Systems Theory: Understanding Group Dynamics
We all know someone kind, compassionate, and understanding on a one-on-one level — the type of person you’d trust with your life and rely on in times of need. But something changes when they’re in certain groups. They seem like someone else entirely. Are you witnessing a glimpse into a hidden side of their character, or are they simply adapting to social dynamics? Which version is real? The person you thought you knew? Or the person you’re observing? Perhaps both?
Does our ‘true self’ exist in isolation, or is it an ever-evolving composite of our interactions? How might understanding these systemic influences reshape our long-term views on personality and social dynamics? The contrast between the individuals we thought we knew and the personas on display within a group setting is a testament to the complexity of human existence. It’s so complex that I’ve turned to systems theory to help make sense of it.
Defining Complex Systems
In his essay “The Architecture of Complexity,” H.A. Simon defines complex systems:
Roughly, by a complex system I mean one made up of a large number of parts that interact in a nonsimple way. In such systems, the whole is more than the sum of the parts, not in an ultimate, metaphysical sense, but in the important pragmatic sense that, given the properties of the parts and the laws of their interaction, it is not a trivial matter to infer the properties of the whole.
In just 17 pages, Simon pulls together observations from various fields, including biology, physics, and economics, to argue that complex systems share certain fundamental characteristics regardless of their specific nature.
By Simon’s definition, humans are undeniably complex systems — fractals in a biological sense. Systems within systems within systems. Take the digestive process, for example. Digestion begins in the mouth, where food is broken down and transported through the esophagus to the stomach for further dissolution. In the small intestine, nutrients are absorbed by villi and microvilli through a barrier of epithelial cells. Embedded in the microvilli, enzymes like lactase and peptidase break down these nutrients. These enzymes are composed of proteins — folded chains of amino acids held together by peptide bonds. The atoms in the amino acids are joined by covalent bonds, involving the sharing of electrons. And on and on. And that’s just one human system.
Each individual is a complex universe. When we organize into groups, this complexity multiplies. Families, communities, organizations — they’re macro expansions of the intricate systems within each of us. In groups, humans can achieve extraordinary things, for better or worse. While groups can drive society forward, they also have a darker side.
Like subatomic particles behaving differently when bound in an atom, individuals often exhibit altered properties when part of a group. This phenomenon, studied in social psychology and cognitive neuroscience, reveals the power of group identity. As Rebecca Saxe, an associate professor of cognitive neuroscience at MIT, pointed out, groups are more than a collection of individuals:
“Although humans exhibit strong preferences for equity and moral prohibitions against harm in many contexts, people’s priorities change when there is an ‘us’ and a ‘them. A group of people will often engage in actions that are contrary to the private moral standards of each individual in that group…”
Nearly Decomposable Systems
I once believed that society functioned as what Simon called ‘nearly decomposable systems.’ These systems, composed of interacting modules, maintain their identities while contributing to the system’s overall behavior. It’s a concept that Douglas Hofstadter illustrated in ‘Gödel, Escher, and Bach.’ He used the example of gas within a container. Picture the gas molecules as individuals, each with its own properties like mass and velocity. They interact through collisions, exerting pressure on the container’s walls. Yet, despite these interactions, each molecule retains its unique identity. But collectively? These interactions give rise to emergent properties like temperature and pressure, characterizing the behavior of the gas as a whole.
While the individual remains the basic unit, humans are inherently social. Groups serve as nearly decomposable systems, complex networks in which individuals interact. Within these systems, individuals maintain their unique identities and sense of self. Yet, they are inevitably influenced by the collective and, in turn, influence the group.
The Shift in Group Dynamics
However, I believe we’re experiencing a shift towards another type of system that Hofstadter described — a powerful one where “the nucleus of an atom [is] being swallowed up into the larger system, and loses [its] some or all of [its] individuality.” In the societal context, this represents groups becoming such dominant forces that they threaten to overshadow, even subsume, the individual. Personal uniqueness and the ability to think independently — these are at risk of being consumed.
This phenomenon resembles what social psychologists term ‘deindividuation’ — the loss of self-awareness in group settings. As group identities become increasingly dominant, the space for individual thought and dissent may shrink.
To better understand this, consider atomic nuclei. In a stable atom, the nucleus — a dense core composed of protons and neutrons — maintains a distinct identity. It’s governed by forces that bind these particles together. But what happens under extreme conditions, like in a high-energy collision? Nuclei can merge and be absorbed into a larger structure. This is precisely what occurs during nuclear fusion. In this process, individual nuclei combine to form a new, more massive nucleus. The result? A tremendous release of energy. The original characteristics of the individual nuclei are lost in the fusion.
This is what happens when individuals become deeply ingrained in a group. The group’s dynamics can override individual thoughts, behaviors, and beliefs, leading to a homogenized entity.
Social media platforms exemplify this phenomenon. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram are designed to maximize user engagement by prioritizing content that elicits strong emotional responses. This results in the amplification of extreme viewpoints and the creation of echo chambers, where individuals are exposed to information that reinforces their existing beliefs while contrary viewpoints are marginalized.
The result? Uniformity of thought. Nuance is often a casualty when even complicated issues are reduced to one-liners and memes. Algorithms favor emotionally charged, moral, and in-group information, known as “PRIME” information, which can skew perceptions and contribute to polarization by making extreme views appear more common and legitimate than they are.
The rise of cancel culture further illustrates this shift. In an environment where deviation can result in severe social and professional repercussions, individuals self-censor or adapt their behavior to fit the collective. It’s a survival mechanism, a way to avoid being “canceled.” But at what cost?
Meanwhile, identity politics encourages individuals to view themselves primarily through the lens of group identity. This can lead to a reductionist view of the self. While this can empower marginalized groups and give a voice to the voiceless, it can also lead to the death of nuance and open-mindedness within those groups. Like a pendulum swinging to extremes, the push for group cohesion seems to have overshot.
Academia, once a beacon of free thought and intellectual diversity, is another area where we see the group consuming the individual. In recent years, a growing concern about the shrinking diversity of views within academic institutions has emerged. Long celebrated as bastions of deliberation and rigorous debate, these institutions are becoming environments where some viewpoints dominate, and others are discouraged or outright silenced.
As Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt discuss in “The Coddling of the American Mind,” a shift has occurred in many universities, emphasizing emotional comfort over intellectual challenge. This has led to the rise of “safetyism,” where the pursuit of psychological safety results in the suppression of dissenting opinions and the avoidance of controversial topics. The authors argue that this trend undermines the very purpose of higher education, which is to expose students to diverse perspectives and foster critical thinking skills.
The university is at risk of becoming a club, where continued membership is based on paying dues — adherence to prescribed judgments. Instead of encouraging robust debate and the exploration of uncomfortable ideas, there is a growing pressure to conform to a narrow set of beliefs. This environment not only stifles intellectual growth but also prepares students poorly for disagreements in the real world.
The energy released in nuclear fusion is immense, a force that can be both beneficial and destructive. In uncontrolled settings, like a hydrogen bomb, this energy is destructive, a power that can level cities and reshape landscapes in the blink of an eye.
Similarly, if left unchecked, a group’s power can lead to a different kind of destruction: a homogenization that suppresses individuality. This force can create deep societal rifts and conflicts, tearing at the fabric of our communities. But how exactly do groups influence individuals?
Groups Intensify Attitudes & Behaviors
Group dynamics have a remarkable ability to intensify attitudes, a phenomenon that occurs when group members adopt more extreme positions than they would individually. Studies show that when like-minded individuals discuss their political views, their opinions become more extreme. Cass Sunstein’s research found that liberal groups become more liberal, and conservative groups become more conservative in such discussions.
This extends to behaviors. When people gather to protest, the collective energy and shared emotions can escalate, sometimes culminating in destruction and violence that most individuals would normally condemn. Even in protests advocating for peace, the influence of the group can lead to outcomes that are anything but peaceful. Innocent bystanders can be harmed, property damaged, and the very message of the demonstration undermined. Under the group’s sway, these ‘peaceful’ individuals lose sight of their morals and identity.
Like a magnifying glass focusing sunlight, groups can concentrate and amplify individual attitudes and behaviors, sometimes to the point of ignition. This process can transform ordinary people into participants in extraordinary events, both positive and negative. Over time, this polarization can lead to increasingly fractured societies, making consensus and compromise more difficult.
Groups Promote Anonymity
Groups promote a sense of anonymity, both metaphorically and physically. When people are part of a group, they feel less accountable, believing they can blend into the crowd, their actions diffused among the many. This sense of anonymity can be incredibly emboldening, giving people the courage to act in ways they typically wouldn’t.
Metaphorically, this phenomenon is evident in riots. Individuals who typically adhere to social norms and personal ethics can be swept up in the collective energy. The feeling of being one among many creates a psychological shield, making people feel less visible and accountable. Vandalism, looting, even violence — these are things that most participants would never engage in on their own. But in the heat of the moment, caught up in the group’s fervor, these actions can suddenly seem acceptable, even justified.
The promotion of anonymity can also be seen in a physical sense, as illustrated by groups like the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and, recently, by protesters across college campuses nationwide. In these cases, members wear masks and hoods to conceal their identities, creating a literal barrier between themselves and the outside world. Hidden behind these disguises, members feel protected from legal and social repercussions and emboldened to commit acts of terror and violence they would otherwise avoid.
It’s a striking transformation: individuals, stripped of their accountability, merge into a collective that acts almost as a single entity. Each person’s distinctiveness fades, and what emerges is a new identity shaped by the group’s dynamics. This isn’t just about individual choices but about the influence of the systems we find ourselves in, where the line between the individual and the collective blurs in ways we might not fully comprehend.
Groups Reframe Harmful Actions
Another impact of group dynamics is the tendency to reframe harmful actions as necessary for the greater good. This occurs when groups face external threats or internal pressures, leading to the justification of actions that would be unacceptable on an individual level. The collective mindset rationalizes these actions as essential to achieving some noble goal.
An example is the McCarthy era in the United States during the early 1950s. Senator Joseph McCarthy and his supporters launched a campaign to root out alleged communists from American society. They targeted individuals in government, entertainment, and other influential sectors, casting a wide net of suspicion. This period, known as the Red Scare, was marked by aggressive investigations, baseless accusations, and widespread violations of civil liberties.
The actions taken during this time, including blacklisting, imprisonment, and the destruction of careers and reputations, were framed as necessary to protect the nation — even patriotic. The group dynamic among McCarthy’s supporters and the broader public’s fear allowed these actions to be reframed as justifiable for the good of national security. Individuals involved, who might have otherwise condemned such violations, were swept up in the rationale that extreme measures were needed to safeguard democracy.
Throughout history, from religious inquisitions to political purges, this pattern of group-justified harm has repeatedly emerged. The lines between right and wrong blur in groups and harmful actions are camouflaged as necessary. The collective belief in a noble cause can overshadow individual moral judgments, leading to actions that might seem unthinkable in isolation.
Groups Produce Conformity
Solomon Asch’s famous experiments demonstrated that individuals often conform to group opinions even when those opinions are clearly incorrect. The desire for acceptance and the fear of rejection are potent motivators, driving people to prioritize fitting in over standing out. Authenticity takes a backseat to conformity, and the self is sacrificed on the altar of group approval.
One of Asch’s most famous experiments illustrates this concept with stunning clarity. Participants were asked to perform a simple task: compare the lengths of lines on a card. However, there was a twist. Actors were planted among the participants and unanimously gave incorrect answers. The results were astonishing. When faced with the group’s unanimous opinion, many participants conformed to the wrong answer even though it was obviously incorrect. They ignored the evidence of their own eyes, the clear truth right in front of them, and chose to align with the group.
This experiment reveals our deep-seated need for social belonging. The pull of group consensus can be so strong that it overrides our perceptions and judgments.
Individual Responsibility
So what can we do? Extricating ourselves entirely from groups is neither feasible nor desirable — we are inherently social beings born into families, forging friendships from early childhood and engaging with various social, professional, and domestic networks throughout our lives. However, we must resist the allure of conformity and the comfort of echo chambers. Instead, we need to critically evaluate the values and dynamics of the groups we join.
We cannot absolve ourselves of accountability by blending into the masses. By staying mindful of our values and judgments, we can navigate group dynamics more effectively, ensuring that our participation reflects our true selves and values.
Ultimately, being part of a group should not mean sacrificing ourselves. Our individuality is not a weakness but a strength. When we champion our views and beliefs and stand tall in the face of conformity, we not only preserve our integrity but also enrich society.
Progress is born through the interplay of distinct voices, and collaboration takes root through the fusion of diverse ideas. So, let us not shy away from our individuality. Let us embrace it and nurture it. In doing so, we stay true to who we are and play an important role in building a vibrant society.
