In-Group Out-Group

Are you active on social media? If so, you’ve likely witnessed the recent upheaval in Kathmandu. The government deployed bulldozers to clear squatters' settlements along the riverbanks, leaving hundreds homeless. On one side, we have the Rashtriya Swatantra Party in power - a 'new force' with a parliamentary majority. Yet, this same government prorogued the declared session of Parliament only to issue half a dozen ordinances. They ignored the President's suggestions for reconsidering the Constitutional Council ordinance and, in a swift move, dismissed nearly 1,600 political appointees from previous administrations.

Were all 1,600 of those individuals incompetent? Or take the Constitutional Council's recommendation for the Chief Justice - did you notice the breach of seniority and the questionable performance metrics used to justify the selection? Meanwhile, Prime Minister Balendra Shah remains elusive. He doesn’t give speeches, avoids the media, and refuses to explain the 'whys' of his actions. He skipped the parliamentary discussions on the government's policies and programs, ignoring the opposition’s demands.

When you see this, your political consciousness awakens. You feel a surge of frustration. You post a critique of the government on social media.

Watch what happens next. A flood of comments arrives. A tiny minority might agree. The majority, however, will not just call you an 'anti-change' or 'anti-new force' element; they will pelt you with vitriol so unexpected and harsh that it defies description. You are instantly tagged as a 'party stooge or a 'shill.'

Perhaps you decide to take the opposite route. You choose to look at the work of the youth-led government and offer praise. They have reduced the number of ministries, slashed government spending, and cleared out those clinging to political appointments. They’ve opened competitive applications for various positions, promising that merit, not 'source-force' (nepotism), will now dictate opportunity. They cleared encroached public land - a long-overdue move. Government services seem faster; employees appear more polite. The files move, and the demand for bribes has diminished. Isn’t this exactly what we wanted?

So, you write a post in support of the government.

The result? Another rain of insults. In our society, a social being is inherently seen as a partisan being. Even if an individual doesn't explicitly state their affiliation, the public assumes a tag. Our society has progressed - or regressed - to a point where these tags define our careers and social standing. This partisanship has peaked to an extreme where we only want 'our people' in positions of power.

If someone claims to be neutral, the mob suspects a hidden motive - that their 'neutrality' is just a lure to expand their professional reach or attract a different kind of patron. In today's bitter reality, people are divided by politics, ideology, and factions to such an extent that 'party-tinted glasses' have completely replaced 'conscience.'

This is not a uniquely Nepali problem. It is the global 'Bitter Truth.' Whether it is the followers of Prime Minister Modi in India or the MAGA supporters of Donald Trump in the United States, the pattern is identical. Support them, and you are hounded by the opposition; criticize them, and you are shredded by their loyalists.

When we analyze this through the lenses of psychology and sociology, several core reasons emerge:

In-Group and Out-Group Psychology

Human nature is predisposed to favor one's own group (In-group) and view the other group (Out-group) as inferior or even an enemy. When a person becomes a 'blind follower' of a party or ideology, a cognitive wall goes up. 'My party can do no wrong; the other side can do no right.'

According to Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory, individuals enhance their self-esteem by identifying with a group and perceiving it as superior. This leads to In-group Favoritism. A classic 1954 study involving students from Princeton and Dartmouth colleges watching a football game showed that both sides 'saw' the same game completely differently, each perceiving more fouls committed by the opposing team. Our identity dictates our vision.

Confirmation Bias: The Mental Filter

Psychologically, this is a filter that only lets in information that aligns with our existing beliefs. If someone praises a government’s good work, those with 'opposition glasses' see it as flattery rather than fact.

Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel laureate, argues that humans expend more energy trying to twist data to fit old beliefs than they do changing their minds based on new facts. This bias ensures that belief triumphs over truth. It makes people see a rival’s valid suggestion as a conspiracy and their own group’s disastrous decision as a masterstroke.

Labeling and Intellectual Intolerance

Healthy debate has been replaced by the 'Tagging Culture.'

• Criticize the government: You are frustrated or regressive.

• Praise the government: You are a 'Jhole' (stooge) or a 'Hanuman' (blind supporter).

This is a state of Intellectual Laziness. When people cannot counter an argument with logic, they resort to character assassination. This intolerance silences the moderate voices, leaving the public discourse to be dominated by the loudest extremists on both ends.

The Social Media Echo Chamber

Algorithms on social platforms are designed to feed us what we already like. This creates an Information Cocoon. We stop hearing the other side. As Cass Sunstein explains in his theory of Group Polarization, when like-minded people talk only to each other, they don't become more balanced; they become more extreme. The digital 'Like' serves as a drug that pushes individuals further toward the fringes to gain approval from their "tribe."

Scholarly Insights : Why We Fight

To understand this better, we must look at a few seminal works:

• Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind): Haidt uses the metaphor of 'The Elephant and the Rider.' Our emotions and intuitions are the massive Elephant, while our reason is the small Rider. The Rider (logic) thinks he is in control, but he is actually just the "press secretary" for the Elephant. Once the Elephant (our gut feeling about a leader) leans one way, the Rider simply invents arguments to justify it. 'Morality binds and blinds,' Haidt says. It binds us to a group but blinds us to the truth.

• Bill Bishop (The Big Sort): Bishop argues that we are segregating ourselves into communities of like-mindedness - not just online, but geographically. We live near, eat with, and talk to people who think like us. This lack of interaction with 'the other' turns disagreement into a moral failing of the opponent.

• Martin Gurri (The Revolt of the Public): A former CIA analyst, Gurri notes that the digital age has broken the monopoly on information. The 'Public' is now a force of negation. They are incredibly good at coming together to say 'No' and 'Down with this,' but they struggle to agree on what to build in its place. This creates a state of digital anarchy where outrage is the primary currency.

The Way Forward: Cultivating a Sane Conscience

Is the solution to remain neutral? Not necessarily. Neutrality can often be a mask for cowardice or a silent endorsement of injustice. The goal should be Objectivity, not just neutrality.

How do we survive this 'flood of insults' and maintain our integrity?

1. Objectivity over Neutrality: Don't ask 'Who did this?' Ask 'What was done, and what is its impact?' Evaluate the deed, not the doer.

2. Intellectual Humility: Accept that you might be wrong. Practice 'Steel-manning' - trying to understand the strongest possible version of your opponent’s argument before you dismiss it.

3. Breaking the Filter Bubble: Consciously follow 2 or 3 intellectual voices that you usually disagree with. Listen to their logic. It thins the walls of your echo chamber.

4. Decoupling Identity from Ideology: You are a citizen first, not a party member. If your politics becomes your entire identity, any criticism of your party feels like a personal attack. Keep your identity broad.

5. The 24-Hour Rule: In the digital age, we are pressured to react instantly. Wait 24 hours before posting about a controversy. Let the adrenaline fade and the logic surface.

6. Embrace the Grey: The world isn't black and white. A government can be 70% right and 30% wrong. Developing the capacity to praise a specific policy while criticizing a specific failure is the hallmark of a balanced mind.

Democracy is not the absence of disagreement; it is the presence of healthy, respectful dissent. When we break the 'mirror' of disagreement because we don't like the reflection, we lose the ability to see our own flaws.

The path out of this quagmire is to stop being a follower of the herd and start being a thinker of the truth. As Jonathan Haidt suggests, once we learn to train our 'Rider' to actually guide the 'Elephant' rather than just making excuses for it, we can begin to bridge the gap between 'Us' and 'Them.'

It takes courage to stand for facts in an age of feeling. But that courage is the only thing that can save a polarized society from itself.