Religion, Politics, and Groupthink

NeantHumain · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject:

Why is it that, in religion and politics especially, people tend to form mutually exclusive groups, belief systems, or ideologies? It's annoying that most politic discussion and commentary is a litany of things the other side did wrong. The assumption is that the other side's decisions, beliefs, and preferences are prima facie wrong. A further assumption is that the other sign's continuance to do or think wrong is a sign of stupidity, evil, partisanship, etc. Not everyone involved in politics succumbs to this way of thinking, but it's very common, and the media encourage it.

These assumptions are worse than useless, and it's hard for me to believe that people genuinely think parties they disagree with are automatically wrong. I am more inclined to think they're actually saying they're wrong as an excuse to argue, put down other people, or stump for their own beliefs. Logically, they must understand that of course the other party's decisions and beliefs aren't all wrong or bad.

Yet many people act on these assumptions so persuasively that I have second thoughts; maybe they really do believe it. This would mean they lack the capacity to reason—at least within the scope of the disagreement. This strikes me as peculiar because not being able to understand another person's reasoning weakens one's own position by making one less capable of defending it or improving upon it.

Also, when people of like mind gather together, their reasoning capacities seem to diminish further, and they act as a mindless, cheering mass. It is completely beyond my capacity to understand why one would want to do this; it's just so very alien from my own way of behaving because it entails surrendering one's individuality and accepting the group's preferences and decisions unwaveringly. I understand, though, that these fanatics are useful for advancing a campaign or cause because they will do a lot of the grunt work for little direct compensation, and they will vote en masse; I recognize charisma is as valuable as ability in looking at candidates because charisma is what'll help them get elected (an aspie, even if he or she would make great decisions in office, would lack the charisma to get there in the first place).

I do realize NTs greatly value adherence to the group and tend to reward loyalty, but groupthink carries well beyond a measured sense of loyalty (i.e., a system of mutual benefit and interdependence that goes when the equation does)—it is unthinking. Is there a special gene or part of the brain that activates this behavior in NTs that we aspies lack?

I'm just trying to make sense of why people settle for a crappy binary debate, repetitive shouting, and the same old trope that has been passed around over decades and repackaged as a new cause to support. Why aren't more people interested in actually figuring out the exact bounds of the problem, finding potential solutions, and weighing the pros and cons without blaming the other side or trying to make them look bad?