Science proves we're biased and groupish.

But that doesn't mean we are doomed to squabbling barbarism. We can transcend.

Earlier in the week, I wrote about an excellent interview Lex Fridman had with neuroscientist David Eagleman. That well was so deep and rich that I’m going to be drawing from it again today.

(Also, I think I forgot to actually link to the YouTube interview in the article that was emailed out. Apologies! It’s fixed on Substack now.)

We all know that humans evolved to be a strongly “groupish” species. We love and protect the in-group, and we distrust and demonize the out-group.

This instinct is wired into our brains at a very deep level. I’m sure it has been useful over time and is part of how our species managed to outcompete others and arrive at our seemingly dominant position on this planet.

But it can be oh so stupid and counterproductive sometimes, am I right?

It’s one thing to know we are groupish. It’s another to have some neuroscientist put us in a brain scanner and show us that we are groupish — and in some obviously stupid ways. This short video shows Eagleman doing just that.

A subject is shown a video of 6 human hands on a table. A computer randomly selects one, and that hand is stabbed with a hypodermic needle. The neurocircuitry in the subject’s brain associated with pain lights up. We can literally see their empathy on the screen.

Then the fun begins. The 6 hands are labeled with a religion, one of which corresponds to the subject’s own religion. The pain neurocircuitry lights up noticeably stronger when the hand labeled with their own religion (their in-group) is stabbed, rather than one of the hands labeled with another religion (their out-group).

Whoa. I mean, we knew that, right? But again, it’s one thing to know it. It’s another for a precision piece of scientific equipment to show it to us.

And we get the same effect for much more trivial things than religion — this next part isn’t in the short video, but Eagleman covers it in the Lex Fridman interview. We get the same effect for any conceivable in-group/out-group distinctions. States, cities, favorite sports team, favorite color, left-handed or right-handed. We are just wired up to care about members of our own “tribe”, even if it’s meaningless.

This effect even shows up (star-bellied Sneetch-like) if the in-group is a totally fictitious thing. If the subject is simply told that he is a member of the “Schwizzle” group, his brain’s pain circuitry will light up brighter when the hand labeled “Schwizzle” is stabbed than it does for “Dwizzle” and “Grizzle”, etc.

It’s bizarre. But it’s also a very deep part of our nature.

We can get past it to some extent, sometimes to a large extent. At the end of the short video, Eagleman gives some useful advice about how to minimize the most harmful effects of our built-in biases.

I think that having the correct legal structure and cultural norms helps quite a bit as well. Our society was healthier when “It’s a free country.” and “Mind your own business.” and “Live and let live.” were common aphorisms. Now you’re more likely to hear, “There oughta be a law!” instead.

A healthy respect for private property and the freedom of association and an aversion (or better yet, an inability) to use government force upon a peaceful neighbor makes for a more tolerant and healthier society.

Oh, and a sound money would help quite a bit too. People get suspicious and hostile when the purchasing power of their money shrinks over time and they don’t know exactly who is doing it to them.

We will never completely overcome our in-group preferences. But that doesn’t mean we need to be slaves to them either. We’re better than that.

Naturally,

Adam