Othering Isn’t a Glitch. It’s the Default. What We Do Next Is Design.

On the September 28 episode of The Ezra Klein Show, taped days after the assassination of far-right, conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Ezra Klein intimated an important question: Where do we draw the boundary between debate and complicity? Should we treat people with openly hateful views as worthy interlocutors? Or is there a moral threshold that, once crossed, places them beyond the circle of civility?

It’s a critical question. But as I listened, I kept thinking: the line they’re debating isn’t just out there, in politics or public discourse. It’s inside us; inside the human mind.

The research for the past three decades is quite clear: We do not wait for people to cross a moral line before rationally deciding who’s “in” and who’s “out”. Our preconscious minds have already drawn the boundaries. The machinery for “us vs. them” comes factory installed. We don’t fall into othering – we start there. Evolution built it in. Culture and politics simply decide what we do with it.

So maybe the real issue isn’t whether or not we should engage with someone whose “gone too far.” Maybe the issue is that before we knew anything about them, our minds had long since pre-determined their label. “Not like me. Not like us. Other.”

And if that’s true, then the moral clarity Klein and Coates advocated for (albeit from different vantage points), is not enough. Neither is outrage. If we want to do better – individually and collectively – we need to stop telling ourselves the line is outside of us. Instead, we need to accept the painful truth that the line is, in fact, inside of us. Understanding this is the only thing that will save us.

With this in mind, I want to explore:

• why “othering” is the default, not a deviation
• what neuroscience tells us about the mechanisms of the mind
• and how we can build teams, communities, and public spaces that work with that truth, not against it

I’m not asking you to like the idea that othering is natural. I’m asking you to take seriously what happens when we act like it isn’t.

The brain comes “other-ready”

Scientists have discovered that dehumanization isn’t just a bad attitude. It’s actually something the brain can do. Over the past 20 years, neuroscience has shown that our brains can switch into a mode where we stop seeing certain people as fully human.

In a well-known study, researchers Lasana Harris and Susan Fiske found that when participants viewed images of highly stigmatized groups, parts of the brain that usually light up when we think about other people’s thoughts and feelings (especially the medial prefrontal cortex) were much less active. In other words, the brain was treating those people less like individuals with minds of their own.

That’s what dehumanization looks like not just as an idea, but as a measurable pattern in brain activity. It’s not a figure of speech. It’s something you can literally see in a brain scan. (Harris & Fiske (PDF); Princeton listing: Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low — Princeton.)

In his book, Invisible Mind, Lasana Harris explains that our ability to think about other people’s thoughts and feelings (what scientists call social cognition) isn’t always “on.” It’s flexible. Depending on the situation, the social norms around us, or what we’re trying to achieve, we can switch that ability on or off. That helps explain why a person can be tender with a child and cruel to a stranger on the same day. The circuitry is intact, but it’s not always engaged. (MIT Press page: Invisible Mind — MIT Press)

Treating people as “others” can actually feel good – at least, to the brain. Research on group rivalry shows that when our group succeeds, or when a competing group fails, a part of the brain linked to reward and pleasure (called the ventral striatum) becomes active. In some cases, people even feel pleasure when a rival is in pain. And that feeling can predict whether someone is more likely to hurt others or refuse to help them. (Examples: Cikara et al. (highlights PDF); Schadenfreude — ScienceDirect topic overview; Cikara et al. (Europe PMC).)

You don’t need a real history or previous connection between groups to see bias. In fact, just a simple “us vs. them” can trigger it. In classic experiments using what’s called the minimal-group paradigm, researchers randomly assign people to arbitrary groups (for example, “Group Red” or “Group Blue”) with no real significance, and yet people still prefer their own group over the other. They give more advantages to “ingroup” members and show subtle unfairness toward “outgroup” members.

So, it’s not necessary that two groups have ever interacted or have a shared past. The brain starts favoring “us” over “them” even when the division is meaningless.

If you’d like to explore a narrative explanation of this phenomena, David Eagleman’s PBS series and book lay out how ingroup/outgroup labeling can throttle empathy and drive mass behavior, and how propaganda exploits those levers. (PBS pages; The Brain — Episode 5 (PBS); Free version for viewing on Facebook)

Bottom line: othering isn’t a moral defect some people have and others don’t; it’s a capacity all people have. It’s a pre-conscious response we all assume is a truth. And while we may not be able to stop humans from othering altogether, we can learn to recognize it within ourselves in order to slow or even interrupt our collective slide toward ongoing dehumanization and harm.

Why the Klein–Coates frame misses the leverage point

• Klein emphasizes power: build coalitions wide enough to win because power should protect the vulnerable
• Coates emphasizes moral guardrails: some rhetoric and policies violate human dignity and normalizing them is corrosive

I agree with aspects of both positions, but each rests on a shaky assumption that othering is either a political tactic we can dial down (Klein) or a violation of norms that we can shame out of the system (Coates). The science says othering will surface regardless because it’s what brains do when our sense of “identity” is engaged. The lever isn’t denial or indignation – it’s architecture. Evolution has pre-determined our norms, incentives, roles, and rituals – the “we/they” dynamics are already built in. The task is not to eliminate them, but to design systems that give them structure: safe, bounded forms of contest (sports, debate, competition) that satisfy our drive for identity and reward without creating scapegoats. Rationalizing these ancient and automatic systems is how we get ourselves into trouble. We create monsters to justify fears we don’t understand.

This is the move from antagonism (enemies to defeat) to agonism (adversaries you contest without stripping their personhood). Political theorist Chantal Mouffe has argued for years that healthy democracies should channel conflict rather than fantasize it away.

Design principles: turn the default into discipline

So, what are we to do? If othering is our default setting, is human-on-human hate and violence inevitable?

It doesn’t have to be. Biology may hand us the blueprint, but context rewrites the script. The same brain that defaults to division also responds to design: norms, rituals, and environments that reroute attention, reward, and identity. The evidence doesn’t just diagnose the problem; it gives us leverage to solve it, if we want to.

The following Principles for Design are not abstractions or moral hopes. They’re applied responses rooted in what we know about how brains work and what environments can do. Yes, our wiring tends toward division and even rewards it. But design principles can become a form of discipline – a way to interrupt defaults, redirect energy, and build something sturdier than outrage. I’ll be the first to say that none of this is perfect, and it is certainly not utopian. But I know from experience that it is doable, and it changes us.

1) Dignity Floor (non-negotiable)
Every space needs a baseline: clear boundaries around language, conduct, and proposals that protect human dignity and keep the mentalizing switch “on.”

• Guardrail: Zero dehumanizing slurs; no humiliation as content; no rights-stripping proposals.
• Lever: Publicly codify norms up front, meaning what we debate, how we debate, and what triggers a reset. (This keeps mentalizing “on” when tension spikes. Read more here.)

2) Identity Scaffolds (distinctiveness without enemies)
Give people ways to feel proud of who they are without defining themselves against others, by rooting identity in values and actions, not rivalry.

• Guardrail: No identity gain may depend on outgroup degradation.
• Lever: Define “who we are” with verbs (“we show up first,” “we ask before we act”), not villains. Social Identity Theory tells us people crave positive distinctiveness; give them prosocial ways to get it. (Minimal-group work shows how easily identity constructs form; use that power carefully. Prosocial World offers amazing courses and free tools to do this work. Our approach at the RW Institute is based on this type of scientific understanding).

3) Reward Re-routing (feed the right loops)
Shift recognition and incentives toward collaboration and shared wins, so that the brain’s reward system reinforces connection instead of conflict.

• Guardrail: No “owning the other side” metrics.
• Lever: Point the dopamine at joint outcomes: co-authored dashboards, recognition for cross-group problem-solving, public celebration of “wins against the problem.” Striatal learning cares about salience and immediacy; make cooperation the fastest reward. (Read more here: On reward and intergroup outcomes;  overview of VS in reward learning).

4) Agonistic Arenas (fight clean, in bounds)
Design structured spaces for disagreement where opponents are respected as co-participants, not enemies, and the rules protect dignity and clarity.

• Guardrail: Before arguing, each side must steelman the other’s view; moderators enforce time, tone, and terms.
• Lever: Make the opponent a role, not an enemy. Mouffe’s agonism is useful here: conflict is legitimate, but opponents remain co-owners of the space. (Readable primer).

5) Contact Done Right (conditions matter)
Facilitated dialogue only works under the right conditions: equal status, common goals, and institutional support are essential for real progress.

• Guardrail: Don’t toss people into “dialogue” that lacks equal status, common goals, or institutional support—it backfires.
• Lever: Use Allport’s conditions and Pettigrew & Tropp’s meta-analysis: properly structured contact reduces prejudice across hundreds of studies. (Meta-analysis PDF).

Three experiments you can run this quarter – just for you!

Systems change begins with individuals. You can train your own brain to see the “we/they” line as it forms, ask better questions about your reactions, and redirect them toward constructive contest. Each of the following experiments is small, time‑boxed and fully under your control. They include steps, likely friction points and visible signals to reassure your ventral striatum (which is important for change to last) that the work is paying off.

1. Tripwire & Replace (seven‑day awareness sprint)

When the brain perceives an out‑group, activity in the medial prefrontal cortex — a region used to represent other minds — can switch off. (You can read more about “Detecting Prejudice In The Brain” sciencedaily.com.) The result feels like moral clarity but are actually dehumanization. The goal of this drill is to catch that reflex and switch to “adversary‑not‑enemy” language before it takes over.

What to do

• Pick two “tripwires.” Choose two routine contexts (e.g., reading headlines and scrolling social media) where “othering” thoughts are likely.
• Notice the tell. Identify your bodily signal that precedes an outburst (tight jaw, hot chest, desire to dunk).
• Say the micro‑cue. When the tell appears, whisper or think: “Adversary, not enemy.”
• Replace the sentence. Turn an essence attack (e.g., “They’re monsters”) into an action‑focused critique (e.g., “This policy denies equal standing; I will oppose it”).
• Track it. Make a simple tally—one mark per successful catch.

Likely friction and feelings

• At first this may feel forced or like “letting them off the hook.” Expect anger or righteousness followed by embarrassment. Remind yourself that the goal is precision, not indulgence.

Success signals and indicators

• You reduce the time between trigger and catch from about 20 seconds to less than 5 seconds by day 7.
• At least ten caught reflexes over the week.
• 100 % of replacements shift from attacking identity to critiquing behaviour.
• Every check mark equals one point; seven points win you a small treat. (Pick something you really enjoy!) These micro‑rewards hack the same reward circuits that fire when we see a rival lose. (Read more here: sciencedaily.com.)

2. 90‑second steelman + boundary script (two‑week interruption drill)

Before our moral outrage runs away with us, forcing ourselves to represent the other side’s best argument keeps the mentalizing network engaged. Pairing that with a clear boundary statement keeps dignity non‑negotiable, but it’s not easy.

What to do

• Write a non‑negotiable boundary. Craft one sentence you can live with, e.g.: “I will not support rhetoric that denies equal dignity; I will argue policies and harms.”
• Prepare a three‑line steelman template: “What they value is ___.” “Their best evidence/story is ___.” “A fair person would agree they’re right that ___.”
• Run the sequence. When triggered, take 90 seconds to fill in the template, speak your boundary out loud, then offer your critique.
• Self‑check. After each episode, mark whether you completed all three lines plus the boundary.

Likely friction and feelings

• You may fear “betraying” your side by acknowledging anything valid. Anxiety is common, followed by relief and sometimes pride for maintaining discipline. Remember: naming one valid point does not concede the argument – it re‑opens agonistic space. (Read more here: sciencedaily.com)

Success signals and indicators

• You complete the full steelman + boundary in at least 6 of 10 trigger moments.
• You notice fewer rewrites of angry emails or posts; aim for a 50 % reduction by the end of week 2.
• Zero essentializing labels (“vermin,” “evil people”) in your notes or speech.
• Your subjective “heat” rating drops from 7/10 before the script to less than 4/10 after it. This tangible drop cues your brain that the intervention is working.

3. Cross‑identity micro‑bridge (four‑week habit with receipts)

Randomly assigning people to “us” and “them” is enough to produce bias, but sustained contact under the right conditions reliably reduces prejudice. This experiment leverages is based on evidence that on a micro scale we can re‑wire our own confirmation bias.

What to do

• Choose one venue across the divide. This could be a comment thread, an opposing newsletter or a podcast with a different audience.
• Set a weekly micro‑bridge rule. Each week, do one of the following: (a) ask a genuinely curious, non‑leading question; (b) offer one accurate, sourced correction without snark; or (c) start by affirming a shared value (“we both care about…”), then express your disagreement.
• Use a closing line to signal the boundary: “I oppose [policy] because [harm], and I won’t cross into dehumanizing language.”
• Capture the receipt. Take a screenshot or save the link to each engagement in a running log.

Likely friction and feelings

• You may feel vulnerable or fear social backlash for engaging outside your echo chamber. Shorten the commitment to ten minutes and remind yourself that you can leave after your closing line.

Success signals and indicators

• Complete four receipts in four weeks.
• Count the ratio of substantive to ad‑hominem replies; even a shift from zero to one substantive reply is a win. Research on costly helping shows that empathy‑related brain regions motivate helping while reward‑related regions inhibit it when viewing out‑group pain sciencedaily.com; incremental positive feedback helps flip that switch.
• Notice your own doom‑scrolling time drop by about 15%.
• Write a one‑line reflection after each action beginning “I practiced discipline by ….” This immediate self‑affirmation is your dopamine trigger.

Why these micro‑experiments work

Each practice redirects the brain’s default settings rather than denying them.

• The tripwire drill keeps the mentalizing network online when disgust would normally shut it down.
• The steelman + boundary sequence engages our capacity to represent other minds while clearly marking unacceptable rhetoric.
• And the micro‑bridge habit applies decades of intergroup contact research showing that even minimal exposure across group lines can alter attitudes.

All three provide fast, countable indicators (marks, scripts, receipts) that tell your reward system something is happening. Over time, these small loops accumulate into the civic habit of designing for conflict rather than fantasizing it away.

An Extreme Case: Syndrome E

One more boundary we should name out loud: there is a documented pathway from ordinary othering to extreme, repetitive violence (neurologist Itzhak Fried calls this “Syndrome E”).  These are “individuals obsessed with a set of beliefs, often directed against a minority group. The combination of repetitive, stereotyped acts accompanied by recurring ideation resembles the symptoms and signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder.” Our design work isn’t naïve about that slope; it explicitly builds frictions against it. (Fried, The Lancet 1997:   The Brains That Pull the Triggers. Syndrome E)

My stance

Both Klein and Coates are talking about lines. One wants power to protect people; the other wants moral floors that keep people human. I think their debate is missing a key premise: othering is the brain’s default. We can’t erase it, but we can channel it. That means designing guardrails that make dignity a non-negotiable, creating arenas where adversaries are worthy opponents, and pointing the brain’s reward machinery at shared wins instead of schadenfreude (pleasure derived from another’s misfortune).

This is not appeasement. Rather, it’s how we keep the social mind from sliding down a slippery slope from harmless “we versus they” into the kind of dehumanization that is history’s brightly bloodied red flag. Our tired excuses and antiquated political systems no longer hold up to the science; it’s time we heed history’s warnings and evolve intentionally toward a future in which humanity thrives – together.

References (selected)

• Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Neuroimaging Responses to Extreme Out-Groups.This neuroimaging study reveals that the brain processes “extreme out-groups” (like the unhoused or individuals with addiction) with disgust, failing to activate the neural pathways typically associated with social cognition, which suggests that at a neurological level, these individuals may not be perceived as fully human. For social impact professionals, this highlights the profound, subconscious nature of “othering” and the need for interventions that go beyond conscious bias training to fundamentally shift perception and engender empathy. Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low — Princeton.
• Harris, L. T. (2017). Invisible Mind: Flexible Social Cognition and Dehumanization.Harris’s work explains that our ability to recognize the minds of others is not constant; we can flexibly withhold this social cognition, which leads to dehumanization. This concept provides a framework for understanding how ordinary people can commit harmful acts, offering a crucial insight for CSR professionals on the importance of fostering environments that consistently encourage recognizing the humanity and mental states of all individuals. Invisible Mind — Penguin Random House.
• Cikara, M., Botvinick, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us vs. Them: Social Identity Shapes Neural Responses to Intergroup Competition and Harm.This research demonstrates that intergroup competition can trigger pleasure responses in the brain (specifically, in the ventral striatum) when a rival group fails, and this neurological reaction correlates with a higher likelihood of aggressing against individuals from that rival group. This finding underscores the neurological link between schadenfreude (pleasure at others’ misfortune) and harm, indicating that CSR initiatives must address the competitive dynamics between groups to mitigate harmful behaviors. Cikara et al. (PDF).
• Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011/2012). Stereotypes and Schadenfreude.This work shows that people often fail to empathize with outgroup members and can even experience pleasure (schadenfreude) at their misfortunes, with envy being a potent predictor of this response. For social impact professionals, this highlights that stereotypes of high-status, competitive groups can fuel a desire for their downfall, complicating efforts to build bridges between groups with perceived power imbalances. Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses; M. Cikara a,⁎, E. Bruneau b, J.J. Van Bavelc, R. Saxe, 2014.
• Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour.Tajfel’s foundational research shows that merely categorizing people into groups, even based on trivial criteria, is sufficient to produce in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. This insight is critical for CSR professionals, as it demonstrates that “othering” does not require pre-existing hostility or conflict but can be an automatic consequence of social categorization, highlighting the need for proactive strategies to break down even arbitrary group divisions.
• Kappes, A., et al. (2020). Confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinion strength.This study reveals that we are more likely to give weight to the opinions of others when they confirm our own beliefs, and we tend to discount or ignore information that challenges our existing views. For social impact professionals, this highlights the difficulty in changing minds about “othered” groups, as people are neurologically predisposed to reject information that contradicts their biases, which underscores the importance of creating experiences that allow for genuine, personal reassessment of preconceived notions. VT news: Virginia Tech digest.
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory.This comprehensive meta-analysis of over 500 studies confirms that intergroup contact typically reduces prejudice, with the effects being even stronger when optimal conditions (like equal status and common goals) are met. This provides strong evidence for social impact professionals that well-designed programs promoting meaningful interaction between different groups are an effective strategy for reducing “othering” and fostering positive community relations.
• Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice.Allport’s seminal work provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the roots of prejudice, outlining the famous “contact hypothesis” which posits that prejudice can be reduced through positive, cooperative, and equal-status interaction between groups. For CSR professionals, this offers a foundational, evidence-based theory for designing community investment programs that actively work to dismantle prejudice by creating structured opportunities for positive intergroup contact.
• Eagleman, D. (2015). The Brain: The Story of You / PBS series, Episode 5 “In-Group/Out-Group.”(Watch for free on Facebook). This episode of the PBS series “The Brain” explores the neural basis of in-group favoritism and out-group derogation, illustrating how easily our brains create “us vs. them” distinctions and how this can lead to dehumanization and conflict. It provides an accessible and compelling narrative for social impact professionals on the biological underpinnings of “othering,” emphasizing the need for conscious efforts to override these automatic tendencies and expand our sense of “us.” Eagleman — Book extract.
• Fried, I. (1997). Syndrome E.Fried’s work proposes “Syndrome E” as a neurological condition that can affect groups of people, leading to a diminished emotional response and enabling them to commit atrocities without feeling empathy or remorse. This concept is crucial for social impact professionals as it frames extreme “othering” not just as a moral failing but as a potential neurological state, highlighting the importance of preventing the societal conditions that could foster such a transformation. The Brains That Pull the Triggers — Paris IEA. (The Lancet)
• Mouffe, C. (various). Agonistic Pluralism.Mouffe’s theory of agonistic pluralism argues that conflict is an inherent and necessary part of politics, and that the goal should not be to eliminate dissent but to transform destructive “antagonism” (us vs. them) into a more constructive “agonism” (adversaries who respect each other’s right to exist). This provides a powerful framework for CSR professionals to think about “othering” not as something to be eradicated entirely, but as a force to be channeled from destructive conflict into a more productive form of political and social engagement. Mouffe — Core overview (PDF)