heuristics make for great survival in the evolutionary period. they make poor sources of rational consideration.

and we all fall prey, but knowing them helps us limit their effect.

I don't disagree here, but honestly sources do matter. I can prove that alcohol is good or bad based on mainstream stories that are widespread. Peer reviewed journals tend to be in consensus of facts.

The point is that information from solid sources is deserving of trust until it is refuted. Weaker sources should not be seen as false but highly suspect, but warrant further investigation in order to give credence. If Trump says something, there is about a 17% chance it is at least partially true. So he is not automatically wrong, but he has earned my suspicion.

The bible for example has a story about Jacob breeding sheep to get certain traits. He breeds speckled males to all females to get more speckled offspring. He also had em get busy next to peeled branches. We know there was some truth and some falsehoods in the story, the bible is a poor source of truth, but it is not always wrong.

The source is more important than the content. It is a sad commentary on the human condition.

Twibal twinking twumps tweason. He really is an idiot.

Source bias is as old as language and tribes—we are inclined to accept input from those we trust, and reject information from those we distrust, even when the details are essentially the same. And tribalism has worsened in recent years, as reflected in politics, the media and college campuses, for example. However, it must be admitted that this study focused on aphorisms, which are basically adages, clichés or truisms—more opinion than statement of fact. Thus, it might be more accurate to say, 'MY tribal thinking trumps YOUR tribal thinking,' as opposed to 'reason.'

This has got to be right—Matias makes great posts.

There have been social experiments conducted to test out theories similar to this one. Here is one example reading Bible passages, but telling folks they were hearing passages from the Quran.

We, as social creatures, have a need to belong. What the 'belonging' is based on is what makes the difference to me in tribal thinking. Association differs when it is an agreement with externals instead of internally anchored bonding in non-proprietary fashion. Owning and being owned are, to me, the difference. Most human associations in our society in some measure call for abdication or surrender of our autonomy in return for identity and 'membership'. It works that way in theologies, political parties and ideologies and even marriage.

Tribal thinking, as you so well point out, trumps individual action and assertion of individually reasoned choices.

This is only partially true and usually as a matter of expediancy i.e. i don't have time to research this myself but i agree with the majority of positions adopted by this group so i'm prepared to take this on face value. There is also the factor of 'belonging' ... i identify with this group so i am predisposed to accept their arguements. However i still think if we come across an arguement that does not sit well with us we can still identify and challenge it without feeling our group membership is compromised.

I have, to some degree, overcome this prejudice. I realize that all people are partially good and partially bad, or partially right and partially wrong. Some lean more one way, and some the other, but there is good (and bad) to be had from everyone.

Even having proved to my satisfaction that the Biblical stories are primarily mythical (there is SOME accurate history in it, but it is mostly myth), I have found good passages in the Bible that I have adopted as mottoes for guiding my own life, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The problem is that we don't always have time to study a claim and prove whether it is true or false. When that is the case, if the source is known to be mostly wrong, it may be wise to apply plenty of doubt about the claim until careful analysis can be undertaken. If the source is known to be mostly right, then it can be given the benefit of the doubt until it can be thoroughly tested.

For example, I know that the U.S. President is a habitual liar. So, when he makes any claim, I immediately file it under "doubtful." If further study shows that the claim is correct, I can accept it as correct. I will follow the facts and evidence where they lead, regardless of who made the claim. On the other hand, if a brilliant scientist makes a claim, I immediately file it under "probably right." If further study proves that it is a mistaken claim, I will dismiss it as false.

Tribal reasoning is as old as the human species. Reason is not.

Well, since it’s coming from ScienceDirect, I’ll believe it.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, I say unfortunately because it is sad that most people fall into this trap.. It seems that the message is less important than the messenger! I have noticed here on this site such tendencies when it comes to anything at all to do with either religion or politics. Not everything in every religion can be bad surely or everything in the politics of the other party either. If a Christian or Muslim does something charitable it can’t render it less an act of kindness because we don’t subscribe to their belief system. By the same token, everyone in the Republican Party cannot be an out and out rabid right wing evangelical nutcase. My advice is take everything and everyone on their individual merits instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that you disagree with them.

Not if you try to think critically. I understand what you are saying and see it happen all the time especially now. That is why it is most important to step back and give real thought!