It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you help me know who said this?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Around 10 years ago I was finishing my college course and at that time mandatory community service was starting to be implemented to college students, I was the third person to had to do it in my faculty


As you may imagine I hated to do it (I’m a selfish bastard what a shock) but in the infernal 120h that was helping people I had to take a course to interact to groups, my mind was in cruise control during the whole process as I just wanted to get it done, but there was something explained to me that sowed a seed that growth over the years and I want to know how said this.

My memory is not so good so it goes something like this, no matter what a society or group of people will tend to divide into 2 groups in the way my poorly drawn triangle is shown below; there will be an idea, ideology, politic, color of a dress I don’t know, that will split the group by 2 between supporters of each side of the conflict.

Each group is divided itself by 3 types of individuals, some if I remember correctly, are called officials, natural leaders toward the bulk of the population will seek to lead them, the bulk itself of the population that really don’t care too much about the issue itself and basically will follow the lead of the officials, and the most radical supporters of each ideology at the extremes of the pyramid (triangle?).


As you may see by now the support towards the issue varies among the population, so people located towards the center of the triangle have a more neutral view that those towards the extremes and they tend to be more like the ones in the middle of the other side; the officials represent a small percentage of each group, about 3% and due to their location right next to the divisor line, they are basically interchangeable between group A and B, the rhetoric and actions of officials of A is the same as B and a B could pretty much be exchanged for someone of A and no one would really notice.

The bulk of the population or cattle, if I remember correctly, just want to be lead, and they will follow the officials or anti officials depending on their proximity to each of them; the anti-officials of each group follow the idea to the death (also like 3% of the total group), they like it so much that they see the more neutral officials as traitors and in their support of their idea in a way they will actually start to behave more like a member of the other group as they despite the officials of their own group.

So basically that was it, it more or less explains why a society without an external enemy will just split and find internal enemies until it no longer function, I don’t really know how to search for this as this is not my field and when I remember this triangle thing I search of it the best I can and after a few tries I drop my interest, so perhaps ATS can point me to the guy that came with this so I can put it to rest.

edit on 26-1-2016 by Indigent because: who not how in title




posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Polarization.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

Thank you for popping in in the other thread that was very refreshing I have a migraine after that.,
Anyway I have a coffee and read your op

This is something I had


At the risk of oversimplification, I would like to propose that there is one pattern that characterizes most, if not all, of these disturbing problems: They all stem from a dualistic orientation.
What I mean by this phrase is a mindset that envisions a world of you versus me, us versus them, self versus other.

A dualistic orientation is one that focuses on our differences instead of our similarities, promotes arbitrary divisions at the expense of social cohesion, neglects our interdependence by nurturing our sense of independence, and fashions a deeply polarized world where if you are not with us (or like us) then you are against us (and therefore, we are against you).


That geometry with that paused me I need to be focused more

What I read was

divided by 2 = triangle (u can see I am not all there)
edit on 26-1-2016 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Restricted

Yeah its called polarization (silly me
) but i want to know who explained it like that graphic, that stuff is drilling my mind and i want to get it right


I mean the dude giving me the talk used a slide with a triangle similar to that and cited someone, i was most interested in the boobs of one of my college at the time ( im a flawed man and she had unnatural, natural boobies)

Perhaps the maker of the "model" had a name that sounded from India?


edit on 26-1-2016 by Indigent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

Interesting. I don't think I have an answer, but wasn't this premise the foundation for "1984"?

Eastasia, Oceania, and Eurasia HAD to fight because if peace happened, the people would look to into their own country(s).



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

I found the 'Karpman Drama triangle', reminded me of something from 'human interractions' class in college.

site


edit on 26-1-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)


There are lots of these triangles in psychology and comparative politics.
edit on 26-1-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

You screwed me now I had this in management and leadership class for nothing in the world can I remember
edit on 26-1-2016 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

It must be a model adapted from his original model, certainly a help in the direction of finding the exact diagram burned in my mind, thank you.

Perhaps the model i was taught its too obscure and I may not find it never



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

I used reverse image. I searched keywords in your text. This will drive me nut now lol!



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

YAY I planted another seed, I wont be alone anymore!!!



Insert mental image of the roots painfully growing in your brain with an unbearable pain Lovecraft style

edit on 26-1-2016 by Indigent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Minimal group paradigm

en.wikipedia.org...

Henri Tajfel

You're welcome.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Seems promising but it miss the triangle thing and the 3 distinct groups, ill give it another though when i procrastinate at work in the morning.

Thanks



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

Sorry, I was going off your comment about groups tendency to divide in two.

Try

Balanced identity theory

en.wikipedia.org...

Scratch that, it's Balanced identity theory within minimal group paradigm.


edit on 26-1-2016 by GodEmperor because: Scratch that



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

It's starting to feel painfully obvious to me that people really really likes to explain things with triangles, thanks for the help folks I may end doing the sane stuff and retcon one of this theories as the original one in my memory



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

Yeah, I have a feeling the professor may have made their own version of certain theories, and recalling something from ten years ago may be a little sketchy.

Remembering things I did not find pertinent at the time is very difficult.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join