Mistake Type:
Out-Group Homogeneity
Assuming all members of an opposing group share the same beliefs, opinions, or characteristics, thereby oversimplifying or stereotyping the opposition.
Examples:
“Anyone who voted for Trump is a racist.”
“Liberals don’t believe in personal responsibility.”
“They all get their beliefs from Fox News.”
“Democrats interpret everything in terms of victims and oppressors.”
About Out-Group Homogeneity:
Out-Group Homogeneity is a cognitive bias where an individual presumes that the members of a group to which they do not belong are more similar to each other than they actually are—especially in contrast to diversity they perceive in their own group. In the context of social media debates this leads to sweeping generalizations about “the other side,” painting them as a monolithic entity. This assumption is so common, and so ingrained in us, that the American Psychological Association has an entry in their dictionary about it.
People invoking this kind of cognitive bias on occasion will qualify their statements with “Sure, I’m generalizing.” And almost anyone, if pressed, would hedge, “Don’t be ridiculous, no one (least of all me) thinks that everyone in that group is exactly the same in every way.” Yet, such generalizations in public discourse are the rule and not the exception, and everyone’s thinking is subconsciously affected. As a result, discussion is poisoned, and groups are pushed further apart.
The assumption of out-group homogeneity serves multiple purposes. It simplifies a complex landscape of beliefs and opinions into a single, easily-targetable entity. It also enhances in-group cohesion by creating a clear “us versus them” division. For target audiences, especially those already predisposed to hold similar views, it reinforces existing stereotypes. But it is not always a conscious tactic; it is also one of the most elemental logical fallacies there is: “some, therefore all.”
Countering this issue type can be challenging because it appeals to fundamental human tendencies to categorize and simplify. It’s not so much an intentional tactic as it is a natural impulse, making it difficult to counter without intentional reflection and to attempt to find the diversity in all groups.
In recent years, political polarization has in fact resulted in more rigid adherence to the respective parties’ sets of issue positions. But that hardly means that party members on either side are robots.