Overcoming the Tribal Bias Response
On Our Innate Bias and an End to Partisan Thinking
A strange phenomenon occurs when an uncomfortable truth is presented that contradicts a belief system people are wedded to. You can almost feel the shift in the air, the heartbeats increasing, and the desire to ignore and misrepresent said truth. This is the tribal bias response. It originates in our evolutionary past and is, I believe, a major obstacle to attempts to get to the truth in today’s ever more polarised world.
It is a response I have noticed in myself when I come across a fact or challenge to a belief of mine. I can feel a physical change within. In physiological terms, in a matter of milliseconds, my amygdala is activated, which in turn signals my hypothalamus, which triggers my sympathetic nervous system. Seconds later, the pituitary gland releases a specific hormone that signals my adrenal glands to release cortisol, otherwise known as the stress hormone. At this point, adrenaline and noradrenaline are also released, activating my body further and my prefrontal cortex, responsible for rational thinking, is bypassed, making it more difficult to think logically. This the key physiological trigger of the tribal bias response and it can deceive us.
As mentioned, I regularly encounter this response in myself. For example, I have been a proponent of Effective Altruism (EA) since 2017 and have written about it on several occasions. In late 2022 and early 2023, in the wake of the FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried scandal, the EA movement came under much criticism in major publications. I remember initially feeling a stress response and having an impulse to, as a lawyer would, make the best defence of the movement regardless of the truth of the criticisms. Now, as it turned out, after more time and careful reflection, I truly believe the criticisms of EA were a complete misrepresentation of the movement, and I have written about that here.
But what is important is that my initial response was not a truth-seeking one – it was a defensive one and this is something I now consciously try to circumvent. I notice a similar response when I hear challenges to veganism, and again, on reflection, I am still confident in my position as a vegan.
There are two primary causes of this stress response. One, as in the case of my adoption of the 10% pledge, is that we have an idealised version of ourselves and when we make choices which may deviate from this, on some level we feel this. The other is due to the fact many of our beliefs have a social basis, and we fear the ostracisation of ‘our tribe’ if we reject a belief. In both cases it is a fear that these facts or criticisms are true and that we have to abandon something we have invested a lot in.
My act of becoming vegan was a case of the latter and I had to consciously override the tribal bias response when confronted with uncomfortable truths about the unimaginable scale of suffering we are inflicting on sentient creatures, the impact on our environment, the impact on antibiotic resistance, etc. Initially I tried to ignore these facts, and actively searched for defences of eating meat and dairy, but over time I could no longer continue to ignore the truth. I knew than in order to stay true to myself I needed to overcome my desire to resist these truths.
There is an understandable evolutionary reason for this – being shunned from our tribe during early humankind meant certain death. So, it is no surprise that this innate fear of going against our tribe is hardwired into us. It is an instinctual aversion to a truth which could threaten our tribal status. This is in direct contrast with an attempt to get to the truth, and when it comes to matters of right and wrong, the truth is what we must seek. It is worth noting, however, that this response does not guarantee that the confronting information is true. Instead, I see it as a sign that I may have a bias towards them not being true, and that I should strive harder to be impartial.
One rule which I find useful is that if I feel a social pressure to conform to a view, I use this as an indicator to challenge that view more closely. Otherwise the danger is people just seek out arguments which confirm this view, internally arming themselves with responses to back it up. The reality is that holders of the opposing view may be doing exactly the same. In fact I often see criticisms which are less aimed at persuasion, and more aimed at signalling to their own tribe. In order to get to the truth we need to work harder, we need to overcome this.
It has led me to an uncomfortable hypothesis – that one of the chief causes of this today is the left/right divide. Indeed, the more you examine the left/right divide, which derives from where people sat in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, the less clearly defined it appears. Political scientists Verlan Lewis and Hyrum Lewis have examined this closely in their book The Myth of Left and Right, concluding that the idea of politics being centrally about progress (the left) and preservation (the right) is false.
Instead, politics is about a vast number of unrelated things and throughout history there have been many changes in what was considered left and right. Relating it to the UK, I remember clearly that leaving the EU was something many on the far left, including Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn, were proponents of for years. However, when the Brexit referendum came around it was framed more often as a far-right position.
Countless studies have shown that people will support policies supposedly counter to their viewpoint if told their tribe has put it forward or that they will support an opposing position solely based on subtle language changes.
There is a good discussion on The Myth of the Left and Right with the economist Bryan Caplan that I recommend, and I need to research this further myself. However, regardless of whether the left/right distinction is a myth, I still believe there is value in trying to move past that framework.
I have noticed that the art of persuasion, and also the humble act of admitting you are wrong are rarely, if ever, seen these days. If tribalism is increasing and we are being pushed further apart into our tribes then the tribal bias response will become even stronger, blinding our judgement. Perhaps we would be better off approaching issues not in terms of left and right but in terms of right and wrong. To explore what are the potential solutions to a problem, what are the trade-offs, and what might the unintended consequences be?
Ironically, this proposal may be setting off the same stress response I outline. However, I would say that if you are confident in your political world view, then the facts and research should bear that out. Wouldn’t it be better to try and take tribalism out of it completely and propose solutions purely based on what we think the evidence supports? This is a hypothesis and I welcome any feedback on it.
There is a danger that abandoning the left/right framework will lead to contrarianism, and just opposing popular viewpoints for the sake of it. This is not what I am proposing. Instead, I believe we should all try to seek the truth, ignore our innate tribal stress response, and be morally brave. It is best put by one of the most courageous people in history, the freed slave Frederick Douglass:
‘I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.’
If we could strive towards this ideal, I believe we would all be far better off.