#out group

[cimness]

While algorithms will often feed people some of what they already want to hear, research shows that we probably encounter a wider variety of opinions online than we do offline, or than we did before the advent of digital tools. Rather, the problem is that when we encounter opposing views in the age and context of social media, it’s not like reading them in a newspaper while sitting alone. It’s like hearing them from the opposing team while sitting with our fellow fans in a football stadium. Online, we’re connected with our communities, and we seek approval from our like-minded peers. We bond with our team by yelling at the fans of the other one. In sociology terms, we strengthen our feeling of “in-group” belonging by increasing our distance from and tension with the “out-group”—us versus them. Our cognitive universe isn’t an echo chamber, but our social one is. This is why the various projects for fact-checking claims in the news, while valuable, don’t convince people. Belonging is stronger than facts.

How social media took us from Tahrir Square to Donald Trump, by Zeynep Tufekci | August 14, 2018

A classic article that’s coming around again because the media and politicians haven’t learned anything, and because the pattern of Zeynep Tufekci writing prescient and obviously correct thinkpieces that gain a lot of traction and being called alarmist by mainstream liberals who later come and admit they were wrong has now been repeated with Covid

[iforgothappiness]

Hate

No matter how hard the human race tries to conform people, no matter how close people get to being physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually the same, people will always find a way of hating each other. Hatred may be learned, but it is so deeply engrained within our societies that no matter what we do, we will always find someone or something to hate. I can't see an escape from it.

[explode-this]

The Group Behavior Gal's short video with ♬ original sound

I don’t care much for TikTok but I follow Daniella Mestanek Young because she’s a badass among badasses, and if you’re interested in cults, cult-adjacent groups, and the psychology of in groups, you will love how she approaches the subjects. She talks a lot about how holding up what we know as cult or cultish behavior against any group that has culty potential is for the betterment of all, because it helps us understand. It’s not to dismiss or belittle such groups, though when a group is incredibly defensive about such accusations, it tends to point towards dangerous modes of groupthink. A person should make up their own mind for themselves if the group/club/church/whatever they’re joining uses controlling and coercive tactics, which means being open to other points of view that might not be so flattering to the group in question.

Ultimately, it’s up to you—but if the club/group/church you’ve joined has specific lingo to describe the out group (everyone else not in the group) and then even more language manipulation in the in group, be careful. When ordinary vocabulary is described as having different meaning within the group than what we all generally agree on as a society, that’s deliberately meant to obfuscate and cause confusion between in group and out group, cutting off the in group members from outside help should they need it.

[convivialdave]

You're sitting in a classroom with 99 other people. An image is shown on a screen of a sky that is clearly green in your perception (the color is also objectively determined to be green).

The instructor then asks each person in turn what color the sky is in the image. Every single person says "blue". What are the chances YOU still say it is green? Not very good, says social psychology...in experiments conducted, up to 33% of the time, the individual is likely to deny their own judgment and adopt the opinion of the group (See Asch Paradigm)

The influence of group opinion is dramatic; our most basic perceptions and judgments about the world are socially conditioned and dictated.

[cornbreadcrumbs]

[Content warning: Politics, religion, social justice, spoilers for “The Secret of Father Brown”. This isn’t especially original to me and I don’t claim anything more than to…

“And so how virtuous, how noble the Blue Tribe! Perfectly tolerant of all of the different groups that just so happen to be allied with them, never intolerant unless it happen to be against intolerance itself. Never stooping to engage in petty tribal conflict like that awful Red Tribe, but always nobly criticizing their own culture and striving to make it better!Sorry. But I hope this is at least a little convincing. The weird dynamic of outgroup-philia and ingroup-phobia isn’t anything of the sort. It’s just good old-fashioned in-group-favoritism and outgroup bashing, a little more sophisticated and a little more sneaky.”

This is an amazing read and very thought provoking. Definitely worth your time.

[buzzorhowl]

Visit Original Link

Radio Time to Go by Out Group

An example of a perfect hc song

[evokit-notes]

The tendency to draw bright boundaries between us and them

Simply acting as a member of a group changes how people behave. In other words people's thoughts, feelings and behaviour towards other changes when the social context shift from "me and you" to "us and them".

So where does this tendency come from? In the grand scheme if we look back at our evolutionary histories, our ancestors reaped numerous material and psychological benefits from being able to cooperate and identify with fellow group members. These benefits included protection, pooled resources and a satisfaction of the psychological need to belong. Those who were better at identifying and co-operating with fellow group members reaped more benefits. But the flipt side of this tendency to draw boundaries between us and them is that group life also has significant cost. Group living producers pressure to conform within groups, sometimes making us do and say things we don't otherwise want to do and say. It's also the source of intractable conflict between groups

Groups continue to change how people behave it because they change people's expectations of what's appropriate. ... It's almost like people have a different template--a more aggressive template--for group-on-group as compared to one-on-one interactions.

People expect group-on-group interactions that have yet to take place to be more aggressive than one-on-one interactions.

So does this template actually impact our behavior? Absolutely. People behave more aggressively in groups as compared to alone.

What is it about groups that allow this to happen? I mean, why do groups change how we behave? At least three factors contribute to increased aggression between groups: (this is not an exhaustive list)

First groups allow us to reframe immoral behavior as being critical for achieving our own group's goals. Said another way, sometimes we tell ourselves that being a good group member means being a jerk the other group. 

But second groups also allow for the diffusion diffusion or displacement of responsibility for harmful behavior. When we act as part of a group we feel less personally responsible for bad outcomes.

Finally groups may cause us to lose touch with our moral compasses. We may get swept up in the excitement of acting as part of a group which then makes it harder to pay attention to whether or not we're adhearing to our personal moral standards.