Why we prefer people just like us. And why that may be dangerous.
In general, birds of a feather do tend to flock together.
Nicholas Christakis: Preferentially attaching yourself to people that you resemble or who have similar interests that you do-- for instance, a similar tolerance for heat and cold, or similar taste in foods, for example-- actually could confer a fitness advantage. So if you are following around another person who gets cold at the same temperature that you get cold, that person might build a fire. And if they build a fire, they create this positive externality. They create this benefit for you. It would be better for you to be near such a person than near a person who had a different heat tolerance than you did. Or for example, if there were different kinds of foods in the environment, some of which made you sick, being with people who resembled you in their tolerance for those foods would be advantageous, because they would go to an environment where they could eat the food and so could you eat the food.
So hanging out with people you resemble is a kind of a way of probing your match with the environment. If you preferentially attach to people that you resemble, you will therefore be more likely to be in an environment which is good for you. Another idea has to do with a kind of multiplicative advantages of certain kinds of genotypes. What do I mean by that? Well, imagine a kind of toy idea, a kind of toy model, in which you are the first person on the planet to evolve the capacity for speech.
There's a big debate right now about a particular gene called FOXP2. Some people think it plays a role in our evolution or speech, some don't, but imagine that it does, for the sake of argument. Imagine you are the first person on the planet to have a mutation in this gene which confers on you the capacity for speech. This mutation would be useless to you unless you were connected to someone you could talk to. It would be a little bit like being the first person on the planet to get an email address. The email address is useless to you unless you have someone to email. Then, all of a sudden, it becomes very advantageous.
So this example, too, is an example of why we might have evolved the capacity or the interest in preferentially hanging out with people that we resemble. And there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to this tendency once it arises. The advantages include some of the things we've already talked about, but they also include the ability of a group of people of shared abilities and interests to bond and work together to achieve common objectives. So for example, if I can hang out with people I resemble who have similar tastes and abilities that I do, I kind of know on what to count on. You know, if we're going out to hunt big game and we all can run at the same speed, I kind of know that this group can move at this pace, for instance.
But there are disadvantages as well, because once you form a group of people who all resemble each other, you have no heterogeneity in skills. Maybe what you really need is a group where one person can see far and can spot the prey, and another person is strong and can spear the prey. Or maybe you want heterogeneity of information. When you have groups that are all very similar to each other, when groups form, you get a kind of redundancy of information and no novelty. Everyone is like, do you know where the prey item is? Do you know where the prey item is? Everyone has the same information. But you would rather have a group of people with different knowledge and different skills, who might be able to work together to achieve common objectives.
So natural selection across our evolution has taken account of these advantages and has shaped us to in general prefer homophily. But we don't always prefer homophily. There's this notion of 'birds of a feather flock togehter'. But we also have in our language this notion of opposites attract. So we are also equipped with the capacity to define the borders of our group. And one of the ways to push back against tribalism is to step up from the tribalism and to broaden the focus of our concern, to redefine the group as being even bigger.
And if you think about this politically in the United States, for example, one of the kind of political agendas in our country since its founding, with respect to the American project, has been to believe and claim-- I think rightly so-- that anyone can be an American. The focus of our tribalism becomes our shared Americanism. So you can step up from individual groups and sort of be united by our common humanity-- or in this case our common nationality-- and broaden the focus. But in addition we have this other ability. We have this ability to step down and look at the level of individuals. In that we have the capacity to express and detect individual identity. We do this with our faces.
Every human knows that they can look at 1,000 faces and tell one person from the other. We signal our individuality with our faces. Our faces have evolved to be incredibly different-- unlike our hands, for example. You can't tell your friends apart by looking at their hands. But you can tell them instantly apart by looking at their faces. And the fact that we can do this, the fact that we can see individuals as unique, is very important if you are, for instance, a baby and you want to communicate to your mother or your father, this is me, not someone else, care for me. Or if you want to support cooperation-- you want the ability to remember who is nice to you and who is not nice to you.
The capacity for signaling and detecting individual identity is crucial for maintaining cooperation in social systems. Same for friendship. It's crucial. To tell your friends apart or to tell friends from strangers, you need to be able to signal individual identity. So individual identity exists in our group, in our species, it plays a role in all of these things I'm discussing, and it gives us another way of counteracting tribalism. Because now, instead of stepping up a level To redefine the groups to be bigger, we can also step down a level And now look at individuals not as members of groups but as unique human beings. So we don't need to rely on this heuristic. We don't need to rely on this sort of convenient tool of saying, who should I befriend? Oh, I should befriend Or people who are members of my own group. We can either say, I'm open to befriending anybody, or we can say, I'm going to assess each person as a unique human being when deciding whether to hang out with them or not.
- It's common for people to form groups of like minded individuals who also have similar abilities.
- Evolution confers advantages on heterogeneous groups of people and groups with diverse talent sets.
- Prizing individual identity ahead of group identity also helps counteract tribalistic politics.
Proof of a dramatic shift in US cable news viewing preferences - or not? The devil is in the map's legend
- Map details dramatic shift from CNN to Fox News over 10-year period
- But does it show the triumph of 'fake news' or rather its defeat?
- A closer look at the map's legend allows for more complex analyses
Dramatic and misleading
Image: Reddit / SICResearch
The situation today: CNN pushed back to the edges of the country.
Over the course of no more than a decade, America has radically switched favourites when it comes to cable news networks. As this sequence of maps showing TMAs (Television Market Areas) suggests, CNN is out, Fox News is in.
The maps are certainly dramatic, but also a bit misleading. They nevertheless provide some insight into the state of journalism and the public's attitudes towards the press in the US. Let's zoom in.
- It's 2008, on the eve of the Obama Era. CNN (blue) dominates the cable news landscape across America. Fox News (red) is an upstart (°1996) with a few regional bastions in the south.
- By 2010, Fox News has broken out of its southern heartland, colonising markets in the Midwest and Northwest – and even northern Maine and southern Alaska.
- Two years later, Fox News has lost those two outliers, but has filled up in the middle: it now boasts two large, contiguous blocks in the southeast and northwest, almost touching.
- In 2014, Fox News seems past its prime. The northwestern block has shrunk, the southeastern one has fragmented.
- Energised by Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Fox News is back with a vengeance. Not only have Maine and Alaska gone from entirely blue to entirely red, so has most of the rest of the US. Fox News has plugged the Nebraska Gap: it's no longer possible to walk from coast to coast across CNN territory.
- By 2018, the fortunes from a decade earlier have almost reversed. Fox News rules the roost. CNN clings on to the Pacific Coast, New Mexico, Minnesota and parts of the Northeast – plus a smattering of metropolitan areas in the South and Midwest.
Image: Reddit / SICResearch
This sequence of maps, showing America turning from blue to red, elicited strong reactions on the Reddit forum where it was published last week. For some, the takeover by Fox News illustrates the demise of all that's good and fair about news journalism:
- "The end is near"
- "The idiocracy grows"
- "(It's) like a spreading disease"
- "One of the more frightening maps I've seen"
- "LOL that's what happens when you're fake news!"
- "CNN went down the toilet on quality"
- "A Minecraft YouTuber could beat CNN's numbers"
- "CNN has become more like a high-school production of a news show"
Not a few find fault with both channels, even if not always to the same degree:
- "That anybody considers either of those networks good news sources is troubling"
- "Both leave you understanding less rather than more"
- "This is what happens when you spout bullsh-- for two years straight. People find an alternative - even if it's just different bullsh--"
- "CNN is sh-- but it's nowhere close to the outright bullsh-- and baseless propaganda Fox News spews"
"Old people learning to Google"
Image: Google Trends
CNN vs. Fox News search terms (200!-2018)
But what do the maps actually show? Created by SICResearch, they do show a huge evolution, but not of both cable news networks' audience size (i.e. Nielsen ratings). The dramatic shift is one in Google search trends. In other words, it shows how often people type in CNN or Fox News in a search window. And that does not necessarily reflect the relative popularity of both networks. As some commenters suggest:
- "I can't remember the last time that I've searched for a news channel on Google. Is it really that difficult for people to type 'cnn.com'?"
- "More than anything else, these maps show smart phone proliferation (among older people) more than anything else"
- "This is a map of how old people and rural areas have learned to use Google in the last decade"
- "This is basically a map of people who don't understand how the internet works, and it's no surprise that it leans conservative"
A visual image as strong as this map sequence looks designed to elicit a vehement response – and its lack of context offers viewers little new information to challenge their preconceptions. Like the news itself, cartography pretends to be objective, but always has an agenda of its own, even if just by the selection of its topics.
The trick is not to despair of maps (or news) but to get a good sense of the parameters that are in play. And, as is often the case (with both maps and news), what's left out is at least as significant as what's actually shown.
One important point: while Fox News is the sole major purveyor of news and opinion with a conservative/right-wing slant, CNN has more competition in the center/left part of the spectrum, notably from MSNBC.
Another: the average age of cable news networks – whether CNN or Fox News – is in the mid-60s. As a result of a shift in generational habits, tv viewing is down across the board. Younger people are more comfortable with a 'cafeteria' approach to their news menu, selecting alternative and online sources for their information.
CNN, Fox and MSNBC
Image: Google Trends
CNN vs. Fox (without the 'News'; may include searches for actual foxes). See MSNBC (in yellow) for comparison
For the record, here are the Nielsen ratings for average daily viewer total for the three main cable news networks, for 2018 (compared to 2017):
- Fox News: 1,425,000 (-5%)
- MSNBC: 994,000 (+12%)
- CNN: 706,000 (-9%)
And according to this recent overview, the top 50 of the most popular websites in the US includes cnn.com in 28th place, and foxnews.com in... 27th place.The top 5, in descending order, consists of google.com, youtube.com, facebook.com, amazon.com and yahoo.com – the latter being the highest-placed website in the News and Media category.(Source: SimilarWeb)
A new study shows that some men's reaction to sex is not what you'd expect, resulting in a condition previously observed in women.
- Generational differences always pose a challenge for companies.
- How do you integrate the norms and expectations of the new generation with those of the old?
- Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt points out that Gen Z—the cohort born after 1995—differs sharply from the Millennial generation before it and offers some advice for understanding and working with a generation in some ways more sheltered and less independent than any before it.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.