Eh, I see this as a purely selective / survivorship-bias process:
All the little minority groups that didn’t have weird rules got assimilated into the mainstream culture and lost their identity as little minority groups. They became Persians or Greeks or Romans or Christians or Muslims, when those empires were in ascendancy. Therefore, all the little minority groups that have remained distinct for thousands of years have weird rules.
It’s not that the weird rules were good for individuals’ survival. Pretty often, you’re better off individually if you join the mainstream. But weird rules are good for maintaining group identity.
Interesting. I’ve not thought of it like that, but it would make sense—groups would drop their weird rules if they didn’t fit the larger group which they were integrated into.
However, in this case at least, it IS so that the weird rules increased survival. Rules about keeping clean were seen as weird, but were generally beneficial for the individual. Example linked to the discussion: During the Black Plague fewer Jews got infected, mainly due to the weird rules. Only negative was that this was suspicious, and these Jews were believed to be the cause… A bit of a lose-lose situation, with good intentions.
What I hear there is that in one particular circumstance, the weird rules may have increased survival from disease, but decreased survival from persecution. Net result probably nil for the individual. But persecution also maintains the minority group’s distinct status.
True. In this case, it most likely did harm in the long run, but the intentions behind were good, and logical.
It’s not always rational to generalize, but you make a good argument. Though I’m not sure - for the most part, weird rules in religion seem to be based on public opinion as much as group identity or logic. In short: Can be good or bad depending on circumstances, no matter what it is based on.
But it’s late and I’m beginning to fear for my mind. I’ll stop before I embarrass myself too much.
Eh, I see this as a purely selective / survivorship-bias process:
All the little minority groups that didn’t have weird rules got assimilated into the mainstream culture and lost their identity as little minority groups. They became Persians or Greeks or Romans or Christians or Muslims, when those empires were in ascendancy. Therefore, all the little minority groups that have remained distinct for thousands of years have weird rules.
It’s not that the weird rules were good for individuals’ survival. Pretty often, you’re better off individually if you join the mainstream. But weird rules are good for maintaining group identity.
Interesting. I’ve not thought of it like that, but it would make sense—groups would drop their weird rules if they didn’t fit the larger group which they were integrated into.
However, in this case at least, it IS so that the weird rules increased survival. Rules about keeping clean were seen as weird, but were generally beneficial for the individual. Example linked to the discussion: During the Black Plague fewer Jews got infected, mainly due to the weird rules. Only negative was that this was suspicious, and these Jews were believed to be the cause… A bit of a lose-lose situation, with good intentions.
What I hear there is that in one particular circumstance, the weird rules may have increased survival from disease, but decreased survival from persecution. Net result probably nil for the individual. But persecution also maintains the minority group’s distinct status.
True. In this case, it most likely did harm in the long run, but the intentions behind were good, and logical. It’s not always rational to generalize, but you make a good argument. Though I’m not sure - for the most part, weird rules in religion seem to be based on public opinion as much as group identity or logic. In short: Can be good or bad depending on circumstances, no matter what it is based on.
But it’s late and I’m beginning to fear for my mind. I’ll stop before I embarrass myself too much.