And that can work sometimes, and it can go-- so it can work in certain cases, but it neglects the fact that ingroups and outgroups are often operating at different positions of power. And so ingroups and outgroups, groups at different levels of power, majority, minority-- they need different things.
But it becomes a little bit more complex. And the ingroup , everyone has their own back story. It's interesting. That's another us, DC superheroes.
Both of those can be found in wonder because as we engage in a wonder practice, we widen our ingroup . So rather than seeing ingroups as people that are like ourselves, we see them as humanity. It starts to get that large.
that ingroups and outgroups are often operating at different positions of power. And so ingroups and outgroups, groups at different levels of power, majority, minority-- they need different things. And so if we're really going to be serious about forming some sort of universal connection, we need to take into account what low-power people need
It starts to get that large. And when we see our ingroup is bigger than just people like ourselves, we're more likely to not just hire people like ourselves but to help them feel truly included. And I think that that's one of the challenges.
You're biased by your ideology. You're biased by the interest of your ingroup , and you just don't want to get it. I can explain this to you all day long.
I mean, they're very colorful. But we it's all "them." "Us," the term is the ingroup . And we consider ourselves generally more positively.
The idea that I'm talking about, which might be a little wishful, is-- but I think there's evidence of this as well-- is being able to break out of those ingroups and to engage in kind of more of a universalist connection. And so in the chapter that I talk about on conflict, I talk about how oftentimes, a lot of the research on ingroups and outgroups who don't get along--
The other thing that I find is as we start to try to build teams, we know the importance of including diversity in teams. But there's a very natural reaction that we have-- and it just exists because of how we are as humans-- to ingroup and outgroup. It's why we always tend to hire people that are more like ourselves.
Yeah, so it's a good question. A lot of my work-- and my research has been on this parochialism idea that connection to ingroup members can have a cost to outgroup members because oftentimes, these things are correlated.
That's a great question. And that's what Peter Singer talks about in "The Expanding Circle," that idea that our sense of ingroup can continuously expand.
Why is it that we don't see, we don't hear about these people? And likewise in commerce, if you don't have ingroups and outgroups of different layers, things don't work.
people that sense of autonomy. Both of those can be found in wonder because as we engage in a wonder practice, we widen our ingroup . So rather than seeing ingroups as people that are like ourselves, we see them as humanity.
as well-- is being able to break out of those ingroups and to engage in kind of more of a universalist connection. And so in the chapter that I talk about on conflict, I talk about how oftentimes, a lot of the research on ingroups and outgroups who don't get along-- a typical solution that's proposed to resolve that conflict is to just make people unite under a common identity, a common humanity.
That's a great question. isn't in the room and me against my embarrassing uncle at the Thanksgiving table, if we wind up with these sort of cross-cutting ingroups