The mass mind and its collective ignorance

I’ve just been to see a documentary ‘The Corporation’
This is a must see. It brings the so called ‘hippy’ idea to the (almost) mainstream showing the fundamental flaw of a capitalist drive that is totally unchecked and unaccountable.

But what hit me more is the affirmation of an opinion I’ve come to hold over the last few years. The group intelligence of a collective is almost negligible when there is no discernable leader. The mass mob, hearded like sheep or enraged in mindless destruction is infantile. (unless mobilised by impending doom - even then they still might not act).

At the end of the film I had the urge to break out in tumultuous applause. But I didn’t, I looked around and caught the motion of other people who had almost clapped but the moment had passed. Others were leaving the cinema. I felt I had let myself down. I also knew with certainty from past experience that if I had started clapping, others would have joined in.

The unaccountability of an international corporation, its faceless façade has kept it unchecked thus far. Individuals within a corporation must start acting upon their own ethics and not just towing a collective line.
How does a fascist regime get into power? How does a malevolent dictator maintain control? There are individuals within such regimes who see what is wrong. In fact, the irony is that those individuals may well be in the majority. But who’s going to go first? Who’s going to take the first line of bullets so we can all enjoy freedom?

I put forward that it is easier for a single hijacker with a fruit knife to take over a plane full of people than when there is only one passenger on board.

It is easier to predict the future of a crowd’s actions than that of an individual’s.
Two heads can be oh so much more stupid than one. Or more ‘docile’ I should say.

I have thought about a sort of collective social entity that is slowly growing up apart from that of a single human being. The averaged out global conscience is at this moment in greed, feed me feed me mode. A squalling being with no sight of the long term. The big picture. Only education, action and the ever so slow attrition of individuals can slowly but surely mature this entity into an ethical being.

Sustainability is the goal I believe. And just now I think that is quite far away. But thank goodness films like the corporation exist. That ‘hippies’, scorned by the mainstream, are developing wave power machines to harness the moons energy. Happy bearded scientists with the their socks and sandals and open university programmes on late night tv. I’ve lost a little bit of my despair for the world today. Or rather, I’ve become a little more resolved to what an intelligent individual might be able to do in the face of a mass mindless mob tidal wave of unsustainable greed.

I'm sure the scope of this thread may wander around capitalism,corporation and the documentary. May we try and debate for or against the ideas of a mass mind and its inadequacies though? (excepting analogies of course )

Any thoughts on the matter?

~

 

fuck it, some one tell me where I can buy a Justin Timberlake album and I am so outta here!!!!

 

I like your analogy that it would be easier for a hijacker to take over a plane with 100 passengers than a plane with 1 passenger. I never thought about it like that before, but I suspect that you are correct.


In general, I agree with you that a group of people tend to be less intelligent than a person (exception: the stock market). For many people, the desire to not draw attention to oneself is so strong that it scares them to death to offer a dissenting opinion.

 

He is correct. Psychologists have done studies on this. They have the person to be studied walk down a hall past a guy on a ladder fixing a light, then into the testing room. There are two conditions: the subject is alone, or with other subjects. In reality, the other subjects are collaborators and so is the maintanance worker. Then, the experimentor excuses himself after getting the subject(s) started on a survey or something (this is not important, just a pretence). Then there is a bang and a crash, sounding like a man falling off a ladder. When the person is alone in the room, they almost always get up to see if the man is alright. If there are other people in the room with them, they never get up to see. It's also been tested with people acting sick on the street. When there's a lot of people around, people rarely stop to help, but when it's just the "sick" guy and one other person, they almost always ask if the sick guy needs help.

This is why when you see a guy stopped at the side of the road looking forlornly at his engine, you rarely see anyone stopped to help, because they figure someone else will. On a quiet rural road, chances are much greater that someone will help.

I think I remember that it comes down to fear of responsiblilty and fear of embarrasment. You don't want to have to help a stranger, wasting energy on someone if you think (and can convince yourself) that someone else will help. You don't want to ask a person if they need help and have them reject you, then you look nosy or stupid to the other people around. When it's just you, there isn't as much worry about embarrasment, and the responsibility clearly falls on you.

This is why if you are in public and need help, don't just say "help," single out someone, point to them and say, "you, sir, I need some help." Put the responsibility on them, and make it clear that you do need help. If you want more info, look up "helping behavior" or "the psychology of helping" or something like that on Google.

 

There's an interesting article in Scientific American that I think ya'll should look at: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00049F3E-91E1-119B-8EA483414B7FFE9F

 

Yeah, but it depends on if the crowd is basing their knowledge on good or bad info. If they majority believes a falsity, it still remains a falsity.

Plus, the OP was talking about corporations and society, both of which have leaders (CEOs, and government-religion-business, respectively)

"Not all crowds are wise, of course--lynch mobs come to mind. And "herding" can be a problem when the members of a group think uniformly in the wrong direction. The stock market erred after the space shuttle Columbia disaster on February 1, 2003, for example, dumping stock in the booster's manufacturer even though the boosters were not involved.

For a group to be smart, it should be autonomous, decentralized and cognitively diverse..."

The question is, I guess, is "mainstream society" lead by anyone, or is it truely decentralized? I feel it is lead by the government, religions, and businesses (which share general ideals, usually), so I would worry about the intelligence of this group, because it is easy for a centralized group to become corrupted.

Also, the question is not why people don't stand up against the majority (fear being the reason), but rather how to change our attitudes. This is a problem though because you can't change a fascist regime without standing up in harms way. The way I see it though, is that power is not only taken, but given. In any group with some common purpose, a leader usually arises. This happens not only because he is fit for the job or has certain qualities (organizational skills, outgoing-ness, etc) but also because people will defer to this leader. Is it borne out of laziness? Or is it borne out of the thought that the leader, by virtue of being leader-ish, must be better prepared? Maybe it's just because we doubt ourselves so much that we'd rather let someone else handle the situation.

Also, since our group is society, we should ask ourselves what our common purpose is. If groups with a common purpose develop leaders, we should define our purpose and see what kind of leader we need for it. Maybe we should change our purpose (which right now seems to have something to do with economy/money.)

I'm kind of tired and am not sure if I'm coherent right now, maybe I'm rambling. I'll edit this later or reply to clear anything up if it needs it.

 

Seem perfectly coherent to me TrippinBTM.

Another example of collective human ignorance would be the difference in saying "Good Morning" in a rural or urban environment.
If you walked past a stranger in the middle of a city and said "Good Morning" They would feel threatened, annoyed, stunned, worried you're a loon etc. But if it was walking down a country lane with birds tweeting away in the trees, its more likely that you'd both be required to say "Good Morning" to a lone passer by!

Leaders have in the past been an antidote to collective stupidity. Which is a hit and miss remedy we know. There have been good kings and bad kings.
Specialisation is needed for a society to work. And a leader should be seen as a specialised vocation much like any other – plumbing for instance – with no exaltation above the rank of other citizens.
The problem with modern corporations and governments is the lack of accountability. In the past, if the country was being fucked up, the king got his head chopped off. Nowadays, you walk into a giant corporate building with a major problem and it will not get solved. The buck doesn’t stop with anyone anymore. The corporate entity invented by the ravenous greed of modern capitalism is extremely hard to keep in check. Which individual is going to step forward first from within one of these structures? (As analogised with the fascist regime earlier).

That link to SCIAM (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...EA483414B7FFE9F) shows a document brought into being through statistical analysis. We all know what THAT means!! Lies, damn lies and statistics. The article is only using results from data of individual tasks, not the attitude from a collective ‘slow suicide’ that is unsustainable capitalism/ agriculture. The two notions are simply incomparable.

You peeps HAVE to see this documentary ‘The Corporation’. It really brings home the problem with unaccountability. Who is going to make the change? You? Me? Somebody else passing the broken-down car….?

~

 

That movie is a definite for anyone interested in the hows and whys. I particularly like how the 'individual' of the corp is diagnosed as psychotic.

I think our best bet to reduce the influence of this external entity is to provide a good example. Words alone just don't cut it. I can only really speak on personal experience but I've found that I can talk till I'm blue in the face and nothing happens. But, my everyday actions have had some impact. I've had people actually come up to me and ask me about my diet. Ask me about my travels etc... It's only after seeing a different modus operandi and becoming curious that conversation has had any meaning.

At the base level most humans fear one thing: death. If they speak up they can lose their job. If they lose their job they can become homeless, starve, and die. Thus, it's important to have an example present that reflects the opposite. See, you won't starve and die. As silly as it sounds, it's very true.

Isolation lies slightly above starving and dying as a fear. If they speak up they lose their job and lose all their 'friends'. That's where the real true grit comes in. Human interaction is vital to our being and it's the rare individual who can forego that for a greater good. It's important that individuals who have a clearer picture stick to their guns and continue to live by their beliefs. The more who do this the more examples are roaming about. Also, take into consideration that this is probably a brand new experience for the average joe if they decide to give it a try. Patience and acceptance have played a vital role. One day they might be giving it a go, the next the fears have set back in and they are back at the sheeple life.They'll probably drift back and forth for awhile. It's important to maintain consistency.

The other thing is that people react violently towards an attack on their beliefs even if they didn't come up with it on their own. Blatantly telling someone that their actions are killing the planet, again just on personal experience, has resulted in them not wanting to speak to me anymore and a sort of arrogant 'in your face' display in the presence of the group. So, back to the good example.


So, yep. Individuals who know the score need to stay the course and be as open as possible about it. If I'm going to hit somebody up or speak out it's because I'm living it.

btw (off topic) dhARmaMiLlO : Hi from another Shpongle fan.

 

I guess group intelligenece is a double-edged sword. There was a test with group intelligence done with crossword puzzles. A group of people were given two types of crosswords during the course of the experiment. The first type were puzzles that had never been relased to the general public. The second type had already been through the papers and well circulated. Without knowing the answers in advance, the subjects did much better on the second set of crosswords than the first.


But the failure of group intelligence is the need to conform. Anyone who isn't like the crowd, despite their intelligence, are often excluded to some extent. You see that with politics today; how the democratic party is leaning to what they believe is the 'moral majority'. Group intellect at work.

 

Interestingly enough, none of the participants had seen the crosswords beforehand, so the fact that they did better on puzzles that had already been printed (and worked on/solved) is pretty crazy.

 

nice thread... pretty much sums up most people nowadays

oh yeah... that hijacker analogy was pretty nice

 

Absolutely. Converstations HAVE to count. It’s no use conforming to make your life easier. That's like a living death. (Well, it is to me anyhow). The alternative is to become a cube of flesh automiton that eats/sleeps/works/watches TV/gets drunk at weekends/eats/sleeps..etc.

Perfectly put.

So what about this separate entity I briefly mentioned? The unconscious mass conscious? Do you believe there is somehow a maturing mind without one body that is slowly growing from our collective humanity? Or should such matters remain as merely abstract models for global conscience representations?

I was wondering the other day. There seems to be a pattern in the progress of civilisation. Two Steps Forward - One Step Back.
I reckon we’re due a step back soon….


~


p.s.(Hi to all fellow shponglelopodisicalites)

 

*nods* exactly. It really makes you think about how we're all connected as beings in this wacked-out world, huh?

 

A seperate singular mind is possible but hard to quantify or even look at. So for now maybe just the abstract representations. Performers are probably closest to being able to see it (outside of accomplished spiritualists ). When you adress a large group with music or in a play etc... I think you're speaking to a seperate mass mind of sorts. The whole of the audience feeds back into the performance/performers and a whole new thing comes into being. Or maybe the huge brain at the center of the universe has always existed and we're only adding even more to it. Maybe we're just like zips of electricity across a vast neural chain and this life is but one firing across a synapse. Maybe I've been drinkin' too much coffee. It would be interesting to go out and try to speak to this manifestation when talking to groups though. See if you can approach the mass mind and make contact. Jung said philosophers are the only ones who don't know what thinking is because they have to think about it all day. I'm gonna stop thinking now, go get some more coffee, and play my didgeridoo.