Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-27-2023, 10:53 AM
 
Location: 'greater' Buffalo, NY
5,342 posts, read 3,821,768 times
Reputation: 7264

Advertisements

Back in I want to say the spring of 2008, I sat in on a social psychology course for a semester with my best friend, who'd recently returned to the local state school for a six-year pharmacy program after dropping out of law school in DC. He was registered for the course; I was not. So I admittedly didn't always have incentive to pay full attention. That said, the material was generally of interest; otherwise I wouldn't have bothered 'auditing' the course for the entire semester. One of the things I retain from that course fifteen years after the fact is the concept of BIRGing: basking in reflected glory. This is very much related to the phenomenon of which you speak: the tendency to imagine solidarity with groups you're not actually a part of. Closely related, and antithetical, is the equally acronym-ilicious concept of CORFing: casting out reflected failure.

So when the Packers upset the Lions on Thanksgiving, you may have been inclined to BIRG by wearing a Green Bay hat the next day or just speaking proudly of the team's success. When Jordan Love's play inevitably takes a turn for the worse as the tundra-like conditions take effect in Green Bay, you'll look to CORF by disassociating a bit from your identity as a Packer fan. I live in Buffalo, so I'm all too familiar with this pattern. For the record, despite the fact that my friend presumably aced this social psych class (not sure he ever got anything less than an A during his academic career), when he and I discuss the Buffalo Bills to this day, he'll refer to them as 'we', whereas I always say 'they'. It's ingrained in him, unable to be eradicated by the wisdom transmitted in PSY 3xx, spring 2008 edition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-27-2023, 11:10 AM
 
Location: 'greater' Buffalo, NY
5,342 posts, read 3,821,768 times
Reputation: 7264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar View Post
Maybe it relates to the social identity theory of psychology - the theory that individuals strive to create a positive self-concept through identifying with groups.
Anthropology tells us that people are inherently tribal. In atomized, disconnected modern society, people will invent or simulate a tribe in lieu of belonging to a real one. All of us forum participants are engaged in some variation of this, even if we tell ourselves we're only here to kill a little time or for mere informational purposes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2023, 06:03 PM
 
23,519 posts, read 69,907,878 times
Reputation: 48888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz View Post
Back in I want to say the spring of 2008, I sat in on a social psychology course for a semester with my best friend, who'd recently returned to the local state school for a six-year pharmacy program after dropping out of law school in DC. He was registered for the course; I was not. So I admittedly didn't always have incentive to pay full attention. That said, the material was generally of interest; otherwise I wouldn't have bothered 'auditing' the course for the entire semester. One of the things I retain from that course fifteen years after the fact is the concept of BIRGing: basking in reflected glory. This is very much related to the phenomenon of which you speak: the tendency to imagine solidarity with groups you're not actually a part of. Closely related, and antithetical, is the equally acronym-ilicious concept of CORFing: casting out reflected failure.

So when the Packers upset the Lions on Thanksgiving, you may have been inclined to BIRG by wearing a Green Bay hat the next day or just speaking proudly of the team's success. When Jordan Love's play inevitably takes a turn for the worse as the tundra-like conditions take effect in Green Bay, you'll look to CORF by disassociating a bit from your identity as a Packer fan. I live in Buffalo, so I'm all too familiar with this pattern. For the record, despite the fact that my friend presumably aced this social psych class (not sure he ever got anything less than an A during his academic career), when he and I discuss the Buffalo Bills to this day, he'll refer to them as 'we', whereas I always say 'they'. It's ingrained in him, unable to be eradicated by the wisdom transmitted in PSY 3xx, spring 2008 edition.
This relates directly to the thread I started in this forum on fanaticism, which is a little technical if you are used to pop psychology.

Alabama just beat Auburn in a cliffhanger 88th Iron Bowl. Absolutely, there were fans celebrating, and other fans weeping. I watched the game, and am a nominal Alabama fan from way back, but while I was impressed and momentarily pleased at the "Hail Mary" that won the game, I don't have any emotional investment. In a way, I mildly think I might like to be part of that group. I'm not, and have never been a part of a group where it was more important than my own personal identity and values. In almost any group, I tend to be that scary guy who doesn't go along with the crowd and can break the gloating or team spirit. I'm old enough now that I don't much care. In all of that I am unusual. I don't recommend it for others, it just is what is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2023, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Southern MN
11,907 posts, read 8,227,609 times
Reputation: 44311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz View Post
Anthropology tells us that people are inherently tribal. In atomized, disconnected modern society, people will invent or simulate a tribe in lieu of belonging to a real one. All of us forum participants are engaged in some variation of this, even if we tell ourselves we're only here to kill a little time or for mere informational purposes.
"Same as it ever was,
Same as it ever was,
Same as it ever was,
Same as it ever was."


"My god what have I done?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2023, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Southern MN
11,907 posts, read 8,227,609 times
Reputation: 44311
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post


In almost any group, I tend to be that scary guy who doesn't go along with the crowd and can break the gloating or team spirit. I'm old enough now that I don't much care. In all of that I am unusual. I don't recommend it for others, it just is what is.
Oh, you belong to that group!

https://www.learning-mind.com/loners...lectual-loyal/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2023, 12:51 PM
 
23,519 posts, read 69,907,878 times
Reputation: 48888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar View Post
LOL! Somehow I musta missed the last meeting!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2023, 10:05 AM
 
324 posts, read 124,055 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994 View Post
Interesting take.

But really, in a historical or geopolitical context it's not so much saying, as feeling "we". Again, this is the psychology forum and I'm not advocating for anything.

For example I feel some shame when thinking of white settlers in the U.S. and their treatment of Native Americans. But I don't feel any shame at all when thinking of Arab conquests in North Africa or conquests by the Mayans or the Incas in pre-Columbian times. It's just history; stuff that happened. Though I'm torn when I think of the Vikings raiding Ireland for slaves because I have both heritages.

I just find it interesting psychologically.
I feel no shame at the way white settlers treated, say, the Dakota (I am white, and I live on what was Dakota land pre-European settlement). What I have is respect for the history, for how it affects the Dakota of today, and the responsibility of my government to honor treaties made with the Dakota and to acknowledge the history of conquest and oppression, to respect tribal institutions, and to take measures to address historical and present inequities. I feel a certain responsibility to address and perhaps correct actions made by my government, but that is in the same way that I might responsibility to bear legal responsibility for, say, a debt incurred by a deceased parent. But shame? No. Collective guilt is an idea fraught with peril.

Similarly, I am not ashamed of actions of pogroms in the Holy Roman Empire (my ancestors include German immigrants in the 1870s) or varied English oppression of Wales and Ireland (I have English ancestry as well).

I find that 'we' and 'you' are problematic when discussing things such as history. I encounted this recently in a discussion over World War II. There is no 'we' for me there. I was not born until the 1960s. Even had I been alive, my use of 'we' would have been very limited. For example, I might say that 'we' were subject to rationing (if I in fact was) but I would never say that 'we' developed the B-29 (unless, somehow, I had played a role in its creation/production). The use of those terms tends to make discussions tribal, and decreases objectivity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2023, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Shawnee-on-Delaware, PA
7,934 posts, read 7,280,404 times
Reputation: 16053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew in Minnesota View Post
...
I find that 'we' and 'you' are problematic when discussing things such as history. I encounted this recently in a discussion over World War II...
I get what you are saying, but my concern is not whether it's problematic or not. In many contexts it surely can be.

My interest is in the psychology behind it, when people do it casually and without causing a misunderstanding. Only a handful of old men can say "We went to the Moon" but others say it all the time, plus "When are we going to Mars?".

Another posted has already offered Social Identity Theory as an explanation for why we say "we".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2023, 11:11 PM
bu2
 
23,855 posts, read 14,628,385 times
Reputation: 12644
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994 View Post
I get what you are saying, but my concern is not whether it's problematic or not. In many contexts it surely can be.

My interest is in the psychology behind it, when people do it casually and without causing a misunderstanding. Only a handful of old men can say "We went to the Moon" but others say it all the time, plus "When are we going to Mars?".

Another posted has already offered Social Identity Theory as an explanation for why we say "we".
Doesn't even take psychology, its part of "our" culture as Americans. Our "tribe."

Why do Irish Americans still identify with Ireland even if their relatives moved here during the Great Potato Famine?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2023, 09:38 AM
 
Location: A coal patch in Pennsyltucky
10,248 posts, read 10,496,131 times
Reputation: 12547
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994 View Post
I've long wondered how it came to be that I identify the Continental Army as "we". My ancestors didn't come here until the very late 19th century. Same for the Civil War when "we" beat the Confederacy. Although "We" beat the Axis powers in WWII because my father and all my uncles were in the service even if I wasn't even born yet.

It's a similar "we" with professional sports. I root for the Green Bay Packers even though I live on the East Coast and have only been to Wisconsin a couple of times in my life and never came close to Green Bay.

And with armed conflicts around the world, I usually pick a side I identify with more than the other. But really I have no dog in that fight, so why pick sides?

So why do I have to be part of "we" when something big happens that I am not directly involved in?
I don't have an issue with using the pronoun "we" when describing something about Americans because I am an American citizen. Where I cringe is with professional sports teams. Many people say "we" when referring to their favorite sports team such as "we" need to make a change at quarterback when they are not a member of the team or the organization around the team. This is really common on sports call-in shows on the radio.

BTW, "we" did not beat the British at Valley Forge since there was no battle. Most of the Continental Army spent the winter at Valley Forge. The British Army had captured Philadelphia. The Schuylkill Expressway didn't exist yet, so the British didn't have an easy way to travel the 21 miles out to Valley Forge to attack Washington's army.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top