Understanding the World: How We Form and Break Bonds—Handling Differences of Opinion
An Examination of Why We Argue With Others, What It Means for Personal and Group Affiliations and What We Can Do About It
Note: This essay was prepared with the research assistance and ghostwriting of ChatGPT 4.0.
Author’s Preface
MY BACKGROUND
I'm a systematizer and analyst by nature, and also by profession at one time. It's just the way that I'm wired. My schooling was in the 1970s, so a lot of what I studied has faded, although I have read a great deal since then. My formal study was in developmental psychology, although I remember very little specifically regarding attachment or affiliation behaviors—I’m sure I studied them at some point.
I haven’t thought much about affiliative behaviors in a systematic way in the past, though I’ve encountered related material in my readings. My research seldom ventures into formal academic literature, as it tends to get too specialized, technical, and frankly, a little boring. I have read works on ethology, watched videos, and read a lot of primatology written for the layperson.
I recall studying John Bowlby, who wrote on Attachment and Loss. I certainly learned about him, though I don’t recall exactly how much of his writing I actually read. The only specific book I can clearly remember on relationships is Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People, which is actually filled with sensible advice, though atheoretical.
WHY THE ESSAY
Throughout this essay, I aim to explore these behaviors systematically, considering not just our responses to conflict, but also the deeper psychological underpinnings of why we affiliate or disaffiliate in the first place. I have a lot of thoughts on the issue and a lot of lifelong observations. Throughout our lives, we form affiliations—friendships, partnerships, and group memberships. Affiliation and disaffiliation are fundamental aspects of both human and animal behavior. But just as we affiliate, we also disaffiliate.
The more I've pondered this subject, the more I'm puzzled by our shared need to harmonize beliefs, whether in personal or social settings. It is a phenomenon so common, yet seldom named or deeply examined. I'm going to do an essay for the Understanding the World series, focusing on affiliation and disaffiliation, primarily about personal contacts, though it could also apply to groups. While I’ll give a brief mention of corporate and political affiliations, the primary focus will be on personal affiliations and why people decide to connect, whether on an individual or group level.
These processes occur not only in romantic or familial relationships but also in friendships, professional connections, and even casual interactions. Recent global events, particularly during the pandemic, have highlighted how fragile these connections can be when faced with differing beliefs and values. God forbid anyone disagrees with our worldview—that’s pretty silly, isn’t it?
All these reflections have led me to think more systematically about affiliation and disaffiliation, even though it may sound pedantic to use such terms. If you're married, it could be disagreements around how to raise the kids or manage finances. Sometimes, you just can't work in harmony on certain things. I’ve seen this play out in many contexts—I’ve observed people and animals, agonized over my own friendships, and reflected on romantic attachments for years.
But how many hours are wasted by people arguing over their particular views of the world, never resolving anything? Forming and breaking attachments happens in all sorts of relationships—business, friendship, family, and groups with common interests. I could go on about the types of attachments we form and break. Sometimes, we drift away, and sometimes, we have a rupture.
The thrust of this essay is on the dynamics of affiliative and disaffiliative behaviors, though I’d like to find less technical terms since I don't think they’re commonly used by non-scholars. I think affiliation and disaffiliation are probably good terms, but I'm open to the possibility that there are others. While these terms may sound technical, they simply describe how we form attachments and how those attachments dissolve. And perhaps scholars may have even better terms than affiliation and disaffiliation.
WOKE
This current manifestation of social dynamics could be termed woke. Although those who identify with being woke often mock the use of the term, I’ve heard it referred to in that way. It’s a real phenomenon and, in some ways, quite pernicious. We end up with woke culture, where people say things and get canceled, or they get blocked on social media for expressing dissenting opinions—or what have you. It’s a form of disaffiliation, in all its disguises, including shunning and ostracizing.
I don’t want to be part of cancel culture. I’m looking for strategies to avoid excluding people from my life based solely on their beliefs. With the advent of this pandemic—or what I refer to as a "scandemic"—I’ve grown increasingly concerned about disaffiliation behaviors. I and friends have been badly affected.
I’ve been engaging in this behavior for too long, and it makes no sense—it’s quite pernicious.
TRIBALISM
There are no real soul mates in the world. There are people that you may agree with on a lot of things, but you'll never find anybody you agree with on everything. The chances of that happening are minuscule at most. If you explore enough issues, you'll always find some areas of disagreement, perhaps small, but more likely large—that's just the nature of things.
Looking at tribalism, the silly expression I found my tribe, or the notion that they’re actually soulmates, comes to mind.
I guess it's embodied in tribalistic thinking, as I've said, but even then, that's kind of a metaphor.
AGING AND AFFILIATION
When you're young, for most people, political and big issues don't loom very large. It's more about whether you can have a good time together, do the same activities, or find someone sexually attractive—if they're your sex of choice. It may be about whether you can go out and drink together, party together, or chase after romantic interests. The focus tends to be on affiliating based on those shared interests.
As you get older, though, not everyone, but some people start to look at bigger issues. At this point, you may face the dilemma: do you stay silent when people express opinions you disagree with, or do you try to change their opinion or counter their arguments? Do you let it go, or do you disaffiliate and break off relationships because they don't align with your views?
WORLDVIEW – GOTTA BELIEVE SOMETHING
What we do is metaphorically stick pins in our cognitive map, and that becomes our worldview. Not only that, but the worldview you hold today is probably not the same as it was in the past, and it probably won’t be the same in the future—worldviews mutate.
OPINIONATED SOB
As we navigate personal relationships, a peculiar and common tendency often emerges: the need to correct others. This essay delves into why we do this, particularly in the context of personal beliefs, values, and group affiliations.
While some people may affiliate or disaffiliate based on larger political issues, such as environmentalism, climate, or politics, when you're young, people tend not to focus on those things. It occurs to me that there are individual differences in the propensity to correct others' perceived errors, but it's also relational and depends on the topic.
I would guess that topics near and dear to someone—deeply held beliefs—are the ones most likely to be commented on. But perhaps the more mature strategy is to ignore differences of opinion. Some people, however, feel the need to proselytize, assuming their opinions are right. They may be right, or they may be coincidentally right, but they hold great confidence in their beliefs and feel compelled to spread the word, to convince others that their views are correct, and to get people to think the same way.
It seems to be a common tendency to convince others that we're right and they're wrong, and to get them to adopt our way of thinking. For a given pair of individuals, the desire to correct errors may be stronger on certain topics than others. So it's both relational and a reflection of idiosyncratic personality.
It's kind of puzzling, really, when you think about it. It's so commonplace, yet it's puzzling why we feel this need—to harmonize others' views with our own, rather than change our own views, which is the less common response.
AFFILIATION ACROSS SPECIES
I've read much about ethology, and I’ve learned about imprinting and animal behavior. I think it goes beyond simple imprinting. There's bonding that is not just about imprinting or courtship—there’s real bonding. And there are big differences between species.
I've seen videos on friendship and attachment, and I'm sure I've seen examples within a number of species, not just in courtship, but in what appears to be genuine friendship. I've had pets for years, mostly cats. I had a lovebird at one time, and our family has also kept rabbits (they're not very good at forming friendships).
I’ve observed the neighborhood squirrels, crows, and other critters. It's a theme in nature that attachments form and dissolve, and sometimes these attachments are cross-species.
I've seen videos of lions raised by a trainer who went away, and when he came back, the lions would embrace him with great passion. I've seen the same behavior in other species—gorillas, for instance, and probably chimpanzees as well.
So, other species form attachments to people, but also within their species. Animals form favorites and groupings, and they’re not always based on family. Well, maybe they are, maybe they aren't—I'm not sure.
But you also see cross-species friendships—animals raised together from entirely different species that turn out to be buddies. This can happen.
One video I remember showed a crow bonding with an infant who could barely walk. They became companions; the crow would seek out the boy's company, following him around.
OPINIONS - EVERYONE HAS ONE
Like certain body parts, everyone has them, and they all smell from time to time.
Lots of people can tell a good story. I’m probably one of them. Am I correct? Maybe, maybe not.
Am I more likely to be correct than other people who may be just as, or more, intelligent? Well, opinions do differ.
STRATEGIES TO HANDLE DIFFERING VIEWS
I have some thoughts with respect to how we handle differences of opinion in the human world. So then, what do you do? Do you continue with the relationship and just stay mute, or do you spend your lifetime fretting about the differences? It could be differences of great significance, such as religious differences, theology differences, or values. But I propose the categories below:
You can ignore,
You can deflect,
You can argue because you're an argumentative person,
You could argue because you're a true believer,
You can shun them,
Or you can try to understand the other's position—the more mature response.
SCHOLARSHIP
I'd be interested in knowing what research has been conducted in the area of in-group and out-group dynamics, specifically regarding the tendency to correct others, which varies significantly from person to person and depends heavily on the topic at hand.
I'm quite familiar with confirmation-disconfirmation bias; it's a central aspect of my thinking. I hadn't previously linked it to the discussion of affiliation and disaffiliation, but it's an intriguing way to make that connection.
If you have read this far, you have had some insight into my thinking. Howerever, as usual, I try to bring out relevant scholarly material on the topics that I have raised. This discussion follows below.
Introduction
Affiliation and disaffiliation are fundamental aspects of human social behavior. From friendships to professional relationships, and even group memberships, the dynamics of how we form and dissolve connections shape much of our interpersonal lives. In this essay, we will explore these behaviors systematically, examining not only how they manifest in personal contexts but also the deeper psychological factors that drive them. As individuals, we navigate our social worlds by affiliating with those who share our beliefs, values, or interests, and by disaffiliating from those whose views conflict with our own. This process is influenced by a wide range of factors, including cognitive biases like confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998), social identity theory (Tajfel, 1979), and epistemic vigilance (Sperber et al., 2010).
Modern social dynamics, including the rise of social media and "cancel culture," have accelerated both affiliation and disaffiliation, particularly in the public sphere. This essay seeks to understand why we feel compelled to correct others, maintain group cohesion, and sometimes sever ties when beliefs clash. While these behaviors may seem trivial in some contexts, they have significant implications for how relationships are maintained or dissolved. Whether through political, religious, or personal affiliations, the need to align others with our worldview reflects a broader human tendency to seek social harmony—though not always in ways that foster mutual understanding.
By examining the various psychological theories, animal behavior studies, and real-world examples of group dynamics, this essay aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of why affiliations form, how they break, and what drives corrective behavior in interpersonal relationships.
Rationale for the Essay
Throughout this essay, I aim to systematically explore affiliative and disaffiliative behaviors, considering not just our responses to conflict, but also the deeper psychological underpinnings that drive these actions. Human behavior, from friendships to professional networks, is deeply rooted in both social and biological factors. We naturally form affiliations—friendships, partnerships, and group memberships—but disaffiliation, the breaking of these bonds, is equally significant (Bowlby, 1973).
Disaffiliation can happen in both subtle and overt ways, and the pandemic has only heightened our awareness of these social fractures (Kesberg, 2018).. One of the most interesting aspects of this process is the human need to harmonize beliefs within social contexts, which has not been extensively studied, though it remains a key social dynamic.
The purpose of this essay is to focus primarily on personal affiliations, though the themes could extend to corporate and political affiliations. However, the focus will remain on why people decide to connect or disconnect, whether on an individual or group level, and how our worldview is shaped by these connections (Sperber et al., 2010).
Continuation of An Old Pathology
The modern manifestation of social dynamics, often termed "woke culture," has added complexity to the traditional dynamics of affiliation and disaffiliation. Woke culture involves social accountability through mechanisms like cancel culture, where individuals are shunned for expressing dissenting or controversial opinions. This is, at its core, a form of disaffiliation, mirroring historical practices of shunning and ostracism (Brewer, 1999).
The rise of social media has accelerated these trends. While social justice movements and woke culture can foster positive change, they can also perpetuate polarization, leading to exclusionary behaviors where people sever ties based on differing beliefs (Acland & Lerman, 2020). I personally resist these disaffiliative tendencies, seeking strategies to keep individuals in my life despite differences in belief.
Finding Your Tribe
The notion of "finding your tribe" speaks to the deeply ingrained human tendency to form in-groups and out-groups (Tajfel, 1979). However, it is an oversimplification to think that any group or individual will ever align perfectly with our beliefs. We are bound to encounter differences, which means managing disagreements becomes a central part of any affiliation.
In-group/out-group dynamics are often based on shared characteristics such as political or ideological views, and this division can become more pronounced with age as values solidify. Social identity theory suggests that people feel a strong inclination to defend the values of their in-group, leading to a drive to correct those who belong to out-groups (Brewer, 1999; Tajfel, 1979).
We Change as We Age
As we age, affiliations become more complex. When young, people tend to form connections based on shared activities—going out together, engaging in hobbies, or even romantic pursuits. Political and ideological issues typically take a back seat. However, with age, many begin to form deeper connections based on shared beliefs and values (Bowlby, 1973).
This shift introduces challenges. As beliefs solidify, the dilemma arises: do we confront differing opinions, remain silent, or disengage altogether? The decision to disaffiliate often comes when core values or ideologies clash, leading to ruptures in relationships that were once based on simpler commonalities.
Everybody Has a Worldview
Worldviews are not static; they evolve over time. We metaphorically stick pins in our cognitive map, creating a worldview that aligns with our beliefs. However, this map is never permanent. Our current worldview may differ from past beliefs and will likely shift again in the future (Nickerson, 1998).
Confirmation bias plays a significant role in maintaining these worldviews, as we tend to favor information that confirms our existing beliefs, reinforcing our social bonds while rejecting conflicting viewpoints (Acland & Lerman, 2020). This dynamic is essential for understanding both affiliation and disaffiliation behaviors, as people often disassociate from those whose worldviews differ too much from their own.
We All Can Be Opinionated — Some More Than Others
One of the most perplexing aspects of human interaction is the compulsion to correct others. The urge to convince others that we are right is so pervasive that it becomes a defining feature of many relationships. It stems from cognitive biases such as epistemic vigilance, which leads people to scrutinize information that threatens their worldview (Sperber et al., 2010).
While some people may argue for the sake of debate, others are driven by deeply held beliefs. For the latter, correcting others is a way of reinforcing their worldview and reducing cognitive dissonance (Nickerson, 1998). This compulsion can strain relationships, as individuals who hold differing beliefs may feel alienated or attacked.
Like certain body parts, everyone has opinions, and they all "smell" from time to time. This humorous adage reflects the fact that differing opinions are inevitable. While some may be more vocal in expressing their views, others may choose to avoid confrontation altogether (Nickerson, 1998).
The human tendency to express and defend opinions is tied to identity. As our identities become more closely aligned with our beliefs, the more likely we are to engage in corrective behavior, either by debating or disaffiliating from those who disagree (Sperber et al., 2010).
It’s Not Just People
Affiliation and disaffiliation are not exclusive to humans. Ethological studies have shown that animals also form bonds, sometimes even across species (Lorenz, 1966). Imprinting and bonding behaviors serve essential survival functions, but there is evidence that these affiliations also have emotional components. For example, animals such as dogs, crows, and even lions have been observed forming strong attachments to humans (Lorenz, 1966).
These examples provide insight into the universality of affiliation behaviors across species. Just as in humans, these bonds can form and dissolve depending on the context, environment, and individual personalities involved.
How Can We Deal With Differing Worldviews?
When it comes to managing differences of opinion, individuals tend to fall into one of several categories:
Ignore: Some choose to ignore differences, especially when the relationship holds more value than the disagreement.
Deflect: Others may deflect or steer conversations away from contentious topics to avoid confrontation.
Argue: Some individuals are naturally argumentative and thrive on debate, whether or not they feel strongly about the issue at hand.
Conviction-driven argument: True believers, however, argue based on deeply held convictions, often with the goal of persuading others to adopt their views (Brewer, 1999).
Shun: In extreme cases, individuals may choose to shun those with whom they cannot reconcile differences, a hallmark of cancel culture.
Seek Understanding: The most mature response is to genuinely try to understand the other person’s perspective, allowing for dialogue without necessarily seeking consensus (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
What Scholars Have Said
I'd like to explore further academic research on in-group/out-group dynamics, confirmation bias, and epistemic vigilance. These cognitive biases are critical for understanding the drive to correct others and the subsequent effects on affiliation and disaffiliation. Scholars like Henri Tajfel, John Bowlby, and Konrad Lorenz have laid the groundwork for understanding how social identities, attachments, and survival mechanisms drive these behaviors (Bowlby, 1973; Tajfel, 1979; Lorenz, 1966).
Summary
The essay systematically explores the concepts of affiliation and disaffiliation, focusing on how individuals form and dissolve relationships across various contexts, from personal and social interactions to group dynamics. Drawing on theories like Social Identity Theory (Verkuyten, 2021), Confirmation Bias (Nickerson, 1998), and Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1973), the essay delves into the psychological mechanisms that drive people to correct others, maintain group cohesion, and disaffiliate from those who hold conflicting views.
Key psychological phenomena like epistemic vigilance (Sperber et al., 2010) and ingroup/outgroup bias are central to understanding why people feel compelled to harmonize others’ beliefs with their own, particularly in politically and ideologically charged environments. The essay also reflects on how modern trends like cancel culture and social media have accelerated disaffiliation behaviors, mirroring historical practices of ostracism.
Affiliative behaviors extend beyond human relationships, with parallels in animal behavior, as explored through ethological studies (Lorenz, 1966). Ultimately, the essay emphasizes that affiliation and disaffiliation are integral to human and social life, driven by cognitive biases, values, and the need to maintain a coherent worldview in an increasingly polarized society.
References
Positive Psychology. (n.d.). Fundamental Attribution Error: Shifting the Blame Game. Retrieved from https://positivepsychology.com/fundamental-attribution-error/
Commentary: This article provides a thorough explanation of the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) and how it affects people’s tendency to correct others' behavior by attributing it to internal, personal traits rather than external circumstances. Relevant for understanding the psychological underpinnings of corrective behaviors.
Acland, S., & Lerman, A. E. (2020). United in States of Dissatisfaction: Confirmation Bias Across the Partisan Divide. Goldman School of Public Policy. Retrieved from https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/Acland%2C_Lerman_%282020%29_United_in_states_of_dissatisfaction--confirmation_bias_across_the_partisan_divide.pdf
Commentary: This paper addresses the role of confirmation bias in political communication, particularly how entrenched beliefs within group identities lead to attempts to discredit or correct opposing views. Essential for understanding political dynamics of affiliation and disaffiliation.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and Anger. Basic Books.
https://link.springer.com/doi/10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_9126
Commentary: Bowlby's work is crucial for understanding attachment behaviors, both in childhood and adulthood. It serves as a foundation for exploring how affiliations form and how the dissolution of these bonds impacts emotional and social development.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126
Commentary: Brewer's article examines in-group favoritism and out-group bias, explaining how these dynamics shape relationships and corrective behaviors. The source is key for understanding the psychological drivers behind affiliation and disaffiliation.
Kesberg, R., & Keller, J. (2018). The relation between human values and perceived situation characteristics in everyday life. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1676. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01676
Commentary: This study explores how abstract human values influence the perception of situational characteristics in everyday life. Kesberg and Keller's research demonstrates that values such as power, universalism, and benevolence can shape how people interpret and respond to situations, particularly in terms of adversity and deception. This article is relevant to discussions of affiliation and disaffiliation, as it highlights how deeply held values guide the way individuals perceive and interact with their environments, contributing to decisions to affiliate or distance themselves from others. It also supports an understanding of why people may feel compelled to correct others' behavior based on conflicting values.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-70006-003
Commentary: Nickerson’s comprehensive review on confirmation bias provides insights into why people feel the need to correct others’ views, focusing on how this bias reinforces one’s existing beliefs and relationships.
Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359-393. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
Commentary: This paper explores the concept of epistemic vigilance, offering a cognitive explanation for why people challenge others' beliefs. This is important for understanding the urge to correct others, especially when their views appear to threaten one’s own.
Verkuyten, M. (2021). Group identity and ingroup bias: The social identity approach. Human Development, 65(5-6), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1159/000519089
Commentary: This article by Maykel Verkuyten explores the mechanisms of group identity and ingroup bias through the lens of social identity theory. Verkuyten focuses on how individuals form attachments to groups based on shared identity and how this creates favoritism toward the ingroup while fostering bias against outgroups. The article is especially useful for understanding the dynamics of affiliation and disaffiliation, as well as the psychological motivations behind social cohesion and division. It contributes to the essay by providing a theoretical framework that explains how group identity shapes both personal and social relationships, often driving the need to correct or ostracize others who don’t conform to the group’s values.
Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and Groups in Social Psychology. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 183-190. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-27903-001
Commentary: Tajfel's seminal work lays out the framework for Social Identity Theory, discussing how group identity influences both affiliation and disaffiliation. This is essential for exploring how people manage conflicts within group contexts.