Nod, for sure. Though I suspect not defining it this way is also a bit of a ‘don’t think of the purple elephant’ problem - just not how most (all?) people work.
We can aspire to do better, but that doesn’t mean others will agree that it is useful for them or a goal for them either.
>That’s because she WAS an outsider
This is a bit in line with that same problem. Is she an outsider because she’s “poor”? Because she likes different hobbies? I’d like to think we should aspire to define our in-groups by less superficial means. I’m sure she could have been an “insider” if she (and others) didn’t define their tribes this way