You don't say
You don't say
Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
#32This is why I like to consider myself to belong to the group of humans and dislike further specialization based on gender, where you're born, etc. We're on the same team.
Good advice. Reminds me of this PG essay: http://paulgraham.com/identity.html
Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
As old as the family, the village. Forgive Western bias, but here's Aristotle: ...that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the "tribeless, lawless, hearthless one," whom Homer denounces—the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an…
On HN, I suspect there's high participation the group of rational, logical thinkers who consider themselves superior to the fears and insecurities that compel the typical "joiner." If this was irony, it was splendidly done.
Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
#34Belonging to HN makes people more likely to think they know everything and every solution is software based.
Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
#35Some related concepts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ingroup_identity And a couple of interesting experiments: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lt/the_robbers_cave_experiment/ http://www.news.wisc.edu/598
More random browsing fodder re: your last link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274 > Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). PDF: http://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/...
You should be put under house arrest for such microagressions as posting these studies about women.
Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
#36Kind of an old story. Studied this year's ago in reference to terrorism. The concept of "ingroup love and outgroup hate" is a large part of terrorism radicalisation. Also in many ways it's a big chunk of regular military training (though not as extreme) - from boot camp onwards it's "We hate platoon two, we hate battalion three, we hate non-infantry units etc and we are gonna beat them at XYZ." I have often thought t…
(though not as extreme)
This reads as a non-sequitur to me. How is dehumanizing the enemy, which is an explicit aspect of military training, not a form of institutionalized outgroup hate?
Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
#37tl;dr: oxytocin is a double-edged sword. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.full # Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism ## Abstract Human ethnocentrism—the tendency to view one's group as centrally important and superior to other groups—creates intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence. Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and c…
From an adaptivity point of view, makes sense that oxytocin would strengthen social bonds that exist for other reasons ("kin" or simacrula thereof), not create bonds with everyone.
Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what happens to those who are neither an "us" nor a "them"? They become a "me"? I prefer being a "me" but that also takes one down the path of possibly not believing in much and, following that logic, of becoming a cynic of all "us vs them" paradigms. We can also look at the digital world and the "together, alone" concept. With globalization and pop culture, the internet and fewer and fewer entities in charge of…
You don't always have the option of not picking a group, see "you're with us or against us". Each group will demand that you identify with them or treat you as a member of the other group.
I’m reminded of Philip K. Dick’s The Chromium Fence (1955):
’I’m not!’ Walsh shouted futilely. ‘I’m not a Purist and I’m not a Naturalist! You hear me?’
Nobody heard him.
Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
#39This is why I like to consider myself to belong to the group of humans and dislike further specialization based on gender, where you're born, etc. We're on the same team.
Interestingly enough, that's an opinion shared by a small group of people with similar likes and dislikes. The rest of humanity isn't on the same team as you.
Can you recall any instances of out-group violence committed by your tribe?
Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group
#40"You Are Not So Smart" podcast had a whole episode about this subject (Robbers Cave Experiment):
"The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight"
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-illusion-of-asymm...