
Granfalloon technique - maxwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon#Granfalloon_technique
======
lukifer
I'm reminded of the experiments where camp kids were randomly given blue and
red shirts, and it took them less than an hour to form in-group/out-group
dynamics and tribal loyalty based on shirts alone.

The thing is, from a game-theoretic standpoint, tribal loyalty is a Schelling
focus [0]: your calculation about what alliance(s) to invest in, are
inherently influenced by your calculations of the calculations of others. What
defines the tribal boundary can be utterly non-sensical (from the objective
viewpoint of a proverbial Martian), yet still be a rational choice from the
perspective of each individual participant.

I'm also reminded of the Netflix b-movie "Circle" [1]: a group of fifty people
are forced to vote every two minutes on which of them will be killed (if they
refuse, someone is killed at random). At first, they decide to buy time to
think, by starting with older people who are closer to the grave; but the
older crowd bands together in self-defense, creating a two-party system of
old-vs-young. As the headcount shrinks, new rifts and coalitions emerge; some
organic, some arbitrary. It's a brilliant thought experiment despite being
_terrible_ as a film. :)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_\(game_theory\))

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_(2015_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_\(2015_film\))

~~~
perl4ever
I am not sure I believe in the implicit premise. Why would, in effect,
everyone vote to avoid the randomness? That isn't the way society works in
practice, is it?

~~~
lukifer
I think the idea is similar to statistical sampling, or Nielsen ratings: to
have a branch of government which is, on average, mathematically
representative of the public, in a way that no electoral process could ever
hope to accomplish.

The specific proposal I would make for the US is what I call the People's
Congress, replacing the House of Representatives, leaving the Senate and
executive roles as-is (other than unrelated electoral reforms like RCV).

As a check against abuse of power, or nominating someone unfit, every
randomly-selected candidate can be voted out, albeit requiring a very high
margin (maybe 66%: "the People's Veto"). Note that this position would be a
mandatory form of public service, not unlike jury duty. Terms would be two
years, and representatives would cycle in and out on a regular, rolling basis.

A realistic proposal? Not even slightly. In the current climate we can barely
get basics like mail-in voting right. (Maybe it's something that be done as
proof-of-concept at the scale of an eccentric municipality?) Nonetheless: my
hunch is that having a branch of government, possibly even the entire
legislative body, being statistically comprised of We The People in a way that
is _impossible_ to game, would generally be less corrupt, and more responsive
to the needs and preferences of constituents.

------
jnbiche
This phenomenon is root of all evil in modern day America.

People identify with political parties as though they are sports teams. Team R
or Team D.

If you're one of such people (and there seem to be relatively few of them on
HN), please consider where this will lead the country.

~~~
renewiltord
No, it is a beautiful and powerful thing. Everyone claims to not obey it but
the force of tribalism is strong. There is no enlightened man above it. All
are subject to it.

The best use it well. The average deny it. The worst are used well by it.

In its simplest form it lifts you up on a dreary Thursday as you get off the
train, walk to the stadium gates, and yell a chant that is picked up by others
who know nothing of you but that you know the chant and that you wear the
colours. Such power in that unity.

In its most powerful form it motivates people to form great civil change. You
are a civil rights activist, not merely a person who believes in the inherent
rights of all people. You are a gay rights activist, or a climate change
activist, or a revolutionary.

Learning to harness that mindhack of unity was so fulfilling to me. Yell the
right words and you have sixty thousand at your back yelling them with you.
You feel gigantic, not like a single man, but like a giant ocean swell. And it
is such a trick. I do not share that much with the coal miner and the bus
driver and the man who bought a flat in Highbury. But we share this. And over
this we can talk. And through the talking we come to share more.

~~~
jnbiche
< Everyone claims to not obey it but the force of tribalism is strong. There
is no enlightened man above it.

Oh, I think that as a American who disdains both major political parties, I
can claim that honor.

> The best use it well.

Sure, modern politicians are great at that.

> The worst are used well by it.

Yep. Sounds about right.

By the way, it's going to destroy your country, too. Surprised that's not
obvious. Civil wars suck, I've worked in the aftermath of two. Likely will not
go that far in the UK, likely just a breakup and some civil unrest, but there
is that risk with any breakup. In the US, I'd say there's a much higher
chance.

> You feel gigantic, not like a single man, but like a giant ocean swell.

It's always amazing to me how different individuals can be. The idea of
gaining power and feeling great because I'm shouting with thousands of other
people gives me the willies. Sure, protests are necessary, but it's not a
feeling we should relish. It means our government is failing.

And more often, when large groups of people gather to express emotion, it's
for far more malevolent ends.

~~~
renewiltord
Oh, I knew the UK was doomed when triple-lock pensions were made real. I live
in America! I think the most common reason large groups of people gather to
express emotion is sports. And it is so joyful. And it's a nice substitute for
war[0]

0: [https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-
foundation/orwel...](https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-
foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-sporting-spirit/)

~~~
jnbiche
Ah, you had me going until you referred to the Orwell essay.

Poe's Law strikes again.

------
leoc
The idea of the granfaloon sounds like Benedict Anderson's concept of
'imagined communities':
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_community](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_community)

------
rirjdjkagsi
I think Ad Hominems are sometimes a trivial instance of this. The idea being
that you have said this or that which apparently contradicts what you've just
said and, basically, _you wouldn 't want to disagree with yourself, do you?_
(the Granfalloon). Which is infuriating on multiple levels. One is that the
person sometimes shifts from asking a question (but then why did you say...?)
to an accusation (but you've said...!), as if they knew your thoughts better
than you. But the other is that, sometimes, _I do actually change my mind_
and, as a matter of fact, I don't judge others for doing so.

The other instance would be those debates where the only bipartisan position
is that that non-partisanship is not an option. As if people couldn't find
both sides _stupid_ and think if either side got their way, they would get us
all killed, because they're idiots.

------
asldihgiyug
My granfalloon is anyone who knows the meaning of granfalloon.

~~~
lukifer
I love these sorts of "conceptual onomatopoeias" :)

\- "word"

\- every Audible book begins with: "this is audible"

\- "shibboleth" works perfectly well as a shibboleth

~~~
gowld
The tent you are looking for is "self-referential".

Is the word "non-self-referential"

self-referential?

Is it non-self-referential?

> shibboleth" works perfectly well as a shibboleth

You know why that is, right? The concept is named after the use of the word.

~~~
lukifer
The category I'm thinking of is a subset of self-referential; a concept which
is encapsulated in its expression, where it is an example of itself: "This is
a sentence" or "is sentence fragment" or `<html>`. It's an admittedly
fuzzy/arbitrary category that I made up. :)

> Is it non-self-referential?

Haha, nice. I also like "non-descript".

> The concept is named after the use of the word.

Cool, TIL :)

------
throwaway5752
Hoosiers! ([https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3789074-hazel-obsession-
wit...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3789074-hazel-obsession-with-
hoosiers-around-the-world-was-a-textbook))

Scroll up in the linked Wikipedia submission, and read Cat's Cradle if you
haven't. This is nothing new - Cat's Cradle was published in 1963 - just
looked back to Seuss and star-bellied Sneetches. It's simply become magnified
w/ self-reinforcing social platform dynamics.

------
kerkeslager
An implication of this is that labeling groups you disagree with may actually
serve to strengthen their commitment to that disagreement. I.e. calling
someone a climate change denier or an anti-vaxxer, groups them with other
people with the same misconceptions, and strengthens their commitment to the
ideas because it's now a commitment to their group.

------
jdkee
"They had found a can of white paint, and on the front doors of the cab Frank
had painted white stars, and on the roof he had painted the letters of a
granfalloon: U.S.A." – Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

The COVID-19 pandemic will test the assertion that the USA is a granfalloon.
And presage our ability to tackle climate change.

------
lainga
Is the group of all humans a granfalloon?

~~~
happytoexplain
It will be the moment we make contact with aliens.

------
iron0013
I get how Hoosiers are a granfalloon (the borders of the state of Indiana
being essentially arbitrary), but how are groups defined by a shared
philosophy and belief system like the Communist party a granfalloon? Like,
what are some examples of groups that everyone would agree are definitely a
“karass” rather than a “granfalloon”?

------
fallingfrog
Management and politicians are notorious for doing this; if there is threat of
a union forming, historically the management’s first move is to sow discord
between immigrants and natives, French and Irish, or black and white- anything
to keep people from forming groups based on actual _shared economic
interests_. 90% of the acrimony in politics is just this phenomenon writ
large. Urban vs rural, native vs immigrant, it’s just a control mechanism.

