After 10,000 hours of studying history (and I feel that might be an incredibly conservative number), I have come to a startlingly unsurprising equation that stays true for up the 100 countries I thought of and essentially all military conflicts throughout history - I cannot think of any country it does not work for.
Short -
A. Extremist causes violence.
B. All (insert "race/religion" here) support this extremist since he was also an "x" or a "y" - regardless of their actually acceptance of him.
C. Innocent "x"s or "y"s are punished for his actions, spawning new extremists.
D. Return to step A.
There thus exists only two solutions to break the loop, even if it takes hundreds of years - break it or mend it. Unfortunately, we tend to favor the former, though the latter isn't impossible.
I have a masters* in History from Purdue, where I was enrolled for fourteen years continuously. I dislike simplifications. "No generalization is true, not even this one."
*Unable to complete my doctorate due to health reasons.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 25, 2023, 07:10:17 AMI have a masters* in History from Purdue, where I was enrolled for fourteen years continuously. I dislike simplifications. "No generalization is true, not even this one."
*Unable to complete my doctorate due to health reasons.
It might not be universally true, but I would argue it is overwhelmingly true - "exceptions that prove the rule" exist but are not the norm. It's a simple equation, nothing more; we can make it more complex through examining the variables, but they all tend to share a common framework.
That sucks :/ - and something I feel is very common (at least here in the states); happened twice so far in my family as well. Still, 14 years of history education is about 14 years more than the majority of Americans.
The more concise the "rule" the more it will being found false. Just the way it works.
Why?
It's tribalism, man. X didn't even need to do anything for Y to hate them. They hate them because they are not Y. And vise-versa.
What Is the Monkeysphere? (https://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html)
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 26, 2023, 12:22:33 AMIt's tribalism, man. X didn't even need to do anything for Y to hate them. They hate them because they are not Y. And vise-versa.
What Is the Monkeysphere? (https://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html)
I've advocated for communities (even if part of larger communities) being based around serving no more than 500-1000 people, so it's really cool to see science is even more strict than I am.
Not sure how scientific any of it is. It's an article by Jason Pargin AKA David Wong. (John Dies At the End, This Book Is Full of Spiders (Seriously, Dude! Don't Touch It!))
That said, it makes sense. I know I don't like crowds.
Quote from: the_antithesis on April 26, 2023, 01:12:46 AMNot sure how scientific any of it is. It's an article by Jason Pargin AKA David Wong. (John Dies At the End, This Book Is Full of Spiders (Seriously, Dude! Don't Touch It!))
That said, it makes sense. I know I don't like crowds.
Ah fair enough, I probably should of looked at source - but it was quoting https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/researchintelligence/issue17/brainteaser.html so I trust it as well :P
Quote from: Shiranu on April 25, 2023, 10:00:56 PMWhy?
Because more exceptions can be found when the criteria are too rigid.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 26, 2023, 07:27:57 AMBecause more exceptions can be found when the criteria are too rigid.
Except I am struggling to find any exceptions; again, pick a random country and tell me the equation doesn't fit the overwhelming majority of it's conflicts.
Pick a random political group and tell me it doesn't work. Pick a random religion tell me it doesn't work.
It's not a rigid criteria - if anything, it's too lax.
Your looking macro. I'm talking micro.
Ah okay, fair enough.