Tribalism Part 2: The Inner Workings

Bo Brusco | June 9, 2020

Image by @Nasa from Unsplash.com

“There was, of course, a time when newspapers would be read aloud,” Richard Toye reminisces in his book Rhetoric: A Very Short Introduction, “but the significance of the electronic media lies in their enhanced capacity to forge communities of identity amongst individuals and groups who have never come into direct contact with one another.” In 2013, Toye could already recognize the evolution of tribes across innumerable cyber platforms. Millions of Americans who may have never actually spoken politics outside their own homes are now swimming in the fray of divisive headlines and turbulent comment sections. Considering that social media is not the most reputable source for reliable news, as almost half of all fake news was shared via social media sites in 2019; this Pew Research statistic from 2018 informing us that 68% of adults get their news from social media is a bit concerning. Additionally, we have every reason to believe that this percentage has only risen over the past two years. 

In the first installment of this series, I began to lament the divisive nature of extreme tribalism in America. To uncover the inner workings propelling this phenomenon forward, some more excavation is required. We need to dissect the minutiae of social media sites before we can understand its effect on modern tribalism; specifically the mechanics of sensationalism, clickbait, confirmation bias, fake news, propaganda, and echo chambers.

Case Study Context

A news article released during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign is an excellent case study to examine, as it encompasses all the aforementioned. It was around this time that the U.S. began harboring Syrian refugees: the majority of whom were Muslim. With the Trump campaign in full swing and Muslim refugees arriving on American shores, it seemed like the political soil was perfectly prepped to plant this headline that was actually published in 2016: Donald Trump Introduces ‘Nazi-Like’ Plan Requiring All Muslims & Refugees To Wear Badges. (Note: The original article has since been deleted. However, a picture of the article’s title can be found in this YouTube video at 1:20).

Sensationalism and Clickbait

The two terms go hand in hand. Clickbait is just that: a post with a title designed to attract clicks; clicks that bring traffic to a site, and a site which profits off of said traffic. In order for clickbait to succeed it must be sensational. It doesn’t have to be true, but it does need to be shocking. The title of the article in this case study, though a bit lengthy, definitely meets this criteria. It was reminiscent of the Nazi era, making it quite alarming; and any chance to insinuate the comparison of a leader, in this case Donald Trump, with Hitler is a sure recipe for sensationalism. It was inflammatory, offensive, and had hordes of tribes licking their chops to take the bait.

Confirmation Bias

Another aspect of this article was its massive appeal to the bias of Trump’s opposing tribes. A bias is a preconception. As humans, we habitually notice things that confirm our preconceptions and typically ignore whatever challenges them. As Shahram Heshmat Ph.D. explains in his Psychology Today article:

Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it. Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t perceive circumstances objectively. We pick out those bits of data that make us feel good because they confirm our prejudices.

In this case, Trump’s opposing tribes are biased against him, so when they saw this sensational headline that made Trump look like Hitler, that only confirmed their pre-existing beliefs (or their bias) about him. Never mind the facts, if something confirms the bias of a tribe, then its members will believe that something to be true. 

Fake News and Propaganda

This article had tribes all over the left side of the aisle in uproar, and rightfully so. It did seem like a racist or tyrannical measure, especially with its appeal to Nazism. However, this information that confirmed tribal biases, and was delivered through a clickbaity and sensational headline, was absolutely false: a complete fabrication whose author was a man named Paul Horner. Although Horner’s original article has since been deleted, some similar articles inspired by his fake story can still be found. Horner discovered that fake news was a considerably lucrative business, making $10,000 a month from his work. Naturally, he got pretty good at making his phony stories appear legitimate. 

Fake news is misleading because it preys on biases and utilizes half truths. In this case, Trump did say that Muslims should be required to register in a database. However, this fact was stretched into the propaganda that Horner produced. I say propaganda because (and we’re going with the indispensable Google dictionary definition here) propaganda is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.” This article checked all those boxes. It was biased in nature—catering to tribal biases on the left. It was misleading because it did not actually happen. And it promoted a political point of view, which was: Trump is bad. 

Echo Chambers

In his 2020 Ted Talk, Adam Greenwood said: “The echo chamber is an environment, much like a social media network, where an individual's thoughts, beliefs, and opinions are echoed back toward them; and opposing thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, are never seen.” This helps us understand why we always feel like we are the good guys, or the morally and logically correct ones, when we go online. Social media sites analyze our cyber activity in order to identify to which tribe we belong, allowing them to show us what we want to see: a world in complete harmony with our tribe’s preconceived beliefs. Again, social media is not our window to the real world; it is our window to our own world or personalized echo chamber.

In the echo chamber, we encounter sensationalism and clickbait; we are exposed to fake news and propaganda, and our biases are confirmed. It is where all these factors meet together under one roof. This is because every social media site exists to please us. They are a product whose manufacturers want us to be lifelong customers. To meet their business quota, sites have to be able to identify our preconceptions so that they can shape our echo chamber in a manner that makes us want to return to it every day. To accomplish this, site algorithms must curate as much evidence that confirms our biases as possible. 

The probability, then, of Horner’s article appearing in the social media feed of members of an anti-Trump tribe was considerably high. Whether it was shared to their screens by a different member of their tribe, or was advertised directly to them from the site itself, the article likely appeared because it reinforces their theory that Trump was a Hitler-esque figure.  

Consider this

Tribalism in our modern-era is impossible to discuss without mentioning these inner workings because they are all inseparable contributing factors. Everytime we login to our echo chambers, we dive into an inexhaustible resource of information that confirms our biases. As humans, we already possess the innate proclivity to ignore evidence that challenges our point of view; combining this particular reality of our nature with a machine that is specifically designed to reinforce such behavior only inflates our inability to see the world any other way, thus bolstering the divide between party lines into an ever expanding chasm. 

Assumptions We Make About Our Opposition

Our ability to observe what is actually happening to us online, and therefore understand why we are divided so totally, might actually end up being the best tool we have to resolve this extreme tribalism. When we disagree with someone, it is obviously because we think that they are wrong. From her book “Being Wrong,” Kathryn Schulz suggests that there are three corollary assumptions we make about a person we have decided is wrong. The first is the “Ignorance Assumption,” where we believe that this person, with whom we disagree, merely has yet to be exposed to the right information, and that “such an exposure would inevitably bring them over to our team.” The second is the “Idiocy Assumption,” which is when we “concede that our opponents know the facts, but deny that they have the brains to comprehend them.” The third corollary is the most fatal to our tribal situation; it is the “Evil Assumption.” This is where we believe that whomever we disagree with has all the facts, but willfully turns their backs on them and is therefore evil or wicked. This assumption seems prevalent as we tend to decree that members of an opposing tribe must be morally deficient, intrinsically corrupt, or even nefariously conniving. 

These assumptions that spark conflict and perpetuate division can be thwarted by our knowledge of the cyber world’s ‘inner workings’ and its role in deciding what we believe; because now we understand that if we were to scroll through an echo chamber that belonged to a member of an opposing tribe, we would see every reason for them to believe what they believe. This understanding is powerful because it affords us the ability to be empathetic and respectful to anyone who disagrees with us. 

Now, before concluding this composition, I need to note that not all of the news articles popping up on social media are fake, or misleading, or propagandistic in nature; facts are still available to every one of us. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to decipher what exactly is happening out there. During these strenuous times of convoluted information and extreme tribalism, I believe that relentlessly offering empathy and respect to those who stand in our ideological opposition will be one of our most effective approaches in preserving our humanity and ensuring our progress as Americans.