Let me suggest other processes that interact with the political psychology Arnold sketches.
Analysis should distinguish beliefs and preferences.
And analysis should distinguish inner conformity (subconscious adaption of beliefs or preferences) and outer conformity (strategic misrepresentation of beliefs or preferences, in order to fit in).
For example, those who formed a policy preference against mandatory injections had diverse beliefs. Some believed that too little was known about risks and benefits of new mRNA and protein subunit technologies. Some believed that persons with natural immunity (due to prior infection) should be exempt. Some believed that coercion is wrong in principle. Some believed that coercion would backfire by inducing mistrust of motives. Some believed that the game was rigged by big pharma and corruption. Taken together, people with diverse beliefs formed a coalition against a mandate.
This belief-coalition (an ad-hoc group) had to navigate Arnold's tribal status competition. Here is where conformity took center stage. My intuition is that, amid polarization, elites engaged in much strategic misrepresentation of beliefs (their own and also others'), in order justify (divisive) policy preferences. But I might be wrong. Perhaps elites subconsciously came to believe what fits the policy line, like a person who tosses and turns in sleep until she finds a comfortable position. In any case, the two processes can each have bite.
I don’t consider myself to be particularly tribalistic and am having trouble relating Arnold’s post to everyday issues, political or otherwise. For example, I was initially pro vaccine based on the test results and my trust in the public health officials. I’ve got the jabs to prove it. But, I quickly turned against the vaccines when it became somewhat clear that their efficacy was way overrated in conjunction with the over reliance on coercion, peer pressure and false information by public officials to gain compliance. There are a lot of people with a similar sentiment as mine and the net result is a massive loss in trust in public health institutions.
In other words, tribalism isn’t as sticky as Arnold makes it out to be. Rather, group affiliation can be fluid based on the facts and circumstances of some particular public policy issue.
Personally, I think it's a mistake for people with significant comorbidities or over ~60 not to get the vaccine. At the other extreme, if I were under 40 (no comorbidities) or had to decided for minors, my answer would be NO.
One thing I found fascinating was that Trump backed Warpspeed yet his supporters are overwhelmingly against the vaccine. I don't think his followers changed their minds because Biden became President and it became HIS vaccine. Instead, it confirms my prior belief - Trump has never led his followers but he has been masterful at positioning himself in front of where they are headed. The vaccine is an exception but I believe he understood where his followers would go and more strongly hoped, against all odds, to somehow use vaccination before the election to get the economy back on track.
I don't think it is factually correct that "his (Trump's) supporters are overwhelmingly against the vaccine."
Be that as it may ...
One of the forgotten stories of Covid is that Pfizer had a plan to do analysis of 32 cases involving the vaccine by early October before the November presidential election. This would have found the vaccine at least 90% effective. But no analysis was done and in late October, they and the FDA agreed not to do analysis till they had 62 cases (more cases means higher statistical power), which would mean no news until after the election. Since Trump had promised a vaccine before the election, news of a successful vaccine would probably have helped him, perhaps enough to win the election.
I always wondered, what if Pfizer had analyzed and reported and Trump had won? In October, 2020, anti-vax was more a left- than a right-wing thing. E.g., the most prominent anti-vaxxer was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., then very much a member of the Democratic Party's left wing. Would the NYT have run articles about how the approval process was rushed, how mRNA technology was new and unproven? How nobody knew the side effects or the long-term effects? Would Kamala Harris have repeated her opinion from her debate with Pence that she wouldn't believe in a vaccine if Trump was for it? Would opposition to "Trump's vaccine" have become, like "Russian collusion" a big Democratic rallying point?
I guess it depends on how you define supporter. If you include Republicans and others who hold their nose and vote for him, then you are probably right. If you just look at the ones who think he doesn't lie and can basically do no wrong, which is the groupp I meant, then i think my statement was correct.
As to your second point, I think it almost certainly would have happened as you say. Just look at how Democrats changed on border issues under Obama vs under Trump.
I have a very liberal friend who I find easier to have an intelligent discussion than most. He told me he was fearful of a vaccine developed/produced/offered under Trump. This changed when Biden came to office. He felt more assured it was safe. The Democrat politicians would have surely fostered this fear.
Anyone who thinks Trump doesn't lie is an idiot. But then anyone who feels that way about any big-time politician is also denying reality. Perhaps I have too much faith in my fellow man but I think most people realize that :)
I agree that status is an important element explaining tribalism for many people, but not for others. For example, I personally would gain status by mouthing leftist pieties (I'm a professor), but I don't because I'm concerned with the results of progressivism. It makes me wonder what percentage of people are driven by status concerns versus true believers.
I think people are capable of coming to a sincere belief in what is in their interest and ignoring obvious contradictions. We are not fully transparent to ourselves.
That's an important point. We are each in a sense our own group. We don't just receive judgements on status from outsiders, we judge ourselves. Some people value the judgements of others more strongly, some value their own judgements more strongly. Just as people respond differently to similar incentive structures, e.g. not everyone steals when they have the opportunity, but that is very difficult for people who would always steal when they have the opportunity to understand.
I applaud you but we have to remember status seeking is also situation dependent. Maybe you would succumb to the pressures today if you were earlier in your career. Maybe you seek status in other ways we don't know about. One success doesn't tell the whole story. We are a complicated people.
Arnold should add the “oppressor-oppressed” dichotomy as a general framework for managing status position and thus politics. Half of a society thus becomes the outgroup.
Andreski's "The Social Sciences as Sorcery", 1972 is an idiosyncratic classic which punctures omnipresent sociology-speak. Currently overworked and somewhat overloaded terms such as "status" being a case in point.
"The outgroup of American leftists is not Muslim fundamentalists but American conservatives". If we say power is the ultimate status symbol, it may be also true to say the outgroup is the group that threatens one's own group's hold on power. In this case American leftist compete for power with American conservatives. In 1976 in South Africa students protesting the introduction of Afrikaans in schools as the language of instruction sparked riots because they preferred English. And apartheid was largely a struggle between Afrikaner institutions and Black South Africa's desire to have power.
Those against illegal immigration, as well as legal immigration, are more often against it for low wage job competition, as well as against cultural changes. They want more money, directly, rather than more status. For those in the bottom 2 quintiles, -20, -40, more cash is strongly desired for its use, like a better used car that breaks down less often, rather than the status of having a more reliable 8 yr old car.
Tho JD Vance & Rob Henderson both had family members blow wads of cash on new cars or unaffordable new house investment (terrible timing AND lousy risk aversion).
It’s not group status, but individual status inside the group, that poor folk want. The college grad groups are more group status oriented.
"(even though it turns out that vaccination does not seem to prevent transmission)"
Reducing transmission is also a worthy goal.
Revered scientist or not, it seems amazing Fauci became a public spokesman. Or maybe he just has no qualms about lying. Worse than the lies themselves, any benefit in the short term was surely outweighed by the long term consequences. The fiasco about masks sure seems a lie. Has there been an explanation other than to make them more available for medical professionals? Likewise, seems a lie to dismiss COVID coming from a lab. Surely he knew it was possible, right?
His statements about vaccines preventing spread, creating a dead end, or resulting in very low transmission rates could just be mistake. It does seem true that it reduces spread to some degree, maybe trivial, maybe a bit more. Then again, based on his other lies it seems more likely this was another lie to try to get people vaccinated.
“The fiasco about masks sure seems a lie. Has there been an explanation other than to make them more available for medical professionals?”
I actually think the original position on masks was right and the ask to not buy masks made sense. There was existing literature (later ignored) that showed masks had little or no impact at mitigating community spread of a virus. But doctors need masks for all the traditional reasons (to prevent surgeons from accidentally drooling in an open wound or whatever). If doctors were facing a shortage, then a request of the public not to buy masks that won’t help them anyway made sense.
Ok, then the lie would be recommending masks. Except Faici has more recently said they help at the individual level. And he admitted to the lie I stated. He stated he told people they didn't work so there'd be more for healthcare workers.
I think the very end there holds one of the most important points: this is a lens for understanding behavior, not the entirety of the explanation. There are many paths people take to reach similar observable behaviors, but too often we say "People do X" as though that is always the reason. That tends to flatten our understanding beyond the point of usefulness, and worse because people tend to people the One Reason that matches their own cynicism/projection of their behavior.
The fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union was a challenge for the right in America; they lost their real enemy and they haven't found a legitimate substitute, even though there are plenty of threats to America and conservatism. Some chose to demonize environmental conservation, which (as a glance at etymology will make plain) should have been an allied movement. They still throw around the word "communist" but the left has largely moved on to race and gender identity politics, which the right is uncertain how to fight. They are very confused and seemingly have nothing in the toolbox to fight the left's materialist humanism - they mutely agree to its most extreme enthusiasms such as population growth (in places that cannot sustain themselves), mass immigration and open borders, attacking commerce and traditions and spreading decay and disorder.
Am I the only one that still remembers David Hasselhoff singing at the Wall? What a beautiful moment from Knight Rider. I hear that he’s still big in Germany.
The best part of the DNC: We are the party of freedom. I’d like to see more of this. Let’s see Groups A and B make the case that they and not the other group is the party of freedom.
“Let’s see Groups A and B make the case that they and not the other group is the party of freedom.”
It’s already happening. One place is called California and the other place is called Texas. I prefer the lone star definition of freedom over that of the golden state. Your preferences may differ, particularly if the freedom to have an abortion or smoke pot is exciting.
Also the freedom to enjoy 90 degree heat with very low humidity, far more common in CA.
The Freedom From Want, or other undesirable, is often an assertion of a positive right: to food, housing, health care.
Freedom from bad consequences of fun, orgasmic, but commitment-free sex, is the key freedom pro abortionists want.
Tho they claim to want freedom of women to control their own bodies, that principle was hugely falsified when pro-abortion Dems supported mandatory semi-vaccines. Ceding control of individuals to govt.
I had to double check, but the pigs new saying in AF is “Four legs good, two legs better”.
Thank you for raising the status of people named Ross with this well informed comment
Let me suggest other processes that interact with the political psychology Arnold sketches.
Analysis should distinguish beliefs and preferences.
And analysis should distinguish inner conformity (subconscious adaption of beliefs or preferences) and outer conformity (strategic misrepresentation of beliefs or preferences, in order to fit in).
For example, those who formed a policy preference against mandatory injections had diverse beliefs. Some believed that too little was known about risks and benefits of new mRNA and protein subunit technologies. Some believed that persons with natural immunity (due to prior infection) should be exempt. Some believed that coercion is wrong in principle. Some believed that coercion would backfire by inducing mistrust of motives. Some believed that the game was rigged by big pharma and corruption. Taken together, people with diverse beliefs formed a coalition against a mandate.
This belief-coalition (an ad-hoc group) had to navigate Arnold's tribal status competition. Here is where conformity took center stage. My intuition is that, amid polarization, elites engaged in much strategic misrepresentation of beliefs (their own and also others'), in order justify (divisive) policy preferences. But I might be wrong. Perhaps elites subconsciously came to believe what fits the policy line, like a person who tosses and turns in sleep until she finds a comfortable position. In any case, the two processes can each have bite.
[edited for typos and clarity]
I don’t consider myself to be particularly tribalistic and am having trouble relating Arnold’s post to everyday issues, political or otherwise. For example, I was initially pro vaccine based on the test results and my trust in the public health officials. I’ve got the jabs to prove it. But, I quickly turned against the vaccines when it became somewhat clear that their efficacy was way overrated in conjunction with the over reliance on coercion, peer pressure and false information by public officials to gain compliance. There are a lot of people with a similar sentiment as mine and the net result is a massive loss in trust in public health institutions.
In other words, tribalism isn’t as sticky as Arnold makes it out to be. Rather, group affiliation can be fluid based on the facts and circumstances of some particular public policy issue.
Personally, I think it's a mistake for people with significant comorbidities or over ~60 not to get the vaccine. At the other extreme, if I were under 40 (no comorbidities) or had to decided for minors, my answer would be NO.
One thing I found fascinating was that Trump backed Warpspeed yet his supporters are overwhelmingly against the vaccine. I don't think his followers changed their minds because Biden became President and it became HIS vaccine. Instead, it confirms my prior belief - Trump has never led his followers but he has been masterful at positioning himself in front of where they are headed. The vaccine is an exception but I believe he understood where his followers would go and more strongly hoped, against all odds, to somehow use vaccination before the election to get the economy back on track.
I don't think it is factually correct that "his (Trump's) supporters are overwhelmingly against the vaccine."
Be that as it may ...
One of the forgotten stories of Covid is that Pfizer had a plan to do analysis of 32 cases involving the vaccine by early October before the November presidential election. This would have found the vaccine at least 90% effective. But no analysis was done and in late October, they and the FDA agreed not to do analysis till they had 62 cases (more cases means higher statistical power), which would mean no news until after the election. Since Trump had promised a vaccine before the election, news of a successful vaccine would probably have helped him, perhaps enough to win the election.
I always wondered, what if Pfizer had analyzed and reported and Trump had won? In October, 2020, anti-vax was more a left- than a right-wing thing. E.g., the most prominent anti-vaxxer was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., then very much a member of the Democratic Party's left wing. Would the NYT have run articles about how the approval process was rushed, how mRNA technology was new and unproven? How nobody knew the side effects or the long-term effects? Would Kamala Harris have repeated her opinion from her debate with Pence that she wouldn't believe in a vaccine if Trump was for it? Would opposition to "Trump's vaccine" have become, like "Russian collusion" a big Democratic rallying point?
I guess it depends on how you define supporter. If you include Republicans and others who hold their nose and vote for him, then you are probably right. If you just look at the ones who think he doesn't lie and can basically do no wrong, which is the groupp I meant, then i think my statement was correct.
As to your second point, I think it almost certainly would have happened as you say. Just look at how Democrats changed on border issues under Obama vs under Trump.
I have a very liberal friend who I find easier to have an intelligent discussion than most. He told me he was fearful of a vaccine developed/produced/offered under Trump. This changed when Biden came to office. He felt more assured it was safe. The Democrat politicians would have surely fostered this fear.
Anyone who thinks Trump doesn't lie is an idiot. But then anyone who feels that way about any big-time politician is also denying reality. Perhaps I have too much faith in my fellow man but I think most people realize that :)
I have had conversations with people who say Trump doesn't lie. Same with people about Biden and Obama. They exist.
I agree that status is an important element explaining tribalism for many people, but not for others. For example, I personally would gain status by mouthing leftist pieties (I'm a professor), but I don't because I'm concerned with the results of progressivism. It makes me wonder what percentage of people are driven by status concerns versus true believers.
I think people are capable of coming to a sincere belief in what is in their interest and ignoring obvious contradictions. We are not fully transparent to ourselves.
That's an important point. We are each in a sense our own group. We don't just receive judgements on status from outsiders, we judge ourselves. Some people value the judgements of others more strongly, some value their own judgements more strongly. Just as people respond differently to similar incentive structures, e.g. not everyone steals when they have the opportunity, but that is very difficult for people who would always steal when they have the opportunity to understand.
I applaud you but we have to remember status seeking is also situation dependent. Maybe you would succumb to the pressures today if you were earlier in your career. Maybe you seek status in other ways we don't know about. One success doesn't tell the whole story. We are a complicated people.
Arnold should add the “oppressor-oppressed” dichotomy as a general framework for managing status position and thus politics. Half of a society thus becomes the outgroup.
Andreski's "The Social Sciences as Sorcery", 1972 is an idiosyncratic classic which punctures omnipresent sociology-speak. Currently overworked and somewhat overloaded terms such as "status" being a case in point.
"The outgroup of American leftists is not Muslim fundamentalists but American conservatives". If we say power is the ultimate status symbol, it may be also true to say the outgroup is the group that threatens one's own group's hold on power. In this case American leftist compete for power with American conservatives. In 1976 in South Africa students protesting the introduction of Afrikaans in schools as the language of instruction sparked riots because they preferred English. And apartheid was largely a struggle between Afrikaner institutions and Black South Africa's desire to have power.
Those against illegal immigration, as well as legal immigration, are more often against it for low wage job competition, as well as against cultural changes. They want more money, directly, rather than more status. For those in the bottom 2 quintiles, -20, -40, more cash is strongly desired for its use, like a better used car that breaks down less often, rather than the status of having a more reliable 8 yr old car.
Tho JD Vance & Rob Henderson both had family members blow wads of cash on new cars or unaffordable new house investment (terrible timing AND lousy risk aversion).
It’s not group status, but individual status inside the group, that poor folk want. The college grad groups are more group status oriented.
"(even though it turns out that vaccination does not seem to prevent transmission)"
Reducing transmission is also a worthy goal.
Revered scientist or not, it seems amazing Fauci became a public spokesman. Or maybe he just has no qualms about lying. Worse than the lies themselves, any benefit in the short term was surely outweighed by the long term consequences. The fiasco about masks sure seems a lie. Has there been an explanation other than to make them more available for medical professionals? Likewise, seems a lie to dismiss COVID coming from a lab. Surely he knew it was possible, right?
His statements about vaccines preventing spread, creating a dead end, or resulting in very low transmission rates could just be mistake. It does seem true that it reduces spread to some degree, maybe trivial, maybe a bit more. Then again, based on his other lies it seems more likely this was another lie to try to get people vaccinated.
“The fiasco about masks sure seems a lie. Has there been an explanation other than to make them more available for medical professionals?”
I actually think the original position on masks was right and the ask to not buy masks made sense. There was existing literature (later ignored) that showed masks had little or no impact at mitigating community spread of a virus. But doctors need masks for all the traditional reasons (to prevent surgeons from accidentally drooling in an open wound or whatever). If doctors were facing a shortage, then a request of the public not to buy masks that won’t help them anyway made sense.
Ok, then the lie would be recommending masks. Except Faici has more recently said they help at the individual level. And he admitted to the lie I stated. He stated he told people they didn't work so there'd be more for healthcare workers.
Right, the two statements can’t both be true.
"The outgroup of American leftists is not Muslim fundamentalists but American conservatives."
Leftists don't just have a stronger dislike of conservatives, they are drawn to towards liking fundamentalist Muslims, or at least act like they do.
One should cultivate being less "group" oriented, to be the minority fiction of whatever larger group one is part of.
Minority faction is often lonely. All groups have fictions.
I think the very end there holds one of the most important points: this is a lens for understanding behavior, not the entirety of the explanation. There are many paths people take to reach similar observable behaviors, but too often we say "People do X" as though that is always the reason. That tends to flatten our understanding beyond the point of usefulness, and worse because people tend to people the One Reason that matches their own cynicism/projection of their behavior.
The fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet Union was a challenge for the right in America; they lost their real enemy and they haven't found a legitimate substitute, even though there are plenty of threats to America and conservatism. Some chose to demonize environmental conservation, which (as a glance at etymology will make plain) should have been an allied movement. They still throw around the word "communist" but the left has largely moved on to race and gender identity politics, which the right is uncertain how to fight. They are very confused and seemingly have nothing in the toolbox to fight the left's materialist humanism - they mutely agree to its most extreme enthusiasms such as population growth (in places that cannot sustain themselves), mass immigration and open borders, attacking commerce and traditions and spreading decay and disorder.
Am I the only one that still remembers David Hasselhoff singing at the Wall? What a beautiful moment from Knight Rider. I hear that he’s still big in Germany.
https://youtu.be/SNpCn0nAlR0?si=J8vwiNgncanYstcc
Close tribes can a case of enemies inside the wire.
The best part of the DNC: We are the party of freedom. I’d like to see more of this. Let’s see Groups A and B make the case that they and not the other group is the party of freedom.
“Let’s see Groups A and B make the case that they and not the other group is the party of freedom.”
It’s already happening. One place is called California and the other place is called Texas. I prefer the lone star definition of freedom over that of the golden state. Your preferences may differ, particularly if the freedom to have an abortion or smoke pot is exciting.
Also the freedom to enjoy 90 degree heat with very low humidity, far more common in CA.
The Freedom From Want, or other undesirable, is often an assertion of a positive right: to food, housing, health care.
Freedom from bad consequences of fun, orgasmic, but commitment-free sex, is the key freedom pro abortionists want.
Tho they claim to want freedom of women to control their own bodies, that principle was hugely falsified when pro-abortion Dems supported mandatory semi-vaccines. Ceding control of individuals to govt.