If society is the cause of the mess we're in today, then society would be anti-social. Surely not solely by the actions of a select few have we
arrived at a position where most people have the odds stacked against them.
Anti-social simply means "against the good of society" and has nothing to do with whether or not you are in groups talking and laughing or socializing
with any fellow cult members you may have.
There is this curious thing that happens when people get into a group. People get afraid. I believe it has to do with the way society was
traditionally structured for thousands of years. It used to be very difficult to survive outside of a group, I would imagine. If you were part of a
"tribe" or "gang" or whatever you wish to call it, that increased the odds of your survival. Some would say you are still more likely to survive by
being part of a group. The army seems to think so, at least, because they spend time breaking "you" in favor of your platoon or group.
To illustrate the point: think back to the days when you were in school. At some point, you probably saw what it meant if someone disagreed to a large
extent with that most of the other people believed, if you were discussing certain issues. If you raised your hand and put yourself out on a limb, you
really risk others egging you to just fall off. There are certain academic communities where "it gets better" in terms of open debate, but there are
still taboo points of view that if brought up, will exclude you, an "exile" of sorts.
That same fear, I believe, has been carried into adulthood for most people. I thought about this when I was looking at topics like groupthink
and group dynamics. They consider it a phenomenon, but could the reason be due to the
fear associated with being pushed out from a group? Lots of people might keep secrets from their family, for fear of being pushed out of it
(especially if the family has money). Being alone back then might mean starving due to being unable to find food on your own. Being alone today can
mean being homeless or feeling shame by not receiving validation from the family. There is also the case of co-dependence, when a spouse is attached
to an abusive significant other but refuses to leave, too afraid to be alone.
So, in light of these ideas, we see how easy it is to instill ideas into people's minds. The first person to put forth an idea basically has that
golden moment. That person gets to propose an idea even before all the facts have been arrived at, before it's even possible to have any. The reason
is that most people will passively accept the idea, and few people will ask, How about we wait before listening to this guy? Of course, if it's not
obvious to you, I'm referring to a specific moment in history, the "bush guy" who went on TV to tell us that he and his buddies had it all figured out
after only a few days. The news reported it, and what did people who heard about it do as a group, even if they were not physically close to each
other? I will tell you what most didn't do -- most didn't object to the absurdity of it all. (You can object to my considering it absurd if you
Who was going to be that one person who dares to question what was being told to millions of people? Surely if they took a bold move and stated
something absurd, it would surface and people would object right? Somewhat so, is what it appears. A few are bothered enough to "switch sides" and
object, but most are too comfortable fitting in, and don't want to risk rejection.
And, they put their "social status" ahead of the rest of society when they do that. So, we end up with a majority of people who are so unwilling to be
potentially isolated that they make it worse for everyone. Clearly a case of selfishness due to fear.
These are just some new ideas I was wondering about. I haven't really reviewed them or thought too much over them, so there may be parts that don't
make sense or that people disagree with for certain reasons. That is what makes the discussion interesting though.
So, what do you think of those ideas? Could the pull of the comfortable feeling of the group really push people to stifle their real opinions or to
not even bother delving into "fringe subjects"? In order for most people to accept something, is a sizable majority required in order for most people
to consider adopting an idea? (That is, minorities exist, but could minorities ever end up representing the majority, with very differing opinions?)
Would that lead to a different type of chaos and make communication difficult?
edit on 17-7-2012 by daynight42 because: (no reason