"We note further that people who have isolated themselves from others or who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals or groups of people inclined or condemned to sociability"

Is there a pattern of thought that makes one immune to this? Like, if I reject every tribe, I become part of the 'everyone is dumb tribe', if I accept the views of every authority, I become part of the 'sheep' tribe, but maybe if one were to employ some pattern of acceptance and contrarianism in the face of other's arguments, then, on average, one's own tribalism would dissolve.

The partial solution to this is what _used_ to be called "open-mindedness". But it's not a pattern for "immunity" but in analogue, practices to keep you "fit" and prepared.

I think CGP grey summarized the pattern nicely, and I quote: (timestamped)[0]

"The trick is to keep your identity separate from your opinions - they are objects in a box you carry with you and should be easily replaceable if it turns out they're no good.

If you think that the opinions in the box are who you are then you'll cling to them despite any evidence to the contrary.

Bottom line: If you want to always be right, you need to always be prepared to change your mind"

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlsU_YT9n_g&t=72s

I would also add my personal take that you should also presuppose that the person you're talking/listening to will have that attitude. Most people don't, but by merely starting from that point, conversation can have a positive turn when you get a glimpse of why they decided to put that opinion in to their mind-box.

Brecht had a whimsical take on this. There's a German saying that goes "wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen": he who says A, has to say B, meaning of course you should always try and follow through.

Brecht wrote "Wer a sagt, der muß nicht b sagen. Er kann auch erkennen, daß a falsch war": he who says A, doesn't have to say B. He can also realize that A was wrong.

https://beruhmte-zitate.de/zitate/126572-bertolt-brecht-wer-...

I would say that this binding of identity with opinions is the outstanding feature of the "stupidest" and most destructive people I know.

Yep. You nailed it. People will literally kill and torture to preserve their identity.

Check out The Scout Mindset. It's the best book I've found on how to think clearly (on these kinds of potentially tribal thoughts), and how to productively interact with people who may not be trying to improve in this area (the "stupid" people).

We're actually making it required reading at my workplace.

Seconding this. The Scout Mindset is the best book I've read this year. Life changing. Note that it's more aimed at helping you recognized (and defeat) your own biases than help you with other people's biases. I think it will help with extending empathy to them, though, recognizing the mechanisms through which they appear "stupid".

I had this in my "eventually" pile (worthwhile but not immediately compelling), until I read this review by Scott Alexander: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-...

You view yourself as the other tribe, and therefore criticize yourself as if you were your worst enemy. From that perspective most stupid ideas you have are easy to see through. You know how stupid the other side is, yeah you probably look around that stupid yourself unless you go through this process regularly and fixes the issues you find in yourself.

Although I don't think it is possible to do it perfectly, but you can fix some things this way.

> You know how stupid the other side is, yeah you probably look around that stupid yourself

Any other techniques for dealing with this?

To get a better measurement of my own intelligence I think about my “dumb friend”, and then try to realize that that’s probably actually about how smart I am.

Always attack your own ideas as hard as you can. Ask yourself what evidence you have for what you believe is true. Figure out possible facts that will prove your idea false. Seek out evidence for those contrarian facts. Be ready to drop precious ideas that turn out to be brittle against facts.

Any test for determining whether I’m doing a “good job” at dropping ideas that contradict evidence?

How often have you dropped an idea you think is true after attacking it with everything you have? If it never happens then it is likely that you are not doing a “good job”. If few ideas you like/agree with survive then you are more likely to be doing a “good job”. It is humbling for me to realise how quickly I can emotionally believe something to be true and then realise that I have no real evidence to support it. And remembering all the things I used to think was true and I now realise might not be (not enough conclusive evidence). The key insight is that ideas are just models of the world. All flawed and with the potential to be improved/more accurate. Don’t become your ideas. Stand apart from your ideas/truths and be critical of them. Assume you are wrong and try to prove it.

Best I've found is the first + humility.

"Everyone is dumb...myself included" at least gives me room to change my mind, and an impetus to try and find things to change my mind.

Being a member of multiple tribes and through that seeing that each has its own goals, beliefs, and communication protocols.

The moment you are aware that you are part of a tribe and can see the tribe for what it is, including its flaws and ugliness, that’s the moment you start thinking for yourself.

Self-awareness in the context of one's adherence to "influencers" in culture. If you read the article as I did, and constantly thought: "Could this apply to me in some way?", then you are appropriately testing yourself.

This is compounded by neither tribe admitting the other tribe's good ideas. We focus on all or nothing rejection of the opposing team.

Very true. And of course, no member can admit that their tribe is that way, too, without risking expulsion.