Статья The Us-Them Model

Короткий адрес страницы: fornit.ru/71541 Короткий адрес страницы - скопировать в буфер обмена.

The Us-Them Model

The adaptive role of dividing the world into trusting and distrusting attitudes.

Cats meow for their own, and this is sharply different from the intimidating signals for enemies, while cats achieve hunting goals silently. With kittens and in a state of bliss, they purr; if something is wrong, they meow to attract attention. Dogs have a more diverse repertoire. Humans have words for this, typically simple and understandable to all, without obscurity. This creates an environment of mutual understanding. The constant demonstration of one's state to one's own ensures the maintenance of general awareness within the clan and the possibility to act predictably.

For every living being, the whole world is divided into "us" and "them" from birth, and this has a deep adaptive functionality. Trustfulness does not require expending energy and attention on wariness.

Trustful learning allows, without thinking (especially in the period when thinking is not yet developed), to adopt others' experience, building one's own reactions.

Trustfulness makes possible the development of a play context of behavior (fornit.ru/71364), in which skills are effectively honed.

Trustfulness allows improving the immediate environment, making it safer and consolidating efforts against the rest of the world. Such a "circle of light" (a concept introduced by Stephen King) of attitude towards close ones can spread very widely. Among wolves, the leader feels responsibility for the entire pack, and a national leader – for the entire country. The more significant the leader among his own, the more he feels responsibility for a greater number of individuals in the population, the brighter and wider his circle of light.

One's own minimize the risk of betrayal, aggression, and deception, because showing opposition to one's own means the worst thing – finding oneself alone in an alien world.

This means that in the area of mutual influence of one's own, there is a certain conditional system of us-them identification.

If a new object of attention (animal, plant, or even inanimate) does not show fear or aggression, then a default style of exploratory and even playful behavior arises. Thus, bears, upon encountering people who are not afraid of them, may, instead of aggression, approach to get acquainted and even start playing. At the most primitive level, the preferability of friendly behavior over the risk of aggression is clear, unless a vital necessity forces aggressive action.

This allows accepting into one's world all that is useful in the still unknown external world, mastering new inanimate objects, using plants, achieving mimicry, and even mutually beneficial coexistence with animals.

Demonstrating the simplest signs of belonging to "us" can enhance trust. Such symbols must precede all other elements of communication. They must be the simplest and most understandable.

In artificial living beings (fornit.ru/71503), this must be directly accounted for, even if initially only one operator-tutor is planned, just as in nature this role is played by the mother. The Us-Them model was not implemented in the Beast artificial individual adaptiveness system (fornit.ru/beast), and this might be a serious gap in the formation of its socialization.

The initial tutor can demonstrate signs that cause trusting relaxation, but can also apply signs threatening exclusion from warm benevolence for the purposes of punishment.

Signs of "us" demonstrated by already adult and experienced individuals: handshake, smile, nod, a certain raising of the eyebrow (as in some tribes), a universal "hello" in a non-aggressive tone in any language.

But it all starts with signs of trusting friendliness from birth: care, licking, pleasant non-frightening sounds and singing (purring of cats). This does not require verbal or complex encoding, it is perceived at the level of instincts or early associations. An adult individual, perfectly understanding the meaning of conditional symbols of friendly warmth, evokes a response of the most basic, inherited reactions of the young, gradually complicating the system of understanding the signs of "us" up to the most complex manifestations. Such signs are stronger than ancient reflex identifiers by smell, characteristic of one's own.

Thus, the Us-Them model is the most general style of behavior, not directly related to the state of life parameters of homeostatic regulation. It may be absent in the simplest living beings, such as unicellular organisms.

If the basic styles inherent in any living beings (feeding, exploratory, sexual, defensive) directly provide the direction of actions for restoring homeostatic norm, then the Us-Them model turns out to be a more general context, appearing evolutionarily later, but influencing the course of realization of more ancient motivations.

This model is evolutionarily younger and arises only in social or potentially social organisms, probably starting from colonial forms (e.g., sponges, insects, schooling fish) and is especially pronounced in mammals and humans.

In ontogeny, the model begins to form at an extremely early age and provides trustful learning (fornit.ru/5113), being the basis for the system of faith, trustfulness, skepticism. This model shapes subjectivity as fundamentally as egocentric significance (fornit.ru/70018).

The "Us-Them" mechanism is not a separate "module" in the brain, but a distributed neuro-cognitive system combining sensory processing, emotional assessment, memory, and motor regulation. In natural implementation, it relies on multi-level biological mechanisms, from molecular to behavioral.

For the general context of benevolence in the environment of one's own, the release of neurotransmitters regulating behavior styles has been used since ancient times: oxytocin ("the hormone of love and trust") increases trust, generosity, the ability to recognize "us" by faces and reduces amygdala activity (the fear center). Internal opioids (endorphins) create a feeling of pleasure and well-being from contact with "us", reinforcing the bond. The release of such substances is initiated by hereditarily predetermined reactions reflecting the presence of signs of one's own environment.

Detection of "them" is associated with the amygdala, hypothalamus, and the release of cortisol and adrenaline. The amygdala is instantly activated at the sight of an unfamiliar face or signs of threat, triggering the "fight or flight" response.

These systems work as antagonists: activation of the "us system" suppresses the "them system", and vice versa.

"Them" – suspicion, tendency towards deindividualization, perception as a threat.

These systems work as antagonists: activation of the "us system" suppresses the "them system", and vice versa. This has been researched by:

Recognition of native speech, intonations, "voices of one's own". Infants from the first days prefer the mother's voice.

Olfactory (very important in animals). Recognition of pheromones and individual smell determined by the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC). Smell can determine genetic relatedness. This mechanism is older and stronger than many others. Researcher Yamazaki et al. (1976) – first experiments with "mouse smell" and MHC. Wedekind et al. (1995) – famous "T-shirt experiment" showing people prefer the smell of MHC-dissimilar partners.

Recognition of "cultural" codes and rituals – common movements, gestures, manners.

Specific postures, gestures, vocalizations that serve as "passwords" for entry into the group. For example, ritual feeding in birds, "dances" in bees, play bows in dogs.

Allogrooming – mutual grooming procedures (fur combing in primates). This is a powerful social ritual for strengthening "us" bonds, accompanied by the release of oxytocin.

Already in infants 3–6 months: preference for faces of their own racial/linguistic group (Kelly et al., 2005).

By 9–12 months: fear of strangers (stranger anxiety) – a biological marker of "Us-Them" formation.

It is not localized but organizes the work of the entire nervous system, directing attention, motivation, and behavior depending on the social category of the other.

Implementing such a hierarchy in artificial living systems is the most fruitful path. But software implementation does not require purely natural methods; the system can be much simpler and more efficient.

The Us-Them model is formed at an earlier stage of development than the play behavior style and is largely its foundation. The earliest stage must ensure the formation in ontogeny of perception images and response action images, which can be the basis for more complex communicative signals and verbalization.

A special mechanism can be introduced for motivation depending on conditions and detection of signs, which forms the levels of context of the Us-Them model, which would vary competitiveness in the choice of combination of active basic behavior styles.

Konrad Lorenz - one of the founders of ethology. Studied imprinting in goslings – a classic example of instant "us" bond formation in a critical period. His work on aggression also directly concerns "us-them" interaction.

Kin selection (Hamilton, 1964) and reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971) - evolutionary bases of "Us-Them": aid is directed at relatives or those who can reciprocate. Requires mechanisms for recognizing kinship and tracking reputation.

Niko Tinbergen - developed the concept of "stimulus releasers" – simple, key stimuli that trigger complex instinctive behavioral chains (e.g., the red spot on a gull's beak triggers a pecking response in the chick for feeding). Our "symbols of us" (smile, handshake) are complex social signs.

Edward Osborne Wilson - founder of sociobiology. In the book "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" argued that social behavior, including altruism and aggression towards "them", has evolutionary and genetic roots. Hamilton's theory of kin selection, popularized by Wilson, explains why we tend to help "us" (relatives).

Robert Trivers developed the theory of reciprocal altruism ("you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"), which explains cooperation with non-kin "us". His work predicted complex mechanisms for detecting cheaters ("them" within the group).

Paul Zak - a modern researcher nicknamed "Dr. Love". Conducts pioneering research on the role of oxytocin as the neurochemical basis of trust, morality, and cooperation.

Brian Hare studies the evolution of social cognition, particularly in dogs and primates. His work shows how domestication enhanced mechanisms of cooperation and communication with humans as "us" in dogs.

Henri Tajfel & John Turner (1970s–1980s) – founders of Social Identity Theory.
Marilynn Brewer (1999) – concept of "optimal distinctiveness": balance between belonging and individuality.
Susan Fiske – "Stereotype Content" model (warmth vs. competence).
David Amodio – neurocognitive bases of intergroup prejudices.
Frans de Waal – primates and morality.
Cynthia Moss – elephant memory for "friends" and "enemies".
John Bowlby – attachment theory as the basis for identifying "us" (mother as secure base).
Alison Gopnik – how infants learn to distinguish reliable from unreliable adults.

Many laboratories worldwide use fMRI to study how the brain reacts to faces of its own and other races, to members of its own social group, etc., showing that the amygdala's reaction to "them" is universal.

A. L. Zhuravlev, A. A. Krichevets, T. V. Kornilova, etc. research attitudes towards "them", social identity, cognitive biases in intergroup perception.
E. N. Subbotina (IP RAS) researches emotional perception of "us" and "them" in the context of national identity.
D. A. Leontiev and the positive psychology group. Although their focus is on well-being, they study trust as the basis of social cooperation, including neurophysiological correlates.
V. A. Yanchuk and colleagues work with group dynamics, including mechanisms of inclusion/exclusion in the group.
Ilyushenko V.A. (I.M. Sechenov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry RAS, St. Petersburg). Neurochemical bases of social behavior, the role of oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine in the formation of attachment, maternal behavior, and aggression. This is direct research of the "molecular basis" of the "Us-Them" model.
Butovskaya M. L. (Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS, Center for Evolutionary Anthropology). She and her colleagues purposefully study the evolutionary bases of human social behavior, including coalition formation, post-conflict reconciliation, altruism, and aggression – i.e., the dynamics of "Us-Them" in human societies, including traditional cultures.

Trustfulness in the environment among one's own and the benefit from communicability in such a state force individuals of the clan to constantly share their experiences and "cockroaches in the head" (intrusive thoughts), ensuring 1) maintenance of the general benevolent atmosphere and 2) receiving feedback useful for socialization. This allows the social organism with common interests to exist.

Through such conversations, not only formal knowledge of rules ("do not steal") is formed, but also a deep, contextual understanding: "how exactly our family/collective feels about the neighbor stealing, and what we feel about it." This creates a strong, emotionally colored community of interests and values.

Individual fears, anxieties, unspoken thoughts are like metabolic waste in the body. If not removed, they poison the "host" (the individual), leading to stress, neuroses, and, consequently, to inadequate behavior.

The process of "sharing experiences" is a social mechanism for removing these "toxins". By expressing them in a safe environment, the individual not only gets relief (catharsis) but also socializes their problem. It ceases to be purely personal and becomes a subject of concern for the clan.

Psychological tension constantly circulates and is "neutralized" within the clan. This prevents its accumulation to explosive levels and maintains that very "damping" background of benevolence you mentioned.

Trustfulness exceeds the fear of doing something stupid, and in conditions of novelty of the situation, instead of thinking well before acting, many prefer to act and get feedback (fornit.ru/71513). Inadequacy to reality is tolerated due to the damping function of the benevolent environment.

In a rapidly changing environment, long analysis can be fatal. It is much more effective to try out behavior and get quick feedback from the environment and, importantly, from one's own.

The sometimes seemingly "chattiness" and "excessive frankness" is a vital process ensuring psychological health, collective learnability, and flexibility of the entire group, allowing it to act as a single whole with common interests in a complex and unpredictable world.

But this adaptive feature has been commercialized in the form of social networks, where people chatter without any benefit or feedback, occupying clan positions, which leads directly to the growth of idiotic states. Here, inadequacy is not just forgiven but encouraged. Algorithms encourage not constructive dialogue but any activity that holds attention longer: outrage, scandals, echo chambers, viral idiocy.

On social networks, you easily find a "pocket clan" for any, even the most marginal or destructive idea. This "clan" does not share real risks and responsibilities with you. It exists only in the form of likes and comments, encouraging your "specialness" and detaching you from the real social environment. This is a "coalition without obligations".

On social networks, damping exists, but calibration does not. Algorithms isolate you in a bubble of like-minded people, where any of your thoughts, no matter how absurd, find support and approval. There is no mechanism that would say: "Stop, this is too much." On the contrary, the more radical the statement, the more engagement it can generate.

Constant presence in a "damped" environment, where inadequate behavior models do not receive corrective feedback, leads to the virtual personality moving further and further away from the real one. The person begins to sincerely believe that their "clan positions", reinforced by likes, are objective reality.

Short, emotionally charged formats (stories, tweets, TikToks) do not promote deep discussion and understanding of nuances. They encourage binary, "black and white" thinking: "us" (who agrees) vs. "them" (everyone else).

Commercial personal interest always turns out to be opposed to public development.

Tribalization - The Disintegration of a Large "We" into Confrontation of Small "We"s

As soon as personal interests appear that do not benefit the system of friendliness of one's social environment and there are real opportunities to realize them, a state of betrayal of one's own for personal gain arises.

A personal interest arises that cannot be satisfied within the existing rules and ethics of the clan. For example, to enrich oneself not through common success but through deception of kin; to gain power not through merit but through bribery and intrigue.

Betrayal becomes a conscious choice in favor of realizing such an interest, even at the cost of harm to "us". This is extracting benefit from the destruction of the cooperative field that once nurtured the individual themselves.

The more critical shocks in the culture there have been (war, revolution, economic collapse), the more carriers of enclave formations, parasitizing on society or directly destroying society, exist in such a society.

The most stable way of existence for such an enclave is not open war with society, but parasitism on its healthy functions. They embed themselves into financial flows, institutions of power, cultural codes and begin to pump out resources from them, weakening the entire structure.

Example: a corruption network that does not destroy the state but uses its apparatus for personal enrichment, undermining its effectiveness.

If parasitism is impossible, or if the enclave becomes strong enough, it moves to a direct attack on public institutions to rebuild them exclusively for its own interests, abolishing the very idea of the "common good".

Those who successfully realized their benefit during periods of social upheaval do not suffer adequate punishment. On the contrary, they often become the new elite, possessing resources. Their behavior strategy (cynicism, exploitation, destruction) becomes "successful" and culturally entrenched.

The main threat to society arises not from external "them", but from internal "pseudo-us" – enclaves that, using the language and attributes of "us", implement the logic of "them", corroding the social fabric from within. This is a state of chronic, sluggish civil war of all against all, where the main weapon is betrayal.

Tribalization -- the formation of a clique of one's own in a society that is now largely perceived as a population of others, but at the same time, such a clique uses all the damping possibilities of the society it parasitizes. Each tribe has its own truth, its own facts, its own heroes, and its own "them". Such an enclave behaves like a cancer tumor: it uses the circulatory system and nutrients of the host organism to feed its own, uncontrolled growth, ultimately killing the host.

Tribalization is not cultural diversity, but a pathology of trust, in which society turns into an archipelago of enclaves, each living on common resources but praying to its own god.

In a society experiencing a continuous series of social upheavals, instead of the adaptive function of the Us-Them model, not only do enclaves based on the personal interests of their leaders arise, but corresponding defensive formations arise literally in all aspects of society. Instead of the previously large common culture, local clan cliques emerge. In science – these are "scientific schools" selectively relating to everything that does not share their concepts. In art – authorial collectives of varying influence, but relating to everything by the same Us-Them principle. This affects enclave interests in the economy and even in education, when priests (not only religious but also ideological) try to introduce the dogmas of their religions into the educational process.

This is why, without patronage, it is practically impossible to break out of poverty into the elite (improve caste) or even the top of the public focus of attention. Since the times of palace intrigues, it became clear that until you can get into the right clique, there is no chance of elevation, and for this, one must be able to become useful and interesting to a sufficiently high-ranking person.

Society loses the ability for collective action and degenerates. Leaders consolidating around humanism oppose this. Their circle of light of attitude towards close ones can spread very widely. Among wolves, the leader feels responsibility for the entire pack, and a national leader – for the entire country. The more significant the leader, the more they feel responsibility for a greater number of individuals in the population, the brighter and wider their circle of light. They are capable of uniting others beyond existing Us-Them frameworks. The ruling class, the elite – is not just a group of rich or influential people. It is the most closed and protected tribe in society, possessing maximum resources and minimal trust in "them". Their "circle of light" is very bright but extremely narrow and their "codes" are quite peculiar (education, manners, jargon) and, key – mutual obligations.

Tribalization is the contraction of the "circle of light" to the size of one's own tribe, sect, enclave. This is archaism, regression, leading to war.

The expansion of the "Circle of Light" is the overcoming of tribal boundaries. This is a process during which a neighboring tribe ceases to be "them" and becomes "us" within a common people, and different peoples within an empire or federation find a way to become "us" for each other.

In the limit, all of humanity can be encompassed by this "light" – thus universal ethical systems arise (Stoicism, Christianity, Buddhism, human rights).

The expansion of the "circle of light" is the driving force of civilizational progress. This directly becomes a requirement for the leader to fight tribalization in all its manifestations. The expansion of the "circle of light" is not a good wish, but a harsh necessity for survival and development.

переведи:
Эта модель формирует субъективность так же фундаментально, как эгоцентрическая значимость.

2025-11-21 08:02:19