4 ms·

I wish more people considered the ingroup/outgroup distinction described in the article in political questions. It is hardwired into our genes, so you really w

by copx 2y ago

I wish more people considered the ingroup/outgroup distinction described in the article in political questions. It is hardwired into our genes, so you really want all people in your society to be part of the same ingroup. Things which destroy a common group identity e.g. immigrants who don't assimilate or cultivation of political group identities which trump national identity tear society apart. You end up with your neighbor being part of an outgroup - a recipe for hate and violence.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Drakim 2y ago
The problem isn't people that don't understand this, the problem is the people who do understand it and utilizes it for their own ends. By propping up the outgroup as a threat that needs to be addressed, you influence, push, and control the ingroup in the direction you want it to move.
optimalsolver 2y ago
You can define in-groups and out-groups along any dimension. Some of the most brutal conflicts in history were between two sides which were, to any third-party observer, virtually identical.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bee_rider 2y ago
Thank goodness we invented civic nationalism, so we can define the in-group however we want.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Not just immigrants. The same effect can be measured with Sports Fans from rival cities. just wearing a rival teams colors can cause you to be the 'out group'. And of course political groups.
Karellen 2y ago
IMO, you really want to be able to consider all of humanity to be part of your ingroup. No matter how small your ingroup is, the members aren't all clones of each other. They have differences in how they were raised by their parents, and in some of the things they think. Differences are not automatic deal-breakers for your ingroup. So, if one works hard enough, it should be possible to consider everyone part of your ingroup. You may want to change some people's minds on some things, but that doesn't mean you have to consider them "the other".

by copx 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Drakim 2y ago

The problem isn't people that don't understand this, the problem is the people who do understand it and utilizes it for their own ends. By propping up the outgroup as a threat that needs to be addressed, you influence, push, and control the ingroup in the direction you want it to move.

optimalsolver 2y ago

You can define in-groups and out-groups along any dimension. Some of the most brutal conflicts in history were between two sides which were, to any third-party observer, virtually identical.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bee_rider 2y ago

Thank goodness we invented civic nationalism, so we can define the in-group however we want.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

Not just immigrants. The same effect can be measured with Sports Fans from rival cities. just wearing a rival teams colors can cause you to be the 'out group'. And of course political groups.

Karellen 2y ago

IMO, you really want to be able to consider all of humanity to be part of your ingroup. No matter how small your ingroup is, the members aren't all clones of each other. They have differences in how they were raised by their parents, and in some of the things they think. Differences are not automatic deal-breakers for your ingroup. So, if one works hard enough, it should be possible to consider everyone part of your ingroup. You may want to change some people's minds on some things, but that doesn't mean you have to consider them "the other".