What's your idealized society's protection against mob mentality/herd thinking?

Hygro

Hygro

soundcloud.com/hygro/
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
26,715
Location
California
Most of you have articulated a preference for more democracy (lower case d for sure) over less. Me too. How does your more democratic society not succumb to more groupthink? The trigger for my asking is the amount of pro retribution I see for those who are deemed sufficiently disagreeable from the particular position of the poster, and a society that was both more fiercely democratic with less allowance of opinion deviation (I.e. everyone who disagrees with the poster’s strongly felt values) seems self defeating. It’s just a feeling, so I thought I’d ask what your intended mechanisms are after you erase your counterrevolution from turning into a weaponized echochamber.
 
EducationEducationEducationEducationEducationEducationEducation

So far we IMO rather encourage herd thinking in school, but certainly don't do much to fight it.
Sure, depending on the school, there is some training of intellectual thought. But I think it needs to be embedded into political topics and it needs to be shown what the problem is. Because people, by and large, are smart enough to get it and see it. But they need to be trained, Or the media will train them to the opposite.
 
Strong antitrust laws against media companies, including social media.
Oh, and a dozen or so propaganda departments that contradict each other.
 
Education. This is an area where educators are going to have to step up their game.
 
Genocide of those susceptible to herd mentality.

C'mon, elitism is a foundational component of any idealized society.
 
Most of the people I've seen specifically opposed to "groupthink" just employ a different version of it themselves. I'm not sure it's really worth worrying about. It's almost innate to human nature, and you'll downplay its effects if you focus on other things (like education or personal agency).
 
Localism. People can believe what they want, but they shouldn't have the power to stop others from moving away.
 
Last edited:
Synsensa said:
Most of the people I've seen specifically opposed to "groupthink" just employ a different version of it themselves. I'm not sure it's really worth worrying about. It's almost innate to human nature, and you'll downplay its effects if you focus on other things (like education or personal agency).
Click to expand...
Sure but a bunch of group thinks will more balance than one big group think.
 
Yeah, and the more democratic society that is supposed to occur after we violently purge the overlords/cretins (aka Republicans and richer folk) isn't what "already exists". My concern isn't group think in America (or Canada, or Flanders) in today's world, but in the world of tomorrow as idealized by individuals of this site who desire both more democracy and more retribution.
 
I don't want to purge the rich people, just take most of their property.

Also I think the OP's question was mostly answered in the Enlightenment. Freedom of speech, that kind of thing. Constitutions that guarantee individual rights.
 
Lexicus said:
Also I think the OP's question was mostly answered in the Enlightenment. Freedom of speech, that kind of thing. Constitutions that guarantee individual rights.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's draft up a constitution that says everybody has to eat ice cream with sprinkles and have sex all day. Boom! Wonderland.
 
Mouthwash said:
Okay, let's draft up a constitution that says everybody has to eat ice cream with sprinkles and have sex all day. Boom! Wonderland.
Click to expand...
That's not going to help the diabetics, lactose-intolerant, those who have not reached the age of consent, or who think marriage is a pre-requisite to sex.
 
You can't completely solve structurally the problem of bad people working their asses off to break the system.
 
I'm a feel-good bandwagon fan that rides the waves, so at the moment I say we should all bow down to Trump.
 
Anti-hierarchal policy. Empowering workers within business, communities, etc., through co-ops, worker ownership, public ownership of media (while also allowing private mediums), on and on. Diversity of ownership and construction of organizations. It's all about preventing power - private or public - from being concentrated in small numbers of people. It's not perfect but it at least presents the opportunity for representation and inclusivity. Right now our media, government, board rooms are largely made up of the same demographic and income. I don't pretend this means utopic thought or the end of racism or whatever but if you let 'weaker' and smaller groups have their foot in the door their existence and voice and stuff can stem some abuse, groupthink, majority abuse, singular ownership of wealth, thought, etc.

Some have touched on legal frameworks that guarantee rights and protections. That's undoubtedly true too. Legal protections, particularly for speech, minority groups, etc., are vital, and just broad scale protections for your identity and right to exist in your body as you see fit and with the ability to express yourself as you see fit are vital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom