[HN Gopher] Social norms: The downside
___________________________________________________________________
Social norms: The downside
Author : dash2
Score : 22 points
Date : 2023-01-07 11:57 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wyclif.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (wyclif.substack.com)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The Yimby ("Yes In My Back Yard") movement in the US has sprung
| up to fight for less restrictive zoning and more housing, often
| coming up against Nimby ("Not In My Back Yard") opponents.
| Broadly, this is a contest of ideals against self-interest,
|
| No, its not. Fundamentally, this contrast is nonsense because
| "ideals" and "self-interest" amount to the same thing, personal
| preferences, depending on whether you focus upon the experienced
| utility fron fulfilling them ("self-interest") or the fact yhat
| the elements of personal utility functions can be decomposed into
| rules ("ideals").
|
| But even in the superficial view where this contrast in general
| seems to make sense, YIMBYs are quite often people who have a
| perceived narrow financial self-interest in reduced housing
| prices, while NIMBYs (in a policy sense, the name imputes a
| particular motive and relation to the policy area that can be
| inaccurate) are often people who idealize the protection of
| existing character even in places they don't currently live.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > idealize the protection of existing character even in places
| they don't currently live.
|
| That's when they go beyond being NIMBYs and become BANANAs
| ("Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything"). A.k.a.
| CAVE dwellers ("Citizens Against Virtually Everything").
| Karellen wrote:
| > YIMBYs are quite often people who have a perceived narrow
| financial self-interest in reduced housing prices,
|
| Are you suggesting NIMBYs _aren 't_ quite often people with a
| narrow financial self-interest in maintaining above-inflation
| rises in (mostly local) housing prices?
|
| Because in my experience, NIMBYs are much more motivated by
| financial self-interest than YIMBYs.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| I don't know why you are getting down voted, the author of this
| blog is clearly making an ideological statement when he claims
| Yimbys are values driven vs Nimbys who are driven by self
| interest.
|
| In my experience the Yimbys are the ones who are aware of the
| economics and the Nimbys are the ones driven by the value of
| nostalgia. (PS: Nimby are almost always older in California)
| The other unspoken value of nimbys is racism-- that's a value,
| not a calculation of self interest.
|
| Property prices always go up as density increases. Density does
| change the nature of these neighborhood but in every case the
| nature has been changing for decades and the neighborhoods are
| nothing like they were fifty years ago-- objectively change is
| inevitable.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| > The other unspoken value of nimbys is racism-- that's a
| value, not a calculation of self interest.
|
| This is a shocking claim, and I consider myself a strong
| YIMBY type. I worry that you are ascribing the worst possible
| reason to an observation of others that hold opinions or
| behave different from yourself.
|
| "It's hard to tell when you're being discriminated against."
| --IASIP
| arrosenberg wrote:
| It's only hard now because we've spent 100 years fighting
| discrimination. Back in the 1920s land deeds would have
| restrictive covenants on them that explicitly spelled out
| that only white Christians could buy that land.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| It's a strong claim, I don't see how it could be shocking
| unless you're unaware of the recent history of housing
| policy and urban-suburban dynamics in the US. Or think
| that, uniquely among all things in history, that ended at a
| specific recent time with no consequences carried forward
| into the present.
|
| The civil rights era is in living memory, people who were
| children for white flight are retirees and homeowners now.
| They're not all or even largely racist or strictly
| motivated by racism, but some of them are, somewhat. No one
| identifies as a racist and if asked could probably find
| marginally acceptable euphemisms for who they do and don't
| want in their neighborhoods and why. But come on.
| [deleted]
| dash2 wrote:
| I think you are confusing "being aware of economics" with
| being driven by self-interest.
|
| As I understand it, most B&Bs are not campaigning for more
| housebuilding because it benefits them personally, but
| because they believe it is right. That is compatible with
| them having a good understanding of the economics. Note that
| _understanding_ trade-offs and relative costs is not the same
| as _being affected by_ trade-offs and relative costs.
| implements wrote:
| > A reasonable model of politics is that left-wing parties are
| norm-driven and right-wing parties are driven by self-interest.
|
| Or the opposite - when the Left seeks social justice it is to
| satisfy the self-interests of the relatively poor, and the Right
| often justify relative inequality by appeals to social norms
| around ethnicity, tradition and (supposed) class virtues.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| Social conservatives in the US define themselves as being
| values driven. I think the actual reasonable model is that both
| sides are a mix of values and self interest.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| This. Both parties carry a century of reactionary and
| identity/group politics baggage. You can't derive their
| policies from general principals.
| nverno wrote:
| I don't think that is a very good explanation of conservative
| vs. liberal, at least in regard to economic policies. I'd say
| it's more a matter of conservatives focusing on the incentives
| created by policy, while the liberal focuses more on its
| intention. The conservative analyzes the incentives from the
| viewpoint of a self-interested individual, as we all are to
| varying degrees. One can be a proponent of liberal policy,
| another of conservative policy, but both be interested in
| helping the relative poor- they just disagree on the means to
| achieve similar goals.
| [deleted]
| watwut wrote:
| > when the Left seeks social justice it is to satisfy the self-
| interests of the relatively poor
|
| This works only if you assume that left is composed of only or
| primary "relatively poor". Otherwise the concern is not self-
| interest.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| The relatively poor could be generating substantial economic
| value for the the rich and providing useful services for the
| folks in the middle or they could be costing substantial
| resources to poorly manage on the street, wandering into
| emergency rooms as a train wreck and causing massive bills
| both in terms of law enforcement, social services, and
| medicine that they will never pay back based on whether we
| think affordable housing and safety nets matter.
|
| A functioning society is in everyone's interest. Only the
| really rich can afford to trivially live somewhere else and
| profit enough from austerity to net out to positive even
| while wrecking else's backyard which is why its so strange to
| see those in the middle jumping on that train.
| lazyeye wrote:
| "Or the opposite - when the Left seeks social justice it is to
| satisfy the self-interests of the relatively poor"
|
| It also suits the interests of the rich if everybody is
| constantly arguing about issues that cost them nothing (gender
| norms etc) but at the same time ensures the spotlight is always
| on something other than them.
| watwut wrote:
| Gender norms have quite concrete and material impact on
| people.
| lazyeye wrote:
| So does wage inequality (doesnt get remotely the same level
| of attention though "for some reason").
| [deleted]
| shanebellone wrote:
| The distinction between left and right is probably how one
| defines responsibility.
| serverholic wrote:
| Left and right have specific meanings that unfortunately have
| been muddled over time.
|
| The concept of left and right began in the french revolution
| when people were arguing inside a government building and
| they grouped up on the left and right sides of the room.
|
| The people on the right wanted to maintain the existing
| socioeconomic hierarchy whereas the people on the left wanted
| to get rid of the hierarchy in favor of more equality.
|
| So left means against hierarchy and right means pro-
| hierarchy. This is confusing because historically people like
| Vladimir Lenin were actually considered right wing because,
| even though he was a communist, his policies were very much
| pro-hierarchy.
| serverholic wrote:
| I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Social norms serve
| to uphold the status quo which is a right-wing position.
| dash2 wrote:
| I strongly disagree that social norms serve only or even
| mainly to support the status quo. Norms of equality drove
| anti-slavery campaigners. The French Revolution was deeply
| influenced by norms about natural rights. Communism was a
| profoundly idealistic movement. Today, many people call for
| deep social change by appealing to norms.
| lazyeye wrote:
| I find this absurd.
|
| The idea that those on left dont also have their own norms
| (which they police ruthlessly) is ridiculous.
| serverholic wrote:
| Maintaining the status quo is absolutely a right wing
| position, and current social norms absolutely do serve to
| maintain the status quo.
|
| In our society we have an idea of an "ideal" human being,
| and the norms are designed to serve those people. Are you a
| tall, white, straight, neurotypical, handsome, wealthy,
| sports loving, business-minded person? Great! You'll fit
| right in.
|
| Anyone else? Well you're kind of a failure and you should
| try as hard as you can to act like the ideal person.
| lazyeye wrote:
| You seem to be conforming to a particular set of norms
| yourself very well.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| Yeah, you can categorize tons of political behavior as driven
| by norms or self-interest. Those are fundamentals, not
| particularly more left or more right.
| dash2 wrote:
| Sure, but many politically active left wingers are relatively
| rich and would not themselves benefit materially from left-wing
| policies.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-07 23:02 UTC)