I wrote a book manuscript on identity because I felt there is more to explore to human nature, and this is a good example of it.
If we were to see behaviour more in a dualistic way and less "good people vs bad people" we would see prejudice as part of human nature, because we need to see ourselves as part of one group in opposition to another group. I don't think this can be changed by fighting our prejudice, it can just be changed into other us vs them groups.
By that theory, being politically prejudiced happens because it is the most acceptable form of group creation in academia.
Have you studied or read about the social identity theory?
It doesn't seem to be used outside of it's own field. (I looked)
Some reasons for why. 1. Lack of knowledge. Academics often only know their own field (sometimes very narrowly), and sociologists know little of psychological explanations.
A belief that “us and them” is something others do. Typical examples is nationalism, sports team and religion. Being liberal is just seen as being normal.
This might be far-fetched, but I do believe it is essential for our selves to be somewhat blind to our own group-think. Otherwise everything becomes relative, we will lose our feeling of knowing who we are and why. (Something said to have happened to Nietzsche, though probably incorrectly).
Hi Fredrik. I know a little about social identity theory. I remember studying it in my social psych class at uni, and I co-supervised a student who used it in her PhD research.
I'm not sure we need to be blinded by group-think to avoid relativism or nihilism. Perhaps it's rare, but it's possible to adopt ethical principles and values for reasons other than that they're the principles or values of one's group.
If that weren't the case, people within any given group would presumably agree on all their principles and values, which they don't. And no one's principles and values would change over time in a way that compelled them to break with the group.
It might be rare, but it shows that group think isn't necessary for avoiding becoming completely unanchored.
An example: Someone might opt for utilitarian ethics simply because they think that a universe with less suffering and more happiness is better than one with more.
Yes, I’m not saying everything is about group identity. We might also chose a group identity, sometimes for intellectual reasons, or because we benefit from it. Sometimes because everyone we know has the same values. We might also identify with several different groups. But after that, we stick to “what would a member of my group do”. (and group is very loosely now. It might be a follower of science, or Nietzsche, or Jesus, or left-liberal or conservative)
Isn’t it strange how people just happen to have almost the exact same opinions and ideas as their group, and when the group changes opinions they also change opinions almost immediately?
I also noticed that many liberals, even in academia, just seem to take the conservative perspective and say the opposite. E.g. if conservatives might seem to think prostitution can have benefits, liberals oppose it because it oppresses women. If conservatives say prostitution is immoral, liberals will say it’s about a woman’s right to her own body.
I wrote a book manuscript on identity because I felt there is more to explore to human nature, and this is a good example of it.
If we were to see behaviour more in a dualistic way and less "good people vs bad people" we would see prejudice as part of human nature, because we need to see ourselves as part of one group in opposition to another group. I don't think this can be changed by fighting our prejudice, it can just be changed into other us vs them groups.
By that theory, being politically prejudiced happens because it is the most acceptable form of group creation in academia.
Interesting!
Have you studied or read about the social identity theory?
It doesn't seem to be used outside of it's own field. (I looked)
Some reasons for why. 1. Lack of knowledge. Academics often only know their own field (sometimes very narrowly), and sociologists know little of psychological explanations.
A belief that “us and them” is something others do. Typical examples is nationalism, sports team and religion. Being liberal is just seen as being normal.
This might be far-fetched, but I do believe it is essential for our selves to be somewhat blind to our own group-think. Otherwise everything becomes relative, we will lose our feeling of knowing who we are and why. (Something said to have happened to Nietzsche, though probably incorrectly).
Do you think I'm onto something here?
Hi Fredrik. I know a little about social identity theory. I remember studying it in my social psych class at uni, and I co-supervised a student who used it in her PhD research.
I'm not sure we need to be blinded by group-think to avoid relativism or nihilism. Perhaps it's rare, but it's possible to adopt ethical principles and values for reasons other than that they're the principles or values of one's group.
If that weren't the case, people within any given group would presumably agree on all their principles and values, which they don't. And no one's principles and values would change over time in a way that compelled them to break with the group.
It might be rare, but it shows that group think isn't necessary for avoiding becoming completely unanchored.
An example: Someone might opt for utilitarian ethics simply because they think that a universe with less suffering and more happiness is better than one with more.
Yes, I’m not saying everything is about group identity. We might also chose a group identity, sometimes for intellectual reasons, or because we benefit from it. Sometimes because everyone we know has the same values. We might also identify with several different groups. But after that, we stick to “what would a member of my group do”. (and group is very loosely now. It might be a follower of science, or Nietzsche, or Jesus, or left-liberal or conservative)
Isn’t it strange how people just happen to have almost the exact same opinions and ideas as their group, and when the group changes opinions they also change opinions almost immediately?
I also noticed that many liberals, even in academia, just seem to take the conservative perspective and say the opposite. E.g. if conservatives might seem to think prostitution can have benefits, liberals oppose it because it oppresses women. If conservatives say prostitution is immoral, liberals will say it’s about a woman’s right to her own body.