if the boys had distributed their money favoring their "team" and were suddenly a part of the other team there would probably be regret and immediate bio-conscious efforts to repair their new, more relevant interests.

neat how the limbic frames what the RAS selects and how it is implemented by the pre-frontal.

brassneck references a good point. i often suggest to peers a high value in the "self" system and see amazing results of those mature and secure enough to recognize self beyond the skin. those who are less mature tend to act more destructively by deprivation.

enrich. love. learn.

@insidethegod

What if, instead of money, they assigned the members "nick-names," like 'The Conqueror,' 'Chief,' and others that would be considered positive, as opposed to those like, 'Stupid-Head' or whatever teenage boys tease each other with.

I'm wondering if, in a situation where the only information given was which group a boy was in, a young man would quickly assign something he considers to be a horribly insulting name to someone who is simply not in his group.

It makes little sense that they should do this, as the choices of others does not affect in any way their own photography results or happiness whith the performance of their camera.

I say dataset, because I am sure there is a great paper hidden in that data somewhere. PhD anyone?

al said.. (sorry, is that arabic?.. or just Al speaking? ;) ) ... no doubt it IS instinctive behaviour, and natural selection clearly favours the continuity of this "group/herding instinct"

The really interesting part is that some humans have learnt so well to exploit this trait in their fellow man.

All pack animals have the "us vs. them" mentality. They are all kinder to the members of their group and hostile to "them". Mostly because "them" means either a predator trying to eat them or a competitor trying to steal their food. To say that there are reasons why this is so (e.g., it increases their chance of survival), is not the same as saying that this behavior is the result of explicit thinking and planning.

Likewise with people, the desire to join a group is just that: a desire. It isn't the result of thinking about possibilities or rewards or consciously/subconsciously deciding what is best for them. We feel better if we are part of a large, successful group. We enjoy when the members of the group are happy and (shamefully) we enjoy when members of "them" suffer. All the other stuff is merely a consequence of this.

" Once a person's team affiliation is determined, people with the opposing affiliation will attack them for things completely irrelevant to sports. "

try intergroup sensitivity effect. It might give a more comprehensive explanation on the "cognitive effect" of social identity.

In the prisoner's dilemma the answer (in reality) is in the relationship between the two prisoners and situation in which they find themselves.

The classical prisoner's dilemma (PD) is as follows:

Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the other prisoner will make. So this dilemma poses the question: How should the prisoners act?
The dilemma can be summarized thus:

If both are silent: 6 months
If A is silent B talks: Prisoner A serves ten years
Prisoner B goes free
If A talks B is silent: Prisoner A goes free
Prisoner B serves ten years
If A and B talks: both serve five years.

This dilemma is classically considered an example of exercising self-interest. Doesn't the social identity theory imply that rather than maximizing self interest in this situation, the prisoners would be interested in one another's welfare too?