Freethought & Rationalism Archive

1sec · 02-25-2002, 12:01 AM

time out:
('ve been staying away from the leading position and wondered if i was hating being there because i just can't handle the situation...

now with this perspective of the fringe people - wonder why i haven't thought of it before - i start feeling kind of flattered...

anyway, let me see if i deserve to dwell on the fringe)
time out ended

phaedrus · 02-25-2002, 01:37 AM

Psyche

So thee has landed and showing those writing skills

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.

Yes one of the concerns

Regarding the "why" part of the concern, i do understand the historical/cultural or possibily a biological grounding as a reason for the herd mentality, but the other concern is once we understand (or claim to understand) this "why", another question pops up stating, ok we now know why they do it and the possible benefits of the herd, but given the possible disadvantages of the herd mentality, can anything be done about it? What i was discussing with adrian about the education systems....etc etc was something in this direction.

Here again, its not to say that the world can be divided into two - herd and individuals/freaks. Even the individuals live in thier herds which albiet consist of lesser numbers, but still they seek solace or exchange of ideas with individuals of "similar wavelenght". It is not as if one herd is inferior to another, it is to wonder about the consequences of the characterstics of a particular "herd" pose to the society as a whole. (Where i took the example of blind faith in religion resulting in WTC attacks ..etc). Ofcourse there are those individuals who tend to live with different herds, and manage to take the best of all these herds and form a collage of their own or strike a path of thier own.

The bottomline is that questioning the status quo is not something unique or is not a characterstic of the so-called "wise souls", it is a simple thing and can be done by anyone. I think it was heidegger who said that asking the right questions is more important than the answers.

Now why doesnt the herd do this? Is it coz of fear of the unkown or nihilism?

Quote:

Once set in motion, the process of questioning could come to but one end, the erosion of conviction and certitude and collapse into despair" (The Specter of the Absurd -Donald Crosby)

Is the herd incapable of overcoming the existential angst that this questioning brings and hence says - bollocks, no one knows anything for sure, so let me stick with what the crowd thinks and revel in the comfort of the "known" (sic!)? What is with our reluctance to destroy all those cherished and misplaced notions of the past? Or does humanity manage to do that albiet in its own sweet time? React only when things become bad or worse? (like the world's new found focus on rooting out terrorism

)

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.

Why? Why do we need the herd? Why cant we have a group of people who indulge in critical/creative thinking and through constant communication and interaction come to a consensus on issues? Why would such a scenaior result in chaos? Doesnt a herd result in the problems we see today? Why not remind the herd that they are different from the caravan analogy you mentioned? The immediate question here is, ok how does one do it? Well that is up for discussion.

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

John Page · 02-25-2002, 04:07 AM

Is it really a herd? Isn't this just a case of specialization? Rather than have every member of a species focus on all aspects of life, isn't it more efficient to have leaders in each field?

I think democracy works because it moderates the influence of those who think they know better but really don't. Way to go meritocracy.

PsycheDelia · 02-25-2002, 01:49 PM

Phaedrus,

You ask:

but given the possible disadvantages of the herd mentality, can anything be done about it?

Why do you think anything should be done about the herd mentality? Do you really want to take a chance on the chaos and perhaps the anarchy that would result from billions of free thinkers the world over all taking their own stand on things?

If I sound pessimistic about this its for two basic reasons. One is that I don’t believe that everyone wants to be a free thinker, an independent soul, or to use my term – a fringe person. Civilization works because of society and social groupings, and if everyone questions the group-think, then society will fall apart. And being different carries with it far too much negative reinforcement. Human beings need to belong, some need to belong to the tightly-knit herd, and some need to belong to the more loosely-linked linked fringe, but we are all looking for someone who thinks like us and who validates our world view. It’s lonely when you have to go it alone, so you might as well just find a way to belong even if it means adapting to the group think. It’s comforting, if not comfortable.

Another reason for my pessimism is that I believe that the quality of the ideas will be better if they come out of the fringe. Ideas are what the world runs on… the new and revolutionary ideas come out of the fringe, and the herd adopts them, knowingly or unknowingly. The reason the fringe people produce better ideas is because they have consciously challenged conventional thinking. Now if everyone did that, wouldn’t unconventional thinking be the norm, the convention? And because unconventional thinking would be encouraged, the ideas would be mediocre at best, because it would be so very easy to say something different and have people accept it, rather than having to think really hard to develop the idea to its depths, just to explain it to those who are slow to accept something new.

Call me elitist if you will, but I believe that some of the best minds live on the fringe, and it’s better if there aren’t too many of them.

But if you want to know how it can be done, then I guess that’s easy, and as Adrian pointed out the answer lies in education. Teach a child to question everything, absolutely everything and you will soon find an individual who develops his/her own world view, and a healthy skepticism about any line fed to it. I think (I’m not sure though) that every single person is capable of that. But perhaps it would be better if all teachers could be culled from those wise fringe people, and they would be the ones who would spot the naturally curious children, the independent thinkers early on and nurture that curiosity. But then most teachers want nothing more than to impose their own world view on the minds they shape, and the whole system would soon revert to the way it is now.

*Sigh* now you’ve brought out the cynic in me, and I’ve been trying so hard not to be cynical these days…..

As for the consequences of the actions of the herd (your example of the religious fundamentalist thinking that creates terrorists) the herd is needed to implement ideas, and to bring about change in the world. Whether the change is action (the actual terrorist attacks) or reaction (a mighty country gets shaken out of its complacency and declares a rather questionable ‘war on terrorism), it is still change. And change might not always be good, but I firmly believe that it is healthy, it is necessary for the human race to evolve, in whichever direction. And for that you need the herd, the ones who adopt new thinking with very little – or no – questioning.

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

PsycheDelia · 02-25-2002, 01:56 PM

John Page,

Referring to what you said:

I think democracy works because it moderates the influence of those who think they know better but really don't. Way to go meritocracy.

How exactly does democracy do that? I'm sorry if I sound confused but I'd really like a clarification? And is democracy synonomous with meritocracy?

John Page · 02-25-2002, 02:53 PM

PsycheDelia:

Democracy moderates the influence of leaders by making them accountable to the electorate. So, assuming that the populace is smarter in aggregate than the leader, they'll figure out what's best and lobby.

No, I don't think democracy and meritocracy are synonymous. However, I do believe that democracy's benefits come from providing more equal access to opportunity than, say, a military dictatorship or a hereditary monarchy. Thus, people who can deliver based on their merits are more empowered by democracy, which in turn benefits by taking best advantage of its human capital.

phaedrus · 02-25-2002, 07:24 PM

Pysche

Why do you think anything should be done about the herd mentality? Do you really want to take a chance on the chaos and perhaps the anarchy that would result from billions of free thinkers the world over all taking their own stand on things?

Well the answer is yes, as is evident from my last post. We fear there will be anarchy because, we never experienced a society like that. And just for sake of speculation, how many stands could one take on a particular issue? What you are saying is analogous to a dicussion i was having in the political forum, where bone said a two-party system is better than PR or multi-party system, since it is stable and status quo. Coalition building can lead to consensus and healthy interaction which will only result in a pluralistic universe instead of what we have today.

If I sound pessimistic about this its for two basic reasons. One is that I don�t believe that everyone wants to be a free thinker, an independent soul, or to use my term � a fringe person. Civilization works because of society and social groupings, and if everyone questions the group-think, then society will fall apart. And being different carries with it far too much negative reinforcement. Human beings need to belong, some need to belong to the tightly-knit herd, and some need to belong to the more loosely-linked linked fringe, but we are all looking for someone who thinks like us and who validates our world view. It�s lonely when you have to go it alone, so you might as well just find a way to belong even if it means adapting to the group think. It�s comforting, if not comfortable.

Again you are taking the refuge in what is present in our society, we have questioned what is prevalent and why it is the way it is. A reason for maintaining status quo cant be -"coz thats the way it has been for years". That circular logic. I am not advocating individualism, I am asking for critical thinking (which i believe is not proprietary of individualistic souls) and communication. Well, going by your civilization works arguement, one can even extend it to feudalism and caste-system, they too worked didnt they? So why did we move away from them? Because people started thinking critically about the system and got sick of it due to its drawbacks? Why wait till things turn for the worse? If we dont want everyone to think, then why democracy? Just remove the voting rights of the majority, coz they obviouisly cant think (or are not capable of thinking).

Another reason for my pessimism is that I believe that the quality of the ideas will be better if they come out of the fringe. Ideas are what the world runs on� the new and revolutionary ideas come out of the fringe, and the herd adopts them, knowingly or unknowingly. The reason the fringe people produce better ideas is because they have consciously challenged conventional thinking. Now if everyone did that, wouldn�t unconventional thinking be the norm, the convention? And because unconventional thinking would be encouraged, the ideas would be mediocre at best, because it would be so very easy to say something different and have people accept it, rather than having to think really hard to develop the idea to its depths, just to explain it to those who are slow to accept something new.

Come on, people have lived in the society and produced ideas as well. Anyhows going by your arguement, i have one question - are fringe people typically more intelligent or creative or innovative (coz of their genetic make up) compared to the herd OR they appear intelligent just coz they challenge conventional thinking?

And why will the ideas become mediocre? Instead of few fringe people discussing a particular idea/thought, now we will have a broad range of discussion, and maybe the idea will become better and could be executed better and the fringe people dont have to wait for eons for their idea to be sold to the society, since the whole society is more or less on the same wavelenght.

Call me elitist if you will, but I believe that some of the best minds live on the fringe, and it�s better if there aren�t too many of them.

Again are they the "best" minds coz they live on the fringe or coz they are the "best"?

Regarding the reminder of your post, allow me to repeat what i said earlier - Why do we need the herd (in its present form)? Why cant we have a group of people who indulge in critical/creative thinking and through constant communication and interaction come to a consensus on issues? So the problem now shifts from herd mentality to lack of critical/lateral thinking

Edited to add {text in paranthesis}

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

PsycheDelia · 02-25-2002, 08:49 PM

Phaedrus

Why do you think anything should be done about the herd mentality? Do you really want to take a chance on the chaos and perhaps the anarchy that would result from billions of free thinkers the world over all taking their own stand on things?

I would never have figured you for an idealist, and I have to admit that I am a little impressed

What you are saying is analogous to a dicussion i was having in the political forum, where bone said a two-party system is better than PR or multi-party system, since it is stable and status quo. Coalition building can lead to consensus and healthy interaction which will only result in a pluralistic universe instead of what we have today.

On that point I have to say that I believe a multi-party system is a lot better than a two party system – the more POVs floating around out there, the better. I have a deep suspicion of anything that is polarized, which is what tends to happen in a two-party system. But while coalition might lead to consensus, it does not mean that it automatically encompasses all the view points of the members of the coalition. One or more of the members usually have to adapt and go with what the majority in the group want. But that is not the point here, so lets forget it for now

Again you are taking the refuge in what is present in our society, we have questioned what is prevalent and why it is the way it is. A reason for maintaining status quo cant be -"coz thats the way it has been for years". That circular logic.

OK, you don't want circular logic, so I'll try not to indulge in it. But what you call circular logic here is just my cynicism making itself evident I guess.

I am not advocating individualism, I am asking for critical thinking (which i believe is not proprietary of individualistic souls) and communication.

In my first post I think I did go out of my way to distinguish between creative thinking (which I said comes out of the fringe, and is, in my opinion, the main impetus for change) and critical thinking, which pretty much everyone in the herd is capable of. The fact that not all of them want to think critically is what dismays me, and that is one of the places my cynicism comes from.

Well, going by your civilization works arguement, one can even extend it to feudalism and caste-system, they too worked didnt they? So why did we move away from them? Because people started thinking critically about the system and got sick of it due to its drawbacks? Why wait till things turn for the worse? If we dont want everyone to think, then why democracy?

How different is the practice of democracy as we know it today from feudalism? I could write a book on how the method of control changes, but the control is still there. And there are caste-systems and there are caste-systems, not all of which are labeled as such. I could go on, but you'd start yelling 'circular logic' again

Anyhows going by your arguement, i have one question - are fringe people typically more intelligent or creative or innovative (coz of their genetic make up) compared to the herd OR they appear intelligent just coz they challenge conventional thinking?

Fringe people need not necessarily be more intelligent than those in the herd, though I'm willing to bet that the average IQ of the fringe is a lot higher than that of the herd. But then again that might just be a result of the smaller numbers on the fringe J What distinguishes the fringe people however is the willingness to think differently.

So the problem now shifts from herd mentality to lack of critical/lateral thinking

problem.. your word, not mine. I don't really see it as a problem after all. If people choose to be happy in their world with narrow boundaries, who am I to challenge that? But if someone is questioning that boundary, and wants to break free of group think, then I'd be one the first to rush out and help them. The motivation has to come from the person, and the fact is that in most cases the motivation is just not there...

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

phaedrus · 02-25-2002, 11:46 PM

Psyche

I would never have figured you for an idealist, and I have to admit that I am a little impressed

In my first post I think I did go out of my way to distinguish between creative thinking (which I said comes out of the fringe, and is, in my opinion, the main impetus for change) and critical thinking, which pretty much everyone in the herd is capable of. The fact that not all of them want to think critically is what dismays me, and that is one of the places my cynicism comes from.

What is the difference between creative thinking and critical thinking? Are they mutually exlcusive processes?

How different is the practice of democracy as we know it today from feudalism? I could write a book on how the method of control changes, but the control is still there. And there are caste-systems and there are caste-systems, not all of which are labeled as such. I could go on, but you'd start yelling 'circular logic' again

Why will i do that? So you can substantiate those statements and answer moi queries - Well, going by your civilization works arguement, one can even extend it to feudalism and caste-system, they too worked didnt they? So why did we move away from them? Because people started thinking critically about the system and got sick of it due to its drawbacks? Why wait till things turn for the worse? If we dont want everyone to think, then why democracy?

Fringe people need not necessarily be more intelligent than those in the herd, though I'm willing to bet that the average IQ of the fringe is a lot higher than that of the herd. But then again that might just be a result of the smaller numbers on the fringe J What distinguishes the fringe people however is the willingness to think differently.

Ahh, then do we come to the conclusion that "individuality" has got more to do with IQ as you say rather than culture, upbringing, peer group...etc etc?

problem.. your word, not mine. I don't really see it as a problem after all. If people choose to be happy in their world with narrow boundaries, who am I to challenge that? But if someone is questioning that boundary, and wants to break free of group think, then I'd be one the first to rush out and help them. The motivation has to come from the person, and the fact is that in most cases the motivation is just not there...

Umm, but for the motivation to be there, it requires positive reinforcement which is lacking in the society today.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2002, 12:01 AM	#31
1sec Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 41	time out: ('ve been staying away from the leading position and wondered if i was hating being there because i just can't handle the situation... now with this perspective of the fringe people - wonder why i haven't thought of it before - i start feeling kind of flattered... anyway, let me see if i deserve to dwell on the fringe) time out ended

02-25-2002, 04:07 AM	#33
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	Is it really a herd? Isn't this just a case of specialization? Rather than have every member of a species focus on all aspects of life, isn't it more efficient to have leaders in each field? I think democracy works because it moderates the influence of those who think they know better but really don't. Way to go meritocracy.

02-25-2002, 01:49 PM	#34
PsycheDelia Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: the point at which two worlds collide Posts: 282	Phaedrus, You ask: but given the possible disadvantages of the herd mentality, can anything be done about it? Why do you think anything should be done about the herd mentality? Do you really want to take a chance on the chaos and perhaps the anarchy that would result from billions of free thinkers the world over all taking their own stand on things? If I sound pessimistic about this its for two basic reasons. One is that I don’t believe that everyone wants to be a free thinker, an independent soul, or to use my term – a fringe person. Civilization works because of society and social groupings, and if everyone questions the group-think, then society will fall apart. And being different carries with it far too much negative reinforcement. Human beings need to belong, some need to belong to the tightly-knit herd, and some need to belong to the more loosely-linked linked fringe, but we are all looking for someone who thinks like us and who validates our world view. It’s lonely when you have to go it alone, so you might as well just find a way to belong even if it means adapting to the group think. It’s comforting, if not comfortable. Another reason for my pessimism is that I believe that the quality of the ideas will be better if they come out of the fringe. Ideas are what the world runs on… the new and revolutionary ideas come out of the fringe, and the herd adopts them, knowingly or unknowingly. The reason the fringe people produce better ideas is because they have consciously challenged conventional thinking. Now if everyone did that, wouldn’t unconventional thinking be the norm, the convention? And because unconventional thinking would be encouraged, the ideas would be mediocre at best, because it would be so very easy to say something different and have people accept it, rather than having to think really hard to develop the idea to its depths, just to explain it to those who are slow to accept something new. Call me elitist if you will, but I believe that some of the best minds live on the fringe, and it’s better if there aren’t too many of them. But if you want to know how it can be done, then I guess that’s easy, and as Adrian pointed out the answer lies in education. Teach a child to question everything, absolutely everything and you will soon find an individual who develops his/her own world view, and a healthy skepticism about any line fed to it. I think (I’m not sure though) that every single person is capable of that. But perhaps it would be better if all teachers could be culled from those wise fringe people, and they would be the ones who would spot the naturally curious children, the independent thinkers early on and nurture that curiosity. But then most teachers want nothing more than to impose their own world view on the minds they shape, and the whole system would soon revert to the way it is now. Sigh now you’ve brought out the cynic in me, and I’ve been trying so hard not to be cynical these days….. As for the consequences of the actions of the herd (your example of the religious fundamentalist thinking that creates terrorists) the herd is needed to implement ideas, and to bring about change in the world. Whether the change is action (the actual terrorist attacks) or reaction (a mighty country gets shaken out of its complacency and declares a rather questionable ‘war on terrorism), it is still change. And change might not always be good, but I firmly believe that it is healthy, it is necessary for the human race to evolve, in whichever direction. And for that you need the herd, the ones who adopt new thinking with very little – or no – questioning. [ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: PsycheDelia ]</p>

02-25-2002, 01:56 PM	#35
PsycheDelia Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: the point at which two worlds collide Posts: 282	John Page, Referring to what you said: I think democracy works because it moderates the influence of those who think they know better but really don't. Way to go meritocracy. How exactly does democracy do that? I'm sorry if I sound confused but I'd really like a clarification? And is democracy synonomous with meritocracy?

02-25-2002, 02:53 PM	#36
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	PsycheDelia: Democracy moderates the influence of leaders by making them accountable to the electorate. So, assuming that the populace is smarter in aggregate than the leader, they'll figure out what's best and lobby. No, I don't think democracy and meritocracy are synonymous. However, I do believe that democracy's benefits come from providing more equal access to opportunity than, say, a military dictatorship or a hereditary monarchy. Thus, people who can deliver based on their merits are more empowered by democracy, which in turn benefits by taking best advantage of its human capital.

02-25-2002, 07:24 PM	#37
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	Pysche Why do you think anything should be done about the herd mentality? Do you really want to take a chance on the chaos and perhaps the anarchy that would result from billions of free thinkers the world over all taking their own stand on things? Well the answer is yes, as is evident from my last post. We fear there will be anarchy because, we never experienced a society like that. And just for sake of speculation, how many stands could one take on a particular issue? What you are saying is analogous to a dicussion i was having in the political forum, where bone said a two-party system is better than PR or multi-party system, since it is stable and status quo. Coalition building can lead to consensus and healthy interaction which will only result in a pluralistic universe instead of what we have today. If I sound pessimistic about this its for two basic reasons. One is that I don�t believe that everyone wants to be a free thinker, an independent soul, or to use my term � a fringe person. Civilization works because of society and social groupings, and if everyone questions the group-think, then society will fall apart. And being different carries with it far too much negative reinforcement. Human beings need to belong, some need to belong to the tightly-knit herd, and some need to belong to the more loosely-linked linked fringe, but we are all looking for someone who thinks like us and who validates our world view. It�s lonely when you have to go it alone, so you might as well just find a way to belong even if it means adapting to the group think. It�s comforting, if not comfortable. Again you are taking the refuge in what is present in our society, we have questioned what is prevalent and why it is the way it is. A reason for maintaining status quo cant be -"coz thats the way it has been for years". That circular logic. I am not advocating individualism, I am asking for critical thinking (which i believe is not proprietary of individualistic souls) and communication. Well, going by your civilization works arguement, one can even extend it to feudalism and caste-system, they too worked didnt they? So why did we move away from them? Because people started thinking critically about the system and got sick of it due to its drawbacks? Why wait till things turn for the worse? If we dont want everyone to think, then why democracy? Just remove the voting rights of the majority, coz they obviouisly cant think (or are not capable of thinking). Another reason for my pessimism is that I believe that the quality of the ideas will be better if they come out of the fringe. Ideas are what the world runs on� the new and revolutionary ideas come out of the fringe, and the herd adopts them, knowingly or unknowingly. The reason the fringe people produce better ideas is because they have consciously challenged conventional thinking. Now if everyone did that, wouldn�t unconventional thinking be the norm, the convention? And because unconventional thinking would be encouraged, the ideas would be mediocre at best, because it would be so very easy to say something different and have people accept it, rather than having to think really hard to develop the idea to its depths, just to explain it to those who are slow to accept something new. Come on, people have lived in the society and produced ideas as well. Anyhows going by your arguement, i have one question - are fringe people typically more intelligent or creative or innovative (coz of their genetic make up) compared to the herd OR they appear intelligent just coz they challenge conventional thinking? And why will the ideas become mediocre? Instead of few fringe people discussing a particular idea/thought, now we will have a broad range of discussion, and maybe the idea will become better and could be executed better and the fringe people dont have to wait for eons for their idea to be sold to the society, since the whole society is more or less on the same wavelenght. Call me elitist if you will, but I believe that some of the best minds live on the fringe, and it�s better if there aren�t too many of them. Again are they the "best" minds coz they live on the fringe or coz they are the "best"? Regarding the reminder of your post, allow me to repeat what i said earlier - Why do we need the herd (in its present form)? Why cant we have a group of people who indulge in critical/creative thinking and through constant communication and interaction come to a consensus on issues? So the problem now shifts from herd mentality to lack of critical/lateral thinking Edited to add {text in paranthesis} [ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

02-25-2002, 08:49 PM	#38
PsycheDelia Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: the point at which two worlds collide Posts: 282	Phaedrus Why do you think anything should be done about the herd mentality? Do you really want to take a chance on the chaos and perhaps the anarchy that would result from billions of free thinkers the world over all taking their own stand on things? I would never have figured you for an idealist, and I have to admit that I am a little impressed What you are saying is analogous to a dicussion i was having in the political forum, where bone said a two-party system is better than PR or multi-party system, since it is stable and status quo. Coalition building can lead to consensus and healthy interaction which will only result in a pluralistic universe instead of what we have today. On that point I have to say that I believe a multi-party system is a lot better than a two party system – the more POVs floating around out there, the better. I have a deep suspicion of anything that is polarized, which is what tends to happen in a two-party system. But while coalition might lead to consensus, it does not mean that it automatically encompasses all the view points of the members of the coalition. One or more of the members usually have to adapt and go with what the majority in the group want. But that is not the point here, so lets forget it for now Again you are taking the refuge in what is present in our society, we have questioned what is prevalent and why it is the way it is. A reason for maintaining status quo cant be -"coz thats the way it has been for years". That circular logic. OK, you don't want circular logic, so I'll try not to indulge in it. But what you call circular logic here is just my cynicism making itself evident I guess. I am not advocating individualism, I am asking for critical thinking (which i believe is not proprietary of individualistic souls) and communication. In my first post I think I did go out of my way to distinguish between creative thinking (which I said comes out of the fringe, and is, in my opinion, the main impetus for change) and critical thinking, which pretty much everyone in the herd is capable of. The fact that not all of them want to think critically is what dismays me, and that is one of the places my cynicism comes from. Well, going by your civilization works arguement, one can even extend it to feudalism and caste-system, they too worked didnt they? So why did we move away from them? Because people started thinking critically about the system and got sick of it due to its drawbacks? Why wait till things turn for the worse? If we dont want everyone to think, then why democracy? How different is the practice of democracy as we know it today from feudalism? I could write a book on how the method of control changes, but the control is still there. And there are caste-systems and there are caste-systems, not all of which are labeled as such. I could go on, but you'd start yelling 'circular logic' again Anyhows going by your arguement, i have one question - are fringe people typically more intelligent or creative or innovative (coz of their genetic make up) compared to the herd OR they appear intelligent just coz they challenge conventional thinking? Fringe people need not necessarily be more intelligent than those in the herd, though I'm willing to bet that the average IQ of the fringe is a lot higher than that of the herd. But then again that might just be a result of the smaller numbers on the fringe J What distinguishes the fringe people however is the willingness to think differently. So the problem now shifts from herd mentality to lack of critical/lateral thinking problem.. your word, not mine. I don't really see it as a problem after all. If people choose to be happy in their world with narrow boundaries, who am I to challenge that? But if someone is questioning that boundary, and wants to break free of group think, then I'd be one the first to rush out and help them. The motivation has to come from the person, and the fact is that in most cases the motivation is just not there... [ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: PsycheDelia ]</p>

02-25-2002, 11:46 PM	#39
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	Psyche I would never have figured you for an idealist, and I have to admit that I am a little impressed In my first post I think I did go out of my way to distinguish between creative thinking (which I said comes out of the fringe, and is, in my opinion, the main impetus for change) and critical thinking, which pretty much everyone in the herd is capable of. The fact that not all of them want to think critically is what dismays me, and that is one of the places my cynicism comes from. What is the difference between creative thinking and critical thinking? Are they mutually exlcusive processes? How different is the practice of democracy as we know it today from feudalism? I could write a book on how the method of control changes, but the control is still there. And there are caste-systems and there are caste-systems, not all of which are labeled as such. I could go on, but you'd start yelling 'circular logic' again Why will i do that? So you can substantiate those statements and answer moi queries - Well, going by your civilization works arguement, one can even extend it to feudalism and caste-system, they too worked didnt they? So why did we move away from them? Because people started thinking critically about the system and got sick of it due to its drawbacks? Why wait till things turn for the worse? If we dont want everyone to think, then why democracy? Fringe people need not necessarily be more intelligent than those in the herd, though I'm willing to bet that the average IQ of the fringe is a lot higher than that of the herd. But then again that might just be a result of the smaller numbers on the fringe J What distinguishes the fringe people however is the willingness to think differently. Ahh, then do we come to the conclusion that "individuality" has got more to do with IQ as you say rather than culture, upbringing, peer group...etc etc? problem.. your word, not mine. I don't really see it as a problem after all. If people choose to be happy in their world with narrow boundaries, who am I to challenge that? But if someone is questioning that boundary, and wants to break free of group think, then I'd be one the first to rush out and help them. The motivation has to come from the person, and the fact is that in most cases the motivation is just not there... Umm, but for the motivation to be there, it requires positive reinforcement which is lacking in the society today.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.