In-Groups, Out-Groups, and Making the Choice to Bring More People “In”

Whatever the reason you decided to read or engage here (thank you! and an extra-big thank you to those who decided to pay for a subscription) I want all of you to feel welcome: part of the gang. That includes you, even when you disagree with me completely.

You might have figured out that there are a few issues I care passionately about: science, health, psychology, politics. More specifically, a couple of issues have been looming very large for me lately: I want the best evidence-based outcomes for people with a trans identification, and the best pandemic responses despite the constantly changing conditions we find ourselves in. (Omicron. OMG.)

But whatever the issues we’re discussing here, I want to bring reason and good faith to the discussion and invite everyone to participate. I also want to assume the good faith of others (unless they provide very, very good reasons not to).

In-Groups and Out-Groups

If you ever took a sociology or psychology class, you might have learned about in-groups and out-groups.

Your in-groups include anyone about whom you say “we”—for me, that might include women, parents, Gen X, Americans, writers, people who lean left politically, or dog owners.

Your out-groups include anyone about whom you say “they” —for me, that might include Trump voters or people who believe in the “affirmation” model of gender treatment.

Out-groups are often people whom you see as adversaries, but they don’t have to be. They can be people whom you just see as “different from you.” For me, that might be “men” or “people who speak Hungarian.”

The thing about out-groups, though, is this: It’s very easy to shift from seeing people as different-but-neutral to seeing them as your adversaries. If you’re a woman, and you’ve heard the thousandth “outrageously bad boyfriend” story, it’s easy—but lazy and untrue—to say, “Men are trash.”

Similarly, frequent grouping of people by race—so-called “affinity groups,” which seem to be a well-intentioned part of 21st-century-style “antiracism” —can backfire. Ye Zhang Pogue makes that point here. Instead of affinity groups simply benefitting the in-group as intended, out-group dynamics appear and can soon get ugly.

When you create out-groups, you can also create unintended negative results.

Out-Groups Can Even Be Created Out of Nothing

The most famous experiment that divided people into in-groups and out-groups was the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. Twenty-four students, chosen for their seeming emotional stability, were assigned randomly to be “guards” or “prisoners” in a basement at Stanford University:

“The study was initially slated to last two weeks but had to be terminated after just six days because of the extreme reactions and behaviors of the participants. The guards began displaying cruel and sadistic behavior toward the prisoners, while the prisoners became depressed and hopeless.”

Our in-groups and out-groups determine how we behave toward others. I have a Christmas tree in my house because I was born into a family of people who always had Christmas trees in their houses. “We” have Christmas trees.  

Likewise, the “guards” in the Stanford prison experiment saw themselves as part of a “we” who were part of the same team. They saw the prisoners as a “they” – an adversary, even though they were just fellow students who signed up for the same research project as themselves.

If We Can Create Out-Groups, We Can Also Create In-Groups

The older I get, the more I see the wisdom of inviting everyone possible into my in-groups. If you can find no other point of commonality, you can almost always put them in your in-group of “people who have good intentions” and treat them accordingly.

But why? If there’s something I’m really angry about, like giving puberty blockers to kids in absence of evidence that it helps them, why should I care about treating “them” as if they are part of my in-group of “people who want the best outcomes for kids who are suffering”?

The reason lies in the way we treat each other in our in-groups. The Stanford prison guards treated the “prisoners” as a hated enemy for no particular reason, and they treated the other “guards” well for no particular reason. Treating each other well is how we get things done. Treating each other poorly derails any efforts at change.

We’ve all seen conversations end badly, whether on social media or around the dinner table, and they often end badly because the speakers are treating each other as an enemy or part of an “out-group”—a “Them.”

If you’re on the same side of “the vaccine issue” or “the puberty blocker issue,” everyone treats each other with kindness or support. If you’re on the “other side,” the insults fly – and what really changes? Nothing.

If We Want to Improve Anything, We Need to Reverse Polarizing Trends

So if we want people to listen to us, if we hope to come to new understandings and new consensuses, if we expect to advance in new or better ways, we need to find a way to treat “them” as part of “us” and to listen and engage respectfully. That can be really hard sometimes.

In Hate Inc: Why Today’s Media Make Us Despise One Another, Matt Taibbi describes how Americans all used to watch the same national nightly news broadcasts. With everyone watching, the news had to appeal to conservative grandparents, their radical grandkids, and everyone in between. News was fairly bland, but fact-based.

But Taibbi points out what we have all witnessed ourselves: In the last few years, with more sources of “news” and with people getting their news from social media (via their like-minded friends), news stories have become more and more niche and polarizing, depending on the target audiences. They are more about “giving the audience something they want, expect, or already believe or fear” and less about “just the facts.”

Just this morning an example popped into my email in-box. Certainly covid vaccines for kids aged 5-11 are a controverisal issue. There are people who might have sincere concerns about this. We could have a reasoned discussion pro and con. But instead, I got an email today from Candace Owens (how I got on Candace Owens’ email list is a mystery, but that would be a conversation for another day) saying,

“Joe Biden is coming for your children,” and asking people to sign a petition against “tyranny” titled “DO NOT COMPLY.”

The conversation is thus fear-driven and highly polarizing before we can even begin. We’re seeing the phenomenon Matt Taibbi described. How do you respond to that? Well, you’ve got choices. You could respond in a polarizing way. You could dismiss it as silly. You could decide that anyone who thinks “Joe Biden is coming for their children” is an idiot, not worth your time. You could make them part of an out-group.

Or you could choose to find a way to put “people who think Joe Biden is coming for their children” into one of your in-groups. These people fit into my in-group of “people who care about kids’ well-being and want what’s best for them.” So I can start there.

To be sure, this is not necessarily the intention of the original email and petition. That could easily be a cynical business move, with the goal of getting people to read The Daily Wire. But regular, everyday people who read this are probably concerned about kids’ well-being. Unless you really listen and treat “them” as part of “us,” you won’t find out.

The In-Group Challenge

So that’s my challenge to all of us. Let’s go forth and find ways to have conversations on important topics in which we treat others as part of “us.” Try to say what you want to say, in such a way that people who disagree with you can still hear you—and you can hear them.

Tell me some stories about this in the comments!