Had a little whiskey, so firing from the hip here...
Quote:
is it true that people rather be incorrect and part of the group than the opposite?
I'd hope no one has tried to establish this as a universal law or anything--I can envision times where this is the case and times when not. There are different models to try and explain behavior of groups, here are some concepts that seem applicable:
Hierarchy of needs perspective: Group membership means higher odds of survival, mating, and access to resources from an evolutionary/instinctive Maslow standpoint. William Glasser names
love and belonging as one of the 4-5 core basic human needs. Although today being cast out of a political party in the US doesn't mean death typically, there is still a strong aversion built into us to avoid losing face in front of our groups. In a situation where differing from the fashionable group opinion means a significant loss of status or access to resources controlled by the group (ie when groupthink is activated), then the reward structure can favor repression of certain viewpoints. Inversely, professing adherence to certain viewpoints (maybe loudly, on social media) can increase those things.
Humans want to experience themselves as genuine, but this is typically not felt to be as pressing a need as belonging, access to mates, survival, etc. Of course, some people demonstrate the ability to put ideology ahead of some needs traditionally thought of as primary. Folks who do a hunger strike, or speak out against the group at great cost, etc.
Group unconscious perspective: Wilfred Bion was a brilliant psychologist who talked a lot about the idea of the group unconscious. In essence, he hypothesized that the best explainer of certain phenomena is the concept of a group psyche that has a powerful mind of its own. Under this lens, behavior of individuals in a group context can be said to serve some purpose for the group, and the factor of the individual's free will is somewhat diminished. Bion also identified three primary unconscious group drives - fight/flight, pairing, and dependence. Don't need to get stuck in the weeds here, but if a group is manifesting the fight response in a given situation, then members are going to be recruited by the group psyche to behave in ways that provoke or continue a fight. In US politics right now, we can see plenty of examples where this might be the case, and individuals are clearly in the wrong on a given issue (based on facts presented) but dig their heels in and just fight all the harder. Of course, these individuals are not under the impression they are wrong, either, they see the other person as the villain, their group as the good guys, and whatever concessions they need to make to fight the bad guys seem justified.
Self-concept perspective: Nathaniel Branden was a psychologist who talked a lot about self-esteem. People with low self-esteem (read: almost everyone) look for external validation as the basic source of self-worth. Experiencing oneself as wrong is more or less intolerable when your sense of identity and self-love is perceived to be at stake. When these people have the option between acknowledging a mistake or creating an elaborate, fantastical narrative that maybe-sorta supports their original argument (and thus preserves their fragile identity), they choose the latter. Their model is not
I'm a learning growing human who makes mistakes and that's okay, it's more like
If I lose an argument, that means I'm a loser.
Drama Triangle (emerging roles): Karpman brought a tool from acting over into the world of psychology in the 60's, and it's used often in systems work today--The Drama Triangle. The idea is that three primary roles emerge in unhealthy systems. You have the persecutor, the victim, and the rescuer. The persecutor scapegoats the victim, the victim sings the "poor me" song which absolves them of responsibility, and the rescuer gets value from coming in to save the poor little victim from the big mean persecutor. This is happening all over the place right now in politics if you look for it. Each role becomes extremely invested in acting out their part, and also keeping the others in their parts as well--each person in their role is gaining some unconscious value from it, and the system can't exist without all three parts. The importance of the roles can override rationality...So if I feel like I am a victim and see you as a persecutor, I will interpret any argument you put forth through that lens, and find ways to project trickery and malice onto you.
I'm not wrong, you're just twisting the facts and manipulating me.
There are a ton more ways to think about it, but that's what I got on a Saturday after a big glass of Buffalo Trace.