The Most Powerful Force Driving Human Behavior

It takes advantage of your identity to warp your perception of reality

During World War 2, the Nazis sent a colonel in the Gestapo to Japan. His mission was to convince the Japanese to treat the small Jewish community there with far greater brutality than they had been treated. However, Japan’s military High Command asked the Jews to send two representatives to argue their case before deciding what to do.

The Jews living in Japan chose two Rabbis. A younger one who was known for his deep study and understanding of history and of Jewish teachings. And an older one known for his mastery of human psychology. The stakes could not be higher.

Facing the powerful members of the Japanese High Command, they were asked: “Why do our allies the Nazis hate you so much? And why should we take your side against them?” As the younger Rabbi thought about how to come up with an argument based on his thorough study of history and all of the complexities of the situation, the older one replied first. “Because,” he said calmly “we are Asian, like you.”

Those simple words did the trick. The Japanese, after conferring in private, promised to protect the Jewish community, and they did.

This story, wonderfully detailed in Robert Cialdini’s Pre-Suasion, highlights the most powerful force affecting our minds: belonging to a group. Why did the Rabbi’s simple statement work? It was a unifier – it convinced the Japanese that they and the Jews were members of the same group.

Tribalism

Humans outcompeted other species because of their ability to work in groups. Up until recently, these groups were quite small – the tribe. Individually we were far weaker than many other species out in the wild, so cooperation with other members of the tribe brought us success and survival. On the other hand, getting expelled by the tribe used to mean nearly certain death.

The tribe had traditions. It had certain ways of doing things that were deemed right, and others that were forbidden. Being a member of the tribe was a big part of each person’s identity. The phrase, or even the thought of “I am a …” meant certain behaviors were unquestionably ingrained in us.

Coming to the aid of those in our tribe was second nature. Strangers and other tribes were viewed with suspicion, as potential enemies. Once the tribe made a decision, criticism was rarely tolerated. Any rational weighing of evidence was replaced with blind support for the group on whose aid our survival depended, regardless of any objective reality outside of our narrow self-interest.

Modern Group Theory

Today’s world is far more complex. Most people identify as members of several, if not many, groups. Tribes are no longer small and isolated bands of around a hundred people, but rather geographically dispersed communities of shared identity. Individualism is also a much greater force. As “tribes” have become broader and more diverse, individual identities have started to encroach on blind conformity to the views of the tribe.

And yet, we are so easily influenced by an appeal to group membership.

Why do you think politicians play identity-group politics in the United States? Because it’s an effective and easy way to win over large blocks of voters simply via tribal loyalty rather than a nuanced understanding of arguments and policies.

Why do people see the same news about world events but reach drastically different conclusions? It would be wonderful if it were because of deeply developed arguments supported by facts that were weighed differently in equally rigorous analysis. Alas, that is not nearly as prevalent as simply viewing events through the lens of what’s good for the tribe.

The conclusion comes first. “Tribe is good. Support the tribe.” Then the mind easily does the rest, bending reality into a convenient narrative that supports the predetermined conclusion. The behavioral bias known as confirmation bias rears its head and hijacks our mind.

Criticism from outside the group is too often perceived as a threat that causes members to close ranks, regardless of the merits of the argument. Dissent within the group may be allowed. However, it may also be framed as disloyalty or a sign that the member does not really belong to the tribe after all. For what could be more threatening to the group’s identity than other members challenging it from within? And what better defense than to label a fellow group member who disagrees with you on substance as a “Group-member In Name Only”?

When Identities Collide

What happens when the multiple groups that most of us are members of pull us in different directions?

Some group identities are stronger than others. Therefore, they have a stronger hold on the loyalty of the members of the group. For example, men of above-average height, while could be viewed as a group, don’t have much in the way of a shared identity. The toughest test then is when two meaningful parts of our identity pull us in different directions on an issue.

When that occurs, there are four possible outcomes:

1. A stronger group identity wins over a conflicting weaker group identity.

2. The group fragments and new groups are formed.

3. The group identity evolves.

4. “Group”-think is replaced by individuals coming to their own conclusions on an issue.

That list is in increasing order of preference if you are a thoughtful individual who wants the best shot at reaching the correct conclusions from the available evidence. The goal isn’t to give up all our identities and the heritage and traditions that come with them. No. It is to make decisions with as little bias as possible, and to achieve that we need to come to conclusions not because others in our group agree or disagree, nor because the conclusion favors our group, but because our analysis of facts supports it.

Conclusion

Have you ever heard someone say “As a [insert identity group here] …”? That simple statement is a pretty clever persuasion technique. It attempts to claim that the person speaks for the entire group. It makes someone disagreeing with the statement being made come across as attacking the group. And it activates the tribal part of the brain rather than the part most capable of independent thought.

Don’t fall for that.

First, it’s extremely rare for any one person to really have all group members’ permission to speak on their behalf. Chances are, not everyone in the group would agree with the statement being made, so there is no reason to allow the person to pretend to represent the thoughts of the entire group in this manner.

Second, don’t fall for the trick of framing any disagreement with the argument as an attack on the group itself, and by implication on all its members. That’s what the speaker wants you to feel like. Why? To suppress debate, not to encourage it. If they feel the need to resort to such a tactic, could it be that their argument wouldn’t be nearly that strong on its own?

Finally, don’t lose sight of the merits of the argument being made. On its own, not based on who makes it or what group they may or may not be part of. Perhaps, consider responding in the following manner: “As a rational human, just like you, who likes to think for themselves and examine an argument on its merits…”

If you liked this article, please “like” and share this article. If you are interested in learning more about the investment process at Silver Ring Value Partners, you can request an Owner’s Manual here.

About the author

Gary Mishuris, CFA is the Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer of Silver Ring Value Partners, an investment firm that seeks to apply its intrinsic value approach to safely compound capital over the long-term. He also teaches the Value Investing Seminar at the F.W. Olin Graduate School of Business.