h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

just catching up on your reply -

"I'm not entirely convinced that even in-group/out-group is an innate mechanism. Is it not more likely that it also is a learned relationship? We learn to identify those on with whom we have mutual economic relationships - those we can rely on to share food, shelter, etc. "

To be honest I think the in-group/out-group thing is a useful but heavy handed model for social grouping. Undoubtedly social grouping happens and there are observable constants in how such groups interact and their members act. I simplified my comments in the context of the thread as wasn't really the subject for it!

"But we're not necssarily more or less trusting of others depending on their physical similarity to ourselves."
Physical similarity is just one identifier (it's an easy one to talk about since it is more obvious than idealogical differences but the same ideas apply to idealogical, geographical, intellectual etc differences as well). You are right, such a distinction is learned. But the categorisation I think is not. Grouping, categorising and differentiation between similar objects is an innate ability of the brain - it is how it works. Which is why our brains pick up on the most obvious differences when we encounter a new instance of a known category. At first we go for the gross differences. So if the only humans we have ever met are white and average height then meeting a white tall or short person we will automatically differentiatie them first on that gross physical difference, and then as our knowledge of humans grows we find that is not enough so we find other smaller differences. First time we meet a black person that is the gross difference. First time we meet a person with a different accent that will be the difference.

Equally, in response, we may not be 'necssarily more or less trusting of others because...' but when we encounter others we try to classify them in advance to give us some sort of clue as to how to interract with them. It gives us an edge in predicting how best to conduct ourselves. Of course, it can be completely wrong! And over reliance is a bad thing. We can consciously overrule those instructions, although 'tis hard to do so completely. I think that, as is becoming more clear in many areas of human thinking, that there's a lot goes on automatically in our subconscious before feeding into our conscious. The difference is that some take the automatic classification (this is a short person, most short people I have met are bad tempered and interaction doesn't usually benefit me greatly, therefore interaction with this person is unlikely to benefit me greatly) and go with it whereas others take it under advisement whilst interacting in the assumption we may be wrong.

"On the blue-eyed bit...are you refereing to whatshername's famous high school experiment?"
yep, purely as an example that the difference doesn't have to be a gross difference, it can be quite small. Same goes for idealogies which is why we see such violent inter-group reactions over very small points of doctrine for idealogical social groupings.

Well, yes...we of course classify things. It's one of our innate mechanisms for simplifying the world. (see the 'long secong' thread).

*But*...that's rather different to saying that we a) have an innate tendency to sort ourselves into in/out groups and b) that's specifically what our classifying tendencies for.

Yes, we do, as a species, organise ourselves into families/ tribes/ nations...etc. (I've recently discovered that anthropologists favour the Pashtun term 'qawm' qv), but these are learned economic relationships. On top of this, we've developed the social technology to pick out the members of our group by various signs - skin colour, language, whether we say 'aitch' or 'haitch'. But this is all very different to - in fact, the reverse of - saying 'People will automatically tend to sort themselves into groups according to physical characteristics.'

My reason for raising the whole thing in the first place was because of the view I've seen expressed (no names, no pack drill) that racism is a 'natural' phenomenon, albeit one which can be overcome, based on (eg) evidence that wasps share food with those they are most closely related to. In fact, I think that the evidence suggests otherwise; we are innately social animals with an ability to form and identify cooperative groupings in whatever way is convenient. In mythical evolutionary times, those groupings would *have* to be around arbitrary characteristics because everyone in the environment would have looked broadly similar.

(Note, incidentally, that we use many, many cues to recognise individuals. We don't even identify 'Mummy' by a single characteristic such as skin colour).

So...I'm slightly concerned that you might have unwittingly given further ammunition to the 'racism is natural' argument...and that this has been applauded.

Oh...and on the 'Blue eyes' experiment...

What I take from this is that we can *manufacture* conflict based around small differences. Note that the teacher did more than simply divide the class into two groups. She also set up the idea that one group should be treated unfairly.

agree with the blue-eyes flaw.

"*But*...that's rather different to saying that we a) have an innate tendency to sort ourselves into in/out groups and b) that's specifically what our classifying tendencies for. "
True and that isn't what I'm trying to get at. As I say, I think the in/out-group is bit clumsy to be honest and respresents one extreme.
It isn't specifically what out classifying tendancies are for, no, but it is one use of them. I see no functional difference in the classification mechanism for social groupings to that for object groups.

"organise ourselves into families/ tribes/ nations...but these are learned economic relationships."
The forming of social networks is part of our social processing, a part of what we are as a social animal. Which other individuals are members (or Not Members) is a qualification which we learn. but the social network potential exists without being taught. People form 'families' or 'tribes' with all sorts of different qualifications for who belongs. The structure exists, we populate it as we will.

"On top of this, we've developed the social technology to pick out the members of our group by various signs - skin colour, language, whether we say 'aitch' or 'haitch'. "
It is a process of further refinement. refining down from 'human' to "specific human that I know and am related to in way 'x'" and this may be positive or negative.

"But this is all very different to - in fact, the reverse of - saying 'People will automatically tend to sort themselves into groups according to physical characteristics.'"
Personally I'd say that statement is flat out wrong. People will automatically seek to sort and stratify themselves within a group, but it could be on any basis and not just physical.

"My reason for raising the whole thing in the first place was because of the view I've seen expressed (no names, no pack drill) that racism is a 'natural' phenomenon..."
Yes, I was a bit worried I might have been misunderstood.
Racism is not a natural phenomena, but applying group characteristics to an individual group member, whatever that group may be, is. And it is one we can consciously override.
Racism, as with sexism, uses a false social group. The difference as I see it, is that when the social group we are identifying negatively is 'the tribe from over the mountain that stain their hair blue' we have a self identifying group membership and a key marker of that membership. Tribal history has shown they attack us every time they see us. Therefore when we encounter a blue haired person it is useful to our survival to assume they will behave as other members of that group have done historically.

Whereas with racism/sexism the social grouping is false - it is not self identifying and the indicative attributes (skin colour/sex) are involuntary and not indicative of what the person themselves has as values. With the blue haired it is more reasonable (but not necessarily true) to assume they hold their tribal values. With skin colour or sex there are no social group values to be upheld (except those which are incorrectly and without evidence assigned by us to them).

"In fact, I think that the evidence suggests otherwise; we are innately social animals with an ability to form and identify cooperative groupings in whatever way is convenient."

I think you are biasing the innate ability in favour of cooperation.

I would say the evidence suggests we have an innate ability to to form and identify groupings. These groupings may be inclusive or exclusive. They may positive 'we like/get on with' but it is equally important to identify 'we dislike/dont get on with'. Whilst social cooperation is important, it is also important in both an individual sense and a group sense (especially if you are a group leader) to be able to get one up on the others, to promote your interests above theirs. We also need to be able to identify those groups which threaten our existence in some way in order to deal with them appropriately (however that may be).

"Note, incidentally, that we use many, many cues to recognise individuals. We don't even identify 'Mummy' by a single characteristic such as skin colour)"
You've not met my mum then, lovely shade of turquiose she is...
(yes, I was aware of that )

p.s. "I've recently discovered that anthropologists favour the Pashtun term 'qawm'"
Interesting, ta for that!

I'm fairly sure we're agreeing violently, so I'll just deal with:

>>I think you are biasing the innate ability in favour of cooperation.

Point taken. I wasn't meaning to imply that we are naturally altrusitic and all that hippy shit. We're neither altrusitic nor selfish - we can both depending on our needs and circumstances at any given time. I was simply using 'cooperation' in the sense of having social mechanisms which allow us to form useful units. We're not lone hunters. (Except when we are. We're flexible!)

I think the 'qawm' concept is quite exciting. I've developed a interest in economics lately and it seems to me that there a some ideas from there which are quite powerful in explaining our sociobiology. It seems to me that a qawm is something like a what economists call a 'market'.

And I think there are some sociobiological theories that can explain how come we are in the current economic mess as well!


Not that that is that surprising - economies being a function of societies after all (although i suspect you may have something to say about that...).

Well I'd say that economies *are* societies. Economics isn't just about money - it's about exchange. In bonobo society (and, to a large extent, human), the mediums of exchange are sex and food. Money is merely an abstraction of those.

true enough - though you spotted the research recently that Bonobos aren't quite the chilled out hippies they are often portrayed as?

I seem to remember hearing that they killed a bird.

But I bet they had a good shag afterwards!

ah no, bonobo on bonobo violence, one example (not the one I had in mind)
http://bonobohandshake.blogspot.com/2008/07/bonobo-violence.html

Not that it is exactly that surprising, there's bound to some situations which lead to it in any society.