Kool-Aid didn’t kill those people.

[coberst]

Kool-Aid didn’t kill those people.

Transference and suggestibility killed those people.

In October of 1978, surrounded by hundreds of his followers, cult leader Jim Jones was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head; this event took place in Jonestown, Guyana, where the followers of Jones drank the Kool-Aid of group psychology, killing them self by drinking a soft drink laced with cyanide at the cult's sprawling compound.

The images of bodies found at the compound were seared into the consciousness of a generation. The phrase "drank the Kool-Aid" came to describe any blind devotion to a cause or person. It was not the Kool-Aid that killed all of these people but it was a human propensity called transference.

Freud informs us the reason for this form of behavior is the tendency for humans to be suggestible and influenced by a psychic form of transference.

What do the following entities have in common: fascism, capitalism, communism, political parties, and religions? They all have a common characteristic that can be called “group mind”.

What is striking is that members of these entities often undergo a major change in behavior just by being members of such entities. Under certain conditions individuals who become members of these groups behave differently than they would as individuals. These individuals acquire the characteristics of a ‘psychological group’.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

Psychology is a domain of knowledge that is complex and filled with concepts that are completely unfamiliar to the vast majority of our population. But Psychology provides us with an insight into why humans do what they do that no other domain of knowledge can provide.

Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

Humans seek to be more than animals. We seek to be gods or at least propagate that level above animal and just below God.

That which promotes life is good that which promotes death is evil. “Evil lies not in the hearts of men but in the social arrangements that men take for granted.”

Wo/man lives a debased life under tyranny and self delusion because s/he does not comprehend the conditions of natural freedom. Sapiens need hope and belief in themselves; thus illusion is necessary if it is creative for life, but is evil if it promotes death.

A psychodynamic analysis of history displays saga of death, destruction, and coercion from the outside while inside we see self-delusion and self enslavement. We seek mystification. We seek transference; we seek hypnotists as our chosen leaders.

We seek the power to ward off big evil by reflexively embracing small terrors and small fascinations in the place of overwhelming ones.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens.]/b] We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

[b]People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

I have read that some consider objectivism to be a cult rather than a philosophy; I asked my self what is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. I turned to Freud and his book “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” for my answer. I discovered that Freud had turned to the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon for an understanding of group behavior.

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. His work on crowd psychology became important in the first half of the twentieth century. Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of sociology.
English translation Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, was explicitly based on a critique of Le Bon's work. The quotes and short phrases in this post are from this book.

[yukoncpa]

Yes, you of course are correct. See the book, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions, and the Madness of Crowds." Said to be an exemplary book on investing and economics.

[Splendour]

You may be over accentuating the negative here Coberst. An awful lot is also accomplished by groups acting together. It all comes down to the motive behind the activity.

Not all of Jim Jones followers followed him into death willingly.

From Wikipedia:

"However, because there is much ambiguity regarding whether many who participated did so voluntarily or were forced (or even killed outright), some feel that mass murder is a more accurate description. Some followers obeyed Jones' instructions to commit "revolutionary suicide" by drinking cyanide-laced grape flavored Flavor Aid[5] (often misidentified as Kool-aid[6]). Others died by forced cyanide injection or by shooting. Jones was found dead sitting in a deck chair with a gunshot wound to the head, although it is unknown if he had been murdered or committed suicide. An autopsy of his body showed levels of the barbiturate phenobarbital that could have been lethal to humans who have not developed physiological tolerance. His drug usage (including various LSD and marijuana experimentations) was confirmed by his son, Stephan, and Jones's doctor in San Francisco."

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Not all of Jim Jones followers followed him into death willingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own a horse that can't gallop.

luckyme

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not all of Jim Jones followers followed him into death willingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I own a horse that can't gallop.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]


Others doesn't = a

Others is plural.

[Lestat]

I've been meaning to make a post about this...

It seems very obvious to me that people in groups or masses are on a whole, much less intelligent (or is it more gullible?), than people acting on an individual or small scale basis. There is just no other way to explain things like the Jonestown massacre, the re-election of Bush, and religion in general.

No offense, but I'd be willing to bet that if you somehow managed to live to this point in life having never heard of religion before, and someone came up to you today and tried to convince you that there's this all-poweful sky god, see? And no one can see him, ok? But he knows your every thought and can hear billions of people's prayers simultaneously, see? If you piss him off, he will send you to this very nasty place. But if you only do what he says, he will grant you eternal life even after you die! Well.... Let's just say I highly doubt you'd buy any of it and would probably laugh in the guy's face.

Yet religion, Jime Jones, Charles Manson, etc., all thrive upon "the group mind" and this is what makes them so powerful (and at times, dangerous).

[coberst]

Ideology is something we humans need to comprehend better than we now do. Ideology is both salvation and death.

We are all members of many ideologies. Our ideologies are the abstract ideas that we create and invest with value. Our ideologies are what lead us to live a certain way, die for a certain cause, and kill THEM who are not US.

I might be a Democrat, Catholic, American, and capitalist. When we are members of a group we can do things that we would never consider doing alone. As an American my group kills others, as a Democrat I may seek to improve the well being of my side while taking it from the other side, as a Catholic I may hate Jews, as a capitalist I may cheat to get mine. All of these things we might do as a group but perhaps never would have been so self-seeking alone.

[mbillie1]

http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/Kool-AidMan.jpg

[tame_deuces]

And then comes the question:

Is the individual more important than the group?

And think about that one before answering it, because it is actually an extremely tricky question when you start taking more and more stuff into consideration.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideology is something we humans need to comprehend better than we now do. Ideology is both salvation and death.

We are all members of many ideologies. Our ideologies are the abstract ideas that we create and invest with value. Our ideologies are what lead us to live a certain way, die for a certain cause, and kill THEM who are not US.

I might be a Democrat, Catholic, American, and capitalist. When we are members of a group we can do things that we would never consider doing alone. As an American my group kills others, as a Democrat I may seek to improve the well being of my side while taking it from the other side, as a Catholic I may hate Jews, as a capitalist I may cheat to get mine. All of these things we might do as a group but perhaps never would have been so self-seeking alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not something we need at all and ideologies are generally detrimental.

Being a capitalist is not an ideology if its because you've considered the issues and decided its best. It becomes an ideology when you follow capitalist dogma even though you no longer consider it best, possibly because you don't consider it at all.

chez

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
And then comes the question:

Is the individual more important than the group?

And think about that one before answering it, because it is actually an extremely tricky question when you start taking more and more stuff into consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our society is not a mix of individuals, it is a system of positions. We are members of various matricies of ideas to which we give our live and allegence.

[coberst]

I would say that an ideology is an interlocking system of ideas to which we give great value. These are values that define US and those who oppose US is THEM. US tries to defeat THEM often any way that we can. Our ideologies define our identity.

[Splendour]

I will play devil's advocate here and stir all of SMP up. While there are definitely group transference problems in ideology and the execution of ideology can be flawed, its only through organization that major tasks like building the pyramids can be accomplished. Ideology can be just as ennobling as it is debasing.

Just as a side note: capitalism was an outgrowth of the Puritans and their Protestant work ethic

Hypnotism is a form of occultism and Christians are told to spurn it. I don't know how other religions regard it. Though I do agree Hitler was hypnotic. He was an unscrupulous rhetorician. If you think Hitler wasn't influenced by occultism then take a look at who he dedicated Mein Kampf to: Dietrich Eckhardt.

Humans have this little Janus head thing going on at all times. We are born of 2 fathers. Remember Charlie Sheen's character in Platoon. In the ebb and flow of circumstances and the conflicts they generate we lose track of that little fact. Individualism can be our salvation or it could be our curse depending on our motivations.

I choose not to stereotype religious people as a bunch of blind fools because I think people make choices based on how they weigh the evidence and how they will act on it. Their choices are not necessarily any less enlightened than those of non-religious people.

I ran across a forward by John Banville to Nabokov's <u>Laughter in the Dark</u> the other day. Banville said Nabokov acknowledged there was a pattern in everything. He found it incredibly detailed everywheres he looked and so he tried to make his works as detailed as a reflection of the world, but at the same time Nabokov had a hard time finding God present. It was like someone came in and built and incredibly complex beautiful world then discarded it. (Nabokov had this huge hobby, a real passion, where he collected and studied butterflies from boyhood which he learned from his aristocratic father in Imperial Russia.)

A religious person sees the same thing as Nabokov we just say God didn't discard us. Maybe God likes mystery because the element of beauty and interest are in its mystery.

Here's a link to a religious man at his finest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4906502.stm

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that an ideology is an interlocking system of ideas to which we give great value. These are values that define US and those who oppose US is THEM. US tries to defeat THEM often any way that we can. Our ideologies define our identity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Ideologies in and of themselves aren't necessarily a bad thing. The question (I think) is, how do people as a group come to start believing irrational or bad idealogies?

There is great power in numbers. Once several people whom others respect start professing an idealogy to be true, others are either persuaded or embarrassed into believing it too. I think the more people who are already on the bandwagon, the less thinking it takes for the next person to jump on. An assumption is made that the idea is good. Either that, or the fear of ridicule and embarrassment that would come from going against the grain, overrides rational thought.

It really is a fascinating subject. I wish I knew more about it. It just seems to me, that when a mass group of people start believing something, it takes on a life of it's own and there's no stopping them. Again, I think the Bush presidency is a very interesting and typical example of mass thinking. At first, almost everyone was willing to overlook the obvious. Once enough people started turning the other way, did middle America (and Joe average) follow.

[React1oN]

http://www.themq.com/issues/103/images/kool-that-aide!_bw.jpg

[coberst]

I agree that we are creatures who seek pattern. We respond to pattern in music and we demand pattern in learning. Without it we are lost. Math is our great accomplishment in the art and science of pattern.

[coberst]

A good example of the power and danger of ideology is the neo-con influence on our government. It seems like a great monster that was lurking out there without most of us knowing it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that an ideology is an interlocking system of ideas to which we give great value. These are values that define US and those who oppose US is THEM. US tries to defeat THEM often any way that we can. Our ideologies define our identity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, what do you call an ideology then /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been meaning to make a post about this...

It seems very obvious to me that people in groups or masses are on a whole, much less intelligent (or is it more gullible?), than people acting on an individual or small scale basis. There is just no other way to explain things like the Jonestown massacre, the re-election of Bush, and religion in general.

No offense, but I'd be willing to bet that if you somehow managed to live to this point in life having never heard of religion before, and someone came up to you today and tried to convince you that there's this all-poweful sky god, see? And no one can see him, ok? But he knows your every thought and can hear billions of people's prayers simultaneously, see? If you piss him off, he will send you to this very nasty place. But if you only do what he says, he will grant you eternal life even after you die! Well.... Let's just say I highly doubt you'd buy any of it and would probably laugh in the guy's face.

Yet religion, Jime Jones, Charles Manson, etc., all thrive upon "the group mind" and this is what makes them so powerful (and at times, dangerous).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very good post thank you for this.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet religion, Jime Jones, Charles Manson, etc., all thrive upon "the group mind" and this is what makes them so powerful (and at times, dangerous).

[/ QUOTE ]
Like 'altruism' this 'group mind' is a myth.

fair enough you have it in quotes so its probably shorthand for something else but the general idea it exists is just lazy analysis of whats going on.

chez

[tame_deuces]

If you assume a person has a sphere of influence, a group mind is a definitive possibility as the group behavior can spread and strengthen specific ideas.

[NasEscobar]

Human beings seem to crave comforming to others. Using LeStat's example of religion, most people originally join that religion because the people around them (family, friends, community) also do. Why do so many people in America become Christians rather then Muslim? Why is it the opposite in most of the middle east?

It's the same for political opinions. When I first started paying attention to politics I was a Neoconservative christian. Of course, this is because my parents espoused the same beliefs and positions, and when I got into politics (after 9/11) a very popular (at the time) neoconservative christian was president. If you spoke out against what the President did post-9/11 you were unpatriotic, you don't hate America do you? Luckily I was able to think critically and eventually abandon those beliefs, but apparently the 88% of Americans that are religious weren't that lucky.

There was a very interesting study we went over in my social phych class about conformity. One guy asks five people (they answer one at a time publicly) and four of them are in on it leaving one that isn't. The question is an incredibly simple mulitple choice question a four year old would get right. The four that are in on it give the same wrong answer. The fifth one looks bewildered but still goes along with the rest of the group! Repeated many times with different subjects the subject would agree with the rest of the group something like 80% of the time! Interviewing people afterwards the subjects would say that they were confused but figured their initial answer was wrong since no one else gave that answer.

They also said that even if the lone subject was right they didn't want to take a chance of being the only person wrong and that it is more comforting to part of a group that got a question wrong then be the only person that got a question wrong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

If you assume a person has a sphere of influence, a group mind is a definitive possibility as the group behavior can spread and strengthen specific ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Minds are influenced by all sorts of inputs including inputs gernerated by other minds. That's not a group mind is just a group of minds.

chez

[Lestat]

Thanks Chez. But I did put it in quotes for that reason.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Chez. But I did put it in quotes for that reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thought you were. Just so much hi-falutin language in this thread that its easy to think something really simple has a mystical quality.

chez

[Iconoclastic]

The human urge given a negative spin by OP is the same desire that keeps families and institutions together. Without it we would be off to our own devices, not give a shet about anybody else, and never act as a team or collective effort, and generally end up killing each other over our differences anyway.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Freud informs us the reason for this form of behavior is the tendency for humans to be suggestible and influenced by a psychic form of transference.

[/ QUOTE ] Sounds good and all, but not true. It's a learned behavior. Going against the crowd results most often in bad consequences for the defector. There are countless examples of this in action, and it's not often because of transference that people exhibit the group mind.

[ QUOTE ]
individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

[/ QUOTE ] It is for their own personal interest that they cater to the group. Sometimes it backfires and instead has bad consequences.

[ QUOTE ]
“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

[/ QUOTE ] This just doesn't make any sense.

[ QUOTE ]

That which promotes life is good that which promotes death is evil.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm with you here.

[ QUOTE ]
we seek hypnotists as our chosen leaders.

[/ QUOTE ] All leaders are granted the status of knowing, we dare not disobey or fear the consequence. It's not a hypnotic power, just the nature of learning.

I'm still amazed at the detailed work and mainly coherent thought you can put into the works of Freud. It seems so obviously flawed to me, yet I'm amazed at how well you put together a working discussion with cogent points based off his work.

[MidGe]

Iconoclastic,

I'll have to agree with you and DougShrapnel, but most of all, without having any ideas about who, or what, it is, your avatar rocks!

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you assume a person has a sphere of influence, a group mind is a definitive possibility as the group behavior can spread and strengthen specific ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Minds are influenced by all sorts of inputs including inputs gernerated by other minds. That's not a group mind is just a group of minds.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And a mind is a result of the building blocks that make up our bodies and and what affects them, but we still call it a mind and not a group of building blocks and what affects them.

It is not always useful - nor necessary - to separate terms just because we know what their individual composition is. Groupthinking is a very distinct feature of certain human behaviors for example, and thus looking at the group as a whole can be useful.

[oe39]

you don't think it was poison?

[coberst]

Non-philosophical forms of inquiry are intellectual endeavors constituted by certain basic assumptions. A scientific form of inquiry assumes that the world is an ordered whole and that we can, through reason, acquire knowledge of this whole. The world of science is governed by laws that define causal effects that are measurable and perceivable by humans.

It is the case that humans reason from within container like boundaries, thus we are always within a container. However the trick is to enlarge our containers and thereby gain a more universal perspective. We must find a means to examine our assumptions. Each container is constructed with its own assumptions. That is why philosophy is so useful. It is a domain of knowledge with the largest container, or at least the Philosophy dept likes to think so.

Ideology takes its assumptions and considers them infallible and strives to convince the world that their assumptions are natural and universal. Take as example the assumptions of Americans about democracy and freedom or the Catholic Church about Jesus.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you assume a person has a sphere of influence, a group mind is a definitive possibility as the group behavior can spread and strengthen specific ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Minds are influenced by all sorts of inputs including inputs gernerated by other minds. That's not a group mind is just a group of minds.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And a mind is a result of the building blocks that make up our bodies and and what affects them, but we still call it a mind and not a group of building blocks and what affects them.

It is not always useful - nor necessary - to separate terms just because we know what their individual composition is. Groupthinking is a very distinct feature of certain human behaviors for example, and thus looking at the group as a whole can be useful.

[/ QUOTE ]
in this case it is useful because we are talking at the level of decision making. Its only individual minds that make decisions in this sense. There are no intentional acts by groups, just individuals.

Yes many individuals are heavily/easily influenced by others but that's not a group mind.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideology takes its assumptions and considers them infallible and strives to convince the world that their assumptions are natural and universal.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I said, you disagreed and said it was just a set of ideas that we give great value to.

This is a vital difference. The whole problem you are discussing here is not usually a result of people having ideas that they value greatly, in fact when people are willing to put their lifes at risk for ideas they value greatly we normally consider that a noble thing to do. Its only when it has become ideological that we consider something has gone wrong.

chez

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you assume a person has a sphere of influence, a group mind is a definitive possibility as the group behavior can spread and strengthen specific ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Minds are influenced by all sorts of inputs including inputs gernerated by other minds. That's not a group mind is just a group of minds.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And a mind is a result of the building blocks that make up our bodies and and what affects them, but we still call it a mind and not a group of building blocks and what affects them.

It is not always useful - nor necessary - to separate terms just because we know what their individual composition is. Groupthinking is a very distinct feature of certain human behaviors for example, and thus looking at the group as a whole can be useful.

[/ QUOTE ]
in this case it is useful because we are talking at the level of decision making. Its only individual minds that make decisions in this sense. There are no intentional acts by groups, just individuals.

Yes many individuals are heavily/easily influenced by others but that's not a group mind.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there certainly isn't a 'hive mind' if that is what you mean by groupmind. I guess we probably agree but just stumble around some semantics.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you assume a person has a sphere of influence, a group mind is a definitive possibility as the group behavior can spread and strengthen specific ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Minds are influenced by all sorts of inputs including inputs gernerated by other minds. That's not a group mind is just a group of minds.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And a mind is a result of the building blocks that make up our bodies and and what affects them, but we still call it a mind and not a group of building blocks and what affects them.

It is not always useful - nor necessary - to separate terms just because we know what their individual composition is. Groupthinking is a very distinct feature of certain human behaviors for example, and thus looking at the group as a whole can be useful.

[/ QUOTE ]
in this case it is useful because we are talking at the level of decision making. Its only individual minds that make decisions in this sense. There are no intentional acts by groups, just individuals.

Yes many individuals are heavily/easily influenced by others but that's not a group mind.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there certainly isn't a 'hive mind' if that is what you mean by groupmind. I guess we probably agree but just stumble around some semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we do agree. I'm just vary wary of the groupmind talk because its higly misleading - especially to those who suffer from groupmind /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
A scientific form of inquiry assumes that the world is an ordered whole and that we can, through reason, acquire knowledge of this whole. The world of science is governed by laws that define causal effects that are measurable and perceivable by humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

From that statement I can deduce your background is not scientific, coberst, You really are king at shooting yourself in the foot!

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A scientific form of inquiry assumes that the world is an ordered whole and that we can, through reason, acquire knowledge of this whole. The world of science is governed by laws that define causal effects that are measurable and perceivable by humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a retired engineer.

From that statement I can deduce your background is not scientific, coberst, You really are king at shooting yourself in the foot!

[/ QUOTE ]