In-group: Difference between revisions
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Enforcement of [[cultural]] norms through [[taboos]] is only effective within one's in-group. A global [[culture]] with a [[universal]] in-group will enable humanity to share and enforce [[Justice|non-legally binding]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm social norms] that will be needed to prevent bad actors, such as spreaders of [[misinformation]], from gaining influence on [[social media]] and other globally connected [[platforms]]. | Enforcement of [[cultural]] norms through [[taboos]] is only effective within one's in-group. A global [[culture]] with a [[universal]] in-group will enable humanity to share and enforce [[Justice|non-legally binding]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_norm social norms] that will be needed to prevent bad actors, such as spreaders of [[misinformation]], from gaining influence on [[social media]] and other globally connected [[platforms]]. | ||
== | == Us Bias == | ||
We are inherently biased towards our in-group, preventing us from objective critical analysis of statements made by others within our in-group. This has been a major factor in the spread of [[misinformation]] on [[social media]]. | |||
== | == Them Bias == | ||
Defining an in-group necessitates defining an out-group, which if not ignored is usually considered an "enemy" or rival to be [[contrarian|opposed]] at any opportunity. This can lead people away from critical thinking and towards [[contrarianism]]. | |||
== Readers and Watchers == | == Readers and Watchers == |
Revision as of 19:51, 11 January 2024
Creating the Universal In-Group
There is a natural tendency for humans to define themselves in terms of in-groups and outsiders.
This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but in a globally connected society it can lead to chaos. There are so many overlapping in-groups that cross all national and cultural borders that attempting to define them in any way creates tons of exceptions.
The only morally defensible in-group when it comes to the utilitarian ethical calculus is all humans, and outside the realm of survival that should be expanded to also include all living things. Any hierarchical subdivision is inherently unjust.
A primary goal of metaculture is to establish the common source of our shared humanity in order to bridge the gaps between cultures and allow for the creation of a universal in-group that will allow us to finally get on the same page and work together to solve problems that face us on a global scale. Climate change and overpopulation leading us towards environmental collapse is the most pressing, though a future asteroid or alien invasion will also be easier to confront as a unified species.
Seeking Commonalities in Conversations
Most online discourse, especially that of the political or religious variety, takes on a confrontational tone. We tend to read other people's writing with an eye for differences between their ideas and our own, then take to the comments to defend our ideas against the perceived attack. This becomes a natural impediment to building bridges and creating that universal in-group.
This can be counteracted with mindful reading. Instead of picking apart an argument and exposing its flaws, focus on the parts where you agree. Assume that the other person isn't an idiot, and possesses thoughts and knowledge beyond the few sentences you have read. If they are trolling, ignore them. But if someone is willing to engage in conversation with you, and your goal is to build bridges, then it helps to give people the benefit of the doubt and focus the conversation on your common ground.
Enforcement of Norms
Enforcement of cultural norms through taboos is only effective within one's in-group. A global culture with a universal in-group will enable humanity to share and enforce non-legally binding social norms that will be needed to prevent bad actors, such as spreaders of misinformation, from gaining influence on social media and other globally connected platforms.
Us Bias
We are inherently biased towards our in-group, preventing us from objective critical analysis of statements made by others within our in-group. This has been a major factor in the spread of misinformation on social media.
Them Bias
Defining an in-group necessitates defining an out-group, which if not ignored is usually considered an "enemy" or rival to be opposed at any opportunity. This can lead people away from critical thinking and towards contrarianism.
Readers and Watchers
Are you a reader or a watcher? Whatever your in-group we have you covered!