
The Ideology Is Not the Movement - l1n
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/04/the-ideology-is-not-the-movement/
======
Animats
This is moderately useful, but not new.

He may be underestimating the effect of attention. Attention is a scarce
resource, because there's only so much time. Part of tribe creation is
absorbing a considerable amount of attention. This is seen most strongly in
the religions designed to consume attention multiple times per day. Islam and
Haredi Judaism are the most obvious examples. We also see this with the types
of video games that demand regular attention, from World of Warcraft to
Pokémon Go. This is different from popularity; Angry Birds, although popular,
did not require constant attention and did not develop a cult-like following.

~~~
stcredzero
Because 21st century internet-facilitated media has created a seller's market
for attention, there have arisen media practices which take advantage of
potentially toxic innate instincts. People have long been wary of the use of
sex to gain attention. Variable schedules of reward are in-fact addicting,
therefore potentially toxic. However, the use of _outrage_ to gain attention
in the 21st century attention economy is far more toxic. Why? Because the use
of outrage strongly degrades discourse between groups as well as discourse
within a group, on both an emotional and intellectual level.

Outrage politics is basically like steroid use. It can aid in quickly bulking
up (a group) but it has detrimental long term effects on the body politic.

~~~
Animats
I think you mean " _buyer 's_ market for attention". There are more sellers
wanting attention than buyers looking for something to which to attend.

~~~
stcredzero
Seller's market for attention. Viewers and users are giving their attention.
The party you're calling buyers are buying media. Often they are trading their
attention for access to media.

Don't confuse media with the consumption of media. (I guess social media blurs
this, however.)

~~~
chongli
They makes no sense. Attention is the currency, the sellers provide the
product and accept attention as payment.

If I pay you $20 for your skateboard, you are not the _buyer_ of my cash,
you're the _seller_ of your skateboard.

~~~
stcredzero
Seller's market isn't about who is paying currency. It's about who is on the
side of the transaction with the most power, and who is providing. Hence, it's
a seller's market for attention. Those offering the attention are the supply.

------
bovermyer
That is a fantastic read. I need to take some time and think about how this
changes my viewpoint on certain things (esp. politics).

~~~
lliamander
It is indeed good, but my concern is that some will take this to mean that
they don't need to take other people at there word, and that consequently any
attempt to form a common ground philosophically will not even be made (let
alone whether such attempts could actually be successful).

More suspect is the notion, not necessarily implied by Scott's piece but but
explicitly stated in the post he linked[0], that those with religious beliefs
specifically should not be taken at their word.

This is not a defense of religion. Rather, why does a belief in some bearded
guy in the sky suddenly invalidate the content of your other, when belief in
"The Equality of Humanity" or "The Progress of History" or "The Zeitgeist" or
"Free Markets" or other such fluffy abstractions not[1]?

Also, because this notion of tribalism is trending, I fear it risks becoming
the new psychoanalysis (i.e. "everything wrong with you can be explained by
repressed childhood trauma!"). We don't behave philosophically as often as we
like to pretend, but that doesn't mean we don't ever.

I think the realizations about tribalism are primarily useful insofar as we
are introspecting to understand our own motivations behind our
political/social behaviors, and hopefully allow us to overcome those aspects
of our psychology in an attempt to reach that philosophical common ground with
our enemy tribes.

The only other application will be those who employ such knowledge in a
pursuit of power[2] or money[3].

[0][http://www.meltingasphalt.com/religion-is-not-about-
beliefs/](http://www.meltingasphalt.com/religion-is-not-about-beliefs/)
[1][https://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how...](https://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-
dawkins-got-pwned-part-1/) [2][https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-
Practical-Primer-Reali...](https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-
Primer-
Realistic/dp/0679721134/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1469221142&sr=1-1&keywords=rules+for+radicals)
[3][https://www.amazon.com/Tribes-We-Need-You-
Lead/dp/1491514736](https://www.amazon.com/Tribes-We-Need-You-
Lead/dp/1491514736)

~~~
Analemma_
> that those with religious beliefs specifically should not be taken at their
> word

For better or worse, the idea that religious people shouldn't be taken at
their word is a core belief of the LessWrong crowd, of which Scott is one of
the most notable members. "Belief in Belief" [1] is one of the earliest
grounding chapters of the beloved Sequences, and I'm pretty sure that's where
the meltingasphalt post got its inspiration.

> Rather, why does a belief in some bearded guy in the sky suddenly invalidate
> the content of your other, when belief in "The Equality of Humanity" or "The
> Progress of History" or "The Zeitgeist" or "Free Markets" or other such
> fluffy abstractions not[1]?

It is, at least for some people. For example, I feel roughly the same way
about people who "believe in Free Markets" as I do about people who believe in
God; interpret that as you will.

[1]
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/)

