Tribalism in War and Peace: The Nature and Evolution of Ideological Epistemology and Its Significance for Modern Social Science

We argue that because of a long history of intergroup conflict and competition, humans evolved to be tribal creatures. Tribalism is not inherently bad, but it can lead to ideological thinking and sacred values that distort cognitive processing of putatively objective information in ways that affirm and strengthen the views and well-being of one’s ingroup (and that increase one’s own standing within one’s ingroup). Because of this shared evolutionary history of intergroup conflict, liberals and conservatives likely share the same underlying tribal psychology, which creates the potential for ideologically distorted information processing.

Over the past several decades, social scientists have sedulously documented various tribal and ideological psychological tendencies on the political right, and more recent work has documented similar tendencies on the political left. We contend that these tribal tendencies and propensities can lead to ideologically distorted information processing in any group. And this ideological epistemology can become especially problematic for the pursuit of the truth when groups are ideologically homogenous and hold sacred values that might be contradicted by empirical inquiry. Evidence suggests that these conditions might hold for modern social science; therefore, we conclude by exploring potential ideologically driven distortions in the social sciences.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233?journalCode=hpli20

"sedulously"     !?!?!

'Wolfie wrote:

"sedulously"     !?!?!

A perfect word in this instance do you not think wolf?

And after those sociologists have finished disecting and analysing the 'Left', they can move on to that third group :

The Anarchists, the fringe dwellers, the 'disenfranchised', the non-political, the utra-poor, the genuine dropouts and 'off gridders' (i.e. not those overpaid and over-fat "preppers" playing boy soldier while awaiting the zombie apocalypse..), and anyone else who feels they "don't belong"..

Far right whinge Armerikahn commentators may like to refer to all those that they can't comprehend as "left wing 'liberal' commies" --  but the truth is that there's a lot of folks out there who simply don't belong to the left, 'centre' or right.

'Wolfie wrote:

And after those sociologists have finished disecting and analysing the 'Left', they can move on to that third group :

The Anarchists, the fringe dwellers, the 'disenfranchised', the non-political, the utra-poor, the genuine dropouts and 'off gridders' (i.e. not those overpaid and over-fat "preppers" playing boy soldier while awaiting the zombie apocalypse..), and anyone else who feels they "don't belong"..

Far right whinge Armerikahn commentators may like to refer to all those that they can't comprehend as "left wing 'liberal' commies" --  but the truth is that there's a lot of folks out there who simply don't belong to the left, 'centre' or right.

Eh?

Thorin wrote:We argue that because of a long history of intergroup conflict and competition, humans evolved to be tribal creatures. Tribalism is not inherently bad, but it can lead to ideological thinking and sacred values that distort cognitive processing of putatively objective information in ways that affirm and strengthen the views and well-being of one’s ingroup (and that increase one’s own standing within one’s ingroup). Because of this shared evolutionary history of intergroup conflict, liberals and conservatives likely share the same underlying tribal psychology, which creates the potential for ideologically distorted information processing.

Over the past several decades, social scientists have sedulously documented various tribal and ideological psychological tendencies on the political right, and more recent work has documented similar tendencies on the political left. We contend that these tribal tendencies and propensities can lead to ideologically distorted information processing in any group. And this ideological epistemology can become especially problematic for the pursuit of the truth when groups are ideologically homogenous and hold sacred values that might be contradicted by empirical inquiry. Evidence suggests that these conditions might hold for modern social science; therefore, we conclude by exploring potential ideologically driven distortions in the social sciences.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233?journalCode=hpli20

And self segregation into these tribes feeds more bias. Sort of a vicious circle that appears to be partially driven by the internet, which oddly enough provides more information than ever to combat this problem.

What if, despite all our most noble efforts, tribalism is so inherent in our natures that we simply can't overcome it or the attendent biases that arise from it.

As Shelby Steele said he knows no one who isn't a racist to some extent because prejudice isn't a considered response it's a reactive one. I doubt any group, no matter how enlightened they claim to be, aren't subject to some bias or bigotry towards someone somewhere be that on the right, or left or centre.

Would it be better to concentrate instead on acknowledging we are all bigoted rather than pretending we're incapable of it, and then finding methods to transcend those instincts.

It's too bad we only have the Abstract to inform us.  The use of Ideological Epistemology needs an explanation.

My own dissertation adviser (Harvard, 1966) wrote a thesis on how the Renaissance emphasis on the real transformed the pursuit of philosophy from questions of ontology (Democritus and Leucippus) to questions of epistemology (Descartes).

Ontology is the study of being, whereas epistemology is the study of how we know.  The shift was from what is before our eyes (what is out there), to what is behind our eyes (what qualifies as real).  From this shift evolved a growing emphasis on empiricism.  Ever since, empirical science has been our religion.

Epistemology is a first order study, so that to speak of epistemology as "ideological" is to relegate it to 3rd or 4th level.  It makes no sense.  Perhaps the authors intend a lower order—say, cognitive orientation or persuasion—and they are talking about the way the culture (tribe) influences perspective.  That is not epistemology, but it is ethnocentric orientation.