Disagreement = you are evil (anthropology)

[Black Rose]

Humans cannot stand disagreement with the tribe.

Anyone who disrupts the status quo is abandoned or killed.

Because barriers exist between tribes anyone who is not completely loyal is seen as an outsider.

The outsider will kill you and take your possessions land and food.

Your tribe needs complete unity to compete and survive.

This is deep inside our monkey brains.

Gooble Gobble One Of Us!​

 

[sushi]

individualism and free thinking/creativity are more cherished and celebrated in anglo american countries

collectivism and groupthink are more apparent in east asian countries, like korea and japan. going against the herd will lead you being ostracized and a black sheep. Stones are thrown at you literally.

otherwise , there would be no steve jobs or musk or tesla.

if you think you have it hard in anglo america, try going to japan.

 

[Black Rose]

if you think you have it hard in anglo america, try going to japan.

you are correct but you need to state the cause.

population density

ethnic homogeneity

pre-enlightenment philosophies

-

It is because people in my region of the world had a philosophy of laws where you can have any religion you want to have that people came to make agreements about freedom of thought. It was made in the laws. Freedom to associate, freedom to speech, freedom to property rights. But this only works because people can move away if they wish to. In America, If you believe x and I believe y and we have room to move away from each other then yes we can disagree. Whereas in the east there is no room to move away to. Conformity then is how much you are like everyone else meaning your ethnicity matters alot.

Europe has people who are obsessed with class warfare. They do not think of religious warfare anymore because the population density got too high and everyone who was religious moved away. Now it is all about money and status. That is why they distribute things as equally as they can because the people do not like money and power concentrated such that elites take everything well peasants get nothing as slaves.

Both the East and West handle things in different ways when it comes to equality but it is the same problem. Who gets what? Who gets the money? Who gets to own things?

The West is all about whoever has the most got is justly or unjustly.

In the East it is a matter of who is the leader, what makes them better?

The West became skeptical of its leaders because not everyone was equal.

The West was not homogenous. It was not one family. Fighting was really bad.

We do not have unity of one common ancestor or one common religion.

The secret societies who made the West as it is had to unite people by ideas alone.

And those ideas had to be universal to all humans or it would not work.

 

[birdsnestfern]

This is what I think is the difference, In Japan and China there is no melting pot of culture, they have a system where everyone has a role and knows what that role is. The religion, school, social life, it’s pre determined.
In USA all the cultures create diversity, and schools and many jobs encourage you to adapt to diversity. It’s mostly Christian conservatives that do not like diversity I think.But even in government they require everyone to take diversity classes every year to encourage people getting along.

 

[scorpiomover]

Jung's use of psychopathology is unusual, in that it's not a word that one usually uses in English. So he's trying to impress something that is not usually understood.

"The psychopathology (= psycho + path + logy = the understanding (logic, logos) of the diseases (path-ology) of the mind (psyche) ) of the masses is rooted in the psychology (the understanding of the mind) of the individual."

Ergo: "The understanding of the diseases of the minds of the masses, is rooted in the understanding of the mind of the average person."
This is because there are subjective factors, and objective factors. Subjective factors differ from person to person. With large populations, those differences randomise: 1, -1, 2, -2, etc. Their total sum effect cancels each other out, leaving a sum of 0 effects.

Objective factors are those that do not differ from person to person. So the bigger the population size, the more their effects magnify.

So the problems caused by the minds of the masses making poor choices, is due to the objective factors that are pretty much the same in most people in the same population.

 

[scorpiomover]

This is what I think is the difference, In Japan and China there is no melting pot of culture,

On the contrary. The Chinese have over 56 separate ethnic groups. However, they see themselves as all Chinese, the same as in the USA.

they have a system where everyone has a role and knows what that role is. The religion, school, social life, it’s pre determined.

That was called "the class system". The advantage was that those who weren't really sure what to do, and/or weren't that self-motivated, had some kind of idea of what to do so they could have a job, a home, friends, a relationship and maybe kids.

In USA all the cultures create diversity, and schools and many jobs encourage you to adapt to diversity.

The class system was dropped in favour of equal rights, on the basis that some people were given roles that most of them would never be happy with, and so the class system was corrupt.

The current system was that everyone would have the opportunity to go for almost any job, as long as they applied, and jumped through the necessary hoops to rise to the top.

A lot of people are unhappy with the new system, because now each person's results depended on how self-motivated and how self-ish they were. So those who weren't really sure what to do, and/or weren't that self-motivated, had no idea of what to do so they could have a job, a home, friends, a relationship and maybe kids, and many of them became highly unproductive, and ended up on benefits.

It’s mostly Christian conservatives that do not like diversity I think.

Ironic, because Xianity is not that popular in Japan and China.

Also ironic, because the attitude of Westerners to value equal rights was taken from things like fair rents that were established in the Courts of the Chancery, who were priests, and who took the idea of fairness directly from the Bible.

It would have been better if we have not "thrown out the baby with the bathwater", so to speak.
E.G. If we had kept the security of the class system, and simply made it more flexible.
E.G. If we had made it select for competencies and not things like one's race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

But alas, we didn't get that. So we ended up with a system that allowed anyone to go for anything they wanted. They just had to go for it.

That was better for those who had bags of motivation, such as the children of the wealthy, who are trained to win lots of competitions since birth. So they became even more wealthy. Economic inequality has risen consistently since the 1950s.

It was much worse for those who had a lot of ability to help the world but weren't that selfish and so would have been likely to want to help the world, but not themselves that much. So less problem-solvers and so the big problems of society got bigger and bigger.

But even in government they require everyone to take diversity classes every year to encourage people getting along.

I've never heard anyone suggest that people in government are easier to get on with than most people. So it would sound as if diversity classes are failing to do anything positive.

Are you sure that's the purpose of diversity classes?

 

[birdsnestfern]

Not easier to get along with, but helps train supervisors to reward positive differences and discourage the negative issues related to diverse cultures. And tries to teach people being different means different perspectives benefit the group and generate growth and ideas. The educated will be more tolerant and open. For example, don’t you want others to appreciate the shy person has better concentration and usually works harder than the extrovert? It just helps you understand how thinking different benefits all.

 

[sushi]

This is what I think is the difference, In Japan and China there is no melting pot of culture, they have a system where everyone has a role and knows what that role is. The religion, school, social life, it’s pre determined.
In USA all the cultures create diversity, and schools and many jobs encourage you to adapt to diversity. It’s mostly Christian conservatives that do not like diversity I think.But even in government they require everyone to take diversity classes every year to encourage people getting along.

i think the west has its share of witch hunts and stuff and learned from it.

in the past, you would have burned at cross if you oppose christianity and say the earth revolve around the sun or evolution.

like alan turing, einstein galileo, and persecution of genius and deviant people , that is why they are more tolerant.

 

[Black Rose]

It would have been better if we have not "thrown out the baby with the bathwater", so to speak.
E.G. If we had kept the security of the class system, and simply made it more flexible.
E.G. If we had made it select for competencies and not things like one's race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

There would be a better society if we had made it so that discrimination had no counter-reaction. By excluding people they wanted to be included, by including them the forces of people wanting exclusion got stronger, this pushed people to radicalize on both ends.

But alas, we didn't get that. So we ended up with a system that allowed anyone to go for anything they wanted. They just had to go for it.

We had safety nets but the people going for it did not want those nets to exist so cut them where they could. This made people see that those nets needed reinforcements against the cutting being done.

That was better for those who had bags of motivation, such as the children of the wealthy, who are trained to win lots of competitions since birth. So they became even more wealthy. Economic inequality has risen consistently since the 1950s.

To define wealth you need only look at half the population who had motives to succeed. Meaning it was not the rich kids, it was those who did well necessarily because they could do well. Half the population got what they wanted half did not in the USA. This happened in schools and jobs where people were selected based on the energy they had to do well and keep going.

It was much worse for those who had a lot of ability to help the world but weren't that selfish and so would have been likely to want to help the world, but not themselves that much. So less problem-solvers and so the big problems of society got bigger and bigger.

People got segregated into a new class system, motivated and non-motivated, they could work in government and technology sectors and send kids to college (half the population).

The problem with society is that even the problem solvers who were equally distributed in the population motivated and non-motivated got shipped to the big firms, the big places of think tanks and the people at the bottom got more poor. That is why people saw that the distribution of resources mattered. No money causes people to be desperate, to get motivated in a different way, to create mass movements of grievance. What they do then is organized based on not having what they need and thinking of ways to get it. They then look for who has it and who is keeping it away from them, they then use masses of people to overwhelm the system, the courts the business, and the entire economy.

If you have no power you get power by collectively moving yourself together.

Then those who see this know what to do.

It is fair to say the economy is good but inequality is high.

The government then tries to fix things and counter-reactions happen again.

 

[sushi]

chinese homogenous is already different from japan.

individual quotient is higher in chinese because there are too many people, its hard despite efforts by the top to force everyone into one mold. chinese are more similar to india in regard they are individualistic at work and collective at home, family.

japan is prone to natural disasters like volcanos and earthquakes, along with scarcity mindset of being on an island , that is why everyone has to get along as a team for the ship to sail to move. Group consensus is more important than the individual and the guy that rocks the boat will get hammered back.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Humans cannot stand disagreement with the tribe.

Anyone who disrupts the status quo is abandoned or killed.

Because barriers exist between tribes anyone who is not completely loyal is seen as an outsider.

The outsider will kill you and take your possessions land and food.

Your tribe needs complete unity to compete and survive.

This is deep inside our monkey brains.

This is true, but we humans don't have tribes.

Tribes used to be made of families that knew each other for life.
They knew each other intimately, they knew each other on very friendly and deep level.
You or me or anyone here does not have a tribe.
Tribes don't exist.
Unless you have a friend group that you share lifestyle with and goals and values with.

 

[PeopleDoSuck]

Humans cannot stand disagreement with the tribe.

Anyone who disrupts the status quo is abandoned or killed.

Because barriers exist between tribes anyone who is not completely loyal is seen as an outsider.

The outsider will kill you and take your possessions land and food.

Your tribe needs complete unity to compete and survive.

This is deep inside our monkey brains.

"A man who is unconscious of himself acts in a blind, instinctive way and is in addition fooled by all the illusions that arise when he sees everything that he is not conscious of in himself coming to meet him from outside as projections upon his neighbour." - Carl Jung

Yes, you are right. But it's mainly because of ^those people. Unfortunately, this is the common state of (wo)man and it's only through confronting one's own neurosis/madness that people grow away from it.

It's probably the major failing of humanity, it's most destructive and crippling nature. Animals don't have this problem, but they also don't have the capacity for intellect that we do. We are animals with intelligence and we do act like it. We need to complement our intelligent animal brains with wisdom, but unfortunately evolution didn't see a need for it. Hopefully, for the sake of humanity, this eventually happens. I'm almost certain that there would be a lot less suffering in the world, if we did.

It might be that AI solves this problem. And it's ironic, humans don't like the thought of being replaced by AI or anything really, yet we have children that eventually replace us. Why can't AI be our children? It can be wise where we are not; it can be our evolution.