Hidden Tribes - The left ain’t gonna like this

[actaeon277]

That issue is getting quite hilarious. Even Politifact is trying to save her.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...eth-warrens-dna-test-what-it-can-and-cant-te/

According to Schurr, the most that can safely be said is that Warren’s test results "may reflect a genetic contribution from a tribe living in what is now the United States."

 

[jamil]

There is a branch of social psychology that argues that people are not rational at all, but instead make decisions based upon intuition and then use rational thought to try to justify the conclusion that was already arrived at. The study in the op hints at it when it discusses Moral Foundations on Page 87 and shows in Fig. 11 that the different tribes have different moral foundations.

It all falls in line with the idea that we make decisions using these moral foundations (intuition) and since the different tribes have different moral foundations they quickly arrive at different conclusions. Those decisions are then impervious to the rational arguments used by the other tribe because they were never really rational decisions in the first place. They are based upon the different moral foundations and rational arguments that use a different moral foundation are not persuasive to a different tribe.

Here is an article that explains it a little better. Ignore the fact that it is the NY Times, or that the professor is liberal, it is aimed at liberals, etc. It explains it pretty well and it is an interesting idea.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

I was just going to say mostly the same thing, minus the link.

 

[Knight Rider]

According to Schurr, the most that can safely be said is that Warren’s test results "may reflect a genetic contribution from a tribe living in what is now the United States."

They seemed quick to assume the contribution was from intermarriage and not a sexual assault. Wouldn’t that be an interesting claim that demands investigation as to possible links with Trumps ancestors.

 

[Thor]

I reject being categorized as being the member of any 'tribe'.

 

[EMDX6043]

I reject being categorized as being the member of any 'tribe'.

Yup. I thought "oh boy! more labels!".

 

[BugI02]

According to Schurr, the most that can safely be said is that Warren’s test results "may reflect a genetic contribution from a tribe living in what is now the United States."

Now watch for the thread of the narrative to shift to how Trump reneged on his challenge

Watch the clip. What Trump actually said is he would pay the million if Pocahontas took a DNA test and "... it proved she was an Indian"

It has done no such thing. The small amount of DNA in her profile indicative of indigenous heritage is not enough to get her membership in any tribe, and some sources I have read have said the amount is half what the average American has in his/her/its ancestry - that she is literally whiter than most Americans. I have also read sources that say there is very little Native American DNA in the database for comparison and so Central and South American DNA was used as a surrogate, so she may have only proved she's 1/1024th Hispanic

https://www.inverse.com/article/49902-elizabeth-warren-genetic-test-native-american-ancestry

In the case of Warren’s test, the comparison group consists of just 37 DNA samples of people “from across the Americas with Native American ancestry.” These reference samples come from Colombia, Peru, and Mexico. None are from North America. The reasoning given is that Central and South Americans’ DNA is similar to that of Native North Americans since researchers theorize that the first Americans all came to the Americas from Asia over the Bering Land Bridge.

 

[jamil]

I reject being categorized as being the member of any 'tribe'.

Words can have abstract meanings you know. What about the gun owner tribe? What about the conservative tribe?

They could have used a different term to describe the concept, I'll grant you that. Probably "in-group" would be better. That's really what they're trying to say. Gun owners are an in-group. Anti-gun **********s are an out-group. Yer either in the tribe or yer not.

Yup. I thought "oh boy! more labels!".

There's nothing wrong with labels per se. It's how people communicate the concept we're talking about. When it becomes more about the labels than the underlying concept, is when it gets bad.

 

[Thor]

Yet tribalism is a very specific thing, a reality that is like a lingering disease on humanity. I doubt they chose that reference by chance, the words have meaning, therefore I reject being categorized by it. I am not the member of any tribe. Tribes are for savages not societies, breaking us back into tribes is the goal of the lefts identity politics.

 

[jamil]

Yet tribalism is a very specific thing, a reality that is like a lingering disease on humanity. I doubt they chose that reference by chance, the words have meaning, therefore I reject being categorized by it. I am not the member of any tribe. Tribes are for savages not societies, breaking us back into tribes is the goal of the lefts identity politics.

I wondered if that's why people objection to the term. You're kinda reifying the term to mean literal savage tribes. I've gotten a lot of push back from INGO when I use that term. At first it kinda took me aback, because it isn't intended as a pejorative, although in-group loyalty can devolve into bigotry against out-groups. Then it dawned on me people are thinking of the term in a more literal sense than intended.

Yes, the naming isn't by chance. It does mean something specific enough. It's the concept that we have embedded into our dna an evolved sense of loyalty to our "tribe". In that sense a tribe is more analogous to an extended family, but bound together by more common traits than just heredity. You could also call it "factions".

I'm not trying to talk you into accepting the idea that you're part of a tribe in the savage sense. I'm just trying to explain my understanding of what they mean by it. So that if you reject the concept, you're rejecting the concept that they mean rather than the one you perceive.

I wouldn't say breaking us back into tribes is the goal of identity politics. It's that the left has devolved into this state of insanity, where they believe we already ARE those groups, and that all the minority groups are oppressed by the majority. It's a world view, in other words, rather than a goal.

Most of us reject the idea of grouping people by physical features, although I have to admit that I tend to feel a sort of kinship with big old fat guys who like to shoot guns. Not that I have anything against skinny people who like to shoot guns. Just that I feel a bit more kinship with the people who are more like me. I don't see anything negative about that unless I start thinking ill of people outside of that group.

 

[EMDX6043]

Well said, Jamil. Do you think that labels lead to stereotypes? They're kinda starting to sound like the same thing.

 

[jamil]

Well said, Jamil. Do you think that labels lead to stereotypes? They're kinda starting to sound like the same thing.

The danger in “tribal” becoming a stereotypical label is the point where it becomes an oversimplification of the intended meaning. If through common use it comes to mean a more literal sense of “tribal”, it then just becomes another pejorative label to hurl at people.

The value in recognizing in-group loyalty is understanding when loyalty to the group is perhaps at the expense of truth or principles. For example, I’ve seen both Republicans and Democrats take up the opposing side’s talking points when leadership flips. I’ve seen people take up a principled stand against the Obama’s actions (not just talking about INGO here), then decide it’s not so bad when Trump does it. Or, something people supported Obama doing, but Trump is literally Hitler when he does it. THAT’s what is meant by tribalism. It’s the group loyalty that makes us less critical of us and more critical of them.

 

[EMDX6043]

Very articulate. I concur!

 

[Dead Duck]

Does the left like anything?

Money..... Power.....Gay Bathhouses......

 

[EMDX6043]

Redistribution of wealth

 

[Twangbanger]

..I don't understand the basis for classifying "traditional conservatives" as being (right) "wing" while "traditional liberals" were classified as part of the "exhausted majority" when the two groups seem to be mirror images...

Yeah, I noticed that. It's positing that liberalism is part of the mainstream. You combine them with more non-ideological groups, then declare a majority.

The thing that was most striking to me, aside from the aforementioned "society is rigged" worldview and tolerance of political-correctness, is that Progressive Activists seem to be Traditional Liberals minus the religious belief. Which I'm taking as a bad sign.

 

[Hawkeye]

Redistribution of wealth

Hmm. Maybe as long as its redistributing someone else’s wealth? I haven’t noticed the Kennedy’s or Kerry’s or Clinton’s or Soros redistributing their own wealth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EMDX6043]

Hmm. Maybe as long as its redistributing someone else’s wealth? I haven’t noticed the Kennedy’s or Kerry’s or Clinton’s or Soros redistributing their own wealth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's why they love socialism. The chosen ones get a pass and the useful idiots work against their own interests.

 

[nate98077]

I hope it doesn't come to Balkanization.

 

[Thor]

I wondered if that's why people objection to the term. You're kinda reifying the term to mean literal savage tribes. I've gotten a lot of push back from INGO when I use that term. At first it kinda took me aback, because it isn't intended as a pejorative, although in-group loyalty can devolve into bigotry against out-groups. Then it dawned on me people are thinking of the term in a more literal sense than intended.

Yes, the naming isn't by chance. It does mean something specific enough. It's the concept that we have embedded into our dna an evolved sense of loyalty to our "tribe". In that sense a tribe is more analogous to an extended family, but bound together by more common traits than just heredity. You could also call it "factions".

I'm not trying to talk you into accepting the idea that you're part of a tribe in the savage sense. I'm just trying to explain my understanding of what they mean by it. So that if you reject the concept, you're rejecting the concept that they mean rather than the one you perceive.

I wouldn't say breaking us back into tribes is the goal of identity politics. It's that the left has devolved into this state of insanity, where they believe we already ARE those groups, and that all the minority groups are oppressed by the majority. It's a world view, in other words, rather than a goal.

Most of us reject the idea of grouping people by physical features, although I have to admit that I tend to feel a sort of kinship with big old fat guys who like to shoot guns. Not that I have anything against skinny people who like to shoot guns. Just that I feel a bit more kinship with the people who are more like me. I don't see anything negative about that unless I start thinking ill of people outside of that group.

Thanks, but for me tribalism is Sunni, Sufi, Shia, Alawite/Kalbiya, Hebrew, Zulu, Cherokee, Persian, Maasai, Alabamhu, Sioux, Miami etc. I have nothing against skinny people either, I've been working to be one for decades. I reject tribalism for its reality no matter how folks try to frame it; I will not claim membership in one ever, reality frames the reference.

 

[jamil]

Thanks, but for me tribalism is Sunni, Sufi, Shia, Alawite/Kalbiya, Hebrew, Zulu, Cherokee, Persian, Maasai, Alabamhu, Sioux, Miami etc. I have nothing against skinny people either, I've been working to be one for decades. I reject tribalism for its reality no matter how folks try to frame it; I will not claim membership in one ever, reality frames the reference.

Sounds like it’s mostly semantics then. Are you a Conservative? Christian? Patriot? Those are identity groups. You could call them tribes abstratly. If you’re a conservative and someone insults conservatives, probably you’ll care at least a little more than you’d care if someone insults Progressives, especially if you’re really conservative. Are you patriotic? Again you’ll care more if people kneel for the National Anthem than people who are less patriotic. Do you feel more loyalty towards or trust people who think more like you do?