Without belief in a god, but never without belief in a devil(robkhenderson.com)
robkhenderson.com
Without belief in a god, but never without belief in a devil
https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/without-belief-in-a-god-but-never
246 comments
It is extraordinary. Much of the hostility stems from the fact that most are distilling the article from the perspective of their tribe and somehow feeling attacked which is ironic considering the material.
The “frustration” echoed in the book and article is real. Most people today have had a taste of the things they didn’t know they wanted and more apt to join a movement.
The “frustration” echoed in the book and article is real. Most people today have had a taste of the things they didn’t know they wanted and more apt to join a movement.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This isn’t an overall guide to engineering a group for a cause so much as how to gather strength running a movement.
The green revolution and smallpox elimination operated very differently than something designed to create a regime or gather political power in a democracy.
Movements that have a truly profound impact in human history operate rather differently. Compare say the Age of Reason with Communism and they both caused revolutions, but first had a far more long term impact while the second had more zest.
The green revolution and smallpox elimination operated very differently than something designed to create a regime or gather political power in a democracy.
Movements that have a truly profound impact in human history operate rather differently. Compare say the Age of Reason with Communism and they both caused revolutions, but first had a far more long term impact while the second had more zest.
louwrentius(7)
I may be reading it a bit defensively, but the article seems to be trivializing mass movements; "Oh it's just the middle class griping because they don't have a private jet."
That mass movements coincide with a period of "betterment" is an interesting way to try to understand the civil rights and equal rights movements in the 50's and 60's. When the classes are no longer merely struggling to put food on the table they can rise up and demand something better than separate but equal education. And the comfortable and educated middle class white population had nothing to lose by joining those causes.
At the same time if there is a growing frustration among the masses now I have no doubt it is being fueled by a wealth inequity that seems to shower all the accolades of life on a very select few. And not just private jets and private islands but exemption as well from the laws that govern the rest of us.
Unlike many of my progressive friends, I understand the root frustration of the MAGA crowd and see something there that we are all frustrated about — those of us on both (all) sides.
(As an aside, I discourage friends and family (and any who will listen) from having anything to do with any movement that embraces violence — whether on the "right" or "left". Because I believe any successful movement that relies on violence to succeed will then rule with violence. Not cool.)
That mass movements coincide with a period of "betterment" is an interesting way to try to understand the civil rights and equal rights movements in the 50's and 60's. When the classes are no longer merely struggling to put food on the table they can rise up and demand something better than separate but equal education. And the comfortable and educated middle class white population had nothing to lose by joining those causes.
At the same time if there is a growing frustration among the masses now I have no doubt it is being fueled by a wealth inequity that seems to shower all the accolades of life on a very select few. And not just private jets and private islands but exemption as well from the laws that govern the rest of us.
Unlike many of my progressive friends, I understand the root frustration of the MAGA crowd and see something there that we are all frustrated about — those of us on both (all) sides.
(As an aside, I discourage friends and family (and any who will listen) from having anything to do with any movement that embraces violence — whether on the "right" or "left". Because I believe any successful movement that relies on violence to succeed will then rule with violence. Not cool.)
> That mass movements coincide with a period of "betterment" is an interesting way to try to understand the civil rights and equal rights movements in the 50's and 60's.
These are specifically not what the author was talking about, since they had clearly defined goals that were achieved, as per:
> The True Believer advises against supporting organizations without clear, attainable objectives. The dockyard philosopher reminds us that we should be skeptical of mass movements without clearly defined goals.
These are specifically not what the author was talking about, since they had clearly defined goals that were achieved, as per:
> The True Believer advises against supporting organizations without clear, attainable objectives. The dockyard philosopher reminds us that we should be skeptical of mass movements without clearly defined goals.
I don't have a history background but I assume that the desegregation of schools for blacks and equal pay for women (and reproductive freedom since it just popped into my mind) seem pretty clearly defined.
Yes. That is the point I was trying to make.
Equal pay for women isn't a movement. Modern feminism is the movement, and there this quote becomes relevant:
> Mass movements that are good at what they do make previously content individuals frustrated and further frustrate their adherents while pretending to advance the movement. This means that the strongest mass movements are inevitably going to be the ones that are the best at not delivering the goods.
Equal pay for equal work is pretty much achieved and the so-called gender wage gap is extremely misleadingly used to foster frustration.
> Mass movements that are good at what they do make previously content individuals frustrated and further frustrate their adherents while pretending to advance the movement. This means that the strongest mass movements are inevitably going to be the ones that are the best at not delivering the goods.
Equal pay for equal work is pretty much achieved and the so-called gender wage gap is extremely misleadingly used to foster frustration.
> Equal pay for equal work is pretty much achieved
Perhaps not?
Perhaps not?
* https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/03/01/gender-pay-gap-facts/
* https://www.epi.org/blog/gender-wage-gap-widens-even-as-low-wage-workers-see-strong-gains-women-are-paid-roughly-22-less-than-men-on-average/I’m very curious for an example of a mass movement without clearly defined goals. Even USSR communism, Naziism, and the cultural revolution in China had clear goals. Cults have clear goals. Hate groups have clear goals. Seems orthogonal to his thesis about mass movements arising from personal emotional issues.
Maybe he means narrow vs broad goals, but given the absurd breadth of his poorly defined hypothesis (irony alert) I’m not inclined to try and make his thesis clear for him.
Maybe he means narrow vs broad goals, but given the absurd breadth of his poorly defined hypothesis (irony alert) I’m not inclined to try and make his thesis clear for him.
The MAGA movement does not seem to have any clear goals; the general theme I discern from it is "burn it all to the ground" (a literal quote from a supporter).
Some of their grievances are legitimate (government failures, the decline of relative prosperity) and others are "understandable" (the fear and dislike of "others" that they are uncomfortable with (LGBQT+, different religions and races, the decline of the default dominance of their alphas (white men)), the defining name of their movement is as vague as can be.
That is, what is the specific greatness to be returned to and what does achieving it look like?
Some of their grievances are legitimate (government failures, the decline of relative prosperity) and others are "understandable" (the fear and dislike of "others" that they are uncomfortable with (LGBQT+, different religions and races, the decline of the default dominance of their alphas (white men)), the defining name of their movement is as vague as can be.
That is, what is the specific greatness to be returned to and what does achieving it look like?
>The MAGA movement does not seem to have any clear goals; the general theme I discern from it is "burn it all to the ground" (a literal quote from a supporter).
I took a trip to New Hampshire this past week and noted a banner on a house that read:
>Some of their grievances are legitimate (government failures, the decline of relative prosperity) and others are "understandable" (the fear and dislike of "others" that they are uncomfortable with (LGBQT+, different religions and races, the decline of the default dominance of their alphas (white men)), the defining name of their movement is as vague as can be.
Absolutely. At the same time, the "cultural" portions of the above list can be credibly addressed by simply allowing folks to live their own lives. Want to be an Evangelical Christian? Go for it! Think sex with someone of a particular gender isn't right? Don't do it. Think abortion is wrong? Don't have one.
But considering those who believe differently on a few points, especially in a nation where the vast majority of us agree on most things, the enemy is counterproductive in the extreme.
The vast majority of us just want a decent chance at having a good life, regardless of other issues. Adopting the attitude that those who disagree with you about specific things are evil and must be eradicated is, IMHO, reductive in the extreme and almost guarantees that the issues the vast majority of us can agree upon won't be addressed.
And that's sad.
I took a trip to New Hampshire this past week and noted a banner on a house that read:
Trump 2024
Make the liberals cry!
>Some of their grievances are legitimate (government failures, the decline of relative prosperity) and others are "understandable" (the fear and dislike of "others" that they are uncomfortable with (LGBQT+, different religions and races, the decline of the default dominance of their alphas (white men)), the defining name of their movement is as vague as can be.
Absolutely. At the same time, the "cultural" portions of the above list can be credibly addressed by simply allowing folks to live their own lives. Want to be an Evangelical Christian? Go for it! Think sex with someone of a particular gender isn't right? Don't do it. Think abortion is wrong? Don't have one.
But considering those who believe differently on a few points, especially in a nation where the vast majority of us agree on most things, the enemy is counterproductive in the extreme.
The vast majority of us just want a decent chance at having a good life, regardless of other issues. Adopting the attitude that those who disagree with you about specific things are evil and must be eradicated is, IMHO, reductive in the extreme and almost guarantees that the issues the vast majority of us can agree upon won't be addressed.
And that's sad.
Due to the sensitivity of the subject I was trying to be on point the article and the OP about unclear goals without shitting on the followers themselves.
But yes, you're right, and it's actually way worse than being discussed because this movement is really a cult and has destroyed countless families as well as threaten the foundations of democracy itself.
There's a kind of madness to it all and I know I can't be the only one who struggles to come to terms with the fact that so many of our fellow citizens have succumbed to it.
But yes, you're right, and it's actually way worse than being discussed because this movement is really a cult and has destroyed countless families as well as threaten the foundations of democracy itself.
There's a kind of madness to it all and I know I can't be the only one who struggles to come to terms with the fact that so many of our fellow citizens have succumbed to it.
This comment is really funny to me because it seems clear that the way we arrived at "make liberals cry" is exactly as described in this article. Movement without any clear goals fails to accomplish anything. Followers of the movement become increasing distressed as they realize they haven't accomplished anything. Said followers double down on tribalism to distract from its failures.
you've seen the outcome here go exactly as predicted but haven't connected the dots I guess.
you've seen the outcome here go exactly as predicted but haven't connected the dots I guess.
>Movement without any clear goals fails to accomplish anything.
You seem to have misunderstood my point, which was that even if there are clear goals, that's not a guarantee that such goals are useful or reasonable -- even if they are accomplished.
But that doesn't make such goals any less clear or specific.
You seem to have misunderstood my point, which was that even if there are clear goals, that's not a guarantee that such goals are useful or reasonable -- even if they are accomplished.
But that doesn't make such goals any less clear or specific.
> I’m very curious for an example of a mass movement without clearly defined goals.
The first one that comes to mind was Occupy Wall Street. BLM also suffered from this to some degree.
The first one that comes to mind was Occupy Wall Street. BLM also suffered from this to some degree.
>Unlike many of my progressive friends, I understand the root frustration of the MAGA crowd
After hundreds of think pieces about this, I think very few progressives don't understand the root frustrations here. We just find the outlet for that frustration hopelessly misguided.
After hundreds of think pieces about this, I think very few progressives don't understand the root frustrations here. We just find the outlet for that frustration hopelessly misguided.
For a certain definition of "understand", and no verification mechanism.
All rulers rule with violence, in every country on Earth, throughout all time, up to and including all countries in the present day. That's what makes them rulers. Without the willingness to both a) use violence and b) claim the legitimacy of same, you're just some dude in a robe.
If you construe "violence" broadly enough, then yes, this is true.
But a broad interpretation misses most of the nuance that matters in practice.
If you conceive of state violence instead as something like "the probability that you will get tortured, or beaten, or lose your money or property for things like speaking out against those in power", then the original statement is no longer true, and there are stark differences between living in modern western democracies and actually violent regimes -- which of course there are.
But a broad interpretation misses most of the nuance that matters in practice.
If you conceive of state violence instead as something like "the probability that you will get tortured, or beaten, or lose your money or property for things like speaking out against those in power", then the original statement is no longer true, and there are stark differences between living in modern western democracies and actually violent regimes -- which of course there are.
The concept is literally called the "monopoly on violence".
The “monopoly on violence” just means that the government is the only one that can legitimately use force to enforce its rules.
No polity has an actual monopoly on violence within its borders because anyone can make a shiv and stab someone or start their own violent gang or militia.
No polity has an actual monopoly on violence within its borders because anyone can make a shiv and stab someone or start their own violent gang or militia.
I don't know that I buy it because the Nazi and German Communist movements had their roots in the defeat of WWI, a monarch who resigned, radical changes in government, and the hyper-inflationary period of the Weimar. It was even predicted that the Treaty of Versailles would be ruinous. Although I am sure someone will disagree, it's hard to see how there were many improvements to life prior to about 1920 for German people that would cause frustration in the way described. I think it's still possible some movements are directly a result of lack of improvement.
[deleted]
> “Our frustration is greater when we have much and want more than when we have nothing and want some. We are less dissatisfied when we lack many things than when we seem to lack but one thing.”
I think the elephant missed here is the focus on what we have or do not have instead of a focus on what we can attain. Mass movements are created and accelerated by the thought that things can be achieved through them. Regardless of how much you currently have, a mass movement is appealing if it offers you hope to get things you otherwise couldn't. If you think violent revolution will bring you immortality, that's a "pretty good deal" and you might want to take it. It's no surprise that many religions heavily depend on this for controlling and gaining followers.
Being limited by your imagination, I think, is the driving force behind "your situation improves and then you revolt." Your situation improving can transition you from a hopeless "this is always how it will be (suffering)" to a "hey, things can change" mindset, which allows you to hope for and potentially even fight and die for a better future. It doesn't matter what you have, it matters what you can get.
I think the elephant missed here is the focus on what we have or do not have instead of a focus on what we can attain. Mass movements are created and accelerated by the thought that things can be achieved through them. Regardless of how much you currently have, a mass movement is appealing if it offers you hope to get things you otherwise couldn't. If you think violent revolution will bring you immortality, that's a "pretty good deal" and you might want to take it. It's no surprise that many religions heavily depend on this for controlling and gaining followers.
Being limited by your imagination, I think, is the driving force behind "your situation improves and then you revolt." Your situation improving can transition you from a hopeless "this is always how it will be (suffering)" to a "hey, things can change" mindset, which allows you to hope for and potentially even fight and die for a better future. It doesn't matter what you have, it matters what you can get.
I think both ideas are consistent: movements gain momentum when you seem to lack one thing because the psychology is “we have good things A B and C, why can’t we have D?”
People who don’t have anything just dream for A, so a movement promising them D isn’t effective.
Radical organizations are indeed often very much alike. I've been part of a cult during 15 years, and I do recognize patterns in all other radical organizations and movements. One of the most striking is having a common enemy, often a fictitious one on closer inspection.
Do you mean to say you were in a cult for 15 years and found a way out? Can you share which cult, and how you escaped?
Yes, I have been part of one from age 17 to in my 30s. I don't want to appear in search results by mentioning the name literally, but it is a Scandinavian-based religious cult. I found a way out very slowly by connecting to other people with different ideas. It started with coaching from a psychologist and, funny enough, volunteering in a homeless community. Homeless people don't really care about me or what I think, which was very liberating. My wife grew up in the cult, and her father was one of the leaders. This made it difficult for her, but she shared my doubts and we were lucky we could do this process of leaving together. Other couples divorced on these things. We lost nearly all contact with her family, but we were again lucky to being able to build a new network around us. Leaving the cult had so much impact on our lives, we could never foresee it. Which was good, because we may never have done it is we knew beforehand. It has been 10-11 years now and the dust is finally settling. I am convinced that this was the right step for us, but I can never bear the responsibility of recommending others to go this same painful path.
Sorry, there is way more to this story than this paragraph. If I can help someone by sharing more, we could communicate in some other way. Also, I'm not native English, so don't read nuances where they're not intended :)
Sorry, there is way more to this story than this paragraph. If I can help someone by sharing more, we could communicate in some other way. Also, I'm not native English, so don't read nuances where they're not intended :)
The academic criticism of the horseshoe theory cited in the article seems highly biased. It neglects to mention that the overwhelming majority of social scientists are on the left or far-left, so it is not surprising that they want to resist the conclusion that the far-left is similar to the far-right.
Perhaps because in modern discourse, far right typically means literal authoritarian, while far left views are universal healthcare, education, social protections, environmental justice, etc.
The terms are loaded. If they were equal on the horseshoe so to speak, the far left would be talking about communism, which they are not. In that sense, yes communism and authoritarianism are two sides of the same coin. Our current political definitions “far left” and “far right” are not.
The terms are loaded. If they were equal on the horseshoe so to speak, the far left would be talking about communism, which they are not. In that sense, yes communism and authoritarianism are two sides of the same coin. Our current political definitions “far left” and “far right” are not.
I don't think that's the case. For example, the current German "far-right" party wants to stop low-skilled immigration, which is very far from the authoritarianism of a communist dictatorship. Moreover, healthcare and education are considered left topics, not far-left. Far-left are rather things like UBI, or woke topics like allowing MtF transsexuals in woman bathrooms or introducing race quotas in various professions.
Trans rights have very much entered the mainstream and are not a "far-left" topic, lol. Although from the way you talk about trans people I can see why you'd like to believe that you aren't the one with a rapidly shrinking fringe opinion.
Yet you seem to have yourself no problem with mischaracterizing "far-right". Why didn't you comment on that?
What?
Don’t most groups have a common enemy as a bonding factor?
Absolutely not. People bond because they like being around each other or because they share some goal. Making that goal a negative of "destroy X" or "protect against X" is a very clear sign that the group isn't healthy.
EDIT: Where X here means an specific group of people.
EDIT: Where X here means an specific group of people.
Take example of politics. The left "hates" right and vice-versa. The bond within them is tight and has been going for a long time. Whereas the moderates/centrists party will never have a future because they don't have a common enemy to hate.
Radical moderates would get vilified by both sides as insidious milquetoast charlatans!
What a sad but funny thought.
What a sad but funny thought.
“Protect against X” is a bit of a Rorschach test… depending on the X, the healthy attitude can be found either on the offensive or defensive side.
I meant X on both of those as a group of people. I recon that it could have been clearer.
And yeah, there are a few exceptional cases when protecting against some other group is a very important goal. The group gathered around that goal can be even right, but I've never seen a case where it was healthy, and one should be always wary of those groups evolving into something exclusively destructive.
And yeah, there are a few exceptional cases when protecting against some other group is a very important goal. The group gathered around that goal can be even right, but I've never seen a case where it was healthy, and one should be always wary of those groups evolving into something exclusively destructive.
Okay I'll bite. Emacs and Org-Mode, these are groups that require you to do a public good with the idea that you're protecting against many X's. To do this, one can contribute in any meaningful way, big or small. For a cult, it seems to only do good, despite one of its unspoken tenets being to keep corporate interests at bay. Is that bad?
My hiking group, revue theatre and place of employment have no enemies at all.
This is a weird way to think.
This is a weird way to think.
Agree, Quaker meeting (and probably most other's church or religious group) is another obvious example.
I grew up fundraising in evangelical churches and most certainly there are two common enemies talked about all the time: The Devil and The World.
The World is an extremely broad catch-all term for whatever the speaker doesn't like. It isn't sin, which is laid out pretty clearly - lying, stealing, hate, murder, affairs, etc. The World is more like the speaker's preferences. CS Lewis has one of his main characters decide to give up her royal heritage for makeup and pretty dresses - that's The World. It's not _sinful_ it's just not what he thinks is important.
The World fills an important role, because while Christians are taught that hate is a sin, it's allowed if you're hating The World. This gives an easy out that allows believers to hate as much as they please, as long as they call the object of hatred "The World" or "Worldly Things".
Here's brief list of things I've heard genuinely described as The World: guitars, drums, syncopated rhythms, atonal music, chanting, fasting (recommended in the Bible), mediation (also recommended in the Bible), sugar, staying fit, eating meat, spicy food, curry, alcohol, cannabis, bathing suits, makeup, fashion, nudity, being LGBTQA+, pronouns, sex-ed, women in sports, women in the workplace, civil rights, birth control, chemotherapy, antidepressants, antibiotics, vaccines (shouldn't be a surprise to anyone reading this), archeology (unless it focuses on Israel around 30CE), science, astronomy, therapy, TRPG games, World of Warcraft (I mean it's right in the name!), communism, socialism, and shopping at businesses that aren't owned by Evangelicals.
Not every church says the same things are The World, but there's definitely a lot of overlap. Generally the idea is that if it fits within the current culture of the speaker, then it's ok. If it's from a different culture than it's The World.
The World has recently been given a new name that will sound familiar: Woke. It's a modern rebranding of The World into a fresh new term. The benefit is that Woke is a step removed from the religious terminology of The World, so it sounds less villainous to say it on public or broadcasts. Saying you hate The World and want to destroy it just isn't a good look.
The World is an extremely broad catch-all term for whatever the speaker doesn't like. It isn't sin, which is laid out pretty clearly - lying, stealing, hate, murder, affairs, etc. The World is more like the speaker's preferences. CS Lewis has one of his main characters decide to give up her royal heritage for makeup and pretty dresses - that's The World. It's not _sinful_ it's just not what he thinks is important.
The World fills an important role, because while Christians are taught that hate is a sin, it's allowed if you're hating The World. This gives an easy out that allows believers to hate as much as they please, as long as they call the object of hatred "The World" or "Worldly Things".
Here's brief list of things I've heard genuinely described as The World: guitars, drums, syncopated rhythms, atonal music, chanting, fasting (recommended in the Bible), mediation (also recommended in the Bible), sugar, staying fit, eating meat, spicy food, curry, alcohol, cannabis, bathing suits, makeup, fashion, nudity, being LGBTQA+, pronouns, sex-ed, women in sports, women in the workplace, civil rights, birth control, chemotherapy, antidepressants, antibiotics, vaccines (shouldn't be a surprise to anyone reading this), archeology (unless it focuses on Israel around 30CE), science, astronomy, therapy, TRPG games, World of Warcraft (I mean it's right in the name!), communism, socialism, and shopping at businesses that aren't owned by Evangelicals.
Not every church says the same things are The World, but there's definitely a lot of overlap. Generally the idea is that if it fits within the current culture of the speaker, then it's ok. If it's from a different culture than it's The World.
The World has recently been given a new name that will sound familiar: Woke. It's a modern rebranding of The World into a fresh new term. The benefit is that Woke is a step removed from the religious terminology of The World, so it sounds less villainous to say it on public or broadcasts. Saying you hate The World and want to destroy it just isn't a good look.
Your hiking groups enemies are the people who litter the trails.
Your revue theatre’s enemies are the people against the arts.
Your place of employments enemy is lazy and rogue employees, or even competing employers.
There are enemies all around if you are willing to find them.
Your revue theatre’s enemies are the people against the arts.
Your place of employments enemy is lazy and rogue employees, or even competing employers.
There are enemies all around if you are willing to find them.
This is very unhealthy if you really think like this.
Our hiking facebook is full of pictures of the outdoors, we rarely talk about littering at all. We find the litterers annoying, they are not enemies.
I don't even know who is "against the arts" maybe against more arts funding? ... do you often create imaginary enemies? Anyway, "people against the arts" has never even come up.
We fire lazy employees and our CEO regularly meets with our competitors. None of these people are "enemies".
The point is, groups don't regularly go around trying to find enemies. Cults do.
Our hiking facebook is full of pictures of the outdoors, we rarely talk about littering at all. We find the litterers annoying, they are not enemies.
I don't even know who is "against the arts" maybe against more arts funding? ... do you often create imaginary enemies? Anyway, "people against the arts" has never even come up.
We fire lazy employees and our CEO regularly meets with our competitors. None of these people are "enemies".
The point is, groups don't regularly go around trying to find enemies. Cults do.
Whether you consider someone your enemy or not doesn’t really matter if they turn out to actually be your enemy. If those people turn round and stab you in the back one day and leave you dead then their ideology has effectively won and yours has lost. This was how a lot of imperial empires operated, first befriending and then betraying.
I would say that hiking groups definitely have enemies. Land owners are hostile to the idea of ramblers rights and in the UK they are trying to dismantle them - look at the back and forth over the right to wild camp on Dartmoor in the UK. You might not hate these people or spend any time even discussing them, but that doesn’t change the fact that they exist and they dislike you, or at least the activity that you do, on land they perceive to be theirs.
Same with the arts, you only have to look at the amount of HN comments clapping their hands with glee at all the AI tech that is putting actors, writers and artists out of work. There is a sizeable portion of society who see the arts as “not proper work” and have an intense envy and hatred that people can make a living doing it.
No matter what you do, you literally can’t get everyone to like you. As the famous joke goes, look what they did to Jesus, the guy who loved everyone, they killed him. You might not go around trying to actively find or create enemies, but that doesn’t change the fact that they probably exist.
I would say that hiking groups definitely have enemies. Land owners are hostile to the idea of ramblers rights and in the UK they are trying to dismantle them - look at the back and forth over the right to wild camp on Dartmoor in the UK. You might not hate these people or spend any time even discussing them, but that doesn’t change the fact that they exist and they dislike you, or at least the activity that you do, on land they perceive to be theirs.
Same with the arts, you only have to look at the amount of HN comments clapping their hands with glee at all the AI tech that is putting actors, writers and artists out of work. There is a sizeable portion of society who see the arts as “not proper work” and have an intense envy and hatred that people can make a living doing it.
No matter what you do, you literally can’t get everyone to like you. As the famous joke goes, look what they did to Jesus, the guy who loved everyone, they killed him. You might not go around trying to actively find or create enemies, but that doesn’t change the fact that they probably exist.
> Whether you consider someone your enemy or not doesn’t really matter if they turn out to actually be your enemy. If those people turn round and stab you in the back one day and leave you dead then their ideology has effectively won and yours has lost. This was how a lot of imperial empires operated, first befriending and then betraying.
Ok ... weird, but this is a strawman. Even if my groups have actual enemies that we are unaware of, we are still not worrying about these hypothetical backstabbers and, as such, do not "have a common enemy as a bonding factor".
> As the famous joke goes, look what they did to Jesus, the guy who loved everyone, they killed him. You might not go around trying to actively find or create enemies, but that doesn’t change the fact that they probably exist.
Jesus was a mythical character; but in the Christian mythos: Jesus had actual enemies, was very much aware of those enemies and explicitly chose to turn the other cheek and to love them, ironically to your reference of him, making him not their enemy.
Ok ... weird, but this is a strawman. Even if my groups have actual enemies that we are unaware of, we are still not worrying about these hypothetical backstabbers and, as such, do not "have a common enemy as a bonding factor".
> As the famous joke goes, look what they did to Jesus, the guy who loved everyone, they killed him. You might not go around trying to actively find or create enemies, but that doesn’t change the fact that they probably exist.
Jesus was a mythical character; but in the Christian mythos: Jesus had actual enemies, was very much aware of those enemies and explicitly chose to turn the other cheek and to love them, ironically to your reference of him, making him not their enemy.
Isn't there a middle ground between "getting anyone/everyone to like you" and "I'm declaring anyone/everyone (out of my group) to be my enemy"?
If someone dislikes me, am I required to consider them my enemy? Is this not just a self-fulfilling prophecy towards conflict creation instead of conflict resolution?
If someone dislikes me, am I required to consider them my enemy? Is this not just a self-fulfilling prophecy towards conflict creation instead of conflict resolution?
> Isn't there a middle ground between "getting anyone/everyone to like you" and "I'm declaring anyone/everyone (out of my group) to be my enemy"?
I don’t understand where this take has come from. I simply said that the enemies likely exist, whether you are aware of them or not. I didn’t say anywhere that you should start treating everyone not in your group as an enemy.
> If someone dislikes me, am I required to consider them my enemy? Is this not just a self-fulfilling prophecy towards conflict creation instead of conflict resolution?
Again, I didn’t say this anywhere. You are free to treat someone who dislikes you however you wish. You could be indifferent, hostile or try to reconcile differences.
The response you take will likely be based on your interest, power levels and assessment of the threat. If a person is just moaning about you in the pub you might not take much interest. If the person is a kingpin who tells you to stop or he’ll have someone kill you, now you have a decision to make as to whether you want to fight for what you’re doing or acquiesce. Of course the guy in the pub and the kingpin are two ends of a large spectrum of activity and where you choose to define enemy depends on what level of activity you personally think warrants it. Someone like Jesus might not even consider the kingpin an enemy, just misguided and unenlightened - “forgive them father for they know not what they do”.
I don’t understand where this take has come from. I simply said that the enemies likely exist, whether you are aware of them or not. I didn’t say anywhere that you should start treating everyone not in your group as an enemy.
> If someone dislikes me, am I required to consider them my enemy? Is this not just a self-fulfilling prophecy towards conflict creation instead of conflict resolution?
Again, I didn’t say this anywhere. You are free to treat someone who dislikes you however you wish. You could be indifferent, hostile or try to reconcile differences.
The response you take will likely be based on your interest, power levels and assessment of the threat. If a person is just moaning about you in the pub you might not take much interest. If the person is a kingpin who tells you to stop or he’ll have someone kill you, now you have a decision to make as to whether you want to fight for what you’re doing or acquiesce. Of course the guy in the pub and the kingpin are two ends of a large spectrum of activity and where you choose to define enemy depends on what level of activity you personally think warrants it. Someone like Jesus might not even consider the kingpin an enemy, just misguided and unenlightened - “forgive them father for they know not what they do”.
Thank you for clarifying your position(s).
Maybe but they aren't necessarily a bonding factor.
You have no enemies. There is no one in the world you need to hurt.
Some people only have enemies in this world.
Are those people making a deliberate choice to perceive enemies when they could work towards perceiving those enemies as neutral or even allies?
You should clarify, most identity groups have an other/out group.
I would expand that to any ideology, where the difference between an idea and an ideology around the idea, is whether that one idea (as good as it might be!) gets treated with sanctity over other ideas.
I.e. Anacapitalists who love capitalism so much they think it can solve virtually all of societies decision making scenarios better than alternatives, such as democratic government, justice systems, etc.
I came across a poet from a Soviet controlled country who referred to ideologists as "lunatics with a good idea". I have tried repeatedly to identify the poet since but have not been able to.
I.e. Anacapitalists who love capitalism so much they think it can solve virtually all of societies decision making scenarios better than alternatives, such as democratic government, justice systems, etc.
I came across a poet from a Soviet controlled country who referred to ideologists as "lunatics with a good idea". I have tried repeatedly to identify the poet since but have not been able to.
Your cult had radical beliefs but so did abolitionists in the early 1800s.
The political meaning of the world radical traces back to a British movement of, as Wikipedia puts it, “the late 18th century to support parliamentary reform, with additional aims including lower taxes and the abolition of sinecures.”
Parliamentary reform, lower taxes, and the abolition of sinecures were once the literal definition of radical.
The idea of this piece to tar and feather mass movements as inherently bad happily and absurdly glides past the reality that basically everything he says about bad mass movements also applies to good mass movements. The fundamental problem with these movements is that in the moment it is hard to tell the useful from the destructive. Neither this discussion nor the original piece seem to offer much useful information on sorting the two cases. People instead seem to embrace these ideas to justify their feelings about “bad” social movements (including those with ambiguous qualities that they personally dislike).
The political meaning of the world radical traces back to a British movement of, as Wikipedia puts it, “the late 18th century to support parliamentary reform, with additional aims including lower taxes and the abolition of sinecures.”
Parliamentary reform, lower taxes, and the abolition of sinecures were once the literal definition of radical.
The idea of this piece to tar and feather mass movements as inherently bad happily and absurdly glides past the reality that basically everything he says about bad mass movements also applies to good mass movements. The fundamental problem with these movements is that in the moment it is hard to tell the useful from the destructive. Neither this discussion nor the original piece seem to offer much useful information on sorting the two cases. People instead seem to embrace these ideas to justify their feelings about “bad” social movements (including those with ambiguous qualities that they personally dislike).
There are a couple of clear traits to bad mass movements:
> the faithful strive to escape suspicion by adhering zealously to prescribed behavior and opinion
And also the demonising of individuals or groups, rewriting of history and not having any clear goals or demands, or them being utopian as in unattainable.
> the faithful strive to escape suspicion by adhering zealously to prescribed behavior and opinion
And also the demonising of individuals or groups, rewriting of history and not having any clear goals or demands, or them being utopian as in unattainable.
> or them being utopian as in unattainable.
Universal suffrage seemed utopian and unattainable for a long time – until it happened. It's actually rather difficult to predict which political goals are or aren't obtainable without the benefit of hindsight.
Universal suffrage seemed utopian and unattainable for a long time – until it happened. It's actually rather difficult to predict which political goals are or aren't obtainable without the benefit of hindsight.
I think that was clearly obtainable in principle, or at least asymptotically attainable.
An unattainable utopia might include anacapitalists who want to replace any kind of government or governance with an expansion of capitalism, and don't see inherent problems with that.
An unattainable utopia might include anacapitalists who want to replace any kind of government or governance with an expansion of capitalism, and don't see inherent problems with that.
People saw lots of 'inherent problems' with universal suffrage too. They were all silly, in retrospect, but did not seem so at to many people at the time. See e.g. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/classicreadings/chapter/bertr...
Hoffer doesn’t say bad mass movements are like that, he says all mass movements are like that, according to the article:
“ Hoffer writes that “in a mass movement, the air is heavy-laden with suspicion…the faithful strive to escape suspicion by adhering zealously to prescribed behavior and opinion…”
Totally specious. How is this true of the civil rights movement, or the gay rights movement , or the movement for labor rights (pensions, 8 hour workdays, weekends) in the first half of the 20th century?
The whole piece is painting mass movements with a broad brush because the author doesn’t like certain specific recent ones.
“ Hoffer writes that “in a mass movement, the air is heavy-laden with suspicion…the faithful strive to escape suspicion by adhering zealously to prescribed behavior and opinion…”
Totally specious. How is this true of the civil rights movement, or the gay rights movement , or the movement for labor rights (pensions, 8 hour workdays, weekends) in the first half of the 20th century?
The whole piece is painting mass movements with a broad brush because the author doesn’t like certain specific recent ones.
You have either never been part of a "proper cult" or are at the moment part of one.
No one needs to have been in a cult to discuss this article, and frankly it has nothing to do with cults. Mass movements are different than cults - you are the one who said otherwise and it’s on you to prove your point (not on me to divine the relevant experience of your life).
Sorry that was unnecessarily ad hominem on my part.
Would the 2008 Obama campaign be a counter argument to this? So yes his schtick was “change from Bush”, but was it really hatred from the mass movement? I don’t recall feeling that back then, but definitely feeling a more inspirational vibe.
I don't think the Obama campaign really maps to being a "movement" in the sense of the author. Presidential elections happen whether or not there's a movement. A lot of his most ardent supporters may have been motivated by similar feelings, but not most people who voted for him and it's not like he exploited their devotion for anything beyond the normal responsibilities of being president.
Obama 2008 was a personality cult. Many successful presidential campaigns are.
*every successful presidential campaign is a personality cult.
Are you saying you don’t think Obama supporters generally hate republicans/trump?
I’m a foreigner so my only data is from random Americans I talk to, but all progressive Americans seem to have a strong hatred for conservatives. Same thing for Trump supporters hating progressives.
I’m a foreigner so my only data is from random Americans I talk to, but all progressive Americans seem to have a strong hatred for conservatives. Same thing for Trump supporters hating progressives.
>Are you saying you don’t think Obama supporters generally hate republicans/trump?
As an American (and somewhat to the left of Obama or Biden for that matter), I don't hate anyone.
I don't care for many of the policies or the attempts to scapegoat minority groups (LGBTQIA+, those with higher melanin content, etc.) espoused by US "conservatives" (I use quotes because most of those policy proposals aren't "conservative," but rather are radical reactionary policies), but I don't hate such folks.
What's more, those with an axe to grind or those that benefit from division and distrust often claim that the most extreme positions which aren't supported by anyone but the lunatic fringe is the mainstream belief among those they wish to demonize.
In truth, the vast majority of Americans just want to have a decent life, with equal opportunity to succeed. But that doesn't drive political donations, advertising engagement or voter turnout.
As such, we end up with the most extreme positions held up as "mainstream," when they're mostly just crackpot ideas that people would otherwise reject out of hand.
It's sad and more than a little frightening, to be honest.
As an American (and somewhat to the left of Obama or Biden for that matter), I don't hate anyone.
I don't care for many of the policies or the attempts to scapegoat minority groups (LGBTQIA+, those with higher melanin content, etc.) espoused by US "conservatives" (I use quotes because most of those policy proposals aren't "conservative," but rather are radical reactionary policies), but I don't hate such folks.
What's more, those with an axe to grind or those that benefit from division and distrust often claim that the most extreme positions which aren't supported by anyone but the lunatic fringe is the mainstream belief among those they wish to demonize.
In truth, the vast majority of Americans just want to have a decent life, with equal opportunity to succeed. But that doesn't drive political donations, advertising engagement or voter turnout.
As such, we end up with the most extreme positions held up as "mainstream," when they're mostly just crackpot ideas that people would otherwise reject out of hand.
It's sad and more than a little frightening, to be honest.
The author describes in academic terms what books less academic call an egregore - a collective charge of negative emotions, with an equivalent of conscioussness, that encourages its members to treat others with suspicion and hatred so they would produce more of those negative emotions that feed the egregore. The name itself is apparently a mix of words "egregious", "ogre" and "gore" - a spot on description of an egregore.
Without an organized faith, without a belief in a greater good, in the idea of unity in particular, the average masses would fall to nihilism - a midpoint between a god worship and a devil worship. But any movement, no matter how good it is initially, is made of people that aren't perfect, and their selfish feelings eventually create that egregore.
Without an organized faith, without a belief in a greater good, in the idea of unity in particular, the average masses would fall to nihilism - a midpoint between a god worship and a devil worship. But any movement, no matter how good it is initially, is made of people that aren't perfect, and their selfish feelings eventually create that egregore.
When we study ants, we do not begin with a belief that their behavior is wrong or improper. We assume that they act in a way that is required for their survival and proliferation.
It would be ‘nice’ to say that such things are just a social dysfunction that we can safely avoid. They may not be. A lemming that follows the herd may find that it has led them off a cliff, but a lemming that doesn’t will certainly die.
We may now have better options to opt out. I’m mostly speaking to the relatively wealthy, skilled, and able. But I’m not sure. Opting out of one hysteria may also require membership in another such mass movement, complete with an obvious enemy, and a ridiculous but necessary set of rituals to convince others that we are not a threat.
I’ve believed throughout most of my life that communications and especially privacy technology would give us better options. I’m not sure it’s ending up that way. I see great technological developments in that direction, but almost all social developments in their use going the opposite way.
I think what these things come down to is each individual assessing a practical threat to themselves and reacting accordingly. I don’t generally accept explanations that assume entire populations acting wholly irrationally. It can also probably be seen as arising from material conditions such as increased resource scarcity, which is a tautological result of economic cycles, regardless of how the economists may measure their positive effect. This view requires extraordinary sociological imagination, to consider what type of situation that you could find yourself in, which would lead you to switch sides on your most ardent beliefs. That situation is therefore the threat, not the people, but it may be unavoidable. I believe that people are smart and compassionate and empathetic and do realize this, but it doesn’t affect their best option for actions, posturing, and espoused beliefs.
It would be ‘nice’ to say that such things are just a social dysfunction that we can safely avoid. They may not be. A lemming that follows the herd may find that it has led them off a cliff, but a lemming that doesn’t will certainly die.
We may now have better options to opt out. I’m mostly speaking to the relatively wealthy, skilled, and able. But I’m not sure. Opting out of one hysteria may also require membership in another such mass movement, complete with an obvious enemy, and a ridiculous but necessary set of rituals to convince others that we are not a threat.
I’ve believed throughout most of my life that communications and especially privacy technology would give us better options. I’m not sure it’s ending up that way. I see great technological developments in that direction, but almost all social developments in their use going the opposite way.
I think what these things come down to is each individual assessing a practical threat to themselves and reacting accordingly. I don’t generally accept explanations that assume entire populations acting wholly irrationally. It can also probably be seen as arising from material conditions such as increased resource scarcity, which is a tautological result of economic cycles, regardless of how the economists may measure their positive effect. This view requires extraordinary sociological imagination, to consider what type of situation that you could find yourself in, which would lead you to switch sides on your most ardent beliefs. That situation is therefore the threat, not the people, but it may be unavoidable. I believe that people are smart and compassionate and empathetic and do realize this, but it doesn’t affect their best option for actions, posturing, and espoused beliefs.
I like the analogy with ants; we can observe ants, understand that their own individual needs / programming create emergent group behaviors and say "oh, that's why that colony behaves as it does" (making the colony of millions of ants into an individual somehow). But when it comes to humans, we waste too much intellectual effort on the individuals and not on the group, i.e. on why and how the social group / team emerges and behaves as it does.
For example, it's pretty clear to me that whether you are talking about a startup team, or a cult, or a religious group, or a political party (the smaller the party, the truer this is) one of the core aspects of social organization is recruiting: i.e. why can you attract people to your group. That messaging is important and has to work and it has to address some core human/individual need, but after you make it work, adding people to your group becomes easier.
Now, conversely, if that startup is not doing very well, or that political party doesn't look like it will get power, the messaging / recruiting mechanism becomes much more important: it's how the group is tied together and how it survives (by attracting more people / replacing attrition). At that point, for the people in the group that need the group to continue, recruiting becomes a primary goal; more so than even the actual operative / paper goal of the group (profit, political power, whatever). That's where niche marketing / issue of the day becomes more important than ever: join our startup/party to provide alternative food sources to the world; to shift the world's consciousness; to provide justice to those wronged; whatever.
To me that's a core failure point, where the startup/party/group should just fold up tents and do something else. They are wasting energy just to keep being a group rather than achieve an end result (their original goal). But we, as social animals (ants as per the OP) can't/won't see that far. We just keep on grinding.
For example, it's pretty clear to me that whether you are talking about a startup team, or a cult, or a religious group, or a political party (the smaller the party, the truer this is) one of the core aspects of social organization is recruiting: i.e. why can you attract people to your group. That messaging is important and has to work and it has to address some core human/individual need, but after you make it work, adding people to your group becomes easier.
Now, conversely, if that startup is not doing very well, or that political party doesn't look like it will get power, the messaging / recruiting mechanism becomes much more important: it's how the group is tied together and how it survives (by attracting more people / replacing attrition). At that point, for the people in the group that need the group to continue, recruiting becomes a primary goal; more so than even the actual operative / paper goal of the group (profit, political power, whatever). That's where niche marketing / issue of the day becomes more important than ever: join our startup/party to provide alternative food sources to the world; to shift the world's consciousness; to provide justice to those wronged; whatever.
To me that's a core failure point, where the startup/party/group should just fold up tents and do something else. They are wasting energy just to keep being a group rather than achieve an end result (their original goal). But we, as social animals (ants as per the OP) can't/won't see that far. We just keep on grinding.
Quite a similar line of thinking to the Unabomber’s “feelings of inferiority” analysis of “leftism”.
See also this piece from 2017, of the same title and commenting on the same book https://samzdat.com/2017/06/28/without-belief-in-a-god-but-n...
This is part of a series of articles called "Uruk Machines" -- https://samzdat.com/the-uruk-series/ -- which profoundly changed how I see the world. Use caution.
This is part of a series of articles called "Uruk Machines" -- https://samzdat.com/the-uruk-series/ -- which profoundly changed how I see the world. Use caution.
The current polarization is mainly due the social networks and the media in the digital age that lives on outrage. Any comparison with previous eras is moot.
Of course. It has nothing to do with a parasitical ruling class engineering an economy to flow resources in their direction and away from the economic future of the country.
It has nothing to do with ballooning university tuitions that finance a bloated administration and fancy building while providing a much poorer education.
It's all the ability of the proles to read uncensored news
It has nothing to do with ballooning university tuitions that finance a bloated administration and fancy building while providing a much poorer education.
It's all the ability of the proles to read uncensored news
You're not allowed to compare current polarization with past polarization? The article talks about the driving force behind the polarization which certainly could be compared.
You're wrong, all the digital age has done has amplify the speed.
Outrage is a common theme of previous generations, you only have to take a casual glance at any decade to find a movement fuelled by outrage.
The temperance movement that lead to prohibition. McCarthyism. Even the rise of Nazism.
Outrage is a common theme of previous generations, you only have to take a casual glance at any decade to find a movement fuelled by outrage.
The temperance movement that lead to prohibition. McCarthyism. Even the rise of Nazism.
> You're wrong, all the digital age has done has amplify the speed.
Of course not. Digital age has made measuring what works better to get clicks possible, and this has completely changed the incentives of the news industry.
Of course not. Digital age has made measuring what works better to get clicks possible, and this has completely changed the incentives of the news industry.
Are you completely ignoring cable news networks and their decades-old rating mechanisms. Mass-media polarization started decades ago, what the internet made possible was to target the long tail of niches. 40 years ago, a conspiracy theory targeting Jordanian bakers[1] would have fizzled out after the first print-run of flyers in a small town, but today, it can be a self-sustaining forum with members all around the world egging each other on in their echo chamber.
1. As a random example
1. As a random example
Even mass media wasn't the beginning of it.
There's lots of examples to look at in history of "outrage" that spread through a huge part of the world, for example inquisitions or witch trials.
Slower, but I'm sure if you thought harder or had better knowledge of history than me you could come up with examples of things that happened before even the printing press was invented.
There's probably plenty of examples in Roman history that spread out from Rome to its conquests.
There's lots of examples to look at in history of "outrage" that spread through a huge part of the world, for example inquisitions or witch trials.
Slower, but I'm sure if you thought harder or had better knowledge of history than me you could come up with examples of things that happened before even the printing press was invented.
There's probably plenty of examples in Roman history that spread out from Rome to its conquests.
What were the incentives in the past and what are they now?
I think you might have mean something like “ comparison with previous eras pales by comparison “ or something like that. Calling it moot is to say it’s meaningless. If you mean that it is on a whole different level, it would definitely not be moot.
[deleted]
What was the cause in previous eras?
Newspapers and the radio
I'm thinking that mass movements existed long before either of those technologies.
The French Revolution? USA Revolutionary War?
The press played a role in the French Revolution.
That's a fair point. However I think blaming media lacks evidence. If media were a primary cause rather than simply reporting on underlying frustration then I would expect even more revolutions as media becomes more widespread. That didn't happen with radio as far as I'm aware. Maybe it happened in some very oppressed areas with social media. But I think it would be very easy to confuse causation with reverse causation.
Afaik, media before French revolution were not just reporting on existing frustrations. They were massively political, contained tons of completely made up lies for the sake of being sold or pushing agenda. There was no or not much expectation of objectivity or impartiality the way we project on media now.
I do not mean to claim they were reason for the revolution, but more that the media as we know them now are basically tame compared to a lot that was written in the past.
It takes more then just unhappiness and anger for revolution to happen anyway. The necessary condition is that the state must be weak and unable to suppress the threat to itself. You can hold people in arbitrary bad conditions for infinitely long time if you have enough power. And they won't do revolution, because you will make it impossible.
I do not mean to claim they were reason for the revolution, but more that the media as we know them now are basically tame compared to a lot that was written in the past.
It takes more then just unhappiness and anger for revolution to happen anyway. The necessary condition is that the state must be weak and unable to suppress the threat to itself. You can hold people in arbitrary bad conditions for infinitely long time if you have enough power. And they won't do revolution, because you will make it impossible.
The parent claim is that polarization is so bad right now because of social media and the digital media. If the press is more tame now, wouldn't that result is in less polarization?
I don't know. First of all, social media are not the press. Press overall being tame does not mean all of it is tame. Alex Jones is not a press, but he is media and definitely drives some of the polarization.
Which leads to, polarization is not symmetrical. Some groups of society move toward extreme much faster then others.
Also, we do have less polarization then France had before French revolution.
Which leads to, polarization is not symmetrical. Some groups of society move toward extreme much faster then others.
Also, we do have less polarization then France had before French revolution.
Agreed - all good points. As far as comparing now to before the French Revolution though I hear an awful lot of folks threatening civil war these days in the US. I would never have predicted Jan 6th a decade ago.
I kind of think the warning signs are almost always only accurately seen in hindsight.
I kind of think the warning signs are almost always only accurately seen in hindsight.
Yes, perfect examples. Those all happened after the invention of the printing press and were fueled by newspapers and/or pamphlets, etc, to allow communication to flow much more quickly and efficiently.
There was a time when the printing press was regarded as as scary a technology as radio would be later, TV would be later, and social media is today.
There was a time when the printing press was regarded as as scary a technology as radio would be later, TV would be later, and social media is today.
The claim was newspapers and radio. While the printing press may have played a role I don't think it's an accurate characterization to say the Revolutionary War was caused by newspapers fueling outrage. The causation is actually more likely reversed. The pamphlets were a result of outrage.
polarization always existed, social media has amplified it and not created it
Casting all mass movements as essentially dysfunctional, as this piece does, only works for “bad” movements like those that produced Naziism in Germany or communism as it was practiced in the USSR. Or perhaps prohibition of alcohol in the US in the early 20th century.
But the US Civil Rights Movement that ended official and systematized racial discrimination against minorities was also a mass movement. The labor movement that gave us the 8 hour workday and weekends was also a mass movement. Women’s suffrage, abolition of slavery, and US independence from Britain also came out of mass movements.
It’s silly to say that all these were manifestations of emotional dysfunction by participants.
But the US Civil Rights Movement that ended official and systematized racial discrimination against minorities was also a mass movement. The labor movement that gave us the 8 hour workday and weekends was also a mass movement. Women’s suffrage, abolition of slavery, and US independence from Britain also came out of mass movements.
It’s silly to say that all these were manifestations of emotional dysfunction by participants.
I think he would argue that those movements effectively ended when they achieved their goals.
I don’t know the history well but I think you could look at the civil rights movement as ending due to progress, then restarting a long time those gains were made and frustration has rebuilt. I’ve heard a lot of talk from US political commentators about reparations and Black Lives Matter, but both groups seem to fit his definition of a mass movement without explicit goals.
I don’t know the history well but I think you could look at the civil rights movement as ending due to progress, then restarting a long time those gains were made and frustration has rebuilt. I’ve heard a lot of talk from US political commentators about reparations and Black Lives Matter, but both groups seem to fit his definition of a mass movement without explicit goals.
Some movements actually have an enemy.
The American Revolution against British colonial rule was a 'populist mass movement' that the vast majority of American citizens would agree was a good thing.
This article reads a bit it was written by a British servant of the Crown giving advice to imperial administers on how to keep their colonists under control and head off any movement towards independence.
More generally, mass movements often arise in situations where a small group with elite privileges (e.g. the French aristocratic class before 1790) rules over a much larger relatively impoverished group lacking any such privileges. A similar situation arose in the American South at the height of the plantation slavery system in the first half of the 19th century (of 10 million people in the US Confederacy, around 3.5 million were enslaved, and the majority of the wealth was held by a small group of plantation owner elites).
Clearly, the author believes that mass movements are undesirable (since the author only references Mao and Hitler as examples of outcomes), but the French and American Revolution ushered in democracy on a large scale, which are generally good things. I suppose people who've been indoctrinated into belief in the superiority of the Ivy League elite schools system might think that democracy itself is unwise, and that rule by a small educated elite is preferable. Sometimes they'll even admit this in private, though rarely in public.
This article reads a bit it was written by a British servant of the Crown giving advice to imperial administers on how to keep their colonists under control and head off any movement towards independence.
More generally, mass movements often arise in situations where a small group with elite privileges (e.g. the French aristocratic class before 1790) rules over a much larger relatively impoverished group lacking any such privileges. A similar situation arose in the American South at the height of the plantation slavery system in the first half of the 19th century (of 10 million people in the US Confederacy, around 3.5 million were enslaved, and the majority of the wealth was held by a small group of plantation owner elites).
Clearly, the author believes that mass movements are undesirable (since the author only references Mao and Hitler as examples of outcomes), but the French and American Revolution ushered in democracy on a large scale, which are generally good things. I suppose people who've been indoctrinated into belief in the superiority of the Ivy League elite schools system might think that democracy itself is unwise, and that rule by a small educated elite is preferable. Sometimes they'll even admit this in private, though rarely in public.
>The American Revolution against British colonial rule was a 'populist mass movement' that the vast majority of American citizens would agree was a good thing.
A lot of citations needed. The American revolution was a revolt of the upper class of the colonies against the upper class of England. The average colonist didn't particularly care one way or the other as can be seen by post war migration over the boarder into Canada and vice versa.
A lot of citations needed. The American revolution was a revolt of the upper class of the colonies against the upper class of England. The average colonist didn't particularly care one way or the other as can be seen by post war migration over the boarder into Canada and vice versa.
I don’t think OP was talking about colonists, but American citizens of today.
How does the relatively small Canadian migration show anything at all about how the average person felt?
Early in the American Revolution, society was quite split between rebels and loyalists. The rebels ultimately won the day by e.g. burning down loyalists’ homes, or tarring and feathering them. This sent many loyalists fleeing to safety in Canada and the West Indies, while the rest were forced to simply keep quiet. Even among the American colonial elites, this split families, the relationship between Benjamin Franklin and his son William being one prominent example.
The French Revolution ushered in the Terror and, within just a few years, an emperor. Over the 19th century the French downplayed and retreated from many aims and outcomes of the revolution, they even restored the monarchy multiple times. The belief that the French Revolution ushered in a lasting democracy is historical. Arguably things like the events of 1848 did more for lasting democracy in Europe.
The French Revolution ushered in the Terror and, within just a few years, an emperor. Over the 19th century the French downplayed and retreated from many aims and outcomes of the revolution, they even restored the monarchy multiple times. The belief that the French Revolution ushered in a lasting democracy is historical. Arguably things like the events of 1848 did more for lasting democracy in Europe.
> the French Revolution… ushered in democracy.
It did not. It ended with a military officer declaring himself emperor.
It did not. It ended with a military officer declaring himself emperor.
> While PRACTICAL organizations (e.g., an employer) cater to self-interest and offer opportunities for self-advancement, a mass movement appeals to those who wish to escape or camouflage an unsatisfactory self.
> They seek fulfillment in something that extends beyond PRACTICAL acts in the present, leading them to mass movements.
I think the essay explicitly excludes movements driven by a clear practical obtainable goal, and organized around practical steps to achieve it.
> They seek fulfillment in something that extends beyond PRACTICAL acts in the present, leading them to mass movements.
I think the essay explicitly excludes movements driven by a clear practical obtainable goal, and organized around practical steps to achieve it.
Ah yes, someone else noticed that the only personal example the author could provide was his time at Yale.
Most settler colonial states under British rule gained independence without death and murder, unlike the USA. It’s unlikely the USA would have been different if it’s population had been less bloodthirsty.
US Slavery as an institution was gradually on the way out before the civil war. Again a bloodthirsty mass movement was not willing to let time take its course. Slavery is wrong but murder is worse.
US Slavery as an institution was gradually on the way out before the civil war. Again a bloodthirsty mass movement was not willing to let time take its course. Slavery is wrong but murder is worse.
US slavery was not on the way out. It was other way round, actually. It was super profitable and powerful. It was also gaining legal protections. There was no active threat to it and the actual dispute and conflict was about new territories.
Also majority of abolitionists were pacifists to a fault. Literally to a fault.
Yet also, slavery was holding only due to violence. Both violence against white abolitionists and against blacks - slaves and free. Violence here includes murder and torture.
Also majority of abolitionists were pacifists to a fault. Literally to a fault.
Yet also, slavery was holding only due to violence. Both violence against white abolitionists and against blacks - slaves and free. Violence here includes murder and torture.
This is such a piss poor take I am wondering if it's in bad faith?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA
>The Part of History You've Always Skipped | Neoslavery
'Slavery' did not end at the end of the civil war. It continued on till WWII and in many ways was somehow even worse after the civil war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA
>The Part of History You've Always Skipped | Neoslavery
'Slavery' did not end at the end of the civil war. It continued on till WWII and in many ways was somehow even worse after the civil war.
The confederacy could easily have prevented the war by not attacking union forts. And as you say the war did not end slavery. So all we’re left with is a thirst for blood.
I think all you've stated is "The South could have chosen not to be assholes, but they couldn't help themselves".
> US Slavery as an institution was gradually on the way out before the civil war. Again a bloodthirsty mass movement was not willing to let time take its course. Slavery is wrong but murder is worse.
Can you link to some places I can read more about this?
Can you link to some places I can read more about this?
A place to start would be the 1807 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves. Of course this didn’t prevent slaves from being born in the USA nor did it prevent internal slave trade. But there was a non violent movement to end slavery through gradual means, which had already worked in northern states. A good book on Gradualism is “The Scorpions Sting”[1]. To be clear I’m not arguing for an innocent south as that’s not supported by historical documents. I am going to maintain my position that the US population has been bloodthirsty from its founding to the modern day (albeit thankfully less so now than in the past).
[1]https://books.google.co.kr/books/about/The_Scorpion_s_Sting_...
[1]https://books.google.co.kr/books/about/The_Scorpion_s_Sting_...
He can have John Brown ... who was one of the very few actually violent abolitionists. Most were pacifists, especially the leadership.
Brown raised an army of, like, 30 men to attack slavery with. Planned partisan war basically, lost pretty quickly.
Brown raised an army of, like, 30 men to attack slavery with. Planned partisan war basically, lost pretty quickly.
The commonwealth gaining independence was a function of the U.S. existing.
It’s very simple, who’s the entity that benefits from such polarization? That’s your enemy, not the other side of the spectrum.
Islamic mass movements in modern day are unlike these described in the article. They stop once the objective (bringing Sharia to the country) is achieved. This may be due to that Islam already gives people's lives meaning without revolting.
I've read Hoffer's book. One aspect of it the article neglects is that all the movements studied were cults of an individual personality: Martin Luther, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, a few others. This perspective does not fit the Soviet Union entirely well -- I forget how Hoffer addresses that objection.
The book is not long, and a lively read, highly recommended. Sample: Hoffer quotes a low-level "true believer" as exclaiming "We Nazis are the happiest people in the world!"
The book is not long, and a lively read, highly recommended. Sample: Hoffer quotes a low-level "true believer" as exclaiming "We Nazis are the happiest people in the world!"
It reminds me of works by Adam Curtis, especially The Power of Nightmares.
Why did you lowercase God? It is uppercase in the linked article: “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without a belief in a devil.”
A cult leader, a saint, a god.
A devil, a scapegoat, a convenient category of people who are "wrong".
Why'd a god be special over any other one?
Why'd a god be special over any other one?
This is the kind of confusion that could have been avoided by Bostonian using Bob Henderson’s capitalization of God. The author was referring to the almighty creator of Heaven and Earth. Whether you believe in such a concept or not doesn’t matter, what matters is that the link text was intentionally changed by Bostonian confusing the Hacker News reader as to the author’s intended meaning.
If it's "a god" (with article), "god" is a general term, like "chair" in "a chair". If it's just "God" (without article), then "God" is a name, and names are, for some reason, uppercase in English. General terms are almost never upper case, apart from beginnings of sentences, and some confusing exceptions like "American" (country / language adjective). (I'm not a native speaker though)
[deleted]
This site (HN) is a fascist-infested cesspit. It is by far the worst “tech” site in existence. Burn it down.
If you hate it so much, why are you here?
We have such a divide due to the difference in education. It's primarily the uneducated who fall for nonsense arguments and don't see how they are being misled and used.
There is no easy way to fix this, because they are resistant to education and wish to indoctrinate their children into their same nonsense beliefs. The only hope is that with access to the internet the kids will be able to teach themselves and break free.
There is no easy way to fix this, because they are resistant to education and wish to indoctrinate their children into their same nonsense beliefs. The only hope is that with access to the internet the kids will be able to teach themselves and break free.
> It's primarily the uneducated who fall for nonsense arguments
I'd be careful with this line of thinking. Cults can often grab well educated individuals. Heck, I've had cult members proposition me on HN.
Cults don't generally grab members by appealing to knowledge. They do it by being friendly, providing community, filling needs. The people sucked into cults generally get there because of loneliness, trama, or high stress. It can be super rewarding when that nice neighbor you know invites you to a social activity sponsored by their church, after all, what's the harm?
Cults love the "love bomb" and it's effective.
Don't underestimate them. I was born into a high demand religion and I'm pretty familiar with the techniques used to get new members.
The defense against a cult is recognizing how they operate. Most cults do the same thing. They don't start you with the weird beliefs, they start you with "we just love having parties together. We're not like other churches, we're fun!"
I'd be careful with this line of thinking. Cults can often grab well educated individuals. Heck, I've had cult members proposition me on HN.
Cults don't generally grab members by appealing to knowledge. They do it by being friendly, providing community, filling needs. The people sucked into cults generally get there because of loneliness, trama, or high stress. It can be super rewarding when that nice neighbor you know invites you to a social activity sponsored by their church, after all, what's the harm?
Cults love the "love bomb" and it's effective.
Don't underestimate them. I was born into a high demand religion and I'm pretty familiar with the techniques used to get new members.
The defense against a cult is recognizing how they operate. Most cults do the same thing. They don't start you with the weird beliefs, they start you with "we just love having parties together. We're not like other churches, we're fun!"
"I've been involved in a number of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader." Creed ;)
Cults are a different, far more specialized thing than general widespread polarization though.
A bit different but not as much as you'd think. If you ever look into radicalized organizations the playbook is remarkably similar to how cults operate. It's a lot of trying to fill a void and dissatisfaction with society with the purpose of the movement. "You feel this way because those people are ruining society. We know the answer, it's xyz". Even right down to the love bombing to get someone in "You aren't like the rest of society, you've found the secret truth that makes you better than everyone else. If only others could know what you know, then the world would be better. It's a conspiracy that keeps the world from the truth."
The cross over between radicalization, cults, and conspiracy mindset is extensive. Each feeding and stealing the others greatest hits.
In my childhood cult, everyone believes they're the chosen, the ones that have figured everything out. When someone points out "hey, you are wrong about X" they just laugh because obviously those people aren't as good or loved as you are.
Before anyone gets out of such a cult, the first thing that has to happen is the question "What if I'm wrong?". That's why the cult spends so much time telling you to "doubt your doubts" and "everything bad you hear about us is actually the devil trying to trick you".
You can see this in radicalized groups all the time. "We are right. It's all a lie when someone says we did something bad. It was actually this group we hate, a psyop"
The cross over between radicalization, cults, and conspiracy mindset is extensive. Each feeding and stealing the others greatest hits.
In my childhood cult, everyone believes they're the chosen, the ones that have figured everything out. When someone points out "hey, you are wrong about X" they just laugh because obviously those people aren't as good or loved as you are.
Before anyone gets out of such a cult, the first thing that has to happen is the question "What if I'm wrong?". That's why the cult spends so much time telling you to "doubt your doubts" and "everything bad you hear about us is actually the devil trying to trick you".
You can see this in radicalized groups all the time. "We are right. It's all a lie when someone says we did something bad. It was actually this group we hate, a psyop"
The best lesson Socrates taught (over 2,400 years ago) was that the wisest person is the one that realizes he knows very little - a lesson that “the educated” would do well to learn.
What Socrates understood was that wise people exhibit humility. Educated people usually exhibit such humility because they understand how limited their breadth and depth of knowledge is. On the other hand, neither the proudly uneducated nor the proudly educated have such a trait. Of the two, at least the latter is easier to reason with than the former.
The qualifier "proud" makes all the difference.
The qualifier "proud" makes all the difference.
I’m not actually sure that “education” writ large is useful for helping people understand the fact that the world is complex and can’t be divided into simple good-bad dimensions.
A number of other things that aren’t traditionally considered to be education would have a better effect, I think. Things like living abroad, making friends of different social classes, reading books by people that you strongly disagree with.
A number of other things that aren’t traditionally considered to be education would have a better effect, I think. Things like living abroad, making friends of different social classes, reading books by people that you strongly disagree with.
I take it our definitions of "education" are different. I do not refer to academic education.
Everything you expressed are forms of "education", and the core tenet is putting aside your beliefs and attempting to understand a different point of view.
This, by construction, requires humility because it implies that the person has something to teach you. This identical to pure-land view [1], where every person you meet in one way or the other is a small Buddha[1], enlightened with something you can learn, if you only set aside your existing beliefs and listen.
[1] https://vividness.live/pure-land
Everything you expressed are forms of "education", and the core tenet is putting aside your beliefs and attempting to understand a different point of view.
This, by construction, requires humility because it implies that the person has something to teach you. This identical to pure-land view [1], where every person you meet in one way or the other is a small Buddha[1], enlightened with something you can learn, if you only set aside your existing beliefs and listen.
[1] https://vividness.live/pure-land
Yes I primarily meant academic education which is (I think) what the OP had in mind. Not “life education” or “experiential education.”
I could be wrong, but it’s my impression that most people use the term education to refer to academic education, not life-experience-as-education.
I could be wrong, but it’s my impression that most people use the term education to refer to academic education, not life-experience-as-education.
>Educated people usually exhibit such humility because they understand how limited their breadth and depth of knowledge is.
This does not match my experience at all.
This does not match my experience at all.
Same here. Quite the opposite, really. The thread itself is a great example of this.
I think it boils down to your definition of "educated". I wouldn't call somebody with say a bachelor's degree, or post grad degrees necessarily educated.
I have met plenty of "educated" people who live in total ignorance of their surroundings, and plenty of seemingly uneducated people who consume knowledge like the air they breathe.
I have met plenty of "educated" people who live in total ignorance of their surroundings, and plenty of seemingly uneducated people who consume knowledge like the air they breathe.
Your little snippet of wisdom here isn't as relevant as you think it is.
You seem to have forgotten the second half of your comment, where you pointed out why it’s not relevant.
I didn't forget, I'm just not interested in debating it.
Above:
> It's primarily the uneducated who fall for nonsense arguments...
Article:
> Personally, I saw this when I first arrived at Yale. I recall being stunned at how status anxiety pervaded elite college campuses.
Though they might lack official names, formal rolls of members, and designated leaders...I'd say that there are some rather strong mass movements with majority-educated membership.
> It's primarily the uneducated who fall for nonsense arguments...
Article:
> Personally, I saw this when I first arrived at Yale. I recall being stunned at how status anxiety pervaded elite college campuses.
Though they might lack official names, formal rolls of members, and designated leaders...I'd say that there are some rather strong mass movements with majority-educated membership.
No, the only hope is not the internet, that’s techno-utopianism. Also, we see little correlation with access to internet and common sense-abilities.
Also, I run in circles where PhDs are still wearing cloth masks at the beach because of Covid (very old priors).
Education has little to do with it, it’s mostly resistance to fear.
Also, I run in circles where PhDs are still wearing cloth masks at the beach because of Covid (very old priors).
Education has little to do with it, it’s mostly resistance to fear.
Education is by far the biggest factor. Do you think most republicans would be voting against abortion, to ignore climate change, to let the rich pay less taxes etc if they were educated? There's a reason it's mainly non college educated voters who vote that party.
These are matters of values, not empirical matters. There's no research or experiments to perform to reveal how to weigh the needs of the pregnant and unborn, or what balance to strike between economic growth and increased temperatures, or how much redistribution there ought to be.
They are empirical in practice, regardless of people's opinions. We know it is better to allow abortion for example, because it's going to happen regardless, and making it illegal only makes things worse for everybody.
> Do you think most republicans would be voting against abortion, to ignore climate change, to let the rich pay less taxes etc
Opinions on abortion and taxes are entirely moral judgements, so if the university system is swaying its graduates' opinions regarding them, this confirms what its critics say: that the system is a form of indoctrination.
Opinions on abortion and taxes are entirely moral judgements, so if the university system is swaying its graduates' opinions regarding them, this confirms what its critics say: that the system is a form of indoctrination.
Opinions on abortion can be moral judgements, but allowing abortion is objectively the better option, since it's going to happen regardless. Not to mention separation of church and state being a thing.
I'm also pro-choice, but this argument isn't very convincing to me. We don't apply the same logic to murder, theft or even drugs, so why apply it to abortion?
One difference is that abortion is verifiably more dangerous when it's illegal, since the mother's health is put at much great risk. Murder is just as dangerous either way.
For drugs there actually is a strong argument for applying the same logic to legalise and regulate them, as it may well reduce harm.
For drugs there actually is a strong argument for applying the same logic to legalise and regulate them, as it may well reduce harm.
Because we've seen what happens. We have history to rely on. Do you really want to force women to go back to using coat hangers and underground clinics?
Not to mention the medical issues that pop up where it should be explicitly legal, like with young teenage girls or rape victims.
Not to mention the medical issues that pop up where it should be explicitly legal, like with young teenage girls or rape victims.
We have seen what happens when any vice is made illegal. People use dirty needles to inject themselves with drugs/HIV, sex trafficking, overprescription of opioids, PC viruses from torrent websites.
Illegality never stops everything, it’s just some subset of embodied ideals.
Illegality never stops everything, it’s just some subset of embodied ideals.
Morals are learned like everything else. Nothing is entirely a moral judgment (especially taxes?). “indoctrination” is just flat out the wrong word. Being presented facts and views from different angles then reaching the same conclusion most other people reach isn’t “indoctrination”, it’s just education.
Opinions of abortion can be moral judgements. There aren't really many moral arguments about taxation. Or at least I don't know of any.
That's been the GOP platform forever, but non-college educated people have preferred the Democratic Party until recently.
I'd guess that's due to self-education being more possible now than ever. Also the GOP has continued to become increasingly embarrassing.
That would work the other way—with non-college educated people becoming more democrat. Instead, you see the opposite: college educated people becoming more democrat after historically favoring republicans, and non-college educated people becoming more Republican after historically favoring democrats.
Also, on the issues you mention (abortion and taxes) the GOP is more moderate than before. Trump is the first GOP candidate ever to oppose total abortion bans. He also was the first to take entitlement reform off the table.
Also, on the issues you mention (abortion and taxes) the GOP is more moderate than before. Trump is the first GOP candidate ever to oppose total abortion bans. He also was the first to take entitlement reform off the table.
Education and indoctrination are often surprisingly difficult to distinguish. If one is 'educated' to have absolute faith in institutions (e.g. the New York Times / Wall Street Journal / Washington Post, the NIH, the CDC, the US State Department and Pentagon, cable news outlets, Ivy League academic councils, religious organizations, etc.), while also believing oneself to be 'well-educated' even though one has never learned how to apply skeptical analysis to the claims of these institutions, well, hasn't one merely been indoctrinated into a system of faith-based obedience to higher powers?
Isn't it curious how teaching the ability to argue the opposing point of view (e.g. in what used to be called debate clubs) has been largely written out of the American educational curriculum, for example?
Isn't it curious how teaching the ability to argue the opposing point of view (e.g. in what used to be called debate clubs) has been largely written out of the American educational curriculum, for example?
> Isn't it curious how teaching the ability to argue the opposing point of view (e.g. in what used to be called debate clubs) has been largely written out of the American educational curriculum, for example?
This is a huge problem, as well as the lack of critical thinking skills being taught in general.
This is a huge problem, as well as the lack of critical thinking skills being taught in general.
>It's primarily the uneducated who fall for nonsense arguments
We have to move away from this idea that level of education == intelligence.
Historically, this was probably true, since there was no economic benefit for education beyond primary school. The people who ended up in universities would have to have been strongly intrinsically motivated to learn and discover, likely because those activities played to one of their strengths (high IQ). The world today is much different; there are high economic returns to completing formal education even if one is not naturally inclined to do that.
My guess would be that people who are more intelligent, while not immune to falling in with cults or mass movements or any other wrongheaded idea, are going to be quicker to observe what is happening to them and modify their beliefs or behavior accordingly.
Aside: why is parent being down voted?
We have to move away from this idea that level of education == intelligence.
Historically, this was probably true, since there was no economic benefit for education beyond primary school. The people who ended up in universities would have to have been strongly intrinsically motivated to learn and discover, likely because those activities played to one of their strengths (high IQ). The world today is much different; there are high economic returns to completing formal education even if one is not naturally inclined to do that.
My guess would be that people who are more intelligent, while not immune to falling in with cults or mass movements or any other wrongheaded idea, are going to be quicker to observe what is happening to them and modify their beliefs or behavior accordingly.
Aside: why is parent being down voted?
> We have to move away from this idea that level of education == intelligence.
I agree, but I'm not saying that. Education however does grant a better understanding and allow for people to make more informed decisions.
I agree, but I'm not saying that. Education however does grant a better understanding and allow for people to make more informed decisions.
Sorry, do you mean the “un-educated” in your first paragraph? I’m having trouble understanding how the educated are the ones who resist education.
Look at HN. People who are good at programming who know nothing about anything else, but post like they do.
Often people think they knw things they don't. Their cup is full already.
Yes, fixed.
I think they do
I wish it were so. Plenty of smart and well educated people fall into all kinds of obvious traps and conspiracies.
The Netherlands became a post religious society in a single generation. It wasn't education, it wasn't ideology. It was materialism. Capitalism responded to rising wages with entertainment and leisure. Sunday became fun day.
I don't believe it's as organic as all that. There were a couple of very important figures in setting up the idea that there was any conflict at all between faith and science. John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
They also promulgated plenty of verifiably false information. The popular misconception that pre-Columbian Europeans thought the world to be flat is attributable to these two. They also spread ahistorical claims that the Catholic Church was broadly opposed to science and forbade human dissection.
White was Cornell's first president, and his book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," was influential among the public and academics. Much of it had been serialized earlier as articles in Popular Science Monthly, now the magazine known as Popular Science.
In addition to popularizing the idea of an inherent conflict between faith and science, Draper had theories on the causes of the American Civil War. He attributed it to climate and its influence on the personalities of the people who reside in those climates. He proposed building more north-south railroads as a preventative measure.
They also promulgated plenty of verifiably false information. The popular misconception that pre-Columbian Europeans thought the world to be flat is attributable to these two. They also spread ahistorical claims that the Catholic Church was broadly opposed to science and forbade human dissection.
White was Cornell's first president, and his book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," was influential among the public and academics. Much of it had been serialized earlier as articles in Popular Science Monthly, now the magazine known as Popular Science.
In addition to popularizing the idea of an inherent conflict between faith and science, Draper had theories on the causes of the American Civil War. He attributed it to climate and its influence on the personalities of the people who reside in those climates. He proposed building more north-south railroads as a preventative measure.
Materialism could have taken over thousands of years before, so I don't think this reasoning makes sense.
What seems more likely (to me) is that due to advancements in transport and information technology people increasingly learned about different world religions, and did the math.
If there is only one God, how can other people worship a different one who is also the only one?
Also, religion started to fade during The Enlightenment, and things took a little while to completely crumble.
What seems more likely (to me) is that due to advancements in transport and information technology people increasingly learned about different world religions, and did the math.
If there is only one God, how can other people worship a different one who is also the only one?
Also, religion started to fade during The Enlightenment, and things took a little while to completely crumble.
You think people didn’t know about other gods until they could drive? Technology gives people corn syrup and adderall while religion can’t fix a toothache. People increasingly believe this means that one is better than another or that they are even attempting to solve the same problems and must be exclusively selected. And Science is just as much a religion as Christianity or any other religion at this point. “Trust the Science”, “I Believe Science is Real”, “Science is True Whether You Believe in it or Not”
I don't fully understand the point you are trying to make, and how science plays a role in this discussion.
Apart from this diversion, I do think people heard about other gods alright, but communities used to be quite isolated. It has been possible to collectively ignore other religions for centuries. Technological developments in transport and information distribution, such as the printing press, may have made it increasingly harder to keep a lid on the group think. Seems like a reasonable argument, no?
Apart from this diversion, I do think people heard about other gods alright, but communities used to be quite isolated. It has been possible to collectively ignore other religions for centuries. Technological developments in transport and information distribution, such as the printing press, may have made it increasingly harder to keep a lid on the group think. Seems like a reasonable argument, no?
I agree. Here in the US, and western world at large, we’re even seeing a rise in astrology, paganism, and Wicca corresponding with the decline of the Abrahamic religions. Some just started to ditch inconvenient beliefs.
Bread and circus tactics
It's primarily the educated who fall for nonsense arguments and don't see how they are being misled and used.
Are you able to justify this belief with anything more concrete than selective memory of anecdotal encounters?
Are you able to justify this belief with anything more concrete than selective memory of anecdotal encounters?
Pretty sure uneducated was the word they meant to be there. Phone keyboards and spellcheckers are often worse than typos for regular communication.
In this age of anti-intellectualism amongst certain political groups in the U.S. it wasn’t too foolish to think “educated” was the intended word.
Yup, fixed now.
It's not a belief. I'm not really sure why you think it would be.
[flagged]
> I see you edited your comment and changed educated to uneducated. It’s petty of you to not acknowledge this important change in your response to me.
It was an obvious error and I acknowledged it in two other replies. A quick glance at your reply in context will show that.
It was an obvious error and I acknowledged it in two other replies. A quick glance at your reply in context will show that.
Mine was the second comment and you had not responded to the first comment when I made my post. As Crzy demonstrates it was not an obvious error. Anti-intellectualism is quite common in the U.S.
Joost Meerloo, in The Rape of the Mind, noted that the ones most susceptible to some methods of interrogation or propaganda were often those trained to withstand it.
Perhaps it's a false sense of security, or the dunning-kruger effect.
Perhaps it's a false sense of security, or the dunning-kruger effect.
[flagged]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effec...
> The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
> The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
Dunning-Kruger has been refuted.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-you-know/2020...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-you-know/2020...
That isn’t quite what Dunning-Kruger is about. People with less competence tend to overestimate their abilities more than people with higher competence. For example, a person with ability 3 out of 10 might say their skill is a 5 whilst a person with ability 9 out of 10 might say their skill is a 10.
Where was the overestimation of one’s abilities in the comment made by Crzy?
The alleged fact that people trained to resist propaganda are more susceptible to it is only an instance of Dunning-Kruger if said people overestimate their abilities in this area greater than people with a higher ability to resist propaganda. That wasn’t established.
From webmd.com https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/dunning-kruger-effect-wh... :
To observe this phenomenon, Dunning and Kruger gave students tests of grammar, logical reasoning, and humor. The psychologists found that those who scored in the bottom 25% tended to overestimate their ability and test score. Most predicted their scores to be above the 60th percentile.
On the other hand, those who overperformed -- those in the top 25% of the students -- also incorrectly assessed their final result. Most of these students estimated their scores to be in the 70th- to 75th-percentile range. But most actually scored above the 87th percentile. While this is also not a realistic self-assessment, the researchers found that this group was competent enough to understand how they got a higher score, unlike the low performers. In other words, the gap between perceived and actual performance is smaller.
Where was the overestimation of one’s abilities in the comment made by Crzy?
The alleged fact that people trained to resist propaganda are more susceptible to it is only an instance of Dunning-Kruger if said people overestimate their abilities in this area greater than people with a higher ability to resist propaganda. That wasn’t established.
From webmd.com https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/dunning-kruger-effect-wh... :
To observe this phenomenon, Dunning and Kruger gave students tests of grammar, logical reasoning, and humor. The psychologists found that those who scored in the bottom 25% tended to overestimate their ability and test score. Most predicted their scores to be above the 60th percentile.
On the other hand, those who overperformed -- those in the top 25% of the students -- also incorrectly assessed their final result. Most of these students estimated their scores to be in the 70th- to 75th-percentile range. But most actually scored above the 87th percentile. While this is also not a realistic self-assessment, the researchers found that this group was competent enough to understand how they got a higher score, unlike the low performers. In other words, the gap between perceived and actual performance is smaller.
So you’re suggesting that people who do not go through the organizations doing the most of the indoctrination heavy lifting of today somehow end up being more indoctrinated? Interesting.
I'm suggesting no such thing.
Uneducated maybe. But uneducated about what, is the real question. I'm sure there's something that you are uneducated about, just like there is with all people.
It is shocking how so many replies are hostile or defensive. The author (or the author the author is citing) isn't even claiming that movements are bad, or giving any qualitative judgment (e.g. citations about equal rights or the American revolution as if they're counterpoints somehow seem off the mark), just noting the qualities of most movements and the environments in which they occur. If you're looking to engineer a group for some cause, even if the cause is ostensibly good, this is a good how to guide.