Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

newsoffice.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#41

Post by secfirstmd »

rhizome wrote: post #36
secfirstmd wrote: post #20

Kind 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?

I think you misread my comment. That is exactly what it is. I meant not as extreme in comparison to terrorism where it's perfectly acceptable to kill civilians etc.

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#42

Post by secfirstmd »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #22
secfirstmd wrote: post #20

Kind 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…

That's a fascinating thought. Perhaps a slightly more optimistic view is not we are all individuals, but we start to see more and more people as in our tribe? Perhaps we are more starting to see ourselves as humans?

Yes I also think this is a part of it. As the world becomes more internationalist and multi-cultural, it makes it harder to dehumanise please who we now have the chance to communicate with in an instant, read about, travel to their country etc

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#43

Post by rhizome »

secfirstmd wrote: post #41
rhizome wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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?

I think you misread my comment. That is exactly what it is. I meant not as extreme in comparison to terrorism where it's perfectly acceptable to kill civilians etc.

It's just as extreme, and within the terms of the ethic being taught civilians are still fair game in military engagements. Even recent history has plenty of proof of this.

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#44

Post by theoh »

secfirstmd wrote: post #42
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fascinating thought. Perhaps a slightly more optimistic view is not we are all individuals, but we start to see more and more people as in our tribe? Perhaps we are more starting to see ourselves as humans?

Yes I also think this is a part of it. As the world becomes more internationalist and multi-cultural, it makes it harder to dehumanise please who we now have the chance to communicate with in an instant, read about, travel to their country etc

One of Hofstede's observations is that developed countries tend to be more individualistic, treating others as individuals rather than in-group or out-group. There are other correlated features on his individualism-collectivism dimension, such as the nature and purpose of education. The paper "Dimensionalizing Cultures" covers this in depth.

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#45

Post by spacemanmatt »

interstitial wrote: post #35
lumpypua wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You forgot to add #notallmen

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#46

Post by pistle »

I'm not sure I see the article and study as saying much or discovering anything new.

The phenomena is obvious. The motivations, at a rational, cognitive level are also obvious though.

Within a group, there is comfort, love, protection, identity, etc.

Others, outside the group, are a threat to all that endorphin-releasing meeting of needs and/or desires. Of course there are physical (psycho-chemical) reinforcements to the behavior. I would have been surprised to NOT find brain activity of the sort.

We are social creatures through natural selection and, despite modernity's recontextualizing of what our clans look like, we should very well expect a very plastic ability of individuals to storm+norm+form groups which then are "protected" by degrading the power of those not in the group.

Would it be a terrible analogy to say this echo's the brain's feedback loop for sugary foods? We are wired to gorge on sugar when we find it. Food marketers apply psychological levers based around how that feedback loop is molded by our modern, human existence.

http://foodporn.com

I want waffles...

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#47

Post by alexqgb »

chipsy wrote: post #4

This is why "divide and conquer" is such an effective, commonplace strategy for an aspiring powermonger. Take two groups that are different but not in a remarked upon fashion. Invent a reason for the side that is not you to be a "them." Then organize your own side as an "us" combating the perceived injustice. Now you have an instant follower group at your command, ready to saddle up and commit heinous crimes for you.…

That's not how divide and conquer works. Divide and conquer works by turning two groups against one another and not joining the fight. Instead, you wait for them do the most resource intensive damage first, then swoop in and conquer both once they've made each other sufficiently weak.

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#48

Post by crimsonalucard »

shurcooL wrote: post #7

This 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.

Understanding your own human nature does not give you power over it.

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#49

Post by crimsonalucard »

pistle wrote: post #46

I'm not sure I see the article and study as saying much or discovering anything new. The phenomena is obvious. The motivations, at a rational, cognitive level are also obvious though. Within a group, there is comfort, love, protection, identity, etc. Others, outside the group, are a threat to all that endorphin-releasing meeting of needs and/or desires. Of course there are physical (psycho-chemical) reinforcements to…

True, but the studies offer statistical numbers to solidify what would otherwise be generalizations. Science!

Re: Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group

#50

Post by forgingahead »

The problem with articles like this is that it is so easy to make claims like this without explaining the reason for the converse, ie, the status quo. Why do people belong to groups in the first place?

Without mentioning that, we very easily end up in a place where we have an article espousing a world view ("Belonging to a group is bad") that is very appealing to a demographic (Hacker News readers) who are very susceptible to those views since their natural state is to mimic the implicit outcome of the article. Specifically, HN readers are generally engineers and programmers, who are more likely to be introverts, and so less likely to easily fit in with groups, so this article validates their existing status (proven by the comments -- "I'm enlightened! I don't belong to a group!")

There are very good benefits to being part of a group, not limited to things like containing the excesses and rampant desires of the individual, so it's a shame articles like this don't try to present a balanced viewpoint.

Post reply on HN