Shrink thinking: are countries really like people?(the-tls.co.uk)
the-tls.co.uk
Shrink thinking: are countries really like people?
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/nations-people-upheaval-niall-ferguson/
34 comments
It's a model used to simplify the world around us and, as with all models, it's wrong but useful. When you over-apply the model, it stops being useful.
How useful is it really? I think it only serves to conflate the will of the people with the will of the elite. I certainly don't want to be associated with everything the US has done in my lifetime.
Is it really that much harder to name the person who proposed the policy or who ordered the action?
Is it really that much harder to name the person who proposed the policy or who ordered the action?
>How useful is it really? I think it only serves to conflate the will of the people with the will of the elite.
When people think at that level of abstraction they don't care about the "will of the people" of the other country, they care about what the other country can do (does) to theirs, and that's mostly based on the will of its elite.
So it makes sense to ignore the "will of the people" when considering a country friendly or not.
>Is it really that much harder to name the person who proposed the policy or who ordered the action?
Well, the persons are often replaceable or insignificant the elite has people doing its work in politics etc, but it's not like some specific person is the embodiment of being the "enemy" of another country the elite wants to attack.
When people think at that level of abstraction they don't care about the "will of the people" of the other country, they care about what the other country can do (does) to theirs, and that's mostly based on the will of its elite.
So it makes sense to ignore the "will of the people" when considering a country friendly or not.
>Is it really that much harder to name the person who proposed the policy or who ordered the action?
Well, the persons are often replaceable or insignificant the elite has people doing its work in politics etc, but it's not like some specific person is the embodiment of being the "enemy" of another country the elite wants to attack.
But the problem is the equivalisation of the state, the country and the nation. These are three different things. Australia and the United States are friendly: the states are friendly.
Not so long ago, the United States went to war: the state went to war. Iraq went to war: the country went to war.
Not so long ago, the United States went to war: the state went to war. Iraq went to war: the country went to war.
Yes, for most people it's much harder to name the person who proposed it, and those who carried it out. Heck, we anthropomorphize cars, animals, and the weather... on a regular basis. I'm not saying it's good much less accurate, but it usually makes the story easier to tell and more memorable.
[deleted]
Thank you! This is a serious issue I come across often. I'm often the token outsider when traveling which leads people to being open about their prejudices, most often to their neighbouring countries, how the is mutual dislike. Almost always this is an idea evolved some some hundreds of years ago, and no longer holds any truth. Even when conflict is more recent its remarkable how easily a civilian of one county will blame the civilians of another, not taking geo-politics into account in any way.
Same here! I thought nobody was understanding this.
>Particularly grating is the common parlance that countries X and Y are "friends" or "enemies". This may have made sense in the world of monarchical empires, but in modern nations it is at best a rough summary of the collective attitude of an elite. The bulk of the population in each country is unlikely to care at all about the other.
Perhaps the bulk of the population in each country doesn't matter then, as far as the country's relation with other countries and friendly or enemy actions are concerned?
You say this made sense in the world of "monarchical empires" -- but then "the bulk of the population in each country" was even more unlikely to care at all about the other.
If anything, the bulk of the population in modern countries votes, and so, whatever their country's behaviour is to other countries, is more of their responsibility than it ever was in "monarchical empires".
Perhaps the bulk of the population in each country doesn't matter then, as far as the country's relation with other countries and friendly or enemy actions are concerned?
You say this made sense in the world of "monarchical empires" -- but then "the bulk of the population in each country" was even more unlikely to care at all about the other.
If anything, the bulk of the population in modern countries votes, and so, whatever their country's behaviour is to other countries, is more of their responsibility than it ever was in "monarchical empires".
Similarly, a single neuron in your brain has no particular feelings toward neurons in your friend's brain.
C.G. Jung once wrote that it was totally clear that the amount of conscience of a group of people is inversely proportional to the size of the group. So, if countries are like people they mostly are like psychopaths.
That would be the exactly same conclusion Machiavelli made. And I'm not trying to mock anybody here. Machiavelli was very smart dude.
The IQ of a group size N is approximately 100/logN for N>10.
For the US Senate, N=100 and IQ = 50.
For the US Senate, N=100 and IQ = 50.
So the IQ of America is 12.
Do you have any rules for nested groups?
Do you have any rules for nested groups?
No, but nested groups are the common organization of governments and corporations. The House of Representatives (IQ=38), for example, does little other than vote in session, while all of the actual work is done by committees.
A nested model may be difficult because at N=10 or less, the IQ depends a lot on the selection of the individuals and their fit with the tasks to be undertaken.
A nested governmental organization would be a good idea, and that is my impression of how the US worked early in its history. The voters would elect town officials who would elect county officials who would elect state legislators and at least in the case of the Senate, the state legislators would elect US Senators. Ideally the electors at each level would be able to assess the abilities and character of candidates and the cream would rise to the top. This is sort of how the two political parties still work, although the modern methods of getting elected and penchant for direct democracy enable candidates to run for offices without working their way up the party, e.g. Bloomberg.
A nested model may be difficult because at N=10 or less, the IQ depends a lot on the selection of the individuals and their fit with the tasks to be undertaken.
A nested governmental organization would be a good idea, and that is my impression of how the US worked early in its history. The voters would elect town officials who would elect county officials who would elect state legislators and at least in the case of the Senate, the state legislators would elect US Senators. Ideally the electors at each level would be able to assess the abilities and character of candidates and the cream would rise to the top. This is sort of how the two political parties still work, although the modern methods of getting elected and penchant for direct democracy enable candidates to run for offices without working their way up the party, e.g. Bloomberg.
And yet America (assuming the colloquial 'America' that means 'The US') developed the atomic bomb and put a man on the moon. Could any single individual or small group of individuals have accomplished this? I doubt it. It takes a nation worth of resources and organization to pull these things off.
Would a group of ten people with an iq each of 40 get smarter?
That kind of math led to the greatest financial collapse in world history.
That kind of math led to the greatest financial collapse in world history.
If it's possible to mathematically characterize the relationship, and the relationship is non-linear, then there exists an optimal hierarchical grouping algorithm for maximizing empathy in nested groups (that balances the loss due to group numbers vs the "generation loss" from traversing hierarchical levels.
I think the difference in sizes between the organizational groups of different countries goes a long way towards explaining the vast differences in political flavor. How many people are in the smallest political constituency you identify with? Dozens? Hundreds? Millions? This is the range of scales we're dealing with.
What would it look like if we layered government so that at no level was any group larger than tribal size (~150)? In the US you'd only need 4 levels to cover the entire population, roughly corresponding to: neighborhood (150 people), town (~20,000 people), city/state (3-4 million people), country (327 million people). At that scale, each representative can be on friendly personal terms with a) everyone in the constituency they represent and b) every other representative at their level. So the access to government ought to be much better with this system. In the US, local and federal governments are divided - there's not a lot of continuity between the town government and your friendly local congressperson.
I think the difference in sizes between the organizational groups of different countries goes a long way towards explaining the vast differences in political flavor. How many people are in the smallest political constituency you identify with? Dozens? Hundreds? Millions? This is the range of scales we're dealing with.
What would it look like if we layered government so that at no level was any group larger than tribal size (~150)? In the US you'd only need 4 levels to cover the entire population, roughly corresponding to: neighborhood (150 people), town (~20,000 people), city/state (3-4 million people), country (327 million people). At that scale, each representative can be on friendly personal terms with a) everyone in the constituency they represent and b) every other representative at their level. So the access to government ought to be much better with this system. In the US, local and federal governments are divided - there's not a lot of continuity between the town government and your friendly local congressperson.
My friends/partner and I are designing neighborhood models to go along with these ideas with the goal of experimenting with them on land we give back to native tribes. I'd love to talk to you more about this if you're interested. My contact info is in my profile, if so.
I suspect that it would lead to massive corruption if actually tried both in personal enrichment and NIMBYism for everything related to "being the one to bell the cat". Localism is fashionable but I can't help but suspect it will only make things worse judging by every dysfunctional small town and city council working on ineffectual grand proclimations and unconstitutional ordinances instead of actual responsibilities like potholes.
Related the disturbing root of the problem has been historically been not just the leadership that is objectively terrible and accepts bad outcomes for the sake of hurting the other but that frankly the people and the values they hold dear. Storm Thurgood even admitted that he tried running on things which would actually help them and got no real interest but running on racism propelled him forward.
Related the disturbing root of the problem has been historically been not just the leadership that is objectively terrible and accepts bad outcomes for the sake of hurting the other but that frankly the people and the values they hold dear. Storm Thurgood even admitted that he tried running on things which would actually help them and got no real interest but running on racism propelled him forward.
Surprised to see Ferguson assert that the UK is more than 400 years old. The UK came into being in 1801, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It's predecessor was the Kingdom of Great Britain, itself created in 1707 with the Act of Union between England and Scotland.
He's probably equating the union of the crowns with the creation of the UK. His political views are well known to be very passionately unionist and critical of Scottish nationalism so he's motivated to overstate the historical reach and influence of the UK as much as possible.
I have very little doubt that countries are like their own people. If anything, for the simple fact that democratic governments are the expression of the people's predilections, fears, shortcomings and traditions.
When an emotional undercurrent or specific attitude is present in a population- be it the result of current events or of a longstanding cultural heritage, then it will reflect at state level. Thinking of interpreting history as the result of external conditions and the choices of few people in power is like trying to interpret the behaviour of a person as the combination of external events and individual neurons firing.
When an emotional undercurrent or specific attitude is present in a population- be it the result of current events or of a longstanding cultural heritage, then it will reflect at state level. Thinking of interpreting history as the result of external conditions and the choices of few people in power is like trying to interpret the behaviour of a person as the combination of external events and individual neurons firing.
To oversimplify, think of a human population as an information system, and ask
- where is the state kept, and
- where is the state mutated?
There is some state kept in objects like books and buildings and databases.
But the individual human brains are the greatness/shame of the nation.
There is a cognitive crutch "The American People" that is frequently leaned on, but the large the population symbolically aggregated for the assertion, the less meaningful it seems.
Hence my disagreement when someone says:
> I have very little doubt that countries are like their own people.
It gets really hard to make any point stick at scale.
- where is the state kept, and
- where is the state mutated?
There is some state kept in objects like books and buildings and databases.
But the individual human brains are the greatness/shame of the nation.
There is a cognitive crutch "The American People" that is frequently leaned on, but the large the population symbolically aggregated for the assertion, the less meaningful it seems.
Hence my disagreement when someone says:
> I have very little doubt that countries are like their own people.
It gets really hard to make any point stick at scale.
I think of them more as amorphous organisms, like multicellular amoebae. The reproductive system of a country (or civilization) is much more analogous to that of an amoeba than a human. Gene exchange can happen independent of reproduction, while reproduction is largely based on consumption.
I think you might be overlooking the depth of cultural attitudes and the size of cultural differences between populations. From the stuff you're taught in school, to what you learn in the family, to common sayings, to the shape of your cities: everything contributes in building a slightly different worldview and different ways of reacting to events and changes.
On the other hand, when politicians say "the people want it" it's almost always bs. What they mean is that, in the best case, they have a slight absolute majority- but often only a relative one. But that doesn't really count much- the issues they talk about are already within the frame of what is culturally possible in that country. Trump was elected with less than 50% of the votes, so he doesn't represent "the people"; however, he would have struggled to get 5% in Germany- so in some sense electing Trump does represent "the American people"- about as much as Hillary Clinton does.
On the other hand, when politicians say "the people want it" it's almost always bs. What they mean is that, in the best case, they have a slight absolute majority- but often only a relative one. But that doesn't really count much- the issues they talk about are already within the frame of what is culturally possible in that country. Trump was elected with less than 50% of the votes, so he doesn't represent "the people"; however, he would have struggled to get 5% in Germany- so in some sense electing Trump does represent "the American people"- about as much as Hillary Clinton does.
But all of that cultural content happens in peoples' heads, not in some abstract, external, durable space.
Power is not just about who is President, while the masses have the vote, it's the people with resources and determination who shape public discourse and backroom dealings.
Exactly. The victory of Trump over Clinton is a random occurrence- the difference in the polls was very small; but what the nation considers normal, how it reacts to events, what it considers worth discussing- and how that discussion can be framed if you want the people to engage with it- these things depend on the average of the country's culture, on its identity.
Having lived in three different European countries, I can tell you that there are surprising cultural differences, sometimes obvious and sometimes much more subtle, and that they have a big impact on how the country behaves as a whole.
Personhood includes identity, character and personality. Ascribing most of a countries' personhood to a personality and a therapeutic perspective does not eliminate the character and identity the greater story of a nation instills in it's populace and they grow to inhabit.
There are more lines you could draw against the title, but the content of the article is so narrow I don't know which would be the most productive to add.
The culture and character of a nation is a useful guide stone for the beginning of any expectations one could have interacting with said country.
There are more lines you could draw against the title, but the content of the article is so narrow I don't know which would be the most productive to add.
The culture and character of a nation is a useful guide stone for the beginning of any expectations one could have interacting with said country.
Particularly grating is the common parlance that countries X and Y are "friends" or "enemies". This may have made sense in the world of monarchical empires, but in modern nations it is at best a rough summary of the collective attitude of an elite. The bulk of the population in each country is unlikely to care at all about the other. And there is likely to be a significant dissent about whether friend or enemy should characterize the relationship.