> The more different the genetic material is, the less you care - individuals of different culture, of different race, of different species, of different kingdom of life, and finally viruses that are just strings of RNA floating around and nobody advocates about their rights because fuck that
The type of mental model that ignores 50% of the world's population due to having that same proportions of chromosomes not matching one's mental heuristic of what constitutes a human is what I'd say "fuck that" to, personally
Given the diversity of social models which have emerged globally, I have no idea how you could possibly make that claim.
This is sort of true but it misses that we don't actually have DNA sensors built into our eyes. Instead we rely on heuristics like the Westermarck effect where we will (normally) tend to not find someone we lived with as a child attractive regardless whether they're a blood relation or not.
We influence who (or what) is in our group through our behaviour, thoughts and associations. Look at the vast number of people who value their dog or cat over other human beings. It's unlikely their dog is closer to them, genetically speaking than any single human on Earth but they spend time and invest emotionally in their pet so they form a bond despite the genetic distance.
If you see a child being hurt it likely invokes a slightly stronger emotional response if the child reminds you of someone in your own life. Often this will be someone who looks like you/your family (i.e. is genetically similar to you) but it might be some other kid you've grown attached to who is not related at all.
So yes, we are driven by a calculating selfish gene mechanism but we're also burdened/gifted with a whole bunch of emotional and social instincts and rely on imperfect sensors not tricorders. It's why people can form group identities over all sorts of non-genetic characteristics (e.g. religion, nation, neighbourhood, sports team affiliation, political ideology, vi vs emacs, etc).
See also:
Politics and the English Language by George Orwell- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Langu...
Newspeak by George Orwell - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Verbal Behaviour by B.F.Skinner - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_Behavior
The one that conservatives keep claiming shows that liberals care more about out-groups than in-groups, but actually shows that either 1) many conservatives are illiterate and can't read a survey question, or 2) many conservatives literally don't care if right or wrong happens to acquaintances, strangers, their countrymen, humans in other countries, non-human animals, living things, etc?
What children do you think have a better future on average: Those whose parents love them or those whose parents hate them?
What companies do you think succeed in the long run: Those with people who love working there or those with people who hate working there and want to jump ship?
What countries become the best to live in: Those whose populace dream of moving abroad or those whose populace love their native land?
Oppression would be quite impossible throughout history if people weren't willing to oppress their own kind to the benefit of others.
Even those arguing for loyalty to the in-group are rarely those who would themselves make any sacrifices for that group.
No what's far more common is that people change their perception (or have different perceptions) of who is "their own kind."
You can actually see this happening in real time in the US with the emerging concept of "Heritage Americans." It's a way for losers and crybabies to narrow the scope of who is "their own kind" without having to openly declare that they simply don't love their countrymen.
> losers and crybabies
Luckily, for now, at least, it appears to be your side that is losing and crying.
Isn't the opposite far more common? When oppression happens, it is typically people oppressing the out-group for the benefit of the in-group.
Those are people I know very well because I have been to so many parties, dinners, and other events with them. I've seen the same thing with people from India, China, Sri Lanka, etc. I'd assume that it's the normal condition of immigrants.
You should look into what Conservatives have actually done.
It wasn't Liberals that took children out of factories, mines and chimneys.
Clearly you've never read Hayek.
Sure, post memes as proof.
Also it sounds like you're referring to the British political parties Liberals and Conservatives, not the lowercase-l and lowercase-c political philosophies by the same names, which the study is actually about.
In my opinion, there is another tendency even more significant in that regard. Namely, the visceral desire to see "bad guys" deservedly suffer. Once people are in that frame of mind, they strongly resist any attempts to understand and maybe prevent whatever the "bad guys" did, let alone questions whether it was actually bad.
This is what fuelled lynch mobs, it's what makes MAGA types cheer when ICE murders immigrants, and it's what makes certain leftist circles chant "eat the rich" along with images of guillotines and wood chippers.
When you point out that poverty causes crime, rightists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" crime, and when you point out that poverty causes support for far-right politicians, leftists get mad at you for "excusing" or "justifying" racism.
Of course, this interacts with your point: when someone from the ingroup does something bad, people are willing to look at their reasons and if found lacking it is only the individual that should be punished, whereas the outgroup is never afforded the luxury of complexity, and the entire group is held responsible for each individual's sins.
I think they're easily convinced we're living in constant state of war, even on a slow Tuesday at Costco. The propaganda they often parrot would seem to suggest it.
Or maybe they see there are scenarios that is considered noble, and generalize it to be the case for all scenarios. The people I know like that also have a habit of over-generalizing every aspect of life. Cliches, aphorisms, etc. are a huge part of their vocabulary, but they are rarely applied in the original spirit of the sayings.
The "family first, others second" interpretation is, I think, even more problematic when shit hits the fan. In disasters, it never benefits a community to turn on itself. And in fact, I believe the natural human reaction to disaster is to become more altruistic rather than less; see "A Paradise Built in Hell" by Rebecca Solnit for more on this.
The actually noble interpretation of "family first" is "family first, my own priorities second," at least so long as it doesn't lead to unhealthy self-sacrifice.
I think the belief of ordinary people most likely to dispose them to atrocity is that of prioritizing the ingroup. Once we believe that the members of one's own family, or company, or country, carry more moral value than others, we're doomed to a descent limited only by our ability to make these world-worsening trades.
When I was a child, my dad would sometimes engage in small acts of corruption to please me or my brother. Taking somebody else's spot, telling white lies to get more than his share of a rationed good, that sort of thing. It never sat right with me. "Family first" has a very ominous ring to me.