After the fall of the Berlin Wall, many people believed that we were at an inflection point in human history; democracy had putatively subjugated the worst of human nature. However, as recent events around the world have proven, human brains have stubbornly refused to evolve according to ideals, and tribalism is thriving. Politicians in a variety of locales – the United States, Britain, France, Hungary – are winning elections in part by promising rough treatment of outsiders. At least in the United States, the agents tasked with upholding those promises are discharging their duties with more fanatic zeal than prudence, horrifying critics even as supporters cheer. However, with the staggering advances in technology we are witnessing on an almost daily basis, perhaps we can find a way to target tribalism for extinction.
Since the origins of tribal identification are rooted in our ancestors’ need to solve the problem of trust as they formed ever-larger social groups, it isn’t surprising that a dread of the “other” has grown in tandem with waning civic engagement. As noted in Bowling Alone, membership in service clubs (Lions, Rotary, Kiwanis, etc.) has been declining steadily for decades, and although that book was published in 2000, the trend has not abated. These organizations used to offer a structured network for local involvement and likely also satisfied the all-too-human need to belong. Voter turnout in local elections also is falling, as people lead lives connected more to their immediate family and a far-flung circle of friends on social media than to their neighbors. Maybe the “other” is scarier when the definition of our own tribe has become amorphous and our brains are no longer sure who to trust.
Data scientists might argue that this is merely a problem of information overload: too many inputs and not enough time or resources to sort through and analyze them. The whole idea of tribes probably originated as a shortcut to save on neurological energy usage – rather than waste time assessing a person’s bona fides, we could just note if they looked like us and wore their sabre-toothed tiger skin in the same manner. Now, however, we can recruit technology to help crunch all the data relevant to whether another human is a threat or not – their social media posts, credit history, relationships with friends and family, educational and professional qualifications, criminal background, and so on. Insurance company startup Lemonade (mentioned in a previous post) already uses a version of this to determine the validity of claims.
For this to replace our current system of judgment based on stereotypes, though, it needs to be internal. No matter how quickly an app could deliver a verdict for us – Lemonade apparently paid one claim in three (yes, THREE) seconds – the extra step of consulting it is a barrier. The solution is to embed the algorithm responsible for the judgment directly into our brains such that we arrive at a “rational” conclusion just as quickly as our limbic system returns an emotional one. This sounds like science fiction, but as explored in another post, we are already well on the way to implanting neural enhancements. Many futurists argue that the natural extension of this is to wholly embrace the digital world as our new reality and abandon biological brains entirely.
Although the technology isn’t quite to the stage where we can circumvent our brain’s natural impulse for tribalism, wouldn’t it be nice if there really were an app to fight prejudice? If we hit a snag with brain implants or digital representations of ourselves, perhaps someone in Silicon Valley can find a way to convince us to use our smartphones to avoid making snap judgments about people – sort of like the anti-Tinder. So there you have it: the next step is using AI to decide whether to swipe right or swipe left.
Hello there, my colleague and I are launching an independent bi-annual culture magazine in a few months (exclusively print).
Your article fits very well with the theme of our first issue and we were wondering if it would be at all possible for us to include the article(?)
Tribalism works in primitive or isolated societies, I think, where it’s easy to judge other people based on their actions. In complex or populous societies it becomes prejudice and causes one to lose out on otherwise beneficially mutual interactions.
In simple society an open mind is sometimes equated with a simple, or naive, mind. In large societies, an open mind is essential in allowing one to approach and appreciate the benefits that other people are wanting to share.