Penny and Ollie Talk about Groups

Penny, Ollie and Leonard, discuss:

In groups and out groups

L – Penny, sit down and tell me what you know.

P – Leonard, that would take far too long, but I will sit down.

L – Where’s Ollie?

P – He’s running a little late.

L – Are you guys having trouble?  I bet the two of you are on the outs.

P – Funny.  Ollie and I are way too much alike to be on the ins or the outs.

L – Speaking of ins and outs, do you recall discussing in-groups and out-groups as an undergraduate?

P – Yes, I do.

L – I don’t but I noticed it in a book I was reading the other day and I was intrigued by it.

P – The theory is a rich one.  For example, it predicts I will find those in my in-group more likeable than those in the out-group, irrespective of their actual individual “likeability quotient”.  For example, if we find ourselves in a foreign country and there are people from various countries at the same gathering, there will be a tendency for us to gravitate toward those who are from our country and away from the others, even though the countrymen toward whom we move may not be the type of person toward whom we would normally be attracted.

O – Hey you two.

P – Hello Ollie.  Please tell Leonard here we are not mad at one another and that you were simply running late today.

O – What she said.  What are you guys discussing?

L – In and out-groups. 

O – I like that subject.  I read the results of a study that said when students from one college were asked to predict how others from their college would pick from an array of choices of some sort, they expressed the opinion that their choices would be quite various.  When asked to predict the choices of people from other colleges, they tended to expect them to all opt for a narrow band of options.  In other words, they tended to think people not from their college were pretty much all alike, whereas those from their college were given credit for being diverse.

P – That says we look at people in the out-group as not being as interesting and dynamic as those within our in-group.

O – If you look at this from an international relations point of view, consider how people will tolerate hatred, racism, prejudice, bigotry, even violence, if it is something done by someone within their in-group, while these same people will be apt to express great opposition to these qualities when they are seen among those who are not in the in-group.

P – It’s interesting that one of the easiest ways to be accepted in a group is to, in the presence of members of that group, express biases you know they hold against out-group members and your chances of being accepted go up dramatically.

O – Think of civil wars or in fact, all wars.  It is essential that people see in-group and out-group differences as profound.  Otherwise wars could not be started and sustained.  People in the south of the United States just knew those from the north did not think the way southerners did; did not like the same things, and were all alike in these differences, and the like, whereas they promoted the perception that people in the south tended to be different from one another, but of course alike in the key aspect that they were not Yankees.

P – Another interesting thing is what you might call the bias against intruders or newcomers.  People who have ridden several floors together will have a tendency to be biased against others crowding into the same elevator.  Apparently it only takes a short time for in-group identity to develop and it can happen among strangers.

O – That might change, though, if all those on the elevator were members of an out-group and one of your in-group mates was waiting to crowd in.

P – That’s true.  Then you would have the clash of in-groups, the old one versus the new, more temporary one.

O – When two groups argue it is like two people are arguing.  If you are an accepted member of a group, you may be persuaded to adopt positions at odds with people with whom you may actually have more in common, merely because they have not been accepted in your in-group.

P – Also, sometimes when we are in groups it is as if we are no longer individuals.  We lose ourselves in a type of mob identity.  This helps explain how otherwise decent people might do outrageous things, such as what is done by members of the mafia.  It is as if they are not the ones doing the behavior, but rather it is the group spirit possessing them.

O – This certainly explains the killing machines armies become.  Taken one by one, most of the soldiers would be incapable of committing murder.  However, as a member of a platoon, it becomes routine to take the lives of out-group members, or members of other armies.

P – This is why nations and militaries work hard to keep their soldiers from becoming too familiar with those from the other side.  There is a real danger of over-identification with the enemy.  It can undermine identification with your in-group and render more difficult the entire enterprise of mutual violence.

O – The anonymity afforded by wearing a uniform is interesting.  If all in-group members wear the same clothes, it is much easier to justify them taking the same actions, even if these actions result in the death of those dressed in a different uniform.

L – When you look at the behavior of people in terms like these, it makes us seem less in control as individuals, doesn’t it?

O – And that is not an illusion.  We really are not as much in control of our own individual actions as we believe.

P – Wait a minute.  It IS an illusion that we are in control.

O – Right, but I was saying the fact that we are under the control of groups is not an illusion.

L – You two exhaust me. 

P – That’s just the way people like Ollie and me are.

O – Yeah, we are not like you Leonards.