Conquer Club

Is the concept of "us vs. them" a natural view that humans have?

Do we group with like minded people for a reason?

Is it easy for people to appreciate other points of view while maintaining their position in a group?

How many threads (all of them?) involve one group versus another group. Even the sports threads have this dichotomy.

Thoughts?

So long as I am right and you are wrong, it will always be this way!

What do you mean by natural? Do you mean, is it a result of our genetics? Or, do you mean, is it right?

Metsfanmax wrote:What do you mean by natural? Do you mean, is it a result of our genetics? Or, do you mean, is it right?

Hmm... I don't mean it's right (if that helps).

I don't know if it's genetics or not (maybe). Maybe it's human nature, which I would define as a combination of genetics and culture, but then, people identify with certain cultures.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:What do you mean by natural? Do you mean, is it a result of our genetics? Or, do you mean, is it right?

Hmm... I don't mean it's right (if that helps).

I don't know if it's genetics or not (maybe). Maybe it's human nature, which I would define as a combination of genetics and culture, but then, people identify with certain cultures.

Completely agree; I would call it a combination of genetics and global human culture (its hardwired into almost every culture with few exceptions).

I also think its a huge problem and arguably the single reason why we havent reached some kind of collective or free market utopia as yet (though arguably it'd be an interesting thought experiment to try and workout if the free market notion would still be feasible in a world lacking the "us and them" mentality).

Here's another interesting question to ponder: why are some humans so dismissive of members of other species (another "us vs. them" isue)? Some religious teach that animals exist to serve humans, while others teach deep reverence for all life. Are these religions speaking to some fundamental human trait, or are we really malleable as to how much respect we have for non-human-animal life?

Ok. Now is the time to post this.

This is an article that everybody on the planet should read:

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Favoritism/135610/

It answers the question in a fairly roundabout, but comprehensive way.

DoomYoshi wrote:Ok. Now is the time to post this.

This is an article that everybody on the planet should read:

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Favoritism/135610/

It answers the question in a fairly roundabout, but comprehensive way.

I don't think the author has read "the virtue of selfishness", but a great read so far

The ending gets squishy, if I recall correctly.

DoomYoshi wrote:Ok. Now is the time to post this.

This is an article that everybody on the planet should read:

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Favoritism/135610/

It answers the question in a fairly roundabout, but comprehensive way.

Why do you think everyone should read it? I got about halfway thru before I gave up. Mostly because I already understand the whole fairness/favoritism thing and that the lengthy dialog on the fact that positive ingroup feelings do not imply negative outgroup (funny example: supporting obama because he is black does not imply racism) is again a fairly logical conclusion and not really all that revolutionary.

Was there any further insight?

I'd think it's a product of the human ego, right?

Then it turns into a "is the human ego natural" debate.

Army of GOD wrote:I'd think it's a product of the human ego, right?

Then it turns into a "is the human ego" natural debate.

Id say it has more to do with our inbuilt loyalty rather than ego. But both are def factors.

Lootifer wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Ok. Now is the time to post this.

This is an article that everybody on the planet should read:

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Favoritism/135610/

It answers the question in a fairly roundabout, but comprehensive way.

Why do you think everyone should read it? I got about halfway thru before I gave up. Mostly because I already understand the whole fairness/favoritism thing and that the lengthy dialog on the fact that positive ingroup feelings do not imply negative outgroup (funny example: supporting obama because he is black does not imply racism) is again a fairly logical conclusion and not really all that revolutionary.

Was there any further insight?

If you already understand it, that's fine.

For my entire life, the one thing I have never changed my mind on is that nationalism is evil. I still think it is, but no longer do I think that nationalism is evil because it means you want other nations to fail.

The Us vs. Them could easily align with some sort of genetic initiated survival instinct. People do seem to have a predisposition of attraction towards like minded, similar physical traits and social strata in others.

Yoshi's thought on nationalism makes sense to me... particularly when people blindly follow as if there is some unbreakable alliance regardless of what their government represents. I don't see it as the same thing as national pride, where a culture celebrates it's identity. This mental attachment also occurs with sports franchises, political parties and a wide variety of human activities.

oVo wrote:The Us vs. Them could easily align with some sort of genetic initiated survival instinct. People do seem to have a predisposition of attraction towards like minded, similar physical traits and social strata in others.

Yoshi's thought on nationalism makes sense to me... particularly when people blindly follow as if there is some unbreakable alliance regardless of what their government represents. I don't see it as the same thing as national pride, where a culture celebrates it's identity. This mental attachment also occurs with sports franchises, political parties and a wide variety of human activities.

Yeah, that's about what I think.

For example, nationalism, as a concept, is bothersome and/or dangerous. However, I completely understand certain kinds of nationalism. I understand that Americans want to take care of Americans or think of themselves as exceptional. It makes sense to me.

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:The Us vs. Them could easily align with some sort of genetic initiated survival instinct. People do seem to have a predisposition of attraction towards like minded, similar physical traits and social strata in others.

Yoshi's thought on nationalism makes sense to me... particularly when people blindly follow as if there is some unbreakable alliance regardless of what their government represents. I don't see it as the same thing as national pride, where a culture celebrates it's identity. This mental attachment also occurs with sports franchises, political parties and a wide variety of human activities.

Yeah, that's about what I think.

For example, nationalism, as a concept, is bothersome and/or dangerous. However, I completely understand certain kinds of nationalism. I understand that Americans want to take care of Americans or think of themselves as exceptional. It makes sense to me.

Haha, maybe I overlooked the value in the link after all!

I agree with and I think the link eludes to is Nationalism or other "prejustice" is good when its positively celebrating the ingroup; its bad when its negatively celebrating the outgroup.

I would be very interested in some of our conservative posters thoughts on this; looking at you Nightstrike/Nobunga.

Lootifer wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:The Us vs. Them could easily align with some sort of genetic initiated survival instinct. People do seem to have a predisposition of attraction towards like minded, similar physical traits and social strata in others.

Yoshi's thought on nationalism makes sense to me... particularly when people blindly follow as if there is some unbreakable alliance regardless of what their government represents. I don't see it as the same thing as national pride, where a culture celebrates it's identity. This mental attachment also occurs with sports franchises, political parties and a wide variety of human activities.

Yeah, that's about what I think.

For example, nationalism, as a concept, is bothersome and/or dangerous. However, I completely understand certain kinds of nationalism. I understand that Americans want to take care of Americans or think of themselves as exceptional. It makes sense to me.

Haha, maybe I overlooked the value in the link after all!

I agree with and I think the link eludes to is Nationalism or other "prejustice" is good when its positively celebrating the ingroup; its bad when its negatively celebrating the outgroup.

I would be very interested in some of our conservative posters thoughts on this; looking at you Nightstrike/Nobunga.

We got Scotty, what more could you want?

I see the "Us vs. Them" worldview as natural insofar as it is what we evolved to have. Back when humans lived in tribes as hunter gatherers, it payed to have an "us vs. them" mentality, and it quite literally was "us vs. them."

That we haven't evolved out of it yet is a different problem.

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:The Us vs. Them could easily align with some sort of genetic initiated survival instinct. People do seem to have a predisposition of attraction towards like minded, similar physical traits and social strata in others.

Yoshi's thought on nationalism makes sense to me... particularly when people blindly follow as if there is some unbreakable alliance regardless of what their government represents. I don't see it as the same thing as national pride, where a culture celebrates it's identity. This mental attachment also occurs with sports franchises, political parties and a wide variety of human activities.

Yeah, that's about what I think.

For example, nationalism, as a concept, is bothersome and/or dangerous. However, I completely understand certain kinds of nationalism. I understand that Americans want to take care of Americans or think of themselves as exceptional. It makes sense to me.

Even if that is totally true, and one rises above nationalism or whatever, what is the response to another people who get all up and nationalistic against ya?

I think that once you are aware of the Us vs. Them phenomenon you are morally obligated not to fall prey to it.
I myself am simply Anti-Ignorance and quite speedily drop arms once the veil is lifted, be it mine own or the others.

thegreekdog wrote:Is the concept of "us vs. them" a natural view that humans have?

Yes, but part of being a thinking, civlized human being is to understand that limit of such natural groupings and judgements.
(growing up in the south might explain extreme racial prejudice, but does not justify it... many, many people down there have been able to reach beyond their initial upbringing and false perceptions)

thegreekdog wrote:Do we group with like minded people for a reason?

Yes, the mind is attracted to the similar. It is part of how we function, why we differ from computers. We inherently group and associate EVERYTHING.

When it comes to people, we begin early to recognize first our own family, then people of like race(s), people in our communities and those we see on TV or books. These are not random ideas to us, as they might be to a computer program. We are able to distinguish readily between someone's clothing and hair, their race and hairstyle (within limits).

We also learn that clothing gives us information about people early on -- uniforms describe a person's job, but also how "clean and neat" might give us particular associations, styles might tell us more.. etc.

thegreekdog wrote:Is it easy for people to appreciate other points of view while maintaining their position in a group?

Not sure I understand what you mean here.

People are fully and utterly capable of understanding their own limits and biases. Further, even when knowing a bias exists is difficult, we are able to find objective means to get beyond those bias' with effort. The key is recognizing that they exist.

However, the truth is that some bias are effective and necessary. I will trust my family and close friends more than a stranger, in general and while that is a bias of sorts, it is a protective one. Similarly, if I see a stranger in a "dark alley" I will be inherently more wary of them... and I will be more wary of individuals in any situation wearing certain gang-related paraphenalia.

thegreekdog wrote:How many threads (all of them?) involve one group versus another group. Even the sports threads have this dichotomy.

Any thread with any debate at all will, in a sense.. though those engaging objective reasoning more effectively do so less.

thegreekdog wrote:Thoughts?

Good an interesting question, with potential.

Its not us against them. Its me against you.

I've reported Phatscotty's repeated copyright violations to the appropriate authorities. Have no fear, fellow denizens, he will soon be brought to justice.

Seriously though, stop posting Batman youtubes. It's weird.