Hostile epitomes can describe real events while distorting them beyond recognition

Evidence

But it is not clear just where the line can be drawn in advance. “Hostility,” for example, might seem to be an emotional or temperamental quality best kept out of game theory; but if a player’s hostility in the game is a significant constraint on his ability to perceive the other player’s meaning, it becomes part of the “communication structure.” An experiment by Deutsch is pertinent. He let pairs of players play nonzero-sum games (in matrix form) tacitly for a sequence of two plays, the game providing both a “cooperative” and an “uncooperative” choice. Those who played uncooperatively against a cooperative partner had an opportunity, on the second play, to respond to the implicit offer of cooperation. But, “when their expectation of the other person’s choice was not confirmed, they tended to interpret his choice as being a function of indifference or a basic lack of understanding as to how the game ‘should’ be played… . In this group, knowledge of the other person’s choice, because of the meaning attributed to it, tended to reinforce the previous negative sentiments regarding the intentions of the other person.” — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 795 (#expands, via linked claim)

Citing Fromm, Allport further distinguished rational hatred (for those who pose severe, realistic threats to one’s life or values) from “character conditioned” hatred arising from a lifetime of disappointments and frustration (see Duckitt, ch. 24 this volume). In the latter case, hatred is not meaningfully connected to the source of the frustration; rather, the individual “thinks up some convenient victim and some good reason. The Jews are conspiring against him, or the politicians are set on making things worse” (1954/1979, p. 364). In other words, hatred of this type is a function of personality abnormalities rather than being rationally targeted at groups that pose realistic threats. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2246 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Character-conditioned hatred invents victims rather than responding to real threats — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2246; Hostility becomes part of the communication structure when it distorts perception. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 795

Related

• Character-conditioned hatred invents victims rather than responding to real threats (similarity 0.83)
• Demonizing a rival’s beliefs is a direct expression of hostility, not just propaganda. (similarity 0.80)
• Hatred can be personality-driven and detached from any real threat (similarity 0.79)
• Hostility becomes part of the communication structure when it distorts perception. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Hostility becomes part of the communication structure when it distorts perception. #expands (0.88) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 795
• Character-conditioned hatred invents victims rather than responding to real threats #exemplifies (0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2246