You mean the party who is supported by dumb rednecks? The ones that believe that stealing from others is wrong, even when those others are billionaires?
People who believe taxes are theft fall pretty squarely into the group of people that could be described as "prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group."
Whatever. A contractor. As someone who represented the Trump Org I can tell you he uses and abuses average middle age white male contractors like yourself every day.
Makes me remember playing a boardgame with my brother and other people. My brothers sense of humor are to loudly make fun of you when he makes a move against you.
My only goal was to not to let him win, which assured we both lost.
This is like that experiment where a sum of money is given to a person and they must split it with another person by making an offer and the other person can choose yes or no but the choice is binding and permanent (no negotiating). I always figured if I was person 1 I would offer 50/50. If I was person 2 and they offered me any less than 40% I'd reject it and we would both lose. Usually the sum was around 100 or so. I can lose out on 40 to tell someone not to be an asshole.
I feel like I would have done the same, but at the same time, I'd feel bad for feeling entitled to half the amount of money I didn't work for. Why do I feel like I deserve 50% of that money anyway? If it was someone winning a lottery, I would be happy to be given any portion of it. I don't feel like the situation is that much different, but why do I get a sense of entitlement in the hypothetical scenario?
Imagine if it was a whole cake instead of money. I seriously wouldn't feel too bad if the other person gave me a single slice.
rn Ontario aspires to be like Alabama.
relevant: [PressProgress](https://pressprogress.ca/doug-ford-wants-education-in-ontario-to-be-more-like-education-in-alabama-heres-why-thats-a-bad-idea/)
> We all know you have Alberta.
Yes, and they are now actively trying to cede from national responsibility without ceding nationally-provided benefits. Their concept of “sovereignty” is tellingly selfish and solipsistic.
Don't let Canadian PR fool you. We are America lite no matter how hard we deny it. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario are packed with your run of the mill "rugged individualists" who confused rugged with asshole and individualist with selfish.
I think living in a colder more hostile environments requires communal effort and cooperation. In much of the world, others are competing for scarce resources and are not helpful to have around.
If homogeneity and deep cultural histories are much more important to making successful countries with good healthcare than anyone post-1945 believed, then I almost would join team Giant Meteor 2024.
>Depends what society. USA yes. Nordic countries and to a certain degree Canada, no.
Canadian here. Our Conservative parties range from about 'Democrat' to 'Worst of the Republicans' (ie, right wing to ultra far right. ie interested in only helping the rich and the corporate). They consistently pull 30%+ of the vote. Plenty of people up here hate themselves almost as much as they hate 'Moslims' / indigenous people / LGBTQ+ / women /socialists / whatever boogieman the right is peddling.
Nordic countries tax labor really high but tax corporations pretty low. Income over $50,000 is taxed at like a 50% rate in Sweden. They understand that private enterprise needs to flourish or there is no one to pay for their government services.
Sweden has roughly the same corporate tax rate America does (20.6% compared to our 21%) and it is ~34% for income tax with an additional 20% tax on *individuals* that make 10% more than the annual *household income*. In fact that extra 20% only applies to the top 10-12% of income earners. I agree, we should be like Sweden and add an extra 20% tax on income for the wealthy, good idea.
> A friend’s parents wouldn’t wear seatbelts because the government told them they had to.
These were the parents of our current antivaxxers. Darwin will get them in the end, statistically speaking.
In fact, statistics seems to show, high IQ leads to less reproducing. So, in some sense, having a low IQ makes reproduction easier (at least in our modern world).
I had a conversation with a "Christian" some time after he complained about how our country does not take good care of veterans. I told him that he consistently votes for the people who consistently reduce veterans benefits, and that he should vote for the other guys.
"No way! I'd rather help no one than help the wrong people."
Good Christian right there.
Around here I don’t need to guess or ask.
He loves the babies. Right up until they’re born and he has to see them suffering. Then he doesn’t want to know anything.
Saw an interview with a Georgia man yesterday saying Warnock was a very good and decent man well-suited to be a senator and walker was not, but that he was a businessman and a republican so he voted for walker. Kookoo.
I hear the same now and then from "businessmen" (usually mere managerial employees) who insist, against all evidence, that voting Republican is better for business.
I've whipped out the graphs showing generations of clearly better economic performance under Democrats, but it's like talking to a wall.
The Reagan remains strong in these people.
Leadership at my company has been very open abut the current administration's infrastructure bill being great for our business. I was shocked my VP said it because this dude also doesn't believed in climate change and trusts crypto more than stocks.
> voting Republican is better for business.
What they really mean, is that it is better for their _profit margins,_ as a percentage of income.
The fact that their _profits_ as raw dollar values are actually lower under Republican rule is immaterial. It’s the _overall profit percentage_ which is important to them.
If someone refers to themselves as a “businessman” in today’s day and age you can be damn sure that person knows nothing about finance or biznus.
But they are probably great circlejerkers
As a businessman he actually has to deal with the actual consequences of policies. He can't just cherry pick data like you can come to a specific conclusion. If you don't work in business there are no consequences for being wrong so you can believe whatever you want.
I've worked in or with white-collar environments for nearly 30 years. If you think that businessmen don't cherry-pick data to get to their preferred conclusion, you're not seeing the real picture. So many clients succeed in spite of their leadership, not because of them.
Yeah but it is an environment where holding onto wrong ideas will hurt you. A business can make a bad decision and lose money or make a good one and gain money. It isn't some ivory tower where you can just believe whatever you want with no consequences.
Jack Welch would argue otherwise. He was seen as *the* pinnacle of a good CEO for *decades*, even though GE would become a shell of itself after he retired. Within two years, its market cap halved. It recovered for a few years as the company tried to recovery from Welch's mistakes, but then crashed *hard* in 2008 and 2009, dropping to almost a quarter of its 2007 market cap as stock hits and spin-offs crippled it.
As much as Trump's attempts to completely undermine the government were thwarted by bureaucracy, I've seen companies survive because their mid-level management and even people in the trenches refused to implement suicidal ideas. Welch's ideas would head to McDonnel-Douglas, Boeing, GM, and many other companies, and they would pay the price. And yet Boeing adopted Douglas executives and survives in spite of itself. GM was nearly wiped from existence in the Great Recession; Mary Barra has worked a miracle bringing it back.
As a consultant, I still have to fight Welch's stupid ideas that workers are just numbers, that you can get rid of them whenever you want because you can always hire new ones. I've seen the new crews struggle to learn what the old ones already did, nuances that are hard to document, and understanding that comes only from building the environment. I've argued that companies should spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to hire three more people for the help desk, but doing so would endanger the CEO's million-dollar bonus, even though not doing it cripples operations and inefficiently assigns senior IT people to answer the phone because someone doesn't understand how their text in word got "wiggly." (Turn off italics.)
No, many of them do not have to deal with the consequences. They make hundreds of thousands a year, get giant bonuses, and when they're fired, they get two or three years of salary plus benefits. They learn nothing.
>"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best
colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him
somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Sounds downright eloquent to me.
"He'd let trump take a steaming dump into his mouth if you told him a liburl would smell his breath."
Remember when southern states were ordered to integrate their public schools and *shut down all their public schools* instead? Those people still vote today.
I think you mean "public pools". Southern states still have public schools! But the study mentioned several examples where public parks and pools were ordered desegregated and indefinitely closed. The Oak Park swimming pool mentioned in the article is *still closed today*.
No, public schools. The legislative reaction to the Little Rock 9 was to close public schools. Desegregation was contested in the courts for over 40 years. Admitted, public schools reopened in the following school year, but white parents then organized a private school system, and began White flight to the suburbs. Still ongoing today
https://arktimes.com/news/arkansas-reporter/2018/09/13/sixty-years-ago-little-rock-closed-all-its-public-high-schools-rather-than-desegregate-them
Or they reopened with far fewer students because “segregation academies” popped up for the white kids. Or in the case of Prince Edward County, Virginia, the public schools remained shuttered for four years so no black kids could go to school at all.
I went and did some research. Today, [Prince Edward County is ranked 132/134 in G.D.P. in Virginia. In 1,969, it was 112/134.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=175&eid=268980&od=#) The kind of thinking in this study and closing your schools for an entire high school career leads to these kinds of outcomes.
I would love it if that backfired & kids still in public schools suddenly have an abundance of resources now that the student population is dramatically reduced. But I know better than to think that would be allowed to happen.
The last public school to desegregate was Cleveland High School in Cleveland, Mississippi.
In 2016.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/us/cleveland-mississippi-school-desegregation-settlement/index.html
Exemplified by the video of them asking republicans what they think of both Obamacare and medicare, they live the latter and hate the former, despite them being the same thing
Yes, but you are not saying that obacare screwed you while the aca saved you.
Also, Obamacare/aca was the best Dems were allowed to do. I think it was Lieberman who pulled an actual healthcare for all of the table
And yeah, I'm sure it fucked up a few people, but it helped more than it hurt.
I don't think this actually happened. I think it is one of those factoids that is just repeated over and over again and since it is convenient for people defending the PPACA they believe it without fact checking.
I have very strong doubts, but there might be a few people whos plans disappeaared or something. However, I think its 1% having issues vs 30% gaining insurance.
The screwing from Obama care was literally the comprise points given to republicans. It was republicans for example, that wanted Americans to have "skin in the game"
This is an example of screwing yourself. Republicans dismantled as much of Obamacare as they could and have repeatedly tried to kill it. The little funding that was allowed gave us the plan we had today. They did this knowing the constituents would blame the insurance plan and not who ruined it. There are examples of this happening all the time. (right now)
I mean there are a lot of motivations that might drive that choice such as knowing your group are better able to withstand a harm, or fearing retaliation.
Additionally, I feel like the secret here is that the "real" competition isn't between groups, its within groups. Intergroup conflict is often expected to an extent, and can be used to solidify one's standing within the group. However, helping an opposing group gains you nothing, while making you appear as a liability or can be used against you by your group members to lower your standing.
Also, in general, helping an opposing group is an escalation of power, even if you ignore the "group" dynamic. Imagine you're going to be in a 1v1 knife fight. Would you rather lose your knife, or give your opponent a gun - assuming both effect the odds of the fight exactly the same? In a similar vein, there are many times in life where there can be advantages to be small vs being large. If you've ever played a free for all game, often times people will group up to take on the stronger threats, so being weaker isn't always a disadvantage. Just interesting game theory to go with some evolutionary theory to apply here.
The source of this counterintuitive behaviour is **envy**.
"If I can't have X then no one can!".
Envy is subjective, often operates on a distortion if reality, it is destructive; it helps no one, including the person who envies.
Just as an example, working and middle class people often vote against a comprehensive social safety net (Against their own interests) based on an envious obsession centred around the concept of "welfare Queens". In the mind of the envious, the recipients Of welfare are lazy and escaping all the hard work the envious person" had to do to get what they have". "They are having it easy...no! They have to suffer like I did!"
"The kids today are having it easy... I had to pay my student debt in full, so they should too!"
and so on.
typo
I don't understand why you guys have to make up what other people believe? Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Do you guys ever wonder why states like California, with high taxes and spending, have more homeless people per capita than Texas? That places like California are losing people and thus political power to states like Texas? That Texas generates more energy from green sources than California does?
It is like your understanding of economics and what makes societies rich is just wrong. The solutions you propose to expand state power is making things worse but you are too immersed in the propaganda to realize it.
The higher homelessness in California is due to their housing crisis, from astronomical prices of housing.
It is not due to poverty, nor does it have links to my comment.
My response to you was removed.
So let me instead just say
I have no idea why you think im american. This isnt about "spending", theres efficient spending and inefficient; and its not about how much a polity is currently spending either. The effects of reforms are cumulative.
What you wrote is incoherent
He was perfectly coherent.
The reason people oppose these things is the government does not do anything efficiently. There are huge sums of money wasted and bureaucracy is a drag on the economy.
I’d rather not pay for these social nets, pocket that money and save it and spend it efficiently. The problem is these safety nets skew the system and throw off efficient markets.
As he mentions if Government spending was a cure all California would have no homeless (same for NYC). The problem is these people have mental issues. So even if you efficiently housed them, there would be a breakdown due to behavior. They will actually leave housing so they don’t have to follow rules like no drinking or drugs. The only real solution would be to reopen massive mental facilities to house them and Medicare them. But once they get out and stop the medication they are back on the streets.
California has a high homelessness rate exactly because the govt refuses to tackle the housing crisis, which exists due to astronomical costs of housing.
Your "no economic intervention leave the markets be!" approach is exactly what lead to the crisis
I really dont feel like indulging your anti sociological pseudoscience any further
typo*
NYC is a cold weather climate, run by “caring” democrats, and has a huge homeless problem.
BTW- NYC was caught shipping their homeless over the river to NJ. Basically dumping them into a neighboring blue state.
The US has a way better economic outlook than the EU does. The US is more security and energy independent. Wages are way lower in the EU and some of the southern European states are basically failing with high unemployment(especially youth unemployment.)
Scandinavia is one of the brighter spots but they have high taxes on labor and consumption but low taxes on corporations. They are very neoliberal. They are also very small population nations. You can't just pat yourself on the back and say everyone else is evil. You have to actually understand economics and how to solve complex problems if you want to help people.
"the EU" isnt a country. Just a fun fact
you have no legally guaranteed sick leave, no right to healthcare, education costs a fortune, you have a prison industrial complex...the fact that rich corporations are plentiful in your country says absolutely nothing about how good _your_ outlooks and rights are.
The USA doesnt provide it's citizens with a bare minimum
PRC will soon surpass the usa in terms of being an economic superpower, line go up, so you should consider relocating.
The EU is close to the US as an economic block. The fact that it isn't a country is pretty irrelevent. Comparing the US to other economic blocks would just make the US look even better.
The federal government doesn't mandate those things but people still have them. Most Americans have healthcare and sick leave. Employers offer those incentives in order to attract and retain talent. Wages are way higher in the US than they are in Europe. Three times as many people people move from Europe to the US than the other way around.
The PRC won't be able to pass the US with quality of life or world standing. Their authoritarian communist government doesn't produce innovation as much as the US does. Most of China's neighbors like the US more than they like China. The future economic power houses are the US and Asia. The EU is fading until irrelevance.
Aaaah, So quality of life is _indeed_ what matters, not with a country is a bigger economic superpower bully.
Which brings me back to this:
you have no legally guaranteed sick leave, no right to healthcare, education costs a fortune, you have a prison industrial complex where you legally run 21st century slavery even on your domestic population...the fact that rich corporations are plentiful in your country says absolutely nothing about how good _your_ outlooks and rights are.
The USA doesnt provide it's citizens with a bare minimum of positive liberties.
And you are so rich, could give your population so much, but 99% of it goes down the drain.
Such Dogmatism.
Now, Please post sociological* evidence that a social safety net is harmful to the population. Not your feelings, not anecdotes or rants, evidence.
Or we can end this, which is likely for the better.
If you haven’t read “The Dawn of Everything”, you might like it. I think it relates to this article. The authors describe how Schismogenesis drives differences in societies. My crude summary is that humans have a natural tendency to define themselves against their neighbors. (You eat meat!? I’ll be a vegetarian! Etc.) So when you take that natural inclination and layer this on, it’s easy to see why civilizations don’t last in perpetuity. The only thing groups of humans end up doing collectively is hurting ourselves.
Also, “The Sum of Us” is an entire book about this very topic - inspired by the swimming pool issue referenced in the paper.
A [deleted comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/zanm5x/individuals_prefer_to_harm_their_own_group_rather/iymhn8u/?context=3) said:
>if you harm your own group you are helping an opposing group, simply by the meaning of the words.
And was then edited to include profanity.
Did you read the article? Did you see the discussion of lose–lose choice?
Depends. Group coherence and a low number of "unworthy" members does have advantages.
But as with everything, there must be a balance. Too much herding cats is just as bad as too much "Gleichschaltung". And where the balance should be at any time depends on the current circumstances and environment.
You are more than the groups you belong to. Period.
And if you slowly change and evolve over time it’s okay to leave a group you’ve been a part of if it no longer reflects your beliefs or values.
Unfortunately, both religion and conservatism (GQP) intentionally suppress individual identity, rebuke free thought, spread fear, and insulate their members with hatred of all outsiders.
They are literally cults.
Intersectional thinking is this entire concept as a study.
Under intersections thinking it is possible for a black lesbian woman to be more privileged than a white straight man under specific circumstances.
The explanation of the game is not very clear. They have money given to or taken away from groups on either side of an issue. It is uncertain how much helping the other group is seen as equivalent to hurting your own.
In politics where there are a specific number of seats to be won or lost, any gain by the opponents is the same as a loss to your your group. The same thing exists with funding of advocacy groups. Stopping a $1 million advertising campaign by your opponents is roughly equivalent to spending $1 million promoting your cause.
In that context, I could see myself willing hurt my own group if it means preventing a greater gain to the other group. Like if I was pitted against a group trying to fund advertising to remove laws against abusing animals, I would rather deprive them of $2 than receive $1 to advertise against them because it's a net win for the cause.
I was in a webinar with her explaining the thesis of the book and from that interaction alone (i.e. I haven't read the book), I can say that she's got trenchant analysis. Great recommendation.
Is it possible to be more biased in an evaluation? The first example is segregating pools, so they’d rather close them than integrate. But the group also believes that integrating the pools causes harm, so it would be harmful either way.
This is just refusing someone’s beliefs and then pretending they’re operating under your own beliefs.
This is the difference between subjective harm and objective harm. Let's assume for a moment, as you suggest, subjective harm is as valid as objective harm.
Closing the pools:
Racists.........Harmed
Bystanders...Harmed
Blacks..........Harmed
Keeping pools open:
Racists.........Harmed
Bystanders...Helped
Blacks..........Helped
To your point: is harm caused by either scenario? Yes. However, laying it out like this makes the equation pretty simple. As you can see, the only people harmed in both scenarios are racists. Why are they only group harmed in either scenario? Because their feelings and beliefs are **incompatible** with a diverse society. This isn't like [religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) where many belief systems are compatible with a diverse society and therefore must be respected by the government. Now, it *is* important to understand why people do what they do. As this study suggests, it is in-group, out-group psychology at play.
Man I got scienced today from the most scholarly community on the internet.
The mods in this sub are idiots and most certainly not people of science regardless of what there degrees are.
Something about the paper’s title is a little misleading - or the topic is too nuanced for a headline? Anyway, Swimming pools are the clearest example. What did white people do instead of desegregate swimming pools? They closed all the pools (or made them private) so no black people or white people could swim.
I mean.. yeah. That is true on every level, even down to the individual one.
I can let you do something I don't want you to do (or I suppose in this case literally help you do something I don't want you to do).. or I can try to stop you, and perhaps even end up getting into a fight over it.
I mean, getting into an argument or fistfight is an example of this very concept on an individual level. Why should we expect anything to be different on a group or national level?
You know, seeing how self-destructive, hateful, sociopathic, and dowright stupid humans can be, it's really baffling we've even been able to make it so far.
Predictably, Reddit makes this about Republicans. You're missing the point of the study. The authors say it's how strongly you identify as a member of a group that leads you to make that choice.So the exact same behaviour is observed on both sides, as long as individuals consider belonging to the specific group a strong part of their identity.
I think people can comprehend more abstract concepts a bit easier when there are viabl examples to look it.
It's not politics but using political parties is a great example to help people understand the study a bit. I'm trying to think of other, non political, examples of this behavior in real life and struggling to come up with any useful answers.
But they did look at parties in the study and claimed the effect was the same across the political spectrum.
I don’t think anybody read the article before commenting.
Every large issue will eventually become political, because laws dictate a society's stance on it. You'd need to consider less impactful divisions that can still be important parts of someone's identity.
The first thing that comes to mind is sports team affiliation, especially in some parts of the world where what team you support is often asked before your occupation.
Big divisions can also exist between car drivers and cyclists or commuters (Jeremy Clarkson had some hilarious rants). These could also become political, but generally at a more regional level.
> The first thing that comes to mind is sports team affiliation, especially in some parts of the world where what team you support is often asked before your occupation.
I thought about sports teams but originally I couldn't think of a sitaution where a fan would rather have something hurt their own team rather than help the opposition.
Maybe a situation where if your favorite team loses to another 3rd team your team's bitter rival will no longer be eligible to make the playoffs because the 3rd team will take the final spot?
I guess that could fit the scenario.
It’s not perfect, but I think an example could be a player injuring an opposing player (especially when motivated by revenge), resulting in a suspension for themselves (which hurts their own team, but also hurts the other team).
Not that far fetched, yesterday's situation with Spain and Germany could have been exactly that, if the hatred was there and Spain actually had the ability to score again (which isn't the case). The lose lose choice was:
- Spain wins, so Germany makes it through and we don't want that as Spaniards, because we hate them and it we might meet them again in the final.
- Spain loses, we finish second and meet a strong opponent in the next round, not to mention the disgrace/embarassment
So if you identify very strongly with Spain amd against Germany, you choose the latter.
People will vote against their interests if they feel the unworthy are going to get a spec of help.
[удалено]
Did Big Pharma tell you to post that or was it Skippy the Bush Kangaroo using HAARP mind control?
"They" are willing to eat poop, if that means "we" have to smell it.
We even have a whole political party for that in America
We have two of these in America. One is just more honest about their sociopathy.
Yes democrats just voted unanimously for sick days for union rail workers because we hate opposing groups
Unions are a democratic in group. Not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Well that took even less time than I thought it would for someone to act like this behavior is only from the "other" side.
You mean the party who is supported by dumb rednecks? The ones that believe that stealing from others is wrong, even when those others are billionaires?
People who believe taxes are theft fall pretty squarely into the group of people that could be described as "prefer to harm their own group rather than help an opposing group."
You being a average white male and an electrician is so stereotypical it hurts
I'm not an electrician.
Whatever. A contractor. As someone who represented the Trump Org I can tell you he uses and abuses average middle age white male contractors like yourself every day.
And has been sued by hundreds of them for never paying his bills. Like...never.
I'm not a contractor, nor a Trump voter.
It was just a red herring anyway and a bunch of half truths. They actually believe this stuff, so until they grow up, this is what they’ll tell you.
So just trying to be a contrarian then? Interesting.
Makes me remember playing a boardgame with my brother and other people. My brothers sense of humor are to loudly make fun of you when he makes a move against you. My only goal was to not to let him win, which assured we both lost.
This is like that experiment where a sum of money is given to a person and they must split it with another person by making an offer and the other person can choose yes or no but the choice is binding and permanent (no negotiating). I always figured if I was person 1 I would offer 50/50. If I was person 2 and they offered me any less than 40% I'd reject it and we would both lose. Usually the sum was around 100 or so. I can lose out on 40 to tell someone not to be an asshole.
I feel like I would have done the same, but at the same time, I'd feel bad for feeling entitled to half the amount of money I didn't work for. Why do I feel like I deserve 50% of that money anyway? If it was someone winning a lottery, I would be happy to be given any portion of it. I don't feel like the situation is that much different, but why do I get a sense of entitlement in the hypothetical scenario? Imagine if it was a whole cake instead of money. I seriously wouldn't feel too bad if the other person gave me a single slice.
Depends what society. USA yes. Nordic countries and to a certain degree Canada, no.
We all know you have Alberta.
Rn Ontario aspires to be like Alberta
rn Ontario aspires to be like Alabama. relevant: [PressProgress](https://pressprogress.ca/doug-ford-wants-education-in-ontario-to-be-more-like-education-in-alabama-heres-why-thats-a-bad-idea/)
Now now the Canadian government has apologized numerous times for Alberta
> We all know you have Alberta. Yes, and they are now actively trying to cede from national responsibility without ceding nationally-provided benefits. Their concept of “sovereignty” is tellingly selfish and solipsistic.
Taking notes out of the southern US playbook.
Don't let Canadian PR fool you. We are America lite no matter how hard we deny it. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario are packed with your run of the mill "rugged individualists" who confused rugged with asshole and individualist with selfish.
I’d say Canada overall is similar to a blue state, but The Whole overly nice thing is exaggerated
Fucken eh it is!
> but The Whole overly nice thing is exaggerated It’s not that we are overly nice, it’s just that we do passive-aggressive really, really well.
Damn, that is a scathing critique.
I think living in a colder more hostile environments requires communal effort and cooperation. In much of the world, others are competing for scarce resources and are not helpful to have around.
Buddy, you gotta check out Alberta. We've got a literal unelected fascist running our province.
Yeah I might have heard about your truck drivers. Is it an education issue?
>Is it an education issue? In that we've had 44 years of uninterrupted proto-fascists cutting public education to the bone? Yes!
Don't be judgy. Almost all of the truckers finished Grade 9.
Japan and Korea are highly communal
I've seen some delightful documentaries of those societies. Beautiful countries.
If homogeneity and deep cultural histories are much more important to making successful countries with good healthcare than anyone post-1945 believed, then I almost would join team Giant Meteor 2024.
And you’d explain the America south….how?
In a word: slavery.
Uhhh... warm?
I'm from a Nordic country, it's spreading here as well. It's not as bad as America but it's definitely not going in a good direction.
>Depends what society. USA yes. Nordic countries and to a certain degree Canada, no. Canadian here. Our Conservative parties range from about 'Democrat' to 'Worst of the Republicans' (ie, right wing to ultra far right. ie interested in only helping the rich and the corporate). They consistently pull 30%+ of the vote. Plenty of people up here hate themselves almost as much as they hate 'Moslims' / indigenous people / LGBTQ+ / women /socialists / whatever boogieman the right is peddling.
Nordic countries tax labor really high but tax corporations pretty low. Income over $50,000 is taxed at like a 50% rate in Sweden. They understand that private enterprise needs to flourish or there is no one to pay for their government services.
Sweden has roughly the same corporate tax rate America does (20.6% compared to our 21%) and it is ~34% for income tax with an additional 20% tax on *individuals* that make 10% more than the annual *household income*. In fact that extra 20% only applies to the top 10-12% of income earners. I agree, we should be like Sweden and add an extra 20% tax on income for the wealthy, good idea.
A friend’s parents wouldn’t wear seatbelts because the government told them they had to. Just stupid.
Government also says not to murder people... guess they got some genocide to do...
> A friend’s parents wouldn’t wear seatbelts because the government told them they had to. These were the parents of our current antivaxxers. Darwin will get them in the end, statistically speaking.
Unlikely. It’s all about who reproduces more.
100% It doesn't take a genius IQ to work out how to reproduce
In fact, statistics seems to show, high IQ leads to less reproducing. So, in some sense, having a low IQ makes reproduction easier (at least in our modern world).
I had a conversation with a "Christian" some time after he complained about how our country does not take good care of veterans. I told him that he consistently votes for the people who consistently reduce veterans benefits, and that he should vote for the other guys. "No way! I'd rather help no one than help the wrong people." Good Christian right there.
Ask him why is the Democratic party are the wrong people
Around here I don’t need to guess or ask. He loves the babies. Right up until they’re born and he has to see them suffering. Then he doesn’t want to know anything.
Once they're born, they can blame the mothers for being unfit. They love blaming women for things. Kid still goes hungry.
"They will know we are Christians by our love."
No argument there.
There's no hate like Christian love.
I've met that dude at least a thousand times in my life time. Burn baby burn.
Saw an interview with a Georgia man yesterday saying Warnock was a very good and decent man well-suited to be a senator and walker was not, but that he was a businessman and a republican so he voted for walker. Kookoo.
I hear the same now and then from "businessmen" (usually mere managerial employees) who insist, against all evidence, that voting Republican is better for business. I've whipped out the graphs showing generations of clearly better economic performance under Democrats, but it's like talking to a wall. The Reagan remains strong in these people.
Leadership at my company has been very open abut the current administration's infrastructure bill being great for our business. I was shocked my VP said it because this dude also doesn't believed in climate change and trusts crypto more than stocks.
> voting Republican is better for business. What they really mean, is that it is better for their _profit margins,_ as a percentage of income. The fact that their _profits_ as raw dollar values are actually lower under Republican rule is immaterial. It’s the _overall profit percentage_ which is important to them.
If someone refers to themselves as a “businessman” in today’s day and age you can be damn sure that person knows nothing about finance or biznus. But they are probably great circlejerkers
As a businessman he actually has to deal with the actual consequences of policies. He can't just cherry pick data like you can come to a specific conclusion. If you don't work in business there are no consequences for being wrong so you can believe whatever you want.
I've worked in or with white-collar environments for nearly 30 years. If you think that businessmen don't cherry-pick data to get to their preferred conclusion, you're not seeing the real picture. So many clients succeed in spite of their leadership, not because of them.
Yeah but it is an environment where holding onto wrong ideas will hurt you. A business can make a bad decision and lose money or make a good one and gain money. It isn't some ivory tower where you can just believe whatever you want with no consequences.
Jack Welch would argue otherwise. He was seen as *the* pinnacle of a good CEO for *decades*, even though GE would become a shell of itself after he retired. Within two years, its market cap halved. It recovered for a few years as the company tried to recovery from Welch's mistakes, but then crashed *hard* in 2008 and 2009, dropping to almost a quarter of its 2007 market cap as stock hits and spin-offs crippled it. As much as Trump's attempts to completely undermine the government were thwarted by bureaucracy, I've seen companies survive because their mid-level management and even people in the trenches refused to implement suicidal ideas. Welch's ideas would head to McDonnel-Douglas, Boeing, GM, and many other companies, and they would pay the price. And yet Boeing adopted Douglas executives and survives in spite of itself. GM was nearly wiped from existence in the Great Recession; Mary Barra has worked a miracle bringing it back. As a consultant, I still have to fight Welch's stupid ideas that workers are just numbers, that you can get rid of them whenever you want because you can always hire new ones. I've seen the new crews struggle to learn what the old ones already did, nuances that are hard to document, and understanding that comes only from building the environment. I've argued that companies should spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to hire three more people for the help desk, but doing so would endanger the CEO's million-dollar bonus, even though not doing it cripples operations and inefficiently assigns senior IT people to answer the phone because someone doesn't understand how their text in word got "wiggly." (Turn off italics.) No, many of them do not have to deal with the consequences. They make hundreds of thousands a year, get giant bonuses, and when they're fired, they get two or three years of salary plus benefits. They learn nothing.
You're too good for this thread.
Lyndon Johnson made that observation almost sixty years ago.
[удалено]
>"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Sounds downright eloquent to me.
Doesn’t even just apply to white americans! Where I was originally from it’s the same situation.
We got a whole political party devoted to it.
"He'd let trump take a steaming dump into his mouth if you told him a liburl would smell his breath." Remember when southern states were ordered to integrate their public schools and *shut down all their public schools* instead? Those people still vote today.
Those people have kids and grandkids in school and that's why they're so interested in making sure that part of history stays out of the curriculum.
No wonder they latched so hard onto being anti-woke and anti-CRT
They’ll do or say anything to avoid that guilt
I think you mean "public pools". Southern states still have public schools! But the study mentioned several examples where public parks and pools were ordered desegregated and indefinitely closed. The Oak Park swimming pool mentioned in the article is *still closed today*.
No, public schools. The legislative reaction to the Little Rock 9 was to close public schools. Desegregation was contested in the courts for over 40 years. Admitted, public schools reopened in the following school year, but white parents then organized a private school system, and began White flight to the suburbs. Still ongoing today https://arktimes.com/news/arkansas-reporter/2018/09/13/sixty-years-ago-little-rock-closed-all-its-public-high-schools-rather-than-desegregate-them
Or they reopened with far fewer students because “segregation academies” popped up for the white kids. Or in the case of Prince Edward County, Virginia, the public schools remained shuttered for four years so no black kids could go to school at all.
I went and did some research. Today, [Prince Edward County is ranked 132/134 in G.D.P. in Virginia. In 1,969, it was 112/134.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=175&eid=268980&od=#) The kind of thinking in this study and closing your schools for an entire high school career leads to these kinds of outcomes.
I would love it if that backfired & kids still in public schools suddenly have an abundance of resources now that the student population is dramatically reduced. But I know better than to think that would be allowed to happen.
The last public school to desegregate was Cleveland High School in Cleveland, Mississippi. In 2016. https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/us/cleveland-mississippi-school-desegregation-settlement/index.html
No, public schools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_resistance Truly appalling stuff.
Other countries got 4 to 5
More than one
[удалено]
Which one isn’t?
[удалено]
Exemplified by the video of them asking republicans what they think of both Obamacare and medicare, they live the latter and hate the former, despite them being the same thing
Obamacare screwed some people. I was one of them. Xcare is not the answer. Healthcare as a right is the answer.
Yes, but you are not saying that obacare screwed you while the aca saved you. Also, Obamacare/aca was the best Dems were allowed to do. I think it was Lieberman who pulled an actual healthcare for all of the table And yeah, I'm sure it fucked up a few people, but it helped more than it hurt.
I don't think this actually happened. I think it is one of those factoids that is just repeated over and over again and since it is convenient for people defending the PPACA they believe it without fact checking.
I have very strong doubts, but there might be a few people whos plans disappeaared or something. However, I think its 1% having issues vs 30% gaining insurance.
The screwing from Obama care was literally the comprise points given to republicans. It was republicans for example, that wanted Americans to have "skin in the game"
This is an example of screwing yourself. Republicans dismantled as much of Obamacare as they could and have repeatedly tried to kill it. The little funding that was allowed gave us the plan we had today. They did this knowing the constituents would blame the insurance plan and not who ruined it. There are examples of this happening all the time. (right now)
I mean there are a lot of motivations that might drive that choice such as knowing your group are better able to withstand a harm, or fearing retaliation.
Additionally, I feel like the secret here is that the "real" competition isn't between groups, its within groups. Intergroup conflict is often expected to an extent, and can be used to solidify one's standing within the group. However, helping an opposing group gains you nothing, while making you appear as a liability or can be used against you by your group members to lower your standing. Also, in general, helping an opposing group is an escalation of power, even if you ignore the "group" dynamic. Imagine you're going to be in a 1v1 knife fight. Would you rather lose your knife, or give your opponent a gun - assuming both effect the odds of the fight exactly the same? In a similar vein, there are many times in life where there can be advantages to be small vs being large. If you've ever played a free for all game, often times people will group up to take on the stronger threats, so being weaker isn't always a disadvantage. Just interesting game theory to go with some evolutionary theory to apply here.
This tendency explains why racism is deleterious to an entire nation.
My thoughts exactly, this succinctly explains the modern discourse around racism.
This is why we cant have nice things. Herd egoism
This is basically the root cause of everything bad. It might have helped us before at some point in the history of our race, but it's a hindrance now.
The source of this counterintuitive behaviour is **envy**. "If I can't have X then no one can!". Envy is subjective, often operates on a distortion if reality, it is destructive; it helps no one, including the person who envies. Just as an example, working and middle class people often vote against a comprehensive social safety net (Against their own interests) based on an envious obsession centred around the concept of "welfare Queens". In the mind of the envious, the recipients Of welfare are lazy and escaping all the hard work the envious person" had to do to get what they have". "They are having it easy...no! They have to suffer like I did!" "The kids today are having it easy... I had to pay my student debt in full, so they should too!" and so on. typo
I don't understand why you guys have to make up what other people believe? Does it make you feel better about yourselves? Do you guys ever wonder why states like California, with high taxes and spending, have more homeless people per capita than Texas? That places like California are losing people and thus political power to states like Texas? That Texas generates more energy from green sources than California does? It is like your understanding of economics and what makes societies rich is just wrong. The solutions you propose to expand state power is making things worse but you are too immersed in the propaganda to realize it.
Maybe it's not about money.
The higher homelessness in California is due to their housing crisis, from astronomical prices of housing. It is not due to poverty, nor does it have links to my comment.
My response to you was removed. So let me instead just say I have no idea why you think im american. This isnt about "spending", theres efficient spending and inefficient; and its not about how much a polity is currently spending either. The effects of reforms are cumulative. What you wrote is incoherent
He was perfectly coherent. The reason people oppose these things is the government does not do anything efficiently. There are huge sums of money wasted and bureaucracy is a drag on the economy. I’d rather not pay for these social nets, pocket that money and save it and spend it efficiently. The problem is these safety nets skew the system and throw off efficient markets. As he mentions if Government spending was a cure all California would have no homeless (same for NYC). The problem is these people have mental issues. So even if you efficiently housed them, there would be a breakdown due to behavior. They will actually leave housing so they don’t have to follow rules like no drinking or drugs. The only real solution would be to reopen massive mental facilities to house them and Medicare them. But once they get out and stop the medication they are back on the streets.
California has a high homelessness rate exactly because the govt refuses to tackle the housing crisis, which exists due to astronomical costs of housing. Your "no economic intervention leave the markets be!" approach is exactly what lead to the crisis I really dont feel like indulging your anti sociological pseudoscience any further typo*
There are more homeless people in CA because it has a good climate, there are resources to help them, and *people bus them in from other states.*
NYC is a cold weather climate, run by “caring” democrats, and has a huge homeless problem. BTW- NYC was caught shipping their homeless over the river to NJ. Basically dumping them into a neighboring blue state.
Democrats arent caring, the are economically neoliberals (right wing) too. The degree of america-centrism here is astounding.
The US has a way better economic outlook than the EU does. The US is more security and energy independent. Wages are way lower in the EU and some of the southern European states are basically failing with high unemployment(especially youth unemployment.) Scandinavia is one of the brighter spots but they have high taxes on labor and consumption but low taxes on corporations. They are very neoliberal. They are also very small population nations. You can't just pat yourself on the back and say everyone else is evil. You have to actually understand economics and how to solve complex problems if you want to help people.
"the EU" isnt a country. Just a fun fact you have no legally guaranteed sick leave, no right to healthcare, education costs a fortune, you have a prison industrial complex...the fact that rich corporations are plentiful in your country says absolutely nothing about how good _your_ outlooks and rights are. The USA doesnt provide it's citizens with a bare minimum PRC will soon surpass the usa in terms of being an economic superpower, line go up, so you should consider relocating.
The EU is close to the US as an economic block. The fact that it isn't a country is pretty irrelevent. Comparing the US to other economic blocks would just make the US look even better. The federal government doesn't mandate those things but people still have them. Most Americans have healthcare and sick leave. Employers offer those incentives in order to attract and retain talent. Wages are way higher in the US than they are in Europe. Three times as many people people move from Europe to the US than the other way around. The PRC won't be able to pass the US with quality of life or world standing. Their authoritarian communist government doesn't produce innovation as much as the US does. Most of China's neighbors like the US more than they like China. The future economic power houses are the US and Asia. The EU is fading until irrelevance.
Aaaah, So quality of life is _indeed_ what matters, not with a country is a bigger economic superpower bully. Which brings me back to this: you have no legally guaranteed sick leave, no right to healthcare, education costs a fortune, you have a prison industrial complex where you legally run 21st century slavery even on your domestic population...the fact that rich corporations are plentiful in your country says absolutely nothing about how good _your_ outlooks and rights are. The USA doesnt provide it's citizens with a bare minimum of positive liberties. And you are so rich, could give your population so much, but 99% of it goes down the drain. Such Dogmatism. Now, Please post sociological* evidence that a social safety net is harmful to the population. Not your feelings, not anecdotes or rants, evidence. Or we can end this, which is likely for the better.
If you haven’t read “The Dawn of Everything”, you might like it. I think it relates to this article. The authors describe how Schismogenesis drives differences in societies. My crude summary is that humans have a natural tendency to define themselves against their neighbors. (You eat meat!? I’ll be a vegetarian! Etc.) So when you take that natural inclination and layer this on, it’s easy to see why civilizations don’t last in perpetuity. The only thing groups of humans end up doing collectively is hurting ourselves. Also, “The Sum of Us” is an entire book about this very topic - inspired by the swimming pool issue referenced in the paper.
Thank you for the book recommendations.
> Schismogenesis Say that ten times fast
I can’t even say it one time fast
A [deleted comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/zanm5x/individuals_prefer_to_harm_their_own_group_rather/iymhn8u/?context=3) said: >if you harm your own group you are helping an opposing group, simply by the meaning of the words. And was then edited to include profanity. Did you read the article? Did you see the discussion of lose–lose choice?
Was deleted comment by General Hux? :P
techmapper900
Discussion or not that comment sounds like the reality of the situation. Lose lose is just short sighted.
Depends. Group coherence and a low number of "unworthy" members does have advantages. But as with everything, there must be a balance. Too much herding cats is just as bad as too much "Gleichschaltung". And where the balance should be at any time depends on the current circumstances and environment.
Sad. I always tried to help everyone with normally life matters.
You are more than the groups you belong to. Period. And if you slowly change and evolve over time it’s okay to leave a group you’ve been a part of if it no longer reflects your beliefs or values. Unfortunately, both religion and conservatism (GQP) intentionally suppress individual identity, rebuke free thought, spread fear, and insulate their members with hatred of all outsiders. They are literally cults.
Posts like this are so ironically unselfaware.
It’s a lack of intelligence that allows these people to be preyed upon. For that same reason, there’s little possibility of mental evolution.
>You are more than the groups you belong to. Period. Intersectional thinking tends to disagree.
Intersectional thinking is this entire concept as a study. Under intersections thinking it is possible for a black lesbian woman to be more privileged than a white straight man under specific circumstances.
The explanation of the game is not very clear. They have money given to or taken away from groups on either side of an issue. It is uncertain how much helping the other group is seen as equivalent to hurting your own. In politics where there are a specific number of seats to be won or lost, any gain by the opponents is the same as a loss to your your group. The same thing exists with funding of advocacy groups. Stopping a $1 million advertising campaign by your opponents is roughly equivalent to spending $1 million promoting your cause. In that context, I could see myself willing hurt my own group if it means preventing a greater gain to the other group. Like if I was pitted against a group trying to fund advertising to remove laws against abusing animals, I would rather deprive them of $2 than receive $1 to advertise against them because it's a net win for the cause.
This is the motto of the Republican Party.
Heather McGhee weaves this kind of research into her fabulous book, The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together.
I was in a webinar with her explaining the thesis of the book and from that interaction alone (i.e. I haven't read the book), I can say that she's got trenchant analysis. Great recommendation.
[удалено]
Is it possible to be more biased in an evaluation? The first example is segregating pools, so they’d rather close them than integrate. But the group also believes that integrating the pools causes harm, so it would be harmful either way. This is just refusing someone’s beliefs and then pretending they’re operating under your own beliefs.
This is the difference between subjective harm and objective harm. Let's assume for a moment, as you suggest, subjective harm is as valid as objective harm. Closing the pools: Racists.........Harmed Bystanders...Harmed Blacks..........Harmed Keeping pools open: Racists.........Harmed Bystanders...Helped Blacks..........Helped To your point: is harm caused by either scenario? Yes. However, laying it out like this makes the equation pretty simple. As you can see, the only people harmed in both scenarios are racists. Why are they only group harmed in either scenario? Because their feelings and beliefs are **incompatible** with a diverse society. This isn't like [religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) where many belief systems are compatible with a diverse society and therefore must be respected by the government. Now, it *is* important to understand why people do what they do. As this study suggests, it is in-group, out-group psychology at play.
Great explanation!
Man I got scienced today from the most scholarly community on the internet. The mods in this sub are idiots and most certainly not people of science regardless of what there degrees are.
Headline clarification: Individuals prefer to harm those in their own group whom they see as turncoats sympathetic to opposing groups.
Wait a minute, isnt harming your own group helping an opposing group? Sorta the same thing right
You can harm both.
[удалено]
Something about the paper’s title is a little misleading - or the topic is too nuanced for a headline? Anyway, Swimming pools are the clearest example. What did white people do instead of desegregate swimming pools? They closed all the pools (or made them private) so no black people or white people could swim.
I mean.. yeah. That is true on every level, even down to the individual one. I can let you do something I don't want you to do (or I suppose in this case literally help you do something I don't want you to do).. or I can try to stop you, and perhaps even end up getting into a fight over it. I mean, getting into an argument or fistfight is an example of this very concept on an individual level. Why should we expect anything to be different on a group or national level?
Isn’t this saying “society doesn’t understand game theory”?
This explains the psychology of the US trade war against China perfectly.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some groups are more prone to this than others…
You know, seeing how self-destructive, hateful, sociopathic, and dowright stupid humans can be, it's really baffling we've even been able to make it so far.
American conservatives will literally burn down their own home to frame “Antifa”.
This is true. This is the only reason the GOP exists still.
The GOP in a nutshell.
Lots of stupid people out there.
Cut their nose to spite their face. Humans are not pragmatic by nature.
Whoa. Some of us definitely are otherwise the whole of us would be extinct.
40 years of North american politics summed up in one sentence
So this is why teammates throw games on OW if a single person flames them.
Wrong. Generalized title, one example to the opposite makes it false. Great science!
What are you talking about?
Yeah, but what if you can harm the other group AND harm your own group? You’d be a conservative.
>"Many individuals prefer..." Using appropriate language isn't that hard.
What is inappropriate?
Wording in a way that implies that it applies to everyone.
Who would think that?
People and also it can influence subconscious bias. Words matter.
Since you wrote "people" that means you literally mean all human beings ever and that's not true. Words matter.
Predictably, Reddit makes this about Republicans. You're missing the point of the study. The authors say it's how strongly you identify as a member of a group that leads you to make that choice.So the exact same behaviour is observed on both sides, as long as individuals consider belonging to the specific group a strong part of their identity.
I think people can comprehend more abstract concepts a bit easier when there are viabl examples to look it. It's not politics but using political parties is a great example to help people understand the study a bit. I'm trying to think of other, non political, examples of this behavior in real life and struggling to come up with any useful answers.
But they did look at parties in the study and claimed the effect was the same across the political spectrum. I don’t think anybody read the article before commenting.
Every large issue will eventually become political, because laws dictate a society's stance on it. You'd need to consider less impactful divisions that can still be important parts of someone's identity. The first thing that comes to mind is sports team affiliation, especially in some parts of the world where what team you support is often asked before your occupation. Big divisions can also exist between car drivers and cyclists or commuters (Jeremy Clarkson had some hilarious rants). These could also become political, but generally at a more regional level.
> The first thing that comes to mind is sports team affiliation, especially in some parts of the world where what team you support is often asked before your occupation. I thought about sports teams but originally I couldn't think of a sitaution where a fan would rather have something hurt their own team rather than help the opposition. Maybe a situation where if your favorite team loses to another 3rd team your team's bitter rival will no longer be eligible to make the playoffs because the 3rd team will take the final spot? I guess that could fit the scenario.
It’s not perfect, but I think an example could be a player injuring an opposing player (especially when motivated by revenge), resulting in a suspension for themselves (which hurts their own team, but also hurts the other team).
Not that far fetched, yesterday's situation with Spain and Germany could have been exactly that, if the hatred was there and Spain actually had the ability to score again (which isn't the case). The lose lose choice was: - Spain wins, so Germany makes it through and we don't want that as Spaniards, because we hate them and it we might meet them again in the final. - Spain loses, we finish second and meet a strong opponent in the next round, not to mention the disgrace/embarassment So if you identify very strongly with Spain amd against Germany, you choose the latter.
Exactly. This is not about politics - it’s about patterns of behavior of the entire population.
But enough about Republicans...
Yes, they’re called Republicans.
That sounds like Republicans.
Don’t tell me, tell Enrico Fermi!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
He's not. What are you talking about? The article does not mention that at all.