Apologies to anyone who's been trying to comment since this issue went out last night: For reasons I don't understand (but am probably responsible for) the Substack dashboard was set to not accept comments from anyone. If you're reading this, I think that means I've fixed the problem.
First, I really appreciate your asking for (and presumably considering) our input. In the often one-way world of podcasts and media, it is a real treat and responsibility. That said, I have a few items of feedback:
1. I have found the Twitter environment to be pernicious, and I think there's a pretty strong body of evidence that exposure to things like negativity and tribalism -- and just to bad ideas generally, things that aren't true -- affects the person consuming them, *even if they are aware of the effect.* I also find Twitter addictive personally, and am better able to be the person I want to be with the app and my old accounts deleted. So there's a high bar for me to join or even endorse a Twitter-based project on that grounds alone.
2. To the extent I understand Twitter, the motivating impulses I've found in it were likes/retweets and negative feedback. Negative feedback seems to get the most attention. I'm not sure it changes behavior. Exposure to ideas might. So why not just buy a bunch of ads stating aphorisms about tribalism and linking to the project? I suppose that may be what the Lincoln Project thought it was?
3. The "anti-tribal tribe" language confuses me a bit, because it seems like a slippery slope to the "tribalism for thee but not for me" hypocrisy you point out in Sam Harris. I assume your intent is to say that "tribe" there is reminding members that they are not above tribalism. But that then leads to the question of what defines the tribe. If the definition is anti-tribalism, it feels a bit like the utopian cults that forbade reproduction.
4. As I know you are aware, people seem to define tribes in opposition to an out-group more than they do affirmatively. I gather that is why the definition is "anti-tribal" rather than "pro-unity" or "positive sum engineers" or something like that. And obviously out-group criticism is how Twitter works, and probably how most of human history has worked. But Will Durant writes about ages of organic growth alternating with ages of critical tearing-down. Is there potential for a more organic growth-oriented anti-tribal community?
5. Otherwise, when you ask how to organize a tribe in opposition, the tricks are tried and true. Create grievances. Exaggerate insults and harm caused by the out group. Turn material interests into human myths -- make control of the Dardanelles a referendum on the kidnapping of beautiful Helen, or make control of the Caribbean into vengeance for Jenkins's ear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_Ear). Make fun of others for what defines them in opposition and emphasize the virtues of what they lack. Employ violence.
But I know those are not the things you have in mind, and indeed that the end you have in mind seems to be a meta-goal of demonstrating a higher form of discourse and interaction? Or does it? Perhaps end goals would better define the mission for us? Otherwise it feels a bit like you want backup from people who may not otherwise be active on Twitter to help you play the game Twitter programs people to play.
Apologies if I am off-base on any of this, and let me reiterate my genuine gratitude for your openness to feedback from us here. I am excited to hear everything you come up with, and would love to help midwife your next projects in whatever way I can!
The Cillizza and Engber examples are okay but not nearly as clear and obvious as the Van Jones segment. Which is not surprising since Van Jones has made a career out of trying to understand the divides in America and searching for ways to heal those divides. Additional likely sources of anti-tribal rhetoric would be other folks have have devoted a significant amount of their careers to understanding and dealing with tribalism. An obvious example is Jon Haidt. Another is the virtually unknown Stephen Martin Fritz, whose theory of dual morality is both familiar yet full of fresh insights, http://www.ourhumanherds.com/about . An abridged version of his book, Our Human Herds, is freely available at his ResearchGate site, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333617748_Our_Human_Herds_abridged_version .
I'm not a Twitter user, so I'm having a hard time getting enthused about the approach described. I also don't use Facebook very much. I'd like to participate in such a worthy project, however. In the old days, leaders used to ask people to write letters -- to Congress, newspapers, etc. That would sometimes be effective in the same way as this is envisioned, I guess.
I've recently been thinking we need more than 2 parties as described in Leo Drutman's book -- "breaking the two-party doom loo, the case for multiparty democracy in america". So perhaps an alternative (or addition) to the strategy of trying to get people more engaged in Twitter would be to get people more engaged in electoral politics outside of the 2 party system.
I think it is possible for individuals of opposing viewpoints to have meaningful conversations about hard issues. Respecting that someone may vehemently disagree with your position but each of you allowing the other person to state their position and responding (insert forceful voice here) to what they have said (end forceful voice) without the use of name calling, belittling their position, and factual information from reputable sources (not cable news, mainstream media, social media, etc.) is how consensus is reached and how individuals clustered away from the outlandish fringe might actually avert the apocalypse.
Last week I had a conversation with a woman whose blog I follow about the Rittenhouse verdict and our diametrically opposed viewpoints about the place of the victim(s) in a criminal trial. The conversation went on over the course of two days. We were respectful of each other's lived experience, how we came to our viewpoints, and the practices in courtrooms. At the end neither of us had budged much from our original positions, but did agree we each had a lot to think about.
If people passionate about making the world a better place and averting the apocalypse could get together, maybe we could: drown out the outlandish fringe, hold our elected officials accountable to the majority, and perhaps make journalists report facts not just what sells. Sign me optimistic that there's still hope.
Here was my idea: Fantasy Intellectual Teams (https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/who-is-in-my-tribe) Incidentally, Robert was selected by one of the most successful owners, and he scored a lot of points. If enough people buy into the idea of this sort of scoring system and would like to help with implementation, I would be glad to re-start the project.
What I like about the Tribeless Tribe idea is that it’s partly an admission that there’s no escape from the tribal instinct that we all have. Instead it’s the next-best thing, a sort of jujitsu that re-purposes our tribal tendencies to oppose their own worst effects.
Kind of like how the Scientific Method takes our argumentative nature and hacks it to the purpose of discovering the truth about the universe.
What I worry about is the ways it could backfire. One key purpose of a tribe is to oppose and defend against rival tribes. If the Tribeless Tribe becomes too tribal, another tribe might arise or coalesce in opposition to it. The Tribey Tribe might gain strength by opposing ours, and if it comes to tribal conflict, the Tribey Tribe can out-tribe the Tribeless Tribe any day.
Should be interesting at least! I’ll start following on Twitter and we’ll see what happens.
I find the idea of "subverting" the social media system very laudable in principle to give influential journalists, politicians, and others pause before issuing something potentially inflammatory. I'm just not sure it'll make much of a dent, at least in this "outrage-rewarding" environment, but I would be extremely happy to be proven wrong on this point, so why not give it a try.
In addition to this, I'm holding on to the (admittedly faint) hope that processes within and without the current US political and journalistic environments will prevent or eat least minimize the apocalyptic threat looming with further descent of the US into authoritarianism and political chaos in the next few years. One (minor) hopeful sign is that a recent editorial on the constitutional crisis in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis) advocates for staying away from broad-brushing and demonization, which at least is somewhat reminiscent of what you advocate:
"Democrats can make it harder or easier for anti-Trump Republicans to join. Some profess to see no distinction between the threat posed by Trump and the threat posed by the GOP. They prefer to use Trump as a weapon in the ongoing political battle, and not only as a way of discrediting and defeating today’s Republican Party but to paint all GOP policies for the past 30 years as nothing more than precursors to Trumpism. Although today’s Trump-controlled Republican Party does need to be fought and defeated, this kind of opportunistic partisanship and conspiracy-mongering, in addition to being bad history, is no cure for what ails the nation."
I think if enough politicians and pundits in both parties realize that no political hay can be made by burning each other's barns down, we might have a chance to see a denouement that's more akin to the end of the Cold War (in 1989/90) rather than a violent conflagration.
This piece inspired me to write Thomas Massie (with whom I have a personal relationship of some sort) a respectful note regarding his recent holiday photo. I am not sure I am wired for the MVTFM, though I admire the inventiveness, and will reconnect with Twitter to see if I can be convinced otherwise. I'll continue to hope that more traditional communication forms can nudge policy and modify ideology though my history with my congressional delegation serves only to demonstrate my naïveté in this regard.
I like the idea of this and would want to participate because I believe in the goals of the project. However, just reading your post and thinking about the examples was a good reminder of how much work it might be to be a good non-tribal citizen. Considering whether your examples are good things for a future tribeless tribe to act upon was something that required actual concentration. Something I felt I should do but wasn't sure I had the energy for. I was tempted to just go back to twitter, where I could more lazily scroll through a carefully screened series of tweets not requiring so much concentration.
And while I am being a downer (sorry), I also wanted to mention that as the audience for the parrot room podcast has grown, there seem to be more commenters there who are more tribal than thoughtful. It is a less fun place to hang out if you don't like tribalism than it used to be. I wish there was a way to change the incentives for the commenters there so they'd be less tribal.
Apologies to anyone who's been trying to comment since this issue went out last night: For reasons I don't understand (but am probably responsible for) the Substack dashboard was set to not accept comments from anyone. If you're reading this, I think that means I've fixed the problem.
First, I really appreciate your asking for (and presumably considering) our input. In the often one-way world of podcasts and media, it is a real treat and responsibility. That said, I have a few items of feedback:
1. I have found the Twitter environment to be pernicious, and I think there's a pretty strong body of evidence that exposure to things like negativity and tribalism -- and just to bad ideas generally, things that aren't true -- affects the person consuming them, *even if they are aware of the effect.* I also find Twitter addictive personally, and am better able to be the person I want to be with the app and my old accounts deleted. So there's a high bar for me to join or even endorse a Twitter-based project on that grounds alone.
2. To the extent I understand Twitter, the motivating impulses I've found in it were likes/retweets and negative feedback. Negative feedback seems to get the most attention. I'm not sure it changes behavior. Exposure to ideas might. So why not just buy a bunch of ads stating aphorisms about tribalism and linking to the project? I suppose that may be what the Lincoln Project thought it was?
3. The "anti-tribal tribe" language confuses me a bit, because it seems like a slippery slope to the "tribalism for thee but not for me" hypocrisy you point out in Sam Harris. I assume your intent is to say that "tribe" there is reminding members that they are not above tribalism. But that then leads to the question of what defines the tribe. If the definition is anti-tribalism, it feels a bit like the utopian cults that forbade reproduction.
4. As I know you are aware, people seem to define tribes in opposition to an out-group more than they do affirmatively. I gather that is why the definition is "anti-tribal" rather than "pro-unity" or "positive sum engineers" or something like that. And obviously out-group criticism is how Twitter works, and probably how most of human history has worked. But Will Durant writes about ages of organic growth alternating with ages of critical tearing-down. Is there potential for a more organic growth-oriented anti-tribal community?
5. Otherwise, when you ask how to organize a tribe in opposition, the tricks are tried and true. Create grievances. Exaggerate insults and harm caused by the out group. Turn material interests into human myths -- make control of the Dardanelles a referendum on the kidnapping of beautiful Helen, or make control of the Caribbean into vengeance for Jenkins's ear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_Ear). Make fun of others for what defines them in opposition and emphasize the virtues of what they lack. Employ violence.
But I know those are not the things you have in mind, and indeed that the end you have in mind seems to be a meta-goal of demonstrating a higher form of discourse and interaction? Or does it? Perhaps end goals would better define the mission for us? Otherwise it feels a bit like you want backup from people who may not otherwise be active on Twitter to help you play the game Twitter programs people to play.
Apologies if I am off-base on any of this, and let me reiterate my genuine gratitude for your openness to feedback from us here. I am excited to hear everything you come up with, and would love to help midwife your next projects in whatever way I can!
The Cillizza and Engber examples are okay but not nearly as clear and obvious as the Van Jones segment. Which is not surprising since Van Jones has made a career out of trying to understand the divides in America and searching for ways to heal those divides. Additional likely sources of anti-tribal rhetoric would be other folks have have devoted a significant amount of their careers to understanding and dealing with tribalism. An obvious example is Jon Haidt. Another is the virtually unknown Stephen Martin Fritz, whose theory of dual morality is both familiar yet full of fresh insights, http://www.ourhumanherds.com/about . An abridged version of his book, Our Human Herds, is freely available at his ResearchGate site, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333617748_Our_Human_Herds_abridged_version .
I'm not a Twitter user, so I'm having a hard time getting enthused about the approach described. I also don't use Facebook very much. I'd like to participate in such a worthy project, however. In the old days, leaders used to ask people to write letters -- to Congress, newspapers, etc. That would sometimes be effective in the same way as this is envisioned, I guess.
I've recently been thinking we need more than 2 parties as described in Leo Drutman's book -- "breaking the two-party doom loo, the case for multiparty democracy in america". So perhaps an alternative (or addition) to the strategy of trying to get people more engaged in Twitter would be to get people more engaged in electoral politics outside of the 2 party system.
I think it is possible for individuals of opposing viewpoints to have meaningful conversations about hard issues. Respecting that someone may vehemently disagree with your position but each of you allowing the other person to state their position and responding (insert forceful voice here) to what they have said (end forceful voice) without the use of name calling, belittling their position, and factual information from reputable sources (not cable news, mainstream media, social media, etc.) is how consensus is reached and how individuals clustered away from the outlandish fringe might actually avert the apocalypse.
Last week I had a conversation with a woman whose blog I follow about the Rittenhouse verdict and our diametrically opposed viewpoints about the place of the victim(s) in a criminal trial. The conversation went on over the course of two days. We were respectful of each other's lived experience, how we came to our viewpoints, and the practices in courtrooms. At the end neither of us had budged much from our original positions, but did agree we each had a lot to think about.
If people passionate about making the world a better place and averting the apocalypse could get together, maybe we could: drown out the outlandish fringe, hold our elected officials accountable to the majority, and perhaps make journalists report facts not just what sells. Sign me optimistic that there's still hope.
Here was my idea: Fantasy Intellectual Teams (https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/who-is-in-my-tribe) Incidentally, Robert was selected by one of the most successful owners, and he scored a lot of points. If enough people buy into the idea of this sort of scoring system and would like to help with implementation, I would be glad to re-start the project.
What I like about the Tribeless Tribe idea is that it’s partly an admission that there’s no escape from the tribal instinct that we all have. Instead it’s the next-best thing, a sort of jujitsu that re-purposes our tribal tendencies to oppose their own worst effects.
Kind of like how the Scientific Method takes our argumentative nature and hacks it to the purpose of discovering the truth about the universe.
What I worry about is the ways it could backfire. One key purpose of a tribe is to oppose and defend against rival tribes. If the Tribeless Tribe becomes too tribal, another tribe might arise or coalesce in opposition to it. The Tribey Tribe might gain strength by opposing ours, and if it comes to tribal conflict, the Tribey Tribe can out-tribe the Tribeless Tribe any day.
Should be interesting at least! I’ll start following on Twitter and we’ll see what happens.
I find the idea of "subverting" the social media system very laudable in principle to give influential journalists, politicians, and others pause before issuing something potentially inflammatory. I'm just not sure it'll make much of a dent, at least in this "outrage-rewarding" environment, but I would be extremely happy to be proven wrong on this point, so why not give it a try.
In addition to this, I'm holding on to the (admittedly faint) hope that processes within and without the current US political and journalistic environments will prevent or eat least minimize the apocalyptic threat looming with further descent of the US into authoritarianism and political chaos in the next few years. One (minor) hopeful sign is that a recent editorial on the constitutional crisis in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis) advocates for staying away from broad-brushing and demonization, which at least is somewhat reminiscent of what you advocate:
"Democrats can make it harder or easier for anti-Trump Republicans to join. Some profess to see no distinction between the threat posed by Trump and the threat posed by the GOP. They prefer to use Trump as a weapon in the ongoing political battle, and not only as a way of discrediting and defeating today’s Republican Party but to paint all GOP policies for the past 30 years as nothing more than precursors to Trumpism. Although today’s Trump-controlled Republican Party does need to be fought and defeated, this kind of opportunistic partisanship and conspiracy-mongering, in addition to being bad history, is no cure for what ails the nation."
I think if enough politicians and pundits in both parties realize that no political hay can be made by burning each other's barns down, we might have a chance to see a denouement that's more akin to the end of the Cold War (in 1989/90) rather than a violent conflagration.
How ironic. The Blob strikes back, Nonzero.
This piece inspired me to write Thomas Massie (with whom I have a personal relationship of some sort) a respectful note regarding his recent holiday photo. I am not sure I am wired for the MVTFM, though I admire the inventiveness, and will reconnect with Twitter to see if I can be convinced otherwise. I'll continue to hope that more traditional communication forms can nudge policy and modify ideology though my history with my congressional delegation serves only to demonstrate my naïveté in this regard.
I like the idea of this and would want to participate because I believe in the goals of the project. However, just reading your post and thinking about the examples was a good reminder of how much work it might be to be a good non-tribal citizen. Considering whether your examples are good things for a future tribeless tribe to act upon was something that required actual concentration. Something I felt I should do but wasn't sure I had the energy for. I was tempted to just go back to twitter, where I could more lazily scroll through a carefully screened series of tweets not requiring so much concentration.
And while I am being a downer (sorry), I also wanted to mention that as the audience for the parrot room podcast has grown, there seem to be more commenters there who are more tribal than thoughtful. It is a less fun place to hang out if you don't like tribalism than it used to be. I wish there was a way to change the incentives for the commenters there so they'd be less tribal.
I just watched “Gladiators” for the first time and can’t help thinking: Are you not entertained?