Spending time on outsider activities makes it much easier to leave your tribe. In that sense, people who do so really are less trustworthy, because they have options other than helping out when things get tough. People who value loyalty are going to want to be around people who aren’t trying to build the ability to leave them. So, if you want to be around a person who values loyalty, signalling that they are the best match for your skills and knowledge is helpful.
I do think there must be some aspect of that in the situation but I don’t think that is complete.
Seems that trust here is also connected to loyalty—we’re all in the same ship and will suffer the same fate. Those who have options elsewhere do have more choices but that itself doesn’t imply they are less trustworthy or loyal to the group. (Though I agree some will cast them in that light.)
If things get tough what should the group action be? Just keep doing as before and suffer; even if that means the ultimate demise of the group? Maybe. Or perhaps the approach would be more like over time things change and the group also needs to evolve. Those with outside exposure, who have clearly signaled a commitment to the group by staying when they could have changes associations already, might be the very members that can help save the group while preserving the “essence” of the group. (There’s probably a very large post (collection of posts) needed there ;-)
So who should members trust here and why? Seems like this is just a bit of a microcosm of what we see in lots of social and politic behaviors in the world at larger levels (which I assume the point of the OP might have been).
For those who have not heard of it, the book Exit, Voice and Loyalty, by Albert Hirshmann, might be a worthwhile read.
Well, it seems like it’s still the case in situations where people can’t (or won’t) leave their tribes. For example, men and women aren’t usually each other’s outgroup and in situations where no one plans or gives indication of “leaving” a gender, it’s still bad for say men who have all intentions of remaining men to signal too much knowledge of girly movies, chick flicks etc.. But that works in the other cases I brought up—the local citizen who is too into foreign stuff might pack up and leave, or a nerd/jock/artsy person who is too into the other clique’s stuff might also switch peer groups.
I feel like things in some cases may be driven by “neutral” outsider stuff competing for attention/time/cost from “good” ingroup stuff, even in situations where you don’t leave your ingroup, so maybe it’s “bad” in a non-zero sum way even in situations where you don’t see the outsider stuff as bad in absolute terms (i.e., why don’t you spend more effort on ingroup stuff, which would be “even better”, even if I’m not opposed to outsider stuff?).
Spending time on outsider activities makes it much easier to leave your tribe. In that sense, people who do so really are less trustworthy, because they have options other than helping out when things get tough. People who value loyalty are going to want to be around people who aren’t trying to build the ability to leave them. So, if you want to be around a person who values loyalty, signalling that they are the best match for your skills and knowledge is helpful.
I do think there must be some aspect of that in the situation but I don’t think that is complete.
Seems that trust here is also connected to loyalty—we’re all in the same ship and will suffer the same fate. Those who have options elsewhere do have more choices but that itself doesn’t imply they are less trustworthy or loyal to the group. (Though I agree some will cast them in that light.)
If things get tough what should the group action be? Just keep doing as before and suffer; even if that means the ultimate demise of the group? Maybe. Or perhaps the approach would be more like over time things change and the group also needs to evolve. Those with outside exposure, who have clearly signaled a commitment to the group by staying when they could have changes associations already, might be the very members that can help save the group while preserving the “essence” of the group. (There’s probably a very large post (collection of posts) needed there ;-)
So who should members trust here and why? Seems like this is just a bit of a microcosm of what we see in lots of social and politic behaviors in the world at larger levels (which I assume the point of the OP might have been).
For those who have not heard of it, the book Exit, Voice and Loyalty, by Albert Hirshmann, might be a worthwhile read.
Well, it seems like it’s still the case in situations where people can’t (or won’t) leave their tribes. For example, men and women aren’t usually each other’s outgroup and in situations where no one plans or gives indication of “leaving” a gender, it’s still bad for say men who have all intentions of remaining men to signal too much knowledge of girly movies, chick flicks etc.. But that works in the other cases I brought up—the local citizen who is too into foreign stuff might pack up and leave, or a nerd/jock/artsy person who is too into the other clique’s stuff might also switch peer groups.
I feel like things in some cases may be driven by “neutral” outsider stuff competing for attention/time/cost from “good” ingroup stuff, even in situations where you don’t leave your ingroup, so maybe it’s “bad” in a non-zero sum way even in situations where you don’t see the outsider stuff as bad in absolute terms (i.e., why don’t you spend more effort on ingroup stuff, which would be “even better”, even if I’m not opposed to outsider stuff?).