
The Strength of Us Versus Them - pmcpinto
http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/why-your-brain-hates-other-people
======
crdb
This paper is published during an era where the dominant global empire is
founded and (mostly) run on principles opposite to ethnocentrism, at least
internally.

All of the current POTUS' grandparents were born in Europe, and the previous
one's father was Kenyan. The most famous entrepreneur of our generation was
born of Syrian parents. The wealthiest self-made woman in America according to
Forbes (I did have to Google it), Marian Ilitch, had Macedonian parents.

The best strategy in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is tit-for-tat [1]. The
winning groups of today have found ways to cooperate-cooperate systematically,
overriding the advantages conferred by the behaviour observed in the paper.

[1] It gets more interesting when both sides know how the other thinks:
[https://intelligence.org/files/ProgramEquilibrium.pdf](https://intelligence.org/files/ProgramEquilibrium.pdf)

~~~
eevilspock
Not so sure. Walk around New York City, a city that proudly claims to be
progressive, and observe how segregated the schools[1] and neighborhoods are,
and the color of people being served versus those doing the serving.

Those doing well in this social order, per the article, post-facto rationalize
this with an essentialist argument: _It 's a meritocracy, I've earned my nice
brownstone (and those I gentrified out didn't), my ability to eat at fancy
restaurants (worked in the back by cheap labor of a different color), my cheap
pedicures (by Korean immigrants who have no choice but to accept the toxic
chemicals[2]), and the cheap nannies for my children (invariably black,
hispanic or Filipino women scraping by, spending less time with their own
children than the ones of their rich employers, some even moving abroad away
from their own kids to give them a "better" life[3])._

Normally the reader comments under New York Times articles side with
progressive politics, expressing anger at conservatives and Republicans for
their self-serving disregard for the poor, for minorities, for women. But if a
story points the finger at them[4], these liberal-banner-flying, I'm-with-Her
touting New Yorkers, suddenly they start singing the same tune as the
conservatives they disdain, justifying their ability to put their kids in the
best schools at the expense of the disadvantaged kids, and blaming _the
families_ rather than the system that is rigged in their favor from the get-
go. Sort by most votes and you have to get to the 15th comment or so for
someone to side with the article. One reader had the gall to say:

 _> The good schools all have students that

    
    
        Show up every day
        Do their homework every night
        Never miss a test, an assignment or a project
        Ask for help when they need it
        Students create study groups on their own to do the work
    

> A woman who did my nails each week told me that her daycare in queens was
> open 24 hours to support worker schedules and that there were tons of after
> school tutoring and enrichment programs to fill the gaps for working
> parents. She worked 7 days a week as did her husband, and she paid for all
> of these programs...she did it because that is the norm in her community,
> and most understood that this is the proven path to the middle class. She
> did all of this while sending money home to her parents in Korea. I am sure
> her children will be prepared for college.

> There is no substitute for working hard everyday and delaying
> gratification._

This is good? That the woman _who is doing her nails_ (see [1] if you haven't
already) has to "work 7 days a week as did her husband", no doubt having less
time to spend with her own kids, while this woman gets to be pampered in
comfort of a pedicurist chair once a week and send her kids to exclusive
schools with little effort?

The article is spot on about how we so easily switch sides, whatever it takes
to maintain our cognitively dissonant views.

\---

[1] [https://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/10980856/new-york-city-
schools...](https://www.vox.com/2016/2/16/10980856/new-york-city-schools-
segregation)

[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/nyregion/at-nail-
salons-i...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/nyregion/at-nail-salons-in-
nyc-manicurists-are-underpaid-and-unprotected.html)

[3] [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/11/the-
sacrifices-...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/11/the-sacrifices-
of-an-immigrant-caregiver)

[4] [https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/school-
segrega...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/school-segregation-
nyc.html)

~~~
jeffdavis
Success and comfort often take multiple generations to achieve.

Is that fair? No. But the people and cultures that realize that, and maintain
a multi-generational view (rather than looking for comfort in their own life)
are much more likely to achieve it.

Life was never fair. If you have a solution to make it more fair, I'm all
ears. But just saying that it's unfair offers nothing.

~~~
eevilspock
Right.

If you think sexism is unfair, don't call it unfair unless you have a
solution.

If you think racism is unfair, don't call it unfair unless you have a
solution.

Suck it up women, people of color. If you stop complaining, and just work
harder, eventually you'll make it. It might take generations, so just maintain
a multi-generational view! I mean, many women say that to get the same
recognition, they had to work twice as hard as men. So there you go: Shut up
and work twice as hard!

If you think Capitalism is unfair, don't call it unfair unless you have
devised the next generation economic system to replace it. The only person who
had a right to call feudalism unfair was Adam Smith. Everyone else, especially
those damn always complaining peasants, offered nothing.

~~~
jeffdavis
Complaining has real costs. It gets people embroiled in intractable political
battles. It makes people feel like victims and not tale control of their
destiny. Anyone who gets annoyed by the complaining potentially turns from an
ally to an adversary when it comes time for a real solution.

These costs may be worth paying when fighting for a tangible goal (e.g.
abolition of slavery), but not worth it when the solution is still a ghost.

------
caseysoftware
There is _always_ an "Us vs Them" (or tribal) mindset and that's not wrong in
itself. There are tribes, teams, and companies and as long as resources are
limited (aka always), there will need to be a way to prioritize.

* It's why you provide for your child first.

* It's why you root for your team over those "other guys."

* It's why you help your family before worrying about someone else's.

* It's why your city, state, or country must worry about things within its own borders first.

It doesn't mean the other child is bad, the other family is evil, or some
other country is less worthy. It's a matter of "who do I worry about _first_?"
Once those needs are met enough (think Maslow), you will worry about #2.

~~~
rhizome
I think one of the biggest existential problems facing humanity is exactly the
"Us vs. Them" in the sense that it's xor'ed, where it should be "Us _and_
Them." (cf. Pink Floyd)

Priorities and proximity are one thing, but the "vs" necessitates a hard
separation where I feel it isn't warranted.

~~~
caseysoftware
If resources were infinite, I would agree 100%. You could be all things to all
people and no one would have to prioritize. As is, resources - cash, time, etc
- are limited and therefore, the "Us" has to choose who gets which resources
first.

Even Bill Gates who has effectively infinite cash resources has to prioritize
his attention.. which is probably his only scarce resource.

~~~
namlem
Bill Gates chooses to spend his money largely on "them" though. The Gates
foundation is, if anything, a great example of what we can achieve once we
look past us v. them thinking.

------
carsongross
The problem, for those of us inclined towards universal humanitarianism, is
that ethnocentrism works, evolutionarily speaking:

[http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html](http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html)

This is a very tough problem.

~~~
kingmanaz
If ethnocentrism is natural, where is the "problem"?

~~~
kleer001
The problem is the high long term (dozens of generations) cost of favoring
short term and small area beneficial strategies for a long period of time
(millennia).

The problem is kind of like the species level of version of the tragedy of the
commons. These different tribes/breeds/races all preferring the short term
preference of saving their territory/mate/child/self versus saving the lives
(and infinite potential) of their stranger neighbors.

The evolution of life shows us the grand benefit of higher and higher levels
of organization. Scaling rules. It forces the previously multi-use smaller
pieces to over specialize, but the gain are unimaginable as the voyager space
probe is to a amoeba.

~~~
laretluval
> The evolution of life shows us the grand benefit of higher and higher levels
> of organization.

Multicellular life did not arise from cells being universalist. It arose from
cells banding together with their mitotic offspring against other groups of
cells. Similarly, the Voyager probe only happened because of us-vs-them
competition in the cold war.

~~~
ktRolster
I'd rather not have another cold war. There are other ways to achieve
interstellar probes.

~~~
kleer001
Cold war was an arms race, arms race fruit some fantastic solutions. Check
sexual selection in beetles.

------
naiveattack
Here’s how to use the Us/Them instinct to our advantage.

Us is merely what we empathise with and understand, that which is similar to
how we identify with ourselves. The “Other” or Them, is farther away on this
spectrum.

We see that in a more primitive time, when societal groups were based on race
and ethnicity, we would identify strongly as so, and also select for it.

The brain is very good at “short circuiting” stuff we already know, and
engaging with the aberrant parts of incoming information, so the brain scans
should merely speak to the familiarity of information and not directly of any
underlying bias, even though both may have a common source (i.e. foreign
information is the underlying cause, but these variables - brain scans and
biases - are merely correlated).

In today’s age, we identify based on what we are now seeing as “higher”
interests. The intelligent vs the stupid, the skilled vs the incompetent, etc.
These are now forming the in and out groups in our collective minds. It must
be said though that it would take a significant amount of information about,
say, an individual African American skilled person to change them from merely
a black person to a skilled person in a White man’s head because one can be
inferred trivially by a picture and the other by more time and a deeper
understanding. (Take with a pinch of salt :)

The point here is that we now understand that society’s interests are better
served by selecting for traits that are, in a sense, more objective. Things
like skill and intelligence and the ability to contribute positively to the
world we live in. By encouraging this selection, we are creating an in-group
to which an aspiration is a positive thing, positive here being the same as
positive for society. It also means that people are less limited by their
biological circumstances, which is an equalising platform.

Hard questions remain, such as access to education and information that
influences the position of a person with respect to the in-group. But I would
argue that this is at least a positive evolution from where we have been.

Something also should be said about the ability to take every individual and
every circumstance as unique, and be able to help each attain the maximum
potential as per your own selected ideals, but this would require a radical
individuality and awareness of self, and an extreme ability to understand and
communicate with every other person. In this world, there would be no groups.
But we’re probably not quite close to this world yet.

~~~
caseysoftware
I would further note that the "Us" and "Them" are different in every scenario
throughout your day.

When you listen to the news, the line may be drawn based on geographic/state
boundaries. When you talk with your coworkers, the lines are based on
competitors vs partners. When you bump into that college friend, the lines are
based on shared experiences, fields of study, or teams. When you go home and
have dinner with your spouse, it's based on blood and marriage.

We choose, prioritize, and "optimize" based on all those lines throughout the
day. We choose our values and connect and share or divide and compete as
appropriate.

I was going to say " _until we deny the 'Them' resources, there's not a
problem_" but we want to do that every day right? We want our team to get the
best players, our companies to hire the best people, and our work to attract
the best customers.. all of those things deny resources to the 'Them' in those
scenarios.

------
losteverything
Not what i thought. Just as good though.

U v T works very well in motivation and corporate problem solving.

The read reminded me of the birth order book. Tidbits of "factoids" that makes
good conversation and can help predict peoples actions and emotions.

------
nemo1618
If millions of years of evolution have reinforced "us vs them" pathways, it's
probably a mistake to dismiss them out of hand as a Bad Thing. This article
repeatedly implies that snap judgments are bad, presumably because they aren't
subject to the rational part of our brain. I think this is part of a broader
trend of devaluing the unarticulated aspects of consciousness and promoting
rationality as the only valid mode of thought.

Also, any discussion of Us vs. Them should reference this article:
[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup)

