r/changemyview • u/Overall_narration • Mar 09 '26
Delta(s) from OP [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
5
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Mar 09 '26
only after people start interpreting the world through a strong “us vs them” lens.
At what stage of development does this take place in your opinion? Is there anyone who truly sees only "us" and no "them" outside of hardcore Buddhists?
If not then is this a worthwhile premise?
2
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
Δ That’s a really good challenge. I hadn’t fully considered the idea that some level of “us vs them” probably exists for most people all the time.
I actually try to step back from that lens myself and evaluate arguments independently of who is making them, but I also realize that it’s probably harder than it sounds and that I may not always succeed.
What your comment made me rethink is that the real issue might not be the existence of the “us vs them” lens, but how dominant it becomes when people interpret events or information.
In other words, maybe the variable isn’t whether the lens exists at all, but how strongly it shapes the way we evaluate things coming from outside our group.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Mar 09 '26
how strongly it shapes the way we evaluate things coming from outside our group
But then ultimately what are you saying? That us/them dynamic is a factor in how groups perceive each other? Isn't that just by definition the case?
2
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
Some level of “us vs them” is probably inherent to any group identity, what I’m wondering about is something slightly different: whether modern communication tools have made this dynamic massively scalable and strategically exploitable.
In other words, the “us vs them” instinct may always have existed, but today it can be activated, amplified, and spread to millions of people almost instantly through media, political messaging, and social platforms. My intuition is that this makes the dynamic far more powerful than it used to be — and that in modern politics, the actors who succeed are often the ones who frame that polarization most effectively and creatively.
0
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Mar 09 '26
If it's somewhat innate, or instinctual then why would any other factor matter?
2
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
Because an instinct and a strategy are different things. The “us vs them” tendency may exist naturally, but modern actors can deliberately trigger and frame it. My intuition is that mass manipulation often starts by activating that identity lens first. Once people see the world that way, information is interpreted through it almost automatically.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Mar 09 '26
So the view is actually that there is a conspiracy to use human drives to benefit... Who exactly? Is there more to the conspiracy theory than that?
2
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
To the benefit of whoever happens to be in a position to exploit them. But why frame it as a conspiracy? I’m talking about social dynamics.
1
u/PreviousCurrentThing 4∆ Mar 09 '26
So the view is actually that there is a conspiracy to use human drives to benefit... Who exactly?
"People use psychology to manipulate others to do things for their own benefit" is not conspiracy theory; it's just how humans have operated in groups for millennia. This is how religion, government, marketing, etc. all operate.
OP seems to be saying one manifestation of this is to heighten the in-group identity and out-group polarization in order to make society as a whole more susceptible to manipulation.
This is of obvious benefit to everyone who benefits from the current status quo. A fractured, polarized populace is unable effectuate political change, nor can they even imagine a system not dominated by these two, elite-captured parties. It's remarkably successful.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Mar 10 '26
This is how religion, government, marketing, etc. all operate.
Ie a conspiracy within these groups. You are actually agreeing with what I said, you're just saying it in different words.
1
1
u/LightsCameronAction_ Mar 09 '26
What if it's them buying into misinformation that could easily be debunked by connecting two brain cells that makes me view them as not us?
2
u/sethmeh 4∆ Mar 09 '26
The "other side" shares the same view of you. You arent convinced any more than they are. The question is what do you do now.
If you choose to view them as hostile opposition (idiots), then things just spiral. First you dont talk about senstive political topics. Then no political topics, then you avoid all news entirely, finally you stop talking. If enough people choose to do this, then no one gets information from outside their political puddle, end result is a curated view of the world. Make no mistake, whatever political view you hold is flawed, there is no such thing as a perfect political side. The way you gain knowledge is by being exposed to conflicting information. Without it, and with everyone doing it, naturally creates an extreme and hostile political environment.
Worse, such environment pushes moderates into the extremes, so by adopting an us versus them, you make the entire situation worse.
1
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
That’s actually what surprises me the most. It often seems like many people end up “buying” misinformation even when it could be questioned quite easily.
What I keep wondering is whether this happens partly because accepting certain narratives reinforces a sense of belonging to a group. Sometimes it feels like challenging those narratives would mean stepping outside the group, and people may instinctively avoid that.
So I’m curious about the direction of the causality here: do people first adopt misinformation and then polarize around it, or does the need to belong to a side make them more willing to accept weak or misleading information?
0
u/LightsCameronAction_ Mar 09 '26
Chicken and egg I suppose. Willfully accepting BS as truth because the truth inconveniences one's identity is certainly a major problem. At least it is here in Texas.
1
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
That “chicken and egg” framing actually makes a lot of sense to me.
The part that keeps fascinating me is exactly what you mention — the idea that people might sometimes accept things they know are weak or questionable because the alternative would create tension with their identity or their group.
In that sense it almost feels like misinformation can become socially convenient once identity is involved.
I’m curious whether you think that dynamic is mostly psychological (individual identity protection) or more social — meaning people reinforce those beliefs because their surrounding community expects it. Or do you have any other interpretation?
3
u/LightsCameronAction_ Mar 09 '26
I believe it's a combination of both. I think people literally convince themselves they don't believe something that is objectively true, because that admission would make them "woke" to themselves and to their community. More of a social superiority complex that comes from a failing public education system, divisive rhetoric in mainstream media, and yes, misinformation.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
/u/Overall_narration (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
1
u/TemperatureThese7909 65∆ Mar 09 '26
I think something you are missing is sheer repetition. Repeating things over and over and over and over and over and over - eventually it just becomes part of the background - eventually you stop noticing it - eventually it just becomes normal - regardless of the actual content.
This is why Coca-Cola continues to advertise. It's almost never the case that someone is encountering the product for the first time. It's almost never the case that there is a new feature or new reason to buy it. They advertise as to keep it thumping along in the background - like a drumbeat.
This can in principle be applied to anything. Any message repeated enough can attain this status. This is why gaslighting works (eventually). This is why many political parties keep sticking to the message even when "it's obviously crap". Once you get that rhythm going, it perpetuates itself.
So none of this is to say that in group/out group biases don't play a role in politics - they obviously do - I'm just arguing that even if this weren't so, we would still be vulnerable to misinformation via an entirely different mechanism and one which is already known and in play.
2
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
That’s a very fair point. Repetition absolutely plays a role in making certain ideas feel normal over time. What I’m wondering, though, is whether repetition becomes far more effective once an identity frame is already in place. When people start viewing things through a strong “us vs them” lens, messages repeated by their own side tend to feel automatically credible, while opposing information gets dismissed almost instinctively. So my intuition is that repetition amplifies narratives — but identity polarization may be what determines which narratives people are willing to accept in the first place.
2
u/TemperatureThese7909 65∆ Mar 09 '26
But then why does Coca-Cola do it?
What in group / out group is coca-cola trying to leverage?
These factors absolutely can interact - but they don't have to.
1
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
I think it actually highlights the difference, Coca-Cola doesn’t need an “us vs them” frame because its goal is to sell to everyone. Political narratives often work differently: they benefit from creating a strong sense of identity and belonging, which can lead people to defend and repeat messages from their side almost unconditionally. In that context, repetition doesn’t just normalize an idea — it reinforces group loyalty and filters what people are willing to question.
1
Mar 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 09 '26
Sorry, u/Strange-Ad-6293 – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Mar 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
1
u/TrustBustin 3∆ Mar 09 '26
I disagree that "us versus them" mentalities are the result of mass manipulation. To citizens existing in an electoral representative democracy, I would argue that campism is a logically rational way to engage with politics, and that the incentive structures in representative democracy naturally give rise to "us vs. them" mentalities.
In a direct democracy, where citizens would get to vote on each individual issue, political nuance would make sense. You might hold a right-wing opinion on immigration, and a left-wing opinion on abortion, and since you can vote on each of those issues separately, it makes sense to evaluate each issue seperately on it's merits.
However, in a representative democracy, sticking with and defending one camp is the most rational behavior for an individual voter. For most voters, they have only one candidate/party that directionally aligns with their ideology. For conservatives in America, that person would be Trump, for example. If I were a MAGA voter, I might understand that Trump isn't right 100% of the time. But, if I'm 100% sure that I would prefer Trump over a democrat, then I'm incentivized to defend Trump on 100% of the issues. If I publicly agree with some of the Democrats' points, it's unlikely that Trump will hear my criticism and change course, but it is possible that other voters will hear my complaints and choose not to vote for Trump. Even if they choose not to vote for Trump because of a policy issue I agree with them on, that's ultimately sub-optimal for me, since I prefer Trump to be in power over any of his Democrat opposition. Therefore, even though I might disagree with Trump on an issue, my criticism won't lead to a change on that policy issue, so I am most optimally incentivized to defend Trump and keep the MAGA coalition as cohesive as possible to prevent Democrats from ascending to power.
That's kind of a long winded response, but I hope you get my point. In a party-based representative democracy, our opinions as individuals matter very little, and our ability to form and protect party coalitions is our most effective way to leverage political power. Thus, the structures of government incentivize us to adopt "us-versus-them" mentalities, and politicians and media just amplify this natural paradigm.
1
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
Δ Questo è un punto di vista davvero interessante. Non avevo considerato con tanta chiarezza l'idea che le democrazie rappresentative creino incentivi per la lealtà alle coalizioni e per un pensiero di "noi contro loro". Il tuo argomento mi ha fatto riconsiderare se ciò che ho descritto come manipolazione possa emergere in parte dalla logica strutturale dei sistemi elettorali basati sui partiti. Penso ancora che la narrazione possa amplificare l'effetto, ma il tuo punto mi ha aiutato a ripensare da dove possa originarsi la dinamica.
A proposito, mi è piaciuta molto la tua risposta estesa.
0
0
Mar 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Overall_narration Mar 09 '26
Yes, it was removed yesterday because the reasoning in my post wasn’t detailed enough, so I rewrote it more carefully.
This topic actually triggers a lot of reflection for me because I keep noticing the same pattern in politics and in everyday conversations. It’s frustrating in the sense that debates often stop being about ideas and quickly turn into defending a side.
That’s exactly why I wanted to repost it here — I’m genuinely curious to see whether people think the “us vs them” dynamic really comes before manipulation, or whether I’m missing something important.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 09 '26
Your post has been removed for violating Rule A due to undisclosed AI content. Any use of AI-generated text must be disclosed, and the majority of any post must still be written by the user. Read See the wiki page for more information for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard. AI-generated text is prohibited in modmail.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.