On herd mentality and manipulation
May. 4th, 2010 01:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmutI apologize in advance if the following comes across as too abstract and incoherent.
It's no secret that the strength of group thinking, a.k.a. herd (hive?) mentality, is not in the actual rational nature of the thesis that it defends (whatever the thesis), but in the confidence it injects into the individual (member of said herd) as he becomes aware of the large mass of people who back his or her opinion. So at its core, the conviction which ideologically drives the individual is mainly based on emotion rather than objective fact.
The very use of the term 'conviction' is a semantic wonder of its own. Let's have a look at the following two assertions:
1. "I'm convinced he'll be elected".
2. "He's going to be elected".
It seems that in its essence, the latter assertion reflects our actual 'firm conviction' that said candidate would be elected, while in the former, the very use of the phrase "I'm convinced" implies some lack of categorism, i.e. it creates the impression that the conviction is not 100% complete. But if we look a bit closer, objectivity demands that we acknowledge that in both cases, our conviction is subjective, as the real fact of the guy getting elected is still non-existent, and reality does not give a damn about our convictions, beliefs and gut feelings.
I think the above example emphasizes the ultimate truthfulness of my 'conviction' (HA!, as Steve-O would've said) that group logic constitutes an emotional rather than a rationally conditioned phenomenon. Therefore, this ought to cause some doubts about the veracity of any large group's thesis, no matter how numerous and vocal its proponents are. The proverb "A lie, repeated a hundred times, becomes fact" is rather telling. But in reality, it still doesn't make the lie a fact, period. What's more, the above doubt could also be extended to include distrust in the ability of the individual (member of said group) to think rationally in most situations, as they'd more often opt for the more convenient way, i.e. trusting the hive mind to form their position, rather than doing the mental effort to make their own research and do the thinking for themselves.
All the above particularly applies to politics. All said, it'd be preposterous to assert that every adherent to this or that political idea (liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, anarchist, whatever) is familiar with said political idea to a satisfactory extent, and acknowledges in full detail the possible complex implications of its realization in real life. How many of us are truly able to express adequate assertions and make profound analysis on a subject that is inherently stretchable such as politics? We mostly use talking points and then we try to rationalize them from our own perspective, then we seek public support to add more weight to them. As if that'd make them valid.
That's why political discussions being mainly charged with emotion and irrational soundbites are commonplace. That's actually valid in most other spheres of life, regardless of the discussion being individually or socially significant. We're seeing this even in some natural sciences, where we speak of 'a mainstream agenda', 'the establishment', etc, and where a major change of paradigm takes enormous efforts.
In conclusion, it turns out the mind advocates what the heart desires, not the other way around. It finds all sorts of funny rationalization in order to twist reality around the preliminarily conceived premise, and it takes enormous effort to break that cycle as well. In both personal, professional and social respect, we live by our feelings and emotions, i.e. we're prey to our irrational side, and no matter how much we publicly claim to be following reason and acting out of principle, we still can't trick ourselves. Especially when seeing ourselves in the context of the hive mind that we're part of. So hold that thought at the back of your mind, the next time you decide to throw in the worn-out "the values that *we* stand for" soundbite again.
x-posted to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
talk_politics
It's no secret that the strength of group thinking, a.k.a. herd (hive?) mentality, is not in the actual rational nature of the thesis that it defends (whatever the thesis), but in the confidence it injects into the individual (member of said herd) as he becomes aware of the large mass of people who back his or her opinion. So at its core, the conviction which ideologically drives the individual is mainly based on emotion rather than objective fact.
The very use of the term 'conviction' is a semantic wonder of its own. Let's have a look at the following two assertions:
1. "I'm convinced he'll be elected".
2. "He's going to be elected".
It seems that in its essence, the latter assertion reflects our actual 'firm conviction' that said candidate would be elected, while in the former, the very use of the phrase "I'm convinced" implies some lack of categorism, i.e. it creates the impression that the conviction is not 100% complete. But if we look a bit closer, objectivity demands that we acknowledge that in both cases, our conviction is subjective, as the real fact of the guy getting elected is still non-existent, and reality does not give a damn about our convictions, beliefs and gut feelings.
I think the above example emphasizes the ultimate truthfulness of my 'conviction' (HA!, as Steve-O would've said) that group logic constitutes an emotional rather than a rationally conditioned phenomenon. Therefore, this ought to cause some doubts about the veracity of any large group's thesis, no matter how numerous and vocal its proponents are. The proverb "A lie, repeated a hundred times, becomes fact" is rather telling. But in reality, it still doesn't make the lie a fact, period. What's more, the above doubt could also be extended to include distrust in the ability of the individual (member of said group) to think rationally in most situations, as they'd more often opt for the more convenient way, i.e. trusting the hive mind to form their position, rather than doing the mental effort to make their own research and do the thinking for themselves.
All the above particularly applies to politics. All said, it'd be preposterous to assert that every adherent to this or that political idea (liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, anarchist, whatever) is familiar with said political idea to a satisfactory extent, and acknowledges in full detail the possible complex implications of its realization in real life. How many of us are truly able to express adequate assertions and make profound analysis on a subject that is inherently stretchable such as politics? We mostly use talking points and then we try to rationalize them from our own perspective, then we seek public support to add more weight to them. As if that'd make them valid.
That's why political discussions being mainly charged with emotion and irrational soundbites are commonplace. That's actually valid in most other spheres of life, regardless of the discussion being individually or socially significant. We're seeing this even in some natural sciences, where we speak of 'a mainstream agenda', 'the establishment', etc, and where a major change of paradigm takes enormous efforts.
In conclusion, it turns out the mind advocates what the heart desires, not the other way around. It finds all sorts of funny rationalization in order to twist reality around the preliminarily conceived premise, and it takes enormous effort to break that cycle as well. In both personal, professional and social respect, we live by our feelings and emotions, i.e. we're prey to our irrational side, and no matter how much we publicly claim to be following reason and acting out of principle, we still can't trick ourselves. Especially when seeing ourselves in the context of the hive mind that we're part of. So hold that thought at the back of your mind, the next time you decide to throw in the worn-out "the values that *we* stand for" soundbite again.
x-posted to
talk_politics
