“If an out-group member steps on my toes, I am more likely
to say, “He is an inconsiderate person” though, with an in-group member I will
describe the behavior exactly: “He stepped on my toes.” In contrast, an
out-group member acting nicely is described specifically—“She gave me
directions to the train station.”—while an in-group member is described as
being “a helpful person”.The Folly of Fools, Robert Trivers, PhD Professor
at Rutgers
In-Group vs. Out-Group behavior isn’t just found between
differing religious/philosophical groups, differing socioeconomic backgrounds
and differing ethnic groups, it is found in almost any setting where a “group”
can form. Consider how children “group
up” in elementary and middle school. Consider the labels of “popular” and
“unpopular” that children give to each other to serve as identification markers
of who’s who.
When you’re a child
(between the ages of 8-16) and you are socially excluded from the popular students
and their cliques, you start to make observations about group behavior. Of
course, you, yourself, are not entirely dispassionate or free of bias, but you
can definitely start to notice more things about group behavior from the
outside. I would wager that these observations are more transparent and less
affected by bias than from an in-group perspective. Why? Well, for one, you are
less fraught by an emotional, irrational attachment to the group when you are
on the outside. Being a loner, you have less reason to maintain cohesion with
members.
As a child, what I noticed—often repeatedly---was how unfair
and capricious the popular group members behaved and how inordinately arbitrary
their responses were depending on who they
were talking to. For instance, I
remember being talked to in a derogatory tone for asking a certain question,
yet, if one of the in-group members asked a roughly similar question, they
would elicit no such response. Instead, their questions were often acknowledged
with kindness and a noticeable level of respect. Sometimes, the in-group member
might try and rationalize that “my question was actually more stupid than the in-group
member’s question” but in all reality, the difference of my question was
insignificant compared to the difference in how
they responded to me. The critical difference seemed to be that I wasn’t part of their group, thus,
their response to me differed.
If you look carefully, you will start to notice this
behavior exhibited by many people. We
all do it from time to time—irrationally treating our close friends’ ideas as
superior to the stranger who proposes a similar or even identical idea. We
might latch onto the “slight” difference in the stranger’s idea to justify our alliance
to our in-group member (friend) instead.
To observe this
behavior among humans, pay special attention to how people respond to their
friends ideas/behaviors/suggestions compared to how they respond to their
acquaintances/strangers/homeless people/ people they’ve met for the first time/
comments, behaviors, and suggestions. We
all know that our close friends make mistakes—the question is, do we treat
their mistakes with less harshness than we treat the similar mistakes of
strangers or “out-group members”?
The in-group bias is one of my biggest pet-peeves because it
interferes with truth and the acquisition of knowledge. It adds an extra layer
on top of what is actually needed to examine. More specifically, the person—not
what they’re saying—is factored into the equation. If your friend said something stupid and then a homeless guy said a similar thing, you may very likely treat the homeless guy with more derision than your friend—and that is irrational, not to mention obnoxious.
If you consider
yourself a rational person your critique should be on what the person is
saying—the objective facts being presented.
This is very hard to do.
Since the studies show that we are biased towards treating
our friends and kin (group members) more kindly than outsiders, we must exert considerable effort to avoid doing
this. We should always ask ourselves, is this individual being ridiculed
because the facts he/she presents are anathema to current scientific analysis?...
or because he/she isn’t a member of “our group” or maybe because we personally
find this individual to be annoying?
I would prefer that
people treat each other equally. It doesn’t matter what they look like, whether
they’re male or female, whether they are annoying or aloof, what they’re
wearing, what they’re socioeconomic status is, whether or not they are friends
with that person or what kind of cultural or ethnic background they have. What matters is the claims that are made. A person’s
choice of words will always be unique, so what needs to be focused on are the specific claims presented.
If you don’t like the person you don’t like the person—but
don’t try and twist it into a case of the other person (most-likely someone not
in your group) being “stupid” or “unreasonable”--especially when your own group
members are saying very similar things and receiving credit for very similar things.
