The Family/Tribe Bias -- How Sociality Distorts Our Viewpoints (And How To Reduce the Bias)

(For more on family, click here)

(Philosocom's Directory on Bias)

Article Overview by Ms. Gabbi Grace

The article "The Family/Tribe Bias — How Sociality Distorts Our Viewpoints (And How To Reduce the Bias)" explores how familial and social connections shape our perceptions and biases. It discusses the concept of "tribe bias," which is the inherent tendency to favor those within our immediate social circles, and how this affects decision-making, judgment, and relationships.

The article provides a clear explanation of bias using relatable examples such as pet ownership and relationships with family members. The logical flow and structure of the piece help maintain engagement throughout. The article skillfully balances between recognizing the natural human inclination toward bias and advocating for more objective thinking. It encourages readers to aim for fairness without feeling guilty about their natural human tendencies.

The article is effective in providing actionable strategies for reducing "tribe bias," such as focusing on the message rather than the speaker, challenging personal biases, and considering alternative perspectives. The article also emphasizes communication skills, emphasizing honesty and respect in close relationships. The article offers concrete advice, such as using "I" statements and choosing the right timing for difficult conversations, to maintain healthy, respectful relationships while reducing bias.

The article touches on broader implications of "tribe bias," such as its impact on political, social, and professional spheres. By highlighting issues like nepotism and journalism's susceptibility to bias, Mr. Tomasio expands the conversation beyond personal relationships, encouraging readers to consider how bias affects society as a whole.

The inclusion of feedback from Mr. Nathan Lasher adds depth to the article by providing an example of how individuals experience "tribe bias" in their lives. This integration of personal anecdotes helps readers connect with the content on a more personal level and demonstrates the universality of the topic.

The article explores the concept of "tribe bias," a tendency to favor those within our immediate social sphere while discounting or undervaluing the perspectives and contributions of outsiders. This bias can lead to narrow-mindedness, unfair judgments, and missed opportunities for growth. It creates an "us versus them" mentality, where we are more likely to embrace ideas that reinforce our existing beliefs and reject those that challenge them, even when the latter might be closer to the truth.

The article provides a comprehensive exploration of how our inherent social nature and need for connection can influence our judgment and perceptions. It is well-structured, informative, and practical, providing readers with both understanding and actionable steps to reduce bias.

In conclusion, by understanding and addressing our inherent biases, we can navigate the complexities of human relationships more thoughtfully, ensuring that our judgments are based on reason and evidence rather than simply on who delivers the message.

(Background music)

*********************

The Bias That Makes Pets Become Family

Our pets love us very much, don't they? When they are happy with us, they shower us with affection in all sorts of ways, from enthusiastic cuddles to playful bites and excited greetings. Have you wondered why they form such strong bonds with us specifically, when there are many other people in the world?

The answer lies in the concept of family and/or tribe. We fulfill a crucial role in their lives. Without us, they might be strays or even face a much harsher fate. Through care and companionship, we become their providers and protectors. In return, they develop a deep sense of loyalty and affection.

This family dynamic isn't unique to pets. Imagine an alternate reality where you were raised by different parents. While you might form strong bonds with your alternative family, it's possible you'd feel a different connection with your biological parents if you ever met them.

Therefore, even unconditional love is prone to a certain condition: That you get to have some kind of relation with the person you love. If you never met them, how can you love them like you love them today? And the tribe bias, either, cannot exist without some kind of connection to exist in the first place.

This tendency to bond with those closest to us reveals our inherent tribal nature, which contributes greatly to our biased perception of reality. This biased understanding stems from the human need for connection and belonging, whether for its own end or for a means to an end. We build our "tribe" -- the circle of loved/closest ones who define our sense of self and community. Those outside this circle can easily be treated differently by most of us. They haven't earned that place of trust and familiarity, so we may even care less for their thoughts, no matter how much truth they hold.

As such, we might react differently to a stranger's online comment compared to a similar remark from a parent. The established relationship shapes our response because many humans regard not only the sensibility of a comment, but also the standing of the person before them, leading to ad-hominem, strawman's fallacy, and the authority fallacy.

After all, you may ask yourselves, what is the value of a stranger's word compared to that of those we love?

In conclusion, our pets' love stems from the family unit we create. This unconditional bond stems from a condition, which turns our unconditional connections in general, to be paradoxical. This tribal instinct, present in both humans and animals, compels us to seek connection and build a strong sense of belonging with those we consider "our own," and value them and their words more than the words of others.

This is also how philosophers are in a social risk of being ones: Their blunt and honest responses could deteriorate existing, close relationships, because this social bias must be overcome in the name of the truth.

Fairness in Judgment

While showering love on our loved ones is natural, judging them objectively can be a challenge, for our emotions get in the way. Family bonds, romantic connections, and even social hierarchies, often cloud our perception, and compel us to treat the same words of different people differently. As such, the touching compliments of a boyfriend can make our heart burst with joy, while the same compliment, coming from your boss, might hit differently and uncannily. This begs the question: can we truly be objective when judging others, and why is it important to strive for it?

The difficulty lies in separating the person from their message, even though dis-attachment so is imperative in logical reasoning. When our close ones (family, partners) express an idea, our emotional attachment can warp how we receive it, amplifying its effect for better or for worse. We might dismiss a valid point simply because the source isn't someone we really care about. Conversely, a person we hate, uttering the same statement might receive harsher criticism.

This inconsistency stems from our tendency to judge messages through the lens of our relationship with the speaker. This shows how the emotional and social nature of many come to contradict logical reasoning, which compels the logical thinker to discard an invalid/irrelevant point no matter who uttered it.

Moving beyond "tribal" thinking is crucial for several reasons:

• Firstly, fairness (AKA justice) suffers when we judge people based on their place in our social circle. In business and politics, this could lead to nepotism. A statement, an idea, etc, should stand on its own merit, not the reputation or affiliation of the person who said it.

• Secondly, emotional bias can cloud our judgment, leading us to miss valuable perspectives or overlook potential flaws in the opinions of those close to us, thus preventing us further examination of their words.

• Thirdly, the challenge goes beyond immediate family and loved ones. Labels like "criminal," "politician," or even "celebrity" can influence our perception. We might readily dismiss someone's ideas based solely on a label, preventing us from engaging with their thoughts any further. Therefore, overcoming this bias in our thinking allows us to ignore the secondary importance of a label in a greater quest for truth.

Seeing others as individuals, not just representatives of a group/social category, can greatly help avoiding the false association of their words with that of a greater demographic.

So, how can we cultivate fairer judgment?

• Focus on the message: Actively listen to the content of what someone is saying, separating it from your feelings towards the speaker.

• Consider alternative perspectives: Before forming an opinion, ask yourself: how would I react to this statement if a stranger said it?

• Challenge your biases: Be aware of your pre-existing beliefs and be open to having them challenged by evidence and opposing viewpoints.

By striving for objectivity, we can ensure that our judgments are based on reason and evidence, not simply on who is delivering the message. This fosters a more respectful and intellectually stimulating environment where everyone's ideas can be fairly considered.

Honesty and Respect in Close Relationships

The interplay between honesty and respect is particularly challenging in close relationships. We value the opinions of our loved ones, wanting their approval and fearing rejection. In the digital age, journalism might compromise the truth, as greater popularity allows greater profit. The larger the "tribe" you seek support from, the larger the profit you can make. It's but a simple case of supply and demand, making journalism more susceptible to corruption than philosophy.

This raises a crucial question: should the respect we hold for someone or some people, overcome our honest evaluation of the content we receive or talk about? Either way, the truth itself remains impartial, indifferent to our emotions. Our choice of whether to speak it out, however, could be critical for the continuation with certain relationships with people. As such, unfortunately, people would prefer to be lied to, with lies they merely believe to be the truth, rather than be told the actual truth.

Should we prioritize honesty at all costs, potentially risking rejection, or should we sugarcoat our opinions to preserve harmony?

The answer lies in navigating a middle ground. Here's why:

• Unvarnished truth can be destructive: Brutality, delivered without empathy or consideration for the other person's feelings, can damage relationships. Honesty is crucial, but it needs to be delivered with respect. Certain relationships compel you to hold a different level of politeness, which might also oblige you to keep certain truths to yourself. Japanese honorifics provide a concrete example to this.

• Blind respect stifles growth: Ignoring flaws out of respect hinders both personal and interpersonal development. Blind loyalty, furthermore, also undermines us to question the success of a leader's choice. That is to the point that this concept, fueled by tribal bias, can be considered a logical fallacy. Constructive criticism, delivered with care, can foster positive change. A good leader of a group or "tribe" should be able to let others criticize them.

• Love thrives on authenticity: Relationships built on honesty and transparency create a stronger foundation for trust and intimacy. If someone loves you, they should accept you for who you are.

Finding the balance requires thoughtful communication:

• Focus on behavior, not personality: Attack the action, not the person. Instead of saying "You're so inconsiderate," try "Leaving your dirty dishes out is inconsiderate." Nurture within your circle/s the dis-association between the self and the action.

• Use "I" statements: Frame your criticism from your perspective. Explain how their actions affect you, rather than issuing a general attack. This would help them connect to you more, and feel less like you're accusing them. For example, "I feel hurt when you ignore my calls", and not "You cause pain to people when you ignore their calls".

• Choose the right timing and setting: Avoid delivering difficult truths in the heat of the moment. Try to make sure if the other person is ready to receive it, too. Pick a calm setting for an open and honest conversation. Calm them too if you'd like, like engaging in an activity you both like, to avoid unnecessary drama and nurture a closer connection.

By prioritizing open communication and empathy, we can navigate the complexities of close relationships, ensuring both honesty and respect are preserved. Furthermore, this can greatly reduce our tribal bias when the way we communicate with our closer circles is both peaceful and critical at the same time.

We can thrive for a greater understanding while excluding much conflict between us and those who are dear to us. This especially includes the overly sensitive, who are more prone to emotional outbursts.

Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback

I have to use relationships with friends as examples of what Mr. Tomasio means. Anytime I would hangout with a best friend my entire reality would become an effective state. They could say anything and it wouldn’t phase me. Yet, if a stranger did the same actions I might judge them differently.

You hold different standards for different people. If something is wrong and a person is doing it then you should speak up rather than just let them do it because you know them.

Couldn’t it be true that the first emotion you experience when you meet someone is the emotion that you will always feel when you see them, or most of the time?