They should take a lesson from this family! 
So this is a really interesting question to me. As someone who has had to work pretty hard for any social skills I might possess, I definitely have always felt more comfortable with people very much like myself, and my closest friends are (as one might expect) people like myself (technical, nerdy, interested in the same kinds of topics I am). However, as a long-term strategy I think it has made me happier and also a better person to also hang out with people with whom I don’t have nearly as much in common with, though with whom I still have some commonalities. I’m particularly thinking about my church community here – I feel like I don’t have a lot in common with a lot of them, as by and large the people I know there are not nerdy tech sorts (a few are), but we do have our religion and culture in common, of course – or my kid’s school community, where we have our kids and school in common but perhaps not as much common personally speaking.
…which brings me back to the original question, doesn’t it! I do think, yeah, I’ve noticed online especially that there’s a trend of closely basing one’s identity on, say, being on the spectrum, especially with younger folks. (I think I’m on the spectrum, but I don’t consider it part of my identity and I don’t hang out in spectrum-ish spaces or seek out spectrum people specifically.) I think you may have a point there. I think people want identity and a sense of belonging very strongly, and will seek it out one way or another.
…especially if that group identity is one that can be thought of as a victim. My religion (LDS), for example, has some persecution in its past – yes, we can nitpick as to whether it was actually a reasonable response, etc., but the point is that as a community we have a communal memory of being victimized, even though that is not really very likely these days, and in places like Utah we’re the majority and likely to be the victimizers if anything. I feel like I see the same thing e.g. on autistic online spaces, where there’s definitely a group bonding around ableism, etc. I have mixed feelings about this… it’s clearly good to be able to vent about things to people who will understand. But I also find that if it gets to be too much venting, it gets to the point where it’s not productive any more and can actually make people feel worse, while still binding the group even more tightly together.
I totally agree with that, and i see that with some Jews, and it can be toxic.
You may not be selecting people based on the label “autistic spectrum”, but you probably are, by proxy… There’s a reason they talk about “son of MIT syndrome”. But i can see why some might find it easier to find like-minded people if they pick one or more labels.
Yes. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that we should hole up with only people very similar to ourselves. I suspect that’s unhealthy and unproductive, especially as most of us will be forced to live and work and vote among people not like ourselves. I just think that most people benefit from some fraction of their social life involving people they share a lot in common with, a “safe space” if you will, and also, as an aid in understanding and working with the rest of the world.
These are perhaps the most prevalent examples of group identities. That’s why drawing circles around groups is usually misleading. Groups of people with one major commonality has always been the dominant form of grouping. but especially so recently.
Hahahaha. Yeah. A friend of mine recently started wondering if she was on the spectrum (after her daughter was diagnosed) and I told her that it was a red flag that she was friends with me, as almost everyone I’m good friends with is neuroatypical in some way… (Sometimes it’s ADHD, though! Lol.)
The interesting thing though is that I’m actually pretty bad at belonging to groups. I may have multiple friends who might all fit a certain profile, but we’re not all friends in a group, even though my friends often themselves have friend groups that I’m friendly with but not part of. Obviously my church group is a group, and I love how welcoming they are, but it’s not an integral part of my social structure the way it is for a lot of people in the religion.
Yes! That’s the flip side that I meant to say but forgot to – without being able to socialize with those people that i had a lot in common with, I don’t think I’d ever have been able to figure out how to socialize with people I had less in common with. I had to build those skills up with people I understood and who understood me, first.
(And I think it’s also true that we don’t think about how much we really do segregate in a certain sense. Almost everyone I know, for example, thinks education is important. I know that doesn’t describe everyone in the US by a long shot!)
Well you seem to not be the only one, so I am confident the problem is on my end.
My personal preference is to have some commonality shared among a group that is otherwise varied. To @puzzlegal’s comment on her experience - I also would not have enjoyed being the only Jewish kid. I also would not have been happiest being with only Jewish kids. Here at the Dope the shared commonality that I enjoy is intellectual curiosity. Not everyone here but enough of them. It is regrettable to me that we are also overlapping as much as we do generationally and politically. To the degree we have diversity beyond that shared feature I enjoy this place all the more.
I’ll try to express the thesis a bit better …
Humans tend to have a preference to form groups of those in “our” group, and those excluded from it. Not an earth shattering statement. Good or bad, the lyrics of Imagine duly noted, it is apparently a basic aspect of human nature.
Historically these groups have been kinships, or tribes, then supplanted by religion and ethnicity. Clubs of shared social standing and/or community. Yes bowling leagues. Fans of sports teams. Various “fictive kinships”. We divide ourselves into a variety of us and thems. We are comfortable with others like us. So far nothing too controversial. Just background.
Proposition 1. The devil is in the degree. Neither random contact grouping with zero commonality nor insularity is best. It was the point of the OP but given the direction of the discussion I will put it out there. Further if I had to err it would be on a greater mix than on more sameness. I think a hodgepodge stew is prefered to a melting pot, if that makes sense. As @raspberry_hunter articulates very well, insular grouping is very comfortable but some greater degree of diversity of interaction may facilitate greater happiness.
Proposition 2. Some of those past memberships have faded to lesser importance in some segments of America, and new ones, some based on conditions and yes, sense of victimhood, often very real and justified, occasionally not, have filled the void.
Proposition 3. Some of these new group identities have become not just one aspect of these individuals’ identities but the prime aspect of it, as much say Orthodox Jew is to someone living in a tightknit Orthodox community, albeit not physically manifest, more in virtual social space. It becomes the lens by which the rest of their experience is viewed. It has benefits, as @puzzlegal points out: having a safe space and a space populated by others who “get it.” My sense is that often goes “too far” as a prime identity as that lens is sometimes of excessive narrow focus. And they attract a group of others wanting into the club, wanting a club, an “us”, to belong to, expanding the membership with an increasingly wider definition.
Proposition 3 was what the OP was trying to express, obviously not clearly. And the portion that I suspected might be up for some debate.
My thoughts…
People have a drive to be understood and to be accepted. Being understood often means being around others who have similar experiences, ways to share and feel empathy. Being accepted means that you don’t have to be alike as long as you feel included despite your differences, if not included because of them. Feeling excluded even in similarity isn’t acceptance.
Humans evolved in small communities. We are social creatures by nature, but to varying degrees. Our social nature was shaped by the heritage that occurred before we were humans. Thus even though as humans we have formed ever larger “communities” and communal groups - tribes to villages to cities to nation-states - our instinctual nature is for small communal groups. Groups for collective safety and success through collaboration, but limited in size to the amount our instinctual patterns recognize to allow knowledge of each other.
Safety comes through shared identity because it creates people that mutually contribute and because it creates familiarity that limits hate and fear. If someone in the group is too violent, the group will eventually do something to protect the group as a whole. Knowing each other makes it easier to stand up together and to face down together, and means we’d know who to avoid when and why.
Modern society far exceeds that instictive social group size. Thus we are driven subconsciously to find ways to limit the groups to the “right” size.
People identify as neural atypical both in seeking explanation to understand themselves and as a means to identify others who can understand instead of judge.
Identifying that I’m ADHD didn’t happen until a few years ago - far into adulthood. I had a psychologist suggest I get evaluated for autism spectrum. I forget the actual term he used, but I looked it up once, and that’s what it meant.
I know about myself I have social anxiety. At the same time, I get depressed alone all the time. I’m much more comfortable in a social structure that helps define interactions. I function well in a workplace with a lot of different people. But I can have discomfort with people who have very different cultural upbringing.
I do not do well in open social engagements with a lot of strangers, though I do seek attention among friends and acquaintances.
I’ve been to after work dinners and happy hours that left me floundering. I’ve been to family get togethers with extended family that leave me seeking those I’m closest with to alleviate my discomfort.
But I actuality function pretty well in customer service. I surprised myself at being able to handle my time working as a people greeter. Taking to strangers coming in and out and carrying on a light conversation here and there was actually the more enjoyable part. Probably also due to the limited scope and duration of most interactions.
Being diagnosed with major depression helps me find ways to cope with the negative feelings I have. And it gives me sympathy with others I know who deal with it.
Knowing each of these details about myself help me cope with my life and help me understand others.
I have even learned how to connect with a personality type that drive me crazy in childhood and college. Two of my closest friends now are loud obnoxious drinkers that have a tendency to go overboard on kidding and teasing about certain topics. But I am able to see beyond the parts that annoy me to the parts where they really do care.
I think each of us is trying to sort out the pressures and instinctive drives in our own ways. We look for groups that we have a connection and groups that accept and include us rather than ostracize or reject us.
Some needs are based on looking for romantic partners, others simply looking for human warmth.
I think our choice to explore labels and to embrace them is in service to understanding ourselves and in seeking acceptance. If there is a trend for folks to use neural-atypical labels as a shorthand for their behaviors, it is in service to those two goals.
Sorry I’m late to the discussion, but I think I vaguely agree with your unclear OP. 
I’m often surprised at the strength of peoples’ self identification as a member of a group. Whether ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or health status. I perceive many people as presenting themselves as though that group identification somehow defines themself. Paradoxically, however, many of them seem to say, “But don’t treatment any differently.” (Often at the same time they are expecting some special treatment.)
As a nonreligous, cis, Euro-mutt, I often wonder about why folk think the church they go to, or where their great grandparents came from continues to be so important to them on an ongoing basis. And, as a health care provider, you’d likely have more insight than I as to the value people derive from identifying themselves as having some physical or mental health condition - as opposed to just being “quirky.”
Curious point, but worth considering.
My personal story, I went to college and earned an engineering degree. I then spent 20 years living in Houston working in the space industry.
It all came taking apart when a combination of government funding shortages and a canceled project left me added to the pile of laid off space engineers.
Lots of them found transition to the oil and gas industry, or other options. But my depression and anxiety left me in limbo until my funds ran out and I had to face the truth that I wasn’t self-sufficient.
But what was the hardest part to take was knowing I was leaving the space industry, and moving away from where those jobs were located. It was emotionally crushing to have to give up my identity as an engineer in the space program. And that reluctance was a contributor to my anxiety that kept me from finding a new path sooner, when I could have been financially solvent.
People invest a lot in our identity in things like our job or career or chosen hobby or social group. I think one reason is that we invest so much effort into those things that we feel they must be inherently special to us. Yes, I got a bit of pleasure out of people knowing my career field that I haven’t had since.
But what are they really saying? Accept me for who I am, don’t exclude or dismiss or degrade me. Don’t require me to change to fit your mold.
On reflection, I readily acknowledge that as a white cis man, I automatically belong to a group that historically receives all manner of advantages - independent of individual merit.
Nevertheless, I see other white cis men “joining” based on their religion, specific ethnicity, etc.
How common is it for the “groups” to have - as one part of their identity - a believe that they are “better” than other similar groups? Or deserving of some special treatment?
Interesting - but foreign to me. My being a lawyer has always been simply a job. When I retire in a couple of years, I anticipate in no way perceiving or presenting myself as a lawyer. I DO expect to remain interested in such legal concepts as ownership, rights, duties, controlling laws - as IMO those are critical to many aspects of social interaction. And - to many lawyers - it is curious the way non-lawyers feel their beliefs, preferences, and needs ought to be as important.
This. But even if there isn’t anyone very much like you, it’s still better to belong to a club than to not belong.
Part of the value of a ‘club’ is that within its parameters, anyone who is a member, no matter how peculiar or irritating, belongs to it as much as anyone else. For example if you live within the boundaries of a parish church, and do the minimum, you are a parishioner, with all the privileges of same. Just show up. You, too, will be cared for when sick, married, and buried, within a community.
Group membership is the next best thing to being part of a tribe, which for most of our existence as identifiable humans and also long before that, was what we did to survive as a species. We have a basic and dare I say it primal need for group membership.
Yeah, well for me there is the “engineer” part (looking at technical challenges and creating solutions) that I am now connecting to through fixing things and coming up with personal projects. Then there was the “space industry” part that was significant for being cool by furthering human space exploration, which also touched my science fiction interest. Connecting my technical interest with my space enthusiasm and childhood dream made it more than just “what I do to earn a living”.
Now my job is just what I do for a paycheck.
Well nigh universal.
Nah. My group is too good to do that crap like yours does.
There are other forums where that attitude would get you hosannas.
I’m late to the discussion as well, but I find the question of group membership and personal identity really fascinating.
I grew up Mormon in the 60s and 70s and Mormonism was the core of my personal identity until I finally left it. Interestingly, it seems pretty common and as people leave Mormonism, many peronaly strongly identify as ex-Mormon. For the most part, it’s a phase people go through, although some cling onto that for years and years.
Japanese society is defined by groups and if people are insiders or outsiders. The largest group is being Japanese, of course. I was just talking to a Japanese professor who came to our school to give a lecture. He said that Japanese schools are a form of religion in that they mold kids into being Japanese.
My personal theory, developed of several decades of observing society here, is that a Japanese person who leaves Japan to study abroad can easily lose the Japaneseness. If someone goes abroad for high school and university and then starts their career overseas, they miss out on the molding process of becoming adult Japanese.
Do you mean here by their own self identification, or by how they are seen by those in their home country, both, or by actually fitting in culturally?
All of the above.
This isn’t a 100% absolute rule as there are those who can come back and do well, but so much of adult Japanese norms are formed in the years from high school through early working ages.
I have known a lot of “returned Japanese” who see themselves differently than other Japanese. They think and act differently than mainstream Japanese and as such are treated differently in return.
The cultural differences are so great that it’s hard to completely switch between acting one way with one group of friends or family and then another way with others.
I don’t want to get too far into this because it’s an over simplification, but Japanese society emphasizes obligations to others while the West tends to focus on individual freedoms and rights.
If one spends one’s formative years learning how to protect your rights and not learning about obligations, it’s hard to internalize the reverse later in life.
In my personal experience, growing up as a Mormon in the 60s and 70s in Utah, Mormonism was the essence of my existence and identity. Although I have left the church, it still is for my mother and most of my relatives.
For many Mormons, the process of leaving the religion is traumatic, with the losses of a core belief system, a strong community and a sense of identity. Often former members join ex-Mormon communities, but usually after a while then they drift away from them. I’ve heard that a higher percent of ex-Mormons become atheists compared to former believers of other religions.