The only issue here is calling the 'tribal mode' peripheral -- no, no, it's the default.
The human species is first divided into tribes, and much latterly, individuals. ie., Individual human psychology is governed principally by tribal logic -- though 'thinking for oneself' in the broadest sense is always available, it is rarely exercised outside of certain kinds non-social problem environments.
Intellectuals are of course those who choose non-social problem environments. Consider Aristotle placing the purpose of life within Reason, rather than the survival and prosperity of the tribe (the only empirically defensible answer). This should, on the face of all evidence, seem outright absurd.
So, it's no mystery that tribal logic is absent from the academic presentation of human activity. This becomes extraordinarily dangeours when academies find themselves in power or otherwise academic projects (eg., the neocon inclination to democractise) find themselves elevated to tribal practice.
There ought be more explicit presentation of this in our education system -- it is a shame it has to be rediscovered so late.
> This means we can be more easily manipulated through the peripheral route.
This is only true if you're qualified to reason through the information yourself. Pseudointellectuals are easily manipulated (consider the CIA pushing a UFO conspraicy).
By not understanding the tribal logic of our psychology, this article repeats the mistake: thinking for oneself is not an inherent virute, nor is it inherently feasible or purposeful in most cases
> The human species is first divided into tribes, and much latterly, individuals. ie., Individual human psychology is governed principally by tribal logic -- though 'thinking for oneself' in the broadest sense is always available, it is rarely exercised outside of certain kinds non-social problem environments.
No, this priority varies between individuals. And you left out the mating pair-bond from your analysis. This is a very basic introduction, and there are some arguments and nitpicks from others who study the subject, but it gets across the gist of the idea: https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/variants
These three instincts are present in everyone (barring gross brain damage), but are in varying orders of priority.
Someone downvoted me so apparently doesn't like the idea that not all people are tribal animals, or doesn't like what I linked to.
Just look at a diversity of television and movies and you will see a variety of types of people presented. You probably won't be compellingly interested in those varieties that differ too much from your own, but that certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist.
What's primarily tribal about the psychology of the characters in The Piano?
The human species is first divided into tribes, and much latterly, individuals. ie., Individual human psychology is governed principally by tribal logic -- though 'thinking for oneself' in the broadest sense is always available, it is rarely exercised outside of certain kinds non-social problem environments.
Intellectuals are of course those who choose non-social problem environments. Consider Aristotle placing the purpose of life within Reason, rather than the survival and prosperity of the tribe (the only empirically defensible answer). This should, on the face of all evidence, seem outright absurd.
So, it's no mystery that tribal logic is absent from the academic presentation of human activity. This becomes extraordinarily dangeours when academies find themselves in power or otherwise academic projects (eg., the neocon inclination to democractise) find themselves elevated to tribal practice.
There ought be more explicit presentation of this in our education system -- it is a shame it has to be rediscovered so late.
> This means we can be more easily manipulated through the peripheral route.
This is only true if you're qualified to reason through the information yourself. Pseudointellectuals are easily manipulated (consider the CIA pushing a UFO conspraicy).
By not understanding the tribal logic of our psychology, this article repeats the mistake: thinking for oneself is not an inherent virute, nor is it inherently feasible or purposeful in most cases