Group Thought, Its Pros And Cons

[mystery]

To me the "group" in group think, is a little different than what you are referring to. That is it is addressing the additional influence of an opinion whose source is a known group, thus gaining more popularity than it deserves on it's own.

Hi LuckyR, what is the options for liking or agreeing with a poster? I don't see any like button, do we just post words to agree, or is it assumed that silence is the agreement?

I can understand the difference between our idea of group think. I am thinking if or how the two ideas are possibly tied together. Perhaps they are not.

[Sy Borg]

It should be said that groupthink has no gender. Mystery, groupthink is not actually not feminine, but it may seem so if one subscribes to the rugged male individualist trope, an angle that paints most men to be feminine. Clearly, the He-Man paradigm sets the bar for masculinity far too low. Men are capable of far more diverse behaviour than the old clichés that suggest that "real men" are basically a motile blocks of granite.

Popeye, based on your criteria "if you wish to know who controls you, look to that which you are not allowed to criticize", then I am controlled by almost everyone. The only people I am allowed to criticise are those with so much power that they would not notice my criticism. That is, those who control me are the ones I am most able to criticise, at least until China takes over.

Of course, we are not controlled by minority groups, many of whom we can't criticise. At least, one cannot criticise them in a professional setting for being who they are (as was long the case). In the west, such minorities are almost always controlled by elderly white straight men. Any rules protecting them are not an act of power by minorities but an act of mercy by the middle-aged and elderly white straight men who control the west.

There is still plenty of freedom for those who don't care what unreasonable people think.

The future - where China is leading the way - appears to be a time of extreme population and extreme connectivity. And the larger the populace and the greater the connectivity, the less free you are. Ultimately, the story of humanity looks likely to echo the story of our cells. That is, all individuality will eventually be surrendered to the will of larger entity. Anyone who fails to submit and let themselves be a blank slate placed into the chosen role of "ideal citizen" will simply be killed. One day people will look back on today's "political correctness" and pine for the freedoms we still enjoyed.

[mystery]

Hi Borg, yes I agree with you about the future. My son laughs at me when I tell him that in the future he will remember that as a child we could get into a car and drive any place we wanted to go. That right will probably become a privilege and then be restricted. So many things of fiction have become fact.

As well as you state compliance with the group will at some point be by force in addition to shame. I agree.

To achieve the control and life pattern you predict it is necessary to reduce or remove masculinity from acceptance as by definition it does not conform to such things. At the same time it is a key point in natural selection (cross over with other threads). As the group thought expands others must reduce it as it is a zero-sum situation. If masculinity is not removed, revolt is for sure. If it is removed then a life of boring misery is in the future for all. Perhaps that is the definition of hell. Or maybe it is only removed from "others" and the core that you tell about who are in control intend to keep it for themself.

I still believe that the original group thought is a product of the feminine as a way to manage success and police each other. It works so well that men have also learned to use it. It is an extremely effective mechanism.

[popeye1945]

Sy Borg,
You flip flop a bit here, you can critizes the most powerful but they do not pay any attention to you, mostly to individual complaints they don't respond. I was thinking of the powerful right-wing Christians, and/or Christianity itself. It is a frightful condition in the states of sacred ignorance prevailing over reason and science and the separation of church and state. Makes the neighbors uneasy.

[LuckyR]

To me the "group" in group think, is a little different than what you are referring to. That is it is addressing the additional influence of an opinion whose source is a known group, thus gaining more popularity than it deserves on it's own.

Hi LuckyR, what is the options for liking or agreeing with a poster? I don't see any like button, do we just post words to agree, or is it assumed that silence is the agreement?

I can understand the difference between our idea of group think. I am thinking if or how the two ideas are possibly tied together. Perhaps they are not.

Alas, I am unaware of a like button, we do have to write what we want to say. Your description is of how groups think, I was describing Group Think.

[Sy Borg]

Sy Borg,
You flip flop a bit here, you can critizes the most powerful but they do not pay any attention to you, mostly to individual complaints they don't respond. I was thinking of the powerful right-wing Christians, and/or Christianity itself. It is a frightful condition in the states of sacred ignorance prevailing over reason and science and the separation of church and state. Makes the neighbors uneasy.

The States is in a deeply unsettled state, and it seems numerous people are looking for reasons to be outraged. There's a current fashion to be the holder of the highest moral ground. A very old social game which has built in intensity in the world, and especially in the US.

Ultimately, with increased populations and connectivity, our freedoms are taken away simply but circumstance. There's a ton of things I dare not say online these days, which is the price of peace. It makes clear how the Chinese became the way they are; they have been dealing with living in others' pockets for a long time.

Welcome to the future.

[Pattern-chaser]

Think about when you have seen a group of women talking/chatting/gossiping. Notice how they can behave as a group. They can all talk at the same time yet somehow end up with a common understanding of topics. If listening closely the actual words often do not fit with the information that has been exchanged. There is a sub communication within and a common group thought framework. Information is exchanged with each other in the group via this mechanism. Very difficult for a man to follow and comprehend, and for those that can it is very exhausting. Usually, men will just go do something else because the group garble is hard on the ears.

No, women aren't from Venus, they come from Earth, as men do. There is no secret women's language, unknown and incomprehensible to men. Women just don't indulge in the ego-based willy-waving that preoccupies so many men. IMO.

Sure, not sure if we disagree or are on a different idea. It can be either. I believe many/most women use sub communication meaning that when they have an emotional idea it gets verbalized as something else. Other women will in some way be able to identify the real concept while men may be confused as they try to make sense of the actual words.

8<

Chaser, are you understand the idea and disagree, or did my initial statements not convey the idea?

I think I understand. You suggest that women have a special way of communicating that men find difficult or impossible to understand. This is what I responded to, and this is what I disagree with. If you suggest that women have greater EQ, as a generalisation, I would agree. If you suggest that women communicate differently to men, even as a generalisation, I would disagree.

The communication you describe simply accounts for non-verbal communication. Not all the communication is contained in the words. This is normal human social interaction. Your description almost sounds like men are autistic, and women aren't, which is definitely not so. Some of us are autistic, but it is not confined to men. Some of us are exceptional communicators, especially in the context of non-verbal communication, but it is not confined to women.

So this is my response: I think what you describe does exist, to some extent, but your assignment of it to a gender-based skill I do not accept. I see no evidence for it (being gender-based) in the real world. Do you?

[Steve3007]

Pros: Sometimes the group is right.
Cons: Sometimes the group is wrong.

People who forget the former sometimes have a tendency to see themselves as a Galileo-esque sort of figure, bravely defying orthodox wisdom and talking contemptuously about all those other sheep blindly following the herd. People who forget the latter sometimes forget that every single person in the world could believe something to be true yet that something could still be false.

[popeye1945]

The States is in a deeply unsettled state, and it seems numerous people are looking for reasons to be outraged. There's a current fashion to be the holder of the highest moral ground. A very old social game which has built in intensity in the world, and especially in the US.

Ultimately, with increased populations and connectivity, our freedoms are taken away simply but circumstance. There's a ton of things I dare not say online these days, which is the price of peace. It makes clear how the Chinese became the way they are; they have been dealing with living in others' pockets for a long time.
Welcome to the future.
[/quote]

The states gave up any pretense of holding the high moral ground with Vietnam and various places around the world. To quote the old Bush, " The world is just going to have to get used to the idea, what we say, goes!" If the Chinese didn't have their hands in the American economy, America would have made war on them before now. I agree, with government unchecked and technology such as it is the rights of the individual has already been over run. You have to admit however with the election of Trump as president, America has shown the world just how dumb the American public is. Dumb, powerful and amoral, a bad combination.

[Ecurb]

Pros: Sometimes the group is right.
Cons: Sometimes the group is wrong.

People who forget the former sometimes have a tendency to see themselves as a Galileo-esque sort of figure, bravely defying orthodox wisdom and talking contemptuously about all those other sheep blindly following the herd. People who forget the latter sometimes forget that every single person in the world could believe something to be true yet that something could still be false.

Exactly. The flat earthers doubtless suspect the rest of us are victims of the "group think" mentality. And they are right, although we are right that the world is a globe.

[mystery]

Think about when you have seen a group of women talking/chatting/gossiping. Notice how they can behave as a group. They can all talk at the same time yet somehow end up with a common understanding of topics. If listening closely the actual words often do not fit with the information that has been exchanged. There is a sub communication within and a common group thought framework. Information is exchanged with each other in the group via this mechanism. Very difficult for a man to follow and comprehend, and for those that can it is very exhausting. Usually, men will just go do something else because the group garble is hard on the ears.

No, women aren't from Venus, they come from Earth, as men do. There is no secret women's language, unknown and incomprehensible to men. Women just don't indulge in the ego-based willy-waving that preoccupies so many men. IMO.

Sure, not sure if we disagree or are on a different idea. It can be either. I believe many/most women use sub communication meaning that when they have an emotional idea it gets verbalized as something else. Other women will in some way be able to identify the real concept while men may be confused as they try to make sense of the actual words.

8<

Chaser, are you understand the idea and disagree, or did my initial statements not convey the idea?

I think I understand. You suggest that women have a special way of communicating that men find difficult or impossible to understand. This is what I responded to, and this is what I disagree with. If you suggest that women have greater EQ, as a generalisation, I would agree. If you suggest that women communicate differently to men, even as a generalisation, I would disagree.

The communication you describe simply accounts for non-verbal communication. Not all the communication is contained in the words. This is normal human social interaction. Your description almost sounds like men are autistic, and women aren't, which is definitely not so. Some of us are autistic, but it is not confined to men. Some of us are exceptional communicators, especially in the context of non-verbal communication, but it is not confined to women.

So this is my response: I think what you describe does exist, to some extent, but your assignment of it to a gender-based skill I do not accept. I see no evidence for it (being gender-based) in the real world. Do you?

Cool, yes you for sure understand the idea and do not agree.

An example is a group of women who all notice some interesting man, happens all the time. One of them said, "the sun shining today feels good". They all agree with a smile. This can be extrapolated into all sorts of topics and words. It happens all the time and is the default for women that are feminine. The less feminine will do it less and be more direct like men speak. Understanding it is a skill that can be learned but is exhausting because we must process it, it does not come naturally.

Men might do the same thing, but it will be not often and very obvious only with very simple references. Women in groups do it to exponential degrees. They can actually exchange detailed information between the group or each other at the same time you are listening. The information they get is different than yours. A non-feminine lady will deny this because she can not do it just as men can not and usually will not be included in the communication. It's not intentional, and it is just as tiring for her to speak logically with you.

I know about autism and have references to men and women that are. This is something different, emotional communication vs logical.

[Pattern-chaser]

I know about autism and have references to men and women that are. This is something different, emotional communication vs logical.

I am autistic, so I have a good idea of what I'm talking about. I don't think this is "something different", and I don't think it's much to do with gender, but there's little point in repeating what I said in my previous posts.

[mystery]

I know about autism and have references to men and women that are. This is something different, emotional communication vs logical.

I am autistic, so I have a good idea of what I'm talking about. I don't think this is "something different", and I don't think it's much to do with gender, but there's little point in repeating what I said in my previous posts.

cool, my daughter is also and I am in the spectrum. a little common in the software buisness.

we don't auto-read all of the emotional signallings that others can automatically. we have to actually learn how to observe and process it.

ok, we will agree to disagree.

[Newme]

The great danger of collectivism is its tendency to devolve reason into a means for justifying the secular pragmatic desires of the state as opposed to the normal human need for experiencing universal truths. When the means only exist to serve the ends defined by the collective, Society remains an atom of the Great Beast or sub human with the potential to become human or what human being is capable of without being indoctrinated by the collective

Thank you for this breath of fresh air. I may misunderstand you, but it seems that you have stepped outside both atheist and theist boxes to consider human potential. Admirable - and rare!

Of course we may or may not agree on what constitutes universal truths. What are they to you?

[popeye1945]

This statement is about the exception, not the norm, and is laid out quite nicely in Joseph Campbell's the hero's journey. find link below.

https://odyssey.antiochsb.edu/literary/ ... s-journey/