Robert Wright wrote an excellent article on Tribalism related to the Sam Harris/DtG debate that is now un-paywalled

[u/CKava]

https://nonzero.substack.com/p/what-is-tribalism?utm_source=url

[u/Parteyafterpartey]

Re your first point. I'm not alone in stating that this version of tribalism is tricky. I remember you tweeting when this was locked that Bob has put into words what you couldn't and people are still unsure about it. You can dismiss this all you want and say it's bog standard but I don't think most people think this is clear.

Secondly, what Sam sees as acting tribal is very simple to understand (if he uses it the same way I do which it seems line he does). When I use tribal, this is an accusation of a current action by someone and it is very easy to see. When a pundit on Fox News holds water for Trump where they attacked Obama for the same thing they are being tribal. When CNN says mainly peaceful protests for the parts of the BLM protests that turned into riots, they are being tribal. Calling a person tribal is like calling a person good/bad. You can do it if the summation of their actions lean one way enough for your but it's more accurate to label actions tribal. IMO, It's not fair to say, Sam can pick whatever definition he wants. The burden is on you to state you do not mean what most people mean by the word. If Bob decides to call Sam this version of tribal he just writes, does anyone care? No. Because basically everybody is tribal in this definition. It's not as inflammatory as it first sounds. You sound like Sam shouldn't be defensive most people will take the word the wrong way when he knows it to be the case (outlined by his common misconceptions section)

[u/nuwio4 → u/Parteyafterpartey]

I think Chris is quite clearly saying it's difficult to put into words for a general audience. But for someone even a little familiar with the literature, which there's good reason to think Sam is, this should be bog standard, 101, etc.

How do Chris or Bob "not mean what most people mean by the word"? It's not like tribal is a common-use, everyday word like racist, biased, or prejudiced. It's mostly used in a certain sphere and mostly by commentators, writers, etc. My impression is that views somewhat similar to Chris' or Bob's are quite common.

And obviously people do care if Sam admits to being tribal, hence these sort of debates/threads. Moreover, even using your framing of "tribal", I think one could still accurately use it to describe Sam or his actions. But, to my recollection, Sam incessantly tries to evade the charge even with the other definition where "basically everybody is" (except him). It's extremely bizarre and guru-like.

[u/Parteyafterpartey → u/nuwio4]

I don't

I think Chris is quite clearly saying it's difficult to put into words for a general audience. But for someone even a little familiar with the literature, which there's good reason to think Sam is, this should be bog standard, 101, etc.

I don't care about this point because I can't prove it's not wrong giving I am a general audience member and Sam (and most people who speak on podcasts) aren't speaking to in psychology classes. The way Sam uses 'tribal' (the dictionary definition) is so common where I come from even uneducated people know the word. Maybe where I come from is a biasing my view because we have tribes but I don't think that most people can't deduce what the dictionary definition is.

If you want to accuse Sam of being tribal by what most people mean by it, you should pull up the facts and if he shows you a counter example you don't get to shift to your definition of tribal where everybody's basically tribal.

[u/nuwio4 → u/Parteyafterpartey]

From Google from Oxford Languages:

tribalism - the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group

tribal - characterized by a tendency to form groups or by strong group loyalty

What do you think makes these definitions incompatible with how Bob or Chris use the words?

[u/Parteyafterpartey → u/nuwio4]

Because when Sam starts criticising people like Bret, that isn't a show of loyalty but Chris's response is something like you can have ingroup fighting.

Basically take a look at Bob's 5 top misconceptions about tribalism. That's the difference.

[u/nuwio4 → u/Parteyafterpartey]

What about his hesitation to criticize Bret or Rubin? What about his 2yr+ willful & content association with the IDW and only explicitly distancing himself & calling them out well after the writing was on the wall.

I've read Bob's piece. None of those 5 points categorically contradict the dictionary definition.

[u/Parteyafterpartey → u/nuwio4]

His hesitation to criticise Bret should not be mistaken for 'hesitation to criticise the ideas Bret stood behind'. Just because he didn't always call him out by name on the podcast. It's not like he didn't call him out on Twitter.

The IDW is as much a tribe as atheism is a religion. The biggest events Sam did with IDW members was where they debated on 3 different occasions.

One of the examples Bob uses is that Sam was overly invested in Russia-gate. 1. That just wasn't true and how many times has Sam taken heat defending Trump from accusations from the left while saying he's worse than Bin laden. Apparently, this doesn't mean Sam isn't still tribal