WE are superior to YOU!

A further study of the 'Us vs. Them' Paradigm

This thread will attempt to shed light on the following human characteristics: One, all humans self-identify with a group or groups. Two, all humans believe that their group or groups are superior to other groups.

It just human nature to self-identify with groups. One naturally identifies with one's own race, culture and gender. Even if intellectually they know better, instictually they regard their group is 'better'. For example, even someone who is not racist would probably not want to change their race. Someone who is not sexist would not want to change their sex. They just naturally view their 'group' as 'better' than the other 'group'.

You see it everywhere in the world. Those who belong to an organized religion think they are 'better' than those who do not follow their religion. Those of one political philosophy believe they are 'better' than those of other political philosophies. Those of one culture think that culture is 'better' than any other culture. This is why the Landmark Case of 'Us v. Them' that is continuously fought in the Court of Public Opinion is so fiercely argued. But why does this phenomenon exist?

One possibility is that conscious superiority is actually the result of subconscious inferiority:

"Our results suggest that hubristic, pompous displays of group pride might actually be a sign of group insecurity as opposed to a sign of strength," says Cynthia Pickett, associate professor of psychology at UC Davis and one of only a few research psychologists to have studied collective pride.

Pickett and her co-investigators found that groups that boast, gloat and denigrate outsiders tend to be of low social status or vulnerable to threats from other groups. In contrast, those that express pride by humbly focusing on members' efforts and hard work tend to have high social standing.

Source.

This seems to be verified by a study of body language:

To understand why this might be the case it is helpful to understand the work of a few other researchers. Two of them, UC Davis psychologist Richard Robins and University of British Columbia psychologist Jessica Tracy, both who worked with Picket on her recent collective pride study, reported in an earlier, 2004, "Psychological Science" article that the emotion of pride has a distinct nonverbal expression that is unlike the body language of other positive emotions-meaning it is much closer to the body language of negative emotions.

The other researcher is emotional expert Paul Ekland who detailed in his now classic "Emotions Revealed" that facial expression are physiologically tied to emotions. It's impossible to have one without the other. The best example of this may be the fact that very few people can smile naturally on command. That's because there is a tiny muscle beneath the lower eyelid that rises when one smiles naturally. it rises when one is happy and at no other times. It's an involuntary repose. Less than 5 percent of the population can make this happen by will alone. But when it does happen, when that tiny eyefold lifts, there is a correlational dopamine release. A little boost to let you know you're happy.

Source.

This makes sense when one observes the political arena. When one side is dominant, as the Democrats are now, the non-dominant party becomes extremely vocal and defensive.

But is there a biological component to this? Are we hard wired this way? One possibility is that it is a survival instinct hardwired into our DNA. In order to ensure the survival of the group or tribe, the individual develops this natural belief that their tribe is superior to other tribes, thus ensuring the survival of the individual and his or her progeny. So maybe sexism, racism and the like are impossible to totally erradicate from the species without further evolution of the brain. Maybe these are things that we cannot just enlighten ourselves out of... Of course, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try!

I think that it is nothing more than the Ego myself. It's a way to make one group or individual feel better about themselves, nothing more.

It's that damn Ego that is responsible for most of the manmade woes of the world.

As far as it being hardwired into our DNA, well it might be the same as what we call in animals and birds as instinct. I don't know where that comes from either so might be similar as to "being built into us".

But I am getting sick of the "we are better than you" crowd whether it comes from religion, politics, race and the like.

Oh, you haven't evolved past the individual group and race separation?
What a shame for you and many others like you.

Once you realize we are all connected and part of the webs we exist in you will no longer have feelings of superiority.

We are a part of the whole. Granted some of the parts are damaged and I hope will eventually be a thing of the past. For now, we must be tolerant and not judgemental.

I look forward to a time when we have advanced to the point of working together like a well oiled machine. A thinking, caring, loving machine.

I am one of a kind. I claim no group affiliation to justify my actions. I stand alone but am still a part of all there is.

You will find happiness when you become responsible for your thoughts and action and do not base them on a certain group or race.

We are one.

Ok
Now considering the superior feelling of a group. For hiding or masking inferiority.

What does this mean for a loner who has good and repectfull lifestylewith an excelent understanding of the world around him.

Where will the box be, for him to be put in ?

Originally posted by dizziedame
We are a part of the whole.

I am one of a kind.

We are one.

No offence but...

does not compute.

American styled rugged individualisms does not jive with any kind of communal thought.

Never will.
.

Originally posted by dizziedame
Oh, you haven't evolved past the individual group and race separation?
What a shame for you and many others like you.

Once you realize we are all connected and part of the webs we exist in you will no longer have feelings of superiority.

We are a part of the whole. Granted some of the parts are damaged and I hope will eventually be a thing of the past. For now, we must be tolerant and not judgemental.

I look forward to a time when we have advanced to the point of working together like a well oiled machine. A thinking, caring, loving machine.

I am one of a kind. I claim no group affiliation to justify my actions. I stand alone but am still a part of all there is.

You will find happiness when you become responsible for your thoughts and action and do not base them on a certain group or race.

We are one.

Is your action to further explain the universe in order to allow it's complexity to make it more simple?
Do you affect your universe and make a depression in it's reality?

Gools, I was not alluding to Americans only.

My thoughts were into the future in a universal state of existence.

Individualism would be the norm. Our differences would be accepted and understood.

A dreamer am I and always will be. Dreams do come true sometimes.

This will not be anytime soon as we have too much pride and greed to even accept what we must eventually accept to stop self destruction.

reply to post by dizziedame


Interesting.

How do you reconcile the outcome of the application/embracing of two seemingly opposing forces such as individualism and collectivism?

Either people are looking out for themselves or they are looking out for the good of everyone.

Rarely do the two converge IMHO.
.

reply to post by dizziedame


I find it very hard, no make that impossible for me to believe that you feel no affilliation to any group whatsoever... And if so, I would have to say that you are not human but a machine... Data???

Originally posted by Gools
reply to post by dizziedame

 

Either people are looking out for themselves or they are looking out for the good of everyone.

Rarely do the two converge IMHO.
.

If I look out for the good of everyone, it's for the good of everyone to look out for myself. Seems simple enough to me.

Originally posted by Gools
reply to post by dizziedame

 

Interesting.

How do you reconcile the outcome of the application/embracing of two seemingly opposing forces such as individualism and collectivism?

Either people are looking out for themselves or they are looking out for the good of everyone.

Rarely do the two converge IMHO.
.

What is so wrong about looking out for the good of everyone? Often,I hear criticism in regards to this frame of mind , yet it just sounds like evolution to me. Evolution of the human mind, anyway.

Looking out for the good of everyone sounds like a system that an advanced and intelligent species would adhere to.

reply to post by purple23


If everyone looks out for everyone else, that's alot of folks looking out for you. Of course, to the rugged individualist, this plays out in the mind as a delusion that means that eveyone is scrutinizing and oppressing them. No, not at all.

The biggest fallacy is that of considering the human consciousness as being a constant variable in the equation. This gives rise to political ideals and their various forms of control (even a constitutional republic is a control system). The truth is, it doesn't matter the system. Humans are by far the cause of most of their problems, mostly due to their false sense of who they are, that they're better or more deserving than someone else as a subgroup or individual; they can meet their basic needs if allowed to do so. No political system will solve these issues. Every one system will become corrupted because that's what in the hearts and mind of who constitute it. Advance the mind enough, awaken it enough, then "political system" will seem largely an archaic curiosity.

...superiority, the root of a lot of evil in this world. To establish control. to remain dominate. To lust for more control and dominance. And to convince others this is the right path to follow. Then to have them believe they are better than everyone else.

I believe this philosophy to be terribly flawed

"seprate but equall" is a concept that man has been struggling with since the begining and i encourage you to open any history book to confirm it.

we see it often. people want to belong, and want to have a place in the world and conform to identifyable groups that ironicly results in the loss of identity.

Although an individual is pretty intelligent when it comes to right or wrong, group think can be very dangerous.

Nice thread S&F

*edit* spelling

[edit on 5-2-2010 by H4W4II4N_PUNCH]

What's wrong with the word "better"?

People will always be better than other people at many, many things.

Tigers Woods is better than me at golf. And, it seems, some other "activities" as well.

Sorry, we don't live in a world where everyone is the same happy little snowflake floating around in bliss.

Originally posted by dizziedame
Oh, you haven't evolved past the individual group and race separation?
What a shame for you and many others like you.

so what you are saying, then, is that your way of looking at the world is "better than" my way of looking at the world?

you have fallen into the typical trap of this mode of thought. the trouble with enlightening oneself beyond the "no one is better than anyone else" paradigm is that it involves this inherent catch-22.

you MUST accept that some ways of looking at the world and interpreting reality are......shall we say more useful than other ways. conciousness, itself, is BOTH a hierarchy AND a holarchy. there is absolutely nothing shameful about placing a higher value on one belief system as opposed to another.

once again: reality is composed of both a DIFFERENTIATING function and also an INTEGRATIVE function.

..........

but, who then is to say which one version of reality is actually superior? just because no one person can make that qualification infallibly does not mean that it does not exist.

in fact, i posit that an answer does exist and that you can know it for yourself.

but here again is a problem: anyone that is willing to tell you the answer to this question most assuredly does not know the answer for themself. or rather, when you discover the answer to this question, you will find that it is not something that can be communicated via simple human language.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by dizziedame

 

I find it very hard, no make that impossible for me to believe that you feel no affilliation to any group whatsoever...

i agree. the irony here is that ms. dizzidame probably gets an acute sense of superiority by singling herself out in this way.

oye! the path of truth is a tangle.

reply to post by univac500


You are missing the point here. It's not about the individual, but the group that the individual belongs to, or self-identifies with...

Yes you're right there called sheeple.
Haven't you ever heard of a loner? I my self always choose the road less traveled. I go against the grain and have always been unpredictable.
I'll show up without calling and leave without saying goodbye. Go to the bathroom come out and I'm gone. Sounds rude but people either accept
me like that or not. I don't care which.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by univac500

 

You are missing the point here. It's not about the individual, but the group that the individual belongs to, or self-identifies with...

Group think is a very dangerous and wholly unproductive phenomenon that only undermines the purpose of having or belonging to a group to begin with. Every group has a leader, and that leader is either a dynamic leader, or charismatic leader, or that leader is more Machiavellian in that leadership, more autocratic, or democratic or possible takes a more laissez-faire approach. Whatever style of leadership, that leader is an individual, as are the other members and it is through their individual efforts that targets and goals get accomplished.

If a group falls prey to group think, this responsibility ultimately falls upon the leader of that group or lack thereof. Groupthink is defined by its lack of analysis, evaluation and critical thinking, all being characteristics of an individual and not a group. Groups are aggregates who form to accomplish some target or goal, and as such are merely things. What distinguishes certain groups from others, is the individual efforts made within that group.

Earlier you stated that it is just human nature to self identify with groups, but this is too much of a sweeping generalization to truly ascribe to human nature. It is a characteristic of some, and quite possibly many humans to self identify with groups, but it is not some hard wired genetic command that all humans self identify with groups. Indeed, many of the most productive members of humanity, identified with their own individuality above any identification with a group.

Henry Ford is most identified with the Ford Motor Company, which undoubtedly could be considered a group, but Henry Ford did not self identify with that group, that group is identified by Henry Ford. The same is true for Thomas A. Edison who founded The Edison Illuminating Company, another group that identifies with Edison, and that group is an outgrowth of the the efforts that Edison made and his accomplishments.

It is questionable that identifying with ones own race is human nature, the dubiousness of such an assertion is demonstrable by the marriages and subsequent progeny of mixed races. While identifying with ones race can certainly be a characteristic of certain individuals, who in turn may form groups to further this identity, it is not some genetic hard wiring that causes this, and is more than likely more cultural than genetic. Culture is learned, nothing more, nothing less. You have postulated that even one who is not racist would probably not want to change his race, but is this true?

If one who is not racist then marries someone from another race and together they produce children, that necessarily changes the race. Further, there seem to be many people who would prefer to be of another race than the one they are. There are white people who endeavor to "act black", there are black people who are accused of being "Uncle Tom's", there are all sorts of people who endeavor to mimic or adopt the characteristics of another race, and since they do, should we just accept your postulate that if they were given the opportunity to do so, that they would not gladly change their race?

You continue to postulate asserting that someone who is not sexist would not want to change their sex and yet there are people who quite literally do, and spend thousands of dollars to have a sex change operation. Should we then assume that those people who would rather be a different race than they are, are then racist? Should we assume that those who have had a sex change operation, are then sexist? If we assume this, doesn't this then change, or at the very least add to the dynamic of the definitions of racism and sexism?

You continue with this postulate by using religion as an example. Yet, Christianity began with just the Catholic Church, and is now so splintered that many so called "Christian churches" refuse to accept that Catholicism is "Christian". Is it due to a sense of feeling better? Perhaps. Or, perhaps it is due to fundamental differences of philosophy. That one adopts a certain philosophy will undoubtedly be due to the perception that this philosophy is better than all other philosophies available, and by extension, it could be argued that by adopting the philosophy one views as better than the others then makes that person better than those who have adopted the other philosophies, but not necessarily so.

A philosophy that endeavors to show tolerance of other philosophies would be just one example of adopting a philosophy because the perception it is better than the other philosophies while not self identifying with that philosophy as being better than other people who adopt a different philosophy. To simplify that, consider the choice of favorite foods or colors. If my favorite color is red, does this mean I think I am better than those who favor blue or purple? If my favorite meat is chicken, does this mean I think I am better than those who favor beef? Perhaps, but not necessarily so.

But nothing at all is gained by simplifying or reducing the seeming need to be better, by ascribing it to groupthink or group identity. Being better than others is, as another poster intimated, not a crime. Tiger woods is not criminal for being a better golfer than the vast majority of golfers in the world, and that he is so famous for this, indicates just how much we as humanity admire the best, and hold up such people as examples to be emulated or respected. Being better than others is a character trait that should be understood as accomplishment and not reduced to some odd quirk or psychotic, or neurotic symptom of genetic hard wiring.

We all benefit when people strive to be the best. If all of us did so, all the better for all of us. However, in order to be the best, such a feat first begins with the individual, and if a group is to be the best, it will be so because the individuals in it have all endeavored to be the best at what they do individually, coming together as a group to combine what they do best, into a cohesive effort that makes that effort better than other groups that endeavor to do the same. This is why their are championship teams, and their are losing teams, not because of the self identity with a group, but because some groups have individuals who are better than those in the other groups.

Explanation: Sorry JR but I'm going to have to give that OP an F! Here is why....

1stly

This thread will attempt to shed light on the following human characteristics: One, all humans self-identify with a group or groups. Two, all humans believe that their group or groups are superior to other groups.

The key word that I bolded for emphasis is "all" and it is the semantic crux on which both those claims pass muster or are rejected.

Both the following dictionary definitions were sourced from thefreedictionary.com.

all
adj.
1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity: All the windows are open. Deal all the cards. See Synonyms at whole.
2. Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole: all Christendom.
3. Being the utmost possible of: argued the case in all seriousness.
4. Every: got into all manner of trouble.
5. Any whatsoever: beyond all doubt.
6. Pennsylvania Finished; used up: The apples are all. See Regional Note at gum band.
7. Informal Being more than one: Who all came to the party? See Regional Note at you-all.

Note that the word "all" is used in the OP as an adjective....

ad·jec·tive
n. Abbr. a. or adj.
1. The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting, qualifying, or specifying and distinguished in English morphologically by one of several suffixes, such as -able, -ous, -er, and -est, or syntactically by position directly preceding a noun or nominal phrase.

[Bolds are my edits for emphasis and clarity!]

So the word "all" in the context being used in the OP is limited and therefor inflexible in its definition.

2ndly Then the OP goes on to express flexible words and phrases that invalidate the demographic of "all" as being valid in either claim! :shk:

For example ....

"probably not" [Note the flexibility in that phrase! ]

"One possibility" [Again note that phrases flexibility!]

"tends" [Note the flexibility that that word semantically defines and also note that it was used twice in the evidence sourced from supplied link! ]

"Less than 5 percent of the population ...[edited]" [That really should be 0% if the OP's claims are to be validated! ]

Methinks I have now clearly shown how the OP shoots itself in the logic foot.

I recommend that the OP be edited to change "all" into "most" or " a majority" for greater clarity and as an aid to vastly improve the chances of either claim being validated!

Personal Disclosure: Good on the few research psychologists who have studied collective pride, for bringing some light to a previously unstudied phenomena.

P.S. I wonder if I can manually force that sub-ocular muscle to contract with some external device and get the automatic dopamine release as a medicinal bonus??? Oh damnit! I'm way to late ....

That was perfected and is relatively free/cheap to access Here
and Here!