The Concern of Tribalism

As we look upon the world of politics and our current back and forth dialogues dying out, being replaced by sound bytes and vitriol, we sometimes lose sight of the central question: Why? Why have our instincts for tribalism and defensiveness led us so far apart from each other?

We like to tell ourselves that we are open minded, willing to sit with those we disagree with and discuss the ideas and issues of the day. The truth is far from this lie we tell. For us to understand where we are with our politics of the day, we need to start by recognizing something we seem to forget: We are animals. From an objective stance, this will shock no one. Of course we’re animals. One of the first biological lessons we’re taught is that humans are mammals and live via a combination of systems made up of small cells.

The issue comes is that, as basic as that lesson is, we like to pretend that due to our intellectual abilities that we can be completely separated from this biological fact. Being biological creatures, we are subject to certain evolutionary traits that we automatically pass down the generations which manifest themselves in odd ways in modern society.

One such example is highlighted in the book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by psychologist Jonathan Haidt. In that book, Haidt argues that as our species developed the idea of shared intentionality and altruistic tendencies as an evolutionary trait. Those that had these aspects tended to survive longer and breed more leading to more and more of the human race possessing these traits. It’s his notion of a Righteous Mind that led humans to be able to form tribes and work collectively beyond mere kinship restraints.

One of the issues, however, is that such arrangements wherein we’re bound to others moralistically inevitably leads to the exclusion of other such groups. This is where the concept of Dunbar’s Number comes in.

The theory of Dunbar’s Number is that the brains of all creatures, humans included, have a limit to the maximum amount of other creatures a being can form and maintain a relationship with. For humans, the restriction lies between 100-250 with most settling on 150 as the average.

What this means for us is that, in order to survive in a world where we interact with thousands of people in our towns, cities, and even more via social media, we tend to either generalize others outside of our limited purview, and that larger groups tend to require more structure and restrictions to maintain cohesion. This is, in part, why I believe that smaller and more rural areas tend to be pro-individuality, whereas cities lead towards collectivist action, but I’ll save that for a different post. Buddhists tap into this idea through their meditations using different techniques to train their brains to detach personal labels from others and focus on universal compassion. It might not always work nor might it work for everyone, but the first step is always to recognize the problem; something they’ve been ahead of us on for a while.

This leads me to one of the last evolutionary traits we have that heavily contribute to our current issues: The Backfire Effect. Before I elaborate, I will point out there are many other issues that lead to the breakdowns in discourse that we’ve seen. Cognitive Bias, media influence, etc. all contribute to our worldviews and which “side” we find ourselves on. They can also prevent us from engaging in conversations that allow us to grow and better understand the issues and the world around us.

The Backfire Effect was first noted during a study several years back by the University of Southern California where they tested the brain’s response to hearing facts and opinions that differed from the test participants. What they noted is that the section of the brain responsible for dealing with physical threats, the Amygdala, would respond the same to intellectual and ideological ones.

During early childhood and throughout our lives, we develop certain core beliefs. These differ from regular beliefs in that the become cornerstones of our personality and worldview. We, as creatures, need a consistent worldview to operate from in order to function properly. Without that kind of cement, we would have no firm grounds on which to build or develop anything else. The brain, recognizing this, will attempt to defend itself from these conflicting concepts to prevent the worldview from being damaged. People, in turn, will feel a sort of friction when presented with counterpoints that touch on firm beliefs, usually jumping to defensive stances or fully lashing out or dismissing the source of these counter ideas.

Putting all of this together, we now have a picture of a species bound in groups larger than they were made for, with moralistic evolutionary traits that automatically devalue other groups, arguing with each other on topics of core beliefs when our brains automatically shut down the opposition before we even try to. Doesn’t paint the best picture for this to end well, and a simply glance through the news would prove that world view right. But how to fix this?

Sadly, we can’t. Not for everyone in the world. There will always be a sense of tribalism and these inherent traits won’t be going away in our lifetimes. What we can do is recognize that our brains and biology are telling us the wrong thing, then set that resistance aside. In order for us to counter this inherent divisive nature, we need to understand where our knee-jerk reactions are coming from and choose to not allow them to govern our decisions nor our discussions.