1/ "Why can't we all just get along" deceptively suggests that the stable default is an option people have to be persuaded into
Conversation
Replying to
given this will a stable equilibrium eg US democrat vs republican balance be reached
1
Replying to
getting along = for positive disequilibrium, not equilibrium. Not getting along = fragile equilibria/balance of power.
1
Show replies
Replying to
2/ Actual version: "Those who decide to get along, move along, those who don't get left behind." Utopian dreams are exits, not the highway.
1
2
3
Replying to
3/ It may take a great deal of pain and violence, but those who *don't* want to get along tend to succumb to fragility of thinking alone
1
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
I don't know of any, but I'd guess they hurt badly...cold war for example.
1
Show replies
Replying to
The alternative I am thinking of is more vigorous direct debate/dialogue between the sides
Replying to
individualism doesn't imply disengagement. "Getting along" is more individualist than collective in larger-than-tribal societies
Replying to
add alien spaceship chasing you with lasers from behind and you got it :) now neither stop, nor status quo is correct. Ideas needed
Replying to
do you believe in ultimate causal motivators to human behaviour eg maximising personal gain OR tribal belonging etc.

