It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by herrw
I feel as if I should explain the relationship of some of the variables in the equation, now that I've found a way to share it.
d is an important variable, when you consider its relationship to everything else. Given enough time, the most mediocre of threats can escalate into a huge panic. As time reduces to the point where the threat is realized, the strength of the threat increases (d is a negative value until it reaches 0, or the present, which causes the equation to transform as the threat becomes infinitely real). Once the threat has passed, it remains an effect on society until enough time has passed to reduce it's influence to near nothing. Such was the case with the attacks on the World Trade Center (not trying to open a debate on their cause here... just looking at their effect). Immediately after the attacks, the United States was fairly unified in thought and emotion. It was not until weeks later that the mental unity devolved enough that our reactions might be questioned. Months were required to really generate interest in a 9/11 truth movement.
The nature of the threat does not matter, except in the way that responses are directed. Hunger threats tend to make us want to change the way that we rely on our food. Translated to large groups, that becomes a revolutionary tendency, or a rejection of current leadership. We blame the people in charge, because we trusted them to make sure we could feed ourselves. Security threats tend to result in armed resistance. Yes, a hunger threat may evolve into a security threat (say, marauding gangs of thugs) but then it becomes both a hunger threat and a security threat, rather than one or the other. The two are separated for clarity. Energy threats (real or implied) tend to involve the ability to achieve the staples of life (access to communication/internet is a fine example, as is access to fuel and access to electricity). These tend to result in industry. Finally, Moral threats involve any ideal or dogma which is threatened from any quarter. This includes liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and holy-isis-the-aliens-are-attacking-ism. Moral threats generate responses of expulsion and, given the percieved severity of the threat, murder. Executions for offending Allah, or excommunication for violations of church dogma would be excellent examples.
Prestige is a directing influence which is afforded in varying degrees to individuals. These individuals will be either internal leadership or external leadership. Internal leadership tends to be of the more populist variety, while external leadership tends to be of the more 'star chamber' variety. Internal leaders are generally very good at generating sentiment, but poor at planning future activities. External leadership tends to keep an eye to the future regardless of what effect it might have on any specific individual.
Consideration of the tendency towards action for a given nature of threat helps determine likely outcome. Disagreement with my segmentation is welcome, although I might humbly request historical examples which support the argument. I love being wrong. It means that I get to be right in the future.
Originally posted by samkent
If human nature was that easy to predict the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.
Once you have them figured out let me know and we'll take over the world.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by herrw
Hunger threats result in a tendency for revolution.
I agree with the other two, but not this one unless things really change for the worst. It is suggested that the daily calorie diet needs to drop below 800 in a society for this to happen...we got a long way to go before we even come close to that.
Originally posted by Pilot
I'll try your book, looks really interesting.
Good thread. I've gotten lulled into a false sense of security after expecting this crash for so long...and it not happening. I'm not feeling the doom atm, but it won't be a shock if you are right. Maybe I should go get some water etc.edit on 24-10-2012 by Pilot because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by blacksuit99251
reply to post by herrw
herrw, I have been reading your book and find it fascinating.
Regarding your feelings about the aftermath of the elections, have you seen the number of people, most likely receiving government assistance, who have vowed on Twitter to riot if the election is not won by Obama? This seems to corroborate your fears. Even if most of these people do not really mean it right now it shows that the idea is out there, and the "Law of Contagion" means that if only a few act on it initially the rest are primed to join in.
edit on 26-10-2012 by blacksuit99251 because: repeating same word too much