The Narcissism of Small Differences

Why communities become toxic

In the field of psychoanalysis, there is a concept known as the "narcissism of small differences." It suggests that when people in a community have a great deal in common, they’re more prone to engaging in personal conflicts and mutual mockery.

In other words, the more similarities people share, the more likely they are to magnify the small distinctions between them, leading to interpersonal friction and ridicule.

This is something I’ve experienced firsthand in the last week. For example, I used the wrong definition of veganism in one of my videos (I phrased it the way Earthling Ed does to test if it worked better) and it triggered quite a few people. They sent me angry Instagram messages, complained about me on their streams, and now have a vendetta against me. 

I’m used to people being mean to me online, but the hate usually comes from meat eaters. When meat eaters are mean, I don’t take it seriously because I know they’re not reacting to me, they’re reacting to whatever negative ideas about veganism they’ve been brainwashed to have. 

When vegans are mean to me, it hits a lot harder.

I used to naively think that vegans were more moral, compassionate, and kind than nonvegans. There are many wonderful vegans who are incredibly kind, but the amount of negativity in the community is often jarring.

However, a lot of it can be attributed to the narcissism of small differences. We all want the same thing: animal liberation. But we have HUGE disagreements about the best way to get there. The human brain seems to be way more attuned to differences than similarities (see racism, sexism, speciesism) so it’s important to actively work against this bias. 

Next time a vegan treats me badly, I’m going remember that we both want the best for animals, and try to put our differences aside. 

What I’m Watching: Dream Scenario

What would happen if one random man started showing up in everyone’s dreams? Nicolas Cage’s character is one of the lamest, most stereotypically boring guys, and strangers all around the world start seeing him in their dreams. At first, he’s thrilled to be in the spotlight, but eventually the dreams turn into nightmares. 

I won’t spoil anything, but I will say it gets pretty dark. This movie is a fascinating exploration of fame and how it changes people. It’s a bit tough to watch (you will feel uncomfortable and anxious), but I absolutely loved it. 

What I’m Reading: Supercommunicators by Charles Duhigg

Excellent book on communication that confirms some intuitions I’ve had for a while. One idea is that there are three different types of conversations, and if you approach them in the wrong way, you fail to connect with your conversation partner. The struggle is that it’s not always obvious which type of conversation you’re in. 

This happens all the time with my husband when I just want to vent about a problem, but he hops in with solutions. Some conversations are emotional, others are practical, but the point of all of them should be to connect with the other person as much as you can. 

Duhigg identifies “Supercommunicators” who share a common set of practices that allow them to influence and inspire others. One key trait is that Supercommunicators are extremely curious and ask way more questions than other people. Another reason we should stick to the Socratic method when talking about animal rights!

If you want to help ban fur/slaughter in Denver, consider donating to our campaigns. Only a few dollars can help us reach hundreds of voters.

My Latest Video:

Thanks!

Natalie
Pro-Animal Future