Systems Theory: Understanding Group Dynamics
We’ve all known someone who is, at their core, kind, rational, and principled—the type of person you’d trust in a crisis. And yet, in certain group settings, they seem almost unrecognizable. Their convictions waver, their tone shifts, their actions diverge from what you thought you knew of them.
So, which version is real? The individual you trusted, or the persona that emerges in the group? Are they merely revealing a hidden part of themselves, or are they adapting to social dynamics? More unsettling still—if group identity can so dramatically shape a person’s behavior, does the concept of a fixed “true self” even exist?
This paradox has long fascinated philosophers, social scientists, and psychologists. It suggests that our individual identity is not a static, standalone construct but an evolving product of the systems in which we operate. Understanding these systemic influences may not only change how we think about personality but also how we interpret broader social and political trends.
To make sense of this, I turned to systems theory.
Understanding Complex Systems
In The Architecture of Complexity, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Herbert Simon defines a complex system as:
“…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.”
Human beings are complex systems—biologically, psychologically, and socially. We are fractal-like in nature, composed of interwoven systems, each functioning at different levels of scale. Take digestion as an example: it begins in the mouth, involves a vast array of chemical reactions, cellular interactions, and microbiological processes, and extends all the way to nutrient absorption in the bloodstream. Each level is a system within a system.
Now, expand outward. Each person is a self-contained system, yet when individuals form groups—families, communities, institutions—something changes. The interactions between individuals create emergent behaviors, just as molecules interacting in a gas give rise to temperature and pressure.
And here’s where things get interesting. A group is not simply a collection of autonomous individuals. Groups exhibit behaviors distinct from the individuals who comprise them—sometimes with startling consequences.
The Loss of Individuality in Groups
In physics, atomic nuclei maintain their distinct properties until subjected to extreme conditions, such as the high-energy collisions of nuclear fusion. Under these conditions, nuclei merge, losing their individuality in the process.
A similar process occurs in human group dynamics. When individuals enter a highly charged group setting, their distinctiveness fades. They adopt the group’s attitudes, mimic its behaviors, and, in some cases, act in ways they never would alone.
This process—what social psychologists call deindividuation—explains why rational, well-meaning individuals can be swept up in mob violence, political extremism, or collective hysteria. The force of the group overrides the constraints of personal conscience.
As Rebecca Saxe, a cognitive neuroscientist at MIT, explains:
“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.”
Groups alter our psychological landscape. They change how we assess right and wrong, how we react to threats, and even how we perceive reality itself.
From Nearly Decomposable Systems to Total Absorption
For much of human history, societies operated as what Simon called “nearly decomposable systems”—interacting modules that retained their distinctiveness while contributing to the whole.
In these systems, individuals maintained a degree of autonomy within the larger group. Families had distinct values even within a community. Dissenting voices existed within political parties. Universities allowed a diversity of thought to flourish.
But that is changing.
We are now witnessing a shift toward systems in which the individual is entirely subsumed by the collective. Hofstadter, in Gödel, Escher, Bach, described such a shift as the moment when an atomic nucleus is “swallowed up into the larger system and loses some or all of its individuality.”
In modern society, this manifests in:
Identity politics, where individuals are defined first and foremost by their group affiliations.
Social media mobs, where deviation from group orthodoxy invites severe social punishment.
Cancel culture, where ideological purity tests demand complete alignment.
Academic conformity, where intellectual diversity is being replaced by rigid dogma.
This transformation is not hypothetical. It is happening in real-time.
How Groups Shape Behavior
1. Groups Intensify Attitudes and Behaviors
Psychological research shows that when like-minded people discuss their beliefs, they emerge from the discussion, holding more extreme versions of those beliefs. This phenomenon, called group polarization, means that:
A group of liberals will leave a discussion more liberal.
A group of conservatives will leave a discussion more conservative.
A group of environmentalists will become more radical in their views.
A group of skeptics will become more entrenched in their disbelief.
In an era of ideological echo chambers, this process feeds a cycle of increasing polarization.
2. Groups Promote Anonymity and Moral Diffusion
In groups, individuals feel less accountable for their actions. When responsibility is diffused, people behave in ways they otherwise wouldn’t.
History provides countless examples:
Riots where ordinary citizens engage in vandalism and violence.
Online mobs where individuals issue threats or harassment they would never say in person.
The anonymity of hoods in the Ku Klux Klan, where individuals emboldened by collective protection carried out atrocities.
The mask—whether literal or digital—frees individuals from personal accountability, often with disastrous consequences.
3. Groups Reframe Harm as “Necessary”
One of the most dangerous group tendencies is the moral reframing of harm.
The McCarthy-era Red Scare in the U.S. provides a chilling example. Senator Joseph McCarthy and his supporters justified blacklisting, imprisonment, and career destruction in the name of protecting democracy. Individuals who might have hesitated to ruin lives for ideological reasons were emboldened by the group's moral certainty.
This pattern repeats throughout history. Religious inquisitions, political purges, and public shaming campaigns all thrive under the same logic: the group must be protected, even at the cost of the individual.
Escaping the Pull of the Collective
So what can we do? If group influence is so powerful, is there any hope for retaining individuality?
The answer isn’t to reject groups entirely—we are inherently social beings. The solution lies in conscious resistance:
Cultivate Awareness – Recognize the influence of groups on your thinking. Ask: Are these my beliefs, or have they been shaped by my environment?
Seek Intellectual Diversity – Avoid ideological silos. Read thinkers who challenge your perspective. Engage in discussions outside your comfort zone.
Strengthen Personal Accountability – Resist moral diffusion. Take responsibility for your beliefs and actions, even when the group demands conformity.
Embrace Complexity – The world is not black and white. Beware of movements or ideologies that demand total allegiance and vilify nuance.
The Choice Between Autonomy and Absorption
Throughout history, the most dangerous social movements were those that demanded unwavering group loyalty. The most dangerous thinkers were those who refused to conform.
The tension between individuality and collectivism is not new. But in an era where conformity is increasingly incentivized, resisting it requires more vigilance than ever.
We must decide: Will we retain our ability to think independently, or will we be swallowed by the systems we inhabit?
