2/27/2026 at 8:38:56 AM
Very insightful on how this corruption develops:"How can a group hold a worldview so at odds with the wider culture and not appear to be greatly conflicted by it? The answer may lie in the distinction between particularism and universalism. An individual develops social identities specific to the social domains, groups and roles – and accompanying subcultures – that he or she occupies (e.g. manager, mother, parishioner, sports fan). [...]
In the case of corruption, this myopia means that an otherwise ethically-minded individual may forsake universalistic or dominant norms about ethical behavior in favor of particularistic behaviors that favor his or her group at the expense of outsiders. [...]
This tendency to always put the ingroup above all others clearly paves the way for collective corruption."
by gniv
2/27/2026 at 10:56:03 AM
CS Lewis has a speech about the ingroups and corruption. His thesis is that the mere desire to be "in" is the greatest driver of immoral behavior:"To nine out of ten of you the choice which could lead to scoundrelism will come, when it does come, in no very dramatic colours. Obviously bad men, obviously threatening or bribing, will almost certainly not appear. Over a drink, or a cup of coffee, disguised as triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still—just at the moment when you are most anxious not to appear crude, or naïf or a prig—the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which “we”—and at the word “we” you try not to blush for mere pleasure—something “we always do.”"
by praptak
2/27/2026 at 3:01:39 PM
I'd note that it is common for fraudsters to prey on members of ingroupsby PaulHoule
2/28/2026 at 12:42:49 AM
MLM vendors looove religious stay at home parents (usually, but not always, mothers) for precisely that reason.And in my country there's been several ponzi schemes that targeted people through churches, because Dave is such a good Christian, he tithes every Sunday, he wouldn't at all mislead us about this exciting investment opportunity!
by EdwardDiego
2/27/2026 at 2:16:13 PM
In undergrad I did a formal Philosophy / Sociology study, where we were looking at human motivations. The research indicated that prestige is the number 1 driver of human motivation. Gaining prestige "trumps" ethics. Nobody likes to hear that.by bsenftner
2/27/2026 at 3:07:33 PM
I think this is one reason it is important to cast unethical behavior in terms of lack of competency — that someone has to break the rules to get ahead because they're not competent enough to do things fairly or ethically.Empathy, while important in my opinion personally, often doesn't matter to certain people. So you have to decrease the prestige associated with unethical behavior, above and beyond it being unethical per se.
by derbOac
2/27/2026 at 4:00:09 PM
This. I think so much of the fascism and corruption afoot in the world comes from people who believe they deserve things they are incompetent to get. Their sense of entitlement is in conflict with their competence and unrestrained by concern for others. To soothe their ego wound they project their faults onto the person who has what they want. "It isn't my failure; it's your trickery!" Now instead of shame and impotence they feel righteous anger.by DFHippie
2/27/2026 at 4:11:02 PM
I think you are correct. I've spent extended time in uber wealth circles, and this describes the offspring mindset of the generations after wealth acquisition. Their incompetence matches their entitlement, and then they walk into nepotism.by bsenftner
2/27/2026 at 4:07:00 PM
I don't know that it's necessarily incompetence. The idea of "overproduction of elites" pops up frequently:https://www.niskanencenter.org/are-we-overproducing-elites-a...
You may be supremely competent but unlucky enough to be born at the wrong time, to the wrong family, competing with the wrong people, to rise to the level that you feel you deserve.
by macintux
2/27/2026 at 4:13:35 PM
I look at this re-occurring overproduction of elites concept, and feel like it has good points but seems to be welded like a weapon, soon followed by statements like "you're just unlucky, get over it."by bsenftner
2/27/2026 at 5:01:43 PM
We must begin with the presuppositions. Begin with the questions:1. What are elites?
2. What are elites for? Why do they exist?
We can't really talk about "overproduction" of elites without knowing the answers to these questions.
Elites are meant to be guardians and servants of the common good. This is why traditionally, we spoke of the nobility: they were supposed to protect the common good for the good of society and model virtue so that others had a point of tangible reference. In order to do that, you needed to be properly educated. Not technically trained, but educated, which is something relatively rare in proportion to the vast numbers who are pushed through compulsory schooling and even university.
So, are we "overproducing elites"? Given how mediocre our "elites" generally are, I would suspect that we have rather an underproduction of them, and instead an overproduction of the vacuously credentialed.
One obstacle, of course, is that in a modern liberal culture, we are forced into a kind of impotence when speaking about the common good. On the one hand, modern liberalism imposes its own measure of the good life that elevates liberty for its own sake - divorced from any tradition and any objective measure - as the end of human life. Indeed, tradition is caricatured as an obstacle that impedes liberty rather than as a liberating dialogue spanning centuries and millennia that helps us orient our lives by sharing with us the wisdom of out predecessors.
On the other, this very hostility toward tradition or any objective normative claims (which are unavoidable; see first point) acts as a corrosive agent that impoverishes and constrains the scope of legitimate political discussion. Over time, this scope has been whittled down to economics. Everything else is privatized. Of course, the inevitable effect is that economics them begins to swallow up everything else. Everything is recast as an economic issue, and the human good is confined to economic categories. This explains the rise of consumerism, because a society whose common good can only be a matter of economics, and one that recasts all of life and reduces it to economics, can only comprehend the good life as a matter of consumption. This is a recipe for misery and delusion, of course, but the is the necessary result.
In such a culture, wisdom and what counts as elite are measured in economic terms. Universities become institutions not for liberating human beings by developing reason, virtue, and understanding, but ostensibly tickets to "economic success". Billionaires are our aristocracy, not because they are excellent or virtuous or duty-bound to serve in that capacity by virtue of their rank, but because in a consumerist society, money is magical. This is interesting, because traditionally, the nobility was often prohibited from engaging in trade and commerce. It was seen as beneath their position. If an aristocrat was wealthy, his wealth was not what conferred onto him his rank.
An elite only exists in order to serve the common good. That is its only legitimate reason for being.
Now let us return to the original question...
by lo_zamoyski
2/28/2026 at 4:40:40 PM
I'm skeptical that the nobility were ever particularly noble in the eyes of the commoners.by DFHippie
2/28/2026 at 7:58:00 PM
Well, of course there would be a range, just like today. It seems like 1/3 will always be skeptical of authority, 1/3 will always literally worship authority, and then there's the spectrum between. I saw some "computational anthropology" paper some months ago saying that same ratio appears fairly consistent going back to the Greeks and the initial ratios of their early Democracy.by bsenftner
2/28/2026 at 2:03:24 PM
What if elites are more like cancer cells? They were not designed into the system — they spontaneously appeared, then metastasized.by direwolf20
2/27/2026 at 5:49:34 PM
> I think this is one reason it is important to cast unethical behavior in terms of lack of competencyThat will result in feigned virtue and Pharisaical letter-of-the-law sophistry. You can't secure morality by system and incentive alone, as important as these may be (the law is a teacher). Indeed, if you try to attain virtue by appealing to crooked desires, then you've already subverted the very preconditions of the moral life.
But I will say this: today, we often view morality as some made-up "rules" and artificial constraints that usually don't have anything to do with much of life. Being intelligent is often seen as opposed to being good: the good man is imagined as a chump, while the intelligent man is crafty. But that's just an expression of ignorance, including ignorance of what is actually good for human beings. It is not good for a man to be immoral. Immorality is self-harm.
Morality is a matter of every decision we make. Ethics is practical philosophy concerned with how one lives. Every decision is a matter of morality. When making a decision, why choose one way or another? Well, at the very least, we make what we take to be a good or the best choice. Of course, the immoral man presents something bad or worse as good or better in his own mind in order to be able to choose it. That's why people rationalize the evil choices they intend to make. But the aim and orientation of the will is the good, and so the evil man must first bullshit himself.
In that sense, to choose the good is to choose wisely which is indeed a kind of competence that requires knowledge, wisdom, and humility (which is to say, a sober view of reality, and that includes oneself). Indeed, the first classical cardinal virtue is prudence, which is the habit (as in possessed and actualized excellence) of being able to determine the right decision in a situation. And the right decision is always a moral one.
Prudence itself is the cornerstone of the remaining cardinal virtues: one cannot be just without first being prudent; one cannot be courageous without first being just; and one cannot be temperate without first being courageous. You need to know what is right before you can be just, as what is wrong is never just; you need to be just before you can be courageous, as bravado or recklessness are not courage; and you need courage to be temperate, as you cannot act as you ought if you don't have the courage to do so.
So, what we really need is an authentic moral education and a culture that ceases to fear a robust and sound morality rooted in the objectively real, because it sees it as a threat to its misguided notion of "liberty". We must reconnect with classical tradition so that we can profit from its insights and its wisdom and return to a dialogue spanning centuries and millennia. We cannot do it alone, and things will never be perfect, but this will give us strength to face the immorality of the world - and above all, in ourselves - and a foundation for a healthier culture.
by lo_zamoyski
2/28/2026 at 1:30:45 PM
I agree with the fundamentals of what you're saying.I don't mean to suggest that corruption should only be cast in terms of lack of competency, or that there aren't other issues of importance. But I also think sometimes the lack of competency perspective on corruption is overlooked, and people forget that appeals to empathy and similar values are of no relevance to certain individuals, for whatever reason.
Corruption is problematic for a number of reasons; I think it's important to keep all of those reasons in mind.
by derbOac
2/27/2026 at 6:27:18 PM
Or not. Or what is in the flourishing of all living things, and especially in our species of ape, is evil. That only what is called "good" is the accident of there being a boundary up against you to stop you; or the imposition of a boundary which will destroy or constrain your living too much.Perhaps morality is just the playpen boundaries of enfeebled apes, playing amongst themselves in luxury, thinking they've overcome some aspect of their nature since they barely need to move around at all.
by mjburgess
2/27/2026 at 7:22:19 PM
Meh to this misanthropic disregard for other's experience. If you need external alignment to prevent you being evil your internal alignment is f'ed. Considering morality an arbitrary boundary is a major red flag for antisocial behaviors.Structured interactions lead to better results, chaotic actions lead to chaos. Ethics/morality is part of that structure that lets us achieve more together than individually.
if you think living in that structure is enfeebling: I highly question what you desire to do that results in that feeling.
by altruios
2/27/2026 at 6:17:02 PM
Fantastic logical analysis.by bsenftner
2/27/2026 at 4:16:35 PM
In my opinion you've drawn exactly the wrong conclusion.Raising the stakes just increases the pressure to cheat (and not get caught).
by neutronicus
2/28/2026 at 3:52:17 PM
This will just make fraud by skilled people more likely. Having skill will insulate them from the accusation - they cant be unethical, because unethical people dont have skill and they provably do.by watwut
2/27/2026 at 3:52:18 PM
Did that ever replicate?Is prestige the number one motivator only statistically?
In other words is it the number one motivator for 31% percent of the college students that were tested and lets say empathy was at 29%?
Misanthropy and bald self interest gets overplayed I think. Often times because it allows bad actors to normalize and justify their own misanthropy.
Presenting this kind of unbacked, unqualified anecdotal data is great for "edgy truthtellers" but also deeply poisoning the well.
by fellowniusmonk
2/27/2026 at 4:53:30 PM
Scientific studies, particularly within the fields of evolutionary psychology, anthropology, and behavioral economics, identify prestige: the striving for respect, admiration, and high social rank; as a primary driver of human motivation. Unlike dominance, which relies on fear and coercion, prestige is based on the voluntary deference of others toward individuals who possess skills, knowledge, or success in locally valued domains. Key scientific studies and theories supporting this include: The Dual-Strategies Theory (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; Cheng et al., 2013): This foundational theory posits that humans have evolved to use two distinct strategies to gain social rank: dominance (fear-based) and prestige (respect-based). Studies show prestige is a more stable, long-term motivator, associated with higher intelligence, conscientiousness, and social skills.
"The Big Man Mechanism" (Brand et al., 2020): This study demonstrates that prestige-based hierarchies are a unique human adaptation. It shows that people willingly grant influence to high-prestige individuals in exchange for knowledge and skills. The research indicates that individuals are highly motivated to gain this respect to secure social capital.
Evolutionary Perspective on Social Status (Maner & Case, 2016): Research suggests that the desire for prestige is an ancestral mechanism designed to boost social standing, leading to better access to resources and reproductive success.
Prestige vs. Dominance Health Outcomes (2022 Studies): A study comparing the two paths to status found that prestige-seeking is associated with better physical and mental health, higher life satisfaction, and lower stress, whereas dominance is associated with negative health outcomes.
These studies indicate that because prestige provides a mutually beneficial social structure, humans are heavily driven to obtain it through the demonstration of valued skills.
by bsenftner
2/28/2026 at 12:43:31 AM
I see what you did there with your choice of verb, and you're spot on.by EdwardDiego
2/27/2026 at 2:59:33 PM
No, but I don’t think ethics is #2. Someone intrinsically motivated might be technically competent, autonomous and self-confident about his/her goals. I might skip your meetings about ethics; I might be too busy.by sigwinch
2/27/2026 at 11:15:30 AM
> "Half of the harm that is done in this world Is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm; But the harm does not interest them."-T.S. Eliot
by ChrisMarshallNY
2/27/2026 at 11:04:26 AM
Also Lord Acton - “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”by rramadass
2/27/2026 at 1:05:44 PM
Acton was, by the way, an ardent supporter of the Confederacy. In his opinion, the federal government curtailing the independence of states was a more significant act of oppression than slavery.by brazzy
2/27/2026 at 2:13:14 PM
If you're familiar with English history, then it's more understandable that Lord Acton (Catholic, and born a mere Baronet) was against powerful central authorities.And at least according to Wikipedia, Acton's positions on the Confederacy and slavery were very mainstream for English Catholics of the day.
by bell-cot
2/27/2026 at 3:29:08 PM
positions on [...] slavery were very mainstream
by b40d-48b2-979e
2/27/2026 at 4:07:55 PM
To clarify - John Brown was an American, with a Puritan/Calvinist background, born to fairly humble circumstances. Very unlike Acton.And Britain's record on slavery is both far more complex, and far less bad, than many modern ideologues might have us believe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron
by bell-cot
2/28/2026 at 3:54:02 PM
He was pro powerful central authority, as long as that powerful central authority is pro-slavery.He was against it when it prevented oppression.
by watwut
3/1/2026 at 2:48:41 AM
Who is this "he" you are describing? Because your "he" bears minimal resemblance to the (extensively documented) Lord Acton.by bell-cot
2/27/2026 at 1:49:23 PM
I think there's a war about that wasn't there?by delaminator
2/27/2026 at 2:02:38 PM
Yeah, and he didn't like the outcome. Salient quote (from a letter to Robert E. Lee):"I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo. "
by brazzy
2/27/2026 at 2:49:08 PM
There are several lies in this. The objective of a Confederate victory was to enforce slavery farther south. Mexico was a few years away from collapsing. Brazil would emancipate within 20 years. Would the Confederacy last 20 years as the last slave state in the western hemisphere?by sigwinch
2/27/2026 at 3:52:54 PM
Slavery would not have lasted, as the mechanization and industrialization of agriculture would soon make slave ownership uneconomical. Same with draft animals.by SoftTalker
2/27/2026 at 7:42:32 PM
Control of elections is one of the last bastions of State's rights. The past year has really illustrated why states' independence from the US federal government benefit their residents.by axus
2/27/2026 at 2:07:11 PM
Well, he wasn't wrong.by delaminator
2/27/2026 at 2:38:06 PM
Whining about States rights to enslave people is certainly a take.Particularly when in context, the war was caused by the South acting to usurp abolition in the North via the legal system (i.e. Dredd Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott)
The importance and applicability of "states rights" is always oddly narrow.
by XorNot
2/27/2026 at 3:30:55 PM
The importance and applicability of "states rights" is always oddly narrow.
by b40d-48b2-979e
2/27/2026 at 6:06:12 PM
The Confederate Constitution was mostly a copy of the US Constitution. One place where it differed is that it forbade any state from abolishing slavery. So the whole "states' rights" thing is obvious baloney.by wat10000
2/27/2026 at 3:11:11 PM
Corruption empowers, and absolute corruption empowers absolutely. It seems to me that some people adopt this perspective.by spigottoday
2/27/2026 at 5:56:37 PM
I think this is absolutely spot on with the Epstein thing. Powerful individuals just helping each other, giving each other information and money, or facilitating or ignoring exploitation because it is "what we all do". Especially effective when the group believe (maybe implicitly) that they are "better" and entitled to put their interests before those of the public. Even more so when there is a huge advantage to be gained by being part of the group.Join my networking group, pass on some info in return for money or vice-versa, turn a blind eye to abuse even if you are not involved....
by graemep
2/27/2026 at 5:17:13 PM
Absolutely. In an ideal setting, elites model excellence and serve as an example for others to follow. In practice, things are never so pure, and in bad cases, quite bad. This is why we may speak of the fish rotting from the head down. The general populace takes its example from what is taken to be its elite, even if in objective terms, that "elite" is a total failure.You see this with political opinions. People generally don't think very deeply about politics. They generally reflect the political sensibilities of the in-group they aspire to remain part of or aspire to join. It's a signal. A reasonably intelligent person can make the distinction between signal and genuinely informed opinion, but often, and especially among the poseurs, it's not about the truth value of an opinion. It is about the signal. This is the very definition of bullshit: something said with total indifference to its truth value, and only valued for its instrumental usefulness.
by lo_zamoyski
2/27/2026 at 2:40:03 PM
I grew up with a very strong sentimental sense of moral universalism. I loved Beethoven's Ode to Joy and the romantic idea of universal brotherhood.But as I bank years in the adult world, as a worker and a neighbor, I've been progressively disillusioned. I don't find universalism to be a common viewpoint. I've found it to be very rare that anyone wants to be my "brother" or "sister". And sometimes those that seem to, end up being exploitative, callous, or strictly fair-weather.
I'm not resentful or anything. I have a happy family and a few close-ish friends, and life feels full. But I can understand how the loneliness and coldness of the world makes people more particularist. People may think: "if the world acts like it owes me nothing, then what do I owe the world?"
by getnormality
2/27/2026 at 2:53:47 PM
But isn't it just a failure to communicate it? What if almost all other people are similarly disillusioned?Also, according to psychologists, one negative experience outweighs roughly five positive experiences of the same magnitude. So, as we get older, we might have tendency to accumulate negative experiences, and as a result become more cynical and less idealistic. And so it kind of perpetuates.
by js8
2/27/2026 at 3:04:35 PM
That…. Just provides more evidence their world view is likely more objectively true?by lazide
2/27/2026 at 3:56:43 PM
As an ideal, I have little doubt that most people believe this, it's just that it's something that's very easy to exploit, and you stand to gain a massive amount if you do. Its a real tragedy of the commons scenerio. With millions and billions of people and just one commons, there's plenty of tragedy to go around.It's still worth it to try - I find it difficult to give up completely. Most people I meet are not evil, and it's not like you're going to make it out alive at the end regardless.
by nancyminusone
2/27/2026 at 4:27:56 PM
No need for the romance. We don't have to be "brothers". That outlook is divisive in nature anyway, and a weapon for abusers: "I thought we were brothers. Now, put aside your hesitations, and help me hurt these 'other' people."We can just be people. Don't hurt anyone, no one gets a pass to hurt you. Hurt someone, someone gets a pass to hurt you. Just you, not your "brothers". No matter the status of anyone involved.
Severity, intent, and priors must play a factor in the level of returned hurt, but should never end with none, and death should be a last resort, but never completely off the table.
That's the good-faith interpretation of the golden rule. Instead of the popular abuser and enabler (turn the other cheek) interpretations. They both call anyone who dares hold anyone accountable, a hypocrite for supposedly not following the golden rule.
I don't care what story book it's in, or who said it, or when. It's a good rule on it's own merits. Doesn't mean everything that comes form the same source is equally valid.
by kgwxd
2/27/2026 at 5:30:07 PM
Yeah, that's why I'm not really resentful or disappointed, exactly. Life is still good without it. You have your actual family, maybe some other people you really share life with, and everyone else is just doing their own thing, and you're existing together without causing problems for each other. That's not a bad way for things to work.by getnormality
2/27/2026 at 5:47:31 PM
> But I can understand how the loneliness and coldness of the world makes people more particularistI am like that, I stand more on the disillusioned/disappointed side but on the other hand let's not for forget that individuals diverge quite a lot from one another and that for some "Everyone's in it for themselves" has not been a sad conclusion but happy justification for their behavior.
by cassepipe
2/27/2026 at 6:23:42 PM
Sounds like the farce of modern liberté, égalité, fraternité, as in fraternité ou la mort. Just try not to be my brother!Moral sentimentalism is a fool's errand, because it isn't morality. It's a superficial emotional ersatz, not something rooted in sound reason and reality. And so "universal brotherhood of Man" was always farcical. It's like those people who "love humanity", but can't be bothered to feed the homeless guy on the corner, or treat his wife decently and with due care. It always has to be something "grand" and "out there". It replaces authentic, concrete local allegiances - all relationships are local - with abstract, impersonal "brotherhood", which ultimately destroys real social cohesion.
Yes, there is a "human family". But family and community are not some undifferentiated, homogeneous mass. Society is ordered and composite. While we can love all as a matter of general disposition and wishing them well, love as such is manifested in the concrete and the active, not mere affect or the abstract. Our priorities and duties of love must concern concrete persons. They radiate outward and diminish with distance (by nature, but obviously there is an obvious impracticality to "loving everyone" in any meaningful and substantive way). Your duties toward your wife are greater than those toward your brother; toward your brother greater than your cousin; toward your neighborhood than the next one over. This priority is not either/or, and they do not preclude aiding more distant siblings in an hour of need. Loving one person more than another does not mean hating the other or some kind of license to disrespect the dignity as that person. It does not give permission for jingoism or chauvinism.
In the hyperindividualistic, consumerist liberal developed world, the trouble is that we've become atomized. We have denied our intrinsically social nature (just as collectivism warps it and denies our individuality). In doing so, the social order has been thrown into chaos. That's the chief reason for our social ills. In our misguided desire for "liberty", we have throw away objective morality and the notion of pre-consensual duties. We live to consume, and even our relationships are reduced to transactional conduits of consumption. Our culture is nihilistic; all it knows is consumption. There is no greater horizon. It cannot understand the social truly and in a healthy way, only according to the language of consumption. And all that obstructs unbridled consumption is taken to be opposed to "liberty" and therefore something that must be destroyed.
It's the revolutionary ethos of destruction.
by lo_zamoyski
2/27/2026 at 6:47:40 PM
I agree. One way to sum up what you've said: love in any substantial sense is a commitment of effort, and all such commitments are economic in nature - that is, inherently limited and subject to tradeoffs. And these commitments will follow a natural order favoring family and kin, according to our nature as evolved organisms.The key here is that favoring doesn't need to mean excluding anything else!
by getnormality
2/27/2026 at 3:12:09 PM
I realized as I got older that the ambient air of socialist/collectivist virtues that filled the all young people spaces wasn't because of some kind of special enlightenment achieved by the contemporary youth (as I deeply believed as a millennial riding high on the rise of the internet), but instead was just an easy ideology for a group of people with little to lose and a lot to gain.Underneath, people are overwhelmingly just in it for themselves, and judge others by how closely they align with their personal set of "whats best for me" ideals.
by WarmWash
2/27/2026 at 3:30:25 PM
As someone from a constitutionally socialist and culturally collectivist society, the idea of American millennials embodying either seems to me like cosplay. You guys are so allergic to imposed social obligation you won’t even care for your own parents in their old age. What kind of “collectivism” could you possibly practice?Collectivism means the subordination of individual autonomy to the governance of the collective according to the needs of the collective. You’re a cog in a machine and your purpose is to serve the collective—starting with your family and radiating in rings out from there. I’m not sure Americans can even understand the collective mindset, much less practice it.
by rayiner
2/27/2026 at 5:43:30 PM
On the one hand I want to agree with you but on the other hand you went from "some people just cannot tolerate any social obligation" to "You’re a cog in a machine and your purpose is to serve the collective—starting with your family" makes me extremely distrustful and not want to share a society with you. What if the machine is running for a very few at the top ? What if the collective is oppressive and does not respect your bodily autonomy ? What if your family is a bunch of authoritarian psychopaths ? Then what are my resources as an individual ?by cassepipe
2/27/2026 at 10:58:00 PM
> What if the machine is running for a very few at the top ? What if the collective is oppressive and does not respect your bodily autonomy ? What if your family is a bunch of authoritarian psychopaths ? Then what are my resources as an individual ?In my collectivist culture, the answer to those questions is "just deal with it." That's the bargain of a collectivist society. The collective will support you, but in return you owe the collective a complex web of social obligations from birth. I happen to think it makes sense,[1] but I'm not trying to persuade you to live in a collectivist society. I'm just explaining the concept.
[1] I'm married to someone from the polar opposite culture: an Anglo-Protestant from the west coast of the U.S. She once explained to our kids that they didn't have to give family members hugs if they didn't want to. She called it "bodily autonomy." I found this concept extremely bizarre.
by rayiner
2/27/2026 at 3:53:25 PM
We don't embody it, not by a long shot. We're old now.I'm speaking about 20 years ago, when getting any kind of peer or social circle respect had the prerequisite of subscribing to socialist utopian ideals, and it wasn't something that was hard to foster in America's dead-end job work culture (which is where you work when you are young). This is urban/suburban America, where most people live.
From what I can tell this was the same with Boomers (they were the OG hippies afterall) and I see the same ideas in today's crop of young people.
The youth however hold little sway over the direction of the country, they're not actually that invested, so by the time they are having an impact, many have already received their first shots of the euphoric side of American capitalism, a career that gives them power and money (after years of wading through dead-end/entry level hell).
by WarmWash
2/27/2026 at 5:19:09 PM
My point is that they didn't meaningfully embody collectivism even when they were younger. Collectivism is rice farming culture. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00142.... You work together within a rigid social structure and share communally in the proceeds. But you have to precisely follow your socially prescribed roles because that system only works when everyone does what they're supposed to be doing. This is true even in developed countries that are more collectivist. Subordination of the individual to the collective is a big deal in Japan and Scandinavia. In both places, it's taboo to stand out in the crowd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante. Individualism is necessarily in tension with collectivism and socialism. Individualism promotes status competition, and when status competition exists, communal sharing in the proceeds of collective labor becomes impossible.American millennials were hyper-individualistic and rejected socially prescribed roles even when they were young. What they wanted wasn't collectivism, it was a higher status within capitalism. Which is why, as you observed, the sentiment evaporated once they achieved that status. I'd make the same point about Gen Z. They want to think they're socialist and collectivist. But they all want to be online content creators and influencers--jobs that only exist in hyper-consumerist, capitalist societies!
This is not a criticism either of collectivism or millennials, by the way. I think Republicans screwed up the concepts during the Cold War era by successfully labeling Democrats as collectivist. What you have in the U.S. is more accurately described as two strains of libertarianism, one that emphasizes social liberty and the other that emphasizes economic liberty.
by rayiner
2/27/2026 at 8:10:17 PM
I think you may be focusing on this with a lens that isn't incorrect—and is in fact very worldly—but which fails to account for individuals' behavior on their own terms.You define your own notion of collectivism and make claims about how it is necessarily in conflict with other principles, when in reality millennials aren't a monolith, collectivism isn't a monolith, and individualism isn't a monolith. Cultures and subcultures renegotiate the meaning of every -ism they import, and they practice these -isms only as bundles of other, historically correlated -isms.
When the American youth say they want collectivism, they are not saying they want a return to authentic rice farming culture. Most of the time, they are mourning the systematic loss of third places, they are mourning the obliteration of social safety nets, they are mourning the lack of public projects, they are mourning the death of individually influenceable local politics. At the same time, they do not want rigid social roles ordained from above (because "above" is powerful and corrupt). They also do not want a parochial existence taking care of grandma (because the elderly are in greater number and need than ever, and our infrastructure and way of life is ill suited to efficiently meeting these needs). None of this is contradictory cosplay. It is simply a fusion of individualism and collectivism that is unlike that which has existed before, as a result of cultural factors that are themselves unlike that which has existed before.
by Paracompact
2/27/2026 at 11:26:21 PM
I agree that terms don't have fixed meaning, but the terms still have certain essential characteristics. I'd argue that what millenials want is more accurately described as a form of hyper-individualism. It seems superficially collectivist because they want more government spending, and the GOP convinced everyone that anytime the government pays for something that's communism. But the spending is actually in service of individualism. It's directed to freeing individuals from the social obligations they would have in a more collectivist society. E.g., they want social security to free them from the obligation of caring for their parents. Then they want free child care to free them from the reciprocal obligations they would incur if they relied on their parents for childcare. They want payments for kids, so they can be freed from the obligations of marriage. They want free education, but they want to choose their course of study, not receive training in whatever jobs the government determines need to be filled in the economy.And the reason I'm quibbling about whether you label this "individualist" or "collectivist" is that it helps explain what happens as these people get older. Why did the seeming collectivism of the baby boomers in the 1960s give rise to a period of extreme libertarian individualism in the 1980s? I think that makes more sense when you realize that what happened in the 1960s was not collectivist, but instead a surge of individualism coupled with a rejection of obligations imposed by traditional society. Viewed that way, it makes total sense how the baby boomers went on to create an economy that was characterized by the rejection of social obligation.
by rayiner
2/28/2026 at 7:29:51 AM
Fair enough. I disagree somewhat with your characterization of why the youth wants these things (for example, I have never, not once heard of an American advocating for child benefits in order to "be freed from the obligations of marriage"; it typically comes from people anxious that you cannot support a family on a single earner, and wanting to spend more time with kids), but I'll grant that individualism is alive and well in the US, and has been at least since the boomers.by Paracompact
2/27/2026 at 9:26:55 AM
The author cites Arendt a fair bit, whose claim to fame was that entirely ordinary people could become voluntary instruments of atrocity.I think the belief of ordinary people most likely to dispose them to atrocity is that of prioritizing the ingroup. Once we believe that the members of one's own family, or company, or country, carry more moral value than others, we're doomed to a descent limited only by our ability to make these world-worsening trades.
When I was a child, my dad would sometimes engage in small acts of corruption to please me or my brother. Taking somebody else's spot, telling white lies to get more than his share of a rationed good, that sort of thing. It never sat right with me. "Family first" has a very ominous ring to me.
by Paracompact
2/27/2026 at 1:32:25 PM
> I think the belief of ordinary people most likely to dispose them to atrocity is that of prioritizing the ingroup.In my opinion, there is another tendency even more significant in that regard. Namely, the visceral desire to see "bad guys" deservedly suffer. Once people are in that frame of mind, they strongly resist any attempts to understand and maybe prevent whatever the "bad guys" did, let alone questions whether it was actually bad.
This is what fuelled lynch mobs, it's what makes MAGA types cheer when ICE murders immigrants, and it's what makes certain leftist circles chant "eat the rich" along with images of guillotines and wood chippers.
When you point out that poverty causes crime, rightists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" crime, and when you point out that poverty causes support for far-right politicians, leftists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" racism.
Of course, this interacts with your point: when someone from the ingroup does something bad, people are willing to look at their reasons and if found lacking it is only the individual that should be punished, whereas the outgroup is never afforded the luxury of complexity, and the entire group is held responsible for each individual's sins.
by brazzy
2/27/2026 at 5:30:35 PM
I have way too many family members and associates like that. "Family First" has the same ominous ring to me too. At least, in the given scenarios. Would you agree it's less ominous, maybe even noble, when shit hits the fan though?I think they're easily convinced we're living in constant state of war, even on a slow Tuesday at Costco. The propaganda they often parrot would seem to suggest it.
Or maybe they see there are scenarios that is considered noble, and generalize it to be the case for all scenarios. The people I know like that also have a habit of over-generalizing every aspect of life. Cliches, aphorisms, etc. are a huge part of their vocabulary, but they are rarely applied in the original spirit of the sayings.
by kgwxd
2/28/2026 at 7:35:26 AM
> Would you agree it's less ominous, maybe even noble, when shit hits the fan though?The "family first, others second" interpretation is, I think, even more problematic when shit hits the fan. In disasters, it never benefits a community to turn on itself. And in fact, I believe the natural human reaction to disaster is to become more altruistic rather than less; see "A Paradise Built in Hell" by Rebecca Solnit for more on this.
The actually noble interpretation of "family first" is "family first, my own priorities second," at least so long as it doesn't lead to unhealthy self-sacrifice.
by Paracompact
2/27/2026 at 10:37:11 AM
Yes, the slogan "America first" is a forerunner of the worst kind of imperialism.by reacweb
2/27/2026 at 10:51:49 AM
also "Make America Great Again" states that America is not currently great, which given its geo-political and economic position is just dishonest. Combined with "America First" you get an entirely clean canvas to be incredibly radical while cosplaying conservative.by Quarrelsome
2/27/2026 at 1:36:45 PM
To me this is the best example of how language can be used to bypass rational thinking in the listener to manipulate and propagandize.See also:
Politics and the English Language by George Orwell- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langu...
Newspeak by George Orwell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Verbal Behaviour by B.F.Skinner - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_Behavior
by rramadass
2/27/2026 at 11:18:23 AM
I would argue MAGA will be rather fitting campaign slogan for the democrat side come next election.by eptcyka
2/27/2026 at 11:32:07 AM
or maybe simply MAAA: Make America America again.by Quarrelsome
2/27/2026 at 10:42:28 AM
What you describe is deepest human nature. We are tribal, period. No amount of morales will change that, no matter how it sits with you personally.by lynx97
2/27/2026 at 12:55:50 PM
Some groups of people are much less tribal than others.by rayiner
2/27/2026 at 12:24:27 PM
Wouldn’t that be horrible? If great masses of humans did act morally, and you didn’t have this justification that everyone does it?by QuadmasterXLII
2/27/2026 at 1:03:02 PM
I feel like this is a false binary. Acting more morally some of the time is surely possible (both as individuals and as a society); we have at least some level of ability to choose our actions independent of our nature.by saghm
2/27/2026 at 11:35:34 AM
Yes, I was about to say this. A human is basically testicles with a brain attached, and the natural goal of life is to make sure that the genetically closest material survives and reproduces. That's why it's common to have stronger relationships with your family than with randoms on the internet. The more different the genetic material is, the less you care - individuals of different culture, of different race, of different species, of different kingdom of life, and finally viruses that are just strings of RNA floating around and nobody advocates about their rights because fuck that.by anal_reactor
2/27/2026 at 1:07:58 PM
> A human is basically testicles with a brain attached> The more different the genetic material is, the less you care - individuals of different culture, of different race, of different species, of different kingdom of life, and finally viruses that are just strings of RNA floating around and nobody advocates about their rights because fuck that
The type of mental model that ignores 50% of the world's population due to having that same proportions of chromosomes not matching one's mental heuristic of what constitutes a human is what I'd say "fuck that" to, personally
by saghm
2/27/2026 at 1:16:34 PM
Okay but you have to admit that this is not how things functioned through majority of human history.by anal_reactor
2/28/2026 at 4:23:34 PM
No, I think it's pretty much a biological fact there have been plenty of people without testicles for pretty much all of human history.by saghm
2/27/2026 at 2:44:59 PM
The excessive focus on the nuclear family is itself a very recent trend that would otherwise be viewed as very odd by many if not most historical social organizing systems.Given the diversity of social models which have emerged globally, I have no idea how you could possibly make that claim.
by XorNot
2/27/2026 at 3:39:01 PM
I have no idea how to argue with you because it feels like we can't agree whether the Earth is obviously round or obviously flat.by anal_reactor
2/28/2026 at 4:28:04 PM
From a cursory google search, there does not seem to be anything close to a consensus that the nuclear family is the dominant way that humans have organized historically: https://www.anthropology-news.org/articles/the-persistent-my...by saghm
2/27/2026 at 1:54:50 PM
>The more different the genetic material is, the less you careThis is sort of true but it misses that we don't actually have DNA sensors built into our eyes. Instead we rely on heuristics like the Westermarck effect where we will (normally) tend to not find someone we lived with as a child attractive regardless whether they're a blood relation or not.
We influence who (or what) is in our group through our behaviour, thoughts and associations. Look at the vast number of people who value their dog or cat over other human beings. It's unlikely their dog is closer to them, genetically speaking than any single human on Earth but they spend time and invest emotionally in their pet so they form a bond despite the genetic distance.
If you see a child being hurt it likely invokes a slightly stronger emotional response if the child reminds you of someone in your own life. Often this will be someone who looks like you/your family (i.e. is genetically similar to you) but it might be some other kid you've grown attached to who is not related at all.
So yes, we are driven by a calculating selfish gene mechanism but we're also burdened/gifted with a whole bunch of emotional and social instincts and rely on imperfect sensors not tricorders. It's why people can form group identities over all sorts of non-genetic characteristics (e.g. religion, nation, neighbourhood, sports team affiliation, political ideology, vi vs emacs, etc).
by DharmaPolice
2/27/2026 at 3:48:18 PM
That's completely true because there are many aspects to what is "my group" and what isn't, but the key point is, people naturally care about their group more than they care about strangers. Thinking in terms of genetics provides a simple model that's good enough to explain a lot of phenomena. But yes, if you want to go deeper, you need to consider other factors - at first glance it seems like "culture" is the most important one.by anal_reactor
2/27/2026 at 1:25:31 PM
An even worse sign is when we believe that the members of one's own family, or company, or country carry less moral value than others.by carlosjobim
2/27/2026 at 1:34:05 PM
Uh oh, is this a reference to the radar meme/study?The one that conservatives keep claiming shows that liberals care more about out-groups than in-groups, but actually shows that either 1) many conservatives are illiterate and can't read a survey question, or 2) many conservatives literally don't care if right or wrong happens to acquaintances, strangers, their countrymen, humans in other countries, non-human animals, living things, etc?
by estearum
2/27/2026 at 1:52:27 PM
That's pretty insulting, mate.You should look into what Conservatives have actually done.
It wasn't Liberals that took children out of factories, mines and chimneys.
Clearly you've never read Hayek.
Sure, post memes as proof.
by delaminator
2/27/2026 at 1:57:26 PM
Well it's not really a meme, it's a study. And it was an earnest question as to whether GP was referencing the study. They claim they weren't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Also it sounds like you're referring to the British political parties Liberals and Conservatives, not the lowercase-l and lowercase-c political philosophies by the same names, which the study is actually about.
by estearum
2/27/2026 at 1:47:34 PM
[flagged]by carlosjobim
2/27/2026 at 1:58:30 PM
I guess I'm confused as to who is allegedly providing the counterargument that they should love out-groups more than in-groups?by estearum
2/27/2026 at 3:13:14 PM
It's rare to see anybody literally arguing it, but it's more common than not in the real world.Oppression would be quite impossible throughout history if people weren't willing to oppress their own kind to the benefit of others.
Even those arguing for loyalty to the in-group are rarely those who would themselves make any sacrifices for that group.
by carlosjobim
2/27/2026 at 3:54:25 PM
> Oppression would be quite impossible throughout history if people weren't willing to oppress their own kind to the benefit of others.No what's far more common is that people change their perception (or have different perceptions) of who is "their own kind."
You can actually see this happening in real time in the US with the emerging concept of "Heritage Americans." It's a way for losers and crybabies to narrow the scope of who is "their own kind" without having to openly declare that they simply don't love their countrymen.
by estearum
2/27/2026 at 6:21:58 PM
I - and thankfully, it appears, the current administration - don't accept your definition of who is "my countrymen".> losers and crybabies
Luckily, for now, at least, it appears to be your side that is losing and crying.
by jvandreae
2/27/2026 at 7:27:20 PM
QEDby estearum
2/27/2026 at 6:27:48 PM
> Oppression would be quite impossible throughout history if people weren't willing to oppress their own kind to the benefit of others.Isn't the opposite far more common? When oppression happens, it is typically people oppressing the out-group for the benefit of the in-group.
by joshuaissac
2/27/2026 at 7:11:43 PM
My impression is that the foreign/out group delegate the actual oppressing to local representatives, who are more than eager to do it towards their own kind.by carlosjobim
2/27/2026 at 3:07:09 PM
It's complex. My wife's father-in-law immigrated from Italy to escape the destruction wrought by fascism in WWII and seek economic opportunity. He was part of a diaspora of a small village in Abbruzze that settled around Binghamton, NY. I would say that they all love Italy and they all love the U.S.Those are people I know very well because I have been to so many parties, dinners, and other events with them. I've seen the same thing with people from India, China, Sri Lanka, etc. I'd assume that it's the normal condition of immigrants.
by PaulHoule
2/27/2026 at 12:44:22 PM
This is a good explanation of the Irish Machine in Chicago, corrupt white governments in the south, and Somalian welfare scams in Minnesota. It also explains the endemic corruption in tribal or clan-oriented societies like Afghanistan.Conversely, radical universalist regimes—even bad ones like the Taliban—can cut down on corruption. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tackling-corruption.... It’s possible that the low levels of corruption in New England, compared to the rest of the country, is the legacy of the radically universalist Puritans.
by rayiner
2/27/2026 at 9:45:30 AM
The situation in which people exchange favors within their mutually beneficial personal networks seems to be the basic and typical way things function. It’s actually remarkable that we are able to resist this tendency and normalize fair and impartial institutions.by LudwigNagasena
2/27/2026 at 9:26:27 AM
The brain actually has specific neurological system that compartmentalise reasoning contexts in different social contexts, so we operate according to different sets of assumptions and rules of behaviour and reasoning in different kinds of situations.by simonh
2/27/2026 at 11:35:54 AM
Can you share some resources on the above?by rramadass
2/27/2026 at 4:04:09 PM
The the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) both play roles in this. Not a neuroscientist, just going on my own reading.by simonh
2/27/2026 at 1:30:30 PM
Unless you’re autisticby justonceokay
2/27/2026 at 4:34:00 PM
True. I really don't know enough about it, but it may well be these functions are still there, after all I expect the relevant neurological systems are still there, but the impact on social cognition from autism render their effects basically irrelevant.by simonh
2/28/2026 at 8:34:48 PM
Can you elaborate on your hypothesis? Would them being "still there" imply the possibility of treatment to enable their effectiveness?by dooglius
2/27/2026 at 3:18:53 PM
I enjoyed this paper, and there's innumerable things that could be said about ingroup-outgroup dynamics and corruption.In my personal experiences with corruption with organizations, ingroup membership often becomes increasingly narrowly defined, and defined in such a way as to benefit a certain group of individuals at the expense of others. The underlying rationale is a narcissistic entitlement or rationalization for why one person or small group of people is deserving of disproportiate benefits or flexibility at the expense of others. It starts with some kind of distorted egocentric schema about others in a more distal way, and then becomes increasingly strict and more proximal. Narcissistic egocentrism is at the core; it only manifests more weakly at first, and then becomes stronger. The ingroup boundaries never stop shrinking, because there always has to be some justification for why that particular group — which was never really defined by the initial ingroup boundaries, the ingroup was only a proxy for themselves — is more deserving than others.
by derbOac
2/27/2026 at 9:24:57 AM
It’s like they worked at my last workplaceby dundercoder