One thing I measure people (particularly politicians) by is if their tribalism causes intellectual dishonesty. It is absolutely rampant in our politics and is common in politics in general.
The moments in my past that I feel the most shame and regret for are the times I joined in the verbal ridiculing, fun-making of someone because it took the focus off of me. I threw that person to the wolves to save myself. To me, that made me worse than the others bullying that person, because I knew first-hand what was happening and exactly what that felt like. I not only do my best to not do that to anyone but to actually stand up for them and treat them fairly, and with some extra kindness. I don’t always succeed, but I acknowledge when I feel I’ve dropped the ball. Practicing tough love on yourself - owning your screwups and insuring you don’t repeat - is a skill my kind should nurture. I respect you for being the person who would refuse to fall into this trap or - by virtue of your nature - would not consider joining is what is clearly bullying behavior towards anyone. This isn’t to say you’re anyone’s version of a saint. I don’t think you’d be above bullying to serve your purpose - for gain, or even simple amusement, But at least you’d be doing it for yourself, and not just to gain or retain acceptance and fit into the tribal collective. Thanks for addressing this topic.
"If you can be swayed away from your values and principles for an emotional reason, anyone can manufacture one and manipulate you with it." Golden insights, as always, Athena. Thanks for more vital introspection material.
It is election year in my country and it is becoming tiring. My friends want to vote for party X and I want to vote for party Y and because of that they jokingly said I could "get out of their house". I don't mind avoiding them until the elections go away though, but that's very closed minded.
I find it weird the way they judge the presidency candidates because one of the parties is pro LGBTQ+ and the other is against it and that is solely the factor they are considering to vote. For me, I believe it has to be the whole package - economical, diplomatic relations, plans for the future, etc. So it's natural you will agree with some things and disagree with others and you pick the party that suits you the best.
A society of neurotypicals still has a looong way to go to learn how to think beyond the tribalisc impulses.
Thanks Athena. Your posts help me become stronger. I think this Tribalism thing is a bit stupid as well but that is really only because of my own negative experiences with it.
Thanks for this. Tribalism is both central to human organization and also falls right into the blind spot of most people, so that they're not really metacognitive about what they're doing. (Or if they are, they pretend not to be?) And I'm always unsure how to deal with people whose tribalism is dialed up to 11, except maybe to start by agreeing with them on certain key points so they don't build a defensive wall.
I don't know if you're in the market for a somewhat lengthy, well written article on tribalism. But if you are, could I suggest The Ideology is Not the Movement?
In Cognitive behavior therapy, it's the cognitive error of generalization. It could also be seen as a variation of black and white thinking.
In philosophy, it's known as the part/whole hermeneutic. If part of a teaching or text is true, all of it must be true. It's the thinking behind the belief that the Bible is inerrant. Likewise with the false - if a person gets one fact wrong, everything they say and do is called into question.
I think that psychologically, it arises from misidentification. The words we use reflect the way we see ourselves. Like "I am sad." Sad isn't who we are - it's a fleeting (or not so fleeting) emotion. Similarly, we aren't what we do, but we say "I am a teacher," etc. So there's this conflation of our identity, our feelings, and our actions. And, of course, that gets projected onto other people.
As for the other behavior you discussed, getting angry on behalf of another person...I have no clue what that's about. My psychological understanding is limited to the behaviors I used to engage in. But my guess is that it's a boundary issue - that they don't know where they end and another begins.
Neurotypicals have a lot to change in how they interact and think in order for this to happen.
Neurotypicals often believe themselves to be living in the frontal cortex, in the intellectual part of the brain. They think of themselves as thinking creatures. In reality, the frontal cortex is entirely consumed with occupying and satisfying the limbic system. While they think, they believe that they are logical and reasonable, when in reality, their brains are actually firing on all cylinders with the sole purpose of satisfying the emotional.
To understand this, change this, then be able to consider the world around them through a lens that isn't tainted by what makes them feel a certain way, that is not easy. There are some that can do it, certainly, but there is more emotionally driven tribalism than there is logical and reasonable consideration currently. Or, at the very least, it is the emotionally driven tribalism that people give their attention to, because again, it's how it makes them feel.
All good advice, and yet, I dont think it is necessarily true that NTs are always running on emotions but we think we are being logical. There are multiple tracks running at once, with different degrees of prominence, constantly changing, that's just how it is in our multi track brains.
On a particular discussion group I read there was a linked news article with video from an attempted robbery of a smoke shop in Las Vegas in which the shop owner used a knife to great effect in thwarting the attempt. The discussion quickly turned to the political tribe of the would be robbers with several denouncing them as being "Democrats".
That's it
The discussion devolved immediately into "tribal warfare"
I see this frequently. It's exhausting. When someone is entrenched in what they believe because of how it feels to them, there is no headway with actual information that might consider things differently.
Someone once told a story about having to confront what they tribalistically believed and face that they were wrong. They said it was physically painful to do it. That the emotion was so strong that it hurt them body and soul. That to me is entirely bizarre. I would rather have the information so I can make the best decisions possible, and get on with my life.
Well said. People have a terrible habit of asking for advice and then doing the opposite and try to come back and complain. I'm lazy. I tell them stuff once. After that, I refuse to engage. Not my problem and they are aware I detest drama.
Same for dealing with issues. I can dislike someone, but I can still see good points in some of their thoughts or ideas and work with them. It has nothing to do with the overall person, as far I'm concerned. And im straightforward about it. People tend to make things personal and get upset when I don't join them. Sometimes it's comical, but I try to keep a straight face as they tend to get upset (grinning at the wrong time at work can make things awkward).
It reminds me of a post I once wrote on social media - it was a reference to a self-confessed ‘people-pleaser.’
This I discovered, meant they would agree with whomever they were currently with - which meant siding against, whoever the person they were currently with - was siding against.
It meant disloyalty. So my post read:
“If you betray your own ethics, for those of another, then who are you?”
I doubt this girl I’d known most my life, would have ever had the self-insight, or intelligence to read or absorb what I had written. And I’m sure she could never conceive of herself as being that way.
After all, she was an empathic, sponge-like ‘people-pleaser.’
So how could she possibly have ever been at fault?! 🤣
I know the type well. As well as those that change because they like feeling like everyone likes them, but then have no idea what to think or do if the hypocrisy was exposed.
I could theoretically see a way out of that conundrum by identifying as someone who provides soothing of solidarity. That was the stable thing. Feeling unequipped to argue against and get through or whatever one provides what one sees as actually having any unalienating effect.
Embraced opportunism can be a pretty stable stance too.
Personally I think one can be careful with words and sorta make right noises and validate feeling without outright jumping at siding train, but it might be too much of acrobatics for some, or slide into one (yes-man) or the other (confronting) thing.
But basically it can be actually a consistency in itself, sorta water being water no matter where it is poured. Guiding principle being accomodation. Betting on a strategy and seeing where it leads. I do not think that lacking loyalty is exclusive with empathy, it is just not the most virtuous thing under the sun. And empathy needn't neccesarily be reduced to being a yes-man. It is understanding (rather than action) and fuel for wanting the best for the person (now we get to action).
But I totally can see types who would pride themselves on it as some sort of extra level of sacrificiality, like it is a bonus rather than unfortunate fault in the structure. And that they just can't help it, but be that generous. And how could such passivity and goodwill have a negative consequence, right? Well, choice between taking a stance or not is still a choice. And spinelessness can cause things and therefore be to blame. Someone else might want to score pity points by telling how they just can't help but be steamrolled every time, they are delicate, you see, and delicate things need gentle handling. Or something.
As for uncovered hypocrisy, this is where compartmentalizement of groups in which a person moves might come into play. Intragroup would be more challenging to compartmentalize.
Interesting case, not sure if it would apply to this particular person, as I do not know details, but not really being able to come up with counterpoints and seeing the presented position making sense internally so just nodding along, only then when you meet the other side, they are as convincing as the first one and the first position crumbles, but then it just keeps repeating. But that is more the case in arguing positions on more complex issues instead of who did a wrong during a spat between two friends or omething.
To follow up on this idea - when people form groups, to get what they want, it is no longer about principles. In politics, some participants like to mask their activity as if it is principle oriented when the real motives are far different. Ideological statements make great dog whistles to get people who need a tribe to form a mob.
Thanks again for your posts. It's interesting for me because I am not particularly tribal. I learned that stuff young, and as I then had (largely outgrown during adulthood) aspie traits. Football teams? Interstate rivalvry and denigration? My parents were migrants, and so it wasn't on their radar, nor mine. I didn't get it. I think some people on the spectrum are our check and balance against this sort of nonsense and taking it seriously. Outcasts are useful. Sometimes they will be willing to commit social suicide, because they have little to lose. Now a point has been made, and a line not crossed. Vive le difference!
One thing I measure people (particularly politicians) by is if their tribalism causes intellectual dishonesty. It is absolutely rampant in our politics and is common in politics in general.
Yep. Intellectual dishonesty is a crime that puts someone outside the pool, totally.
The moments in my past that I feel the most shame and regret for are the times I joined in the verbal ridiculing, fun-making of someone because it took the focus off of me. I threw that person to the wolves to save myself. To me, that made me worse than the others bullying that person, because I knew first-hand what was happening and exactly what that felt like. I not only do my best to not do that to anyone but to actually stand up for them and treat them fairly, and with some extra kindness. I don’t always succeed, but I acknowledge when I feel I’ve dropped the ball. Practicing tough love on yourself - owning your screwups and insuring you don’t repeat - is a skill my kind should nurture. I respect you for being the person who would refuse to fall into this trap or - by virtue of your nature - would not consider joining is what is clearly bullying behavior towards anyone. This isn’t to say you’re anyone’s version of a saint. I don’t think you’d be above bullying to serve your purpose - for gain, or even simple amusement, But at least you’d be doing it for yourself, and not just to gain or retain acceptance and fit into the tribal collective. Thanks for addressing this topic.
Bullying holds no amusement for me. I have far better things to do that I want to do than to be bothered with something so boring and pointless.
Good on you for giving up that bullying rubbish. People can and do do better.
"If you can be swayed away from your values and principles for an emotional reason, anyone can manufacture one and manipulate you with it." Golden insights, as always, Athena. Thanks for more vital introspection material.
It is election year in my country and it is becoming tiring. My friends want to vote for party X and I want to vote for party Y and because of that they jokingly said I could "get out of their house". I don't mind avoiding them until the elections go away though, but that's very closed minded.
I find it weird the way they judge the presidency candidates because one of the parties is pro LGBTQ+ and the other is against it and that is solely the factor they are considering to vote. For me, I believe it has to be the whole package - economical, diplomatic relations, plans for the future, etc. So it's natural you will agree with some things and disagree with others and you pick the party that suits you the best.
A society of neurotypicals still has a looong way to go to learn how to think beyond the tribalisc impulses.
Yes, quite true
Thanks Athena. Your posts help me become stronger. I think this Tribalism thing is a bit stupid as well but that is really only because of my own negative experiences with it.
Thanks again.
That's awesome. Thank you for reading what I write.
Thanks for this. Tribalism is both central to human organization and also falls right into the blind spot of most people, so that they're not really metacognitive about what they're doing. (Or if they are, they pretend not to be?) And I'm always unsure how to deal with people whose tribalism is dialed up to 11, except maybe to start by agreeing with them on certain key points so they don't build a defensive wall.
I don't know if you're in the market for a somewhat lengthy, well written article on tribalism. But if you are, could I suggest The Ideology is Not the Movement?
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/04/the-ideology-is-not-the-movement/
I am interested. Thank you.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the piece.
In Cognitive behavior therapy, it's the cognitive error of generalization. It could also be seen as a variation of black and white thinking.
In philosophy, it's known as the part/whole hermeneutic. If part of a teaching or text is true, all of it must be true. It's the thinking behind the belief that the Bible is inerrant. Likewise with the false - if a person gets one fact wrong, everything they say and do is called into question.
I think that psychologically, it arises from misidentification. The words we use reflect the way we see ourselves. Like "I am sad." Sad isn't who we are - it's a fleeting (or not so fleeting) emotion. Similarly, we aren't what we do, but we say "I am a teacher," etc. So there's this conflation of our identity, our feelings, and our actions. And, of course, that gets projected onto other people.
As for the other behavior you discussed, getting angry on behalf of another person...I have no clue what that's about. My psychological understanding is limited to the behaviors I used to engage in. But my guess is that it's a boundary issue - that they don't know where they end and another begins.
Very powerfully written post on principles and why neurotypicals may be better at them! Made me think.
Neurotypicals have a lot to change in how they interact and think in order for this to happen.
Neurotypicals often believe themselves to be living in the frontal cortex, in the intellectual part of the brain. They think of themselves as thinking creatures. In reality, the frontal cortex is entirely consumed with occupying and satisfying the limbic system. While they think, they believe that they are logical and reasonable, when in reality, their brains are actually firing on all cylinders with the sole purpose of satisfying the emotional.
To understand this, change this, then be able to consider the world around them through a lens that isn't tainted by what makes them feel a certain way, that is not easy. There are some that can do it, certainly, but there is more emotionally driven tribalism than there is logical and reasonable consideration currently. Or, at the very least, it is the emotionally driven tribalism that people give their attention to, because again, it's how it makes them feel.
All good advice, and yet, I dont think it is necessarily true that NTs are always running on emotions but we think we are being logical. There are multiple tracks running at once, with different degrees of prominence, constantly changing, that's just how it is in our multi track brains.
you would think that NT's would be better at it but they can be woefully inadequate in practice
Examples?
On a particular discussion group I read there was a linked news article with video from an attempted robbery of a smoke shop in Las Vegas in which the shop owner used a knife to great effect in thwarting the attempt. The discussion quickly turned to the political tribe of the would be robbers with several denouncing them as being "Democrats".
That's it
The discussion devolved immediately into "tribal warfare"
I see this frequently. It's exhausting. When someone is entrenched in what they believe because of how it feels to them, there is no headway with actual information that might consider things differently.
Someone once told a story about having to confront what they tribalistically believed and face that they were wrong. They said it was physically painful to do it. That the emotion was so strong that it hurt them body and soul. That to me is entirely bizarre. I would rather have the information so I can make the best decisions possible, and get on with my life.
It can be not just physically painful, but MUCH worse, an existential crisis. This is not my experience, but that of people I have known.
Well written as always. Humans.
Well said. People have a terrible habit of asking for advice and then doing the opposite and try to come back and complain. I'm lazy. I tell them stuff once. After that, I refuse to engage. Not my problem and they are aware I detest drama.
Same for dealing with issues. I can dislike someone, but I can still see good points in some of their thoughts or ideas and work with them. It has nothing to do with the overall person, as far I'm concerned. And im straightforward about it. People tend to make things personal and get upset when I don't join them. Sometimes it's comical, but I try to keep a straight face as they tend to get upset (grinning at the wrong time at work can make things awkward).
I don't consider that laziness. I consider that a prudent boundary for discouraging repeat visits punctuated by whining.
Great post Athena!
It reminds me of a post I once wrote on social media - it was a reference to a self-confessed ‘people-pleaser.’
This I discovered, meant they would agree with whomever they were currently with - which meant siding against, whoever the person they were currently with - was siding against.
It meant disloyalty. So my post read:
“If you betray your own ethics, for those of another, then who are you?”
I doubt this girl I’d known most my life, would have ever had the self-insight, or intelligence to read or absorb what I had written. And I’m sure she could never conceive of herself as being that way.
After all, she was an empathic, sponge-like ‘people-pleaser.’
So how could she possibly have ever been at fault?! 🤣
I know the type well. As well as those that change because they like feeling like everyone likes them, but then have no idea what to think or do if the hypocrisy was exposed.
I could theoretically see a way out of that conundrum by identifying as someone who provides soothing of solidarity. That was the stable thing. Feeling unequipped to argue against and get through or whatever one provides what one sees as actually having any unalienating effect.
Embraced opportunism can be a pretty stable stance too.
Personally I think one can be careful with words and sorta make right noises and validate feeling without outright jumping at siding train, but it might be too much of acrobatics for some, or slide into one (yes-man) or the other (confronting) thing.
But basically it can be actually a consistency in itself, sorta water being water no matter where it is poured. Guiding principle being accomodation. Betting on a strategy and seeing where it leads. I do not think that lacking loyalty is exclusive with empathy, it is just not the most virtuous thing under the sun. And empathy needn't neccesarily be reduced to being a yes-man. It is understanding (rather than action) and fuel for wanting the best for the person (now we get to action).
But I totally can see types who would pride themselves on it as some sort of extra level of sacrificiality, like it is a bonus rather than unfortunate fault in the structure. And that they just can't help it, but be that generous. And how could such passivity and goodwill have a negative consequence, right? Well, choice between taking a stance or not is still a choice. And spinelessness can cause things and therefore be to blame. Someone else might want to score pity points by telling how they just can't help but be steamrolled every time, they are delicate, you see, and delicate things need gentle handling. Or something.
As for uncovered hypocrisy, this is where compartmentalizement of groups in which a person moves might come into play. Intragroup would be more challenging to compartmentalize.
Interesting case, not sure if it would apply to this particular person, as I do not know details, but not really being able to come up with counterpoints and seeing the presented position making sense internally so just nodding along, only then when you meet the other side, they are as convincing as the first one and the first position crumbles, but then it just keeps repeating. But that is more the case in arguing positions on more complex issues instead of who did a wrong during a spat between two friends or omething.
What do you think about abortion?
Could it be the same as capital punishment, that an outside unaffected body should not have a decisive say, or right to all life is same?
I tend to keep very charged political discussions to a minimum.
Ah, that is smart. I should use this as well.
What a thought provoking and wonderful post!!
I wrote you a good story of someone else and deleted. I can't seem to find me yet- -smiles-
Thanks again!!
This is the bread and butter of elections - democracy being the worst form of government besides all the others, and all (sorry, Winston)
Agreed
Direct democracy will never work. Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner is a losing bet for the lamb.
The well armed lamb contesting the vote, that is a much better system
:D :D
To follow up on this idea - when people form groups, to get what they want, it is no longer about principles. In politics, some participants like to mask their activity as if it is principle oriented when the real motives are far different. Ideological statements make great dog whistles to get people who need a tribe to form a mob.
Thanks again for your posts. It's interesting for me because I am not particularly tribal. I learned that stuff young, and as I then had (largely outgrown during adulthood) aspie traits. Football teams? Interstate rivalvry and denigration? My parents were migrants, and so it wasn't on their radar, nor mine. I didn't get it. I think some people on the spectrum are our check and balance against this sort of nonsense and taking it seriously. Outcasts are useful. Sometimes they will be willing to commit social suicide, because they have little to lose. Now a point has been made, and a line not crossed. Vive le difference!
Can you be my friend?