And while we’re on the subject of which is better, the iPhone is far superior to Android devices, objectively the iPad is the best tablet out there, and digital imaging is superior. more than similar films in every conceivable way.
Now, if I can stop you there and get your attention before you go to the comments section to tell me how wrong I was, how bad my photography is and how I What a bad person to be. I want you to consider only the emotional response that can come from a simple statement about the camera brand. You may be reading this to see what well-thought-out argument I make in favor of the Canon brand, you may be reading this because you agree with that statement, or you may be boiling with rage. when a stranger on the net wrote an article. with a title you basically disagree with.
Lately, I’ve become acutely aware of how tribal people can become for something as simple as fancy brands and how easily we can group ourselves for something so customary. like the device we want to use to take pictures. We’ve all seen debates on tech forums or social media whenever someone innocently asks which new laptop to buy and as usual on social media. assembly, it can become an attack on one’s character, simply because they like Apple or Intel Processors in their laptops. It’s actually pretty silly, but we as humans are hard to identify with people similar to us. We find comfort and security in the familiar.
People thrive in the context of intense group competition, and groups that include loyal members are often more successful than those that don’t. Thus, selective pressures have continuously turned the human mind into “tribal”, and group loyalty and cognitive bias can simultaneously exist in all groups.
-Clark, Cory J. and Liu, Brittany S. and Winegard, Bo M. and Ditto, Peter H. (2019) ‘Tribalism is human nature.’
To some extent, we may feel that when someone chooses to use a device other than ours, if they are “right” that their device is “the best”, then we must be “wrong”. ” and our device is not “best”. ” Therefore, it can feel like a personal attack when another person is simply advocating for something you have chosen not to buy. In reality, we know that not every decision is binary. We all make decisions about which toolkit to use based on our own needs, and our own needs are often not comparable to an internet stranger on another continent.
Taking a step back and looking at how people group themselves can be very interesting. When I was a teenager, going to a new place, I found myself wanting to stand and talk to people dressed like me. We look for the familiar for comfort. In fact, my best friend, best man at my wedding, became my friend because we’re both a bit goofy, live close to each other, and sit in the same class. Now I want to throw myself in front of the bus for that man because we both love indie movies and Nintendo was in 1994.
In sociology and social psychology, a group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as a member. In contrast, an outgroup is a social group that an individual does not identify. For example, people can identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena. This term was popularized by Henri Tajfel and colleagues began in the 1970s during his formulation of social identity theory.
We may wonder why ingroup positive bias persists, even in arbitrarily assigned groups, where group members have nothing in common beyond the group to which they are assigned: machine which laptop we like, or our fashion sense. Research shows that unconscious decision-making processes take place at the neural level, where in-group and out-of-group bias occurs very early in cognition. We are immediately drawn to the familiar.
There has been a great deal of research into the innate bias in the human brain to divide the world into “us and them” categories, where the exact members of the in-group and the out-group are completely arbitrary and division intensities run along the spectrum from mild to complete dehumidification of the “othered” group. There are many historical examples of this phenomenon, and the use of modern mass media and propaganda to create groups is well documented. That’s enough, I don’t want it to become a political article.
One of the best examples of subdivision I’ve witnessed first hand was when I played a supporting role in a zombie movie in the early 2000s. It was a massive production with hundreds of extras. on film set. We’ve all looked at the closet, then put on our makeup, and are now gathering in the food court to eat before filming begins. Without any prompting, all the people dressed as zombies sat together, all the soldiers sat together, and all the civilians sat together. It’s like being in high school again.
The internet revolution seems to have given rise to more and more subgroups and groups in highly niche groups. As a motorcycle enthusiast, I have always identified myself as a “biker” (although I don’t dress like a traditional biker). In 2016, I joined a national racers club. Membership in this club is based not only on motorcycle riding but also on specific models of a particular motorcycle brand, excluding owners of other makes and models. Many members are very protective of their motorcycle choice and will actively promote the brand to anyone who asks.
The internet has allowed more people to reach out to others who like the same things as them. It allows people to feel that they belong and have an identity. It also offers more potential to exclude others from highly relevant subgroups.
In summary, when viewing photography forums or photography groups on social media, we should all remember that the group within the group we identify as other photographers and that helping and supporting other photographers would be much more beneficial to the photography community than attacking one’s character because they paid $3,000 for a new MacBook Pro or because they use a camera from a different company than friend. It’s not a personal attack if someone says they like using a different brand than someone else.
Finally, in response to the opening of this article, the Canon Rebel T2i (550D in Europe) was the first DSLR I bought, then I upgraded to a Canon 7D and started investing in L-series lenses. I’m still loyal to this brand because I’ve invested a lot in Canon glasses. If I had bought a D300S thirteen years ago, I might still be using a Nikon camera. I use one MacBook Pro, as I personally find Apple laptops have fewer hardware and software problems than the Windows machines I own. I also find Apple’s ecosystem to support productivity with simple features like universal copy and paste and AirDrop. Although I enjoy using my kit, I have no feelings for it. Brand choice is not identity.
If you scrolled straight to the bottom to see the comments, the headline is interesting and you might want to read the article before typing that emotional response.
Have you seen any examples of grouping in the photography or tech community? Let me know in the comments section.
