Good analysis of cousin marriage. I'd just add, though, that inter-tribal warfare has always been a constant, and taking women from the neighboring tribes during a raid served the purpose of genetic diversity.
I'm a follower of Nessim Nicholas Taleb, who writes from the perspective of the Lebanese-born. "Tribal" is viewed as Bad from the WEIRD. Same for "sectarian." Taleb's insight is that it's actually good, and a federated system of government, where the different tribes are neighbors rather than roommates, works best at preserving our humanity.
The WEF / Klaus Schwab view that we all must become WEIRD and own nothing is deserving of scorn. Scale matters. Beliefs that work fine at the village level stop working when scaled up to the nation, but that doesn't mean they were always wrong. It means they were right at their own scale.
Thank you very much for some very insightful points. I've been a distant admirer of Taleb for some time but have not read anything he has written lately. He's a provocative thinker with a lot to say. He may well be right that tribal systems work extremely well at a smaller scale and I imagine this point about capturing mates during raids is right, evolutionarily speaking. I dare say that a proposition to introduce the strategy across the modern western world might run into some opposition, though. I was indeed writing from a western perspective. Perhaps the piece might have benefited from more attention to scale (maybe I'll do a follow up) - and that's exactly why it's so valuable to get feedback from our readers! I always appreciate it.
Thank you, Jason! I’ve read almost all his stuff and I actually hosted him at Google. I read his intro to him beforehand, since he’s one guy I did NOT want to piss off!
I got to hang around with him a little too. Nice guy if you don’t try to prove you’re smarter than him!
I fear that even after reading this twice, I’m still wrongly understanding it through the lens of what I observe about tribalism in the US. So please tell me if I’m missing something here. But here’s my sense— in the US, we’re watching a real time shift to a tribal psychology, where ethics and morality are seen in terms of tribe vs. tribe, rather than sprouting from values/principles common to the whole nation.
I think there are still people fighting against this shift, but increasingly it appears that the mainstream of each tribe resists the arguments of people like me trying to pull things back to a less tribal approach. On one side, conspiracy flapdoodle about liberals being all about sex trafficking and pedophilia abound, while many are lax in condemning Gaetz for actual (not projected) behavior. Among my former tribe, people objecting to the ethical lapse represented by Biden pardoning his son are angrily shouted down and provoke performative unsubscribes.
It feels like our western nation is psychologically realigning to a less western society. And smart people on both sides are declining to object to it.
Thanks for your thoughts, Karl. It's always good to hear from you! It's especially interesting to read what you have to say about the situation in the US right now. I've travelled there a lot, but last time I did so I was shocked - shocked, I tell you! - at how it seemed to have changed. Not that I knew it all *that* well beforehand, but now it seemed like a different country. Or, rather, like two different countries. I know it's a cliche to say, but the coasts were utterly different from the rest of the country, and in such a way that it's really difficult to imagine them reconciling. Even the most causal of conversations seemed to turn to 'Those damn Republicans' or 'Those damn Democrats' in less time than it took to find an empty pocket for yet another paper receipt. (What is it with those paper receipts anyway?) 'Tribal' is a word that my wife and I used over and over again, in fact. We hadn't used it at all, as far as I recall, on our previous coast-to-coast expedition, just five years earlier.
Europe is not immune from this, either. Here in the UK, there is massive widespread disaffection with the whole political system, but some still cling to the old loyalties. More and more it has become a matter of mindset, though: 'progressive' vs. 'traditional', maybe, or 'anywhere' vs 'somewhere'. That's why the old parties are dying and steadily being replaced by what the media keeps calling 'right-wing' parties, who aren't, not really, not in any very meaningful sense. Look at Austria, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and France, for instance. Even so, the US seems to be the paradigm case.
All of which is to say - I blame social media. It is literally designed to reinforce tribal thinking and tribal loyalties. It's also utterly addictive, which mean tribalism too becomes addictive. As tribal thinking spreads, so too do attitudes that run counter to the Enlightenment values that sprang up in western Europe, and on which your own nation was explicitly founded. It can hardly be otherwise: nothing is more antithetical to Enlightenment values after all. You are right that smart people are declining to object t it. I'd go further and say that smart people generally either a) have to shout very loudly to be heard at all, and take extreme positions in order to make any impact, or, b) - and this is the worrying one - don't read any more. I know some very very smart PhD candidates, for instance, who I'm sure would go all blank in the face if you mentioned 'Enlightenment values' or any other abstract notion that would requite reading outside their own field of interest. But maybe that's a topic for another time. I dare say I have depressed us all long enough for now!
It’s not depressing to hear another person decrying all of it. “Tribalism destroys shared embrace of enlightenment values”— that about sums it up. I agree that social media addiction is the main reason.
First things first: as always, thank you for this article.
Speaking of kissing relatives. The criminalization of sexual intercourse between close relatives (as it exists in many countries around the world) is quite an entertaining topic of conversation at parties. I sometimes start with the controversial statement that I would abolish this criminal offense because it cannot be plausibly justified ethically. You won''t believe how many people have very strong opinions on that subject. Although I don't take the topic very seriously myself (I just like entertaining discussions), the fact is that most of the arguments put forward are not convincing.
This post isn't meant to challenge anyone, now. But if anybody is in desperate need for a coversation topic in the near future...
You're welcome! Thank you as ever for your comments on the article. It's great to have a little engagement with Crime & Psychology readers. I very much like your idea of a dinner-party conversation. It's much better than talking about school catchment zones and what illnesses we can expect this winter. I doubt anyone is about to abolish incest laws any time in the near future, but I can see how the idea might stoke discussion. I'll try it soon, maybe in the grocery queue or at the filling station.
Good analysis of cousin marriage. I'd just add, though, that inter-tribal warfare has always been a constant, and taking women from the neighboring tribes during a raid served the purpose of genetic diversity.
I'm a follower of Nessim Nicholas Taleb, who writes from the perspective of the Lebanese-born. "Tribal" is viewed as Bad from the WEIRD. Same for "sectarian." Taleb's insight is that it's actually good, and a federated system of government, where the different tribes are neighbors rather than roommates, works best at preserving our humanity.
The WEF / Klaus Schwab view that we all must become WEIRD and own nothing is deserving of scorn. Scale matters. Beliefs that work fine at the village level stop working when scaled up to the nation, but that doesn't mean they were always wrong. It means they were right at their own scale.
Thank you very much for some very insightful points. I've been a distant admirer of Taleb for some time but have not read anything he has written lately. He's a provocative thinker with a lot to say. He may well be right that tribal systems work extremely well at a smaller scale and I imagine this point about capturing mates during raids is right, evolutionarily speaking. I dare say that a proposition to introduce the strategy across the modern western world might run into some opposition, though. I was indeed writing from a western perspective. Perhaps the piece might have benefited from more attention to scale (maybe I'll do a follow up) - and that's exactly why it's so valuable to get feedback from our readers! I always appreciate it.
Thank you, Jason! I’ve read almost all his stuff and I actually hosted him at Google. I read his intro to him beforehand, since he’s one guy I did NOT want to piss off!
I got to hang around with him a little too. Nice guy if you don’t try to prove you’re smarter than him!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3REdLZ8Xis
I fear that even after reading this twice, I’m still wrongly understanding it through the lens of what I observe about tribalism in the US. So please tell me if I’m missing something here. But here’s my sense— in the US, we’re watching a real time shift to a tribal psychology, where ethics and morality are seen in terms of tribe vs. tribe, rather than sprouting from values/principles common to the whole nation.
I think there are still people fighting against this shift, but increasingly it appears that the mainstream of each tribe resists the arguments of people like me trying to pull things back to a less tribal approach. On one side, conspiracy flapdoodle about liberals being all about sex trafficking and pedophilia abound, while many are lax in condemning Gaetz for actual (not projected) behavior. Among my former tribe, people objecting to the ethical lapse represented by Biden pardoning his son are angrily shouted down and provoke performative unsubscribes.
It feels like our western nation is psychologically realigning to a less western society. And smart people on both sides are declining to object to it.
Thanks for your thoughts, Karl. It's always good to hear from you! It's especially interesting to read what you have to say about the situation in the US right now. I've travelled there a lot, but last time I did so I was shocked - shocked, I tell you! - at how it seemed to have changed. Not that I knew it all *that* well beforehand, but now it seemed like a different country. Or, rather, like two different countries. I know it's a cliche to say, but the coasts were utterly different from the rest of the country, and in such a way that it's really difficult to imagine them reconciling. Even the most causal of conversations seemed to turn to 'Those damn Republicans' or 'Those damn Democrats' in less time than it took to find an empty pocket for yet another paper receipt. (What is it with those paper receipts anyway?) 'Tribal' is a word that my wife and I used over and over again, in fact. We hadn't used it at all, as far as I recall, on our previous coast-to-coast expedition, just five years earlier.
Europe is not immune from this, either. Here in the UK, there is massive widespread disaffection with the whole political system, but some still cling to the old loyalties. More and more it has become a matter of mindset, though: 'progressive' vs. 'traditional', maybe, or 'anywhere' vs 'somewhere'. That's why the old parties are dying and steadily being replaced by what the media keeps calling 'right-wing' parties, who aren't, not really, not in any very meaningful sense. Look at Austria, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and France, for instance. Even so, the US seems to be the paradigm case.
All of which is to say - I blame social media. It is literally designed to reinforce tribal thinking and tribal loyalties. It's also utterly addictive, which mean tribalism too becomes addictive. As tribal thinking spreads, so too do attitudes that run counter to the Enlightenment values that sprang up in western Europe, and on which your own nation was explicitly founded. It can hardly be otherwise: nothing is more antithetical to Enlightenment values after all. You are right that smart people are declining to object t it. I'd go further and say that smart people generally either a) have to shout very loudly to be heard at all, and take extreme positions in order to make any impact, or, b) - and this is the worrying one - don't read any more. I know some very very smart PhD candidates, for instance, who I'm sure would go all blank in the face if you mentioned 'Enlightenment values' or any other abstract notion that would requite reading outside their own field of interest. But maybe that's a topic for another time. I dare say I have depressed us all long enough for now!
It’s not depressing to hear another person decrying all of it. “Tribalism destroys shared embrace of enlightenment values”— that about sums it up. I agree that social media addiction is the main reason.
First things first: as always, thank you for this article.
Speaking of kissing relatives. The criminalization of sexual intercourse between close relatives (as it exists in many countries around the world) is quite an entertaining topic of conversation at parties. I sometimes start with the controversial statement that I would abolish this criminal offense because it cannot be plausibly justified ethically. You won''t believe how many people have very strong opinions on that subject. Although I don't take the topic very seriously myself (I just like entertaining discussions), the fact is that most of the arguments put forward are not convincing.
This post isn't meant to challenge anyone, now. But if anybody is in desperate need for a coversation topic in the near future...
You're welcome! Thank you as ever for your comments on the article. It's great to have a little engagement with Crime & Psychology readers. I very much like your idea of a dinner-party conversation. It's much better than talking about school catchment zones and what illnesses we can expect this winter. I doubt anyone is about to abolish incest laws any time in the near future, but I can see how the idea might stoke discussion. I'll try it soon, maybe in the grocery queue or at the filling station.
You should not forget that christmas is coming soon. What would be better than having that discussion at the familys dinner table?