Self-Interest: Group Edition

You have no doubt come to expect that my posts here are often going to relate in some way to self-interest as a primary motive for human behavior. I'm fascinated by the topic. There are a variety of angles from which to ponder it.

Today, I read an article dealing with "coalitional interest" or more simply stated, motivation for group behavior. The general idea is that a human is always going to act with self-interest as a very high priority, but in a coalition setting, a person is persuaded that the objectives of the group can promote and even enhance the individual's ability to achieve his goals. This can even involve a sense of personal compromise on some points as a higher value is placed on the shared interests among the group. But, coalitional interest does not involve abandonment of self-interest, it is actually just a tool in the realm of self-interest.

The more fascinating aspect to me is the issue of conflict or negotiation between two opposing groups. Whatever the shared interest is within a group, it could be described in a similar way to an individual's "core" self. The coalitional interest is not on the table for compromise, rather it is the primary purpose of the self-interested individuals in that group to achieve that goal, or advance that idea, or approve that activity, etc.

Opponents in a coalitional disagreement are going to serve their own interests by defining the terms of the debate in the way that most benefits their point. The "facts" are going to be collected and presented in the most favorable way for achieving the joint purpose. Both sides will deny that self-interest affects their presentation of "plain facts," and then both sides will cry foul, accusing the other of grossly distorting the truth in service to the obviously misguided agenda.

This brief tidbit is an example given in the article mentioned above and linked below:

Economic inequality creates coalitional conflict within nations, because it advantages some citizens (the upper class) and disadvantages others (the lower class). The upper class tends to argue that inequality is morally good (e.g., "it's the result of rewarding people who work harder than others"), whereas the lower class tends to say it's bad (e.g., "it's the result of unequal opportunities").

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE by Dr. Michael Price at his Psychology Today blog.