How do we overcome tribalism?

[Sand Dancer]

Hm.... good point.

In theory, I agree.

In practice, I wonder if it is doable... "our" group will always appear somehow better, closer to us, infused with our own ego-extension, if that makes sense. So we will tend to prefer "our own", and see them as "better".

So I think we need an underlying sense of "oneness" or at least "togetherness" - a global group of humans that matters more than the smaller national/race-based/gender/etc groups we're focused on. Solidarity, in the basic, good ole socialist sense.


True - that is an interesting piece. I see it in antisemitism, which often seems to afflict people the most when they have never met with actual Jews. It would also explain why the "trans issue" is such a hot topic - for most people, this is way outside their lives.

However... it doesn't apply misogyny, sexism, feminism, and racism. We all deal with each other. As you say, it's "another factor" - not the entire explanation.

Whatever... doing stuff with people from the "other" group goes a long way, I think. So then the next question is, how do we implement that? Is it just "be the change you want to see", so go out and meet people?


Totally. And I take this opportunity to offcially accept the challenge! I really got to go out a bit more, got a bit lazy with age...

But how do we help this grow? How do we help others see it?


Yes, okay, but... HOW?

Reduce ego by recognizing when you are operating on it. Be humble and selfless. Reduce black and white thinking by not labeling things with --- vs ---. See the gray areas.

 

[JustGeorge]

I've thought a lot about this since reading the OP... Reading the answers so far, only more questions are raised.

While any kind of 'group think' that encourages violence or mistreatment of others is certainly a negative, some tribalism seems positive. We all like to have 'my people'; those you feel a kinship with. It seems to be a human need for most of us.

Perhaps the best idea(to me) is to try to get tribes to interact respectfully. I had the privilege of going to a high school in which there was little to no bullying, and I feel this had a profound impact in how I developed. You had all your normal 'tribes' that were typical in a high school setting in the 2000s, but no one fought each other. The cliques all got along. Everyone was there for the same reason(to graduate), so there was no need to sully our time with petty nonsense. We all wanted to feel safe, so bullying wasn't tolerated(and tended to be taken care of by other students before it ever got to a teacher). Sure, there were personal dislikes and disagreements, but it was never group based.

How do we get to that point? Maybe by making a similar realization that when we intentionally attack another 'tribe' for no reason other than they're 'not mine', we waste our own time and resources. We have to see the other 'tribes' as being as human as ours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For me, one of the biggest challenges today is how everybody lives in their own little prison cell, echo chamber, whatever... incels vs feminists, men vs women, white vs non-white, etc.

I loathe this kind of groupthink.

But of course, I understand that there are actual grievances, actual double-standards and power imbalances, which need to be addressed.

Then again, on the other hand, I don't believe that these will ever go away completely, and what's more, I don't believe that this tribalistic mindset, in which my group is always the victim and society, "the system", "everybody else" has it in for us, is very helpful.

If the issue is based on putting one's own group above all others, then I don't see another, diametrically opposed group-based approach overcoming the problem.

IOW, I think that group identities are a necessary evil, a construct that we pragmatically need for political achievement, but that can also be a huge mental trap and ultimately don't achieve their goal.

How can we get past this? (Or am I simply wrong in my assessment?)

(The simple answer that comes to mind, is, of course, empathy and compassion, plus rationality. Sure, but that seems a bit shallow and too abstract, and it begs the question of how we can further those in today's world.)

The first idea I had was that we should just redirect tribalism: create a fictional character - or group of characters - and make them the out group and all of humanity the in-group.

... but then I realized that I had just come up with the idea of the Devil and demons.

IOW, I tried to reinvent religion.

 

[Heyo]

I've thought a lot about this since reading the OP... Reading the answers so far, only more questions are raised.

While any kind of 'group think' that encourages violence or mistreatment of others is certainly a negative, some tribalism seems positive. We all like to have 'my people'; those you feel a kinship with. It seems to be a human need for most of us.

Perhaps the best idea(to me) is to try to get tribes to interact respectfully. I had the privilege of going to a high school in which there was little to no bullying, and I feel this had a profound impact in how I developed. You had all your normal 'tribes' that were typical in a high school setting in the 2000s, but no one fought each other. The cliques all got along. Everyone was there for the same reason(to graduate), so there was no need to sully our time with petty nonsense. We all wanted to feel safe, so bullying wasn't tolerated(and tended to be taken care of by other students before it ever got to a teacher). Sure, there were personal dislikes and disagreements, but it was never group based.

How do we get to that point? Maybe by making a similar realization that when we intentionally attack another 'tribe' for no reason other than they're 'not mine', we waste our own time and resources. We have to see the other 'tribes' as being as human as ours.

​

This quote describes the difference between "good" and "bad" tribalism best:

Charles de Gaulle: 'Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.'​

 

[Daemon Sophic]

a I had was that we should just redirect tribalism: create a fictional character - or group of characters - and make them the out group and all of humanity the in-group.

... but then I realized that I had just come up with the idea of

... or an invasion by crazy, betentacled aliens, (who are mercifully incompetent and clueless for star-faring entities. )

 

[Brickjectivity]

For me, one of the biggest challenges today is how everybody lives in their own little prison cell, echo chamber, whatever... incels vs feminists, men vs women, white vs non-white, etc.

I loathe this kind of groupthink.

But of course, I understand that there are actual grievances, actual double-standards and power imbalances, which need to be addressed.

Then again, on the other hand, I don't believe that these will ever go away completely, and what's more, I don't believe that this tribalistic mindset, in which my group is always the victim and society, "the system", "everybody else" has it in for us, is very helpful.

If the issue is based on putting one's own group above all others, then I don't see another, diametrically opposed group-based approach overcoming the problem.

IOW, I think that group identities are a necessary evil, a construct that we pragmatically need for political achievement, but that can also be a huge mental trap and ultimately don't achieve their goal.

How can we get past this? (Or am I simply wrong in my assessment?)

(The simple answer that comes to mind, is, of course, empathy and compassion, plus rationality. Sure, but that seems a bit shallow and too abstract, and it begs the question of how we can further those in today's world.)

I think this video about metal grains is a relevant analogy to human tribes.

 https://youtu.be/uG35D_euM-0

It uses 3000 steel balls between two sheets of glass to show natural boundaries forming between perfectly round spheres. In metal grains a similar thing happens in 3 dimensions. There is also another dimension called gaps, and in the video you can see how gaps travel through the metal like little taxis headed towards the boundaries.

I see this as very similar to the human tribes. When a gap opens at a boundary that boundary grows, and like the grains a tribe increases its total size, but a group only has so many defects - gaps - capacity for growth. The more uniform it is the smaller the group.

 

[Augustus]

he simple answer that comes to mind, is, of course, empathy and compassion, plus rationality. Sure, but that seems a bit shallow and too abstract, and it begs the question of how we can further those in today's world.)

Empathy and compassion for one group often leads to contempt for another group (see Israel v Palestine in social media for example)

Highly empathetic individuals can be especially cruel to perceived oppressors of the target of their compassion.

Rationality is value neutral tool, it doesn’t lead anywhere on its own. It is just applied to achieve whatever goal is desirable to you.

It can be perfectly rational to lie, distort and engage in tribal partisanship to support those you are empathetic towards.

I think that group identities are a necessary evil, a construct that we pragmatically need for political achievement, but that can also be a huge mental trap and ultimately don't achieve their goal.

How can we get past this?

We can’t as it is hard wired into us.

It also drives prosocial behaviours too so I’m not sure it is a good thing to get rid of it.

Things like supporting a strong welfare state depend on social trust and in-group affinity.

The main problems appear when an out group is perceived as a threat to our values and way of life ( modern US politics is an example of how you maximise out group threat between what are actually reasonably similar groups).

The key is to accept the limits of the human animal and aim to build societies that accept our failings are intractable. The key is to mitigate the harms that occur, not to aim for the pipe dream of one big happy family. Following the wrong goals just makes the situation worse.

It’s not about ending tribalism and making people love one another, but creating structures that mitigate the fear that other groups will threaten our way of life (as much as possible anyway).

 

[vijeno]

Getting past tribalism isnt even a goal.
Cant be done.

We can’t as it is hard wired into us.

Well... yeah, I get both your points.

Let's rephrase it: How do we mitigate the extreme tribalism that is currently plaguing politics and the internet?

creating structures that mitigate the fear that other groups will threaten our way of life (as much as possible anyway).

Yeah sure, but with the current political climate, as you mentioned yourself, there is are extreme tribalistic tendencies that don't really threaten anyone's lives. It seems to be an awful lot about symbolic gestures, linguistic subtleties, etc. (I am painfully trying to avoid concrete examples here, because they would likely just lead to a debate about that specific issue, and I'm not after that.)

Empathy and compassion for one group often leads to contempt for another group (see Israel v Palestine in social media for example)

Highly empathetic individuals can be especially cruel to perceived oppressors of the target of their compassion.

Rationality is value neutral tool, it doesn’t lead anywhere on its own. It is just applied to achieve whatever goal is desirable to you.

It can be perfectly rational to lie, distort and engage in tribal partisanship to support those you are empathetic towards.

Oh yes, right. Hence, I think it's compassion PLUS rationality. In order to be able to have compassion with people of another group, it helps to realize that we are fundamentally the same, with only minimal differences. That is an act of reason. You could hypothetically empathize with a plant from another planet, but it's probably a lot more difficult. And the other way around, you need compassion to guide your reason, otherwise you are basically a sociopath (or psychopath? I keep confusing the two).

 

[Augustus]

Yeah sure, but with the current political climate, as you mentioned yourself, there is are extreme tribalistic tendencies that don't really threaten anyone's lives. It seems to be an awful lot about symbolic gestures, linguistic subtleties, etc. (I am painfully trying to avoid concrete examples here, because they would likely just lead to a debate about that specific issue, and I'm not after that.)

People certainly think they threaten their way of life.

The current system is based on abstraction which is a product of scale.

The more detached from direct experience things are, the more they rely on abstraction. Combined with all pervasive media, and hyper awareness of other people’s lives and views you can construct whatever narrative you like.

When your views don’t get checked by reality as often, you end up living in different realities from other groups.

The smaller the unit, the more difficult it becomes to rely on abstraction and the more people have their views checked by reality.

For me, the least bad solution is that most power should to be devolved to smaller unites (municipal level ideally), and elected representatives should be supplemented with people chosen randomly by sortition to weaken the hold of partisan politics.

Cause the current political Oh yes, right. Hence, I think it's compassion PLUS rationality. In order to be able to have compassion with people of another group, it helps to realize that we are fundamentally the same, with only minimal differences. That is an act of reason.

It’s also an act of reason to capitalise on anything you can do to enhance the group you are compassionate towards against their perceived oppressors

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's rephrase it: How do we mitigate the extreme tribalism that is currently plaguing politics and the internet?

My theory about modern extremism and tribalism in politics is that a lot of it comes down to 2 factors:

• Voting rates are pretty low, and there are more people who are aligned with a party than regularly vote.
• Campaigns are very expensive now, so parties are dependent on - and therefore beholden to - donors, who tend to be "dyed-in-the-wool" party supporters, especially the larger donors.

Because of this - and because with modern polling and market research, parties now have very good data about their target audiences - parties across the spectrum have found that the most effective way to gain votes isn't to reach across the aisle and steal voters from their opponents; the most effective way to gain votes is to encourage the non-voters who are already ideologically aligned with your party to go out and vote.

Ideological "purity" also helps to ensure that a party's biggest donors keep donating, since without that money, the campaign stops and you lose.

The two things I think will help here:

• Increase voter turnout to the point where none of the major parties have that base of non-voting "supporters" to draw from. I know this is easier to say than to do.
• Institute campaign finance limits. If any individual donor can only donate, say, a few thousand bucks to one political party, it's way easier for a party to ignore some billionaire's demands if he's giving them $3,000 a year than if he's giving $1,000,000.

 

[Audie]

My theory about modern extremism and tribalism in politics is that a lot of it comes down to 2 factors:

• Voting rates are pretty low, and there are more people who are aligned with a party than regularly vote.
• Campaigns are very expensive now, so parties are dependent on - and therefore beholden to - donors, who tend to be "dyed-in-the-wool" party supporters, especially the larger donors.

Because of this - and because with modern polling and market research, parties now have very good data about their target audiences - parties across the spectrum have found that the most effective way to gain votes isn't to reach across the aisle and steal voters from their opponents; the most effective way to gain votes is to encourage the non-voters who are already ideologically aligned with your party to go out and vote.

Ideological "purity" also helps to ensure that a party's biggest donors keep donating, since without that money, the campaign stops and you lose.

The two things I think will help here:

• Increase voter turnout to the point where none of the major parties have that base of non-voting "supporters" to draw from. I know this is easier to say than to do.
• Institute campaign finance limits. If any individual donor can only donate, say, a few thousand bucks to one political party, it's way easier for a party to ignore some billionaire's demands if he's giving them $3,000 a year than if he's giving $1,000,000.

The american media compete for their
own ranking in making it the national sport.

The pols are only too happy to use your
constitution, natkonal capital, the media
and your money as their gamjng field.

If more Americans lived abrosd for a bit amd
looked back at their country, maybe theyd note the obvious

 

[Heyo]

Campaigns are very expensive now, so parties are dependent on - and therefore beholden to - donors, who tend to be "dyed-in-the-wool" party supporters, especially the larger donors.

Nope. Especially the larger donors aren't beholden to any party and most probably have donated the same money to the other party. They don't care which party wins as long as the winner is indebted to them. Financing both sides guarantees that.

 

[Valjean]

Eugenics?
Brain surgery?

It's pretty much hard-wired.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For me, one of the biggest challenges today is how everybody lives in their own little prison cell, echo chamber, whatever... incels vs feminists, men vs women, white vs non-white, etc.

I loathe this kind of groupthink.

But of course, I understand that there are actual grievances, actual double-standards and power imbalances, which need to be addressed.

Then again, on the other hand, I don't believe that these will ever go away completely, and what's more, I don't believe that this tribalistic mindset, in which my group is always the victim and society, "the system", "everybody else" has it in for us, is very helpful.

If the issue is based on putting one's own group above all others, then I don't see another, diametrically opposed group-based approach overcoming the problem.

IOW, I think that group identities are a necessary evil, a construct that we pragmatically need for political achievement, but that can also be a huge mental trap and ultimately don't achieve their goal.

How can we get past this? (Or am I simply wrong in my assessment?)

(The simple answer that comes to mind, is, of course, empathy and compassion, plus rationality. Sure, but that seems a bit shallow and too abstract, and it begs the question of how we can further those in today's world.)

You can't. If one could, it would have been done by now. Nature dictates a different path that we have to accept and adapt to.

One could say we are not the ones in charge of forces that cannot be changed , although we can probably achieve pockets of that kind of goal , but as with everything , it has a shelf life and only lasts so long before the cycle repeats itself between peace and chaos.

 

[davidjwillson]

Overcoming tribalism is indeed a complex challenge. I believe fostering empathy and open-mindedness is crucial. Encouraging diverse interactions, whether through education or community initiatives, helps break down stereotypes. Additionally, media plays a powerful role – promoting narratives that highlight our common humanity can reshape perceptions. It's not about erasing differences but embracing them positively. Dialogue platforms, both online and offline, can facilitate understanding. Ultimately, it starts with individuals actively choosing to challenge their biases and engage in respectful conversations.

 

[vijeno]

Overcoming tribalism is indeed a complex challenge. I believe fostering empathy and open-mindedness is crucial. Encouraging diverse interactions, whether through education or community initiatives, helps break down stereotypes. Additionally, media plays a powerful role – promoting narratives that highlight our common humanity can reshape perceptions. It's not about erasing differences but embracing them positively. Dialogue platforms, both online and offline, can facilitate understanding. Ultimately, it starts with individuals actively choosing to challenge their biases and engage in respectful conversations.

I agree with all of this. I usually phrase it as "compassion and rationality", which amounts to the same thing.

Sadly, my impression is that the current media landscape and political climate do precisely the opposite...

But I'm not here to complain.

So, the question is: What can I do to that end? A lot of what comes to mind is "negative" or just a form of "personal development" - stop engaging in social media, only engage on small forums such as this one, regulate my video consumption etc. Which is all good, but it feels like "doing nothing". Active contribution feels a lot better. So what can I positively do to foster that kind of empathic and open-minded exchange, since I'm not in a job where I can do that directly (such as a teacher etc.)?

 

[Pete in Panama]

... What can I do to that end? A lot of what comes to mind is "negative" or just a form of "personal development" - stop engaging in social media, only engage on small forums such as this one, regulate my video consumption etc. Which is all good, but it feels like "doing nothing". Active contribution feels a lot better. So what can I positively do to foster that kind of empathic and open-minded exchange, since I'm not in a job where I can do that directly (such as a teacher etc.)?

My take is that this is a good start.

Facts: tribalism is a survival instinct going back a million years of human evolution but because humanity is different now we must assume responsibility and ownership of our decisions. What I see is that you and I can begin right here and now by agreeing that many issues. are hot-button (inflammatory). We must be able to disengage from the food-fight, step back, and re-approach rationally.

We can we consult on a topic of your choosing, be it race, climate change, politics, gender, whatever. You and I can examine the issue and our consultation can proceed in the direction of truth if we both cling to a disinterested attitude. We can own our cognitive tribalism.

 

[osgart]

They can be good or they can be bad. It depends on the principles a tribe uses to unite. I think it's natural for people to relate in smaller circles.

A tribe can be whatever the tribe decides to be.

As for the treatment of total strangers outside your tribe that's where the real problem is. To defeat us against them that is toxic the people must unite over universal principles of good virtues. Universality is something I practice, but like the song goes, ' I can't pretend a stranger is a long awaited friend ' .

 

[Valjean]

Tribalism is hard wired. The only permanent solution is to alter the wiring.
"How do we overcome tribalism?" translates to "How do we rewire our brains?"

 

[Pete in Panama]

Tribalism is hard wired. The only permanent solution is to alter the wiring.
"How do we overcome tribalism?" translates to "How do we rewire our brains?"

That's just it, there are plenty of reactions & habitual behaviors that are hard wired (the urge to kill ur boss, to rape your sister in law, etc.) but we overcome them all by choice. Now if you don't accept the existence of free will and insist that everyone's just a programmed robot then we're done. otoh if you accept our having choices then we can agree that it's our decision which tribe we're a member of.