doodad

I personally do not spend a lot of time questioning things because I use a filter to screen out the BS and the minutae. If something interests me or if I feel it is important for me to understand it more thoroughly then I will spend more time questioning the matter.

Most people can quickly question a matter or idea and sort it out at the cursory level, and I don't think that each of us trying to reinvent the wheel is imperative to our well being as a society. It something isn't broke, don't fix it.

As to religion, the extremists and the zealots can cause more harm than good, but the average
believer is not a threat to our well being or to progress. I know of some very accomplished people who were believers. One can be religious and yet still be creative and productive in the secular sense.

phaedrus

CL

Been a while I think you need to elaborate your thoughts more

No. I am saying there are people who just want to fit in no matter what (for example, by doing whats cool, etc.), and there are people who set the trends by exploring posibilities, and perhaps failing. my point was that having too many of either group is bad.

So you would say have few guys who set the trends and have the masses who blindly follow for the "good" of the human race? But still my point is not the amount of people who form the herd but why "herd" in the first place?

Of course, I'm not talking about political leaders, appointed or voted. I'm talking about real leaders who have the ability to move out from under the group mentality and try other things. Using the word that way, leaders always exhibit original thinking.

Umm, so in this case, the herd doesnt necessarily follow the leaders' example? Because the leader here as you have defined is the "one" who does things different from the group, which the group might have hassles adapting. The problem is that the herd is "resistant" to change or new things, they will adopt to the new concepts/ideas/things only when they see others starting to accept it. This is more or less similar to that theory in new product development which states that there are different types of people as far as new products/services are concerned -

• Innovators
  Early Adopters
  Early Majority
  Late Majority
  Laggards

Yes. Consider, for example, a small tribe. If everyone is questioning the 'ways', the members become dis-illusoned and in the end group unity is the victim.
If there are too many followers, then the tribe stagnates.

Umm, you mean to say too many individuals basically signal the death of the group? Let me offer you a part of the discussion i had with a friend of mine regarding this subject and the post modern world - Taking a cue from Nietzsche, many philosophers of the post-modernist era rejected the attempt to arrive at a universal “theory of everything” which is far removed from the pluralistic nature of the world. They tried to shift the focus back to the “particular” from the “universal”, saying that it’s the individual situation that shapes the reactions and understanding. There is no single “absolute truth”, there exist only different interpretation of this truth or good – what is right in one culture could be wrong in another.

But does such a subjective approach lead to relativism or nihilism? No, the point is to understand that our belief system is just one of the various interpretations of reality available and it is not universally applicable. Tradition is good, it represents our collective knowledge and understanding to date, but if this understanding is static and self-fulfilling it will only lead to the problems the world is facing today. Communication and interaction with other narratives will lead to “shared understanding” which is dynamic in nature. This sort of dialogical view of understanding (as a communication process) provides the model for a social order based not on coercion or domination but on rational persuasion, the kind of tolerant and pluralist social order envisaged by the great rhetoricians and humanists of the past.

Hope i made my point clear ....

Modern society is more complicated because of technology, so it helps to break things down to basic tribes.

Could you elaborate?

JP

Christopher Lord

Ok, will do my best.

Perhaps there is another way of thinking of this. People are not black and white, herd-member or explorer. Some people do fall along the gradient between, however. Consider if no one ever ‘settled’ on an idea. This is what the ‘herd’ does best. They provide the anchor, and the anchor must be strong enough (via enough members) to keep the boat from floating too haphazardly. But each is a member of the herd in his or her own way, of course. Everyone falls on the grad. Most North Americans conform to the herd wherein members speak English or drive cars. Without the herd grounding an idea, the idea is almost completely without value.

Yes. The main group provides a service to the leaders, by providing the actual anchor for ideas that do catch on. In a way it’s a primitive filter against radicalism. And such a filter is definitely needed, would you not agree?

The value of the idea has to be great enough to overcome the foundation of ‘what works’. Let me restate that. The idea also has to be communicated to the group via a method which informs them of the advantages and disadvantages of adopting it. And

This is when the herd concept goes bad. Resisting anything that is different is part of the mechanism, but in this day and age it is also a problem. This is why the modern age complicates this matter. The filter is both good and bad, and in fact, can actually be mostly bad. This does not mean it is not a well-tuned device against bad memes. ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke’ is the proverbial immortalization of the inherent value of the herd mentality.

Exactly. Marketing people have to understand how to manipulate the herd. If they don’t, they can’t climb this ladder, which is geometrically proportional to profit. Again, I should make clear that a person may be a herd member in one area, like a stereo equipment hobby, but a leader in another, such as being a magazine cover designer. The latest ‘cool’ hardware will draw this ‘design leader’ just like a sheep. This is not bad, it is simply human nature.

Lets use the magazine cover designer again. If every single person was a magazine cover designer, and each had completely original designs, the entire concept of magazine covers would dissolve in the chaos. There would be no real ‘quality’ covers being made, just a lot of different covers of equal quality. This would be homogeny in its most horrendous form, which would be quickly picked up by the millions of cover designers as ‘herd mentality’. A population of leaders is like an arrow without the feathers to stabilize it.
I would agree this is bad, and is too far to the ‘follower-dominated’ world I describe in my first post. My point is that a leader-dominated world would be aimless, and that the proper balance is needed.

I snuck the response to this inline with a comment above.


I think we agree, but in different ways. My original point (which may have been obscured by the shifting context of the forum) is that too many of either group is a bad thing. A little bit of grounding is definitely needed.

emphryio

Sure, too much of either kind is a bad thing. Currently we have a very bad thing going on with the non-questioning assimillaters(sp). And I suspect its been that way a couple of millenium.

Excuse me while I rant.

One "little" example would be that thing called a tie. Congrats to any who work at jobs where they can dress comfortably.
But a vast percentage of professional men, have to wear ties. I would think at least a significant portion would admit they are not comfortable and don't really look all that good.
They are simply an assimillation badge. A way of saying, "See? I'm one of you." I wonder why exactly this "assimilation badge" has to also be uncomfortable. Is it just coincidence?

It makes me think of the African warriors with the bones through their lips.

emphryio

I think the need to assimilate goes along with living in a violent society. Violent, barbaric people are very apt to attack those who are different. (By barbaric I mean the opposite of civilized. By civilized, I mean using forethought or "thinking ahead".)

So we live in a somewhat violent, barbaric society. And therefore you assimilate out of fear for your well being.

You can see this barbaric society even occasionally on this forum.
When someone responds to an idea they disagree with by saying, "I think you're an idiot."
They are being carried away with emotion concerning the fact that someone is different from them, and so they let that person have it.
It is very similar to disagreeing with someone on the street and hitting them over the head with a club.

As long as we have the violence, and stupidty, I think we probably have to have the assimilation.
They sort of go together.

And to Doodad:
Without the rationalists to fight the fundamentalists, the average believer would be completely influenced by harmful fundamentalists and the dark ages would begin anew.
Voltaire said something along the lines of... doubt is a disagreable position, certainty is an absurdity. (Those are far from his exact words)
I agree with him.
With that said, I am CERTAIN that if all the atheists, agnostics, rationalits, etc, disappeared tomorrow, the dark ages, (with the requisite suppression of science, inquisitions, witchhunts,) would begin anew, despite all those decent believers out there.

The average believer is no more than an assimilated sheep ,(how silly that there is no plural and singular for sheep), who believes an average between the fundies and rationalists.

1sec

I would write an ode to the herd if I could.

Isn't the whole human society a herd of herds?

And isn't this secular web the elite of them all?

Isn't the herd that gives the philosopher the reason to be, or else who should he bring out his theories for?

Isn't the heard that justifies the notion of democracy itself?

The herd is the nest, the matrix, the mother of our great thinkers.

John Page

Nice thoughts, 1sec.

If there was a herd of philosophers of infinite size, where would we find room for reality?

If a god had infinite wisdom, then what space would be left for philosophers thoughts?

If democracy will give rise to infinite dreams, what chance would there be for freedom?

And if our life is bound by birth and death, when will we ever find time to count the moments?

PsycheDelia

Ok, this is my very first post here, so forgive my drops of virgin blood...

Anyway, I read Phaedrus' initial post with some interest, mainly because it's something that I've been thinking about a lot in recent times. So what I’m putting down here are my thoughts on that original post, instead of picking up on the thread as it evolved.

Phaedrus, correct me if I’m wrong, but you were concerned with why people accept what is told to them, without stopping to question or to develop their own world view without accepting the world view of the group they claim membership in or of society as a whole.

I firmly believe that the herd mentality is so deeply ingrained in the human race at this stage in its evolution that it is one of the main reasons for the failure of democratic systems *ducking to avoid the brickbats for that comment*. But that discussion is probably more fitting on the political forum and not here. why the ‘herd mentality’ exists is another matter altogether. Ever since man entered into social contracts (a la Hobbes), he voluntarily gave up some of his personal freedoms in order to conform for the greater good of the group, or the commonwealth. I used to think that humans as whole are incapable of independent thought, but my cynical view has been challenged time and again by people I talk to who have more faith in humankind than I have. So after much digging, and thinking, I am willing to accept that man is capable of thinking for himself, but has, by and large forgotten how to.

Went digging back through old psychology texts, and what I remembered from my long-ago undergrad degree in psychology. I knew that social psychology has a lot to say about group dynamics and consensus, and I did find a lot of studies that examine these phenomena. One theory in particular, the social-comparison theory (the belief that people appraise their own behavior, attitudes, and values by comparing them with those of others) deals with ‘informational influence’ that takes place when we look to others for information, something that is inevitable in today’s world where it is beyond human capability to personally verify every bit of information that comes our way. This theory states that when you consider the group as whole, the majority (or conventional wisdom) has an influence on the individual because we assume that a large number of people can’t be wrong. Over time this leads to a state of mindlessness, where we respond automatically without bothering to process information

That said, let me go back to one of my pet theories about leaders and followers. I believe that the populace in general can be divided into three categories – the leaders, the followers, and the fringe. The leaders and the followers both subscribe to the group think, though the leaders might just be a tiny little bit smarter. They would have to be, in order to get themselves into a position of authority, or power (then again, being a leader does not presuppose intelligence – just look at the man who currently holds what is commonly called the most powerful position in the world. His demonstrable lack of intelligence is beyond disappointing – it’s laughable! But I digress… )

The creative ideas (and I will agree with the distinction between creative thinking, and critical thinking) come from the fringe people. How many of them harbour ambitions of power is not clear, but my guess would be not too many. Getting into a position of power would mean subscribing to group think, and it is the independent thinking that puts them on the fringe in the first place. Then again, I think several of them must be the ones who work behind the scenes…. (someone has to pull George W’s strings to make him dance!). The creative ideas of the fringe people are the ones that change the world, the ones that ensure that man evolves as a whole, if not individually. But for the herd, it is one foot in front of the other, and a blind march to an imagined finish line. A fringe person on the other hand is the one who goes through life refusing to accept the concept of a finish line, assuming that personal evolution is endless, and viewing life as (in the words of a sometimes wise friend) as a ‘fence moving experiment’, constantly pushing the boundaries at least in my mind.

But we do need the herd, as has been pointed out time and time again. Without the herd we would have chaos, and it is in the interest of the leadership to rein the herd in, to keep it in control, to maintain consensus. The information overload of these times is one of the factors that make it harder and harder for an individual to sort through every single bit of information that comes his way, and it also makes it easier for propaganda messages to filter through and be accepted as truth (whatever that might be&#8230 . Living as I do right now at the point where two worlds collide (the developed and the developing, the group culture and the (supposedly) individualistic culture, the once comfortably socialist and the rampantly capitalist…. I could go on and on… ) I am able to examine both worlds with some measure of objectivity, and that is perhaps why I am now so very very sensitive to propaganda, and find it so transparent, and am also dismayed that I’m one of the few to see through it.

Ok, I have said my bit. I’ve tried to put most of my thinking on this down here, so if it is not too clear, please ask and I’ll be glad to clarify. And before I end, a story I heard from my grandfather many years ago. As a young boy in South Asia, he lived outside a big city in a fairly rural area. The local farmers would often make the long trip to the market in a caravan of sorts, cart after cow-drawn cart in a line trudged through the night, while the farmers slept in the back confident that once they were on the road, the cows would just follow the one ahead of them eventually arriving at the city market at daybreak. My grandfather and his brothers, as a practical joke, would gently nudge the first cow to turn around. Blindly each subsequent one followed, and when dawn came the poor farmers would find themselves back where they began. Not very nice of my grandfather and his brothers to be sure, but that is one story I’ve carried for decades as a metaphor for humankind.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: PsycheDelia ]</p>

1sec

Cool post.

One remark, though, about the categorization. You say:

Perhaps nothing is closer by the truth. However, psichologically speaking, people may undertake different roles at different times. One's satus and role may actually push one into either leading, or following, or revolutionizing.

Otherwise everything is cool.


one more thing: the fringe people have reminded me of Max Weber's protestants.

See you in the herd (or on the fringe of it)...

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: 1sec ]</p>

PsycheDelia

1sec

that is right, and i know from personal experience that i - like most people - have been through all the phases, before i consciously settled for life at the fringes....

however i also believe that most people prefer to remain in the large group of followers, perhaps out of fear(?) that a non-conformist stance would leave them open to ridicule, or leave them stripped of status in the group. conforming is easier, even if it means conforming as a leader.