Item — HN Reader

I posted this to see more discussion about it.

Isn't a strong social identity, something desirable? Doesn't it result in stability and strength? Don't we all seek the belonging sentiment which necessarily implies an Us vs. Them?

On the other hand, it seems that tribal thinking can increase social tension and divisiveness, and makes people more "stupid"/less critical towards their group.

So what is the right balance here?

3 comments

As your sense of "I" diminishes the more compassionate and caring you become. The more emotionally resilient you become and the less harmful your decisions are to yourself and others (including animals). This is the core of Buddhist findings.

Having said that, there are religions and ideologies that tend to become a big part of a person's identity. Then their actions become guided by those ideologies.

> As your sense of "I" diminishes the more compassionate and caring you become.

I am not sure that is always the case. I would think that, for example, the women involved in the Charles Manson murders had a diminished sense of I, but they were not compassionate and caring.

I was talking about an intuitive realization that there is no "I", rather there is an ongoing constantly changing process that is referred to as "I". This requires years of meditative training. I am not familiar with the case but I doubt very much these women were meditating.

I don't see the relevance.

Joining a cult is not the same as diminishing the ego. You don't just supplant your ego with someone else's.

Anyone who loses themselves in a cult of personality is not following the teachings of the Buddhism.

People in organizations routinely fail to acknowledge an ignored ego: The Organizational Ego

The whitepapers and salespeople going on and on about their products, services and companies that nobody cares about?

Yeah, that one! The ideologies and demagogues are even "worse". Not that ego is a bad thing, just in isolation..

This is so true. I've tried to explain why an organization is the way it is before via cause and effect and some people refuse to believe that there is any sort of subtle force that factors into how organizations turn out.

Even if you point to things like Conway's law they still won't listen sometimes!

The best organizations have compassion for their employees and customers, but it takes right-thinking from the top.

It might depend on leadership culture. Most people are unprepared for their first management position, and how can they prepare? You even see natural leaders flounder, when put in the same leadership position and culture. The positions are necessary for the organization, but I believe almost nobody has really cracked the nut generally, just for their little trible. Most impactful thing leaders can do is cooperate and bring teams together, in order to accomplish concrete goals and organization. Project Lead is sort of that, but it needs to be continuous instead of temporary and limited scope.

Very true.

Oh good, someone else who is on the right track.

Laughing at the manson family reference from the other comment, that's an example of hostile brainwashing by a cult leader, whereas what is being described here is an exploration of self and the true nature of consciousness, which is compassion.

Shamatha is calm abiding mind, single-pointed meditation, temporary emotional stability.

Vipassana is analytical meditation, wisdom, lasting mental stability through deconstructing the self and other phenomena to repeatedly discover that all is empty at the ultimate level.

Going through this you can then approach the conventional world with more mental stability than just reacting naively to every event and occurrence.

This is very easy to answer. It depends on your context, your environment!

In a family, closer connections are part of living together. We see the same proximity effects in people working in teams.

When there is a need for improved collaborations between people, teams and organizations, the environment need to kindle and support such initiatives. This is called leadership.

For some individuals and roles, it is more natural to make connections across "the chasms", but this is dependent on individuality, position and opportunity. Thus in professional organizations, you want enabling this to be part of leadership and training of an organic organization.

Everyone can't connect to everyone all the time, so there needs to be some design and maintenance of such designs. Though personal connections remains an individual experience and skill, the environment must cease to sabotage initiatives, become more mature and professional.

I don't know about balance but the person that embodied every human virtue renounced his citizenship and he lived happier than his peers, lacked nothing and stood taller than kings. We can't all be Diogenes but he's something people should strive towards.

He lacked nothing because other people produced everything for him. If you want to live in a barrel, first you need a barrel, meaning you need a safe place to assemble it, and a way to source wood and tools, and then you need it to be protected from other people who want it, and before you know it you've got a whole functioning state with a shared identity and a legal system, and guys with beards are running around plucking chickens and criticizing you for wanting rules.