To introduce a (hopefully) less political data point, I find the way Apple's "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads skirt the underdog issue to be fascinating.
Hodgman's PC is strongly cast as the underdog. It is, of course, the point of the ads that PC comes out the worse in every encounter, but what interests me is that we are clearly supposed to pity him, even to love him. Hodgman, bespectacled, round-faced, slightly pudgy, fits the part perfectly. We basically want to give him a big hug. Long's Mac seems reluctant to make himself appear too superior to PC, constantly afraid that he'll hurt his fragile feelings somehow. The ads give the appearance of trying to be as kind to PC as possible.
And yet, when we go to buy a computer, however much we may have sympathized with PC, we choose to ally ourselves with Long over Hodgman (or at least, so Apple hopes, and I assume they would not have paid to run the ads for three years had the effects been otherwise)
"Polemic—persuasive writing—only works when it doesn't feel like propaganda.
The audience must feel that you're being absolutely fair to people on the other side."
--Orson Scott Card, "Characters and Viewpoint"
EDIT: yes, I realize the irony of quoting Card on this, given his own utter failure to respect this principle in his own polemical writings on things like homosexuality. But it's still true.
Jewish Humor:
"Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. "Herr Altmann", said his secretary. "I notice you're reading Der Strmer! I can't understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew?" "On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Strmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we're on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know--it makes me feel a whole lot better!""
I resemble that remark...
A while ago the American Family Association was encouraging people to go to their website and write e-mails shaming some corporation that had been too kind to gay people. I went to their website and tweaked the canned message slightly to praise the company instead, thinking it would be a nice break from all the hate mail. I had to give my e-mail address in the process, and now I get the AFA newsletter (though usually directly in my junk mail folder).
And it's a wonderful read -- always telling me how powerful the secularists are and how the gay agenda's taking over the country, and how God's going to be eliminated from schools. I can always rely on the AFA to cheer me up in the morning.
"Everyone's liberal, things are hopeless, might as well stay home."
These are called Paleoconservatives.
The social class on which [Will Herberg] and I both once pinned our hope of national regeneration, those whom we jokingly referred to as "the Archie Bunkers," has gone the way of the dinosaur. It has been replaced by a multitude of vastly more radicalized versions of Meathead, Archie's fashionably liberal son-in-law who by now could be an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal.
-- Encounters, by Paul E. Gottfried
Peoples of European descent are not only in a relative but a real decline. They are aging, dying, disappearing. This is the existential crisis of the West.
-- Suicide of a Superpower, by Pat Buchanan
Liberals control all sorts of nefarious institutions that are currently exercising a stranglehold on power and hiding the truth, but most Americans, once you pull the wool off their eyes, are conservatives at heart and just as angry about this whole thing as they are. Any day now, they're going to throw off the yoke of liberal tyranny and take back their own country.
The left has it's own equivalent, it is supposedly the weaker force, ...
True, but why consider him the underdog? Clearly the guy trying desperately to work against both the current and the crazy guy is the underdog. ;)
I strongly suspect that one of the other consequences of the "there are no homosexuals" social norm in such cultures is that under certain circumstances same-sex pairs can also have sex with one another without having their sexual orientation "challenged." (Similar things were true of opposite-sex pairs in cultures with the "there is no extramarital sex" cultural norm... e.g., bundling.)
But I agree with you that as long as queer visibility is noticeably higher than queer acceptability, there's a class of previously acceptable behaviors that become less acceptable (e.g., certain expressions of affection), and I agree with you that that's unfortunate, and I endorse closing that gap.
Generally actually I would. Honestly as much as I love sexual and romantic entanglement with women, I can't help but feel giddy about the awesomeness (according to my values) of an all male civilization on Mars. And I've already spoken about how I would probably take a pill that would make me asexual. Sexbots or homosexuality inducing pills seem an inferior solution but not that much. As long as the pill that would make me homosexual would change just my sexual preference and nothing else (I suspect the typical male homosexual brains actually differ in other subtle systematic ways from typical heterosexual male brains).
The problem comes here:
Note that as with encountering an alien civilization there is no guarantee whatsoever that peaceful coexistence would be viable in the long term.
Most LessWrongers have given very little though to the idea that human values might differ significantly enough to be incompatible. Even fewer have thought of finding a way to have them coexist rather than just making sure their own value set gobbles up as much matter.
I am probably one of the more left-wing people here, but I have to point out that Democrats have a similar routine - they point to polls that ask about issues stripped of party identification, which reveal that many people who identify as Republican agree with the Democrats more than they do the Republicans, but powerful moneyed interests are manipulating the people into voting against their true beliefs.
Naturally, identifying a superficial similarity between the arguments of two opposing parties is not enough to conclude that both arguments are false; each must be weighed on its own merits.
Hey, this is awesome! I bet I personally adhere to a have-cake+eat-cake position on some political issue. Let me think... Yeah, I've got it: Copyright reform.
What would be really useful in winning converts would be to be a persecuted underdog who was also very powerful and certain to win out.
Exactly. We copyright reformists are a persecuted underdog but also ultimately unstoppable and with the tide of history at our back.
They believe in a silent majority. Liberals control all sorts of nefarious institutions that are currently exercising a stranglehold on power and hiding the truth, but most Americans, once you pull the wool off their eyes, are conservatives at heart.
This fits me so well! I believe in a silent majority too. Copyright maximalists control all sorts of nefarious institutions that are currently exercising a stranglehold on power but most people don't at heart believe in the copyright regime. They sure don't act like they do.
I had been wondering why I can get so emotional about this political issue while I'm generally able to calmly discuss the merits and dismerits of any political idea or system. I suppose this "unstoppable underdog" thing has a strong psychological appeal.
On the blogs I read relating to feminism, there is a special term for this kind of "argument". It's referred to as "Oppression Olympics".
"This is a great system. Think about it. Not only should you support the Republicans for support-the-underdog and level-the-playing-field reasons, you should also support them for majoritarian reasons and because their side has the best chance of winning. It's the best possible world short of coming out and saying 'Insofar as it makes you want to vote for us, we are in total control of the country, but insofar as that makes you not want to vote for us, we are a tiny persecuted minority who need your help'. "
Reading 1984 pointed out to me the gene...
From Politics is the Mind-Killer:
If your point is inherently about politics, then talk about Louis XVI during the French Revolution.
Or how about Marxism at least? Exact same dynamic as the one you speak of (the claim that they speak for a silent oppressed majority that's certain to win out in the end), but far less likely to explode in your face on this blog.
I did think about Marxism, but why would it be less likely to explode in my face? It's also a modern political position. I decided to go with the Republican case because it was where I originally noticed it and as far as I can tell the most archetypal example. I considered it acceptable because I'm not actually saying the Republicans are wrong about any particular policy issue.
Would you prefer that next time I include two examples, one attacking either "side" of the political "spectrum" next time? Or can you think of some historical example that would be as immediately recognizable to everyone here as the Republican one?
I'm also getting a little sick of always using groups disliked by the entire Less Wrong community as examples (eg Christians). Yes, it makes it easier to read without getting angry, but it seems too potentially dangerous to come here and see something else accusing Christians every night. I don't know what to do about it.
It's always going to be dangerous to point out the hypocrisy of a powerful ideology, but doing so puts you in the position of the underdog, the spunky inquisitor who puts himself in harm's way by displeasing the powerful force.
If you point out the warts of less-powerful ideologies, you not only risk displeasing them but make yourself vulnerable to being viewed as bigoted or a bully. Unless the group is one which greater society has labeled as "Leper! Outcast! Unclean!", that will also tend to draw the disapproval of others, and without the benefits of underdogging.
The safest route, for your reputation though not your honor, is to attack a group that society wishes you to attack for conformity's sake. No one wishes to speak well of such a group, no matter how limitedly, for fear of being associated with them, and everyone wishes to demonstrate to the rest that they loathe the despised ones.
That means, of course, that when you die you'll go to the special Hell. The one reserved for rhetoricians, and people who didn't like Firefly.
I spend most of my time abroad, and come across more (or at least louder) Marxist sympathizers than conservative Republican sympathizers. This is probably not representative of people on this blog, and I will take it into account next time I post something.
Likewise, when Christians talk about persecution, they usually point out that one great way to stop this persecution would be to put up the Ten Commandments in all public places.
Citation, please? I've heard a fair amount of such talk, and don't ever recall the 10 Commandments being proposed as a solution.
I've come to much the same conclusions as you long ago. My solution was to stop consuming mass media cold turkey. Have no TV, read no newspapers or news sites, don't talk about politics.
I believe there's another feature, though it admittedly might fold into (2). It's:
-Mutual Underdog status is necessary for inspiring group cooperation without necessitating payment or reciprocity.
As a member of group A, I see myself as persecuted. If a member of group B wants me to join his] group without actually helping me, he must prove that he too is an underdog. Otherwise, if he had power, I should reasonably expect him to actually help me before joining his group. But if he's an underdog who's about to have power (with my help, of course), then I sh...
Serendipitously related to: Whining-Based Communities
That's some impressive serendipity. Have you considered the possibility that you might be on a holodeck?
It seems to me that at this point you might want to taboo "persecute/persecution" and explain what is meant by it.
People are averse to losses, both material and in status. Both the absolute and relative prestige and status of Christians and Christianity have declined precipitously in the United States in the past half-century. The absolute and relative status of both atheists and Muslims has increased markedly over the same period, but is still relatively low. Whose ox is being gored depends on whether you think the shift from Christianity occupying a privileged position to having (something closer to) parity of status is a good thing or a bad thing.
Some Republicans have found a way. Whether they're in control of the government or not, the right-wing blogosphere invariably presents them as under siege, a rapidly dwindling holdout of Real American Values in a country utterly in the grip of liberalism.
Actually this sort of makes sense as a perspective.
Another thing is that this often comes combined with the seemingly self-contradictory 'the Evil Elite are foolish and inferior, and they engineered a secret master plan to take control'.
It's posts like these that make me wish I had a group of powerful allies. I really have no tribe. It's rather demoralizing.
I'd say it's mostly #2 - people do have strong sense of fairness. Unfairness happens a lot, but it's hard to measure objectively.
So groups talking a lot about injustices happening to their members, even exaggerating them, are better off that groups taking injustices silently, so there's really no incentive to keep quiet.
It's not really something that can be proven or disproven by data convincingly most of the time, even in pretty extreme cases that could be measured (like Palestinians, which are genuinely oppressed by any objective measure) you can quite successfully rationalize the injustice away with good publicity machine ("that's because they're terrorists" or something).
testing
ETA: comment showed up with a zero score, and now displays without vote up/down links. Well done folks =)
Followup to: Why Support the Underdog?
Serendipitously related to: Whining-Based Communities
Pity whatever U.N. official has to keep track of all the persecution going on. With two hundred plus countries in the world, there's just so much of it.
Some places persecute Christians. Here's a Christian writer from a nation we'll call Country A:
Global reports indicate that over 150,000 Christians were martyred last year, chiefly in foreign countries. However, statistics are changing: persecution of Christians is on the increase at home. What's happening to bring about this change? According to some experts a pattern is emerging reminiscent of Jewish persecution in post war Germany. "Isolation of, and discrimination against Christians is growing almost geometrically" says Don McAlvany in The Midnight Herald. "This is the way it started in Germany against the Jews. As they became more isolated and marginalized by the Nazi propaganda machine, as popular hatred and prejudice against the Jews increased among the German people, wholesale persecution followed. Could this be where the growing anti-Christian consensus in this country is taking us?"
And some countries persecute atheists. Here's an atheist activist describing what we'll call Country B.
Godless atheists are the most despised and distrusted minority in our country. The growing attention to atheism and atheists has given rise to increased anti-atheist bigotry in the media. Circumstances for them can be difficult enough that they have to stay in the closet and hide their atheism from friends and family. Atheists have to fear discrimination on the job, in the community, and even in their own families if their atheism is made known. Some even have to contend with harassment and vandalism. Distrust and hatred of atheists is widespread enough through our society that they have plenty of reasons to be concerned.
Some countries persecute Muslims. A Muslim youth in Country C:
The government has continuously persecuted Arabs and Muslims with extremist and unpopular views, charging them with terrorism and criminal acts related to terrorism. I am proud of [Muslims] who stand up to this system of injustice and to our country's gulag. They may beat them, but they will continues to suffer because in this country, Arabs are never innocent, they are merely guilty of lesser crimes. Even if they are proven innocent, after years of suffering and being defamed, the gulag and the political persecution will continue.
And some countries persecute everyone except Muslims. A politician in Country D writes:
The gathering storm I have been warning of for years has now formed over us. Yet instead of fighting the gradual incursion of Sharia and the demands of an intolerant, even militant Islam, we are cowering and fatalistic.
Since countries A, B, C, and D are all America1, what's up with all these people claiming persecution?
I don't doubt that there are examples of Christians, atheists, Muslims, and non-Muslims all getting persecuted in the US. There's no rule that says only one group can be persecuted at a time, especially in a society as pluralistic as our own. But compare the claim "There are a few incidents of people persecuting Christians" with the claim "Christians are a persecuted group in our society." The first reduces to an objectively true statement. The second is a sorta-meaningless "dangling variable" that can be declared either true or false depending on what connotation you want to send.
And people tend to take the liberty to call the is_persecuted variable "true" for their own group and "false" for groups they don't like. Why does everyone want to be persecuted so badly? Here are some reasons I can think of:
1. The tendency to support the underdog. Being persecuted is about as underdog as you can get, and underdog supporters everywhere are quick to leap to the support of persecuted groups.
2. To create an incentive for fair-minded people to "level the playing field" by raising their status. I read about a tribe in India involved in a media campaign to inform everyone just how persecuted they really were. Why? They wanted to be added to India's affirmative action program, which would give them a better chance at government jobs. Likewise, when Christians talk about persecution, they usually point out that one great way to stop this persecution would be to put up the Ten Commandments in all public places.
3. To self-handicap. If I'm unsuccessful, it's not because I'm lazy or unqualified, it's beacuse they were persecuting me! Likewise, if I'm successful, then I managed to triumph in the face of adversity. I'm practically Martin Luther King or someone.
4. To build in-group cohesiveness. People come together in the face of a common enemy.
5. To explain away a lack of success. Let's say you're a fundamentalist Christian and you notice most of the rest of America dislikes you and thinks you're crazy. You might say "Well, by Aumann's Agreement Theorem, they probably know something I don't, and I should moderate my religious views." But if your Revolutionary is AWOL, your Apologist could conclude that there is a sinister campaign going on to discredit Christianity, and everyone has fallen for this campaign but you and your friends.
I think these all play a role, with 1 and 2 the most important.
But one common thread in psychology is that the mind very frequently wants to have its cake and eat it too. Last week, we agreed that people like supporting the underdog, but we also agreed that there's a benefit to being on top; that when push comes to shove a lot of people are going to side with Zug instead of Urk. What would be really useful in winning converts would be to be a persecuted underdog who was also very powerful and certain to win out. But how would you do that?
Some Republicans have found a way. Whether they're in control of the government or not, the right-wing blogosphere invariably presents them as under siege, a rapidly dwindling holdout of Real American Values in a country utterly in the grip of liberalism.
But they don't say anything like "Everyone's liberal, things are hopeless, might as well stay home." They believe in a silent majority. Liberals control all sorts of nefarious institutions that are currently exercising a stranglehold on power and hiding the truth, but most Americans, once you pull the wool off their eyes, are conservatives at heart and just as angry about this whole thing as they are. Any day now, they're going to throw off the yoke of liberal tyranny and take back their own country.
This is a great system. Think about it. Not only should you support the Republicans for support-the-underdog and level-the-playing-field reasons, you should also support them for majoritarian reasons and because their side has the best chance of winning. It's the best possible world short of coming out and saying "Insofar as it makes you want to vote for us, we are in total control of the country, but insofar as that makes you not want to vote for us, we are a tiny persecuted minority who need your help".
We're coming dangerously close to talking politics here, but this isn't just a Republican phenomenon. It underlies a lot of the uses of the word "elite" - this sense that there's a small minority of wrong-headed people who disagree with you in control of everything, even though the vast majority of people are secretly on your side. Whether it's the "neoliberal capitalist elite", the "east coast intellectual elite" or whatever, it's a one word Pavlovian trigger that activates this concept of your favorite group simultaneously being dominant and being persecuted by those darned elites.
There are branches of social science that consciously devote themselves solely to officially identifying the Powerful and the Powerless in every issue and conflict. They have their uses. But as rationalists, we need to devote ourselves to the separate task of disentangling the question at hand from the question of who is more powerful. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of the underdog bias, the support-the-winning-team bias, and any mutant combinations of them that may arise2.
As is often the case, reduction of statements with objective truth-values can save your hide here. If every time Chris the Christian says "Christians are persecuted," you hear "Christians aren't allowed to stick the Ten Commandments up in schools," then you're no longer vulnerable to his appeal to pity.
What other defenses are there against the human tendency to obsess over which side is more powerful, instead of which side is right?
Footnotes:
1: The first comment comes from Worthy News, the second from About Atheism, the third from Mideast Youth, and the fourth is Senator Rick Santorum
2: Has anyone else ever watched two people in an argument completely abandon discussion over who is right, and instead turn to which person's side is persecuted worse, as if they were more or less the same question anyway? It's not a pretty sight.