A psychological explanation for what we've been seeing here on DU

[cornermouse]

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/enemy_image/?nid=1133

In-Groups and Out-Groups

The term "out-group" refers to anyone who is not in your own group. "Your group" can be any salient identity group: your nationality, your ethnicity, your race, your religion. In conflicts between groups of people, disputants usually view people outside their own group as less good, or in the case of the opposing group, as really bad. The term "enemy image" refers to the same thing. The opposing group is seen as the "enemy," who is inferior to one's own group in many ways.

For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid, selfish, deceitful, aggressive, hostile, or even evil. This perception remains, even if members of the out-group do nothing more selfish, deceitful, aggressive, or evil than do members of one's own group. However, when they are engaged in a serious conflict, people will normally project their own negative traits onto the other side, ignoring their own shortcomings or misdeeds, while emphasizing the same in the other.

Enemy images also involve "scapegoating." It is common for each side to decide that it is the other side (the "enemy") that is the source of all their problems. If only the enemy could be vanquished or eliminated, then those problems would go away.

The extreme form of this tendency is dehumanization, in which members of the opposing group are considered to be less than human. While such a view is unthinkable when people are not involved in a serious conflict, it is absolutely necessary to dehumanize an opponent if one intends to go to war against them. Otherwise, it becomes psychologically very difficult to kill people on the other side. If one is convinced that the other side is bent on one's own destruction, and is less human than one's own group, it is much easier to engage in war, human rights violations, or genocide against the opponent.


***********

Sound familiar?

[blogslut]

1. Obamabot?

Yeah, it sounds familiar.

[Skittles]

6. it's ALL the bots

anyone who thinks their candidate has no flaws and the opposing candidate can do no right - there's something seriously wrong with people who think in black and white (no pun intended) like that - does GWB come to mind?

[blogslut]

11. I know my candidate is flawed

I hold no illusions. He is a politician. I idolize no person. I admire him but I am fully aware that if he is elected president, we'll be lucky if he comes through on a third of his campaign promises.

You really don't know me at all.

[Skittles]

12. I NEVER SAID I DID

PLEASE STOP ASSUMING THINGS

[blogslut]

13. Okay

okay

[cali]

15. very few people here think their candidate is without flaws, Sara Heartburn.

[Bake]

38. No, but they sure get pissed when anybody points them out.

"The best defense is a good offense." At least around GD: P.

Bake

[Two Americas]

2. thanks

We are witnessing a pretty dramatic example of what is being described there.

No doubt if there were real differences between the two remaining candidates, there would not be this perceived need to manufacture differences and then promote them with such emotionalism and zeal and be so resistant to any contrary opinions.

It is a new, and very odd and unexpected way for the party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Forming an in group around a candidate - and that is undeniably what is happening - is contradictory to winning a general election. I think we are seeing the modern liberal politics of "personal choices" and "personal stances" and "belief systems" taken to a logical extreme, and ironically it is around those notions that the mob is forming. It makes for great religion, or multi-level marketing, but very weak and ineffective politics.

[Solon]

9. It drives me up the wall that supporters can't even articulate why the issues their...

candidate supports makes them better than the other candidate. All we get is this "hope", "inspiration" or "real leader" crap that, to be honest, is style over substance.

[JoFerret]

14. The policy differences are small

and in some cases very vague and unformed.
What we are witnessing is a exercise is self defeat.
I disagree that it is a new phenomenon.

We all have ideas on what should be done. And of course - they are at odds. Mirror images.

[AtomicKitten]

3. It's territorial, a primal thing.

It seems a pretty natural response in the face of the ClintonCo kitchen sink strategy, an ABC Media Heathers attack, and the to be expected GOP cheese all at once in a giant clusterf*ck.

Sue me.

[Two Americas]

20. indeed

That justification - "they had it coming" - is a classic symptom of what the OP is talking about. It is a self-defeating justification.

I remember back during the civil war in Yugoslavia, I was in a coffee shop in Detroit and heard a poignant example of the banality and normalization of hatred. I overheard a couple of older women talking and recognized a Slavic language, and said hello in Polish to them. "No, we are speaking Croatian" one of them said. That was interesting in itself, because calling Serbo-Croatian either "Croatian" or "Serbian" was new then - making a mostly artificial distinction between the two. Then the other woman said "we are celebrating this morning!" I was aware of the fact that the previous day the Croatian militia had carried out their most successful military campaign on the conflict, and had a sickening feeling that she must be referring to that.

I said "celebrating?" and she said "yes! The Croatian army has won a big victory over the Serbs." I then said that there were 100,000 people out on the open road as we spoke, many women and children, elderly and infirm people, in the cold with no shelter or food, driven from their homes and running for their lives. That hardly seemed to me to be anything to celebrate, and I told them that.

The response? "They had it coming! They asked for it! They started this! They did it to us!"

Of course, Serbians you talk to say the same thing. People always justify hatred, aggression, and abuse by saying "they had it coming!"

Every ugly and cruel thing ever done in history uses this justification - ""if you knew what 'they' were like, you would understand why we treated 'them' that way!"

[SoCalDem]

4. I see a pathetic woman driving past her ex-lover's house..again and again

praying that she'll catch him outside the house, so she can convince him to leave his wife & baby.. she knows he really loves her..


She cannot get it through her head that he never really was that "into her",.and he's moved on...

and still she drives past the house, and is convinced that she will prevail..

That's what I see here every day...

that and her friends who keep telling her that they are SURE he still loves her..and she should keep on driving past that house..

[Zodiak]

19. If that woman driving by does donuts in the front yard

...it would be a much more apt comparison.

[Two Americas]

23. you are demonstrating, not refuting, the point

"For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid, selfish, deceitful, aggressive, hostile, or even evil. This perception remains, even if members of the out-group do nothing more selfish, deceitful, aggressive, or evil than do members of one's own group. However, when they are engaged in a serious conflict, people will normally project their own negative traits onto the other side, ignoring their own shortcomings or misdeeds, while emphasizing the same in the other."

You are dehumanizing the opposition. You are vividly using your imagination to assign negative and demeaning qualities to your enemies, and then using that as a justification for hatred.

[SoCalDem]

29. au contraire.. it's VERY humanizing

sadness, revenge, entitlement, refusal to accept facts..

all very human traits.. not good ones, but human, nonetheless

[Two Americas]

31. projecting negative qualities

You are projecting negative qualities onto your opponents. You are using that as a justification for your hostility and antagonism toward people. Those negative qualities you assign to them diminish the perceived value and worth of your opponents, and in that way their humanity is diminished.

[WHAT]

36. I know, that's why...

I feel sad for Clinton.

[SoCalDem]

37. Me too. I have known MANY women/girls who have done this

that's why it immediately came to mind.. There comes a time when determination & tenacity turns to obcession & delusion..and it's not pretty to watch..

[Skittles]

5. I swear it's like a bunch of f***ing 10 year olds invaded DU

MY CANDIDATE IS A SAINT! YOURS SUCKS! I would never have believed it if I did not see it for myself. :puke:

[Dammit Ann]

7. And this is what we are reduced to...

The Democratic party going down in flames.

If Hillary was a TRUE DEMOCRAT this would be a LANDSLIDE. At this rate, we've shown our panties and the Rethug machine will treat us like the silly, distracted, psycho slut we have become.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

8. You mighta left out the "genocide" part.

Unless you think it'll get that bad here on this internet squabble patch.

[hfojvt]

10. no I think that is way over-stated

"For example, the enemy may be seen as stupid, selfish, deceitful, aggressive, hostile, or even evil. This perception remains, even if members of the out-group do nothing more selfish, deceitful, aggressive, or evil than do members of one's own group. However, when they are engaged in a serious conflict, people will normally project their own negative traits onto the other side, ignoring their own shortcomings or misdeeds, while emphasizing the same in the other."

The enemy is seen as hostile because the enemy acts hostile. There's not a lot of projection there, and each side can find hostiles on the other side.

[Two Americas]

25. self-defeating

Your argument is self-defeating and ironically, proves rather than disproves the point.

"She asked for it" - that is the age old excuse that every abuser falls back on. It betrays an awareness of wrong doing on the part of the perpetrator, and the defense is actually an admission.

"Yeah sure it is wrong what I am doing and don't get me wrong, normally I would be against it. But if you knew what 'they' were like..."

Your argument is the justification that has been used for every war in history, for every cruel and abusive act against others.

[cornermouse]

16. self serving kick

[PoliticalAmazon]

17. Nice theory, but not valid in a political election cycle...

...Message boards during close political cycles are notoriously divided between the candidates.

It's not "in group" or "out group." It's simply passionate voters being divided into tribes.

Your comment about "scapegoating" is off the mark because most posts are usually against the candidate and their staff or politician supporters. Indeed, most message boards have rules against attacking other posters.

What we do see during a campaign is each tribe trying to figure out how another candidate's tribe could possibly support that candidate. This is also normal, and is part of the process humans go through in trying to understand the world around them.

In short, although your theory may be applicable in some situations, it isn't in a close political contest. It attempts to demonize participants in the passionate political debates which occur during political races into something akin to bigotry which, IMO, is simply unacceptable.

[Two Americas]

30. "normal"

It may be common, sadly, but calling it "normal" is tantamount to morally surrendering on this and giving free reign to our most base and cruel urges.

This is not about "the process humans go through in trying to understand the world around them," it is the way in which people avoid and deny the reality of the world around them, and resist efforts at gaining understanding.

Saying "usually what you say would be true, but in this one case it doesn't apply" is what people always say to justify aggression and hostility.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

42. Sorry - but in any group or society there is always a scapegoat, and an "in" and "out" group

It is simply human nature. In fact, most advanced animal "groups" also have the same group dynamics.

[Two Americas]

43. "human nature"

Why do we see war, greed, cruelty and selfishness as "human nature?" Those are no more "human nature" than love, compassion, and charity are. Calling destructive and negative things "human nature" - and therefore presumably inevitable and not worthy of discussion, is the most powerful and effective way that we defend evil and perpetuate and apologize for the unfettered and unchallenged expression of our worst natures. "Oh well, what can we do? It is human nature."

I refuse to accept the validity of this "human nature" argument. As John Edwards often says - "we are better than this."

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Let me be the first of the "ignorant white f*cks and Hillary supporters"

to K&R this.

[OKthatsIT]

27. What's K&R?

I somehow missed the punchline.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. K&R = Kick and recommend

I find cognitive dissonance interesting.

The prevailing view that both DU factions are behaving comparably is demonstrably not the case.

The subject of my previous post is a direct quote from a long term and well regarded DU'er. If anyone were to make a comparable slur against Obama's supporters, they'd be TS'ed. (TS = tombstoned = banned)

[AX10]

21. kick

[enigmatic]

22. great post

I've been saying for awhile now.

[bobthedrummer]

24. My view is more about PSY-OPS and political mind control, because that's reality n/t

[OKthatsIT]

26. Do an analysis on this ->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnJ7OJPqGW4&eurl=http://www.redicecreations.com/mtsarforum/viewtopic.php?t=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=4100

Here are the potential voters?

[cliffordu]

28. Doesn't the phrase "Junior high school" mean the same thing??

[Two Americas]

32. k and r

Thanks cornermouse. :hug:

[cornermouse]

40. Thank you.

O8)

[Lilith Velkor]

33. Mmm hmm.

Same shit happened in the early antiwar movement.

It's also used in lieu of therapy for anyone who has ever self-medicated.

Nothing good ever comes of it...except maybe in this case, it will hasten the collapse of our empire. Too bad for those who will die as a direct result of that, myself probably included.

[GoldieAZ49]

35. Thank you!!!

demonizing the perceived enemy is common in politics, it makes the one doing the demonizing look foolish.

[cornermouse]

41. I know.

:)

[stillcool]

39. Dehumanize...

absolutely. Feeding time at the Bronx Zoo.

[Two Americas]

44. I would caution us about this

Breaking the cycle of hatred here contributes to breaking the cycle everywhere. We should be careful not to "hate the haters" nor to contribute to the dehumanization - for example, the zoo reference implies that those behaving badly are sub-human.