![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On herd mentality and manipulation
May. 4th, 2010 01:54 pmI 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.
( So what's my point, actually )
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.
( So what's my point, actually )
x-posted to
talk_politics
