Conversation

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
Nah. The point isn’t to think or analyze in a system 2 sene. That’s a different problem. The point is to create a competing system 1 analogy. Analogies ARE thinking. You just prefer other kinds and are possibly an Elon Musk fan 🙂
1
1
If he means literally (and tautologically) means cohesion as in “like particles sticking together”, then the way you do that with diversity is to create *new* shared likeness the way armies/schools/evangelical religions do...
1
1
...He’s actually deliberately conflating cohesiveness with strength, exploiting heuristics. If you address strength directly, there are better direct pathways using adhesive bonding (among unlike particles) that actually create better strengths.
1
2
...and finally note that he’s picking out attributes of similarity he wants to *construct* homogeneity out of (race and religion) and sweeping diversity variables within his audience (class and income in particular) unhelpful to his intent under the rug. Answers his own Q.
1
2
Replying to
More generally, I'm very wary of "self evident" propositions in culture. They are invariably panderings to obvious availability bias heuristics, tradition etc. and rarely hold up if you actually try to demonstrate them...
1
Replying to and
That's why demagogues just suggest them and let clueless targets supply their own easy-but-wrong logic to "prove them" based on their narrow experiences. Radicalization is always through exercises left as homework where you know the student will reach for the easy wrong answers.
Replying to
I'd bet you 100 bucks there's a study that shows something like, "people are more willing to cooperate with others who share their values, or are engaged in pursuit of mutually advantageous goals"