tribalism [cc]

Tribalism is broadly defined in neutral terms,
as the state or fact of being organized in tribes: social groups sharing common
interests or attributes. The word “tribe” is often used in a positive way
to describe supportive communities. Individuals from abusive environments are
encouraged to “find their tribe”: to find others who, like them,
reject abusive relationships. But tribalism’s also taken on another meaning,
referring, typically in a negative way, to behaviour and attitudes that stem from
strong loyalty to one’s own social group. Group biases have been studied by
social psychologists for decades. In the 1960s, researchers proposed two main
explanations for group discrimination. They suggested it arose from
pre-existing competition between groups, or as an irrational attempt to find emotional
release by scapegoating others. But in the 1970s, Henri Tajfel found that
neither of these causes were necessary. All it took to create discrimination was
the act of dividing people into groups. He took 64 teenagers from the same school,
divided them into two arbitrary groups, and asked them to assign
monetary reward points to anonymous members of
their own group and the other group. Awarding others instead of themselves
took away direct self-interest. Not only did subjects assign more money
to their own group than to the other group, they often maximised
the difference in rewards, even if it meant their
own group received less. For example, rather than give 15 points to an ingroup
member and 10 points to an outgroup member, They might give 11 points to the ingroup member
and 1 to the outgroup member. So, there was no self-interest, no meaningful
group identity, and no pre-existing conflict. Being from the same school,
there was a fair chance some anonymous out group members
might even be close friends. But the overriding instinct was
loyalty to a random group. In his book, Moral Tribes, Joshua Greene
explores this tribalistic response, in relation to the problem of cooperation. Greene cites ecologist Garrett Hardin’s
‘tragedy of the commons’ problem, in which some self-interested herders
raise livestock on a common pasture. To maximise their own profits, they
continue to increase their livestock. Eventually, the pasture succumbs
to overgrazing. The grass goes, the animals die,
and the herders are left with nothing. Hardin’s thought experiment
illustrates how individuals who act only in their own best
interests can all end up worse off. Greene frames morality as a set of
psychological adaptations, that allow otherwise selfish individuals
to reap the benefits of cooperation, aligning individual interests
with group interests. He illustrates how a range of elements in
our common human emotional apparatus encourages cooperative behavior. We feel empathy, gauging the experience
of fellow group members, not just in some abstract way, but actively simulating their feelings and sensations
in our own brains, from pain to pleasure. We feel loyalty towards fellow group members,
inspiring us to help and defend them, sometimes at significant cost to ourselves. We feel guilt when we assert our own self-interest
against the interests of fellow group members. On the flip side, we feel contempt for members
who behave selfishly at the expense of others, like freeloaders, who exploit the group’s
generosity without contributing. These and other reflex emotional reactions reinforce
cooperative behaviours that lead to group benefits. Further reinforcement comes
from concepts like reputation. As social creatures, we’re highly attuned to information about trustworthiness. A trustworthy reputation can carry great social value
in helping to forge cooperative relationships. And, a reputation for consistently punishing
transgressions against the group can discourage uncooperative behaviour. When reputations are damaged, the concept of redemption allows people to repair them, opening a path back to the group, and restoring
the win-win of mutual cooperation. Tribalism arises from our attempts to distinguish
cooperative strangers from non-cooperative strangers. To help make that distinction, we develop social indicators of shared values: indicators like social rituals, language, clothes. We hunt for those indicators in others, and
adjust our behaviour towards them accordingly. So, the same processes that facilitate
cooperation between group members also create sharp divisions between
members and non-members. This leads Greene to an important qualification: morality didn’t evolve
to promote universal cooperation. Our moral brains developed to align
the individual with the group, but left us with the higher-order problem of
‘the group versus everyone else.’ We moved from ‘me versus us’
to ‘us versus them’. Expanding on Hardin’s
‘tragedy of the commons’, Greene presents
‘the tragedy of common-sense morality’. Instead of individual herders, we have individual groups,
each with its own ideas about cooperation. Group 1 thinks land should be
divided up into plots. Members have total freedom
to use their plot how they want. Herders who prosper through hard work
can purchase neighboring land. Herders who are lazy or foolish, or who greedily graze,
suffer the consequences alone, including death. Group 1 forms a council with minimal powers, simply ensuring property is respected
and promises are honoured. Group 2 thinks the whole land
should belong to everyone. Here no individual prospers, but
no individual is left to die. Group 2 forms a council with extensive powers, assigning and supervising all work for
group members who have no autonomy. Hard workers are forced to share
all proceeds with lazy workers. Both groups believe their own system
represents common-sense morality, while the other group’s system is
irrational and immoral. But their convictions about their moral values
might not be as solid as they think. In 2003, social psychologist Geoffrey Cohen
recruited liberal and conservative college students with strong opinions on welfare
for a study in group influence. He presented them with one of
two versions of a welfare policy: one provided generous benefits;
the other offered slender, stringent benefits. Pilot tests confirmed predictions that
liberals would prefer the generous version, and conservatives would
prefer the stringent one. In the actual experiment, when one of
the policies was presented to a participant, half the time it was claimed to be
supported by the Democrats; half the time it was claimed to be
supported by the Republicans. So, half the time the policy and
party support were politically consistent; but half the time they were
politically conflicted. Cohen found that when they conflicted,
participants showed a strong tribal bias, focusing on the party support
rather than the content of the policy. Liberals strongly favoured conservative policies labelled
Democrat over liberal policies labelled Republican. And conservatives strongly favoured
liberal policies labelled Republican over conservative policies labelled Democrat. Subjects later denied being
influenced by the party labels, although many of them believed
other people would be influenced, especially their ideological adversaries. To know that group identity can effectively nullify
group values in this way should give us serious pause. It means when we have reasonable,
useful, positive ideas from other groups — or unreasonable, corrupt ideas from our own group — we might be responding to them purely on the basis
of their group origin, instead of their content. This helps to explain how subjects
from evolution to climate change are sometimes denounced or defended by individuals
with no knowledge or understanding of the evidence, instead of being assessed on the data
from the relevant scientific disciplines. Greene notes when false beliefs become
tribal badges of honour, they’re difficult to change. It’s no longer just about teaching the facts,
but about combating overbearing group influence. So, is there any way out of this
tribalistic ‘us versus them’ thinking? Finding common ground in the
short term is clearly possible. In the face of a common enemy, many groups
have managed to temporarily forget their differences. Alan Moore and David Gibbons’s
brilliant graphic novel, Watchmen, plays with the question of whether an ongoing
common enemy could be artificially manufactured to bring about permanent peace
between hostile groups. The novel is set in an alternative timeline, during a nuclear standoff between
the United States and the Soviet Union, this time populated with superheroes. Retired superhero Adrian Veidt stages a hoax alien
invasion on New York that devastates the city, creating a truce between the two earthly superpowers. The movie adaptation has a different twist. As the novel acknowledges,
solutions based on deception hold big risks. Discovery of the subterfuge
could destroy the truce. Uniting against a common enemy can
just create tribalism on a larger scale, perpetuating all the same distorted thinking. Sometimes the common enemy might be
a genuine malevolent threat, but sometimes we might be demonising
a group that just has different preferences. The group might be falsely labelled
an enemy for political reasons. It’s easy to become the monsters
we think we’re attacking. When targeted groups lash back in self-defense,
we take it as proof of their aggressive nature. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy; by looking for trouble we create it. Uniting against a common enemy
doesn’t resolve our differences; it just puts them on ice. When the enemy’s defeated,
differences can resurface, and even turn a former ally
into a new common enemy. Appealing to our common
humanity feels more positive. But again, things can backfire
if we try to sweep away our differences. Any unresolved issues we have about our differences
can block our collective progress, and the most trivial-seeming differences
can arouse unexpected issues. When I studied psychological
therapies at university, during a two-day retreat exploring
a range of personal differences, We were scored on our preference for
planning, structure, and resolution, versus improvisation, spontaneity,
and open-endedness. The tutor arranged us in a
giant U-shape according to our scores, with the highest-scoring planner at one end
and the highest-scoring improviser at the other, then invited us to form small groups with our
nearest neighbors and discuss our preferences. It later emerged that in those private discussions,
improvisers were labelled unnatural by planners, and planners were labelled unnatural by an improviser. These therapy students
were trained in empathy. But on finding out other folks
didn’t share their preferences, they tried to pathologise
and stigmatise them. Some valuable lessons were learned
that day about appreciating differences. We’re not all the same, and overcoming
tribalism doesn’t entail being the same. It’s about finding enough common
humanity to be able to hear each other and discuss our differences rationally. And let’s be real — some folks have a vested interest
in not finding common humanity: leaders of high-control groups,
segregationist groups, doomsday groups who welcome Armageddon
as the fulfillment of their faith. But finding common humanity
doesn’t require everyone’s participation. It’s a choice any individual can make at any time,
including disillusioned members of separatist groups. Each person who makes that choice
gets the chance to experience: wider communication with people
who might otherwise have been dismissed, deeper understanding from information that
might otherwise have been distorted or censored, and greater personal autonomy from
an enhanced awareness of our options. Establishing a common humanity means
overcoming two distinct problems. One is the tribalistic wiring
of our moral brains, which naturally favours ingroup cooperation
at the expense of intergroup cooperation. Another is the clash between
the moral systems of different groups. Overcoming these problems involves effort,
and possibly some psychological discomfort. But every individual who overcomes them
makes a difference. Regarding our tribalistic wiring, psychologists and neuroscientists have repeatedly
described two different human thinking styles. A. David Redish calls them
Pavlovian and deliberative. Daniel Kahneman calls them
system 1 and system 2, or fast and slow. Joshua Greene refers to them as
automatic and manual. They all capture the same idea. We have a reflexive style of thinking, that’s instinctive, effortless, emotional,
and produces automatic responses. And we have a reflective style of thinking, that’s conscious, effortful, logical,
and allows us to assess alternative responses. It’s not that one thinking style’s
better than the other; they’re just suited to different jobs. Greene uses the analogy of
automatic and manual camera settings. For everyday purposes, the camera’s
automatic mode will give good results. It’s designed to cater to a range of
common photographic conditions. But it has trouble outside those conditions. Photos come out under- or over-exposed, colour balance suffers,
images get blurred. To correct these errors,
cameras have a manual mode, allowing us to adjust focus,
shutter speed, and white balance. Takes more time, but produces
much more accurate pictures. Likewise, in everyday conditions, our social brains
tend to do a decent job in automatic mode, using a range of fixed emotional reflexes that
encourage beneficial cooperation with fellow members. But outside those conditions,
the limitations of our fixed reflexes become clear. We might falsely denounce some groups as immoral
just because we find them strange, and our simplistic, automatic thinking
equates strange with wrong. Like a camera, we can move over to
manual mode to correct our mistakes. We can widen our lens, take in and
evaluate more complex information, and produce a clearer moral picture. If we find someone strange, instead of responding
with reflex condemnation, we can ask ourselves: Has this person done wrong?
Has anyone been harmed? And we might reach
a different conclusion. Our capacity for manual thinking
gives us an extraordinary opportunity to move beyond the confines
of our limited reflex instincts. Manual thinking is our ladder
out of tribalism. Unfortunately, that ladder can turn into a
hamster wheel, locking us into tribalism. This is the double-edged nature
of manual, deliberative thinking. We can use it in a critical, detached way to scrutinise
our moral instincts and correct our tribal prejudices. Or, we can use it to try and invent elaborate
justifications that confirm those prejudices. Unfortunately, a psychological phenomenon
called cognitive dissonance often pushes us towards the
hamster wheel instead of the ladder. When we experience conflicting cognitions —
beliefs, emotions, thoughts — we feel a discomfort that drives us to
reduce that conflict and seek consistency. In seeking consistency, it’s easier
to invent fallacious reasons to confirm what we already believe, feel, and think, than to do the tough mental work
of questioning our assumptions. Take the earlier example of asking ourselves if
anyone’s been harmed by a person we find strange. If we can’t find any evidence
of injury or damage, we might twist the meaning of the word
‘harm’ to prejudice the answer. We might say the person’s
strangeness violates nature. Even if the person’s strangeness is
observed throughout the natural world, we can still claim it wasn’t intended for humans —
only other animals. We might claim the person’s strangeness defies the
wishes of invisible supernatural entities, called gods. We might suggest the person’s strangeness
offends the tribes sensibilities. If we take the easy hamster wheel
of self-justification, using our manual thinking
to confirm our prejudices, we can fool ourselves that
these accusations are valid. If we take the ladder, using our manual
thinking to challenge our prejudices, we might notice none of these accusations
identify any injury or damage. They’re all just ways of confirming
that strange means wrong, and they can all be arbitrarily applied to absolutely
any activity people want to stigmatise. Folks who use these
spurious tribal accusations might not appreciate that it’s in their
own best interest not to use them. In using them against other groups, they have no come back when other
groups accuse them of violating nature, defying other gods, or
offending other sensibilities. Live by the fallacy,
die by the fallacy. This is the second problem in
establishing common humanity: the clash between the
moral systems of different groups. Philosopher John Rawls’s thought experiment,
‘the veil of ignorance’, invites us to construct a moral system, while
imagining we’re just about to be born with no knowledge of what our abilities, preferences,
physical traits, or position in society will be. It’s in our interest not to disadvantage any group,
because we could be born into that group. The idea is that a fair system is
one we’d happily be born into at random. In discussing morality with other groups,
we could imagine a veil of membership. Here the task is to explain
our ideas on their own merits, without reference to the common-sense
notions of any specific group. Developing a common moral language means
acknowledging that it’s pointless constructing moral arguments in ways
we wouldn’t accept from others. If we’re not persuaded by the supernatural
threats and inducements of other groups, why expect them to be persuaded by ours? If we wouldn’t accept authority-based moral declarations
from the authorities of other groups, we can’t expect others to accept authority-based
moral declarations from us. If we wouldn’t accept bold assertions about rights
and responsibilities from other groups, we shouldn’t make bold assertions about
rights or responsibilities to them. When we’re used to assuming the
common-sense truth of our groups ideas, it can be jarring and illuminating to try
to explain them from first principles, to move from automatic to manual thinking. Joshua Greene cites the case of
18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who tortured himself for years trying to find grounds
to justify harsh punishments for homosexuality, which he called an abomination. But, working through the arguments
against homosexuality in a detached way, he finally concluded it represented
no harm or cause for public alarm, and argued for its decriminalisation, catapulting him
centuries ahead of the tribal common-sense of his era. Detached manual thinking
changes the freedoms we defend. Some people are surprised when
an atheist defends religious freedom, when a Jew defends the freedom of
expression of Holocaust deniers, when an ex-Muslim defends
the freedom to wear hijabs, when a Muslim defends the freedom
to draw the author of Islam, Muhammad. Superficially, they might seem to be
working against their own interests. But they’re just thinking on a
human level instead of a tribal one. Detached manual thinking
changes our loyalties. When we expand loyalty from tribal to human concern for truth and justice can be aligned on all levels:
individual, group, and human. When loyalty’s tribal,
the group is misaligned. The region of non-overlap could be labeled hypocrisy, where the group reserves special treatment for itself
that it doesn’t extend to other groups. We see tribal loyalty when groups who condemn
child abuse shield molesters in their own ranks, and when fraudulent politicians are protected
from the jail-time any other citizen would serve. It’s one law for us and another for them. Detached manual thinking changes our empathy. It’s easy to feel empathy
for members of our own groups. But to cross the ‘us versus them’ divide, we need to be
able to empathise with people outside our groups. Sometimes we hold back from that because we confuse
empathising with validating someone’s viewpoint. Empathy is just about understanding
why someone feels a particular way. Without understanding someone’s position,
communication is blocked. Some theists claim
atheists just want to sin. They fail to understand not only that atheists
can derive morality through secular principles, but that we have a very
obvious moral motivation: to enjoy the benefits of
mutual support and cooperation. Some atheists claim
all theists are mentally ill. Rather than arguing that
theists hold flawed beliefs, they leap to a psychiatric explanation. We all hold flawed beliefs
and for various reasons. Sometimes we’re mistaken.
Sometimes we’re deliberately deceived. Sometimes we’re indoctrinated,
which is how I became a theist. I required no psychiatric intervention; my indoctrination was broken
by detached reflection. I started out on the hamster wheel of self-justification,
trying to confirm my indoctrination, but I unwittingly ended up
on the ladder to atheism. When we expand empathy beyond
the tribal level to the human level, false judgments start to fall away. We start seeing the individuals
behind the group label, and communication opens up. When we form groups, our social brains are wired to encourage cooperation
and social cohesion within those groups. An unfortunate downside to that
beneficial wiring is tribalism, leading us to elevate
ourselves above other groups. But, tribalism isn’t inevitable. Our capacity for detached reflection
offers a path out of it. It involves more effort than
our everyday reflex thinking, and it can arouse discomfort when
long-held ideas are challenged. But the benefit to our collective
moral progress is clear. It’s often said, ‘there’s no ‘i’ in team’. But there is in ‘tribe’. And it’s a great reminder not to be
swallowed up by our groups, but to value and preserve individuality,
integrity, and independent thought; to always feel able to question our
groups and resist the errors of tribalism.

100 thoughts on “tribalism [cc]

  1. Your examples are very fair, but ladder from purple to green highlights a mistake we all can make: thinking we're taking the ladder out of tribalism when all we're doing is crossing from one tribe into another. I'm not saying that's what you've done, I just think it's important to recognize that there's more than just the hamster wheel we need to watch out for.

  2. You opened a video about tribalism with a quote from the man who wrote White Man’s Burden. Think about that.

  3. I think some forms of tribalism are beneficial. An example would be people in a country that has values like freedom of expression or speech differentiating themselves from highly censorious countries. I think in some ways, the only solution is drawing a line. Divisive or not, the line shouldn't lead to violence, but people on the other side of that line will better be able to determine what side is better.
    China sucks, my wife's family left for good reason. Chinese censorship is currently trying to prevent them from seeing how much better the quality of life is elsewhere.

  4. An hour of contemplation is better than a whole year of praying ,
    The ink of a scholar is more sacred than the blood of a martyr ,
    1 learned person can give the devil more trouble than 2000 worshippers.
    The disease of religions is manifested in the religious people .
    Wisdom is the lost property of the wise .

  5. are your parents Still religious ?
    or don't they watch your videos ?
    did their ''god'' lift the noose around their necks or are they still wearing the CHAIN of death with that little cross on it ?

  6. Excellent content!
    I would like to promote this on various social media sites and blogs.
    Please consider a different thumbnail image.

  7. I wanted to send you money. Looked at patreon and want nothing to do with it. Is there any way I can just send you a check? (It wouldn't be huge, only modestly helpful.) thanks

  8. The Democrat party and SJWs are doing this in the US now. It's very scary and concerning. And the Republican party is as useless as hens teeth.

  9. A thoroughly interesting and thought-provoking video!

    I would raise one point, perhaps… Your arguments from about the video's halfway point revolved around the idea of escaping tribalism through the understanding of humanity common as across those tribal groups. Questions of animal rights and potential nonhuman intelligent species aside (which would probably be more semantic than anything else), a frequent tactic used by the most hardline of segregationists (the Nazis immediately come to mind, as does racist pseudo-science in the 1800s) is to literally or implicitly label out-groups as subhuman, seeking to directly undermine this understanding by establishing false ideas of biological, psychological or otherwise fundamental differences between the in-group and said out-groups.

    On that basis, would a potential alternative not be seeking to actively encourage and celebrate difference? Not only would this potentially produce more open-minded discourse seeking to appreciate abilities and strengths that one's own self and various tribes do not possess, as well as chiming well with basic economic theories on comparative advantage, but beyond that it wouldn't require a central common ideal like humanity to rally around, thus defying attempts to make that ideal exclusive in some way. Undoubtedly it would be harder to achieve for all of the psychological reasons that you set out but I think it might be worth the attempt! Of course, constructive criticism on this would be much appreciated.

  10. Sounds like you asked a bunch of people about God and they didn’t know the answer so you made up your own delusion to God, instead of asking him for discernment you came to the conclusion that you knew the rationality behind Gods motives and you contrived God to be some wicked entity then further sought to disprove him without truly giving him your heart, Seems like Satan got to you and warped your mind of what God truly is, hope you snap out of the delusion you’ve formed for yourself

  11. I’ve been searching for a video like this for some time. Thank you for this. This was so insightful and mind blowing.

  12. To be honest, I think Tribalism is ingrained in our biology. It's so ingrained if we want to remove it, we might need to genetically modify the whole of humanity to actually remove it

  13. … tho l don't advocate for atheism, l do appreciate your reporting of evidence compiled which proves people's biases … l'm all for fair, rational, logical, & independent thinking … out manipulators !!! … (-_-)

  14. Fricking RIDICULOUS YouTube!! I have been subscribed to Theramin Trees for years now, and I've even watched some of his videos recently. And I'm only notified of this video now, after it's been out for TWO WEEKS?!

  15. hmm, interesting, but can there be agreement on first principles? Is that even possible? Or are you proposing your own preferences and labeling them as universal and human? This is a question, I mean, how far can one detach oneself from oneself, really?

  16. I don’t think atheists are part of this divide. In my experience they don’t try to make you believe anything, just encourage you to think why you believe in your religion. Few use the mentally ill line, and I can’t count the number of times members of a religion/spirituality were intolerant of views different from their own.

  17. I have been lucky in my childhood. I was never really forced to believe in christianity by my parents but I was told by them of there imaginary friend and told that I should believe in it and only one time when I was really young they made me go to church for like two weeks but that it and not only that my internet access wasn’t restricted and I gotten to learn of atheism and so much more. It was around when I was 10 or 12 I confessed to my parents I didn’t believe in that crap and greatly they weren’t mad nor seemed to care of what I believed in and still loved me. Soon after that my brother confessed as well that he didn’t believe in the grand delusion ether.

  18. "When targeted groups lash back in self-defense, we take it as proof of their aggressive nature." – YES! This is the fundamental human problem. Cyclic violence. Our civilization is built upon it. This is exactly why Jesus Christ was unique upon all claiming divinity in history. Unlike the cookie-cutter western protestant understanding of God that has so badly distorted the image of God, Christ revealed that Christ put an end to this cyclic violence being justified by God. How? By NOT responding with self-defense/revenge toward His own attackers… but instead, He responded with forgiveness on His lips, not wrath…as the story goes, He permitted His own death (He wasn't sacrificed by God, that is the distortion, *we killed Him*), but God being raised up, vindicated by God, and PEACE was as the first thing coming out of His mouth.

    Unlike all other religious prophets and supposed avatars of God in the world history we have heard about, this is unique in the world of religion. I encourage more of you to look into that view. Study Rene Girard, an anthropologist, and namely his seminal work on scapegoating and you will see how incredible this perspective unveils so much of why people teach so much bullshit and misunderstand so much in the Bible as a result (and why some in the Bible wrote down their own prejudiced/biased bullshit and applied it to God to make their own violence and control SACRED). This channel is great at debunking the fundamentalist mindset and doctrinal stances, of helping people come to recognize their cognitive biases, especially in those traditions, and it's helped me clear up some details, but there is a much bigger religion/philosophy-of-religion world out there when it comes to the study of the divine, much much larger than Calvinists or American southern baptists and their ilk, and throwing baby Jesus out with the bathwater really does case you to miss so much.

  19. While becoming my own person was one of the best things to happen to me, I find myself unable to properly connect with people or create proper relationships. To me, everyone is a kind of outsider. It can be a somewhat lonely path not be caught up with being sucked into tribes or communities, though worth it when you play your cards right. But that's my own experience, perhaps that's just the high-functioning autism in me speaking and I have much more improvement to get done.

  20. Just dropping by to see what my kids are up to. *goes back to my magical castle in the sky (that nobody can see) to go over my list of who's been naughty or nice.

  21. I love the way your videos so elegantly distill and explain the topic at hand with incisiveness but maintain a generous sense of compassion and hope about the path forward. It makes them so intellectually satiating. More people need to watch your stuff.

  22. the problem arises when you realize that all tries to make "common humanity" just made new tribes, even if in most cases it just creates common humanity vs opposers divide

  23. Here is a new upcoming channel that apparently has all the proof for god you want

    The armoury bible game

    might be fun for those who like debating and seeing religious try and defend their fantasies

  24. Excellently presented and articulated; professional grade content as always.
    In addition to Watchmen, do you have any other book recommendations on the topic?

  25. Use your reflective mindset, and research flat earth. Maybe you can break that spinning impossiball indoctrination.

  26. Theramin… this video speaks deeply… I've agonized trying to articulate this sentiment. I've made it my life's goal to deconstruct the dividing walls we built eons ago to protect ourselves from predation. And this video is a legendary tool in that spirit.

    I've had no friends who are kindred in this. I'm not asking for a tribe, I sipped that koolaid all my life as a Christian. But I am asking for like-minded connection. If you identify with what has been said here. I'm inviting you all to connect with me on Twitter, to be a tribeless tribe ~ @Memberofdatribe aka We, the Stars.

  27. Most underrated channel on YouTube. (In this genre)

    I guess when you don't "destroy" someone, it's just not as compelling?

  28. Regardless of whatever "ism" (race, sex, class, age, tribe…to name a few) is at play, in the end we are really in a fight for humanity.

  29. Such a good video. It's a shame you're still stuck at atheism. While that is the logical first step after waking up in the new world and realizing you have independent thought of your own, it's still sad to see people stuck there.

    I hope this video helps:

    Good luck!

  30. Could you please have a look at the DVD "digital cocaine".
    My mother bought it a couple days ago and demanded everyone watch it last night.
    The speaker cited no sources and used a wide variety of typical religious speaking methods (appeal to fear, appeal to god, equating technological use to drugs, porn and similar addictions, etc).
    And despite all that she seems to have believed practically every word.

    I currently don't possess the knowledge or expertise to properly describe why what is said is fallacious or simply manipulative so if you took the time to do so that would be awesome (since no one else seems to have looked at it and how damaging following the "advice" in the video could be).
    It's a long shot and I'm asking far too much. But one can hope.

  31. I used to be a Muslim… And I got indoctrinated… But I am a sceptic person and to my way out I found your channel and I broke my way out… thanks to your videos I understand more about myself and others and I would like you to keep what you are doing no matter what… Thank you again <3

  32. How are you not even at 100k subs yet? You deserve tenfold, love your videos they've really helped me with my transition from theism to freedom. And the amount of effort put into making them is impeccable, thank you.

  33. Not only is this video insanely brilliant and well-researched, the ideas presented within it are extremely important, now more than ever. In a world where communication with people all over the world is instantaneous, it is so much easier for people to seek information that confirms their own biases. That's why I try my hardest to always consider the other side in an argument, and always remain prepared to be (and have acceptance in being) proven wrong. I would, of course, encourage everyone else to do the same if they can manage. I imagine that it would be vastly beneficial to the common discourse, and help to heal the tension in modern society.

  34. I dont have a problem with critical thinking. I have a problem with, not seeing, how, I can see. It seems a possibility that child molestation increases the success of cults. Thats fucked up. How can I ever accept 100% of humanity while shit like that exists. Fuck them!

  35. So I very much enjoy your videos, but as a frequent headphone user, your into sound is kind of ear-rape if I have the volume high, as I tend to. Hope this is taken as constructive feedback, I love the vids and reference them often in discussion. Anyhow, figured I'd give my two cents. 🙂

  36. I would love to talk to theramin trees about a subject long ago dismissed. I feel his basic understanding of tribalism could be his ladder out.

  37. I believe you or your brother posted a video about workplace bullying a few years ago. For some reason, I'm unable to find it. Has the video been retired or is this a case of YouTube doing something silly again?

  38. Speaking of religion (especially christianity), I find it very interesting that questioning the authority of God was considered the mother of all sins.

  39. The perfect man, NOT, defective DNA.
    Muhammad was WHITE!
    Muhammad was a dwarf and fat!

  40. I just want to say that the art for your videos? The models you use? They are inspiring and beautiful to me. I'm particularly fond of the two women in dresses at around 15:15. I love how much motion is put into a still figure by the way you made the dress flow. The heels, the hair, all in such a simple, elegant style. It is super charming.

  41. Have I ever told how much I admire your manner of speech? I will only consider that I have mastered English when I'll be able to express my ideas the way you do. Also, I relish the way you insert your references and ideas into videos via simple visual models. Yours is one of two channels I have notifications turned on. Thank you for such profound content.

  42. amazing video. You seem to answer the main topic with a host of other equally important issues. All encapsulating video.

  43. I'm not swallowed up by a group. I stay away from organized religion with good reason. I also stay away from atheism which is a religion but makes stupid claims it's not. I don't care if this sounds rude or not, but although there's much hypocrisy in 'churchy' religions, the atheistic religion is hard to trump for hypocrisy. So many of them speak of themselves as free-thinkers when in reality they are more like free-of-thinking.

    Atheists are so indoctrinated they do anything they can to hold onto their belief system. It's a religion of absolute blind faith. No matter the evidence against them, they will make any childish lame excuse they can to ignore the evidence. The tactics to lie, slander, strawman, and non sequitur, abound.

    It's the atheistic/agnostic types that supply the greatest comedy. They think the universe came about by natural means. There's NO science for it and ALL the science we know proves that creation had to be supernatural and done by a supernatural creator, but…., not to atheists/agnostics. Isn't that funny?!

    —Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.—-

    Then the extreme order we have in our universe that defies all physics, but….., not to atheists/agnostics. It's just happened by mere chances even though we prove it can't happen by chance. Funny!

    And life? Well, it just came from non-life. It's so absurd it's even hard to type that, but….., atheists/agnostics claim to believe it happened somehow by natural means. Again, funny!

    Many have brought up such issues how funny it is, including James Tour.

    Then, what this life did after it started by mere chance can't happen by science, but….., atheists/agnostics believe it did. Funny!

    Life takes information to proceed on. But to atheists/agnostics, chaos through time gave us information. Although it's even hard to write such a ridiculous statement, they believe it. All one can do is laugh at such stupidity.

    I've kept this very basic and brief. I can provide much deeper, yet there's no need to since each point proves there is no explanation for such things to have happened naturally. This IS evidence against such things happening naturally. Lame excuses of why it can still have happened naturally with no science to support it are just that, lame excuses.

    There's a ton more. If you want a laugh, see what atheists/agnostics believe.

  44. I was a bit iffy on this vid from the title as I've heard some really arrogant stuff said when tribes are mentioned but you really hit the mark here, very well thought out thank you for the video.

  45. Mr. Theramin Tree, A big fan of your work. Found you only recently. Could you please share the font with me? Where can I get it? If it is made by you, is it possible for me to buy it?

  46. Good video, however; I have to admit that I do somewhat disagree. I think that we(human beings) are social animals, we evolved from social animals and thus, we seek to belong to a social group, it's part of our nature. The first social tribe is our family, mother, and father, sisters and brothers, these teach us who we are, where we belong, our first morals and responsibilities and greatly shape who we'll become in the future. Our second tribe, emerging from the family; is our nation, our city, our neighbors, this is those people who have more in common with us other than our families, they speak our language, their families and ours share a history together and in the worse of times they are the most likely to help us and when in the face of war and invasion, these are the people who we will fight with to defend all of us.
    I think the nation is the ultimate example of tribalism, for good or bad, the nation shapes our history and much like our families, in the beginning, it shapes us. I think of nations such as Japan, Greece or Italy, nations that were formed by individual tribes history and commonality to one another. I don't think the Japanese are the same as the Greeks or the same as the Italians, I think to say that we are all the same it is very insulting to the Japanese because that would be the same as to say that their history, doesn't matter, their culture doesn't matter, their language doesn't matter.
    Finally, I like to say that I do NOT think that it is entirely wrong that tribalism can be used and has been used to hurt people. I however I'm completely against the idea of abandoning the good for the bad and the complete denial of a nation's culture, language, and traditions. I think you can be an Individual within the tribe and I think an individual can help guide the tribe towards more acceptance of others.

  47. Thing is, I deeply respect humanity, I do. But I think you may have gotten a little ideological on that last part. In the circle you illustrate, you put Human -> Group -> Individual. But, to be completely honest, that is more of a personal choice really. I'm of the opposite mind. The smaller the group I am in, the more loyal and important it is to me. I love humanity. I respect it and treasure it. But fundamentally I treasure my community more than an abstract concept of human kind. The life of my neighboor is simply more relevant to me than that of someone living in Cambodia. Similarly, the lifes of my family members are also more important than that of my community.

  48. That said, I do agree that we all need to respect other groups. After all, I dont think tribes are necessairily enemies. People reunite by groups of shared interest and experience, and I think that overall makes the world a more prosperous and rich place than some amhorphous "human community" blob.

  49. Did you just conflate atheists offering defense and acceptance toward religious beliefs with jewish people defending holocaust deniers' rights to express themselves? Y'know when people are allowed to deny the holocaust, it actually damages more than just one community, right? That's not an appeal to greater humanity, that's turning the other cheek to dangerous stupidity and letting the toxicity it breeds continue festering in dark places.

  50. I have a lot of problems with this. I see it as way too learned. Deep on the surface, shallow underneath. Ultimately, this is tribal, moreover, tribal at its worst. Take any paragraph here; it is an opportunity to divide people into "good us" and "evil them." The text does that even as it warns against doing it.

    This sort of lecture is what creates SJWs and Antifa (which is yet another tribe.) This is what gives them such absolute assuredness in their own righteousness and moral superiority.

    We people are tribal to the core of our beings. We are not alone here: chimpanzees and wolves are the same.

    At best, this will work in the logic of peace. But it's a road to disaster in the logic of war. When you face a self-defined enemy that seed you as a member of an enemy tribe no matter what you do. That is out for your tribe's extermination, and that includes you. Or at any rate your children, your spouse, your parents. What do you do?

    In this case you have no choice but to put your individualism into your pocket and join your people as a soldier.

    I had to face it first as I observed the war in former Yugoslavia, and later, more personally, in Israel. But somewhere I knew it from the very beginning.

    The same Kipling also wrote,

    When you are wounded and left on Afghanistan plains.
    And the women come out to cut up your remains,
    Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    And go to your Gawd like a soldier.

  51. When you are wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains.
    And the women come out to cut up your remains,
    Just roll on your rifle and blow out your brains
    And go to your Gawd like a soldier.
    – Rudyard Kipling

  52. Didn't have a name for this before but it's definitely a frustrating part of human psychology. It's weird admitting I'm wrong in an argument and being met with confusion because no one expects it. Well what's the point of debating then!

  53. I live on the edge of society and reject most dogmas and trends but it is a lonely place and it makes you see even more manipulations than you care to think of.

  54. I still dont understand why theist claims atheist just want to sin… when if I actually wanna sin infinitely I can just be a theist and get absolution from the churches services or accept their god figure to go to heaven.

  55. This is a great video and it gives me some new perspective on how people interact and how I am interacting with the groups I am in.

  56. 3:00: The solution to the tragedy of the commons is privatization. When each shepherd have their very own plot of land, THEN will they be careful with not letting their grass run out. And in that situation, they are still acting according to their own self-interest.

  57. I take it a step further …
    Nationalism = new age tribalism
    I welcome rebuttal. I see citizens of a nation identifying with that nation, separating themselves into an us vs them mindset. I get that some people think it good for mental health to have a tribe and tribal identity, identify with a symbol or in the nations case, a flag, sports teams, competing markets, competing military. Some of us wonder why some of our close neighbors or family fear immigrants, it's completely understandable when people mentally substitute nationalism for new age tribalism.
    Although like stated here, automatic thinking is good for somethings, I think encouraging manual thinking allows for real discussion and critical thought.
    I didn't come up with it, I can't remember where I got that from originally but I am interested in opposing critical thoughts.
    PS: I am not denouncing any benefit to tribalism or nationalism, but drawing parallel to similarities and so similar dangers since some are kind of blind to it but self identify as nationalists with pride.

  58. It's so sad that we still battle this today. Enlightenment thinkers understood the importance of freedom and objective, rational thought. But even they struggled with these toxic instincts. It's horrible that we've devolved into a time that being a moderate leaves you hated by both sides in any argument. Moderation, even-temperedness, and empathy for all is looked down on even today. It's an uphill battle wherever you are. You know you're doing it right when you have both tribes accusing you of being on the opposite tribe's side in the same argument. Lol.

  59. Hey mate,

    I am a mess of late. Wondered if I could contact you about a situation? I'm sure I would be able to see any advice you offer as reasonable. Brilliant content. Both your channel and aren ra are a tie for my favorite youtubers.

  60. I'd like to see the true muslim speaking for freedom and rights.
    You're shoe-horning a non-existant version of muslims, mate.

  61. I like what you did visually at 11:50. Very subtle, yet completely clear to anyone in the know. I'm so very glad I found your channel!

  62. i like theremins, and i like trees. suprisingly enough you are one of the few across the pond i can stand hearing philosophy and personal life experiances from.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *