Will finish this evening….

If the group has a hierarchical authority structure, it seems likely to lead to the exclusionary group to declare those who self-identify under the same broad banner but differ on details an enemy. If one can be a member of the larger group while ignoring their authority, that is a threat.

If the larger tribe has a large cache of social benefits based on membership, the subset will attempt to redefine in this manner rather than split off under a new identity.

This means the “larger” tribal identity based on self identification is false in the mind of the subset, which they redefine to only include their particular approach. Thus the overarching, uniting value (e.g. Jesus is the messiah) has no value- it no longer validates membership in the larger tribe.

However, not all self-identifying members have compatible approaches despite the common overarching characteristic that defines the religion. When a subset decides their approach is the one true way to adhere to the overarching value, they have prioritized their doctrine over the core.

This is the most fruitful point of weakness in tribal society for those who wish their idiosyncratic tribal boundary definitions to propagate and dominate the character of their tribe.

For an example look to religion and heresy. They identify in the same tribe (Chistian, Muslim, etc).

When encountering an outsider, it produces uncertainty. Thus they are often assigned an identity. Once assigned an identity, its status as ally, nested, or enemy must be established to make the shortcuts functional.
The enemy label is the easiest. It is the cautious and requires less consideration.

You cannot bear to share any level of tribal identity with them- at the extreme some refuse to include them in the “human” tribe.

Most of the time we navigate these dynamic, vague, multilayered identities instinctually as social organisms. They can also be used to manipulate instinctually.

A member of an “enemy” tribe is different than just being an outsider. With an outsider, the social shortcuts are missing. With an “enemy” there are new shortcuts.

You actively distrust interactions with an enemy tribe. You assume their actions are negative toward you.

In that case, the individual must prioritize their tribal identity to use a trust shortcut.

If there is a perceived threat to the threads of community binding the tribe, that threat will be labeled “enemy”. Enemies can have a tribal identity and are often assigned one by those who feel threatened.

If we hear competing claims, we are more likely to accept the version that comes from those within our tribe.

It is possible to identify as a member of multiple tribes, especially if tribes are nested where some tribes are sub-groups of larger tribes.

Importantly, it can help establish default levels of trust among members.

While ideally we would test every verifiable claim, it is not reasonable given the complexity and size of modern social groups.

Better develop a critical thinking course first or chances are they’ll leave euth bad ideas anyway.