Tribalism Part II: Extroverts vs. Introverts

        It is a little problematic to fully fit introversion and extroversion into the realm of tribalism as I described it in my last post, but in a culture that values extroversion over introversion, there is a bit of warfare that goes on.  As I talked about in my last post, tribes typically use their language’s word for “people” to describe themselves, and an epithet like “eaters of meat” to describe another tribe.  Similarly, in our culture we refer to extroverts as OUTGOING, which has a very positive ring to it, while referring to introverts as “shy.”  It is pretty clear just by the use of those terms which tribe is dominant in our western culture.

        I belong to the less dominant tribe and have suffered from the tribal warfare.  When I was little, there was one thing in life I could count on more than anything else.  When I met someone new, they were pretty much guaranteed to call me shy.  They weren’t the only ones of course.  Everyone called me shy.  I tried so hard to rise above that label.  Sometimes I would meet new people and I would try so hard to prove to them that I was not shy.  But the inevitable always came out of their mouth: “You are so shy!”  I wasn’t being shy!  Do you know how much I was putting myself out there?

        I learned how to act “outgoing.”  I read self-help books on speaking and I practiced hard.  It’s been at least ten years since I’ve heard myself reduced to the term shy.  But now the cycle starts all over again.  It barely takes seconds for a new person to take the intricate and complex beings that are my children, and reduce them to one flat character trait.  “Oh you’re shy.”

         I worry about kids who are growing up with the idea that they have to change who they are to fit the world’s criteria for acceptance.  I know the great complexity of my kids’ souls.  I know them inside and out.  So when I hear people make snap judgments about them and instantly reduce them to one label that is supposed to sum them up, I want to scream at them.  You don’t know her!  How can you make the slightest judgment about who she is?  That is the problem with snap judgments and labels.  These labels can’t even begin to describe the complex beings we are.           

         There are as many different ways to be shy as there are people to act shy.  Shyness itself isn’t even a character trait.  It’s a reaction in the amygdala, the fight or flight area of our brains, to new and uncertain stimuli.  People who are more sensitive or high reactive will have stronger reactions in their amygdala.  “Shy” is a horrible word to use because it oversimplifies the complexities of the human brain.  Introvert and extrovert is a better comparison, but as I mentioned before our society values extroversion over introversion.  Here’s the problem with that: introversion is not all bad and extroversion is not all good.  It is not better to be an extrovert or an “outgoing” person. 

        Both personality types have their good points and their bad points.   For someone who struggles with shyness, it is hard to battle the physiological challenges that arise when you have to get out of your comfort zone and speak to people.  But the sensitivity and ability to observe that introverts have opens up a world to them that extroverts sometimes struggle to see.  It can be hard for an extrovert to open up the part of his/her mind that can see the big picture and notice all the little details as well.  Sometimes empathy doesn’t come as easily.  But extroverts are amazing at being able to speak and win people over and radiate friendliness.  It’s no wonder we value extroversion.  But we need both personalities.  Like the yin and the yang, they are complimentary and they complete our world.

        So in my experience, tribal warfare between introverts and extroverts in the western culture mostly looks like extroverts setting the stage and the rules, expecting introverts to adapt.  The problem with this is that it will only leave us off-balanced.   If you want to see how the world might look without a healthy balance of introversion and extroversion, look at congress.  Our political system is set up in such a way that introverts don’t make it very well.  And we all know how functional congress is.  We don’t need introverts to become extroverts.  We need to value both and allow space for both to be who they are, to overcome the struggles they do have, and most importantly to work together to make the world better.

        If you are interested in this subject, there is a great book called “Quiet,” by Susan Cain.  I highly recommend it.    

        Next tribes:  feminists vs. non-feminists

Tribalism Part I

        It’s as old as time itself.  Being the social creatures we are, the group or groups we belong to are an essential part of life.  We are hard-wired toward tribalism because it is evolutionarily advantageous for us.  Our tribe gives us a sense of safety and security and allows us to use our different skills for the benefit of all.  Survival of the fittest is easier for a group than an individual.

        Tribalism of course exists in a different form in the modern world where the major battlefront seems to be social media.  We form tribes around ideas.  We group ourselves with people who are similar to us and we fight against people who are different from us. There is definitely a purpose to this.  It is comforting to belong to a group of like-minded people.  It’s even comforting to shun those who are not like us because of the threat that they pose to our equanimity.  In a religion, people can worship peacefully, knowing everyone else knows the rules and can play the game the right way.  In politics, people can group together their core values and vote together for those things.  

        But tribalism also brings with it negative and even dangerous problems.  Most tribes tend to refer to themselves in their native language with the word for “people,” while referring to other tribes with an epithet, or a prominent characteristic about that tribe.  So while a particular tribe might refer to itself as “people,” they might refer to another tribe as “eaters of meat.”  When you really pay attention to the language we use in our own modern tribes, you will find that we do the same thing.  In a society that values extroversion over introversion, the terms we use are OUTGOING which sounds like such a positive characteristic, and shy, something to be ashamed of.  From a feminist tribe, anyone who is not a feminist might be considered a sexist.  From a non-feminist tribe, a feminist might be called a man-hater.  Language is a huge part of the formation of tribes and the walls we build up that make it nearly impossible to understand the other tribe.

        Ethnocentrism, or judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture, is a major part of tribalism.  It’s what keeps people committed to the group.  But it is also a major cause of hatred, violence, and war.  That religion’s spiritual rituals are different from mine, so they must be wrong or less spiritual.  She is opposed to gay rights, something I am for, so she has to be a bigot.  Or he voted for gay marriage, something that I am religiously opposed to, so he just doesn’t understand the moral implications of what he is doing.

        Another problem that exists in tribalism is bullying.  If a member of a tribe isn’t willing to conform to the politics of the collective, he/she is bullied by the rest of the group.  It is uncomfortable to go against the current of the tribe you belong to.  There is actually a neurological basis for this.  In the early 1950s a psychologist named Soloman Asch did a series of experiments on group influence.  He showed his volunteers some pictures of lines and asked them questions about how the lines compared.  In this first test, 95% of the students had correct answers.  Next he grouped the students together with an actor who confidently answered incorrectly.  In this test the number of correct answers dropped to 25%. 

        In 2005 a similar test was done by Gregory Barns with the help of brain-scanning technology.  The results were similar, but they were actually able to determine the reason behind the students’ change in answers.  When the volunteers tested alone the brain scans found activity in the occipital and parietal cortex which are associated with visual and spatial perception.  There was also activity in the frontal cortex which is associated with conscious decision-making. 

        When placed in a group with one person giving the wrong answer, there was heightened activity in the visual and spatial field, not the areas of conscious decision-making.  This means that they did not make a conscious decision to go along with the group.  The group actually changed their perception.  This suggests that if a group thinks an answer is true, you are more likely to believe it too.  This study also found that those who picked the right answer despite the group’s influence, had heightened activity in the amygdala, the part of the brain associated with fight or flight.  Barns calls this “the pain of independence.”

        When you put this in terms of our social grouping, it shows you that not only is there a problem with ethnocentrism and putting walls up to keep other tribal influences out, there is actually a problem with group solidarity.  In a religion, if one confident person gets up and says he or she knows something is absolutely true, how does that affect our perception of the issue?  And if we don’t go along with the group, the pain of independence along with the tribal bullying we experience may be too much for our amygdala to bare.  We may silence ourselves for fear of losing the comfort of our group.

        As I have found myself in and out of different tribes in my life, I have come to appreciate the need for tribes.  When I have lost the comfort and security of one tribe in my life, it becomes crucial to my emotional well-being to immediately find a new tribe to cling to.  For instance, and I will go into more detail in a later post, when I left the Republican Tribe, I needed a new political construct and a new group of people to associate with.  I couldn’t share my new views with my Republican friends because they rejected my views and bullied my opinions.  So I clung to the Democratic Party because it more fully encompassed my political views.  By making friends with other Democrats, I was able to safely share my views and rebuild my political construct without fear of rejection and bullying.  So while I can still love my Republican friends and associate with them in other ways, I now also have an outlet for my political beliefs.

        Another thing I have observed however, from being in and out of tribes in my life is how firmly each tribe believes they have the right way, the only way.  That is what causes tribal warfare.  I wonder if there could be a way for us to enjoy the benefits of our tribes without the warfare.  What if we could enjoy associating with people who are likeminded, and listen respectfully to people who view things differently from us?  What if we could love and associate with people whether they are in our tribe or not?  What if we can love and associate with people even when they leave our tribe?  What if we could appreciate that they were in the wrong tribe for them and be happy when they find a new tribe that suits them better?           

        This is my first post of a multi-part series in which I will examine some of our modern tribes.  Some that I have highlighted above include introverts/extroverts, feminists/non-feminists, conservatives/liberals, and differing religions.  Let me know if you can think of any other tribes in modern society that are worth discussing.