Hell may not be other people, but worry sure is. That is, what we worry most about is what other people might do to us. People at the office, near our home, at the store, on the street, and even at church.
«In addition, we’ve become more wary of using harsh punishments, like torture, death, or exile»
Torture or death (and some forms of exile) are very common, just not for middle class people. Because middle class people don't like paying taxes to fund proper processing of suspected violators, they have given enforcers the ability to torture and kill "on suspicion" the underclass. The enforcers use routinely such a blank cheque. "Due process" is expensive, and underclass people are cheap, and the middle classes, especially after the 1960s riots, want them to be terrorized.
«For example, colleges that admit people just on GPA and test scores can be more open to lower class students than colleges that require applicants to have adopted the right set of extracurricular actives, and to have hit on the right themes in their essays. Lower class people can find it is easier to get good grades and scores than to track the new fashions in activities and essays.»
The original (pre-WW2 and perhaps even pre-WW1) rationale for using extracurricular activities and essays as paramount in admission to "top jobs" granting colleges was to exclude the sons of jewish mothers, quite a few decades ago: on simple admission exams they were "stealing", like asian students today, the places that should have gone to the sons of WASP mothers. IIRC at some point sons of jewish mothers were winning around 20-30% of admissions even at a WASP finishing school like Harvard, because jewish mothers were much better at being "tiger moms" and squeezing their sons very hard for admission exams.
I think why it appears that groups are jumping directly to exclusion rather than working through norms is twofold. First, people seem to have forgotten that it takes work; work to educate, nudge and influence new comers to norms. They seem to want ready-made just-like-me buddies to pop into their lives. Second, some groups are being shocked into realising that even though they profess to be inclusionary, they are only selectively so. From feminists who are really only pro-choice feminists, to champions of the down trodden but only those foreign born not the middle American ones, to vocal activists who must sway to a particular political agenda or be chased from the public square.
Interestingly, the incredible power of action at cross-cutting group purposes flexed extraordinary muscle this year when a cross-section of women tackled a universal objective and, perhaps unexpectedly, ended up making powerful, career ending plays against predators who have kept all women in check. If nothing else comes of the caotic social shuffling this year, the message of this benefit, to build coalitions with groups at seemingly opposite philosophical vantages, will hopefully ring true and loud as we start the new year.
It does. We should also try to have norms that make sense! Resist excluding people just because they wear wierd clothes or eat with the wrong fork or seem a little odd. Be compassionate toward those who are different. But do punish rude, intolerant or uncivil behavior.
I think this is a muddle. Norms are enforced via social exclusion. What we should be avoiding is excluding people who haven't violated any norms - and excluding those who have.
I think that there's an important, qualitative difference between exclusion based on blacklists which cover a large portion of what is accessible (e.g. exile from one's town) vs. whitelists which cover small parts of society (e.g. failure to welcome someone in a given social group).
The former is a really bad thing, particularly without high standards of evidence, because in a world without many relatively cheap alternatives, being stripped of one's existing status in a community is a massive blow to one's opportunities.
The latter, however, is significantly less of an issue - being rejected from entering a small group does not destroy any existing investment (or destroys very little - one may have invested some into impressing the group) of time and energy and the like. Nor does it destroy all, or in some cases even a significant fraction of one's opportunities. It's still not great - and if there are structural influences which make a large proportion of groups less likely to be accepting, that approaches similarity to exile as the proportion approaches one. But in a world with a multiplicity of viewpoints and subcultures, comparing modern exclusion with ancient exile - or calling out an opposition to the latter but not the former - simply isn't useful.
A push to exclude someone, it seems to me, is a normative affair. The ordinary appetite to exclude different folks so one can avoid contact with them seems entirely different from the drive to exclude them from everywhere. Blacklists are normative, not exclusionary. The internet mogul who excluded the Daily Stormer said he did it because he could: he wanted to make a mark on the world, not save himself or even his customers from enduring the neo-Nazi's presence.
After Charlottesville there was a push to ban the organizers from various social media sites. I don't recall much of an effort to get the government to crack down on them (aside from the driver who killed a counter-protestor). So it seems in that case there's a consensus on favoring exclusion over law.
My perceptions are at complete variance on the premise of weak norms and governance. I'm tempted to ask what universe you live in. We see political correctness norms strangling academic speech, sexual propriety norms being given "zero tolerance" interpretations, the federal government conducting massive property seizures based on alleged drug transactions (norm violations) unsupported by a criminal conviction, etc. We see increasing police intervention in domestic affairs under domestic violence norms.
Your logic seems correct: if norms weakened, this could explain a tendency to exclusivity. Only the norms haven't weakened (at least not the most intrusive ones); and other explanations exist for exclusivity.
I'd think you might conjecture in line with one of your themes: we're getting richer and that's what's important. Most humans prefer to be with those similar to themselves, and as we get richer, we can better afford this luxury.
[Added.]
For example, we have raised our standards for shunning neighbors, pulling over drivers, convicting folks at court, and approving large bold governance changes.
Stop and frisk is a contemporary development. Plea-bargaining and property confiscation have made it possible to impose normative punishments without a jury trial. The advent of the autombile, the driving of which is termed a "privilege," has made possible massive violations of what would otherwise be thought a 4th Amendment right. I don't know anything about standards for governance changes or shunning neighbors; have you discussed these elsewhere?
Most antisocial conduct is the result of rigid moral norms, not - as you suppose - of their breakdown. [Consider the extremes, as in Islamic terrorism.]
[Added 2.]As to relying on exclusion rather than governance to enforce kids' conduct at school: there are armed guards in many schools these days. Kids are criminally prosecuted for what would have gotten them detention in a previous era.
I wonder if there is more exclusion. There was certainly a lot before based on color, ethnicity, religion, and money. It is mostly the lines of exclusion have shifted.
«In addition, we’ve become more wary of using harsh punishments, like torture, death, or exile»
Torture or death (and some forms of exile) are very common, just not for middle class people. Because middle class people don't like paying taxes to fund proper processing of suspected violators, they have given enforcers the ability to torture and kill "on suspicion" the underclass. The enforcers use routinely such a blank cheque. "Due process" is expensive, and underclass people are cheap, and the middle classes, especially after the 1960s riots, want them to be terrorized.
«For example, colleges that admit people just on GPA and test scores can be more open to lower class students than colleges that require applicants to have adopted the right set of extracurricular actives, and to have hit on the right themes in their essays. Lower class people can find it is easier to get good grades and scores than to track the new fashions in activities and essays.»
The original (pre-WW2 and perhaps even pre-WW1) rationale for using extracurricular activities and essays as paramount in admission to "top jobs" granting colleges was to exclude the sons of jewish mothers, quite a few decades ago: on simple admission exams they were "stealing", like asian students today, the places that should have gone to the sons of WASP mothers. IIRC at some point sons of jewish mothers were winning around 20-30% of admissions even at a WASP finishing school like Harvard, because jewish mothers were much better at being "tiger moms" and squeezing their sons very hard for admission exams.
I think why it appears that groups are jumping directly to exclusion rather than working through norms is twofold. First, people seem to have forgotten that it takes work; work to educate, nudge and influence new comers to norms. They seem to want ready-made just-like-me buddies to pop into their lives. Second, some groups are being shocked into realising that even though they profess to be inclusionary, they are only selectively so. From feminists who are really only pro-choice feminists, to champions of the down trodden but only those foreign born not the middle American ones, to vocal activists who must sway to a particular political agenda or be chased from the public square.
Interestingly, the incredible power of action at cross-cutting group purposes flexed extraordinary muscle this year when a cross-section of women tackled a universal objective and, perhaps unexpectedly, ended up making powerful, career ending plays against predators who have kept all women in check. If nothing else comes of the caotic social shuffling this year, the message of this benefit, to build coalitions with groups at seemingly opposite philosophical vantages, will hopefully ring true and loud as we start the new year.
The converse isn't true; people are excluded who don't violate any norms.
It does. We should also try to have norms that make sense! Resist excluding people just because they wear wierd clothes or eat with the wrong fork or seem a little odd. Be compassionate toward those who are different. But do punish rude, intolerant or uncivil behavior.
The content of the "norms"doesn't matter?
This. IMO excluding people for expressing racist beliefs is a massive improvement over excluding people because they have black skin.
I think this is a muddle. Norms are enforced via social exclusion. What we should be avoiding is excluding people who haven't violated any norms - and excluding those who have.
> Tyler Cowen makes the point somewhere that when firms had simple and clear rules on dress and behavior
One place http://marginalrevolution.c...
I think that there's an important, qualitative difference between exclusion based on blacklists which cover a large portion of what is accessible (e.g. exile from one's town) vs. whitelists which cover small parts of society (e.g. failure to welcome someone in a given social group).
The former is a really bad thing, particularly without high standards of evidence, because in a world without many relatively cheap alternatives, being stripped of one's existing status in a community is a massive blow to one's opportunities.
The latter, however, is significantly less of an issue - being rejected from entering a small group does not destroy any existing investment (or destroys very little - one may have invested some into impressing the group) of time and energy and the like. Nor does it destroy all, or in some cases even a significant fraction of one's opportunities. It's still not great - and if there are structural influences which make a large proportion of groups less likely to be accepting, that approaches similarity to exile as the proportion approaches one. But in a world with a multiplicity of viewpoints and subcultures, comparing modern exclusion with ancient exile - or calling out an opposition to the latter but not the former - simply isn't useful.
Good point about blacklists vs personal avoidance.
A push to exclude someone, it seems to me, is a normative affair. The ordinary appetite to exclude different folks so one can avoid contact with them seems entirely different from the drive to exclude them from everywhere. Blacklists are normative, not exclusionary. The internet mogul who excluded the Daily Stormer said he did it because he could: he wanted to make a mark on the world, not save himself or even his customers from enduring the neo-Nazi's presence.
After Charlottesville there was a push to ban the organizers from various social media sites. I don't recall much of an effort to get the government to crack down on them (aside from the driver who killed a counter-protestor). So it seems in that case there's a consensus on favoring exclusion over law.
My perceptions are at complete variance on the premise of weak norms and governance. I'm tempted to ask what universe you live in. We see political correctness norms strangling academic speech, sexual propriety norms being given "zero tolerance" interpretations, the federal government conducting massive property seizures based on alleged drug transactions (norm violations) unsupported by a criminal conviction, etc. We see increasing police intervention in domestic affairs under domestic violence norms.
Your logic seems correct: if norms weakened, this could explain a tendency to exclusivity. Only the norms haven't weakened (at least not the most intrusive ones); and other explanations exist for exclusivity.
I'd think you might conjecture in line with one of your themes: we're getting richer and that's what's important. Most humans prefer to be with those similar to themselves, and as we get richer, we can better afford this luxury.
[Added.]
For example, we have raised our standards for shunning neighbors, pulling over drivers, convicting folks at court, and approving large bold governance changes.
Stop and frisk is a contemporary development. Plea-bargaining and property confiscation have made it possible to impose normative punishments without a jury trial. The advent of the autombile, the driving of which is termed a "privilege," has made possible massive violations of what would otherwise be thought a 4th Amendment right. I don't know anything about standards for governance changes or shunning neighbors; have you discussed these elsewhere?
Most antisocial conduct is the result of rigid moral norms, not - as you suppose - of their breakdown. [Consider the extremes, as in Islamic terrorism.]
[Added 2.]As to relying on exclusion rather than governance to enforce kids' conduct at school: there are armed guards in many schools these days. Kids are criminally prosecuted for what would have gotten them detention in a previous era.
I wonder if there is more exclusion. There was certainly a lot before based on color, ethnicity, religion, and money. It is mostly the lines of exclusion have shifted.