10 ms·

Friendship’s Dark Side

114 points by hvo 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago
I don't think a single one of my friendships involve a common enemy, beyond both of us being allied against boredom. Physics is unrecognizable after being passed through the dirty lens of journalism, and I guess this is what happens when they report on fields with even messier situations. >Game theory models predict it, real-life examples confirm it. “In order to band together, we need a common enemy,” Dr. Christakis said. What do these models say about behavior around shared tasks? There are a lot of prisoner's dilemmas and tragic commons in the world but there actually are some cases where you can get something out of nature while other people help. Maybe that's why hackers tend to not be very xenophobic, they have something to focus on other than dividing up the morning's pie.
- mantas 8y ago
  Poor hackers still face same dividing the pie problem. Thats like saying people who got a hobby are less xenophobic. Which I doubt is true. More like rich people don’t care about daily issues of poor people and then there’s a divide resulting in Trump.
- IAmEveryone 8y ago
  The very next graph moderates that statement: “Fortunately, he added, no model insists that the out-group must be exterminated or otherwise eliminated from the scene. “It’s possible to treat the out-group with mild dislike or even grudging respect,” he said. “Cultivating in-group distinctiveness does not require that the other must be killed.” And look: you’re giving the perfect example of such “mild dislike”! Quote: “The dirty lenses of journalism”. I agree that xenophobia is somewhat rare among “hackers”, but I don’t think you can easily deny some ingroup/outgroup dynamics in this scene. Social sciences and the liberal arts are routinely ridiculed. “The media” is constantly treated as incompetent (see above). And misogyny is somewhat common.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Criticism of science journalism isn't in-group/outgroup, it's a claim about the state of the world. How do we know this? If I became a science writer, I wouldn't change my mind. Likewise, I think that most of the criticism of the humanities comes from people that read that kind of stuff in college and didn't like it. I don't work at McDonalds, so is it tribalism if I say I don't like BigMacs? There's no apology or justification for misogyny, though.
    - IAmEveryone 8y ago
      Sure... and xenophobia is just clearly seeing that foreigners are dirty. And when the Xenophobe vacations in Mexico, they still thinks these people around them are dirty.
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        I don't think science journalists are stupid or morally inferior, I just observe a very bad track record of confusing and misleading articles. When I tell people to take them with a grain of salt, things get better. There are good science journalists, but I can't practically pass out lists of names. It sounds like the principle you're bringing in to play here could make anything count as xenophobic, so long as it involved a negative opinion and more than one group. This is dangerous because there are many opinions which are not xenophobic and are useful: misclassifying them as xenophobic introduces the error of "useful xenophobia," which is a very dangerous mistake. Edit: I think I've debugged the issue. I'm treating these things like they're true and were discovered independently, and you are treating them like they're false (or at least unjustified) and spread socially. I know that in my case I've learned to not like science journalism first-hand, by reading articles while knowing about their subject matter (an incredibly surreal experience).
        IAmEveryone 8y ago
        No, the point is that hating on journalists is a group dynamic. It’s so common on HN for example, that it is frankly impossible all of its purveyors came up with the idea independently. That’s true even if the collective complaints have a basis in fact. People are social animals, susceptible to group-think. There’s really nothing wrong with that, as long as we’re willing to accept the possibility and don’t succumb to the firehouse effect.
- goatlover 8y ago
  > Maybe that's why hackers tend to not be very xenophobic, they have something to focus on other than dividing up the morning's pie. But certainly tribal when it comes to technology choices.
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    Yep. Hackers generally don't care what you look like, as long as you use choice of emacs/vim, spaces/tabs, dynamic/static typing, FP/OO, web/native, etc. And that's tribalism based on choices, not on immutable characteristics. And most people take it with a grain of salt.
    - mantas 8y ago
      Dressed up (suit and tie kind of dressed up) people are likely to get a stare or too though. It's very hard to draw a line on immutable vs chosen traits. I had some people argue that communists killing rich people or entrepreneurs is fine since it's "based on choice". Although technically it is a choice, I couldn't agree that someone can drop what they did their whole life on a whim.
      - mpweiher 8y ago
        > Dressed up Hmm...you can't choose how you dress? > killing rich people ... choice Hmm...I'd humbly suggest that the primary problem here is not the "based on choice" part, but rather the killing part. Not suggesting that's the only problem, but certainly the high order bit. The next bit would be that previously, these were considered admirable qualities, not evil ones. So something about ex post facto laws, which tend to be broadly unconstitutional if you have rule of law. So I don't really think it's hard to draw a line between immutable and chosen traits, and I also don't think that distinction plays much of a role, if any, in the examples you give.
        mantas 8y ago
        > Hmm...you can't choose how you dress? I was commenting this about "hackers generally don't care what you look like". Not "based on choice" part. > Hmm...I'd humbly suggest that the primary problem here is not the "based on choice" part, but rather the killing part. Personally I'm uncomfortable with killing or oppressing anybody. Some people feel that oppressing or killing "based on choice" is fine. I'm not comfortable to split traits by choices or immutable.
- vervez 8y ago
  This is a little bit of a tangent but I was just listening to a program on NPR about baboons and their relationships. Specifically, the toxic effect of being the alpha-male. While I couldn't catch the whole program, I did hear they mentioned that while baboons have tumultuous lives surviving, mating, and dealing with alpha males, they do have a small opportunity for friendship with one another. One of the surprising findings from a study on baboons was that the baboons who were friendlier/not alpha-males tended to have more offspring than the alphas. A case of nice guys winning and friendship being more meaningful than dominance. Here, I'd gander that it's less about game theory and more about evolution of a cohesive unit. And that's my baboon tangent.
  - socrates666 8y ago
    It has also been shown that alpha makes, in business, tend to lose money owing to short sighted thought processes. In fact, the guy who originally coined the idea that humans have an alpha male concept pulled back on the notion, saying that he was mistaken in comparing human hierarchy to wolves. Humans aren't actually hierarchical. We believe in equality and because of this can form many different kinds of social structures (which is where political struggle comes from, i.e. democracy, Communism, socialism, etc.) It's nice when someone steps up and volunteers to do all of the work though.
- darkerside 8y ago
  The customer, whoever that may be, is certainly an out group in that case
- samirillian 8y ago
  Yeah, i think that's the distinction between cooperative and non-cooperative games. Though the formal definition might be a bit different from the naive interpretation of those terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game_theory
- toothbrush 8y ago
  > Maybe that's why hackers tend to not be very xenophobic Actually, i respectfully question that assertion. In my limited experience, groups of hackers have actually been much more on the homogenous side than random other groups of friends or freely-associating people (recent examples off the top of my head: a recent software developers meetup, or the makeup of the engineering department i work in – spoiler: it's overwhelmingly white, male, able-bodied and middle-class, straight). And IMHO, a lack of diversity certainly signals that something is going on. You might find the term "xenophobia" too strong, but exclusion is real and happens, _especially_, i would argue, among hackers. You needn't actively say something silly like "i don't like women joining my hackathon" for there to be a very palpable jock-nerd atmosphere that will turn off many folks that aren't white/middle-class/male. I think this might be an unpopular opinion here, but i believe it bears pointing out. A while ago i read a very thought-provoking book entitled "Unlocking the Clubhouse" by Margolis and somebody else whose name eludes me. If you're not already convinced by the unapproachable ivory-tower side of STEM fields, that book may convince you.
  - q12we34rt5 8y ago
    >groups of hackers have actually been much more on the homogenous side >it's overwhelmingly white, male, able-bodied and middle-class, straight). And IMHO, a lack of diversity Nice job. I think you managed to touch just about all the bases in the buzzword lottery.
    - qznc 8y ago
      These are not buzzword. The words have a precise meaning.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      "You're wrong because you used buzzwords" is no better than a buzzword itself. Can you address their actual point?
      - q12we34rt5 8y ago
        What point? Let me inform you of something. When I was growing up, I remember quite clearly being teased and bullied because I liked to read a lot and I liked messing around with computers. The peer group I surrounded myself with were other people just like me who also put up with the merciless bullying. Everybody else self-selected out of my peer group and did everything they could to make me feel lesser because of my interests. But now all of a sudden the internet and smartphones catch on and now coding is "cool". And the same people that selected themselves out of my group now accuse me of being "xenophobic" and "homogeneous". The fucking gall.
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  > I don't think a single one of my friendships involve a common enemy, beyond both of us being allied against boredom. Similar here. The "common enemy" in my friendships typically refers to something impersonal, such as the universe or sickness or falsehood; but often something much less dramatic, such as boredom or being alone. Maybe this is just a way to reuse the ancient brain circuits that evolved to create coalitions against human enemies. But the evolutionary purpose of something, and how I use it in my everyday life, those are often two different things. Maybe most people only use those ancient brain circuits the old way, dunno. That sounds horrible, but I guess it could explain some horrible parts of reality. But it's definitely not the only way.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  > Maybe that's why hackers tend to not be very xenophobic, they have something to focus on other than dividing up the morning's pie. There was a study (I don't have it handy, I'm afraid) showing that women were a much higher percentage of programmers in the earliest decades of computing, and those numbers fell swiftly and kept falling as the field became established and commercial. That at least implies to me that women felt the pressure of an increasingly unwelcome environment in computing, as the field matured and expectations stratified. Hackers, in my experience, are less xenophobic than many groups, but I wouldn't hold them up as a bastion of acceptance either.
musage 8y ago
> In order to band together, we need a common enemy Yes, to band together, sure. But is that friendship? > Friends are predetermined; friendship takes place between men and women who possess an intellectual and emotional affinity for each other. But comradeship — that ecstatic bliss that comes with belonging to the crowd in wartime — is within our reach. We can all have comrades. The danger of the external threat that comes when we have an enemy does not create friendship; it creates comradeship. And those in wartime are deceived about what they are undergoing. And this is why once the threat is over, once war ends, comrades again become strangers to us. This is why after war we fall into despair. > In friendship there is a deepening of our sense of self. We become, through the friend, more aware of who we are and what we are about; we find ourselves in the eyes of the friend. Friends probe and question and challenge each other to make each of us more complete; with comradeship, the kind that comes to us in patriotic fervor, there is a suppression of self-awareness, self-knowledge, and self-possession. Comrades lose their identities in wartime for the collective rush of a common cause — a common purpose. -- Chris Hedges Of course, disliking the same thing or person can also be a result of intellectual or emotional affinity. I can meet someone in the wilderness and think they're an okay person because of how they are to me, but if we then go back to the city and they steal from a blind beggar, I'll no longer think they're okay. Likewise, if I walk around with a supposed friend and we see someone do that, and they react with a shrug or even a smile, that will similarly lower my opinion of them. But that's because of what I am for, which is primary and a cause if you will -- not because of the need to be against anything, which is secondary and a symptom.
cobbzilla 8y ago
Sounds more like the dark side of Tribalism than of Friendship. I suppose it's all in how you decide to define things.
contoraria 8y ago
More like, together we are strong, now we can take on an enemy.
rokhayakebe 8y ago
I have noticed this for years. I say people are not racist, homophobic, etc... People just want to gang up together and the existence of a group reaches the height of its meaning (to its members) when they can say "This is us. That is them. Clearly we are different (superior). Don't mix us." Same is true when you have 10 Harvard grads with 5 "insert_your_state_university" grads in the same room. The ultimate test: Take a hispanic who hates blacks. Add a black who hates whites. Add a white who hates hispanics. Leave them stranded in the desert and they must rely on one another to survive. They will be friends in no time. When they get back to town it will be "This is us, the survivors. That is them, those who never had such an experience. Don't mix us."
- iopuy 8y ago
  I like your test idea but its lack in supporting evidence is stunning.
  - nickthemagicman 8y ago
    Ingroup/outgroup dynamics are actually very well studied area of sociology/evolutionary psychology. It's extremely fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
  - coldtea 8y ago
    There's this thing called independent thinking. Not everything must come in pre-digested chunks of peer-reviewed journal meta-studies... (That said, there's tons of research in group dynamics, including the ideas the parent mentioned).
  - ThrustVectoring 8y ago
    The Robber's Cave Experiment for one https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MBpj3QKfPg9xKNeXW/the-robbers-cave-experiment https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MBpj3QKfPg9xKNeXW/the-robber...
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  Beyond just skin color look at religion, sports, nationality, school almamater, etc...Humans are pretty wired to form ingroup/outgroups.
interfixus 8y ago
Happens in every conceivable kind of social group I am aware off. Those in the other classroom, those in the other office, those of the other political stripe, those across the border, those who play on the other team, those who dress differently, those who use Ubuntu, those who code C++, those who prefer cats, or dogs, or whatever, ad nauseam. It happens here on HN, for Gods sake. No, we're not baying for the blood of those guys, but the dislike is there, or the mistrust. And seeing how all kinds of other animals exhibit the exact same pattern, there's no sound reason not to assume we are hardwired for it. In so many cases a silly atavism. And in many others no doubt an essential group mechanism, if nowadays not necessarily for survival, then for internal group cohesion and a basic guard against intruders.
Thriptic 8y ago
I think the author means to say comraderie requires a common enemy, which is a very different statement and one that I would say is true.
himom 8y ago
People need a common purpose to unite... moonshot, get to Mars, threat of climate catastrophe, etc. Otherwise, wedge issues tend to form fault lines and natural selection will encourage war to reduce competition for resources / survival.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  > natural selection will encourage war to reduce competition for resources / survival. Not commenting on the rest of your comment, but that's not how natural selection works.
jkFeiwi 8y ago
This is the 3rd article I've seen like this today. I think what's missing from the conversation is bonding vs bridging social capital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital#Sub-types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital#Sub-types We have known for a while that close homophobic bonds (bonding) can create animosity towards outsiders. But not every relationship does this. Some relationships connect us with people outside our normal groups (bridging). The extent to which people bond or bridge varies from person to person, and across time periods. I suspect this conversation is being had in response to Facebook's tendencies to bring out the worst in people. I think the internet has the potential to create both kinds of social capital. It's helped me stay closer to my friends and family, while also introducing me to people in different countries, or people with different religions. When we design social networking software, we should design it with bridging social capital in mind. If it only encourages bonding, we'll be creating a world of hostile tribes.

114 points by hvo 8y ago

I don't think a single one of my friendships involve a common enemy, beyond both of us being allied against boredom. Physics is unrecognizable after being passed through the dirty lens of journalism, and I guess this is what happens when they report on fields with even messier situations. >Game theory models predict it, real-life examples confirm it. “In order to band together, we need a common enemy,” Dr. Christakis said. What do these models say about behavior around shared tasks? There are a lot of prisoner's dilemmas and tragic commons in the world but there actually are some cases where you can get something out of nature while other people help. Maybe that's why hackers tend to not be very xenophobic, they have something to focus on other than dividing up the morning's pie.

mantas 8y ago
Poor hackers still face same dividing the pie problem. Thats like saying people who got a hobby are less xenophobic. Which I doubt is true. More like rich people don’t care about daily issues of poor people and then there’s a divide resulting in Trump.
IAmEveryone 8y ago
The very next graph moderates that statement: “Fortunately, he added, no model insists that the out-group must be exterminated or otherwise eliminated from the scene. “It’s possible to treat the out-group with mild dislike or even grudging respect,” he said. “Cultivating in-group distinctiveness does not require that the other must be killed.” And look: you’re giving the perfect example of such “mild dislike”! Quote: “The dirty lenses of journalism”. I agree that xenophobia is somewhat rare among “hackers”, but I don’t think you can easily deny some ingroup/outgroup dynamics in this scene. Social sciences and the liberal arts are routinely ridiculed. “The media” is constantly treated as incompetent (see above). And misogyny is somewhat common.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Criticism of science journalism isn't in-group/outgroup, it's a claim about the state of the world. How do we know this? If I became a science writer, I wouldn't change my mind. Likewise, I think that most of the criticism of the humanities comes from people that read that kind of stuff in college and didn't like it. I don't work at McDonalds, so is it tribalism if I say I don't like BigMacs? There's no apology or justification for misogyny, though.
  - IAmEveryone 8y ago
    Sure... and xenophobia is just clearly seeing that foreigners are dirty. And when the Xenophobe vacations in Mexico, they still thinks these people around them are dirty.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      I don't think science journalists are stupid or morally inferior, I just observe a very bad track record of confusing and misleading articles. When I tell people to take them with a grain of salt, things get better. There are good science journalists, but I can't practically pass out lists of names. It sounds like the principle you're bringing in to play here could make anything count as xenophobic, so long as it involved a negative opinion and more than one group. This is dangerous because there are many opinions which are not xenophobic and are useful: misclassifying them as xenophobic introduces the error of "useful xenophobia," which is a very dangerous mistake. Edit: I think I've debugged the issue. I'm treating these things like they're true and were discovered independently, and you are treating them like they're false (or at least unjustified) and spread socially. I know that in my case I've learned to not like science journalism first-hand, by reading articles while knowing about their subject matter (an incredibly surreal experience).
      - IAmEveryone 8y ago
        No, the point is that hating on journalists is a group dynamic. It’s so common on HN for example, that it is frankly impossible all of its purveyors came up with the idea independently. That’s true even if the collective complaints have a basis in fact. People are social animals, susceptible to group-think. There’s really nothing wrong with that, as long as we’re willing to accept the possibility and don’t succumb to the firehouse effect.
goatlover 8y ago
> Maybe that's why hackers tend to not be very xenophobic, they have something to focus on other than dividing up the morning's pie. But certainly tribal when it comes to technology choices.
- mpweiher 8y ago
  Yep. Hackers generally don't care what you look like, as long as you use choice of emacs/vim, spaces/tabs, dynamic/static typing, FP/OO, web/native, etc. And that's tribalism based on choices, not on immutable characteristics. And most people take it with a grain of salt.
  - mantas 8y ago
    Dressed up (suit and tie kind of dressed up) people are likely to get a stare or too though. It's very hard to draw a line on immutable vs chosen traits. I had some people argue that communists killing rich people or entrepreneurs is fine since it's "based on choice". Although technically it is a choice, I couldn't agree that someone can drop what they did their whole life on a whim.
    - mpweiher 8y ago
      > Dressed up Hmm...you can't choose how you dress? > killing rich people ... choice Hmm...I'd humbly suggest that the primary problem here is not the "based on choice" part, but rather the killing part. Not suggesting that's the only problem, but certainly the high order bit. The next bit would be that previously, these were considered admirable qualities, not evil ones. So something about ex post facto laws, which tend to be broadly unconstitutional if you have rule of law. So I don't really think it's hard to draw a line between immutable and chosen traits, and I also don't think that distinction plays much of a role, if any, in the examples you give.
      - mantas 8y ago
        > Hmm...you can't choose how you dress? I was commenting this about "hackers generally don't care what you look like". Not "based on choice" part. > Hmm...I'd humbly suggest that the primary problem here is not the "based on choice" part, but rather the killing part. Personally I'm uncomfortable with killing or oppressing anybody. Some people feel that oppressing or killing "based on choice" is fine. I'm not comfortable to split traits by choices or immutable.
vervez 8y ago
This is a little bit of a tangent but I was just listening to a program on NPR about baboons and their relationships. Specifically, the toxic effect of being the alpha-male. While I couldn't catch the whole program, I did hear they mentioned that while baboons have tumultuous lives surviving, mating, and dealing with alpha males, they do have a small opportunity for friendship with one another. One of the surprising findings from a study on baboons was that the baboons who were friendlier/not alpha-males tended to have more offspring than the alphas. A case of nice guys winning and friendship being more meaningful than dominance. Here, I'd gander that it's less about game theory and more about evolution of a cohesive unit. And that's my baboon tangent.
- socrates666 8y ago
  It has also been shown that alpha makes, in business, tend to lose money owing to short sighted thought processes. In fact, the guy who originally coined the idea that humans have an alpha male concept pulled back on the notion, saying that he was mistaken in comparing human hierarchy to wolves. Humans aren't actually hierarchical. We believe in equality and because of this can form many different kinds of social structures (which is where political struggle comes from, i.e. democracy, Communism, socialism, etc.) It's nice when someone steps up and volunteers to do all of the work though.
darkerside 8y ago
The customer, whoever that may be, is certainly an out group in that case
samirillian 8y ago
Yeah, i think that's the distinction between cooperative and non-cooperative games. Though the formal definition might be a bit different from the naive interpretation of those terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game_theory
toothbrush 8y ago
> Maybe that's why hackers tend to not be very xenophobic Actually, i respectfully question that assertion. In my limited experience, groups of hackers have actually been much more on the homogenous side than random other groups of friends or freely-associating people (recent examples off the top of my head: a recent software developers meetup, or the makeup of the engineering department i work in – spoiler: it's overwhelmingly white, male, able-bodied and middle-class, straight). And IMHO, a lack of diversity certainly signals that something is going on. You might find the term "xenophobia" too strong, but exclusion is real and happens, _especially_, i would argue, among hackers. You needn't actively say something silly like "i don't like women joining my hackathon" for there to be a very palpable jock-nerd atmosphere that will turn off many folks that aren't white/middle-class/male. I think this might be an unpopular opinion here, but i believe it bears pointing out. A while ago i read a very thought-provoking book entitled "Unlocking the Clubhouse" by Margolis and somebody else whose name eludes me. If you're not already convinced by the unapproachable ivory-tower side of STEM fields, that book may convince you.
- q12we34rt5 8y ago
  >groups of hackers have actually been much more on the homogenous side >it's overwhelmingly white, male, able-bodied and middle-class, straight). And IMHO, a lack of diversity Nice job. I think you managed to touch just about all the bases in the buzzword lottery.
  - qznc 8y ago
    These are not buzzword. The words have a precise meaning.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    "You're wrong because you used buzzwords" is no better than a buzzword itself. Can you address their actual point?
    - q12we34rt5 8y ago
      What point? Let me inform you of something. When I was growing up, I remember quite clearly being teased and bullied because I liked to read a lot and I liked messing around with computers. The peer group I surrounded myself with were other people just like me who also put up with the merciless bullying. Everybody else self-selected out of my peer group and did everything they could to make me feel lesser because of my interests. But now all of a sudden the internet and smartphones catch on and now coding is "cool". And the same people that selected themselves out of my group now accuse me of being "xenophobic" and "homogeneous". The fucking gall.
Viliam1234 8y ago
> I don't think a single one of my friendships involve a common enemy, beyond both of us being allied against boredom. Similar here. The "common enemy" in my friendships typically refers to something impersonal, such as the universe or sickness or falsehood; but often something much less dramatic, such as boredom or being alone. Maybe this is just a way to reuse the ancient brain circuits that evolved to create coalitions against human enemies. But the evolutionary purpose of something, and how I use it in my everyday life, those are often two different things. Maybe most people only use those ancient brain circuits the old way, dunno. That sounds horrible, but I guess it could explain some horrible parts of reality. But it's definitely not the only way.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
> Maybe that's why hackers tend to not be very xenophobic, they have something to focus on other than dividing up the morning's pie. There was a study (I don't have it handy, I'm afraid) showing that women were a much higher percentage of programmers in the earliest decades of computing, and those numbers fell swiftly and kept falling as the field became established and commercial. That at least implies to me that women felt the pressure of an increasingly unwelcome environment in computing, as the field matured and expectations stratified. Hackers, in my experience, are less xenophobic than many groups, but I wouldn't hold them up as a bastion of acceptance either.

musage 8y ago

> In order to band together, we need a common enemy Yes, to band together, sure. But is that friendship? > Friends are predetermined; friendship takes place between men and women who possess an intellectual and emotional affinity for each other. But comradeship — that ecstatic bliss that comes with belonging to the crowd in wartime — is within our reach. We can all have comrades. The danger of the external threat that comes when we have an enemy does not create friendship; it creates comradeship. And those in wartime are deceived about what they are undergoing. And this is why once the threat is over, once war ends, comrades again become strangers to us. This is why after war we fall into despair. > In friendship there is a deepening of our sense of self. We become, through the friend, more aware of who we are and what we are about; we find ourselves in the eyes of the friend. Friends probe and question and challenge each other to make each of us more complete; with comradeship, the kind that comes to us in patriotic fervor, there is a suppression of self-awareness, self-knowledge, and self-possession. Comrades lose their identities in wartime for the collective rush of a common cause — a common purpose. -- Chris Hedges Of course, disliking the same thing or person can also be a result of intellectual or emotional affinity. I can meet someone in the wilderness and think they're an okay person because of how they are to me, but if we then go back to the city and they steal from a blind beggar, I'll no longer think they're okay. Likewise, if I walk around with a supposed friend and we see someone do that, and they react with a shrug or even a smile, that will similarly lower my opinion of them. But that's because of what I am for, which is primary and a cause if you will -- not because of the need to be against anything, which is secondary and a symptom.

cobbzilla 8y ago

Sounds more like the dark side of Tribalism than of Friendship. I suppose it's all in how you decide to define things.

contoraria 8y ago

More like, together we are strong, now we can take on an enemy.

rokhayakebe 8y ago

I have noticed this for years. I say people are not racist, homophobic, etc... People just want to gang up together and the existence of a group reaches the height of its meaning (to its members) when they can say "This is us. That is them. Clearly we are different (superior). Don't mix us." Same is true when you have 10 Harvard grads with 5 "insert_your_state_university" grads in the same room. The ultimate test: Take a hispanic who hates blacks. Add a black who hates whites. Add a white who hates hispanics. Leave them stranded in the desert and they must rely on one another to survive. They will be friends in no time. When they get back to town it will be "This is us, the survivors. That is them, those who never had such an experience. Don't mix us."

iopuy 8y ago
I like your test idea but its lack in supporting evidence is stunning.
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  Ingroup/outgroup dynamics are actually very well studied area of sociology/evolutionary psychology. It's extremely fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
- coldtea 8y ago
  There's this thing called independent thinking. Not everything must come in pre-digested chunks of peer-reviewed journal meta-studies... (That said, there's tons of research in group dynamics, including the ideas the parent mentioned).
- ThrustVectoring 8y ago
  The Robber's Cave Experiment for one https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MBpj3QKfPg9xKNeXW/the-robbers-cave-experiment https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/MBpj3QKfPg9xKNeXW/the-robber...
nickthemagicman 8y ago
Beyond just skin color look at religion, sports, nationality, school almamater, etc...Humans are pretty wired to form ingroup/outgroups.

interfixus 8y ago

Happens in every conceivable kind of social group I am aware off. Those in the other classroom, those in the other office, those of the other political stripe, those across the border, those who play on the other team, those who dress differently, those who use Ubuntu, those who code C++, those who prefer cats, or dogs, or whatever, ad nauseam. It happens here on HN, for Gods sake. No, we're not baying for the blood of those guys, but the dislike is there, or the mistrust. And seeing how all kinds of other animals exhibit the exact same pattern, there's no sound reason not to assume we are hardwired for it. In so many cases a silly atavism. And in many others no doubt an essential group mechanism, if nowadays not necessarily for survival, then for internal group cohesion and a basic guard against intruders.

Thriptic 8y ago

I think the author means to say comraderie requires a common enemy, which is a very different statement and one that I would say is true.

himom 8y ago

People need a common purpose to unite... moonshot, get to Mars, threat of climate catastrophe, etc. Otherwise, wedge issues tend to form fault lines and natural selection will encourage war to reduce competition for resources / survival.

jamesrcole 8y ago
> natural selection will encourage war to reduce competition for resources / survival. Not commenting on the rest of your comment, but that's not how natural selection works.

jkFeiwi 8y ago

This is the 3rd article I've seen like this today. I think what's missing from the conversation is bonding vs bridging social capital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital#Sub-types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital#Sub-types We have known for a while that close homophobic bonds (bonding) can create animosity towards outsiders. But not every relationship does this. Some relationships connect us with people outside our normal groups (bridging). The extent to which people bond or bridge varies from person to person, and across time periods. I suspect this conversation is being had in response to Facebook's tendencies to bring out the worst in people. I think the internet has the potential to create both kinds of social capital. It's helped me stay closer to my friends and family, while also introducing me to people in different countries, or people with different religions. When we design social networking software, we should design it with bridging social capital in mind. If it only encourages bonding, we'll be creating a world of hostile tribes.