TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

A World Without Differences

Go To

Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#51: Mar 12th 2015 at 3:08:12 PM

You do notice that your happiness comes at the expense of everyone else losing?

I wonder what you would make of Chess or Go. Most matches tend to end with someone losing.

Winning or losing is not a bad thing per se. The problem is with how you win or lose, if that how involves unsavoury, questionable or malicious acts/moves. And if you can win or lose well, with respect for the opponent.

Sometimes, teams win or lose while being gentlemen on the pitch. Case in point: the majority of rugby matches.

[down]True.evil grin

edited 12th Mar '15 3:12:34 PM by Quag15

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#52: Mar 12th 2015 at 3:10:46 PM

Except France VS New-Zealand, that one's always a massacre.tongue

[up][up]Yeah, they signed up for it, so did their fans. Even assuming that the cost of each defeat is lower than the benefit of a victory, I would still wager that the sum of all defeats is greater misery than the one victory's happiness. In other words, tournaments are a Negative Sum Game when it comes to happiness.

Actually finding out whether that's true would be the job of a sociologist and a polling team, I suppose.

Could it be that the average football team think of themselves as potential champions, in the same way that the average American considers himself a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, which is why they tolerate the system the way it's set up; they assume they'll win eventually?

And I explicitly said I did not condone "rewarding mere participation" and "encouraging mediocrity". Those are insulting and humiliating consolation prizes. I have yet to meet someone who actually believes that the important thing is not to win, but to participate. It's only important to get a lot of participants so that the winner can brag about having beaten everyone there is, which is why people get so pissed off when a country boycotts the Olympics.

What I advocate is to change the win condition so that there can be more actual winning. Taking defeat and calling it victory is hypocritical and insulting.

edited 12th Mar '15 3:20:12 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#53: Mar 12th 2015 at 3:26:55 PM

Well, you could ask a football fan, and I suspect most of us would say that the victories more than make up for the defeats.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#54: Mar 12th 2015 at 3:31:04 PM

A nation that loses all the time (the exception having been a friendly match) and does not show signs of misery is San Marino.

Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#55: Mar 12th 2015 at 3:42:40 PM

Take the last World Cup. Costa Rica stood up against England, Uruguay, and Italy and won. I can tell you there was anything but tears of sorrow when Holland finally sent Costa Rica back home. It was an ecstatic thing.

The concept of playing is, by itself, the reward. Victory is an extra boon.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Antiteilchen In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good. Since: Sep, 2013
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
#56: Mar 12th 2015 at 3:52:24 PM

You do notice that your happiness comes at the expense of everyone else losing?
It's not really a zero sum game. The losers don't really "lose" anything. Nothing gets taken away from those who din't win. They're in the same situation as if they didn't participate.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#57: Mar 12th 2015 at 6:58:53 PM

Wow, really? Losing a sports game is, surprisingly, not the worst thing to happen to someone. Nor is it the case that most people lose literally all the time; everyone wins at least once. And the guys that do it for fun usually don't care all that much, and the ones that do this professionally learn to deal with losses because they do it professionally and you literally cannot win every time.

You act like the misery for a loss lasts forever or is some indelible scar. Or that someone being happy their team one is a great sin. Neither of these things is actually true, and sports is not a thing that's ruining humanity's ability to get along.

It seems that you bizarrely have it out for sports specifically and the concept of competition in general. And I usually don't say this, but you need to deal with the fact that quite a few people find this sort of thing enjoyable and we don't actually stand to gain much by changing this. You would simply be taking away an aspect of the world that brings joy to a lot of people. Which would make anyone who attempts an arbitrary asshole.

You, Handle, also seem to be operating largely on confirmation bias in this case.

edited 12th Mar '15 7:01:14 PM by AceofSpades

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#58: Mar 12th 2015 at 8:19:23 PM

I don't think this topic is doing well or going good places. I think overall it needs some reconsideration and maybe even some rewording.

Quag: You may want to more carefully consider some of those points. Some of what you have listed has been tried by some of histories more unpleasant leaders to one degree or another and the end result was supremely tragic. This is partly why you are getting so many generally negative responses in a broad sense. The other reason is it would be super villain levels of oppressiveness to mandate and then enforce it.

One particularly cringe inducing component is the use of "One World Order" which is often considered the same as "New World Order" it is going to make a lot of people very nervous and uneasy. Never mind make them possibly hostile outwardly. That speaks of world domination and brutality true world domination would require to achieve. While conspiracy nuts obsess over it to ridiculous degree the reality is no one would really want it. Especially one that might be so extremely strict. Frankly a lot of what you have suggested I have seen expressed in disturbing tones as goals of the mythical new world order of many conspiracy theories and the means to achieve it are not something any sane or rational person should honestly consider.

I certainly understand wanting an end the honestly destructive conflicts of the world but conflict is part of humanity and has no one single cause or even causes you can simply target and adjust for.

At most I would hope for an end to wars between nations. That might actually be attainable but making it possible would be rather difficult and take a long time to achieve.

edited 12th Mar '15 8:24:13 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#59: Mar 12th 2015 at 8:27:21 PM

[up]If I knew how this discussion would've turned out, yeah, I'd definitely have rephrased it better, so that we could have a more productive debate.

Thing is, I can't just re-edit the original post (as it would lead to loss of context to those who will binge this thread).

Should I ask a mod for help?

RaichuKFM Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons. from Where she's at Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Wishing you were here
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
#60: Mar 12th 2015 at 10:03:02 PM

There seems to be two things that could be discussed here:

Either we're to envision a world without group mentalities (a world without groups at all is farcical)

Or we're to envision a world that's merely lacking mentalities pitting groups against each other?

I think what was meant was the latter, while what was said was the former, or the impossible idea of it lacking groups entirely.

And, relevant to this discussion, I think, is that it seems to me that the only way you could avoid a group mentality when it comes to something like philosophy or religion is if everyone involved had no opinions or beliefs on the subject.

Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#61: Mar 12th 2015 at 10:21:16 PM

qag: You could. I would do it now while it isn't so many pages so not much is lost.

Here is what I would do. First re-write the OP then replace the old one. Leave a note saying the discussion was changed to better fit the topic and avoid issues the discussion from page X forward marks the point of topic change. Then make a post saying the same thing to sort of serve as visible marker where the changed happened. Folks binging the thread will stumble across the posts we have made here, the edited OP, and your possible future post and then grok onto what happened.

Who watches the watchmen?
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#62: Mar 13th 2015 at 5:02:00 AM

Or we're to envision a world that's merely lacking mentalities pitting groups against each other?

I'm entirely fine with that, and would find it very satisfactory. Not completely satisfactory, because there are in-group things, that are thrust on members against their will, which make them miserable, but do not pit them against other groups.

The end of wars between nations, gangs, and, most importantly, between states and their citizens, is the barest minimum I would settle with.

@Ace: you seem to operate under two assumptions:

  • That I'm not open to evidence against my working hypothesis.
  • That what I'm proposing is a political program that's going to be naively enforced through force of arms and government edicts.

Ace, you seem to be underestimating my intelligence, my rationality, and my compassion towards my fellow human beings.

Certainly, I don't yet understand why someone would participate in competitions they always lose, but I've just learned that it happens, so that assumption's gone. By further engaging in civil debate with people who have a different point of view than mine, I can keep on refining my model of how all this works. Perhaps I'll come out with the conclusion that rival sports teams are a fine thing to have, or perhaps the opposite, or perhaps something entirely different and unexpected; I'll find out as I learn.

As for prohibiting things by rule of law, that would fall under "the definition of insanity". They would come back stronger as soon as the regime changed, like a yo-yo diet. No, I would go about it the same way we're going about homophobia, racism, sexism, jingoism, religious discrimination, and other such things people used to care a lot about maintaining, which have been around for so long we thought they would never go away. Through ideas and debate, first and foremost.

@"One world order", I prefer the term "Universal Society". Ideally, it would include any extra-terrestrial colonies, and any sentient life we come across, if we're mutually compatible.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
RaichuKFM Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons. from Where she's at Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Wishing you were here
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
#63: Mar 13th 2015 at 10:07:20 AM

On being proud of something that you didn't have anything to do with, it doesn't seem reasonable at all, on the surface, when put like that. But it's purely reasonable to take pride in the success of something you've emotionally invested in. So is the conclusion here that it's irrational to emotionally invest in things you don't have anything to do with? Because that seems very off to me, and I don't know if I can imagine very well humans who don't do that. Also, it would kill off all but purely educational fiction.

Group mentalities themselves are similarly another thing I can't really imagine humans without. And further, they do humanity a lot of good. And we haven't outgrown the need for them. I highly doubt humanity ever will. But, for the sake of argument, if we did, then... I'm confident it wouldn't be a utopia. I don't know how we can remove group mentalities and emotionally investing in accomplishments that aren't your own without fundamentally crippling basic empathy and sympathy. What reason do you have to help a random drowning person other than you happen to both be humans? Isn't helping someone for purely that reason part of a group mentality?

If you didn't remove that tendency to identify with and invest in other things, the kind of smaller groups with their own mentalities would come back of their own accord, unless you made humanity literally entirely homogeneous.

I doubt anyone here wants humanity to be a complete hegemony, or without empathy, but those seem to be the only way to accomplish a group-mentality-less society. Which seems to imply that, not only is what's being espoused impossible, it's also not actually what anyone wants?

The issues that I think you're lamenting, Handle, aren't really the fault of group mentalities themselves?

Also, I do apologize if I've misconstrued anyone's points, here; please correct me if I did that.

edited 13th Mar '15 10:30:20 AM by RaichuKFM

Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#64: Mar 13th 2015 at 12:48:31 PM

(feeling confused about how to rewrite the OP; it may take a few hours)

TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#65: Mar 13th 2015 at 1:16:10 PM

I am entirely fine with smaller group mentalities disappearing in favour of a Human/Sentien/Universal group mentality, but can that really be called a group mentality? I think it's a much simpler thing; empathy and compassion, pure and simple. They don't require identification. They don't require appropriating that which isn't yours. All that is needed, is openness. It is entirely possible to want to do good for someone with whom you cannot identify at all.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
RaichuKFM Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons. from Where she's at Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Wishing you were here
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
#66: Mar 13th 2015 at 1:23:47 PM

My intended point is that with empathy, and with identifying with and investing in other things, group mentalities will inevitably emerge.

It's not that you can't have empathy without group mentalities, but that empathy leads to group mentalities. What empathy is, is understanding others from their own perspective. How that could ever not lead to people identifying with each other, I don't understand.

Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#67: Mar 13th 2015 at 1:48:21 PM

Interesting. I rather come at it from the opposite perspective; that group mentalities come from and with Lack of Empathy and Moral Myopia to those outside what you consider "us". Hence why when "we" do something to "them", it doesn't matter because "their" feelings don't count, but when "they" do to "us", it's a huge frickin' deal.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#68: Mar 13th 2015 at 2:04:18 PM

You could say that but it is much too natural for humans to join in groups. There are reasons, biological ones being the most preponderant, that do not facilitate the independence between individuality and empathy.

In other words, groups sometimes behave as assholes because to survive, they must.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#69: Mar 13th 2015 at 2:18:44 PM

Plenty of asshole survival-friendly attitudes that have become obsolete have been abandoned without much fuss. Humans are supremely adaptable. Vestigial habits should be left to atrophy and whither down into irrelevance.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Aszur A nice butterfly from Pagliacci's Since: Apr, 2014 Relationship Status: Don't hug me; I'm scared
A nice butterfly
#70: Mar 13th 2015 at 2:21:54 PM

Should.

Can they?

Homosexuality and even patriarchal societies are not that old, as we have supposed matriarchal societies in prehistory, not to mention religion and whatnot.

But being born into a family and being part of one and having to identify with your kin has been part of us for far, far, far longer than organized sports, religion, or systematic repercussion of homosexuality/skin color.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#71: Mar 13th 2015 at 3:56:18 PM

Homosexuality and even patriarchal societies are not that old

Homosexuality is older than humanity. Patriarchal societies are Older Than Dirt. That's plenty.

we have supposed matriarchal societies in prehistory

Key word being "supposed".

But being born into a family and being part of one and having to identify with your kin has been part of us for far, far, far longer than organized sports, religion, or systematic repercussion of homosexuality/skin color.

So were murder, theft, and lying, and yet we're growing out of all of those, slowly but surely. It's the having to identify part that bothers me the most, especially when you're expected to carry on with negative family traits, or family traits that don't fit you at all.

Another very old thing is the Changeling Fantasy, which is brought forth by children and their kin most definitely not identifying with each other. Self-Made Orphan, Offing the Offspring, Sibling Rivalry, are also very, very old.

No, I don't think appeal to ancientness is grounds to justify continuing any human practice, not even sex or childbirth or family. We need reasons why continuing with those is a good idea given present day needs and present day means, with consideration also to future needs and means.

To give an example: why continue breastfeeding when powdered maternal milk is available? Wrong answer: because it's the proper way to do it and the way it was always done. Correct answer: for a whole bunch of pragmatic reasons.

In all these matters, it is very important to anticipate and compensate for status quo bias. Every change is not an improvement, but every improvement is a change.

edited 13th Mar '15 3:56:45 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
shiro_okami Since: Apr, 2010
#72: Mar 13th 2015 at 4:07:19 PM

[up][up] Exactly what do you define as old? Homosexuality dates back to at least ancient Greece and its is doubtful that there ever was a matriarchal society.

EDIT: Ack, [nja].

edited 13th Mar '15 4:13:18 PM by shiro_okami

RaichuKFM Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons. from Where she's at Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Wishing you were here
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
#73: Mar 13th 2015 at 4:21:26 PM

I do believe that your ideal is, put simply, impossible. Group mentalities emerge from very basic human features. You could destroy all the groups, we'd make new ones. It's inescapable. How can you avoid people having an opinion on something intractable, like philosophy, or religion, or what show is better, and grouping with others with similar opinions on that subject? You can't.

There's no way we can answer this problem about what would be better, because your ideal is impossible to make any traction towards. I'm getting a very strong impression that you've misdiagnosed what the problem is; I'm not sure what it is, exactly, that you dislike, but the idea that group mentalities are somehow no longer useful is something I don't understand.

Why are sports teams acceptable things in this day and age? Because people like them, they enjoy playing in them, they enjoy watching them, they enjoy having something to root for, to invest in. To say they're useless is foolish. It's easy to say, by utilitarian standards, that a form of entertainment that you don't enjoy isn't worth it. I think it's wrong to do so. Otherwise there's cases to be made against all entertainment whatsoever.

People will band together over things. Bands of people can behave in negative ways. So can individuals. The problem isn't people banding together over things. I could understand you more if you were arguing against something that wasn't so intrinsic to human nature?

Why, rationally, do people band together? Because people enjoy company, they enjoy reinforcement, they like being around people they can identify with. This isn't a matter of cost/benefit, it can't be, it's too nebulous and based on subjective measures.

I have a strong suspicion that I'm articulating myself very poorly, so it might be best if I just duck out now before I start making even more of a mess of what I'm trying to say.

Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#74: Mar 13th 2015 at 4:56:13 PM

How can you avoid people having an opinion on something intractable, like philosophy, or religion, or what show is better, and grouping with others with similar opinions on that subject? You can't.

Non Sequitur: "we share an opinion, therefore we must become a group"?

It's easy to say, by utilitarian standards, that a form of entertainment that you don't enjoy isn't worth it.

It is indeed easy to make that mistake. I recanted a few posts ago, if you paid attention. Now I want to better understand what good and what wrong sports do to people. The ultimate judgment will still be on utilitarian grounds, of course; I only acknowledge that my perspective is incomplete, and that I need further information.

something that wasn't so intrinsic to human nature

Please don't confuse something being common with something being indispensable.

The problem isn't people banding together over things.

No, the problem is people excluding others over things, and also pushing themselves and each other to behave identically, especially when it comes to stupid shit that is unrelated to the behaviour they had.

Separating and condensing the immense spectrum of policies and political ideals into two parties with two sets of ideas is one such idiotic example of group mentality. There's few things I find more detrimental to public debate than Orange Vs. Green bundlings of ideas.

In every city, the population has been divided for a long time past into the Blue and the Green factions... And they fight against their opponents knowing not for what end they imperil themselves... So there grows up in them against their fellow men a hostility which has no cause, and at no time does it cease or disappear, for it gives place neither to the ties of marriage nor of relationship nor of friendship, and the case is the same even though those who differ with respect to these colours be brothers or any other kin. I, for my part, am unable to call this anything except a disease of the soul...

Procopius, on chariot racing in the Roman Empire. This is some ancient bullshit.

This isn't a matter of cost/benefit, it can't be, it's too nebulous and based on subjective measures.

You've be amazed at the improvements psychologists have made in quantifying such things. Nevertheless, it is very much a work in progress. At any rate, placing the pros and cons in neat bullet points is always useful. Subjective isn't the same as intractable.

I have a strong suspicion that I'm articulating myself very poorly, so it might be best if I just duck out now before I start making even more of a mess of what I'm trying to say.

You're actually doing a very decent job, it's just that the ideas you're proposing are a tad untested. Frankly, I find it refreshing and instructive to engage with views that are so sincere.

edited 13th Mar '15 5:01:30 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#75: Mar 14th 2015 at 8:00:01 AM

I've edited the OP a bit. Is it better?


Total posts: 86
Top