"survival of the individual is dependent on being in a supportive group of people who find your expressed identity congruent or complementary with theirs. So we have in-groups and out-groups"
Yeah, this is true. But I'm not sure this survival instinct was ever predicated on "identity." When we lived in tribes, what mattered was our *behav…
"survival of the individual is dependent on being in a supportive group of people who find your expressed identity congruent or complementary with theirs. So we have in-groups and out-groups"
Yeah, this is true. But I'm not sure this survival instinct was ever predicated on "identity." When we lived in tribes, what mattered was our *behaviour*, no? We helped each other. We made ourselves useful to the group. We lived out our tribal affiliation through action.
I think one of the reasons these tribes have become so toxic is that today, they're based purely on performance and labels. There's no substance. People don't really look out for each other, in fact, they turn on each other as soon as they say the wrong thing. Or even the right thing with the wrong degree of enthusiasm.
I truly feel sorry for the people trapped in these bubbles.
"But I'm not sure this survival instinct was ever predicated on "identity.""
Yet "identity" may well be predicated on survival drives. Depending on the location, disapproval of one's behavior by the tribe could be met by ostracization, which would be tantamount to a death sentence. Though sometimes eccentric behavior was seen as special by the community, such as with "two spirit" people.
I wonder what determined the behavior of two tribes meeting for the first time, which could result in co-mingling, war, or mutual avoidance.
Regardless, survival instinct which could be seen as a form of pragmatism, would direct individuals to be congruent with others of their tribe. "Identity" could be the result of trying to the tension between individualist and communal mores. Social animals tend not to do well outside of socially cohesive groups. An exception to this might be humans making a hermit into a special category of human benefitting the tribe with magic or wisdom. They would be fed even though they might not hunt or gather.
Oh shoot, we are getting close to the territory of "nature vs. nurture" territory when we talk about instincts in humans; that is a rabbit hole I would like to avoid for now. The question of "identity" requires enough cogitation. ;-)
(I agree with Steve's assumption that current modern tribes, as differentiated from old-school tribes where cooperation was crucial to survival, have often become toxic in their superficiality.)
"survival of the individual is dependent on being in a supportive group of people who find your expressed identity congruent or complementary with theirs. So we have in-groups and out-groups"
Yeah, this is true. But I'm not sure this survival instinct was ever predicated on "identity." When we lived in tribes, what mattered was our *behaviour*, no? We helped each other. We made ourselves useful to the group. We lived out our tribal affiliation through action.
I think one of the reasons these tribes have become so toxic is that today, they're based purely on performance and labels. There's no substance. People don't really look out for each other, in fact, they turn on each other as soon as they say the wrong thing. Or even the right thing with the wrong degree of enthusiasm.
I truly feel sorry for the people trapped in these bubbles.
"But I'm not sure this survival instinct was ever predicated on "identity.""
Yet "identity" may well be predicated on survival drives. Depending on the location, disapproval of one's behavior by the tribe could be met by ostracization, which would be tantamount to a death sentence. Though sometimes eccentric behavior was seen as special by the community, such as with "two spirit" people.
I wonder what determined the behavior of two tribes meeting for the first time, which could result in co-mingling, war, or mutual avoidance.
Regardless, survival instinct which could be seen as a form of pragmatism, would direct individuals to be congruent with others of their tribe. "Identity" could be the result of trying to the tension between individualist and communal mores. Social animals tend not to do well outside of socially cohesive groups. An exception to this might be humans making a hermit into a special category of human benefitting the tribe with magic or wisdom. They would be fed even though they might not hunt or gather.
Oh shoot, we are getting close to the territory of "nature vs. nurture" territory when we talk about instincts in humans; that is a rabbit hole I would like to avoid for now. The question of "identity" requires enough cogitation. ;-)
(I agree with Steve's assumption that current modern tribes, as differentiated from old-school tribes where cooperation was crucial to survival, have often become toxic in their superficiality.)