Ad hoc ideology and the Internet

[Lord Zentei]

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?

<SNIP BLAH BLAH BLAH>

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”.

Have you heard of the "slippery slope" fallacy? Hint: you are employing it here.

On the internet as elsewhere, people tend to form groups of like thinking individuals no less by people leaving than people conforming. Take a gander at the "Parting Shots" directory to see what I mean.

It is perfectly rational for people to form support groups in order to better their position: a group is better equipped than an individual to tackle the problems its members may face. They learn from each other as well as support and assist each other in various ways. Naturally, people must also make some compromises in order to gain this benefit: one has to give as well as receive, unless one wants to be dismissed as a leech. Result: something called society.

However, this is a far cry from the scenario you have presented with "force being king" and "kindness being a weakness".

[coberst]

Comparing awareness to consciousness is an important consideration.

I have on occasion turned to the yellow pages to search for a store that carries a type of product I am interested in buying only to be surprised to find that such a store exists close to me and that I pass it every day on the drive to work.

What is the difference between being aware of something and being conscious of something?

If I become conscious of the difference between awareness and consciousness I become conscious of the fact that there exists a world of things about which I am aware but of which I am not conscious.

So what?

I think that it might be worthwhile to become conscious of the fact that comprehension is a hierarchy. I think that comprehension might usefully be considered as a pyramid; a pyramid with awareness at the base and that consciousness (awareness plus attention) follows awareness and that knowing follows consciousness.

The important point being that we must become conscious of a matter before we can ever know that matter. Awareness is insufficient. We must pass through consciousness of a matter before we can become knowledgeable of a matter. My post is meant to raise the consciousness of the reader to the reality of ‘group mind’ and how the group mind can be terribly destructive.

[Lord Zentei]

If I become conscious of the difference between awareness and consciousness I become conscious of the fact that there exists a world of things about which I am aware but of which I am not conscious.

This does not make any sense.

I think that it might be worthwhile to become conscious of the fact that comprehension is a hierarchy. I think that comprehension might usefully be considered as a pyramid; a pyramid with awareness at the base and that consciousness (awareness plus attention) follows awareness and that knowing follows consciousness.

This makes marginally more sense: conciousness = awareness plus attention. Whatever.

The important point being that we must become conscious of a matter before we can ever know that matter. Awareness is insufficient. We must pass through consciousness of a matter before we can become knowledgeable of a matter. My post is meant to raise the consciousness of the reader to the reality of ‘group mind’ and how the group mind can be terribly destructive.

ZOMG!! What a revelation. There is such a thing as a group mind!! Obedience without reflection or judgement is potentially harmful!! And we cannot attain knowledge of something without paying attention to it!! TRULY, MY MIND IS BLOWN, SIR!!11+1

Le snore. Come back when you have something interesting to offer, you pretentious twit.

[Darth Wong]

"It's important to think for yourself" is not a bad fortune-cookie sentiment. Padding it out to a page-length essay and pretending it's a deep philosophical revelation, on the other hand, is the act of a pretentious twat.

[coberst]

"It's important to think for yourself" is not a bad fortune-cookie sentiment. Padding it out to a page-length essay and pretending it's a deep philosophical revelation, on the other hand, is the act of a pretentious twat.

It seems to me that our society has become a sound-bite and bumper-sticker culture. If it requires more than a sentence to contemplate—forget about it. We no longer have an attention span that can focus beyond a few words. The problem is a fear of reading. Reading begets vocabulary and vocabulary guides comprehension and curiosity energizes attention.

[Lord Zentei]

"It's important to think for yourself" is not a bad fortune-cookie sentiment. Padding it out to a page-length essay and pretending it's a deep philosophical revelation, on the other hand, is the act of a pretentious twat.

It seems to me that our society has become a sound-bite and bumper-sticker culture. If it requires more than a sentence to contemplate—forget about it. We no longer have an attention span that can focus beyond a few words. The problem is a fear of reading. Reading begets vocabulary and vocabulary guides comprehension and curiosity energizes attention.

Indeed. However, that does not imply that you deserve any brownie points for inane, verbose blah-de-blah. People should be more ready to pay attention to ideas that require some effort to understand. The operative word being require.

On the other hand, I also see the modern culture being prone to pseudo-profoundity, of which your essays are good examples: very simple ideas being presented in bloated packaging in the hopes of impressing people.

[Patrick Degan]

"It's important to think for yourself" is not a bad fortune-cookie sentiment. Padding it out to a page-length essay and pretending it's a deep philosophical revelation, on the other hand, is the act of a pretentious twat.

It seems to me that our society has become a sound-bite and bumper-sticker culture. If it requires more than a sentence to contemplate—forget about it. We no longer have an attention span that can focus beyond a few words. The problem is a fear of reading. Reading begets vocabulary and vocabulary guides comprehension and curiosity energizes attention.

Kindly fuck off. From what I've seen of your various cut-n'paste postings in your short history here, you've provided nothing worth more than a second's contemplation. That's sort of like demanding us to consider the profundity of the statement "Rain is wet" spun out into a six paragraph essay on the subject.

[coberst]

"It's important to think for yourself" is not a bad fortune-cookie sentiment. Padding it out to a page-length essay and pretending it's a deep philosophical revelation, on the other hand, is the act of a pretentious twat.

It seems to me that our society has become a sound-bite and bumper-sticker culture. If it requires more than a sentence to contemplate—forget about it. We no longer have an attention span that can focus beyond a few words. The problem is a fear of reading. Reading begets vocabulary and vocabulary guides comprehension and curiosity energizes attention.

Indeed. However, that does not imply that you deserve any brownie points for inane, verbose blah-de-blah. People should be more ready to pay attention to ideas that require some effort to understand. The operative word being require.

On the other hand, I also see the modern culture being prone to pseudo-profoundity, of which your essays are good examples: very simple ideas being presented in bloated packaging in the hopes of impressing people.

Well 'different strokes for different folks'. I seldom encounter profound or even psuedo-profound remarks on Internet discussion forums. Of course, that depends a great deal upon the reading skills of the reader. Most are simple short statements even though many are filled with sophomoric bluff and bluster.

[Darth Wong]

"It's important to think for yourself" is not a bad fortune-cookie sentiment. Padding it out to a page-length essay and pretending it's a deep philosophical revelation, on the other hand, is the act of a pretentious twat.

It seems to me that our society has become a sound-bite and bumper-sticker culture. If it requires more than a sentence to contemplate—forget about it. We no longer have an attention span that can focus beyond a few words. The problem is a fear of reading. Reading begets vocabulary and vocabulary guides comprehension and curiosity energizes attention.

Well, that point sailed over your head, didn't it? You know the only thing worse than 5-second sound-bites? Page-length essays that contain no more real content than a 5-second sound-bite.

[coberst]

"It's important to think for yourself" is not a bad fortune-cookie sentiment. Padding it out to a page-length essay and pretending it's a deep philosophical revelation, on the other hand, is the act of a pretentious twat.

It seems to me that our society has become a sound-bite and bumper-sticker culture. If it requires more than a sentence to contemplate—forget about it. We no longer have an attention span that can focus beyond a few words. The problem is a fear of reading. Reading begets vocabulary and vocabulary guides comprehension and curiosity energizes attention.

Kindly fuck off. From what I've seen of your various cut-n'paste postings in your short history here, you've provided nothing worth more than a second's contemplation. That's sort of like demanding us to consider the profundity of the statement "Rain is wet" spun out into a six paragraph essay on the subject.

It is all depends an the 'mind of the beholder'. Some can behold more than others.

[Darth Wong]

It is all depends an the 'mind of the beholder'. Some can behold more than others.

There is NO part of your worthless essay that contains any sentiment deeper than "People should think for themselves". If you think there is one, kindly explain what it is. And keep in mind that if your inevitable long-winded response basically boils down to "People should think for themselves", then you lose.

[General Zod]

Well 'different strokes for different folks'. I seldom encounter profound or even psuedo-profound remarks on Internet discussion forums. Of course, that depends a great deal upon the reading skills of the reader. Most are simple short statements even though many are filled with sophomoric bluff and bluster.

Attention kettle! Attention kettle! This is pot! You are black! Do you read me, over?!

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't know about you folks, but I keep getting the impression that he's slyly calling us all retarded morons who can't read or comprehend the profoundity of his statements.

He's not saying it outright, but he's passively beating around the bush.

[General Zod]

I don't know about you folks, but I keep getting the impression that he's slyly calling us all retarded morons who can't read or comprehend the profoundity of his statements.

He's not saying it outright, but he's passively beating around the bush.

He reminds me of Stuart at SDI. "You cannot comprehend my brilliance!@!!!111!!!11!"

[Lord Zentei]

Indeed. However, that does not imply that you deserve any brownie points for inane, verbose blah-de-blah. People should be more ready to pay attention to ideas that require some effort to understand. The operative word being require.

On the other hand, I also see the modern culture being prone to pseudo-profoundity, of which your essays are good examples: very simple ideas being presented in bloated packaging in the hopes of impressing people.

Well 'different strokes for different folks'. I seldom encounter profound or even psuedo-profound remarks on Internet discussion forums. Of course, that depends a great deal upon the reading skills of the reader. Most are simple short statements even though many are filled with sophomoric bluff and bluster.

I honestly could not care the less what your perception of the prevailing internet culture is. That verbose bullshit exists on the internet as well as elsewhere is a given -- that it is less common than inane one-liners is of no concern.

The point remains that your essays are examples of pseudo-profoundity. I suggest that you try being more economical in the way you write your articles, and go for something deeper than the obvious and the trite.

[Knife]

It seems to me that our society has become a sound-bite and bumper-sticker culture. If it requires more than a sentence to contemplate—forget about it. We no longer have an attention span that can focus beyond a few words. The problem is a fear of reading. Reading begets vocabulary and vocabulary guides comprehension and curiosity energizes attention.

That may very well be so, but that doesn't mean one can go too far the other way either...the whole pendalum thingie.

If you're concerned about the ability of the 'common fellow' to have critical reading skills and feel they are too low, the way to correct that isn't through vebal diareah. Clear, blunt statments would be better than the glame and glitz of a sound bite. Don't focus too much on the size, rather the content.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, he apparently just signed up at politicalcrossfire today, since he's writing the same gibberish word for word on that forum too now.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Well, he apparently just signed up at politicalcrossfire today, since he's writing the same gibberish word for word on that forum too now.

He has a long history of this copy-paste bullfuckery. I suggest in the strongest terms possible we immediately get rid of him.

[mauldooku]

Well, coberst, while I was able to understand your initial post, it wasn't the best-written one I've seen. It was pretty easily intelligible, though, especially with your supplementary ones afterwards.

You guys are really throwing this one off without thinking about it. While the initial post's reference to Freud isn't the most substance-filled, group-thought is a very disturbing concept. Hell, you can see it in this thread, on this board; lots of hate thrown around that you wouldn't get in real life (Surlethe already mentioned the annonymity of the Internet effect).

If anyone here hasn't heard of the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison one, they're an examination of what coberst is getting at, applied to real-life. Check wikipedia. It's incredibly disturbing and while the basic idea is 'think for yourself' what's so powerful is the sheer amount of average, normal, everyday 'good' people who situationally do not. You and I, we're not immune. It's an absolutely vital concept to keep in mind all the time.

[Spyder]

Yes group-think is a disturbing concept, we've all thought about it and we're all disturbed by it. So how exactly should we be giving this more thought?

[mauldooku]

Yes group-think is a disturbing concept, we've all thought about it and we're all disturbed by it. So how exactly should we be giving this more thought?

Well, the experiments I linked to are a good place to start, since while they're relatively famous I'm sure that not everyone knows about them. We could then maybe start talking about the effectiveness of different types of pressure (the 'for the sake of science one' was really rough to get my head around; as someone who values scientific knowledge very highly as a general goal, it's an interesting and tough ethical call to decide just how/where that'd be justified). And then maybe some personal reflections on how you caved to group-think? Or how you resisted, but how hard/not hard it was? Or how much ethical duty is on the designers of the environment to make sure the scenarios presented in the Prison Experiment cannot happen? (Think of a certain Iraqi prison...).

Zimbardo visited my school recently promoting his new book 'The Lucifer Effect' (which I plan on reading at some point, although his talk gave a good deal on his conclusions), and he had several sides in his Powerpoint on cyber-bullying, and it's a fascinating topic since after thinking about it, I've realized I've been on both sides of the equation. And I didn't really even think that I was bullying someone until much, much later. And we're an internet community, so that seems as good a topic as ever.

I mean, hell, I don't know, it's a discussion board. We'll think of something.

[General Zod]

Well, coberst, while I was able to understand your initial post, it wasn't the best-written one I've seen. It was pretty easily intelligible, though, especially with your supplementary ones afterwards.

You guys are really throwing this one off without thinking about it. While the initial post's reference to Freud isn't the most substance-filled, group-thought is a very disturbing concept. Hell, you can see it in this thread, on this board; lots of hate thrown around that you wouldn't get in real life (Surlethe already mentioned the annonymity of the Internet effect).

If anyone here hasn't heard of the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison one, they're an examination of what coberst is getting at, applied to real-life. Check wikipedia. It's incredibly disturbing and while the basic idea is 'think for yourself' what's so powerful is the sheer amount of average, normal, everyday 'good' people who situationally do not. You and I, we're not immune. It's an absolutely vital concept to keep in mind all the time.

Filling a post with useless newspeak and technobabble is not very conducive to a good discussion, which is what coberst did. Especially if it's only pointing out the obvious and can be boiled down to a sentence or two.

[Spyder]

Yes group-think is a disturbing concept, we've all thought about it and we're all disturbed by it. So how exactly should we be giving this more thought?

Well, the experiments I linked to are a good place to start, since while they're relatively famous I'm sure that not everyone knows about them. We could then maybe start talking about the effectiveness of different types of pressure (the 'for the sake of science one' was really rough to get my head around; as someone who values scientific knowledge very highly as a general goal, it's an interesting and tough ethical call to decide just how/where that'd be justified). And then maybe some personal reflections on how you caved to group-think? Or how you resisted, but how hard/not hard it was? Or how much ethical duty is on the designers of the environment to make sure the scenarios presented in the Prison Experiment cannot happen? (Think of a certain Iraqi prison...).

Zimbardo visited my school recently promoting his new book 'The Lucifer Effect' (which I plan on reading at some point, although his talk gave a good deal on his conclusions), and he had several sides in his Powerpoint on cyber-bullying, and it's a fascinating topic since after thinking about it, I've realized I've been on both sides of the equation. And I didn't really even think that I was bullying someone until much, much later. And we're an internet community, so that seems as good a topic as ever.

I mean, hell, I don't know, it's a discussion board. We'll think of something.

The fact that we're now having to invent ways of giving the topic further consideration proves, in definition, the vaccuous nature of what Coberst has posted and thus legitimises the complaints levied.

[Darth Wong]

You guys are really throwing this one off without thinking about it. While the initial post's reference to Freud isn't the most substance-filled, group-thought is a very disturbing concept. Hell, you can see it in this thread, on this board; lots of hate thrown around that you wouldn't get in real life (Surlethe already mentioned the annonymity of the Internet effect).

You're full of shit. I have slammed faux-profound bullshit like that face-to-face in real-life with exactly the same kind of language and vigour that I would use here. No "group-think" is required.

Yes, there is such a thing as group-think. But only an idiot assumes that every time people agree on something, that must be it. That's the kind of idiot-logic which global warming deniers use in order to knock down global warming theory: after all, the scientists agree and denigrate anyone who disagrees, right?

[Durandal]

Hasn't Freud been heavily discredited?

Only by psychologists. In the English department of a university though, people get extra credit on essays for quoting Freud or referencing his theories. And extra super bonus points for referencing any French philosophers.