While I am not ready to accept the argument that it is a “natural” human trait, there is certainly plenty of evidence of a particular kind of logical fallacy swimming around in analysis and arguments of all kinds. Often, when folks describe the actions, intentions, or character of a group of someones with whom they disagree, they ascribe to that group a a great deal of homogeneity. We’ve all heard it and we’ve all done it: “They’re all the same…They all read from the same playbook…They all do this or that.” When folks talk about what “Black folks think” or “How religious people are” or “How women drive,” they are assuming that all members of those groups are the same. That their identities and interests are all the same, or at least markedly different from members of other groups.
The fact is- as the diagram above represents- that in-group variation is often greater than between group variation. Put another way, two members of the same group (Category A) might be more different from one another than any two members of different groups (a person from Category A and one from Category B). To use a practical example, two randomly sampled pizza delivery guys are just as likely to be different from one another as they are to be similar- in many, many ways.
This post is meant to serve as a reminder, not least to myself, to question my own assumptions about the groups and categories of people that I encounter and study.