Democrats v Republicans = Eagles v Rattlers

[Revoltingest]

From long ago, we have an experiment about group behavior....
What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
Excerpted....
What Robbers Cave Teaches Us About Human Behavior
Psychologists Michael Platow and John Hunter connect Sherif’s study to social psychology’s social identity theory: the theory that being part of a group has powerful effects on people’s identities and behaviors. Researchers studying social identity have found that people categorize themselves as members of social groups (as the members of the Eagles and Rattlers did), and that these group memberships can lead people to behave in discriminatory and hostile ways towards outgroup members. However, the Robbers Cave study also shows that conflict isn’t inevitable or intractable, as the researchers were eventually able to reduce tensions between the two groups.

The Robbers Cave experiment also allows us to evaluate social psychology’s contact hypothesis. According to the contact hypothesis, prejudice and group conflict can be reduced if members of the two groups spend time with one another, and that contact between groups is especially likely to reduce conflict if certain conditions are met. In the Robbers Cave study, the researchers found that simply bringing the groups together for fun activities was not enough to reduce conflict. However, conflict was successfully reduced when the groups worked together on common goals—and, according to the contact hypothesis, having common goals is one of the conditions that makes it more likely that conflict between the groups will be reduced. In other words, the Robbers Cave study suggests it’s not always enough for groups in conflict to spend time together: instead, the key may be to find a way for the two groups to work together.

Now, back to me....
My helper yesterday hates liberals. They're evil socialists (which is
redundant to him). He doesn't associate with them. All his news &
friendships ('cept for me) are right wingers.
He reminds me so much of many lefties I know. Even on RF, some
advocate giving no respect to the other side...even active hostility.

Each side believes that it has "the truth" & goodness. The other
side is horrible, wallowing in lies & ignorance, & evil intent. To point
this out brings strident denials...tis impossible to share this flaw.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, the first poster to cry "False equivalency!" is
(by doing so) admitting sniffing me unlaundered kilt.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From long ago, we have an experiment about group behavior....
What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
Excerpted....
What Robbers Cave Teaches Us About Human Behavior
Psychologists Michael Platow and John Hunter connect Sherif’s study to social psychology’s social identity theory: the theory that being part of a group has powerful effects on people’s identities and behaviors. Researchers studying social identity have found that people categorize themselves as members of social groups (as the members of the Eagles and Rattlers did), and that these group memberships can lead people to behave in discriminatory and hostile ways towards outgroup members. However, the Robbers Cave study also shows that conflict isn’t inevitable or intractable, as the researchers were eventually able to reduce tensions between the two groups.

The Robbers Cave experiment also allows us to evaluate social psychology’s contact hypothesis. According to the contact hypothesis, prejudice and group conflict can be reduced if members of the two groups spend time with one another, and that contact between groups is especially likely to reduce conflict if certain conditions are met. In the Robbers Cave study, the researchers found that simply bringing the groups together for fun activities was not enough to reduce conflict. However, conflict was successfully reduced when the groups worked together on common goals—and, according to the contact hypothesis, having common goals is one of the conditions that makes it more likely that conflict between the groups will be reduced. In other words, the Robbers Cave study suggests it’s not always enough for groups in conflict to spend time together: instead, the key may be to find a way for the two groups to work together.

Now, back to me....
My helper yesterday hates liberals. They're evil socialists (which is
redundant to him). He doesn't associate with them. All his news &
friendships ('cept for me) are right wingers.
He reminds me so much of many lefties I know. Even on RF, some
advocate giving no respect to the other side...even active hostility.

Each side believes that it has "the truth" & goodness. The other
side is horrible, wallowing in lies & ignorance, & evil intent. To point
this out brings strident denials...tis impossible to share this flaw.

Okay. Each side believes that it has "the truth" & goodness. Is that true?

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay. Each side believes that it has "the truth" & goodness. Is that true?

It's an observation, not truth.

 

[Left Coast]

From long ago, we have an experiment about group behavior....
What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
Excerpted....
What Robbers Cave Teaches Us About Human Behavior
Psychologists Michael Platow and John Hunter connect Sherif’s study to social psychology’s social identity theory: the theory that being part of a group has powerful effects on people’s identities and behaviors. Researchers studying social identity have found that people categorize themselves as members of social groups (as the members of the Eagles and Rattlers did), and that these group memberships can lead people to behave in discriminatory and hostile ways towards outgroup members. However, the Robbers Cave study also shows that conflict isn’t inevitable or intractable, as the researchers were eventually able to reduce tensions between the two groups.

The Robbers Cave experiment also allows us to evaluate social psychology’s contact hypothesis. According to the contact hypothesis, prejudice and group conflict can be reduced if members of the two groups spend time with one another, and that contact between groups is especially likely to reduce conflict if certain conditions are met. In the Robbers Cave study, the researchers found that simply bringing the groups together for fun activities was not enough to reduce conflict. However, conflict was successfully reduced when the groups worked together on common goals—and, according to the contact hypothesis, having common goals is one of the conditions that makes it more likely that conflict between the groups will be reduced. In other words, the Robbers Cave study suggests it’s not always enough for groups in conflict to spend time together: instead, the key may be to find a way for the two groups to work together.

Now, back to me....
My helper yesterday hates liberals. They're evil socialists (which is
redundant to him). He doesn't associate with them. All his news &
friendships ('cept for me) are right wingers.
He reminds me so much of many lefties I know. Even on RF, some
advocate giving no respect to the other side...even active hostility.

Each side believes that it has "the truth" & goodness. The other
side is horrible, wallowing in lies & ignorance, & evil intent. To point
this out brings strident denials...tis impossible to share this flaw.

Not to derail the thread, but without doing more research myself, I wonder - have the same results been found with groups of girls? Part of the theory behind the researchers' study is that competition between groups is what creates/deepens hostilities. We know from many studies that boys tend to prefer competitive games, and girls tend to prefer cooperative ones.

Of course things get more complicated as we age, but it does make me wonder if more female political leadership might decrease our political hostilities. (Anecdotes about mean females in politics would not be good evidence against this hypothesis).

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to derail the thread, but without doing more research myself, I wonder - have the same results been found with groups of girls? Part of the theory behind the researchers' study is that competition between groups is what creates/deepens hostilities. We know from many studies that boys tend to prefer competitive games, and girls tend to prefer cooperative ones.

Of course things get more complicated as we age, but it does make me wonder if more female political leadership might decrease our political hostilities. (Anecdotes about mean females in politics would not be good evidence against this hypothesis).

As I recall from junior high school in the last century, girls
form cliques from which the "mean girls" meme arises.
And in the political world, I see much group oriented hostility
towards the "other". Which gender is worse? I dunno.

Btw, discussion is better than debate, so your post adds
to the thread without derailing.

 

[Ponder This]

From long ago, we have an experiment about group behavior....
What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
Excerpted....
What Robbers Cave Teaches Us About Human Behavior
Psychologists Michael Platow and John Hunter connect Sherif’s study to social psychology’s social identity theory: the theory that being part of a group has powerful effects on people’s identities and behaviors. Researchers studying social identity have found that people categorize themselves as members of social groups (as the members of the Eagles and Rattlers did), and that these group memberships can lead people to behave in discriminatory and hostile ways towards outgroup members. However, the Robbers Cave study also shows that conflict isn’t inevitable or intractable, as the researchers were eventually able to reduce tensions between the two groups.

The Robbers Cave experiment also allows us to evaluate social psychology’s contact hypothesis. According to the contact hypothesis, prejudice and group conflict can be reduced if members of the two groups spend time with one another, and that contact between groups is especially likely to reduce conflict if certain conditions are met. In the Robbers Cave study, the researchers found that simply bringing the groups together for fun activities was not enough to reduce conflict. However, conflict was successfully reduced when the groups worked together on common goals—and, according to the contact hypothesis, having common goals is one of the conditions that makes it more likely that conflict between the groups will be reduced. In other words, the Robbers Cave study suggests it’s not always enough for groups in conflict to spend time together: instead, the key may be to find a way for the two groups to work together.

Now, back to me....
My helper yesterday hates liberals. They're evil socialists (which is
redundant to him). He doesn't associate with them. All his news &
friendships ('cept for me) are right wingers.
He reminds me so much of many lefties I know. Even on RF, some
advocate giving no respect to the other side...even active hostility.

Each side believes that it has "the truth" & goodness. The other
side is horrible, wallowing in lies & ignorance, & evil intent. To point
this out brings strident denials...tis impossible to share this flaw.

What common goals do you think Democrats and Republicans could unite behind?

 

[Left Coast]

As I recall from junior high school in the last century, girls
form cliques from which the "mean girls" meme arises.
And in the political world, I see much group oriented hostility
towards the "other". Which gender is worse? I dunno.

Btw, discussion is better than debate, so your post adds
to the thread without derailing.

Girls can certainly be mean and "cliquey," no doubt, especially as teens. The studies I've seen re: coooperative tendencies were in younger kids. I think they've also been replicated in adults? I'd have to check.

Junior high is terrible age by which to judge humanity, don't you think?

 

[Revoltingest]

What common goals do you think Democrats and Republicans could unite behind?

Fiscal responsibility
Civil rights
Effective foreign policy
Infrastructure improvement
Environmental protection

I can imagine more.

 

[bobhikes]

From long ago, we have an experiment about group behavior....
What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
Excerpted....
What Robbers Cave Teaches Us About Human Behavior
Psychologists Michael Platow and John Hunter connect Sherif’s study to social psychology’s social identity theory: the theory that being part of a group has powerful effects on people’s identities and behaviors. Researchers studying social identity have found that people categorize themselves as members of social groups (as the members of the Eagles and Rattlers did), and that these group memberships can lead people to behave in discriminatory and hostile ways towards outgroup members. However, the Robbers Cave study also shows that conflict isn’t inevitable or intractable, as the researchers were eventually able to reduce tensions between the two groups.

The Robbers Cave experiment also allows us to evaluate social psychology’s contact hypothesis. According to the contact hypothesis, prejudice and group conflict can be reduced if members of the two groups spend time with one another, and that contact between groups is especially likely to reduce conflict if certain conditions are met. In the Robbers Cave study, the researchers found that simply bringing the groups together for fun activities was not enough to reduce conflict. However, conflict was successfully reduced when the groups worked together on common goals—and, according to the contact hypothesis, having common goals is one of the conditions that makes it more likely that conflict between the groups will be reduced. In other words, the Robbers Cave study suggests it’s not always enough for groups in conflict to spend time together: instead, the key may be to find a way for the two groups to work together.

Now, back to me....
My helper yesterday hates liberals. They're evil socialists (which is
redundant to him). He doesn't associate with them. All his news &
friendships ('cept for me) are right wingers.
He reminds me so much of many lefties I know. Even on RF, some
advocate giving no respect to the other side...even active hostility.

Each side believes that it has "the truth" & goodness. The other
side is horrible, wallowing in lies & ignorance, & evil intent. To point
this out brings strident denials...tis impossible to share this flaw.

So what did you want to debate about?

 

[Revoltingest]

Girls can certainly be mean and "cliquey," no doubt, especially as teens. The studies I've seen re: coooperative tendencies were in younger kids. I think they've also been replicated in adults? I'd have to check.

Junior high is terrible age by which to judge humanity, don't you think?

Adulthood is a terrible one too.
Just look at how they behave.

 

[Revoltingest]

So what did you want to debate about?

I left that to other posters.
Surely, someone would object.

 

[Left Coast]

What common goals do you think Democrats and Republicans could unite behind?

Drug decriminalization and opposition to qualified immunity are two. It wouldn't be unanimously common, but more libertarian Reps and more progressive Dems are generally in agreement about them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Drug decriminalization and opposition to qualified immunity are two. It wouldn't be unanimously common, but more libertarian Reps and more progressive Dems are generally in agreement about them.

The psychology of group hostility seems to prevent the parties
from reaching agreement on what should be common ground.
I suspect that it's more than personal hostility among politicians,
but also about maintaining power with supporters, who don't
want to see their side giving in to the evil other.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news, a sampling of us-vs-them ill effects....
US Election: Violence as Trump fans clash with BLM protest and Antifa | Daily Mail Online

 

[tytlyf]

The study makes sense and I will note that their previous experiment produced opposite results.
You could figure this out looking at 2 different high schools in a small town. Same people, different perceptions of the 'other' school. The display of perceived rivalry can be seen during sports between the 2 schools.
I'd like to see a study with 1 group fed conspiracy theories and propaganda 24/7 about the other group. Then examine the results.
Respect is earned, not given. I'd assume many think respect is given, not earned.

 

[PureX]

Just for the sake of contemplation ... let's say one group within a society supports division and intolerance, while another group within that same society supports unity and tolerance. How do we suggest that the second group respond to the first group, and what do you think that first group's reaction will be to that response?

Response A - they can respond to the intolerance with tolerance, and to the desire to divide with a desire to unite. But how do you think this will work? Will the intolerant group become tolerant simply because they are being tolerated? Or will they become MORE intolerant because their intolerance is being tolerated?

Response B - they can respond to the intolerance with intolerance, and to the desire to divide with acknowledged division. But how do you think this will work? Will the intolerant group become tolerant when faced with the intolerance of others? Or will they become MORE intolerant in defense or acknowledgement of the intolerance they are experiencing from others?

And now let's make matters even more confusing. Let's say we're discussing freedom, rather than tolerance. And lets say group one intends to use the freedom that their society affords them to suppress the freedom of anyone who dares to disagree with them, or to impede their desires. While the other group wants to afford everyone in their society the maximum degree of freedom possible, but that it must be done EQUALLY.

So how does this second group respond to people who use the freedom they're being afforded, to take away the freedom being equally afforded to others? Do they deny them their freedom on the basis that they are using it to deny the freedom of others? And if they do this, aren't they creating the very scenario that they're trying to stop?

I think if we consider these dilemmas, carefully, we will come to the realization that a tolerant, free society cannot abide intolerance and repression within it. And those who promote and espouse these attributes present a terminal threat that must be expunged.

 

[Valjean]

In the news, a sampling of us-vs-them ill effects....
US Election: Violence as Trump fans clash with BLM protest and Antifa | Daily Mail Online

Trump Supporters Swarm Biden Campaign Bus On Texas Highway | HuffPost

 

[Valjean]

People enjoy intergroup conflict, especially young males. Our species seems wired for tribalism.
Even if no real conflict over anything exists, people will invent them, and tribes to identify with.

What do you think team sports is all about?
Both sides -- identical. Material impact of a game results on the lives of opponents -- zero.

 

[Ponder This]

Fiscal responsibility
Civil rights
Effective foreign policy
Infrastructure improvement
Environmental protection

I can imagine more.

Perhaps Democrats and Republicans are more united than we think. Perhaps, this is really a disagreement about how to achieve common goals.
Higher or Lower Taxes
Likeable personality vs Makes Deals
Cut Unnecessary Regulation vs Green New Deal
Build a Wall vs Don't Build a Wall

Drug decriminalization and opposition to qualified immunity are two. It wouldn't be unanimously common, but more libertarian Reps and more progressive Dems are generally in agreement about them.

I'm not sure if these "goals" are really big enough to be goals. It feels like they are more like goal posts. Is there a purpose for these measures? (Besides do more drugs and sue more people) What do we hope this will achieve? What is the end goal?