As every PhD student reaches the end of their contract, doubts creep in. I slowly realize that publishing papers is a minor problem in a researcher’s life.

Other issues are far more painful. The environment often fractions into ‘team Brown’, ‘team Green’ et cetera, especially in circles developing new methods for data analysis. 

Such friendships and antipathies last for ages, long before you even join the community. Once you appear as a fresh person, you do not necessarily understand the unwritten rules.

People expect you to love Mr Brown and hate Mr Green, for reasons no one explains. It reminds me of the famous experiment on five monkeys and bananas.

I consequently refuse to dislike other people’s research approaches just because someone expects me to. That attitude constantly puts me in trouble.

I spent some time deliberating how such mutual aversion can appear in a network of smart and good human beings. One good example I can think of would be ‘Game of Thrones’.

What Does Game of Thrones Reveal About Human Tribalism?

The new and very exciting season of ‘Game of Thrones’ aired recently. This season of the popular HBO show is based on George RR Martin’s bestselling book series, ‘Songs of Ice and Fire’.

It is even bloodier than the previous seasons. The ultimate war involving dragons, dire wolves, and the undead has started on the show, and knowing the author, there will be no sweet ending to the story.

I originally started watching it for fun and entertainment. But I ended up staying because I realised how well the storyteller understands people’s motivations.

In short words, the story is about Westeros, a fictional kingdom inhabited by seven big houses. After 17 years of peace, sabotage initiates a war which creates chaos in the kingdom. 

Multiple parties take part, each with its own contradictory goals. These goals partially stem from historical events and unpaid debts, and partially from personal aversions.

The story is also appealing because the characters are so distinct from each other. Almost all of them are both good and bad to some extent. They are all very bright personalities. 

But for me, the most interesting aspect is looking at events from each character’s perspective. Once you do, each character’s behaviour makes perfect sense. Yet they still keep clashing with each other.

How Does Martin’s View of Good and Evil Differ From Tolkien’s?

The author always underscores in interviews how much Tolkien inspired him throughout his career. Still, certain differences between the two authors stand out clearly. The main difference lies in how each portrays good and evil. 

In Tolkien’s books, most characters are black or white, and one-dimensional. In Martin’s case, it is often hard to decide whom to root for. All the characters have multidimensional personalities and conflicting interests, which lead to inevitable confrontations. 

As the author summarised himself, ‘A villain is a hero of another side’. This viewpoint is somewhat pessimistic, as it suggests that conflicts are not really avoidable. Rather, conflicts will always emerge, even when everyone behaves rationally from their own perspective.

Why Is It So Hard to Escape Group Conflict?

It seems to me that, once an environment grows complex enough, every individual has only partial information about others. In such a situation, reaching a Nash equilibrium is not possible.

According to Harsanyi (1967), once players are uncertain about each other’s preferences and payoffs, incomplete information fundamentally reshapes the strategic interaction. It requires an entirely different equilibrium framework than games where everyone shares the same information. 

Therefore, people typically choose more self-oriented personal decisions instead. And honestly, I do not see any simple solution to this issue.

People will always naturally cluster into groups of interest because of a natural herd instinct. Indeed, according to Hardin (1968), individually rational choices can ruin a shared resource for everyone.

It is hard to overcome this tendency. According to Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity theory, people show in-group favoritism and out-group hostility even when the groups are essentially arbitrary. This is why factional loyalties can form so easily and persist so stubbornly. 

The only thing that can truly help is awareness. Still, according to Ostrom (1990), communities can and do learn to govern shared resources without collapsing into conflict. The same situation looks different once you consider it from another perspective.