Tribalism And Its Impact On Rational Discussion

Aspects of human nature that call for belligerence when challenged, not necessarily physically, but on beliefs appears to be a holdover from a prehistoric time when survival was dependent upon loyalty to the tribe one belonged to. We are all aware of animosities that result from differences in religion, political persuasions, beliefs that have been drummed into us at an early age. What, imo, we should become more aware of are the reasons why confrontational antagonisms rather than rational debate too often result when alternatives are presented. The best answer I can think of is our heritage of tribalism, a vestige of ancient times that protected the group, a survival mechanism that offered increased protection by a banding together when confronted by other tribes. Nothing was more sure to decrease one’s own personal security than banishment from the group.

Today we live in nation-states where our physical security is a government function. Such centralized security is a modern concept, no more than 5000 years old, a drop in time compared to our pre-historic evolution that created our sense of tribalism. Despite, the relatively modern invention of state imposed security, we instinctively find differences that stimulate our tribal behavior most obviously in racism and religions. Unlike non-tribal rational debate, tribal responses require an enemy because any challenger being construed an enemy must not simply be proven wrong, but must be annihilated, if not physically, by the peers of the challenged tribe.

What got me on this train of thought was Dr. Wildey’s response to among other things, my reference to a study that documented 80% of academic endodontists being the recipients of industrial payments, an article published in the JADA, hardly a radical source of information. He stated repeatedly in very strong terms that in referencing such information I am insulting the majority of teachers and he felt obliged to defend this particular group (tribe). His presumed goal is to rally the tribe to banish an interloper, such as myself, an attacker on the integrity of the group. Indeed, if these were ancient times where survival is at stake, he would have a point. Today, my referencing such documented evidence and his response is not a question of survival. Rather, it is data that points to a flaw in the educational process, a dramatic example of corporate influence that undermines an unbiased educational experience that clearly decreases the students’ opportunities to enhance their critical thinking skills. In short, those educating the students and doing the comparative research studies should simply not be the recipients of payments from companies whose goal is to sell product to those same students upon graduation.

Shedding light on these conditions that exist today does not call for warfare. It calls for policies that at a minimum discourage such activity. If shedding such light is interpreted as an attack on the tribe rather than an attempt to improve our educational approach, and nothing is more important than the survival of the group, despite the fact that such enlightenment is no threat to its survival, then those defending the tribe by default are content with the status quo and any compromises in education are worth the price of of stability. That is a heavy price to pay for stability and in reality even tribalism is not ultimately strong enough to ward off progress. That is why the germ theory of infection was finally accepted in the medical profession saving untold numbers of lives despite years of denigration of those who first brought this concept to life.

From my perspective, if we cannot escape our heritage of tribalism, then lets become part of a tribe that defines itself by all the principles of the Age of Enlightenment. In terms of progress let’s adhere to the scientific method without any commercial sources of influence. The scientific method offers no advantages to corporate marketing strategies and the schools they are working with. This lack of mutual economic benefit that would then exist should never be a reason to substitute it for the scientific method. Yet, this is what exists today offering strong evidence that in today’s environment of academic capitalism commercial interests that provide profits for both the schools and their sponsoring corporations take precedence over a non-biased education. Bringing to light the indoctrinating quality of education is not an act of aggression against a tribe dedicated to critical thinking. It is an act that seeks to improve the current state of education, emphasizing the students’ expanded potential to make informed decisions rather than creating a body of future consumers.

That is the tribe I am dedicated to belonging to. For those who want to challenge that claim, let’s limit the discussion to the scientific method. In regard to endodontic instrumentation, clarifying the mechanics of form and function as it appears in the various systems available today and their impact on canal preparations is what the discussion should be limited to with a complete absence of speculation on any personal motivations. This approach is most productive and is enhanced by those dedicated to this goal.

Regards, Barry