In-group

There is a natural tendency for humans to define themselves in terms of in-groups and outsiders.
This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but in a globally connected society it can lead to chaos. There are so many overlapping in-groups that cross all national and cultural borders that attempting to define them in any way creates tons of exceptions.
The Cosmic Perspective
In his article in Psychology Today, Bobby Azarian outlines what he calls "The Cosmic Perspective" and why it is central to solving the major existential problems humanity faces.
"The real existential threats are income inequality, the pandemic, climate change, unconstrained A.I., and money’s influence in media and politics—these are things that threaten the entire human race. We need a worldview that aligns our interests because if it has immediate practical benefits, like financial benefits, people in need will adopt it. We may call this worldview that I am describing “the Cosmic Perspective.” Under the Cosmic Perspective, there is no “us versus them,” there’s only “we.” We’re all part of an interdependent whole, and we need leaders who understand this view—who make decisions and policy based on data, who put empiricism above rigid ideology and dogma, and who try to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people."
The metaculture wiki is an attempt to describe this cosmic perspective in order to disintegrate the boundaries between us an them, and provide a universal values based framework for unity.
Foundation in Loyalty
The moral foundations of loyalty and care, are the primary drivers of in-group affinity. We want to help others, and we are loyal to those who have shown altruism to us. Shifting loyalties in culture have led to conflicts, where some emphasize loyalty to family, community, and tradition, while others are more loyal to their principles of social justice and inclusivity, their chosen friends, personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness. This represents a fundamental shift from local, community-focused group identities to a more expansive, universalist loyalty to human rights. While this is a laudable view of humanist ethical responsibility, when progressives regularly abandon the families and communities of their birth, their expanded sense of loyalty to humanity is cold comfort.
It is possible to be loyal to family, community, and universal humanist values at the same time, and finding a way to make that clear will be necessary for secular, progressive values to appeal to all of our moral foundations.
Creating the Universal In-Group
The only morally defensible in-group when it comes to the utilitarian ethical calculus is all humans, and outside the realm of survival that should be expanded to also include all conscious beings, and all living things. Any hierarchical subdivision is inherently unjust.
A primary goal of metaculture is to establish the common source of our shared humanity in order to bridge the gaps between cultures and allow for the creation of a universal in-group. This is what will enable us to finally get on the same page and work together to solve problems that face us on a global scale. Climate change and overpopulation leading us towards environmental collapse is the most pressing, though a future asteroid or alien invasion will also be easier to confront as a unified species.
Religion has been the primary way that humans have defined their in-groups and out-groups since the dawn of civilization. This is unlikely to change soon. Therefore, a universalist movement will be necessary to create a universal in-group. And since humans have an innate sense of logic and reason, it will also need to adhere fully to the evidence revealed by science. Only a movement that fully embraces both will have a chance at creating a universal in-group.
Anything Less is Immoral
Any definition of in-group that is not universal is inherently immoral. As soon as you define an out-group that is less deserving of ethical consideration than the members of the in-group, you have laid the groundwork to justify hate, racism, misogyny, war, and every other manner of injustice.
Basis in Cognitive and Moral Development Theory
The expansion of our zone of empathy (those who we consider part of our in-group and hence worthy of trust and altruism) is the key metric for cognitive, emotional, and ethical growth according to every cognitive development theory in psychology.
See the Necessary Prerequisites page for more on these theories.
We Can Still Have Teams
Of course, we can still use the dynamics of group psychology to our advantage, as we do in competitive sporting events. The universal in-group applies specifically to ethical and moral questions around justice and equality.
Enabled By The Post-Scarcity Economy
The ability to think this way is a product of the post-scarcity economy. When the resources needed for survival are scarce, our genetic tendencies cause us to prefer the needs of our closer in-groups like nation, community or tribe, and family. This makes sense from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, since our close relatives and neighbors share more of our DNA than those in foreign nations.
In an economic environment where everyone's basic needs can easily be met, it is our moral imperative to make sure that they are met for everyone. For any individual, family, or group to hoard wealth and resources while others starve is plainly immoral. This was not the case in the past, when war and famine were rampant and the technology to consistently provide enough food for everyone did not exist. This is why anti-racism is a distinctly modern phenomenon.
We need to adapt to the new, global, post-scarcity future that we now live in, and change our utilitarian moral calculus and the resulting social norms accordingly.
A Primary Cognitive Development Goal
The necessary prerequisites page describes how many moral and cognitive development models use the expansion of in-group identity from the self, to the family, tribe, nation, humanity, conscious creatures, life, the universe, and everything as a primary metric for growth and enlightenment. This represents the brain's process of generalization that occurs during learning, since we are learning to love humanity, the universe, and therefore ourselves in the process.
No One is an Enemy
The Christian doctrine of love thy enemies is central to the teachings of Jesus, as well as the historical figures we epitomize for their enlightened morality, such as Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and Martin Luthor King. Each of these figures turned the other cheek by leading non-violent resistance to violent forces of oppression, winning the hearts and minds of the public and easily claiming the moral high ground for their causes.
But what do we gain from the concept of an enemy? Even if we love them, the very concept of an enemy implies the existence of an out-group, which is an immoral belief.
In order to reinforce the notion of a universal in-group, the word enemy itself should be banished from the lexicon. It should never be used to refer to any human or group of humans, regardless of how reprehensible their actions may be. We must oppose those actions, and work to change the systems that incentivized them, but we cannot blame those whose free will was undermined by a crappy system.
When we label a group as an enemy, it is the first step towards dehumanization on the path to genocide. Calling a group of people vermin or cockroaches is taboo. Enemy should be too.
It is an appeal to emotions instead of reason, and not any of the good ones.
It reinforces the "us versus them" mentality that keeps humanity from uniting and living out the Star Trek dream of uniting not just our planet, but Vulcan, Andoria, Tellar, and others too. No intelligent life form should be excluded!
Seeking Commonalities in Conversations
Most online discourse, especially that of the political or religious variety, takes on a confrontational tone. We tend to read other people's writing with an eye for differences between their ideas and our own, then take to the comments to defend our ideas against the perceived attack. This becomes a natural impediment to building bridges and creating that universal in-group.
This can be counteracted with mindful reading. Instead of picking apart an argument and exposing its flaws, focus on the parts where you agree. Assume that the other person isn't an idiot, and possesses thoughts and knowledge beyond the few sentences you have read. If they are trolling, ignore them. But if someone is willing to engage in conversation with you, and your goal is to build bridges, then it helps to give people the benefit of the doubt and focus the conversation on your common ground.
The Persuasion page covers this topic in detail.
Enforcement of Norms
Enforcement of cultural norms through taboos is only effective within one's in-group. A global culture with a universal in-group will enable humanity to share and enforce non-legally binding social norms that will be needed to prevent bad actors, such as spreaders of misinformation, from gaining influence on social media and other globally connected platforms.
The most prominent modern example of evolving social norm enforcement is cancel culture. While this has helped advance the causes of inclusivity and helped made racism and misogyny more taboo, it also tends to only work on members of the in-group that is doing the cancelling. How many minor celebrities were canceled by liberals in the media, only to be embraced by conservatives? Without the universal in-group, cancel culture tends to promote polarization and contrarian reactions as much as it reinforces the values of inclusivity.
Norm enforcement must also be fair. When it seems like people are being libeled unfairly, the trust in the taboo breaks down, and once again you encourage polarization over consensus.
It is necessary that a supermajority of people agree on the norms being enforced and a fair system for applying them before they can be effective at reinforcing new cultural values instead of being a wedge that reinforces sectarianism.
Universalist Strategies
The entire philosophy of metaculture is designed to encourage a mindset of unity and oneness, and to resist polarization and conflict. It uses an integrated, holistic strategy to bridging the divides between people and constructs its narrative around that goal. Even the wiki platform was chosen for its ability to allow the message to be translated to multiple languages or even presented differently for different generations, religions, or subcultures, in order to maximize its meaning to each reader.
Other strategies employed to reinforce the message of unity and the creation of the universal in-group include:
- Science and evidence are the basis for all beliefs. No unprovable assertions are made.
- Finding common goals is used as the primary rhetorical strategy.
- Tries to provide something for everyone when addressing core values.
- Uses metaphor mapping to reinforce core beliefs instead of denying them.
- Focuses on holistic values and universal beliefs without taking positions on uncertain and polarizing issues unless the evidence is overwhelming.
Us Bias
We are inherently biased towards our in-group, preventing us from objective critical analysis of statements made by others within our in-group. This has been a major factor in the spread of misinformation on social media.
In-group favoritism, as opposed to racism, sexism, and other forms of out-group hostility, is the most likely explanation for biases in hiring, club membership, and other admissions-based institutions.[1][2][3]
Them Bias
Defining an in-group necessitates defining an out-group, which if not ignored is usually considered an "enemy" or rival to be opposed at any opportunity. This can lead people away from critical thinking and towards contrarianism.
The Paradox of Tolerance
Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is an important related concept. If we are too tolerant of intolerance, it can erode the basis for a free society. We must find a balance between allowing freedom of speech, and the freedom do pursue happiness in any form, while preventing the spread of concepts that are inherently destructive.
Coalition Building Versus Purity Testing
When you consider who might be an ally to your cause, do you focus on finding common ground or identifying unacceptable differences?
When you look at the mainstream political pundits, how many would fit your definition of an ally?
Rigid ideologies demand purity. Movements demand coalitions.
One way to avoid the No True Scotsman fallacy is to consider your ideology from the perspective of what amount of agreement do you need to have to consider someone an ally. For example, if you believe that workers should have full ownership of the means of production, would you consider someone an ally if they are a capitalist but believe in adopting universal health care? This is a policy with proven efficacy and broad public support. But, if you go around calling these allies "shitlibs" all the time, you aren't going to get enough political will to even get that done.
Nurture your coalitions, build up your allies, and achieve your common goals first. Only once that progress has been made should you consider new goals. You can get broad agreement on what to do next; many fewer will agree on what comes after, and fewer still each step beyond that. See Utopia.
Readers and Watchers
Are you a reader or a watcher? Whatever your in-group we have you covered!
Check out The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt for some great insights from the latest social psychology research into polarization and how to counteract it.
Check out the US 2.0 series on Hidden Brain for one of the best analyses of how to use the psychology of persuasion and in-group bias to resolve polarization and help create the universal in-group. Also:
- When You Need It To Be True
- Separating Yourself from the Pack
- Group Think
- The Secret to Great Teams
- Keith Payne on the Psychology of the Political Divide