The group weakening effect of picking on an arbitrary group member is clear and direct. Why would picking on a group member evolve as an indirect way of creating cohesion when the immediate direct effect is to reduce cohesion? Maybe there is some weird feedback mechanism a la runaway selection, but those kinds of arguments are not easy to make out.

I think because in our adaptive environment we never lacked for enemies, real or imagined, so why bother, as it were. Also, assuming no strong group selection, there may be a prisoner’s dillemma at work. Prior to selecting an out-group member, the risk of becoming such an out-group is spread among the group, with significant expected cost. When someone is chosen, this reduces risk for all group members by an amount greater than the loss from trade, even if increased cohesion doesn’t make it an absolute benefit.

Now, I’m not really sure that spontaneous arbitrary group formation actually exists as a phenomenon. Maybe that particular experience was just aberrant and really isn’t an example of any general phenomenon. It is also possible that I’m misremembering the incident and that we had some good reason for disliking Olga apart from her ‘funny’ name. Or it could be that non-adaptive arbitrary group formation in non-competitive situations sometimes occurs as a result of over-generalization of adaptive out-group hostility in competitive situations.

Anyone have thoughts as to how common spontaneous arbitrary group formation might be? The best historical example I can think of is the Great Schism between the Roman and Eastern churches over the filioque clause of the Nicene creed — is the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son? This was no doubt in large part a power struggle between bishops, but why did the followers find this kind of division motivating?

However, I think it also illustrates the value of meta-analysis even of our own, real time posts, because we’re probably regularly wronger than we need to be not just our disagreements and agreements, but our reasons for doing so and our reasons for the structure in which we do so.

Meta-analysis might be better done through (putative) anonymity, because I acknowledge our human limitations at engaging in mutual critiques, given the various social costs associated with it.

This blog is about overcoming bias, and I think it’s not a departure from the mission to engage in this meta-analysis in the commentary. Plus I think the regular participants and all the named contributors are mature enough to handle it.

Kathleen, there are surely self-fulfilling prophecy elements of making negative estimates about people. But unless you want to argue that no one should ever have a negative estimate of anyone, this doesn’t imply that fat should not be the basis of a negative estimate. The question is why the fat-based self-fulfilling prophecy effects are more problematic than any other such effects.

Hopefully, check your email.

As for rational reasons to pick a group to stigmatize to construct insider/outsider status (that favors the stigmatizers), I think it’s an interesting question as to how people get picked. I can think of various theories, and probably there are multiple causal factors. Generally, I think the stigmatized groups are less able to counter the stigmatization (due to lower intelligence, fewer cultural resources to counter the stigma, unique collective action barriers, or because the principle on which they’re stigmatized has the added value of being true -such as if overweight people really were, on average the worst friends, and it really was cost-prohibitive to assess a given overweight person further before choosing not to befriend them), but it’s also possible in some cases they are compensated in other ways for the stigmatization. For example, I could see market dominant minorities actually favoring a level of group stigmatization if it will help preserve endogamy and reduce competitors from participating in advantageous behavior.

I recall reading a paper about a minority ethnicity within a region of Kenya, that wouldn’t participate in redistributive feasts that other ethnicities in the region participated in, even though there was a social cost in not hosting redistributive feasts. It could in theory be rational for all parties, for the majority to consider the insular minority group an outgroup, while the minority group maintains its endogamy and wealth accumulation advantage, so that the system as a whole is more productive and competitive than competing systems. But in practice it seemed to me that the wealthier minority group was getting the benefit of the bargain. I’ll try to dig up the article/study if time permits.

It just occurs to me that overweight persons may be compensated in at least one other way: they don’t have to practice abnegation or engage in rigorous excercise regimes. So an element of their stigma may be similar to stigma put on hedonists and people who chose not to go to college- there may be an informal assessment that the greater advantage they’re taking in one area of life than the majority makes it fair for them to shoulder stigma burden rather than the rest of us. This is in contrast to stigma placed on people with factors perceived to be more immutable, such as having dark skin, or being short.

With all that said, I doubt that this kind of meta-analysis is worthwhile. Given that this blog is about bias, meta-analysis is likely to involve accusing each other of various kinds of bias. I doubt this will be more interesting than identifying similar types of bias in the news etc, and it is certainly likely to be more divisive. For example, I think that this comment of mine is the least interesting and most divisive thing that I’ve posted on this blog, and yet defensive ego-centrism bias has made me feel compelled to post it nonetheless.