. We've started treating politics like sports teams, instead of a public forum to share and develop ideas, and that's a really dangerous game.

This idea of supporting something so unequivocally, seems to support what Manu what is talking about

Allow me an extreme question, please: How can we assert anything as fact? To do so, unless you did the experiments yourself from the dirt up, is to be relying on a certitude put forth by someone else. The "tribe" of science. Group think has predominately made incredible advances, valid or not. Had tribalism been rejected, we would still be snuffling for ants on a tree for our dinner. The process, the mind frame, has its uses and of itself is not to blame for any evil. I would suggest the ideas pursued themselves potentially represent the issue. Any practitioner of the sciences knows you fail 99 times out of 100.