There's even more scientific evidence to back this up. I'm curious if Hudson dives into in-group/out-group psychology like Muzafer Sharif's Realistic Conflict Theory or Social Identity Theory, or empirical experiments like The Robbers Cave Experiment or Jane Elliott's classroom demonstrations using eye color.
I note in the review above that the book appears to put it in context of treating people as "means to an end" vs "as ends in themselves", specifically assigning to Enlightenment philosophy, "This is the path of individual liberty and human rights, in which the state exists to protect each citizen’s freedom to pursue happiness as they see it. This path is an outlier in human history, only recently discovered by European philosophers during the Enlightenment."
But, the review hints to the psychology at the end by referring to "tribes". Indeed, the highly repeatable in-group/out-group experiments seem to suggest we all have an innate "module", akin to "fight or flight" but with respect to "us vs them" tribalism.
It's existence implies we had hit a bottleneck of population exceeding resources at some point, possibly prior to 6 million years since that is out common ancestor with chimpanzees who share this trait. In that context, natural selection could easily drive a "tribal" psychology as a first approximation as a survival mechanism, along with developing cultural cues of who is "us" and who is "them", driving cultural differences (as in Robbers Cave Experiment), purity tests, purges, and why we tend to vote in groups of unrelated beliefs & policies.
Thanks for the review. I'm putting this book on my reading list as it appears to align very nicely with the philosophical side of the same considerations.
I already agreed just based on the article title. The better and more humanly we treat people, including and maybe especially people who have opinions different from ours, the better outcomes will be.
Much of our differences and refusal to change our opinions or accept another's opinion is due to the fact insults and demeaning rhetoric toward anyone who does not agree have become the norm. People are not going to change their opinion if they feel you do not respect them, they're going to double down.
Approaching them using genuine respect and some humility, and understanding that you may be in part or wholly wrong, is both a more effective and more human choice.
And in the odd situation where the other person is completely wrong on a given topic, remember that we as human beings are often totally wrong.
I'd add that one must beware the efforts of the media and politicians to sell us polarizing narratives that are gratifying to our egos ("We are the intelligent and morally good people and those other people are stupid or evil").
If we would like our country to be better we need to treat each other more graciously.
I can't wait to read thus book. There are those out there who are promoting and excusing uncivilized behavior. It's not easy to let your guard down and begin to see people as fallible human beings. But, that's what we are. And, we are all captured in our time and place and experiences. Pro-human values require us to find a way to be better, myself at the top of the list.
Dr. Goodell, I think it starts with all of us as individuals. Society won't change until we do. When we let go of our tribalistic identity and start getting our sense of identity from non-tribal places (i.e. "I'm Julian Adorney, human being and child of God" not "I'm Julian Adorney, libertarian and Christian") then peace naturally follows.
I think the 'How' is perhaps best understood with respect to Muzafer Sherif and his team's work on Realistic Group Conflict Theory, such as the Robbers Cave Experiment, back in the 1950s and 1960s. It is perhaps one of the most reproduceable psychological behaviors and with enormous empirical evidence of our recorded history and ongoing strife. Many/most of us have even felt the "us vs them" outrage overtake us at times only to (hopefully) have our rational brain become aware of it and re-consider things after we calm down.
I believe incivility and dehumanizing are perhaps best seen as outcome phenomena resulting from evoking the in-group/out-group 'tribal psychology' module we all have. Per the research, it is evoked by ensuring that everybody is identifiable into discrete groups (or tribes), and then repeatedly reinforcing that these groups are in competition with each other at the group level, not individuals. Pick your hatred or war and you'll see this: Germany in the 1930s, KKK, Israeli-Palestine, Protestant vs Catholics in Ireland, Sunni vs Shia, and even "Liberal" vs "Conservative" (or party affiliations) in recent years.
Also per the research, this hatred is stopped by continually reinforcing that we have a common cause and common problems. In the case of Woke DEI, for instance, the very idea of FAIR ("against intolerance and racism") is a start. Instead of defeating, destroying, or other social media click-bait type "drop the mic" discussion points, we need to start discussions from the point of view that we all want to solve the same root problems.
We want to stop racism and help people who suffer from racism, or sexism, or unfair discrimination in general. But to do so, we have to recognize there are good and bad ways to accomplish that. We present that our concern is that some methods used in practice actually increase unconscious bias and both individual and systemic racism, and we'd like to discuss those problems and get their input on how to help redirect these practices to get better outcomes.
As an example, rather than starting from opposition to affirmative action, I think that recognizing it does increase the number of students of different races and ethnicities, there's are several new problem introduced by it, and ask how to "they" envision addressing these new problems.
One problem is that by lowering the academic requirements for one group and raising them for another, you artificially exaggerate the differences of performance by race/group. You remove all of the C, D, and F students from one race, leaving only the best and brightest of that race and raising the measurable average performance of that race at that school. You then replace them with students of another race who have even lower academic scores (e.g., SAT), meaning without making up the academic deficiency at the educational level, they will necessarily be at the bottom of the class scores and artificially lower the average score of that race in that school. No matter the intention of the professors or other students, this creates an uncontrolled, unconscious bias of the first race being perceived as even smarter than they really are, and the second race being less proficient than they actually are. So how do we address this problem?
If "they" start going down the road of scaling scores by race, we discuss that this doesn't change the actual performance in class, study groups, or general academic life that everybody can see, nor of their performance after graduation.
We might then suggest an alternative which is instead to address the root problem of insufficient academic performance prior to college entry, using tutoring and other programs to help raise their performance, and of course ongoing efforts to improve lower school performance.
I think this approach of getting "us" and "them" to work on a problem together starting from a common goal, approaching "them" with the idea that we need their help and knowledge to address problems of systemic racism (as in the artificial scoring extremizing above), is perhaps a way to put us all on the same side of a common problem, rather than coming at it from an oppositional perspective.
In that process, "we" might diminish their tribal instincts and "lead them to water" of seeing the harms their approach causes. But, also, "we" might find that we also have some blind spots and learn from it too.
At least in my experience, that's the "how". The limitation of this approach, I find, is that there are specialized groups who deal with these topics, like a DEI department / team, and to get into one requires passing purity tests and calling too much attention to yourself in raising concerns about policies without being labeled "one of 'them'" can be difficult. It may just take patience, persistence, and continual self-checks on whether taking an oppositional stance or a common goal stance.
I repeat your question: How? I think the first step is to list what hasn't worked to make us more civil and then discard these failed attempts instead of doubling down on them. I'd put the whipping-dead-horse preaching of religions and political ideologies at the top of this list.
A clear-eyed look at religion reveals its history as a failure to be a moralizing force for humanity as a whole. As the saying goes, "Religion is good for good people." It follows, then, that religion is useless for bad people.
I am sure you don't realize that your assertion is unprovable, really unknowable. We lack a sample world where all other factors are identical and "religion" has been removed. You can cite anecdotal evidence in favor of your assertion and I evidence contrary to it, and waste time. I am not going to bother about it.
There's even more scientific evidence to back this up. I'm curious if Hudson dives into in-group/out-group psychology like Muzafer Sharif's Realistic Conflict Theory or Social Identity Theory, or empirical experiments like The Robbers Cave Experiment or Jane Elliott's classroom demonstrations using eye color.
I note in the review above that the book appears to put it in context of treating people as "means to an end" vs "as ends in themselves", specifically assigning to Enlightenment philosophy, "This is the path of individual liberty and human rights, in which the state exists to protect each citizen’s freedom to pursue happiness as they see it. This path is an outlier in human history, only recently discovered by European philosophers during the Enlightenment."
But, the review hints to the psychology at the end by referring to "tribes". Indeed, the highly repeatable in-group/out-group experiments seem to suggest we all have an innate "module", akin to "fight or flight" but with respect to "us vs them" tribalism.
It's existence implies we had hit a bottleneck of population exceeding resources at some point, possibly prior to 6 million years since that is out common ancestor with chimpanzees who share this trait. In that context, natural selection could easily drive a "tribal" psychology as a first approximation as a survival mechanism, along with developing cultural cues of who is "us" and who is "them", driving cultural differences (as in Robbers Cave Experiment), purity tests, purges, and why we tend to vote in groups of unrelated beliefs & policies.
I've written a little about this topic here (as part of a DEI [EDI] series): https://adnausica.substack.com/p/dire-warnings-part-3-dire-tribalmakers
Thanks for the review. I'm putting this book on my reading list as it appears to align very nicely with the philosophical side of the same considerations.
I already agreed just based on the article title. The better and more humanly we treat people, including and maybe especially people who have opinions different from ours, the better outcomes will be.
Much of our differences and refusal to change our opinions or accept another's opinion is due to the fact insults and demeaning rhetoric toward anyone who does not agree have become the norm. People are not going to change their opinion if they feel you do not respect them, they're going to double down.
Approaching them using genuine respect and some humility, and understanding that you may be in part or wholly wrong, is both a more effective and more human choice.
And in the odd situation where the other person is completely wrong on a given topic, remember that we as human beings are often totally wrong.
I'd add that one must beware the efforts of the media and politicians to sell us polarizing narratives that are gratifying to our egos ("We are the intelligent and morally good people and those other people are stupid or evil").
If we would like our country to be better we need to treat each other more graciously.
I love all of this.
I can't wait to read thus book. There are those out there who are promoting and excusing uncivilized behavior. It's not easy to let your guard down and begin to see people as fallible human beings. But, that's what we are. And, we are all captured in our time and place and experiences. Pro-human values require us to find a way to be better, myself at the top of the list.
Well said. We all need more intellectual humility and a willingness to extend the same grace to others that we extend to ourselves.
Yes. The HOW is the hard part. How do we move toward a civil culture without passing through a disastrous period of fascism?
Dr. Goodell, I think it starts with all of us as individuals. Society won't change until we do. When we let go of our tribalistic identity and start getting our sense of identity from non-tribal places (i.e. "I'm Julian Adorney, human being and child of God" not "I'm Julian Adorney, libertarian and Christian") then peace naturally follows.
But again, the question remains. How do we change every person? It's often said, but it's never been done.
+1
I think the 'How' is perhaps best understood with respect to Muzafer Sherif and his team's work on Realistic Group Conflict Theory, such as the Robbers Cave Experiment, back in the 1950s and 1960s. It is perhaps one of the most reproduceable psychological behaviors and with enormous empirical evidence of our recorded history and ongoing strife. Many/most of us have even felt the "us vs them" outrage overtake us at times only to (hopefully) have our rational brain become aware of it and re-consider things after we calm down.
I believe incivility and dehumanizing are perhaps best seen as outcome phenomena resulting from evoking the in-group/out-group 'tribal psychology' module we all have. Per the research, it is evoked by ensuring that everybody is identifiable into discrete groups (or tribes), and then repeatedly reinforcing that these groups are in competition with each other at the group level, not individuals. Pick your hatred or war and you'll see this: Germany in the 1930s, KKK, Israeli-Palestine, Protestant vs Catholics in Ireland, Sunni vs Shia, and even "Liberal" vs "Conservative" (or party affiliations) in recent years.
Also per the research, this hatred is stopped by continually reinforcing that we have a common cause and common problems. In the case of Woke DEI, for instance, the very idea of FAIR ("against intolerance and racism") is a start. Instead of defeating, destroying, or other social media click-bait type "drop the mic" discussion points, we need to start discussions from the point of view that we all want to solve the same root problems.
We want to stop racism and help people who suffer from racism, or sexism, or unfair discrimination in general. But to do so, we have to recognize there are good and bad ways to accomplish that. We present that our concern is that some methods used in practice actually increase unconscious bias and both individual and systemic racism, and we'd like to discuss those problems and get their input on how to help redirect these practices to get better outcomes.
As an example, rather than starting from opposition to affirmative action, I think that recognizing it does increase the number of students of different races and ethnicities, there's are several new problem introduced by it, and ask how to "they" envision addressing these new problems.
One problem is that by lowering the academic requirements for one group and raising them for another, you artificially exaggerate the differences of performance by race/group. You remove all of the C, D, and F students from one race, leaving only the best and brightest of that race and raising the measurable average performance of that race at that school. You then replace them with students of another race who have even lower academic scores (e.g., SAT), meaning without making up the academic deficiency at the educational level, they will necessarily be at the bottom of the class scores and artificially lower the average score of that race in that school. No matter the intention of the professors or other students, this creates an uncontrolled, unconscious bias of the first race being perceived as even smarter than they really are, and the second race being less proficient than they actually are. So how do we address this problem?
If "they" start going down the road of scaling scores by race, we discuss that this doesn't change the actual performance in class, study groups, or general academic life that everybody can see, nor of their performance after graduation.
We might then suggest an alternative which is instead to address the root problem of insufficient academic performance prior to college entry, using tutoring and other programs to help raise their performance, and of course ongoing efforts to improve lower school performance.
I think this approach of getting "us" and "them" to work on a problem together starting from a common goal, approaching "them" with the idea that we need their help and knowledge to address problems of systemic racism (as in the artificial scoring extremizing above), is perhaps a way to put us all on the same side of a common problem, rather than coming at it from an oppositional perspective.
In that process, "we" might diminish their tribal instincts and "lead them to water" of seeing the harms their approach causes. But, also, "we" might find that we also have some blind spots and learn from it too.
At least in my experience, that's the "how". The limitation of this approach, I find, is that there are specialized groups who deal with these topics, like a DEI department / team, and to get into one requires passing purity tests and calling too much attention to yourself in raising concerns about policies without being labeled "one of 'them'" can be difficult. It may just take patience, persistence, and continual self-checks on whether taking an oppositional stance or a common goal stance.
My 2 cents.
I repeat your question: How? I think the first step is to list what hasn't worked to make us more civil and then discard these failed attempts instead of doubling down on them. I'd put the whipping-dead-horse preaching of religions and political ideologies at the top of this list.
Maybe a put down of those of us who identify as "religious" isn't a good place to start.
A clear-eyed look at religion reveals its history as a failure to be a moralizing force for humanity as a whole. As the saying goes, "Religion is good for good people." It follows, then, that religion is useless for bad people.
I am sure you don't realize that your assertion is unprovable, really unknowable. We lack a sample world where all other factors are identical and "religion" has been removed. You can cite anecdotal evidence in favor of your assertion and I evidence contrary to it, and waste time. I am not going to bother about it.
For those who advocate removing religion as a solution, it's worth noting that Hudson is a devout Christian.