Tribal mentality

[TotallyHuman]

If your *insert someone you care and love* is now at war, literally about to take a glock out and double tap type, with another person/ faction, would you help out or nah

I will rip whoever is at war with my cat a new one with no hesitation. Nobody messes with Flicky! Nobody!

 

[Discount_Blade]

Nah, I specifically vague the whole thing just to see whether or not would you blindly help your loved ones.

For me, it's more likely to be a friend. I'm not especially close with any family members. I can't think of one that I wouldn't shrug and say "eh, what's in it for me?" since I wasn't raised in a particularly family-oriented atmosphere. I'm more inclined to blindly help a close friend than any family member. So I'm not the typical source for data in this experiment.

 

[Arkus86]

But that's not how war works tho.
If Friend-land is at war with Dave-land.
me being from Arch-land would not be involved at all.

EVEN if I am the ruler of Arch-land and not just a rando citizen, going to war is not a decision I can make because I like "Friend".

Wars must balance with the well being, cost and benefit of a nation. The narratives of "friendship" "threat" "justice" "xenophobia" and "discrimination" are often used to justify war to the nation, but in reality, I think it is often not the reason rulers of countries use to decide whether to war or not to war.

In the context of nations, there is also the question whether you have treaties that oblige you to help and what impact either result would have on you, even if you're completely uninvolved.

 

[Generic.Archdemon]

Would you help or abandon your loved ones in the midst of conflict? That's the question.

??? I thought it was the title

Title:

Tribal mentality

that being

the behaviour and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.

The question alluded to what extent would you support "loved ones" because of loyalty.
E.g.
Loved-one says, "we are at war", they grab a gun. "You grab gun too, help me"
Option 1: Yeah
Option 2: Nah

Possible Context from OP:
this is a loved one, so if it was an ongoing conflict you know about it would not be a question. Therefore, it is possible that is it a new conflict with people you know nothing about.
Since your help is a choice, you have no invested gain or loss from joining in the conflict. Only to help the loved one only loyalty
The context is "War" or act of aggression by a loved one due to:

about to take a glock out and double tap

and not loved ones under threat.

stay on topic though

Simply, what degree of aggression would you support your loved one without questioning the context of the situation?

the knowledge of survival, can only be attached by asking the loved one the context and nature of "WHY"? and in asking why would go against the premise of Tribal mentality.

The tribal mentality is based on, 'With strong loyalty would you ignore all context and say "yes", purely because you are loyal.

Addendum food for thought,
What degree of Yes can you commit to without knowing why? What atrocities that go against your beliefs are willing to commit in the name of loyalty?

 

[hauntedwritings]

The fact that this is being debated seems to me like evidence that what we were supposed to have learned from the last century hasn't quite gone home.

When asked "if you had been a german under the nazi regieme, would you have helped the nazis?", most people will blatantly say no, as they are well aware that the nazis are doing something wrong. But history tells us that the overwhelming majority would have helped, even if their moral standpoint says they shouldn't.

And that situation is little more than an example of a tribalistic mentality in a society. The brave people we hear of and remember are those who were willing to risk everything, even those they loved and cared for, for what they believed.

But those people are not us. We remember them because they are RARE. The average member of society is, and will always be, a coward. No matter what they try to say about their moral standpoint - myself included.

 

[NotaNuffian]

.For me, it's more likely to be a friend. I'm not especially close with any family members. I can't think of one that I wouldn't shrug and say "eh, what's in it for me?" since I wasn't raised in a particularly family-oriented atmosphere. I'm more inclined to blindly help a close friend than any family member. So I'm not the typical source for data in this experiment.

I said loved ones. I never stated blood related.

Which means you are ok.

 

[T.K._Paradox]

Such a simple question, and its turned into some pseudo-philosophical debate. Some budding politicians here. Can't answer a simple question, and I bet that even if they were given specific details, it'd still be "but then what if X or how about when Y did Z"....

I was literally about to comment a similar statement. People are thinking to much with their brain here and not enough with their heart or gut.

Instead of saying, "I will do what feels right to me." Which means helping or not helping, people are trying to seem smart for said decision by bringing in moral 'evidence' to back their decision up as if they needed to justify their actions or lack of them in the first place.

Not every action needs to be so completely thought out, sometimes 'it feels right to (not) do this' is all the justification you need.

 

[Discount_Blade]

I was literally about to comment a similar statement. People are thinking to much with their brain here and not enough with their heart or gut.

Instead of saying, "I will do what feels right to me." Which means helping or not helping, people are trying to seem smart for said decision by bringing in moral 'evidence' to back their decision up as if they needed to justify their actions or lack of them in the first place.

Not every action needs to be so completely thought out, sometimes 'it feels right to (not) do this' is all the justification you need.

It's more like, in the heat of the moment when given only split seconds to make a decision, all of this intellectual nonsense being spouted....won't even occur. They'll make a decision based on pure instinctual gut feelings, and only consider the consequences of such a choice once the situation is over and the adrenaline has stopped pumping.

@Generic.Archdemon is talking a load of bullshit. You wouldn't have time to make all of these considerations when given only seconds to respond. Simplify your meandering to:
1) No, because it doesn't concern me or benefit me enough somehow.
2) No because I'm against tribalistic violence regardless of my association with said loved one
3) Yes because I'm loyal to person enough to disregard the reason until the situation is resolved, meaning I can now ask questions
4) Yes, because fuck the other guys faction anyway

 

[Generic.Archdemon]

whether or not would you blindly help your loved ones.

Another interesting scenario is

If a loved one asked for money, not a lot like 10 bucks and say don't ask the question
a week later ask for more than before, again don't ask the question
again a week later ask for more than before again don't ask the question
After many such encounters
they ask for 90% of what you own, again no question, still doable.
When you have nothing to give, they ask to stay at your place. You say yes
After which they take and sell every valuable thing you own, again don't ask questions. But promise to pay you back

You wait one month 2 months, nothing is paid back, again they ask for money

When do you question? When does one need to know the context, of supporting the loved one? What is the "monetary price" that loyalty can not cover? Would the price be higher of the reason, is meth? Gambling? A gold-digging lover? Cancer? Cult? Was blackmailed?

 

[KiraMinoru]

It’s kind of funny how you can tell based on each person’s answer how high or low their testosterone/estrogen levels are. If you’ve got too much estrogen you’re going to take some wishy washy status quo stance, the safer one. If you’ve got more testosterone, you’ll take the riskier option.

Testosterone levels being at an all time low in men is the perfect embodiment of the sorts of responses you see in this thread.

As for me, idgaf, I’d go to war since it’s the more interesting option.

 

[Discount_Blade]

It’s kind of funny how you can tell based on each person’s answer how high or low their testosterone/estrogen levels are. If you’ve got too much estrogen you’re going to take some wishy washy status quo stance, the safer one. If you’ve got more testosterone, you’ll take the riskier option.

Testosterone levels being at an all time low in men is the perfect embodiment of the sorts of responses you see in this thread.

I don't know why I thought my stance would be more common, but nope. Half the guys here are dancing around the obvious few choices like they are practicing a rendition of the Mexican sombrero dance.

 

[Cipiteca396]

??? I thought it was the title

Title:

that being

The question alluded to what extent would you support "loved ones" because of loyalty.
E.g.
Loved-one says, "we are at war", they grab a gun. "You grab gun too, help me"
Option 1: Yeah
Option 2: Nah

Possible Context from OP:
this is a loved one, so if it was an ongoing conflict you know about it would not be a question. Therefore, it is possible that is it a new conflict with people you know nothing about.
Since your help is a choice, you have no invested gain or loss from joining in the conflict. Only to help the loved one only loyalty
The context is "War" or act of aggression by a loved one due to:

and not loved ones under threat.


Simply, what degree of aggression would you support your loved one without questioning the context of the situation?

the knowledge of survival, can only be attached by asking the loved one the context and nature of "WHY"? and in asking why would go against the premise of Tribal mentality.

The tribal mentality is based on, 'With strong loyalty would you ignore all context and say "yes", purely because you are loyal.

Addendum food for thought,
What degree of Yes can you commit to without knowing why? What atrocities that go against your beliefs are willing to commit in the name of loyalty?

This is what I meant by overthinking. No offense to the OP, but I seriously doubt they were trickling 'hints' in for your benefit. It's not a trick question or a scam of some kind.

Another interesting scenario is

If a loved one asked for money, not a lot like 10 bucks and say don't ask the question
a week later ask for more than before, again don't ask the question
again a week later ask for more than before again don't ask the question
After many such encounters
they ask for 90% of what you own, again no question, still doable.
When you have nothing to give, they ask to stay at your place. You say yes
After which they take and sell every valuable thing you own, again don't ask questions. But promise to pay you back

You wait one month 2 months, nothing is paid back, again they ask for money

When do you question? When does one need to know the context, of supporting the loved one? What is the "monetary price" that loyalty can not cover? Would the price be higher of the reason, is meth? Gambling? A gold-digging lover? Cancer? Cult? Was blackmailed?

At some point you either stop loving them or you lose everything. Of course, you'd realistically try to help them in a better way than letting them ruin your life, if you genuinely cared about them. Stopping to ask why or if there's a better way is still allowed, even if you still care about the person. Lowering the odds like this makes it a lot easier to take a more neutral stance than 'Ride or Die'.

But if your loved one asked for 10 bucks, you wouldn't cut all ties with them either. You might bring up the ten bucks they still owe you from last week though.

It’s kind of funny how you can tell based on each person’s answer how high or low their testosterone/estrogen levels are. If you’ve got too much estrogen you’re going to take some wishy washy status quo stance, the safer one. If you’ve got more testosterone, you’ll take the riskier option.

Testosterone levels being at an all time low in men is the perfect embodiment of the sorts of responses you see in this thread.

As for me, idgaf, I’d go to war since it’s the more interesting option.

What you just said is absolute nonsense, lol. I can't even argue with it because of how utterly unrelated it is. "Ah, that person must have been born in February(can't remember astrology, sorry). Those people are always so wishy-washy."

 

[T.K._Paradox]

It's more like, in the heat of the moment when given only split seconds to make a decision, all of this intellectual nonsense being spouted....won't even occur. They'll make a decision based on pure instinctual gut feelings, and only consider the consequences of such a choice once the situation is over and the adrenaline has stopped pumping.

@Generic.Archdemon is talking a load of bullshit. You wouldn't have time to make all of these considerations when given only seconds to respond. Simplify your meandering to:
1) No, because it doesn't concern me or benefit me enough somehow.
2) No because I'm against tribalistic violence regardless of my association with said loved one
3) Yes because I'm loyal to person enough to disregard the reason until the situation is resolved, meaning I can now ask questions
4) Yes, because fuck the other guys faction anyway

If people can truly weight and debate within themselves to find out what outcome for the situation benefits them, when a loved one is involved, then that is the truly scarily thing. For they have become as Chaplin said, "Machine Men, with Machine Hearts."

 

[Discount_Blade]

What you just said is absolute nonsense, lol. I can't even argue with it because of how utterly unrelated it is. "Ah, that person must have been born in February(can't remember astrology, sorry). Those people are always so wishy-washy."

There actually has been studies presenting evidence for today's men possessing lesser and lesser amounts of testosterone. It is fairly agreed upon by various scientific think tanks. I know that means nothing because those same "think tanks" have also come to conclusions that are as stupid as they come, but the general gist of it is that men today have noticeably less levels of testosterone even when in comparison to men just a few decades prior. They blame it on today's modern society, and something-something about industrialized civilizations steadily progressing and whatnot. I'm not sure if the guy knew any of this when he responded as such, but this isn't as nonsensical as it would initially sound.

 

[BenJepheneT]

I originally typed out an entire essay to weigh my opinion in this but then thinking about it now, I'll never be truly prepared for this situation. Depending on the circumstances, I might spare my loved one; I might stick to my guns, who knows? Too many variables to give an objective answer on whether to cap someone you care out of an agenda.

Humanity is a volatile cocktail, so I'm gonna stick with the pacifist run, not cause' peace and love and all that gay shit, but because I'm not sure I can afford the prices for the decisions I'd make in war.

 

[KiraMinoru]

This is what I meant by overthinking. No offense to the OP, but I seriously doubt they were trickling 'hints' in for your benefit. It's not a trick question or a scam of some kind.

At some point you either stop loving them or you lose everything. Of course, you'd realistically try to help them in a better way than letting them ruin your life, if you genuinely cared about them. Stopping to ask why or if there's a better way is still allowed, even if you still care about the person. Lowering the odds like this makes it a lot easier to take a more neutral stance than 'Ride or Die'.

But if your loved one asked for 10 bucks, you wouldn't cut all ties with them either. You might bring up the ten bucks they still owe you from last week though.

What you just said is absolute nonsense, lol. I can't even argue with it because of how utterly unrelated it is. "Ah, that person must have been born in February(can't remember astrology, sorry). Those people are always so wishy-washy."

It’s really not nonsense though. You can see it in every day life how the imbalance in estrogen and testosterone levels are greatly shifting society as a whole. There are a bunch of young men these days who are seeing drops in testosterone levels to as low as what you’d find in eighty year old men.

Places like China or even the old Soviet Union estrogen levels were actually quite high. Essentially you see high levels of estrogen in a population tends to lean more in favour of authority and safer choices to maintain the status quo while higher testosterone levels ends up favouring freedom and risk taking which is what you originally saw during the founding of the US which was against excessive authority.

There actually has been studies presenting evidence for today's men possessing lesser and lesser amounts of testosterone. I'm not sure if the guy knew this when he responded as such, but this isn't as nonsensical as it would initially sound.

I do know this which is why I bring it up.

 

[Discount_Blade]

These are the kinds of things I love to respond to. Would piss off half the site, (my political stances aren't even remotely subtle I imagine). But nope, I've been muted from this forum twice now and I think Tony has begun enjoying it so I'll avoid a third strike.

 

[T.K._Paradox]

There actually has been studies presenting evidence for today's men possessing lesser and lesser amounts of testosterone. It is fairly agreed upon by various scientific think tanks. I know that means nothing because those same "think tanks" have also come to conclusions that are as stupid as they come. I'm not sure if the guy knew any of this when he responded as such, but this isn't as nonsensical as it would initially sound.

I could see why people would be skeptical though, this could be seen as the like false alpha male rhetoric, like something that cuck Jack Murphy would say.

 

[Discount_Blade]

Jack Murphy

I used to respect that guy. Kind of ashamed of myself. A former lefty waking up and realizing his "comrades" are full of shit? Awesome. But then he....

 

[Cipiteca396]

It’s really not nonsense though. You can see it in every day life how the imbalance in estrogen and testosterone levels are greatly shifting society as a whole. There are a bunch of young men these days who are seeing drops in testosterone levels to as low as what you’d find in eighty year old men.

Places like China or even the old Soviet Union estrogen levels were actually quite high. Essentially you see high levels of estrogen tends to lean more in favour of authority and safer choices to maintain the status quo while higher testosterone levels ends up favouring freedom and risk taking which is what you originally saw during the foundation of the US.

I do know this which is why I bring it up.

Whether that is the case or not is irrelevant. Whether someone is a critical thinker or a decisive actor isn't based on their hormone levels. Not to the extent that it would affect this discussion, at least.

I originally typed out an entire essay to weigh my opinion in this but then thinking about it now, I'll never be truly prepared for this situation. Depending on the circumstances, I might spare my loved one; I might stick to my guns, who knows? Too many variables to give an objective answer on whether to cap someone you care out of an agenda.

Humanity is a volatile cocktail, so I'm gonna stick with the pacifist run, not cause' peace and love and all that gay shit, but because I'm not sure I can afford the prices for the decisions I'd make in war.

Unfortunately, there's a much higher price to pay for inaction than action in most cases. At least thinking about it ahead of time will make it easier to react if it does end up happening at some point.