Your observations are flawed.

There are plenty of people/groups who are pro-mask and anti-lockdown.  Your characterization of "pro-mask" is incorrect.  People who don't agree with the mandatory closing of businesses tend to also be against mask MANDATES.  Big difference between that and being "anti-mask."

Being against mandatory closures and mandatory mask wearing are both consistent with the belief that government does not have the authority to do such things without scientific proof that (1) failing to do so will be worse than doing it, and (2) the individual freedom to choose for themselves must be protected. 

Therefore, the "tribe" you are describing values individual choice and liberty over governmental control.  Americans are mostly averse to being forced to do anything, even when that thing holds the promise of benefits or preventing negative outcomes.

Ask Edgar Friendly how that works.   

How many people have you seen who are pro mask mandates but anti lockdown? Of course they exist, I am not saying there is no diversity of thought in this world but I see less of it the more people identify with tribes. I think you find more diversity of thought among the independents.

Look at the liberals who were against the vaccine when Trump was president but now want to force it when Biden is president? Did the science suddenly change? No, the tribe changed and people followed.

Look at how sports fans judge referee calls. They agree with the ones that favor their teams and disagree with the ones that don't.

so now you moving goalpost to "strong factor"?

If you find conclusions so strongly correlated along certain tribal lines (religion, race, politics, etc) then I would say groupthink is a strong factor.

I think that if this were not the case then you would expect to find more diversity of thought. I think this is also why you find groups with positions that are inconsistent with the ideals of their tribe, loyalty to the tribe is more valued than consistent ideology. Why are people who don't line up with their tribes get attacked? Look at what happens when a democrat doesn't side with the liberal agenda? They eat their own. What happens when a republican doesn't side with Trump? A RINO or worse.

Back in caveman days this may have been a trait that served us well.

The short explanation:

MAGA is motivated by freedom

Liberals are motivated by tyranny

How many people have you seen who are pro mask mandates but anti lockdown? Of course they exist, I am not saying there is no diversity of thought in this world but I see less of it the more people identify with tribes. I think you find more diversity of thought among the independents.

Look at the liberals who were against the vaccine when Trump was president but now want to force it when Biden is president? Did the science suddenly change? No, the tribe changed and people followed.

Look at how sports fans judge referee calls. They agree with the ones that favor their teams and disagree with the ones that don't.

Not what I said.

Pro-mask, but anti-lockdown and anti-mask mandate.  You're still getting it confused.

How many people have you seen who are pro mask mandates but anti lockdown? Of course they exist, I am not saying there is no diversity of thought in this world but I see less of it the more people identify with tribes. I think you find more diversity of thought among the independents.

Look at the liberals who were against the vaccine when Trump was president but now want to force it when Biden is president? Did the science suddenly change? No, the tribe changed and people followed.

Look at how sports fans judge referee calls. They agree with the ones that favor their teams and disagree with the ones that don't.

You're putting too much faith in individuals having the discipline, motivation and education to make their own decisions.

When the PRESS and the DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES/NOMINEES said Trump can't be trusted -- including any vaccine his administration ushers in -- the Liberal masses who follow those political and media leaders agree with them. 

When Biden/Harris (allegedly) won the election, and the vaccine was no longer a "Trump win" for the nation, the PRESS and RESIDENT BIDEN did a 180, and the same followers changed their tune.  They did not change because the TRIBE got a memo with the day's talking points.  They changed because the information being pushed was whatever their leaders told them.  And, not coincidentally, the press and big tech censored anyone who had opposing evidence or opinions. 

So, it's not tribalism.  It's information control.  Seeing one "side" switch from an anti-Trump position on vaccines to one which adopts it 100% under Biden shows it's not tribalism.  It's control.

There's a big difference between following the crowd and following the people controlling the message.

If the press had focused more on Fauci and less on Trump, the acceptance of the vaccine would have been far greater.  The stories they told denigrating "Trump's vaccine" probably did more to persuade people to become "anti-vaccine" than anything else.  Will they admit what they did?  Will they be held accountable?  Never.

I can’t speak for others, so I can only speak for myself.

I am not anti mask. I am anti mask mandate. There is no real science that anyone can provide that proves otherwise with any mask less than an N95 type. I fully admit that wearing a mask of any type less than an N95 type might have a very minuscule effect on the virus being transmitted from one person to another. This would only be due to catching actual droplets. But the virus itself FREELY goes right through all mask types of the less than N95 type. But the side effects are so minuscule that the side effects of wearing a mask of a less than an N95 type do not make wearing a mask worth it. IE the side effects of wearing a mask of a less than an 95 type are worse than the ability of the mask to protect you from a virus that cannot be stopped by the mask. You want to wear a mask, or two, go right ahead.

I am not anti social distancing. But I am against mandated social distancing. It only makes sense that distance from an infected person is very effective. But the choice is yours.

I was anti lockdown and completely against it when it began in the Trump era. I bashed Trump for it happening under his watch. I was also correct in assuming it would do the country more harm than good. And I was also correct when I said the lockdown is going to do nothing more than kicking the can down the road. And that it will subside once more people get it themselves and obtain a natural immunity. I was also correct when I said the lockdown would reek havoc on our economy. And it has.

I am also anti vaccine mandate (Not anti vaccine). All mandates of any type are anti American and anti freedom. The vaccine is only for people who choose to take it. And not for those who choose not to. That is freedom of choice. Anything else is against our constitution and against the laws of this country.

Nothing Trump nor Biden nor Fauci can say or do to change the facts of the illegality of the mandates. So in my case it makes no difference what Trump or Biden or Fauci can say or do to change these facts nor my mind. Unfortunately, there are those in this world that hate Trump or Biden so much that they will take the opposite stance. Same goes for those who love them. JMHO

so now you moving goalpost to "strong factor"?

No goalpost moved. I never said groupthink was the sole factor at play. The reason I said strong factor was to have a more accurate statement. Its very rare in sociology that you can say an issue is all one thing.

So, it's not tribalism.  It's information control.  Seeing one "side" switch from an anti-Trump position on vaccines to one which adopts it 100% under Biden shows it's not tribalism.  It's control.
There's a big difference between following the crowd and following the people controlling the message.

And what, only us conservatives are smart enough to see through that? Its just Democrats being tricked by the media and us republicans aren't stepping in line behind Trump at all?


Again, I am not trying to make this specifically a Trump thing. Trump is very polarizing but this phenomenon isn't only present surrounding Trump. I think it is showing up very strongly surrounding Trump though and not just by Democrats hating Trump but also the level of loyalty Trump has managed to gather despite various things he has said and positions he has taken that are not consistent with conservativism. This topic is not an attack Trump's side or attack Biden's side type of thing, its just observing how tribalism affects the way people think.

I will give another example, gay marriage. Republicans tended to line up against gay marriage just a decade or so ago while democrats were the ones pushing it (generally speaking). The ideologies of conservatism would logically conclude that the government shouldn't get into people's business yet they were the ones resisting against it. Did all the republicans reason through the ideologies of conservatism to come to the conclusion or did they side with the tribe?

Not what I said.

Pro-mask, but anti-lockdown and anti-mask mandate.  You're still getting it confused.

I know what you said, I was giving a different comparison than you were.

And what, only us conservatives are smart enough to see through that? Its just Democrats being tricked by the media and us republicans aren't stepping in line behind Trump at all?


Again, I am not trying to make this specifically a Trump thing. Trump is very polarizing but this phenomenon isn't only present surrounding Trump. I think it is showing up very strongly surrounding Trump though and not just by Democrats hating Trump but also the level of loyalty Trump has managed to gather despite various things he has said and positions he has taken that are not consistent with conservativism. This topic is not an attack Trump's side or attack Biden's side type of thing, its just observing how tribalism affects the way people think.

I will give another example, gay marriage. Republicans tended to line up against gay marriage just a decade or so ago while democrats were the ones pushing it (generally speaking). The ideologies of conservatism would logically conclude that the government shouldn't get into people's business yet they were the ones resisting against it. Did all the republicans reason through the ideologies of conservatism to come to the conclusion or did they side with the tribe?

First of all, I call BS on Gay Marriage.  That's got nothing to do with Gay rights.  Civil Unions or other similar legal joining of a same sex couple can offer the same legal rights as a traditional marriage.  But the Left wanted to push to tear down the tradition, not protect rights.  AFAIK, most Conservatives were okay with government-sanctioned unions, but wanted weddings and marriage to remain a tradition that was reserved for a man & woman.

Anyway, I firmly believe that most Conservatives are 1000 times more open minded than Liberals.  Liberals talk about tolerance, but they refuse to tolerate the Right wing or conservative members of society..  Think about it.  Not all Conservatives blindly follow devout Christian or Republican positions. 

I know what you said, I was giving a different comparison than you were.

So, you didn't want to address my argument, so you made up one of your own?   

First of all, I call BS on Gay Marriage.  That's got nothing to do with Gay rights.  Civil Unions or other similar legal joining of a same sex couple can offer the same legal rights as a traditional marriage.  But the Left wanted to push to tear down the tradition, not protect rights.  AFAIK, most Conservatives were okay with government-sanctioned unions, but wanted weddings and marriage to remain a tradition that was reserved for a man & woman.

Anyway, I firmly believe that most Conservatives are 1000 times more open minded than Liberals.  Liberals talk about tolerance, but they refuse to tolerate the Right wing or conservative members of society..  Think about it.  Not all Conservatives blindly follow devout Christian or Republican positions.

This phenomenon gets hard to discuss because we can all think of that democrat who supports guns or republican who supports subsidized health care (for example) not everyone fits neatly into these boxes. I don't think this negates the phenomenon though. On any contentious issue regarding issues of fact there is an actual truth of the matter and facts don't neatly follow one side or the other. When it comes to an issue, a political one for example, do you really think conservatives just happen to have all the facts on their sides and the liberals have none? We like to think we are good at seeing the facts and objective yet groups follow ideological lines more than scientific lines. Back to a sports example, a ball was either over the line or it wasn't yet people will divide based on which call they prefer more than which call is right.

I think the data would prove you wrong about conservatives being more open minded than liberals, at least by certain metrics. I am trying to remember a few studies on that very topic and they found that liberals were more open to trying new things and welcoming change while conservatives were more resistant to change and less likely to try new things. (I would have to find the study again to offer more specifics) Now this isn't inherently a good thing or a bag thing, change can be good or it can be bad so it is not a moral judgement on conservatives.

When it comes to the people vocal against the covid vaccine I notice they tend to pick up all the same arguments attacking the vaccines rather than having varrying views. Now perhaps this is more confirmation bias than tribalism but I do think that the two are related. (Being for your own tribe biases you towards information that supports your tribe).

I think the data would prove you wrong about conservatives being more open minded than liberals, at least by certain metrics. I am trying to remember a few studies on that very topic and they found that liberals were more open to trying new things and welcoming change while conservatives were more resistant to change and less likely to try new things. (I would have to find the study again to offer more specifics) Now this isn't inherently a good thing or a bag thing, change can be good or it can be bad so it is not a moral judgement on conservatives.

You say the "data" proves me wrong, but you can't remember what that data are?  Thanks.

There are no "studies" that can identify actual attitudes when it comes to controversial subjects.  How often do you think both sides will lie when they don't want to sound intolerant or unwoke? 

You offered an opinion, then eluded to studies that you can't name.  Not exactly a good example of sourcing your supporting "data".

Here is what's missing from this fishing trip.

Trump fast tracked the vaxx process. So in theory, all his supporters should be OK with getting vaxxed. There were many tweets from TDSers that they won't get jabbed cause Trump is rushing the standard process. Only to get jabbed 6 months later and tweet about it's their duty and blah, blah, blah.

So if someone states you're anti vaxx cause you support Trump, is fishing.

It's possible that Trump supporters know how to think for themselves. And with a vaxx that was never allowed in humans to be all of a sudden OK, even though the tech has been around for decades, shows a red flag.  MRNA tech only made it to animal trials prior to covid. It wasn't allowed in human trials until Trump OK'd the fast track.

It's a total toss up on what your party is and if you get vaxxed or not.  I know many liberals who are both vaxxed and anti vaxxed, and many conservatives the same.  But what I do see is that conservatives are more against being forced to vaxx and liberals are OK with it.

You say the "data" proves me wrong, but you can't remember what that data are?  Thanks.

There are no "studies" that can identify actual attitudes when it comes to controversial subjects.  How often do you think both sides will lie when they don't want to sound intolerant or unwoke? 

You offered an opinion, then eluded to studies that you can't name.  Not exactly a good example of sourcing your supporting "data".

Do you remember exactly where you learned everything you learned? If you are truly interested in the study I can try to find it for you. I know I learned about it on a science podcast.

As to your second question, this boils down to designing good questionnaires. If you put language that will evoke a bias or a judgement your results will more likely be skewed. This can be mitigated with anonymity, neutral word choice, and better designing of the questions.

Here is what's missing from this fishing trip.

Trump fast tracked the vaxx process. So in theory, all his supporters should be OK with getting vaxxed. There were many tweets from TDSers that they won't get jabbed cause Trump is rushing the standard process. Only to get jabbed 6 months later and tweet about it's their duty and blah, blah, blah.

So if someone states you're anti vaxx cause you support Trump, is fishing.

It's possible that Trump supporters know how to think for themselves. And with a vaxx that was never allowed in humans to be all of a sudden OK, even though the tech has been around for decades, shows a red flag.  MRNA tech only made it to animal trials prior to covid. It wasn't allowed in human trials until Trump OK'd the fast track.

It's a total toss up on what your party is and if you get vaxxed or not.  I know many liberals who are both vaxxed and anti vaxxed, and many conservatives the same.  But what I do see is that conservatives are more against being forced to vaxx and liberals are OK with it.

A good analysis.

One of the hard things is to study the questions of "if X had happened then Y would have reacted a different way" because we can't go back in time and reverse situation and let it play out again. Sometimes we can find ways around this when circumstances create pockets, a proxy can be used but it isn't always easy to do.

One curve ball here is that there are the regular anti-vaxers who were against vaccines well before covid and from my understanding these people weren't necessarily conservatives but often liberals. I do think politics has played a role in a lot of the people who are against the covid vaccine but there are certainly many who were against all vaccines well before this so it would be a fallacious argument for someone to conclude that being against vaccines makes one a Trump supporter. The differences between these two groups is significant though it is not always obvious which one they are from simply from hearing that they are against the covid vaccine.

When Trump was fast tracking the mRNA vaccines I don't recall hearing much pushback from conservatives or his supporters. Do you?

I don't think Trump has complete control over his supporters to where he could convince all his supporters to get vaccinated but I do think that if he campaigned for everyone to be vaccinated and said how safe he thought it was that more Trump supporters would get vaccinated.

A good analysis.

One of the hard things is to study the questions of "if X had happened then Y would have reacted a different way" because we can't go back in time and reverse situation and let it play out again. Sometimes we can find ways around this when circumstances create pockets, a proxy can be used but it isn't always easy to do.

One curve ball here is that there are the regular anti-vaxers who were against vaccines well before covid and from my understanding these people weren't necessarily conservatives but often liberals. I do think politics has played a role in a lot of the people who are against the covid vaccine but there are certainly many who were against all vaccines well before this so it would be a fallacious argument for someone to conclude that being against vaccines makes one a Trump supporter. The differences between these two groups is significant though it is not always obvious which one they are from simply from hearing that they are against the covid vaccine.

When Trump was fast tracking the mRNA vaccines I don't recall hearing much pushback from conservatives or his supporters. Do you?

I don't think Trump has complete control over his supporters to where he could convince all his supporters to get vaccinated but I do think that if he campaigned for everyone to be vaccinated and said how safe he thought it was that more Trump supporters would get vaccinated.

No push back because we all thought the jab would be optional. But jokes on us. Myself included thought if someone wants to but an expirental drug in their body, then its on them. Now i was coerced to put said expiremental drug in my body.


Had we known what we know now, maybe it wouldnt have been fast tracked. But thats a huge hypothetical.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Do you remember exactly where you learned everything you learned?

No, but if I'm going to evoke that data to support an argument, I'm sure as heck going to refresh my memory first instead of making a claim I can't immediately back up.

Anybody can make a claim based on "something I remember seeing but can't remember where."  If you can't remember where you saw it, how can you be sure you're remembering the facts any better?

I would verify my info, or not mention it at all.

I remember seeing studies of remdisivar and 30% of people taking had liver/kidney failure symptoms.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

No push back because we all thought the jab would be optional. But jokes on us. Myself included thought if someone wants to but an expirental drug in their body, then its on them. Now i was coerced to put said expiremental drug in my body.


Had we known what we know now, maybe it wouldnt have been fast tracked. But thats a huge hypothetical.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I can't think of anything we have learned about covid which would have lead to it not being fast tracked? What are you referring to?

I think calling it experimental is a little bit misleading even it arguably technically true but thats another discussion