Ad hoc ideology and the Internet

[coberst]

Ad hoc ideology and the Internet

There appear to be many types of ideologies and I think that the Internet provides a convenient venue for the ‘ad hoc ideology’.

In his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” Freud writes about the characteristics of ideological groups in general and extensively on large artificial groups such as the Church and the Army.

What is striking is that members of these ideological entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility of which contagion is a symptom leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will an discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—that is, a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.
------------------------------------------------

I have read that some consider objectivism to be a cult rather than a philosophy; I asked my self what is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. I turned to Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” for my answer. I discovered that Freud had turned to the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon for his study of group behavior.

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. His work on crowd psychology became important in the first half of the twentieth century. Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of sociology.
English translation “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego”, (1922) was explicitly based on a critique of Le Bon's work. The quotes and short phrases in this post are from this book.

[bilateralrope]

Whats an "Ad hoc ideology" ?

Hasn't Freud been heavily discredited ?

How is any of what you posted relevant to the Internet, since it appears your quoting stuff written long before the Internet was conceived.

I have read that some consider objectivism to be a cult rather than a philosophy; I asked my self what is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. I turned to Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” for my answer.

And what was the answer you found there ?

[Starglider]

More stating-the-obvious-in-needlessly-obscure-language spam without even a hint of a real question.

'Organisations tend to have their own cultures.'
'This can go as far as groupthink and cultish behaviour.'
'Even if they exist mostly or solely on the Internet.'
'Humans use group norms as a convenient template for behaviour.'
'I read Freud and an obscure sociology author.'

There, see, no need for the six tonnes of meaningless pseudo-intellectual philosobabble and vapid sentence fragments.

[coberst]

Whats an "Ad hoc ideology" ?

Hasn't Freud been heavily discredited ?

How is any of what you posted relevant to the Internet, since it appears your quoting stuff written long before the Internet was conceived.

I have read that some consider objectivism to be a cult rather than a philosophy; I asked my self what is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. I turned to Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” for my answer.

And what was the answer you found there ?

Ad hoc—formed or used for specific or immediate needs

An ideology is generally considered to be a group of ideas. It is a way of ‘seeing’. It is generally a holistic and organized set of ideas.

The Internet provides an easy media for communication.

Read the OP and you will discover what I have found.

[bilateralrope]

Whats an "Ad hoc ideology" ?

Hasn't Freud been heavily discredited ?

How is any of what you posted relevant to the Internet, since it appears your quoting stuff written long before the Internet was conceived.

I have read that some consider objectivism to be a cult rather than a philosophy; I asked my self what is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. I turned to Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” for my answer.

And what was the answer you found there ?

Ad hoc—formed or used for specific or immediate needs

An ideology is generally considered to be a group of ideas. It is a way of ‘seeing’. It is generally a holistic and organized set of ideas.

Ok

The Internet provides an easy media for communication.

I don't understand how this is relavant to the stuff you copy and pasted. Please be more specific.

Read the OP and you will discover what I have found.

Your questions seem to be:
- Is objectivism a cult or a philosophy ?
- what is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology ?

For the first it should be a simple yes/no answer. So provide one rather than ask me to re-read your OP, since it should be clear that I couldn't find the answer in there.

While I don't care about the second, I don't see any answer to it there either.

[Surlethe]

Isn't it perfectly obvious that people behave differently in groups than they might individually, whether the groups are on the internet or in real life? I mean, people here have observed time and time again that internet anonymity turns individuals into perfect assholes, and that's even without the group dynamic on top of the namelessness.

[Knife]

*sigh* I have no idea why one would be surprised that a social animal like a human would change it's behavior to fit what it thinks fits in with a desired group. Why do you seem to be surprised by these little bits of 'knowledge' you keep finding? Or do you just like to wax poetically?

[coberst]

*sigh* I have no idea why one would be surprised that a social animal like a human would change it's behavior to fit what it thinks fits in with a desired group. Why do you seem to be surprised by these little bits of 'knowledge' you keep finding? Or do you just like to wax poetically?

Not everyone is as smart as you. We should consider the value of others knowing as much as do you and I.

[coberst]

Isn't it perfectly obvious that people behave differently in groups than they might individually, whether the groups are on the internet or in real life? I mean, people here have observed time and time again that internet anonymity turns individuals into perfect assholes, and that's even without the group dynamic on top of the namelessness.

Anonymity does seem to encourage some individuals into behavior that they would not do otherwise, however, there is a group dynamics that often tends to accentuate that attitude to a great degree.

[Knife]

*sigh* I have no idea why one would be surprised that a social animal like a human would change it's behavior to fit what it thinks fits in with a desired group. Why do you seem to be surprised by these little bits of 'knowledge' you keep finding? Or do you just like to wax poetically?

Not everyone is as smart as you. We should consider the value of others knowing as much as do you and I.

See, I'm not that smart but I can make the connection. Though, if getting infomation to those not as smart as others, boiling down your delivery might help a bit. If education is your goal, start by assuming people have bad critical reading skills and take a weed-wacker to your verbose essay.

[coberst]

*sigh* I have no idea why one would be surprised that a social animal like a human would change it's behavior to fit what it thinks fits in with a desired group. Why do you seem to be surprised by these little bits of 'knowledge' you keep finding? Or do you just like to wax poetically?

Not everyone is as smart as you. We should consider the value of others knowing as much as do you and I.

See, I'm not that smart but I can make the connection. Though, if getting infomation to those not as smart as others, boiling down your delivery might help a bit. If education is your goal, start by assuming people have bad critical reading skills and take a weed-wacker to your verbose essay.

Some say I do not explain well enough and others say I explain too well. I have discovered that it is impossible to please everyone.

[Mobiboros]

Some say I do not explain well enough and others say I explain too well.

You explain poorly.

No, let me rephrase that. You don't explain anything. You quote parts from other people's works and string them together in a way such that they actually lack meaning or context.

I can't believe you opened with an appeal to Freud of all people.

Why did you need such a long post to say:

"People behave differently in groups than as individuals. This is a long understood phenomenon colloquially known as 'Mob Mentality'."
"The internet, bieng an ad hoc group of people may function similarly on a limited scale. It would be interesting to see if this was true."
"Is there a difference between a philosophy and an ideology?"

[bilateralrope]

Not everyone is as smart as you. We should consider the value of others knowing as much as do you and I.

When will I be getting the yes/no answer I asked for in my previous post ?

Or are you saying that I'm too stupid to understand such an answer ?

Some say I do not explain well enough and others say I explain too well. I have discovered that it is impossible to please everyone.

Who says your explaining it too well ?

[Darth Wong]

Some say I do not explain well enough and others say I explain too well. I have discovered that it is impossible to please everyone.

Show me ONE example of someone who says that you explain things too well. Every single person here seems to agree that you are in love with the sound of your own voice and needlessly obfuscate everything you say with pointless circuitous verbosity.

Your problem is that you think the obvious is a revelation, so you try to dress it up with faux-profound language. Your much-vaunted philosophical discussions have all the depth of a South Park episode once you strip away the bullshit.

[Coyote]

Coberst--

I'll bite, and there's a reason for it:

What you've described can be described as a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome", except in the case of a chosen social group it doesn't have the typical dark connoctations. People are social animals, and will seek a society to fit into, and in order to avoid rejection they will begin to mirror the perceived standards and norms of that chosen society.

A person with no sense of judgement will plunge willy-nilly into any society and try to fit in even if it goes against his personal ideals (or if his personal ideals are not well thought out, ie, someone quite young and first experimenting with identity). When they can't fit in, they may become hostile to the group, or to themselves, and invariably walk away feeling (because people tend to be self-centered) that they were somehow at fault. This can be good if it triggers introspection; it can be bad if it triggers some sense of persecution or self-loathing. But that's another story.

So what you're describing isn't, really, all that amazing-- it's garden variety human socialization. A clever quote from the movie "Men In Black" summed it up well: "A person is smart. People are dumb."

Look, I think you're actually an interesting person, and could be a decent contributor here... but if you're trying to fit into this society, you need to take some of the hints about people's reactions here and allow yourself to mirror them... just a bit. Not enough to erode your sense of self, but enough to build sufficient bonds here that will encourage communication.

[coberst]

Some say I do not explain well enough and others say I explain too well. I have discovered that it is impossible to please everyone.

Show me ONE example of someone who says that you explain things too well. Every single person here seems to agree that you are in love with the sound of your own voice and needlessly obfuscate everything you say with pointless circuitous verbosity.

Your problem is that you think the obvious is a revelation, so you try to dress it up with faux-profound language. Your much-vaunted philosophical discussions have all the depth of a South Park episode once you strip away the bullshit.

Mobiboros just said I did.

[coberst]

Coberst--

I'll bite, and there's a reason for it:

What you've described can be described as a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome", except in the case of a chosen social group it doesn't have the typical dark connoctations. People are social animals, and will seek a society to fit into, and in order to avoid rejection they will begin to mirror the perceived standards and norms of that chosen society.

A person with no sense of judgement will plunge willy-nilly into any society and try to fit in even if it goes against his personal ideals (or if his personal ideals are not well thought out, ie, someone quite young and first experimenting with identity). When they can't fit in, they may become hostile to the group, or to themselves, and invariably walk away feeling (because people tend to be self-centered) that they were somehow at fault. This can be good if it triggers introspection; it can be bad if it triggers some sense of persecution or self-loathing. But that's another story.

So what you're describing isn't, really, all that amazing-- it's garden variety human socialization. A clever quote from the movie "Men In Black" summed it up well: "A person is smart. People are dumb."

Look, I think you're actually an interesting person, and could be a decent contributor here... but if you're trying to fit into this society, you need to take some of the hints about people's reactions here and allow yourself to mirror them... just a bit. Not enough to erode your sense of self, but enough to build sufficient bonds here that will encourage communication.

Well said. I shall try my best!

[Mobiboros]

Mobiboros just said I did.

No I did not say you explained things too well. I said you explained things very poorly or not at all.

[coberst]

Mobiboros just said I did.

No I did not say you explained things too well. I said you explained things very poorly or not at all.

Sounds like an 'Indian Giver". When I was a kid we had an expression of 'Indian Giver' when someone took back what they had said before. This phrse comes from the fact that in the US the government made many promises to the Native Americans and then took them back.

[Mobiboros]

Sounds like an 'Indian Giver".

Do you suffer from some form of mental handicap? Seriously. How could you misconstrue what I said when my first sentence was:

You explain poorly.

When I was a kid we had an expression of 'Indian Giver' when someone took back what they had said before. This phrse comes from the fact that in the US the government made many promises to the Native Americans and then took them back.

A) I'm an American, I have heard of the phrase.
B) That's not the origin of the phrase. It comes from stories of Native Americans giving gifts to the European settlers and then taking them back.

[coberst]

mobiboros

I do not think you are correct. That sounds like the PC ( Politically Correct) thing to say.

[Mobiboros]

mobiboros

I do not think you are correct. That sounds like the PC ( Politically Correct) thing to say.

Dude, what YOU said is the PC thing to say with the whole "Big Bad US government harming the poor defenseless natives". I was being honest, and saying that Native Americans got a reputation for taking back gifts they gave.

Go do even a quick google search on it.

[wolveraptor]

mobiboros

I do not think you are correct. That sounds like the PC ( Politically Correct) thing to say.

Way to avoid Mobiboros's first point, which was that he never said you explain things too well. Go back and read his goddamn post. He clearly says he thinks you explain things poorly.

[Spyder]

Ad hoc ideology and the Internet

This will be good. Hey you know that strip of text under your name that says "Youngling"? That's going to be changing very shortly and not because of your postcount.

There appear to be many types of ideologies and I think that the Internet provides a convenient venue for the ‘ad hoc ideology’.

On the fly ideology, off the cuff ideology, instant ideology...

In his book “Group Psychology and...


*snip words, a lot of words*

Now here's the problem; everyone knows all that. Even people that have never seen all that explicitly expressed know it. The absolute best response you could possibly hope for is someone posting in to say "hey yeah, that makes sense" and that would probably only come from another post modernist.

No one is learning anything from this, no logical boundaries are being pushed, there's no actual science to anything you just posted. Can you understand the problem?

[Darth Wong]

Imagine if you took the contents of a fortune cookie and padded it out to fill an entire page. That's a typical coberst essay.