I have noticed this for years. I say people are not racist, homophobic, etc... People just want to gang up together and the existence of a group reaches the height of its meaning (to its members) when they can say "This is us. That is them. Clearly we are different (superior). Don't mix us." Same is true when you have 10 Harvard grads with 5 "insert_your_state_university" grads in the same room.<p>The ultimate test: Take a hispanic who hates blacks. Add a black who hates whites. Add a white who hates hispanics. Leave them stranded in the desert and they must rely on one another to survive. They will be friends in no time. When they get back to town it will be "This is us, the survivors. That is them, those who never had such an experience. Don't mix us."
I don't think a single one of my friendships involve a common enemy, beyond both of us being allied against boredom. Physics is unrecognizable after being passed through the dirty lens of journalism, and I guess this is what happens when they report on fields with <i>even messier</i> situations.<p>><i>Game theory models predict it, real-life examples confirm it. “In order to band together, we need a common enemy,” Dr. Christakis said.</i><p>What do these models say about behavior around shared tasks? There are a lot of prisoner's dilemmas and tragic commons in the world but there actually are some cases where you can get something out of <i>nature</i> while other people <i>help</i>. Maybe that's why hackers tend to not be very xenophobic, they have something to focus on other than dividing up the morning's pie.
Happens in every conceivable kind of social group I am aware off. Those in the other classroom, those in the other office, those of the other political stripe, those across the border, those who play on the other team, those who dress differently, those who use Ubuntu, those who code C++, those who prefer cats, or dogs, or whatever, ad nauseam. It happens here on HN, for Gods sake.<p>No, we're not baying for the blood of those guys, but the dislike is there, or the mistrust. And seeing how all kinds of other animals exhibit the exact same pattern, there's no sound reason not to assume we are hardwired for it.<p>In so many cases a silly atavism. And in many others no doubt an essential group mechanism, if nowadays not necessarily for survival, then for internal group cohesion and a basic guard against intruders.
People need a common purpose to unite... moonshot, get to Mars, threat of climate catastrophe, etc. Otherwise, wedge issues tend to form fault lines and natural selection will encourage war to reduce competition for resources / survival.
This is the 3rd article I've seen like this today.
I think what's missing from the conversation is bonding vs bridging social capital.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital#Sub-types" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital#Sub-types</a><p>We have known for a while that close homophobic bonds (bonding) can create animosity towards outsiders. But not every relationship does this. Some relationships connect us with people outside our normal groups (bridging). The extent to which people bond or bridge varies from person to person, and across time periods.<p>I suspect this conversation is being had in response to Facebook's tendencies to bring out the worst in people. I think the internet has the potential to create both kinds of social capital. It's helped me stay closer to my friends and family, while also introducing me to people in different countries, or people with different religions. When we design social networking software, we should design it with bridging social capital in mind. If it only encourages bonding, we'll be creating a world of hostile tribes.
> In order to band together, we need a common enemy<p>Yes, to band together, sure. But is that friendship?<p>> <i>Friends are predetermined; friendship takes place between men and women who possess an intellectual and emotional affinity for each other. But comradeship — that ecstatic bliss that comes with belonging to the crowd in wartime — is within our reach. We can all have comrades. The danger of the external threat that comes when we have an enemy does not create friendship; it creates comradeship. And those in wartime are deceived about what they are undergoing. And this is why once the threat is over, once war ends, comrades again become strangers to us. This is why after war we fall into despair.</i><p>> <i>In friendship there is a deepening of our sense of self. We become, through the friend, more aware of who we are and what we are about; we find ourselves in the eyes of the friend. Friends probe and question and challenge each other to make each of us more complete; with comradeship, the kind that comes to us in patriotic fervor, there is a suppression of self-awareness, self-knowledge, and self-possession. Comrades lose their identities in wartime for the collective rush of a common cause — a common purpose.</i><p>-- Chris Hedges<p>Of course, disliking the same thing or person can also be a result of intellectual or emotional affinity. I can meet someone in the wilderness and think they're an okay person because of how they are to me, but if we then go back to the city and they steal from a blind beggar, I'll no longer think they're okay. Likewise, if I walk around with a supposed friend and we see someone do that, and they react with a shrug or even a smile, that will similarly lower my opinion of them.<p>But that's because of what I am <i>for</i>, which is primary and a cause if you will -- not because of the need to be against anything, which is secondary and a symptom.