Social Identity Theory

"This is a mistake. We don't belong here. These people are different."
--Eddie Wilson (Eddie and the Cruisers)

Social identity theory, developed principally by Henri Tajfel and John Turner (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979; 1986), offers perspective on social psychology by extending previous work on group identification (Tolman, 1943) and the influence of identification on motivation (Foote, 1951).

The central concept of social identity theory is that people seek out affiliation with groups in order to enhance self-esteem. To do so, people classify themselves into various social categories such as nationality, organizational membership, religion, race, gender, and age cohort. The individual thereby assumes characteristics thought to be possessed by members of the group. Group affiliation provides a sense of oneness or belongingness to some human aggregate.

To further self-esteem, however, individuals must believe that they are in the 'right' group. This creates the need for enhancing the status of the groups to which a person belongs. Social identification is thus relational and comparative (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) because people define themselves relative to individuals considered to belong to other categories.

Self-esteem is increased when individuals elevate the status of their groups ("Our school is great."), and when they lower the status of other groups ("Their school sucks."). Through the process of social categorization, individuals divide the world into "us versus them." In social identity theory, "us" is the "in-group" and "them" is the "out-group."

An implication of social identity theory is that, because of the natural tendency for in-group and out-group categorization, people have an inherent tendency to discriminate. In order to enhance self-esteem, people are likely to discriminate and hold prejudiced views against others deemed to belong to out-groups.

References

Foote, N.N. 1951. Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 16: 14-21.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp: 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp: 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tolman, E.C. 1943. Identification and the post-war world. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38: 141-148.

Theories of Viral Response

"I hate losses, sport. Nothing ruins my day more than losses."
--Gordon Gekko (Wall Street)

As strange as the past few months have been, there are actually theories that help explain the unusual behavior of people and policymakers. These pages have been documented a few. Let's review some of them here.

Social identity theory. Behavior of out-group members is criticized while behavior of in-group members is largely given a pass. Because leftists tend to be, by definition, more collectivist, we should expect in-group/out-group norms to be more prevalent among those on the political left. Helps explain division of CV19 discourse and policies along political lines.

Institution theory. Institutions are rules and norms that exert pressure for sameness and compliance. Pressure for 'isomorphism' can be classified in one of three types: coercive (laws, regulations), normative (customs, common practices), mimetic (imitating behavior of others). Mimetic isomorphism is particularly prevalent in uncertain times--which helps explain quick spreading policies such as lockdown and mask wearing.

Agency theory. Agents are supposed to work on behalf of their principals, but often pursue their own interests at the principals' expense--particularly when principals are unable to monitor/assess agent work. Helps explain behavior of public health officials as well as efforts to manipulate data to hide error.

Resource dependence theory. Entities are rarely self-sufficient. Instead, they must trade with others to obtain resources necessary for survival and growth. Larger resource providers exert more power over smaller dependents. Helps explain why sectors highly dependent on government funding, such as health care, are likely to fall in line with CV19 policy mandates.

Threat rigidity theory. Facing conditions of threat, individuals, groups, and organizations tend to do two things. One, they restrict information processing channels to reduce information overload and to economize attention on lessons learned from dealing with past threats. Two, they tighten control processes by centralizing decision making authority. These actions combine to rigidify response to threat. Creative solutions are shunned in favor of customary responses that worked well to quell previous threats. When the nature of the threat differs radically from previous episodes, then failing to consider novel responses results in a reinforcing loop of maladaptive behavior. This theory, coupled with the next one, says much about collective response to a new virus.

Fast and slow thinking. People posses two decision making processes. System 1 is emotional and reactive. Instead of deliberately processing information which takes time and effort, this 'fast thinking' processes makes snap decisions. The vast majority of decisions are made using fast thinking processes. System 2 is rational and data driven. It collects evidence and deliberates before deciding. This slow thinking process--the truly rational one--is rarely used. It is easy to surmise that most people have been engaging their fast thinking system 1 brains when making sense of the CV19 pandemic and associated policy responses.

Transaction cost economics. Econ 101 assumes that exchange is cost-free. In reality, 'transaction costs' accompany trade. Search, contracting, arbitration, translation, regulation. The higher the transaction costs, the less likely people trade on the market (outsource) with other specialists. Instead, they will pull more activities in-house (insource) and diversify. Higher transaction costs associated with CV19, particularly those imposed by regulation (mask wearing, hand washing, sanitizing, spacing), are keeping people from trading with each other.

Prospect theory and escalation of commitment. You plan out what seems like a great strategy. You begin implementing it. But it doesn't work. What to do? Rather than cut your losses and change course, you will be prone to keep going and perhaps even escalate your commitment. A key reason: loss aversion. People hate losses more than they like gains. This theory says much about why officials are unlikely to reverse failing CV19 policies.

My sense is that these threads could be woven into an interesting theory of viral response.

Disinformed

Voices

I hear voices
--Russ Ballard

Well written piece by Glenn Greenwald on the left's escalating impulse to censor. Anything deemed 'disinformation' is worthy of censoring. As Greenwald observes:

"This 'disinformation' term is reserved for those who question liberal pieties, not for those devoted to affirming them. That is the real functional definition of 'disinformation' and of its little cousin, 'misinformation.' It is not possible to disagree with liberals or see the world differently than they see it. The only two choices are unthinking submission to their dogma or acting as an agent of 'disinformation.' Dissent does not exist to them; any deviation from their world view is inherently dangerous - to the point that it cannot be heard."

One question that Greenwald avoids is why? Although, as he notes, people on the right may occasionally be prone to censor, why is the need to squash opposing viewpoints a dominant trait of leftists?

A primary explanation can be gleaned from social identity theory. Social identity theory is grounded in the proposition that people derive self-esteem from belonging to groups, and that this need for affiliation influences behavior of group members. 

It stands to reason that the need for group affiliation is not evenly distributed. We know, for example, that societies vary relative to their collectivistic tendencies.

Leftists, by definition, have a high collectivist preference. Their strong need for belonging and high levels of self-esteem realized from group attachment should motivate behavior that demonstrates loyalty to their group membership and disdain toward nonmembers. 

Consequently, leftists should be likely to go to great lengths to defend group dogma. Members who question dogmatic beliefs are likely to be sanctioned, perhaps even excommunicated. Because members know this, they are likely to remain silent to prevent damage to their self-esteem.

Outsiders present a different problem, however. Because they have lower collectivist preference, outsiders perceive little or no penalty for contesting group dogma. 

Recognizing that sanctioning is likely to prove ineffective against outsiders, leftists must resort to coercive tactics. lest the cognitive dissonance gets too great. Censoring, or forced silencing, is therefore employed in order to preserve group dogma against outside attack.

That's what we're seeing. Censoring may be more widespread today because leftists feel that they control more public and private machinery for silencing dissenting voices.

Whether such a tactic can be effective against a liberty-minded people remains to be seen. In fact, it seems straightforward to hypothesize that the more leftists attempt to silence dissent among freedom lovers, the louder the dissent gets.

Identity Politics

Tom Duffy: You know, I'm trying to remember if the Democrats have ever nominated an atheist before.
Paul Zara: Well, we know they've nominated a jackass before.
--The Ides of March

Identity politics is the practice of making political arguments and decisions based on one's appearance, persona, or affiliation rather than on careful, well-reasoned thought. Identity politics emphasizes image over substance.

Basic demographic characteristics such as race, nationality, gender, age, religion, and wealth level can form the basis for identity politics, as can affiliation with particular organizations such as political party, military, or school.

Identity politics can be seen as an expression of social identity theory where people seek to enhance their self-esteem by connecting with some groups and disparaging others.

It can also be seen as a product of fast thinking which seeks to render judgment quickly and effortlessly. Because fast thinking dominates human thought process, we should expect that identity politics to be a popular, perhaps the most popular, approach to politics.

Because of the mistakes in judgment that result from fast thinking, we should also expect identity politics to be wrought with the bias and error associated with assuming that What You See Is All There Is.

Mass Formation

I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
--The Who

This post shares an interesting video that discusses the theoretical concept of 'mass formation.' Mass formation can be seen as the emergence of large-scale narrowmindedness in a society. 

Conditions for mass formation include lack of social connectedness and sensemaking as well as large amounts of latent anxiety and passive aggression. When inundated with a narrative that presents a plausible "object of anxiety" and strategy for coping with it, then many individuals group together to battle the object with a collective singlemindedness. By doing so, these people offload their problems to avoid the mental anguish of personally dealing with them. 

As mass formation progresses, the group becomes increasingly bonded and connected. Field of attention is narrowed and unable to consider alternative points of view.

Left unabated, this groupthink supports totalitarian governance structure capable of otherwise unthinkable atrocities in order to maintain compliance.

Studies suggest that mass formation follows a general distribution:

30% are brainwashed, hypnotized, indoctrinated w.r.t. the group narrative

40% in the middle are persuadable and may follow if no worthy alternative is perceived

30% rebel against the narrative

The rebels, naturally, become the enemy of the brainwashed and a primary target of aggression.

An interesting note in the discussion was that the most 'intelligent' in terms of education level and IQ are commonly among the brainwashed.

Participants in the video suggest that the best was to counter mass formation is for the rebels to continue to speak out against it, which serves to help break the hypnosis of some in the brainwashed group as well as persuade some in the middle to choose reason over mindlessness.

It is relatively straightforward to integrate the concept of mass formation into theories of viral response discussed on these pages. In particular, there seems to be strong associations with social identity theory, cognitive dissonance, threat rigidity theory, and institutional theory.

Finally, I liked how the Belgian professor in the video confidently predicted that totalitarian products of the CV19-stimulated wave of mass formation would ultimately collapse--just like all totalitarian efforts do. An insightful, yet elementary prediction to make. 

After all, what we're really talking about here is socialism--a system that always ends in chaos.

Collectivist Preference

"Artistic value is achieved collectively by each man subordinating himself to the standard of the majority."
--Ellsworth Toohey (The Fountainhead)

What Buck Sexton observes might be called collectivist preference. Collectivist preference can be seen as a person' penchant for complying with group demands and norms. It can be tied to both social identity theory and to institutional theory.

It would be interesting to measure collectivist preference. In fact, this has almost certainly been done in cultural research, since it is long known that some countries behave more collectivistically than others.

On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how might collectivist preference be distributed across a population? How might it vary between populations? 

The events over the past 18 months make me wonder whether collectivist preference is stable or does it evolve over time? What factors might influence collectivist preference? 

My sense is that collectivist preference may be more fluid than expected.

Ultimate Learning Disability

"Why don't you do yourself a favor and go back to your white-bread, suburban, cesspool land while you still have a chance?"
--Victor Duncan (The Principal)

There are those who refuse to learn because an instructor (defined as anyone who has something useful to teach) is not like the student in some demographic way. The instructor might have a different skin color, gender, country of origin, social status, income level, et al.

Although social identity theory suggests we might expect as much, this is a foolish form of discrimination. Choosing not to learn because the teacher is not 'like me' may be the ultimate learning disability.

Doing so compromises the quest for knowledge and truth.

War on Dissent

Trim life shadows flicker and fall
But you still can't turn away
Get up and run before you stall
Before the edges fray
--Ric Ocasek

Glenn Greenwald nicely frames the growing war on dissent. Dissent is disagreement with collective norms, particularly as they apply to politics. 

In any social environment, there will be institutional pressure to conform to norms, resulting in movement toward sameness in behavior (a.k.a. 'isomorphism'). Pressure to conform can be peaceful, taking the form of public opinion/persuasion or threat of exclusion from group activities.

However, pressure to conform can be coercive and involve force. For example, dissenters who gather in protest could be assaulted or arrested.

Greenwald suggests that government action against dissent, which is by definition forcible, has been increasing in western societies. Western societies are grounded in political frameworks that, at least on paper, tolerate dissent. In the US, for example, the Constitution guarantees that no law will prohibit or abridge freedom of speech.

Government-sponsored coercion against dissent is easy to spot in other countries. Thus, when Russia moves to freeze bank accounts of political dissenters, headlines in western countries howl in uproar.

However, when western countries do the same thing, as is currently happening, among other places, in Canada, the response is much more muted.

What Greenwald fails to mention is that this inconsistency is explainable by social identity theory. Simply stated, bad behavior by outsiders is punished or berated, while similar behavior by insiders is condoned or rationalized. 

As such, dissenting speech by insiders is legitimate protest to be respected, while dissenting speech by outsiders is disinformation or sedition to be silenced.

Greenwald's main point, however, is that war against dissent in western societies is increasing. He posits that  heads of western governments are stepping away from rule of law in favor of discretionary rule. By definition, discretionary rule is prone to inconsistency and hypocrisy, and requires violence to keep behavior in check.

Fortunately, citizens (read: voters) wake up politically when their freedoms are being trampled. Consequently, as western governments wage war on dissent, the dissenters appear to be organizing their own campaign aimed at ballot boxes.

Political Correctness

"You see, according to Cacteau's plan, I'm the enemy. Because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think, 'Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of barbequed spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?' I want high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter, and buckets of cheese, alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jello all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to, okay pal? I've seen the future. You know what it is? It's made by a 47 year old virgin in gray pajamas soaking in a bubble bath drinking a broccoli milkshake and thinking 'I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener.' You wanna live on top? You gotta live Cacteau's way. What he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Your other option: come down here, maybe starve to death."
--Edgar Friendly (Demolition Man)

Article proposes that political correctness is about control rather than politeness. Political correctness (PC) is defined as "the conscious, intentional manipulation of language intended to change the way people speak, write, think, feel, and act, in furtherance of an agenda." Use of positive substitute symbols is a common tool of those seeking to foster political correctness.

Political correctness can be considered propaganda. However, unlike other forms of propaganda, PC tends to be all-encompassing, seeking to mold individuals into submissive beings with no capacity for critical thinking. In a politically correct world, natural law is diverted and rerouted. Truth is not absolute, and can be bent to serve the purposes of those who manipulate language.

The author credits much of 19th century Austrian Edward Bernays with much of the basis of political correctness. Bernays was a press agent. He was employed by the Wilson administration to gin up popular support for US entry into WWI. He was also employed by the private sector to direct several successful advertising campaigns for consumer products such as Ivory soap and Lucky Strike cigarettes.

Central to Bernays approach was the exploitation of herd psychology in the "manufacturing of consent," a term used by British psychologist Wilfred Trotter in his work Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War published in 1919.

Herd instinct relates to concepts in social identity theory and involves deep seated desire to win the approval of social groups. Through the herding lens, the desire to fit in is seen as paramount and overwhelms most other human urges.

Bernays viewed herd instinct as volatile, irrational, and unpredictable. To control it, herd psychology must be steered by 'smarter people' in many small, imperceptible ways. Imperceptible because it is important that the people being herded do not realize that their thoughts are being influenced.

As such, Bernays employed techniques designed under the basis of several assumptions. One was that people are generally not creative and individualistic at heart. Instead, they are malleable and desperate to fit in with groups. He also understood the importance of third party authorities (e.g., athletes, actors, politicians, wealthy elites) to promote causes and products. People take their cues from positions of authority. Finally, he understood the role that emotion plays in tastes and preferences. It is not the substance of the political candidate or consumer product that we deem important, Bernays believed, but rather the emotional content that affects us.

Today, PC campaigns are designed with similar assumptions in mind. People who permit statists to frame debates and control narratives are likely to cede power over their lives.

Rose Colored Glasses

And now that your rose is in bloom
A light hits the gloom on the grey
--Seal

Which of these rival hypotheses is more valid?

H1: Government officials and their political operatives will seek to manipulate information, including the reporting of events, in manners that favor their interests.

H2: Government officials and their political operatives will not seek to manipulate information, including the reporting of events, in manners that favor their interests.

Given no particular context, most people will likely choose H1. Government officials, like all people, will be prone to spin information in self-interested manners. Government officials have even more capacity to do so than Everyman, given their influence over media sources and the intellectual set. 

But here's the thing, insert the name of particular government officials and political operative into the hypotheses above and response profiles associated with the above question are certain to change. Respondents who are familiar with and oppose the political ideologies of the named official will still choose H1.

But respondents who are familiar with and partisan to the political ideologies of the named official will be more prone to choose H2. 

Among the theoretical bases for this prediction is social identity theory. Members of the 'ingroup' are most likely to be perceived as good and unbiased. They say, "Cut me some slack," and ingroup partisans oblige.

'Outgroup' members get no slack. No rose colored glasses for them.

Political affinity alters perception of general truths.

Polar Opposites

Ellsworth Toohey: Mr Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me in any words you wish.
Howard Roark: But I don't think of you.
--The Fountainhead

Nice observation made here. America in general is not polarized. Many if not most Americans are apolitical.

Excellent interview with Morris Fiorina, maybe the greatest political scientist ever. One snippet: "One of the interesting findings from my book is that the more involved in politics you are ... the less accurate you are about the other side." https://t.co/vC89u75SBf

— Tim Groseclose (@Tim_Groseclose) May 14, 2019

Those who are polarized tend to be the activists. And, as political scientist Morris Fiorina of Stanford observes, the more active in politics that a person is, the more likely that the person mis-characterizes people on the other side.

While Fiorina believes this to be an interesting finding of his research, it is predictable from social identity theory. The stronger your affinity to a group, the greater your bias against other groups.

Elections and Expansion of Power

"And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat?"
--Sir Thomas More (A Man for All Seasons)

Increasingly, presidential elections in America throw groups who supported the losing candidate into panic. The panic includes pointing fingers. The president elect is a marxist or fascist. People who voted for him are uninformed or just plain idiots. The election system is rigged or unfair.

An interesting thing about this phenomenon is that it is bipartisan. For example, eight (and four) years ago, Republicans went into hysteria when Barack Obama was elected. Today, it is Democrats' turn as Donald Trump prepares to take the reigns. Complaints only arise when their side loses.

One way to explain this behavior is that it aligns with social identity theory and the psychology of losing. People tend to identify with groups--sometimes very strongly. They can develop such an psychologically vested interest in their group being superior that, when their group loses or is put down, they cope with cognitive dissonance by blaming others.

Another way to explain it is that there is true reason to be terrified. Today's US president holds far more discretionary power than our founding ancestors intended. That may be ok with you if the person in charge shares your values. But if a sitting president does not like you or the group you belong to, then the nation's chief executive is in a position to trample your rights with, borrowing from the current administration's stated approach to lawlessness, with the stroke of a pen or a phone call.

The anti-federalists foresaw this situation long ago. Marry discretionary rule with democratic election processes, and you were likely to see at some point just what we're living through today.

But the proper source of blame isn't the other guy. It is with us when we support discretionary expansion of presidential powers when it suits our interests. Because, at some point, that discretionary power quite likely will be wielded by someone we don't like and who doesn't like us.

You Like 'em, I Hate 'em.

He's got a brand new car
Looks like a Jaguar
It's got leather seats
It's got a CD player, player, player
--Feeder

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a well known strategic posture. In politics, the antithesis--'the friend of my enemy is my enemy--is also popular. If you like 'em, then I must hate 'em.

Had a long and very good conversation with President Putin of Russia. As I have always said, long before the Witch Hunt started, getting along with Russia, China, and everyone is a good thing, not a bad thing....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2019

During the previous administration, President Obama's friendly overtures toward Cuba and Irann increased opposition animosity toward those countries. During the current administration, President Trump's friendly overtures to (insert foreign country name) has drawn similar ire from political opponents.

Once again, social identity theory in motion.

Does make one wonder how world peace can come about when in two party, winner take all democratic systems. It is politically expedience to detest the friends of your enemies.

Affiliation, Groupthink, and Discrimination

Can you imagine no love, pride, deep fried chicken
Your best friend always sticking up for you
Even when I know you're wrong
--Train

Thomas Jefferson said that he sought kept his affiliations to a minimum in order to preserve independent thought. He understood that belonging to groups invites groupthink and clouds judgment.

Social identity theory posits that people join groups to enhance self-esteem. As they do so, individuals begin to assume characteristics thought to belong to the group.

To advance self-esteem, however, people must believe that they belong to the 'right' group. They will defend their group against perceived threats from outsiders. Group members will go also along with what the collective wants even if they personally believe it to be wrong. Failure to do so would constitute admission that their affiliation is a mistake.

A consequence of affiliation is inherent tendency to discriminate. Outsiders are apt to be seen as inferior in some way. Discrimination enhances self-esteem to be gained from joining groups.

Because he thought this was not a worthy route to self-esteem and sound judgment, Jefferson sought to be as group-free as possible.

Blinded by Political Affinity

With this very unpleasing
Sneezing and weezing
The calliope crashed to the ground
--Manfred Mann

One sure sign of partisanship: accusing some people of biased behavior or judgment that you know they have political affinities different from yours, while not making similar accusations of people that you know have a political affinities similar to yours.

There is perhaps no better expression of the core tenets of social identity theory than politics.

Lunatic Fringe

'Cause you gotta blame someone
For your own confusion
We're on guard this time
Against your final solution
--Red Rider

Events over the past couple of weeks reinforce a tenet of social identity theory. Members of a particular group will underweight actions deemed undesirable by in-group members and overweight similar actions taken by out-group members.

One way to rationalize this form of cognitive dissonance is to classify in-group members performing undesirable acts into a subgroup called 'the fringe.' By doing so, people can distance themselves from bad behavior that otherwise would be linked to them by their association with the group.

Self-esteem is thereby preserved without having to admit complicity with the wrongdoing or having to leave the group.

Voila! The mental stress is thereby wiped away.

Innuendo

To the heart and mind
Ignorance is kind
There's no comfort in the truth
Pain is all you'll find
--Wham

One form of cognitive dissonance frequently displayed among political partisans is the tendency to support unsubstantiated and disparaging remarks directed to the other side while being completely intolerant of similar innuendo conveyed by the other side.

Social identity theory predicts such behavior. We will be less critical of actions associated with the 'in' group and more critical of behavior associated with the 'out' group.

As is the case with all affiliations, political partisanship clouds judgment. The stronger the political affiliation, the greater the inconsistency when it comes to innuendo.

Ingroup Hypocrisy

"When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way. From your first cigarette, to your last dying days."
--Riff (West Side Story)

Observers are pointing out the blatant differences between how Democrats and the mainstream media are treating accusations of sexual assault against Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh (nominated by a Republican president).

Democrats and Mainstream Media were 💯 sure and very vocal about Judge #Kavanaugh guilt. Now they are quite silent and fully satisfied regarding @JoeBiden's innocence. Don't let #JoeBiden and his supporters get away with nipping the #TaraReade evidence in the bud. @afbranco pic.twitter.com/fq9Idx4ZN3

— Adam Milstein (@AdamMilstein) April 30, 2020

I have no idea if Tara Reade is telling the truth, but her story is far more credible and has far more corroborating evidence than Kavanaugh’s accuser ever did. Yet Democrats believed Kavanaugh’s accuser and don’t believe Biden’s accuser. That’s insanely hypocritical.

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) May 1, 2020

Such hypocrisy should not be surprising, however. Social identity theory predicts it. Questionable behavior of out-group members is likely to be criticized, while similar behavior by in-group members is likely to be given a free pass.

Why might leftists be more prone to such hypocrisy? Leftists by nature are more collectivistic, meaning they are more prone to drawn to, and identify with, groups. Because they identify more with their group, leftists are more likely to display affiliation bias.

Group Criticism

Drawn into the stream
Of undefined illusion
Those diamond dreams
They can't disguise the truth
--Level 42

Social identity theory suggests that we will critique the actions of people differently depending on whether they are affiliated to groups we belong to. We will be less critical of individuals who belong to the same groups that we do.

When they do something wrong, we will be prone to look the other way and give those people free passes. At the very least, we will try to rationalize away their behavior and dismiss it as 'fringe,' and not representative of our group.

People who are affiliated with groups other than ours will be much more subject to our criticism. Their behavior will be subject to microscopic analysis. We will be prone to generalize individual behavior as representative of group.

We will perform the mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize our group as superior to their group in order to elevate our personal self-image as high as possible.

Progressives, Neocons, and Micromanagement

All for freedom and for pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

As usual, a cogent point by Ron Paul. Progressives seek to micromanage lives of people inside the US. Neocons seek to micromanage lives of people outside the US.

Progressives attempt to micromanage the lives of people *inside* the U.S.

Neocons attempt to micromanage the lives of people *outside* the U.S.

Humans are not made to be micromanaged by anyone or anything.

So Progressives & Neocons are doomed to perpetual failure. pic.twitter.com/i7fX6Svvkl

— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) April 25, 2019

Because people have been endowed by their creator with the unalienable right of liberty, they are not built to be micromanaged by anyone anywhere.

Ironically, both progressives and neocons can see the error in the ways of the opposing group--but not in their own ways. Social identity theory predicts as much, of course.